Death In Service Inheritance Tax

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr Hood. The topic is important and sensitive, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond.

We in the Ministry of Defence strive very hard to provide appropriate support to bereaved families when one of our serving or former service personnel loses their life. I am always saddened to hear of cases in which families feel that they have not received the support that they should at the time of their loss. The background to the case of Mr Thomas is a tragedy and I extend my sympathy to his family, who are still most upset about his death and the issues raised. The passing of time does not always ease the pain of bereavement, particularly when it is worsened by the feeling that the support provided at the time was not sufficient. I assure the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that the support provided to next of kin and other grieving relatives continues to improve.

When a service person dies in service, an appropriate representative will be appointed from the casualty’s own service as the prime point of contact for the next of kin, and in some instances the emergency contact, if considered appropriate. That person will be a dedicated officer known as the visiting officer, and they will guide and assist the next of kin in repatriation and funeral procedures—I regret to say that that is all too often with Operation Herrick—and will help with any questions the family may have. The visiting officer provides a crucial liaison between families and the services, which continues for as long as it is needed. A veterans’ welfare officer will also be appointed from within the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency to assist the dependants of the deceased. They can provide advice and guidance on the comprehensive package of benefits that may be available under the armed forces pension and armed forces compensation schemes, brought in by the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, and on other more wide-ranging issues, such as housing and benefit entitlements from the Department for Work and Pensions.

Although some defence charities, such as SSAFA Forces Help or the Royal British Legion, cannot make direct or unsolicited contact with service families, they can provide long-term support to bereaved service families who approach them, including a support group consisting of bereaved relatives meeting on a regular basis to offer support to each other.

The whole Government recognise that service personnel such as Mr Thomas warrant special consideration in acknowledgment of the particular debt of gratitude owed to them for service given in the cause of national defence and international peace. We are aware of the sacrifices made by those who have risked their lives and suffered hardship in facing the challenges of military service. On 16 May 2011, the Secretary of State for Defence published the armed forces covenant—a new tri-service document and the first of its kind. It sets out what service personnel and their families can expect from the Government and the nation in recognition of what we ask them to do to keep us safe. The Government are determined to remove disadvantages encountered as a result of service and, by publishing the covenant, we have established the right direction of travel.

The case of Nigel Lawrence Thomas is a very sad one and, again, I extend my condolences to his parents and other family members. Mr Thomas proudly served his country as a member of the Royal Air Force until he was discharged in 2004. His life was then tragically cut short by chronic myeloid leukaemia and secondary conditions in March 2010. From previous endeavours on behalf of Nigel’s mother, Mrs Davies, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, subsequent to the sad loss of her son, she first made enquiries about an exemption from inheritance tax at the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency in June 2010.

In recognition of the particular debt of gratitude that we owe to our former service personnel, it is only right and proper that in certain circumstances special consideration be given as to whether a deceased person’s estate should be exempt from inheritance tax. The right hon. Gentleman described some such conditions. A deceased service person’s estate may be exempt from inheritance tax if, under delegated authority from the Secretary of State for Defence, my officials certify that section 154 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 applies. Under the Act, such certification can be given when the deceased has died from a wound inflicted, accident occurring or disease contracted at a time when they were on active service against an enemy, or on service of a warlike nature. Certification may also be given in instances in which a service person dies from a disease contracted at some previous time if the death were due to or hastened by the aggravation of a disease during a period of such service. If such certification is given, my officials will recommend to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that an estate should be exempt from paying inheritance tax. There is, however, no automatic exemption from inheritance tax for veterans. Deaths in retirement resulting from natural causes, road traffic accidents, or injuries or illnesses that were not contracted during or aggravated by war or warlike service do not qualify for an exemption. Equally, if individuals have a wound or illness arising from their service that might have eventually killed them but they die from a wholly unrelated cause, if the wound or illness played no part in their demise, their estate cannot be certified as exempt from inheritance tax.

Mr Thomas served in Cyprus from 1989 until 1992, and it is recognised that for at least part of that period he was operating in a role in support of operations in the Gulf during the first Gulf war. From his service record, however, it is evident that during that time he did not undertake deployed service in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iraq, or come into direct contact with Iraqi forces. As such, my officials were unable to recommend that his estate be considered for exemption from inheritance tax, as the criteria defined under section 154 of the Act had not been met. A request by the family for the payment by my Department of funeral expenses in respect of Mr Thomas was approved because, in the view of an MOD medical adviser, it could not be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that some aspect of his service did not cause the condition that led to his death. That is, however, a quite separate issue from the matter of whether an estate should or should not be eligible for an exemption from inheritance tax. The criteria involved are quite different, and it would be wrong to assume that the decision to pay funeral expenses undermines the decision by my officials not to recommend an exemption. Similarly, the award of the Gulf medal for the first Gulf war was made on the basis that people were supporting, full-time, the operation, and not on whether they were engaged in warlike service.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to look again in particular at the legislation. I assure him that I will, on his behalf, because he has raised an important case. First, as requested, I will review the case and look in particular at the accident referred to in his speech. Secondly, I will review the operation of section 154 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, in conjunction with my colleagues in the Treasury. He particularly asked me whether I was happy to go the extra mile for the family of Nigel Thomas, whose case the right hon. Gentleman has articulated so well today. I certainly will and hope that he may be reassured by that.

