Accommodation

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Written Statements

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

Following a review into support provided to senior officers, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has disestablished the status of “Official Service Residence” this financial year.

The MOD is committed to identifying efficiencies and savings where possible whilst maintaining essential operational capability. As part of this commitment a comprehensive review into the support provided to senior officers has been conducted and concluded that areas of the business could be improved by simplifying the management of service families accommodation and by harmonising the support provided to senior officers across defence.

In the past, a number of service properties were granted official service residence status if the post held by the occupant involved significant official entertaining duties. This status conferred an enhanced package of furniture, fixtures and furnishings but it has now been discontinued, so service families accommodation is now all managed to the same standard. In addition, the support provided to more senior officers, such as domestic assistance for official hospitality, has been reduced and harmonised across the services. These changes are captured in a new tri-service policy which also revises the rules and regulations in relation to official hospitality.

These measures will ensure that the support provided is appropriate and driven by business need, and they will lead to savings in due course. The properties that were formerly classed as official service residences will no longer form a separate grouping for purposes of management information.

Mental Health (Veterans)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

This is a hugely important topic, so I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) has secured this debate. I thank all Members who have taken part. The right hon. Lady is a former Minister with responsibility for public health and therefore knows a lot about the issues. I am not in any way clinically trained, so I tread very warily around issues of mental health. We should be wary of making grandiose statements on a very complex situation. I certainly try not to tell clinicians how to address it.

There is, however, a good story to be told. A great deal of progress is being made and the subject has rightly received a lot of attention in recent years. Our armed forces are currently deployed in the most demanding areas of conflict, and we have a moral duty, not only as a Government but as a nation, to support and look after them, to care for them when they are injured and to maintain that care when they leave service. Mental health problems, as we have heard, may take some time to manifest themselves, in some cases many years after service. Mental ill health can be a truly debilitating condition. As several Members have mentioned, it still has a stigma attached to it, and I believe that there is a lot of common ground across the political parties to remove the barriers for those seeking the help that they so desperately need.

I acknowledge the work of the previous Administration in launching ex-service mental health pilots throughout the country during the previous Parliament. Such was their success that they continue in the NHS, which is leading the fight to ensure that those who need our help receive it.

Although I am responding on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, it has been the policy of successive Governments that the treatment of all health-related conditions and problems for those who have been in service is the responsibility of the national health service. I mention that because I deal very closely with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who from time to time makes comments in the House about zombies—some Members may have noticed that recently—that may have deflected us from his excellent work in the Department of Health, especially his close work with us on various issues, particularly mental health. Indeed, he and I together visited Combat Stress in Leatherhead about a year ago. The NHS and the MOD together have also set up armed forces networks to ensure that ex-service personnel in particular can access health care. Members have said that people do not understand what ex-service personnel need, but this should go some way to helping in the future.

To ensure a coherent approach across the Government, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who served as a medical doctor in the Royal Navy, to conduct a study into the relationship between the national health service and the armed forces, including former servicemen, in terms of mental health. It was a thorough examination of our procedures and led to my hon. Friend’s well-respected “Fighting Fit” report. If hon. Members have not read it, I commend it to them.

The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked about our plans for the future. Essentially, they are based on that report. The former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), announced on 6 October last year that we would accept all of the “Fighting Fit” recommendations. They include a scheme, beginning next spring, routinely to contact service leavers at the 12-month point after discharge to establish whether they have any health need for which they are having difficulty in accessing treatment. That is actually very difficult, because when people leave the armed forces, they often change address, move away, go abroad or do all sorts of other things. It is not as easy as one might think. In addition, we will enable those identified as having a mental health problem during service to continue to have access for up to six months to the MOD’s departments of community and mental health. That will help smooth the transfer of care from the MOD to the NHS. We have also enhanced service medical examinations to enable earlier identification of mental health problems.