[Mr Hanson]

If I may respond to the Minister’s comments, I thank him personally, on behalf of the family, for agreeing to review the case of Mr Thomas. I also thank him for his promised review of section 154 of the Act. In my speech, I asked whether the Minister could report back to the House. I should be grateful if he would confirm that he will either write to me or issue a written statement following that review so that we can have some clarity on the outcomes, and if he would let me know the time scale of the review.

[Mr Robathan]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall reply to him. Time scales, as he knows from his past as a Minister, can sometimes be what I might call slightly fluid, but I shall endeavour to be as timely as possible.

Defence Police and Guarding Agency

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Following the comprehensive spending review and the strategic defence and security review, and in view of the continuing pressure on the defence budget, the Ministry of Defence has carried out a very wide-ranging examination of civil policing and guarding policy and requirements to ensure that they reflect the main security and crime risks faced by the MOD and are being met as cost-effectively as possible. Safeguarding our sites, people and assets—in particular those associated with our nuclear programme—remains a central priority.

We have, however, concluded that we can make sensible and prudent reductions in the number of guarding and civil policing posts at some of our sites, while continuing to maintain effective security. It would not be appropriate to describe in full the specific detail of our future guarding and civil policing requirements or the precise arrangements at individual sites, but I set out below the main elements of the changes we now envisage.

Our approach has been to look hard at our requirements, identify what is essential, and retain it. But reductions are possible in areas where activity, personnel, or expenditure is not absolutely essential to protecting our people, our assets or the delivery of defence outputs. In the current fiscal climate it is our duty to make savings in these areas, both to save money for the taxpayer, and to ensure defence can devote as much resource as possible to the front line.

We have identified areas for reductions by focusing on sites and activities:

where we can safely rely more on physical security measures and less on the continuous presence of the previous numbers of security personnel;

where the regular service occupants of sites can take on a greater role in security while maintaining their operational outputs;

where duties currently undertaken by MOD police officers do not, in today’s circumstances, require police powers, and could therefore be taken on by other staff at lower cost; and

where we can reasonably rely more on support from local police forces, who in any case have primacy in pursuing any incident or investigating any crime.

The measures are being progressed as they are developed. The furthest advanced are changes to the MOD police headquarters and management structure, the cost of which will reduce by 41%. These include: cutting the number of divisions from five to two; simplifying processes, centralising services and reducing complements; and civilianising police posts wherever that is sensible. Consultation with the staff associations and trade unions has begun, with implementation expected to start during 2012. Follow-up studies are planned, with the target of identifying a further 9% saving, bringing the total reduction to 50%. At the same time, there will be consultation on proposals to reduce the cost of the MOD guard service headquarters and regional management structure by 50%.

Other measures were the subject of general departmental consultation with the staff associations and trades unions in 2011, and are now the subject of further more detailed consultation on implementation. These measures are:

a modest increase in the number of sites where we believe can safely rely for part or all of the week on physical security measures, and therefore do not need guards on duty at all times;

changes in guarding policy that make prudent reductions in the security complements at a number of defence sites, and focus effort on the most important security activities;

adjusting guarding numbers at sites where experience has shown that effective security can in practice be maintained with complements lower than previously employed;

continuing to provide support and reassurance to defence communities by focusing a reduced number of defence community police officers on areas of greatest need;

reprioritising the work of the MOD police criminal investigation department on the crimes that most significantly affect the defence interest, yielding a cost saving; and

a rationalisation of the MOD police uniformed operational support capability not permanently allocated to specific sites, with a saving of some posts.

In parallel with the implementation of the changes above, I have agreed some additional measures for departmental consultation with the staff associations and trade unions in 2012. Formal consultative documents will be issued in due course, but the main proposals are:

Making increased use of regular service personnel to carry out unarmed access control duties at (or near) sites where they are stationed, with individuals undertaking periodic duties that will not reduce their operational readiness. At other military sites unarmed access control will be carried out by reallocating existing complements of the specialist military guards of the Military Provost Guard Service. Together these changes will allow the removal of MOD guard service officers from many Navy, Army and RAF sites;

Specific determination of guarding and policing numbers at a small number of sites with unique security features;

In the light of new analysis, some further rationalisation of the MOD police uniformed operational support capability not permanently allocated to specific sites;

Reallocation of security duties at three Navy sites so that, with a small enhancement, the Military Provost Guard Service complements can take over the essential roles of the MOD police complements there;

Maintaining essential armed security by replacing some (but not all) MOD police officers at certain sites with Military Provost Guard Service soldiers, allowing duties for which constabulary powers are not essential to be discharged at a lower cost;

Greater reliance on local police forces for community support activity on defence families estates in Great Britain, allowing the withdrawal of MOD police defence community police officers;

Further rationalisation of the MOD police criminal investigation department in the light of a recent departmental review, to form part of a co-ordinated pan-departmental strategy to combat fraud and other acquisitive crime against defence.

Further consultation will take place on all these proposed changes, during which we will assess their impact carefully in the circumstances of individual sites. In view of this flexible approach to implementation, we cannot yet state with certainty what the eventual impact will be on personnel numbers. However, on the current assumptions, the likely effect would be to reduce the MOD police from its complement in 2009 of some 3,600 officers to a complement of around 2,400 by 1 April 2016 (compared to a current strength of just under 3,100); and to reduce the MOD guard service from its complement in 2009 of some 4,000 to a complement a little under 2,200 by 1 April 2015 (compared to a current strength of just under 3,300).

While consultation on, and implementation of, these measures continues, my Department will continue to seek further efficiencies in guarding and civil policing expenditure. In particular, routine activity to review complements at all our sites continues, taking account of the latest information about specific sites, and seeking improvements in the effective deployment of staff where possible. In addition, we are seeking efficiencies in the use of the defence estate, which may change the requirement for guarding and civil policing. Such changes will be subject to consultation with the staff associations and trades unions in the usual way.

I do not expect staff affected by these changes to welcome them, and I recognise—and very much regret—the uncertainty and anxiety caused to the personnel involved, who have made a vital contribution to defence security over many years.

The fact remains, however, that we must focus our new security requirements, not on the past, but on what is essential for the future.

We can and will make savings in guarding and civil policing, but I can assure the House that effective security arrangements will be maintained at all defence sites.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

3. How much he plans to invest in improving the welfare of families of service personnel in the next year.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

All the services have long-standing welfare structures in place to support families. We continually review that support to identify where it can be further improved, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of measures last Wednesday to support service families. They included £3 million made available to double, again, to 100% the council tax rebate for deployed service personnel; £2 million allocated to double the rate of the families welfare grant, which is available to commanding officers to use as they see fit on activities for the families of those deployed; and an additional investment of £100 million in 2013-14 to improve service accommodation.

[Mrs Grant]

What action is being taken to assess the effects of mobility on service children?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point, and I should say that in general, service children have a rather better than average attainment record in schools. We have several schemes, one of which is the continuity of education allowance, which allows children to remain in one school while their parents move around the world or the country. Another is the pupil premium that we have introduced, run by the Department for Education, under which each child carries a passport of money for their school. Schools very much welcome that.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I join the Secretary of State in expressing sincere sympathy at the tragic deaths of the soldiers in Afghanistan.

Can the Minister confirm that homes at military bases in Northern Ireland such as Aldergrove will be upgraded to improve living conditions for all our military families?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. It is rather like painting the Forth road bridge—or is it the rail bridge? I can never remember. [Interruption.] The rail bridge—I am grateful. It is ongoing—[Hon. Members: “Not any more.”] Apparently, they have found a new paint in Scotland. Nevertheless, we will continue to work on all Army quarters. The last Government took great steps to improve service family accommodation, and we are continuing that work.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Following on from the support that is given to serving personnel, what support is given to veterans and their families through extra funding for centres such as the Wirral veterans contact centre, which was set up in 2011 specifically for that purpose?

[Mr Robathan]

If my hon. Friend would like to speak to me about that centre, I would be very happy to look into it. I have to say that I have not heard of it before. We work very closely with all the service charities in the voluntary sector to support ex-service personnel, and we also do a great deal of work through the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency and other organisations to support ex-service personnel.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the announcements in the Budget targeted at forces families’ welfare, but I hope the Minister occasionally reads the Army Families Federation website and blog. If so, he will see how the announcement on housing is being received. One blog post reads that

“it’s difficult to regard as new money and is still £40 million short of that allocated and withdrawn last year…it does not begin to answer the problems surrounding the rebasing of families from Germany.”

Is he embarrassed that the Chancellor’s announcement does not even make up for last year’s cut?

[Mr Robathan]

I really do think, first, that Opposition Members should remember that we are struggling in a very difficult financial situation caused by the last Government. Secondly, the hon. Lady should not believe every word that appears on every blog on the internet, because there are rather a lot of them. Thirdly, I was most interested to discover that the shadow team led by the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) had been issuing joint press statements with service charities, which I have to say I find very surprising. I am rather disappointed if the Royal British Legion is sending out joint press statements with the shadow Defence team, as was said in a very reputable newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, yesterday.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

4. What recent progress his Department has made on co-operation with the government of France on defence equipment; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

13. What recent progress his Department has made on implementation of the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2011.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The Armed Forces Act 2011 received Royal Assent on 3 November 2011. Some of its provisions, including the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006, came into force on that day. The provision relating to the call-out of reserve forces came into force two months later. Implementation of the remainder of the Act is now under way. The first commencement order was made on 1 March, which brings into force, with effect on either 8 March or 2 April, about half of the remaining provisions of the Act, including the provisions relating to the armed forces covenant report, Ministry of Defence police performance regulations and the independence of service police investigations.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I thank the Minister for that answer, and may I associate myself with the condolences expressed earlier? Does the Minister agree that means-testing the compensation paid to the bereaved families of those who have fallen on the front line is not right and should be looked at again?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. This practice causes a great deal of unhappiness among some people, and I accept her point that it should be kept under review. The means-testing of compensation awards is not a Ministry of Defence responsibility, but if she likes I will get my colleagues in the relevant Department to write to her.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their work on the military covenant. Will he take this opportunity to thank organisations such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association for the work they do for those serving on the front line and their loved ones?