One of the earliest “Fighting Fit” recommendations to be implemented is the new 24-hour helpline, which is run by the charity Rethink on behalf of Combat Stress and is funded by £200,000 from the Department of Health. It allows former personnel with mental health problems and their families to get specifically targeted support from people trained and experienced in dealing with serving and former armed forces personnel and their often complex mental health needs. It is a real success, and when I have met Combat Stress and its clients, I have seen for myself how important this enabling of the first step to seeking help really is. I telephoned the helpline shortly after it was set up because I am sometimes slightly sceptical about helplines, and I can assure hon. Members that it works.

Through working with Combat Stress, the NHS is also increasing the number of mental health professionals, with a focus on providing help to veterans with mental health problems. That provides the opportunity for veterans to be seen locally by NHS professionals who have a better understanding of veterans’ needs, working side by side with Combat Stress outreach teams and their extensive experience and knowledge.

To help with the process of removing the stigma, to which several hon. Members referred, the Government have introduced an online well-being network that is accessible to serving personnel, their families and veterans. It is called the Big White Wall and is staffed by professional counsellors, who can be contacted 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That social network, which is reflective of today’s society, allows individuals to engage with others who are in similar difficulty. The anonymity connected to that network allows for a free and frank exchange of experiences, with a view to generating a wider sense of support. The Big White Wall has logged 1,000 hits since going live, more than 40% of which are from serving personnel, which illustrates that it will be a success.

I must acknowledge the significance of Combat Stress’s collaborative approach with the NHS and the MOD, which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and others. I bought my Christmas cards this year and last year from Combat Stress, so I would like to think that I do my little bit personally to support it. My Department provided Combat Stress with £3 million in the financial year 2010-11 for the treatment of those in receipt of a war pension who require treatment for mental health problems caused by service.

Combat Stress was formed shortly after the first world war to help those returning from the battlefields, but it is as important today as it was then. Indeed, I first came across Combat Stress 25 years ago when I was serving. It was known then as the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society. We have heard today about Neil Blower, a former serviceman who served his country in Iraq and Kosovo. He experienced difficulties after service, but received excellent help and support from Combat Stress. He has now become a published author. I wish him continued success, and I should say to the right hon. Lady that I found the quotation from his book very moving.

I accept that the Government cannot and should not do everything. Through the armed forces covenant, we are building partnerships between all arms of government—national and local—and with the NHS to deliver better support to the armed forces community. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who speaks for the Opposition, mentioned all arms of government and how we need to bring them together. A report on the covenant will be published before Christmas.

We also need to work more closely with the charitable sector to get the right support to the right people at the right time. The covenant has the important principle of removing disadvantage. Any former serviceman who is ill as a result of their service can access priority treatment through the NHS—subject, of course, to the clinical needs of others. We continue to work closely with GPs to make that more widely known because there is an education issue. The Department of Health, working with the Royal College of General Practitioners, has put in place an e-learning package for GPs. That will increase awareness of the status of patients who are veterans, thus enabling more proactive monitoring of veterans’ mental health and helping to ensure that they receive the treatment that they deserve.

We acknowledge that, in some cases, it can take years for psychological problems to manifest themselves. It is therefore important that we recognise through-life responsibility to our armed forces and that we do all we can to increase awareness and reduce the potential for developing mental health problems in the future.

[Hazel Blears]

If the Minister’s plans to reduce stigma are successful—and I very much hope that they are—that will inevitably result in more people presenting for treatment and help and support. I specifically asked him what his estimate is of the increase in the number of people presenting for next year and the years after as troops withdraw from the theatres where they have been active and what plans he has to meet that increase in the number of people presenting. I would appreciate some detailed answers to those specific questions.

[Mr Robathan]

I was going to come to that, but we do not have estimates for the figures that may emerge because it is a very difficult clinical situation. Some people—mostly not qualified doctors—say that a tidal wave of mental health problems is coming. I do not know whether that is the case, but what I do know is that we must be ready for whatever comes, so that we can help ex-service personnel. That is the right way forward, but making estimates that must inevitably be guesses because they depend on individual situations would not necessarily be very helpful.

I want to answer a few more of the right hon. Lady’s questions. We have mentioned stigma. It is our policy and that of the armed forces that mental health issues should be recognised properly and handled appropriately. Every effort should be made to reduce the stigma associated with such problems. Service personnel are given briefings before, during and after any operational deployment that explain the symptoms to look for and signpost the support services available. As well as medical officers, welfare staff, mental health personnel and chaplains also deploy to places such as Afghanistan and are available to provide help and advice.