[Mr Robathan]

I certainly will. As my hon. Friend knows, both we and the country as a whole rely a great deal on the service charities and voluntary sector, as have previous Governments. My hon. Friend mentions the SSAFA, but many other organisations, including the Army Benevolent Fund—or ABF, as it is now called—Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion do excellent work on behalf of our service personnel and ex-service personnel. There are, I think, almost 2,000 such service charities, so I will not name them all.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

14. What assessment he has made of the efficacy of the armed forces community covenant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

It is too early to assess the efficacy of the scheme, which was launched less than a year ago, but the level of interest from communities across the UK is very promising. More than 40 councils have already signed a covenant, and more than £2 million has already been allocated to support local projects under the grant scheme.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am particularly interested in soldiers’ mental health. What is the MOD doing to increase public understanding and awareness of potential mental health issues among armed forces personnel, especially in preparation for the troop draw-down from Afghanistan?

[Mr Robathan]

We take the issue of mental health extremely seriously, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for his “Fighting Fit” report. We have implemented a great many of his recommendations and I believe we will implement them all, including working closely with Combat Stress, which we continue to do. Combat Stress has installed a helpline for those in trouble. We continue to take this matter seriously. It is not really part of the armed forces community covenant, but we see it as part of wider covenant issues.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

On celebrating links between communities and the armed forces, will the Minister note the extremely strong support shown by the town of Warminster on 16 March as 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, which is deploying in extremely difficult circumstances to Afghanistan, marched through the town?

[Mr Robathan]

I will. We all know of the tragedies in Afghanistan, and there cannot be anyone in the House who has not shed a tear for the brave young men who die in the service of their country. I pay tribute to the people of Warminster and, indeed, to their Member of Parliament.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. What steps he is taking to ensure that military personnel deployed in combat zones have sufficient training and experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

T5. Given that 30% of all Vietnam veterans suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and given the 13 to 14 year average before our veterans display PTSD symptoms, what is the Minister doing to ensure that servicemen and women receive support not just soon after their discharge, but in the decades that follow?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I note that my hon. Friend recently took part in a Westminster Hall debate on exactly this issue, which was replied to by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), with whom I recently visited Combat Stress because we have worked hand in hand on these issues. I mentioned the “Fighting Fit” report earlier. We are looking very closely at the long-term provision of support. This is a difficult and complex field, and we work very closely with the King’s Centre, under Professor Simon Wessely.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I wish to return to the question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about one of the most controversial decisions of the Government—the decision to sell the Harriers, leaving the UK with carriers but no aeroplanes to fly from them. I have in my hand an internal MOD document that reveals that the Government sold the Harriers for much less than they were worth—in fact for a sixth of the cost of a recent upgrade. The document shows that there is a fear about viable capability being thrown away and points out that at the point of sale the aircraft should be moved in secret to avoid media attention. May I ask the Secretary of State why, when money is so tight, the Government sold the Harriers so cheaply to the US?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

T6. The Minister will be familiar with Chetwynd barracks in Chilwell in Broxtowe having visited it just the other week, when he brought a cheque for £50,000 for Alderman Pounder school, for which we are very grateful. Will he ensure that some of the extra money announced in last week’s Budget is provided to soldiers’ families at Chetwynd, who want, like many soldiers, to live on base as a community?

[Mr Robathan]

I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and Alderman Pounder school and I am delighted at the work going on there, which is helped by the MOD support fund for state schools with service children. I should also warn her about Greeks bearing gifts, but I have no Greek blood.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. The recent London-Somali conference reflected the commitment of successive Governments to that region, but the communiqué spoke of co-ordinated ground action, and air strikes were also mooted. Will the Secretary of State rule out British military action in Somalia, including ground troops and air strikes?

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

T7. Concerns about the provision of mental health care for veterans have been widely reported in the media. Does the Minister have any plans to implement the community veterans mental health project following the success of a pilot scheme in Wales?