One of the most successful recent innovations has been the introduction of trauma risk management—TRiM—which I have seen. That is a process of peer-group risk assessment, and mentoring and support for use in the aftermath of traumatic events. Such a process is undertaken as soon as possible after the event. That could happen, for example, after a patrol in a forward operating base. Evidence suggests that that process has been successful in increasing awareness and reducing the stigma attached to mental health disorders, which the right hon. Lady mentioned.

Away from the operational theatre, we provide a range of specialist care, primarily through 15 military departments of community mental health across the UK and four such departments in Germany. Those departments provide out-patient mental health care and are staffed by community mental health teams comprising psychiatrists and mental health nurses, with access to clinical psychologists and mental health social workers. In-patient care, when necessary, is provided regionally in specialised psychiatric units under a contract with the NHS.

To help our understanding of the issues that affect service personnel and those who have left the services, we fund a large-scale research project at King’s College, London on the experiences of those who are serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only last Monday, I spent the morning at King’s with Professor Simon Wessely and other academic staff who are undertaking that research. If anyone wishes to go there, I can arrange a visit because they are extremely on the ball and know an enormous amount about the subject, as one would hope. The project includes a large-scale study involving more than 20,000 participants, which is monitoring the effects of operational service compared with a cohort group that did not deploy.

In May 2010—the project was funded by the previous Government—the latest phase of that research confirmed that there is a continuing relatively low prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder for the UK armed forces. Some 4% of respondents displayed symptoms of PTSD compared with other studies that show a range of rates between 3% and 7% in the general population. Recent evidence suggests that PTSD is likely to present at a peak of about three years, but we accept that it may be longer in some cases. It is therefore important that we recognise our through-life responsibility to our armed forces.

I will try to cover the questions asked by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made some excellent points. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke with passion about the legacy of conflict in Northern Ireland. Having spent the best part of a year of my life on the streets of west Belfast, I have a very real understanding of and a great deal of sympathy with some of his points. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) spoke with great feeling, but we should be careful that we do not see ex-service personnel as victims. They are very capable people, and the overwhelming majority of people who leave the services plough a pretty good furrow and get a job. I had to become an MP to get a job; nevertheless, most people get a pretty decent job after they have left the armed forces, and they do not want to be patronised.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) added his experience of the Territorial Army and acknowledged the real difficulties that we face. On the reservists, he is absolutely right. I say gently to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire that we must understand—I think that she does understand—that many ex-service personnel do not want to be pursued. When they leave the armed forces, they do not want to be followed up.

The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles particularly mentioned education. I will write to her if I may with the details, but I think that she will find that the further education scheme funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills provides free tuition for service leavers undertaking a first qualification at that level. That gives ex-service personnel the opportunity for higher studies, which they may have been denied by military service. Furthermore, they can build up learning credits during service that can be used to fund education for up to 10 years after leaving service. However, I will write to her with the details on that.

In conclusion, there is consensus here. The right hon. Lady has raised a very important issue. We can never remove the exposure to trauma in operations, but we must do all we can to minimise the effects that that might have. TRiM on the battlefield gives the opportunity to discuss the shared experience of trauma, and that concept is continued with the Big White Wall. For some, medical intervention is required, which I have discussed, but we continue to address the recommendations made in “Fighting Fit.” All that is complemented by Combat Stress and other service charities. As we have heard, they do a huge amount to rebuild lives, and we are, as a Government and a nation, eternally grateful for that.

Arctic Convoy Veterans Medal

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Dinenage]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention.