[Mr Robathan]

We are looking at that as we are looking at all future provision, but this is quite a developing field. As I said earlier, we look very much to advice from the King’s Centre and Professor Simon Wessely. He has already provided some excellent advice. PTSD and issues of mental health are extraordinarily complicated. I think we need to tread very warily when we go forward and to take them extremely seriously.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T3. In the previous MOD questions my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State asked what steps the Minister had taken to ensure the service premium continues to be paid for the children of service personnel who die on duty. The Minister has had a full month, so will he tell me what steps he has actually taken to ensure that service children are properly supported and continue to receive the help they deserve? Has he lived up to his previous statement that he does not wash his hands of the situation?

[Mr Robathan]

The reason I said that I do not wash my hands of the situation is that we are concerned about service children whose parents have been killed. However, as I said at the time, this is a Department for Education initiative. I should have hoped that the Opposition praise the pupil premium initiative. We are very keen that all children of service personnel should do well, but the premium is paid because of the mobility of children. We therefore have to look very carefully at how children will be affected when their mobility ceases.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very keen to hear Back Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Following on from that question and the Secretary of State’s reply, may I draw his attention to my Question 17 on the Order Paper and ask when the Ministry of Defence is going to come clean about the future of the Ministry of Defence police? The Labour Government cut the number of MOD police posts in my constituency from 33 to three, and now Question 17 indicates further cuts.

[Mr Robathan]

As my right hon. Friend just mentioned, there is to be a written ministerial statement tomorrow, but I can say that we aim to reprioritise the work of the Ministry of Defence police criminal investigation department on the crimes that most significantly affect the defence interest. There will be reductions, but we will consult staff associations and the trade unions, as well as other key stakeholders such as the Home Office.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Have the Scottish Government recently sought any discussions with the Minister and, if so, what have they focused on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The treatment of veterans, including those in ongoing conflicts, such as Afghanistan, is a key part of the military covenant. To that end the Westminster Government repeatedly send Ministers and Members of Parliament to understand circumstances there to inform decision-making on the treatment of veterans in medical policy and support provision. Given that veterans issues are largely devolved in Scotland, why has the MOD refused to arrange a visit to service personnel in Afghanistan for Scottish veterans affairs Minister, Keith Brown?

[Mr Robathan]

I understood that that was a question about a visit for a Minister from Scotland. I am afraid we do not arrange visits for Ministers from Scotland unless we are asked specifically in writing.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our support to the Afghan Government will continue long after 2014 so that Afghanistan does not once again become an ungoverned space that can be exploited by terrorists?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Given the physical constraints of Headley Court, will the Minister update the House on plans for a national rehabilitation centre?

[Mr Robathan]

Headley Court does a fantastic job. I know that Members from across the House have visited it. However, in the long term we see a new centre, the defence and national rehabilitation centre, being established in the midlands—at a place called Stanford Hall. This is being supported very much and led by the Duke of Westminster and other donors. We pay tribute to them. I will discuss the details later—I shall be sat on if I give any more. It is an excellent initiative and I pay tribute to those involved.

Service Complaints Commissioner

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Commissioner’s fourth annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.

The independent oversight and scrutiny of the system provided by the commissioner continue to help us improve further the manner in which we handle complaints. I and the service chiefs value this contribution and are committed to ensuring we have a complaints system in which service personnel and their families have confidence.

The Ministry of Defence and the services continue to work closely with the commissioner, and I am pleased that this report acknowledges the changes we have made to the system over the last 12 months and the further improvements planned for 2012. We are not complacent and are committed to continuous improvement.

I will provide a formal response to the commissioner once I and the services have had time to consider fully the findings of the report and the recommendations made.

Medical Assessment Programme

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The Ministry of Defence Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) will move from facilities at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, to the Reinforcements Training and Mobilisation Centre (RTMC) at Chilwell in October 2012. The MAP offers mental health assessments to ex-service personnel who have deployed on operations since 1982 and have mental health problems related to their military service.

The House is aware of the report published by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for making improvements in mental health care provision for service personnel and veterans. We fully support the report’s recommendation that the MAP service continues while NHS mental health services are further developed across the UK, and remain committed to doing all we can to help veterans with mental health problems related to their military service and to making improvements to the services we provide.

There are significant advantages in collocating the MAP with the RTMC at Chilwell. This will provide a more structured professional environment for the MAP physician; benefits for clinical governance and flexibility from working alongside the reserves mental healthcare service; and improved cost effectiveness from sharing the facilities already in place at Chilwell. This move is also expected to benefit the majority of veterans as demographic data indicate that a high percentage are being referred from the north and the midlands.

HMS Victory

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I am pleased to inform the House that I am today laying a departmental minute, the contents of which are replicated below, which proposes the transfer of HMS Victory and its contents and fittings to the HMS Victory Preservation Trust. This is a new charitable trust which has been established for the purpose as part of the National Museum of the Royal Navy.

The proposed transfer would enable private donations to supplement current Defence provision for support of the ship; and I am pleased to inform the House that the Gosling Foundation has generously agreed to donate £25 million to support the establishment of this new trust. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has agreed to match this donation with a further capital grant of £25 million. Together, this amounts to a very sizeable endowment and would enable HMS Victory to be sustained for the benefit of future generations.