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

If one considers that the war went on for six years, and people then looked back and decided on the length of time required to qualify for medals, I think that that was a perfectly reasonable position. As I recall, Northern Ireland was 30 days, which was essentially a quarter of a four-month tour. Actually, if my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) thinks that accumulated service medals should take longer to acquire—does he have one, or is he about to get one?—he raises a sensible point, but the second world war went on for six years.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am very pleased to be acting as a referee in this particular discourse.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) for raising this important issue, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. She feels passionately about it, and we have discussed it in the past. There is no scintilla of difference between us about our respect for those of my father’s and her grandfather’s generation who served in the Royal Navy and the Arctic convoys in the second world war. It might be relatively cold outside, but as we sit here in our centrally heated comfort, well clothed and dry, it is difficult to imagine the conditions in which young men in their teens and 20s went to sea in the Arctic before we were born. I pay real tribute to their courage, resolution, determination and bravery when necessary—all those things were shown by the people whom we as a nation sent to war in the Arctic. We agree about that, and the question is what we should do about it.

I mentioned my father’s generation, and I was brought up immediately after the second world war, so I have a much closer feeling with it, if I may say so. My mother’s first husband was a glider pilot killed at Arnhem, and the courage and resolution shown by glider pilots were similarly astonishing. In the battle of Sicily more than half the glider force was dropped in the sea and almost all of them died, as far as I am aware, so then to get back in a glider and fly off to Arnhem and D-day was similarly incredibly brave. I pay tribute to all those from this nation who in the second world war did amazing things. Nothing that I say should detract from that. The Atlantic convoys, rather than the separate Arctic convoys, lost 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships.

The position of the Government, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is that we will have a review. It was thought that the earlier review, to which she referred, was insufficient, and therefore we are putting in place another one, for which the terms of reference and the chairman have yet to be decided. I can, however, assure her that that work is most definitely happening at the moment. It is important that the decisions be made not by me or by Ministers but independently. Neither the Ministry of Defence nor I will have any hand in those decisions, which will be made by an independent chairman and group. It is important that politicians do not have such decisions at their fingertips. The truth is that politicians should not be involved in awarding medals.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I think that politicians ought to have the decision in their gift. If they should not, why did successive leaders of the Conservative party promise the medal to veterans while in opposition? It should not be subject to review and it does not need independent scrutiny to decide that this is the right thing to do. Politicians are perfectly capable of making the decision and making the right one.

[Mr Robathan]

Every Member in the Chamber, pace the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) who might possibly be an exception, was born after the end of the second world war. Politicians should not revisit decisions made in the past, second-guessing those who are not around to speak for themselves and who knew the details, were much closer to them than us and would have known people who had been on the Arctic convoys, perhaps losing friends or relations on that convoy, when we do not.

The current situation is that an independent review, into which I will have no input, will investigate. However, I would like to state the facts, which are what we should deal with. The Admiralty fleet order dated October 1946 refers to

“Qualifications for the Atlantic Star”

and states:

“After qualification for the 1939-45 Star by six months’…service, in areas defined below.

(A) Six months’…service afloat as defined in Section III”,

which included time in port, and

“(B) Service in home waters, service on the convoy routes to North Russian ports, service in the South Atlantic between the longitude of Cape Horn and longitude 20° E”.

The point was that the Admiralty was trying to have one medal to cover those issues. Whether that was right or wrong, it is wrong to say that the Arctic was ignored. It was not. It was mentioned in the Admiralty fleet order, and it was recognised, but I accept that whether it should have been recognised further is a matter for debate.

The campaign suggests that the Atlantic star is not enough, and I understand the strong feeling about that. I cannot understand what it was like to be in such appalling cold. However, it was also cold in the Atlantic, and I have mentioned the 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships that went down. Most people who earned the Atlantic star must be very proud to have done so when so many died. One also reads of the deprivation on the Atlantic convoys. It was pretty tough going across the Atlantic being chased by U-boats, and many ships were sunk.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I do not believe that anyone here wants to get into a competition about who suffered most, although we must recognise the appalling conditions endured by the Arctic convoy veterans. The Minister is rightly sticking to the facts, but the facts are that the Arctic convoys were a separate theatre of conflict, and a precedent was set with the Canal medal. If it was thought that an error had been made, for understandable reasons—my right hon. Friend alluded to what they might be—we could revisit a decision. I do not believe that politicians should make those judgments, but it is our job to raise the concerns of our constituents throughout the country. There is a great feeling that we should revisit the facts, and there is a precedent for change if we think an error has been made.

[Mr Robathan]

I am saying that that determination is possible if people in the past got it wrong. We are saying in this debate that those in the Admiralty who determined who would receive medals got it wrong and that in some way we who were born after the second world war know better than those who were in that war. Actually, they were people like us, who are sitting in our centrally heated Chamber. Mountbatten was not on the Admiralty Board because he was Viceroy of India at the time, but he had commanded Kelly during the war, and ended up an admiral. That was not unusual for experienced people. We are in danger of saying that we should gainsay their knowledge and disparage their decisions, which were made by good people with experience.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

No, I will not.

The intention post-war was not to cover everyone with medals. Medals in the UK mean something, and we pay tribute to the people in the Public Gallery who are showing the medals that they won through risk and rigour. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport mentioned the USSR. Authoritarian regimes and dictators, such a Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, often throw medals around. North Korean generals are covered with medal ribbons. We have traditionally taken the view in this country—hon. Members may disagree—that medals will be awarded only for campaigns that show risk and rigour.

[Mrs Glindon]

Veterans who hold the Russian Arctic medal may think the Minister’s comment about regimes that give away medals is disparaging. I hope that he recognises that. Under Winston Churchill, the Government discouraged the award of the Russian medal, but the fact that it was given and that the brave men who received it were recognised should be mirrored in this country. I should be pleased if he made a different comment from the one that he made earlier.

[Mr Robathan]

I apologise if my comment was taken in the wrong way. That was not the intention. I am not sure when the Russian medal was given to our veterans, but I believe that it was after 1990. There are not many Soviet survivors from the second world war, but generals in the Soviet army were covered in medals, which is not the tradition in this country. That is the point I was trying to make.

[Caroline Dinenage]

The Minister’s comment about the Russians giving out that medal disparages what the Russians clearly recognise as the unbelievable commitment and bravery of gentlemen such as those in the Public Gallery to whom he referred. We are now in the habit of giving out medals to people who have not committed acts of bravery. Next year, the Queen’s diamond jubilee medal will be given to people who may have spent five years driving a desk in the Ministry of Defence.

[Mr Robathan]

That is a fair point, but the diamond jubilee medal is a commemorative medal, not a campaign medal. That is the difference, but I agree with my hon. Friend. She made a reasonable point. I apologise again if she took my comment the wrong way. My point was that some regimes give out a large number of medals, whereas traditionally the United Kingdom does not.

I commend Commander Grenfell and his colleagues on their campaign. It seems to have started in 1997, which was 51 years after the Atlantic star was awarded, so I am not entirely clear what prompted it. Two Members in the Chamber have been on their parties’ Front Benches, and the last Government, under a lot of pressure, decided that they would award a special medal, but they awarded the Arctic star. In Portsmouth, The News stated, under the heading, “We’ve Won” and “Historic victory in long battle to win honours for heroes of the Arctic convoys”, that Commander Grenfell said:

“I am really very happy with what we have achieved. It has been a tough campaign, but we have finally got the recognition the Arctic veterans deserved.”

It also quoted the hon. Member for Portsmouth South who said:

“This is a tremendous result, and it is wonderful that the Arctic veterans have at last won recognition.”

I must tell Opposition Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), that their Government believed that the matter had been put to bed.

Finally, the facts are that the decision is not one for politicians. I have huge respect for my father’s generation, who gave up their youth in the service of our country and deserve to be continually respected. The Arctic convoy veterans served in the particularly appalling conditions of the Arctic, but we should not pretend that we know better than experienced people who had taken part in the second world war and who had served on Royal Navy ships at sea. A decision will be taken, rightly, by the medals review. It should not be a political decision; it should relate to those who look at all the facts, take a view dependent on their respect for our veterans and make their decision accordingly.

Dalgety Bay (Radiation)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to see the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in his place and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. All those involved understand that there is a serious issue at Dalgety Bay. The Ministry of Defence, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and other stakeholders who comprise the Dalgety Bay Forum all recognise that there is an issue.