This transfer is part of a wider agreement which would enable HMS Victory to remain as a commissioned warship under her commanding officer and ship’s company. Currently the flagship of the Second Sea Lord, she will become the flagship of the First Sea Lord.

The detailed arrangements proposed, which are subject to legal and contractual discussions and trade union consultation, envisage that the trust would assume responsibility for the ongoing maintenance contract. The MOD would provide project management assistance in support of the contract for up to two years to enable the trust to grow this expertise. I expect the new arrangements to be in place by 1 April 2012.

Departmental Minute Dated 6 March 2012 Concerning the Gift of HMS Victory to the HMS Victory Preservation Trust:

“1. It is the normal practice when a Government Department proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £250,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

2. The gift to be made in this case, subject to finalisation of legal and contractual arrangements, is to a charitable trust controlled by the National Museum of the Royal Navy (NMRN) and comprises the historic warship HMS Victory together with its collection, fixtures, fittings and contents, material in store, technical information and the cradle on which the ship rests in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard. The Department also intends to grant rights to occupy and use the dry dock and land around the ship together with associated services access rights and leases to use those buildings in the dockyard which support the ship—put simply, a complete package, which would allow the trust to take over responsibility for the ship’s maintenance, repair and operation as a heritage attraction. The current maintenance contract for the ship operated by the Department would be novated to the trust; and the Department would provide project management expertise to the trust for a period of up to two years while the trust develops its own in-house expertise.

3. As a unique and irreplaceable national heritage asset, it is difficult to measure the value of HMS Victory in financial terms but the ship (together with its associated historical artefacts, fixtures and fittings) has an insurance valuation of £10,000,000. Apart from the ship itself, the value of the material in store and the cradle is assessed as £5,000,000. The total value of the gift is therefore £15,000,000.

4. Although the property of the charitable trust, the ship would be licensed to the MOD so that she can remain a commissioned warship and flagship of the Royal Navy. This allows for the development of a partnership between the Department and the voluntary sector for the support of this important element of British and naval history; and enables the sustainment of this iconic symbol of our history for the benefit of future generations.

5. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, before 23 March, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.”

Police and Guarding Agency

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

As part of the programme of work associated with defence reform within the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Defence Police and Guarding Agency (MDPGA) will cease to have the status of an Executive agency from 1 April 2012.

The Ministry of Defence police (MDP) has been an agency under the then Government’s “Next Steps” regime since 1996. The MDP were subsequently combined with the MGS to become the MDPGA in April 2004.

The separate elements of the MDP and the MGS will continue within MOD’s organisational structure, albeit collocated and under the command of Chief Constable MDP.

The change in operating status will have no impact on the MDPGA’s customers, and will contribute some £140,000 towards MOD and National Audit Office accounts and administration savings.

Annual Tri-Service Survey

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Today I am publishing the 2010 recruit trainee survey annual report. All recruits and trainees passing through phase 1 and 2 training are offered the opportunity to participate in the survey which is anonymous and administered independently on behalf of the services by an external contractor.

The annual report contains the views of recruits and trainees about topics such as: the preparation for joining and their treatment during phase 1 and 2 training, food, accommodation, access to instructional and welfare staff and complaints procedures. Overall the results are positive and importantly, the findings are used by service training headquarters and units to monitor the training environment and make improvements.

During preparation of the 2010 recruit trainee survey annual report, a contractor’s error was discovered in the previously published annual report for 2009. The data error relates to the findings on four questions in the fairness, equality and diversity sections of the previously published report. The 2010 RTS annual report has been prepared using the corrected 2009 data where trends are reported. I therefore intend to place a revised version of the full recruit trainee survey 2009 annual report in the Library of the House together with the 2010 recruit trainee survey annual report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

6. What criteria his Department uses when determining individual redundancies in the armed forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Personnel are selected for redundancy by selection boards that are convened by each service. The boards assess evidence contained in individuals’ appraisal reports against selection criteria, which include performance, potential experience, qualifications and the relevance of their skill sets to the future needs of the service. The services will select applicants where possible, but they may select non-applicants where that is necessary to ensure that the right balance of skills is maintained across the rank structures.

[Mark Lancaster]

I commend the Minister for the resettlement package that the Government are putting together, but I would like to highlight one anomaly. Some servicemen and women serving in Europe—for example, in Norway, Italy and France—and administered by the European support group have no access to funding for travelling back to the United Kingdom for their resettlement packages. I ask him to look into the matter and ensure that all our servicemen and women are treated equally.

[Mr Robathan]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I think that exceptions can be made. If he would like to write to me on the matter, I will write back with the details. I understand that a small number of people are affected, and we should certainly look after them properly.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us how many military service personnel who have been made redundant were within a year of pensionable age?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not have the numbers at my fingertips—

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Why not?

[Mr Robathan]

In answer to the shadow Secretary of State, it is quite complicated. However, I can say that the immediate pension that people might have earned after 22 years is now available after 18 years, so anyone made redundant within four years of the immediate pension date will receive the immediate pension straight away.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

As the Army is reduced to the size it was at the time of the Boer war, although there is to be no reduction in the number of Ministers, does the Minister accept that it would be untenable for any member of 16 Air Assault Brigade, who could have served in up to three deployments to Helmand province, to be made compulsorily redundant?

[Mr Robathan]

The decisions made on 16 Air Assault Brigade and elsewhere are quite rightly made by the individual services, not Ministers. Also, we believe that our fighting capabilities are somewhat greater than they were during the Boer war.

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

An internal MOD document states that the Department considers the UK force structure to be

“out of proportion with modern working practices”.

With the reduction in the number of armed forces personnel, why is the Minister doing nothing to correct the top-heavy force structure and the imbalance by making cuts across all ranks?

[Mr Robathan]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of Hansard. If he goes back to about 1994, he will see that I raised this matter then in the House of Commons—I have been here too long. He is right that there is a disproportionate number of senior officers. They are excellent people, but we are looking to reduce that disproportionate number so that there are fewer senior officers in relation to bayonets on the ground.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the future of Defence Munitions Beith; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

13. What recent progress has been made by the independent review into granting a medal to the Arctic convoy veterans; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The Government have agreed that there should be a fresh review of the rules governing the award of military medals. It will be conducted by an independent reviewer with full consultation with interested parties. The terms of reference and further details will be released shortly.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but I am not entirely happy with it. The veterans endured the most unimaginable hardships to protect this country during the second world war. Given that many of them are now in their late 80s and early 90s, does the Minister agree that it is imperative to be quick? We need to know when the review will be concluded.

[Mr Robathan]

We all owe a huge debt to those of our fathers’ and grandfathers’ generation who gave up their youth in the service of this country to keep it and the world free from fascism. In the context of my hon. Friend’s question, that particularly applies to those who endured astonishingly awful conditions in the Arctic, and I pay tribute to them for their courage and resilience.

Medals are not awarded by me, and it is quite right that there is to be an independent review that will not be led by the Ministry of Defence. I share my hon. Friend’s concern, but I can assure her that I am told that it will be a swift review and will take place shortly.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

18. Does the Minister agree that the review should be open, should consult widely and should be conducted outside the oversight of the MOD?

[Mr Robathan]

As I have just said, the review is not being led by the MOD. I understand that it will be able to consult widely, and I look forward to seeing the terms of reference and details shortly. It is not being led by the MOD, so it is not up to us to determine exactly when it will happen.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Who chose those who are on the independent review?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not know who is on the independent review, because it is not being led by the Ministry of Defence.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

14. What plans he has for future investment in defence science and technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Owing to the nature of this question, I will ask it gently. Forces children receive a service pupil premium, but it has recently come to light that a child who is orphaned due to the bravery of their parent in combat loses that payment. I welcome the fact that the Government say they will act upon that, but have they now implemented the change? How many children receive the premium? Can the Minister guarantee that no child will lose the premium as a result of a seriously injured parent being discharged from Her Majesty’s forces?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

This is an important issue and the Government were concerned about what we read. However, it must be understood that the premium is given to schools, not to children, to compensate for the way in which armed forces children move around. We have instigated scholarships for the children of casualties in Afghanistan so that they can go into higher education. The pupil premium is a Department for Education responsibility, but Defence Ministers are concerned and we wish to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged. The Department for Education is looking at the matter. We certainly do not wash our hands of it and we are concerned, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that once a child is settled in a school, the need for a premium is somewhat changed.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

T4. Having served with the present commander of British forces in the Falklands, I think the Argentines would be very foolish even to contemplate any sort of military intervention, but does the Secretary of State agree that a strong statement of support from the United States would be helpful?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

T7. I thank the Minister for his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) on the service premium. However, was the Secretary of State aware that extra support would be cut off if a serving parent died in the service of their country before it was disclosed in The Sun and other newspapers, which pressured the Government into a U-turn?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman also raises that important point. The truth is that that is a Department for Education responsibility. Let us remember that this Government introduced the pupil premium, and it is therefore new, but it would be fair to say that we in the Ministry of Defence had not appreciated that this might happen. The Department for Education is looking to ameliorate any problems, but let us remember that the pupil premium is about the transience of service children attending schools—[Interruption.] Well, that is why we introduced it. Circumstances change when a child is settled, but we do not wish them to be disadvantaged.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Is the Ministry of Defence able to offer the longer term reassurance, of the type that it gave last July for the MOD bases in South Uist and St Kilda, for the Sound of Raasay, Rona and the Kyle of Lochalsh bases in my constituency, not least because in the last couple of weeks QinetiQ, the operator, has published half-year profits that were up—commendably—by 45%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

T8. The Minister with responsibility for veterans will be aware of the call by the shadow Secretary of State for a £1 million legacy veterans fund, to be funded by cuts at the top end. The Minister is well known to be a commonsensical man: will he stand up and say that he agrees with my right hon. Friend?