I do not entirely recognise the portrayal of the situation given by the right hon. Gentleman. Since the early 1990s, we have been aware that radioactive material was being washed up on the foreshore and found on land, as he said. This material takes the form of fragments from navigational instruments and dials coated with luminescent paint with radium 226. The flakes of such paint are radioactive. We have worked with SEPA and the Dalgety Bay Forum for many years, certainly between 2007 and 2010, to understand the risk and the requirement for remedial measures. Such measures should be proportionate, sustainable and cost-effective.

We also agree that removal of radioactive sources by MOD and SEPA has reduced any hazard posed to the local population. Notwithstanding the fact that the issues have been around for some time, the general consensus has been that risks were low, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted. We took this approach because it was consistent with the advice of the Health Protection Agency, which he mentioned. Until recently, SEPA publicly acknowledged the MOD’s contribution to finding a credible solution. However, following preliminary testing earlier this month, SEPA disclosed that it has discovered higher levels of radiation than in previous tests. Naturally, this has caused a certain amount of concern among his constituents and he is right to raise that.

Given the recent finds, we agreed only last week to work with SEPA over the next four weeks to identify a programme of work that will inform the scope of any long-term credible remediation and management measures. This work will also look at interim management measures and we will continue with our existing monitoring programme. Indeed, the first meeting between the MOD and SEPA to establish a credible investigation plan occurred yesterday, which is further evidence of how seriously we take this issue.

Previously, we have acted voluntarily and discreetly to investigate and remediate radium 226 contamination affecting residential properties that have been built on the site of the former Royal Naval Air Station Donibristle. This measured approach was welcomed by the residents as our action avoided unnecessary blight, anxiety and stress. The MOD also took forward the recommendations of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. We remain concerned that any designation of the area because of the contamination would be not only premature but disproportionate and certainly not in the interests of residents.

I must also make it clear that the location from which the artefacts and radioactive material are currently emanating has yet to be conclusively established. We are concerned that recent attempts to attract national media attention to this issue will have the opposite effect to the one intended on the local community.

To put the situation in context, the beach and the foreshore at Dalgety Bay lie adjacent to the former Royal Naval Air Station Donibristle. Our records show that Donibristle was first used by the Royal Flying Corps in early 1917. The RNAS took over in August that year, and from 1 April 1918, when the RNAS and the RFC were amalgamated, the site came under Royal Air Force control. It was put on a care and maintenance basis in 1921, and the airfield was reopened as an air station in 1925, when it was used as a shore base to disembark carrier aircraft and as a training base. Donibristle was a torpedo training school from 1934.

With the onset of world war two, the grass strip airfield came into royal naval use once more, and RNAS Donibristle was commissioned as HMS Merlin, eventually becoming an aircraft repair yard. By 1941 the yard was processing some 320 aircraft a year. A second runway was completed in early 1944, when the station had the capacity to accommodate 220 aircraft and was, therefore, pretty busy. Some 1,000 military personnel and 2,000 civilians were employed on site, and by the end of the war the total number of aircraft repaired and inspected reached more than 7,000. After the war, the site flew the flag of Flag Officer Carrier Training. In 1953, HMS Merlin was paid off, but repair and reconditioning work continued for the Fleet Air Arm.

The yard and airfield are recorded as having closed in August 1959, but there were royal naval barracks at Donibristle between 1962 and 1963. The land was subsequently sold, and some time later—in other words, well after the MOD had gone—it was developed for housing and industrial use, including the Donibristle industrial park.

We all recognise that “radioactivity” and the fact of contamination will give cause for concern, so it makes sense to ask how serious and real the risks are at Dalgety Bay. I am aware that there has been criticism of the manner in which the risk has been presented in the media. SEPA has recently found higher activity sourced at some depth—about 75cm, or 2 feet for those who deal in old-fashioned measurements—beneath the foreshore. MOD experts advise that that does not necessarily imply a step change in the risk to human health, or the need for additional mitigation measures over and above what SEPA has already put in place.

Indeed, as I have said, the Health Protection Agency has and continues to hold the view, despite the recent finds, that the risk is likely to be low—a view that SEPA has hitherto shared. Nevertheless, given the recent finds of relatively high activity, the HPA quite understandably feels it important that the risk be adequately quantified and understood, taking into account the likelihood of exposure. I therefore welcome, as I hope the House will, SEPA’s establishment of an expert group, which is charged with doing exactly that. My officials are observers to the group and stand ready to assist as required. That leads me to the calls for the MOD to develop a “credible remediation plan”.

We need to understand how the contamination at different locations is being caused. Is it, for instance, from erosion of the former refuse tip within the headland, or is it from other sources? Interestingly, the refuse tip is not documented in the 1959 contract of sale, and it is recorded only subsequently in the 1960s, on maps and so on. It is equally important to understand how radioactive sources found at depth in the foreshore have come to be there, the plausibility of their exposure by a storm event, and the impact on public health if that occurs.

The removal of what is known has ensured public safety in the short term, but an effective solution depends on assessing what might still be present and the risks from it. Moreover, what precisely would comprise an effective solution, given the current uncertainties? The answers to such questions are necessary in order to inform appropriate remediation measures. For those reasons, the MOD has offered to assist SEPA further. We are engaged with SEPA, working in consultation with it to develop and deliver the investigation necessary to help answer those important and relevant questions.

Of course, responsibility for such investigation would normally fall within SEPA’s statutory mandate for which it is funded, but I recognise that any delay would not be in the interests of residents. Moreover, my Department has disposed of material for them, so we are continuing with our voluntary assistance, which includes arranging for the disposal of material found by SEPA.

[Mr Gordon Brown]

The issue comes down to this: even after the letters from the Ministry of Defence and the meeting yesterday, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency still says that, unless the Ministry of Defence can give assurances, it will designate the land as radioactive and contaminated, which is not something people want. It seems strange that the Ministry of Defence was prepared to accept responsibility for monitoring when there was no problem, but now is not prepared to accept full responsibility for remedial action. I simply ask the Minister to give a straightforward assurance that the necessary remedial action will be taken and funded by the Ministry of Defence. I think we should ask for nothing less and that he is in a position to give that assurance.

[Mr Robathan]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the important thing is to know what the dangers are before getting into a great state about it, because I am afraid that there is some conflict and disagreement on this. We are engaged with SEPA on the matter, and I think that it is important that we remain engaged.

[Mr Brown]

The Ministry of Defence has been told by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that a remedial action plan is needed. It has the power to designate the land and require the Ministry of Defence to do this. It will not change its mind about whether a remedial action plan is needed, and nor should it because of what we have found in the past few weeks. All we need is an assurance from the Ministry of Defence that it will not only produce the remedial action plan with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, but properly fund it. The Minister is in a position to give that assurance, based on everything else the Ministry of Defence has said and done in the past, and should do so now to allay the fears of local residents.

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman tells me that I am in a position to do this, but for a long time he was in a position to take further action should he have so wished. I am afraid that that is the case. Contrary to some media reports, I do not believe that it can reasonably be said that the MOD is being complacent or unhelpful. On the contrary, we have assisted and will continue to assist SEPA by undertaking surveys and disposing of recovered sources. We have remedied land-based contamination in residential areas within the former RNAS Donibristle site. We have also funded the warning signs and play an active part with the Dalgety Bay Forum. All in all, we have already spent £750,000 on land remediation signage and surveys and on assisting SEPA in other ways. Without further investigation, it is difficult to justify using taxpayers’ money to remediate while the current source, level of risk and remediation necessary remain unclear. That is why, in addition to the three-year monitoring and collection work we are already doing in conjunction with SEPA, we have agreed to undertake further investigative work. As I said earlier, we understand that the work we have done was seen, until recently, as entirely satisfactory by SEPA.

[Mr Brown]

The work is not seen as satisfactory by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I talked with head of the agency this afternoon, who assured me that he has had no assurances from the Ministry of Defence that it will do what the Scottish Environment Protection Agency needs. To return to the central point, the Ministry of Defence was prepared to accept responsibility for the site when there was no real problem, but now that we have a problem it should, in order to allay local people’s fears, say that it will fund the necessary remedial action plan. It is not in a position to say whether that action is needed. In law, that is a matter for SEPA, which the Minister seems to misunderstand. The question is will the MOD, having designated the site as an area of difficulty, honour the responsibility to fund the remedial action plan? It is a simple question and we need a simple answer.