[Mr Robathan]

I always accept compliments, from whatever surprising quarters they come. I was not aware of the £1 million veterans fund suggestion, but I will look into it when I have heard from the shadow Secretary of State.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Secretary of State’s excellent decision to deploy an anti-air warfare Type 45 destroyer to the Falklands certainly ensures that the islands are protected against aerial attack. That still leaves the danger of surface attack. In the absence of aircraft carriers, can my right hon. Friend confirm that a nuclear-powered submarine is available to protect our warship and the sea lanes approaching the Falklands?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the review of the awarding of medals, but will it also look at the service of police officers who have served with distinction on the police training mission in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Mr Robathan]

The review is of military medals. I believe that those police officers who serve are entitled to campaign medals. I am sure that they can make representations, but as they already receive those medals, I do not think that it will affect them. I am not responsible for the terms of reference.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to Question 6, what structures exist to allow concerns about the biggest Army cuts of all time to be raised further up the chain? I am thinking of the sorts of concerns raised earlier by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

I welcome the forthcoming review of the awarding of military medals and I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent correspondence regarding the survivors of the 1940 Lancastria disaster and their campaign for a medal, but may I press him for further details on the timing and remit of this important and timely review?

[Mr Robathan]

It should happen speedily. The problem is that this is a responsibility across Government and led, I believe, by the Cabinet Office. We want it announced swiftly and we want it to take place swiftly so that we can understand the rules. I am sorry that I can only give this answer, but I think that everyone will be glad to know that I am not responsible for it.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

When members of the armed forces are facing a two-year pay freeze and 20,000 are losing their jobs, how can the Secretary of State justify bonuses, some of five figures, to senior officers in the MOD civil service?

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate. I congratulate the Chairman of the Defence Committee on getting the debate going successfully.

This debate feels a little like déjà vu for me, because my maiden speech was about the future of the strategic defence and security review. I fully understand the budgetary constraints that the Ministry of Defence faces. Although I said in my maiden speech that we needed to control public expenditure, I also argued that we needed to ensure that there was enough money in the defence budget to deliver the requirements that we had. I remind the House that if that does not happen, we could find ourselves in the same position as the Soviet Union in the 1980s, when it suddenly ran out of money and was unable to deliver the defence capability that it espoused.

As we heard in the last debate, 50% of our trade is with the EU. I remind hon. Members that the EU is not doing incredibly well at the moment as far as growth is concerned. I therefore think that we need to look to other countries, such as China, Russia and India, where there are potential markets. To do that, we have to ensure that we have decent trade routes and that they remain open.

As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I am delighted to be able to speak up for the Royal Navy and 3 Commando Brigade, both of which are based in my constituency. I thank Ministers for committing the Government to ensuring that Plymouth remains a principal naval strategic port. That is very important.

Keeping our trade routes open is important for the import and export of goods and will be fundamental for growth. As an island nation, we are dependent on sea routes. It is incredibly important to have a strong Navy with good frigates and submarines, and aircraft carriers when they come forward. I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and 3 Commando Brigade in my constituency. They have worked incredibly hard to ensure that we have that security. We must only look at the piracy situation to see how well that is going.

Plymouth is a global centre for marine science, engineering and research. The Royal Navy is a key part of that. It is important that Plymouth maintains its global reputation for that. As many of my hon. Friends will know, this year we are commemorating the death of Captain Scott in the Antarctic, which took place 100 years ago. I am grateful that there has been a great deal of interest in that subject. We need to ensure that Plymouth remains the home of the Type 23 frigates and that when the decision is eventually made, we have our fair share of the Type 26s when they become available.

We have heard suggestions that there may be problems north of the border up in Scotland. It would be helpful if the Minister spent a little time telling us what alternatives we would have should the Scottish Executive and the Scottish people seek independence. He can rest assured that should the Scots be in the process of thinking that they may not want the nuclear deterrent or nuclear submarines, we in Plymouth are ready to pick up the baton and would be happy to open negotiations to try to ensure that we have them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I do not have the opportunity of winding up today, but I can say that we welcome my hon. Friend’s offer.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank the Minister.

I was somewhat dismayed earlier this week when I heard the news about the Defence Committee’s report and found out how many people had left the military and the civil service. Somewhere along the line, we have to ensure that people who have served in the military and picked up good and worthwhile skills are able to use them in employment elsewhere. When my father, who served in the Navy as a professional sailor, having gone to Dartmouth at the age of 14, left as a signalman, he was able to go and get a job as head of outside broadcasting at Rediffusion Television. He was member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and he did not have to take exams, or anything like that, in order to prove himself. In those days, it was possible to transfer and use such skills. If our military are to get the best jobs that they possibly can, they will need to use their training and backgrounds. If we are able to deliver on that and to make them feel valued because of the work that they have done, we will be in a much stronger position.

I am keen to ensure that we in Plymouth are in a position to look after the defence of our country so that when Drake’s drum eventually begins to beat—although I hope it never happens—we can answer the call.