[Mr Robathan]

I can see the characteristic passion and vigour with which the right hon. Gentleman has put his case. There is more to this than media reports in Kirkcaldy, or wherever it may be, suggest. The Health Protection Agency has a role to play. He shakes his head, but the Health Protection Agency has a role to play in this. He is of course right and entitled to represent the concerns of residents, but I do not think that we should get this out of proportion. We continue to believe that the risk to health remains low and that precipitate action is in no one’s interest. I can assure him and his constituents that the MOD will continue to work in a credible and responsible way with all concerned at Dalgety Bay.

Finally, may I say what a pleasure it has been to discover how many Members of the House are as interested as I am in the concerns of the people of Dalgety Bay?

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the creation of a post of chief coroner to oversee the inquest system in relation to deaths of armed forces personnel.

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the late Private Matthew Thornton, who was killed in Afghanistan last Wednesday, from 4th Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment. He was a brave young man, serving his country, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to send its condolences and sympathy to his family.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions with ministerial colleagues on the creation of a chief coroner’s post. The post is entirely a matter for the Ministry of Justice, although we have of course provided it with every assistance regarding the impact of the issue on military bereaved families, and we have engaged with the Ministry of Justice and with the Cabinet Office on the matter.

[Jessica Morden]

I should like to associate myself with the Minister’s opening remarks and with yours, Mr Speaker.

The Royal British Legion thanked hon. Members from all parties for their cross-party support when the post of chief coroner was agreed just two years ago. Does the Minister agree that the issue should unite, not divide, this House, and that appointing a chief coroner in line with the revised proposals from the Royal British Legion and Inquest would send a wonderful message to service families at this particularly special time?

[Mr Robathan]

I am afraid that I do not entirely agree. The important thing is the results that bereaved families receive at inquests, with which there have been problems in the past, and that is why the Ministry of Defence is, for instance, laying on specific events and continuing familiarisation with military inquests for coroners. We are also ensuring that they are properly trained with regard to bereaved families. People seem to have become hung up on the office of a chief coroner, but it is a Ministry of Justice matter, as I have said. What is important is that bereaved families receive an excellent service from coroners, and we are working very hard to ensure that that happens.

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

To what extent does my right hon. Friend believe that the undoubted success in years gone by of the Wiltshire coroner, David Masters, and the Oxfordshire coroner, Andrew Walker, in improving the welfare and safety of troops has been down to their independence and to the fact that they have not had a potentially bureaucratic official standing over them?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. and gallant Friend makes a very interesting point, and again the issue is that we do not have a bureaucratic official standing over coroners. Inquests in the past, as the Opposition know, were not always as sympathetic towards military families as they might have been, and indeed they were not particularly good with the bereaved, so we are allowing the Lord Chief Justice to set mandatory training requirements for coroners and their officers, including training in respect of military inquests, and we think that that is the right way forward.

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

Last month I asked the former Secretary of State whether he had reviewed the Royal British Legion’s proposals to deliver a reformed coronial system at significantly lower cost than the Government estimate. He did not answer the question. May I once again give the Minister, under the direction of a new Secretary of State, the opportunity to put on the record his views about scrapping the office of chief coroner? Will the Minister support the Royal British Legion’s campaign?

[Mr Robathan]

I think that I am still a member of the Royal British Legion; I certainly have been, and I think that I paid my subscription this year.

I am a great supporter of the Legion. It is a fantastic organisation with fantastic people, but that does not mean that it is right about everything, and on this campaign it has rather overstated its case. It said in its briefing, which I have with me, that when asked in the street two thirds of people thought that a chief coroner was essential, but I ask all Members, “How many of their constituents do they think have heard of the chief coroner?” The answer is not two thirds of the population, I can promise you that much.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on operations in Libya of the unavailability of an aircraft carrier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to prevent the desecration of war memorials.

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

War memorials provide a lasting and poignant reminder of all those who have served and died in the service of our country. Most right hon. and hon. Members will have attended a war memorial yesterday to pay their respects to the fallen, both in the first and second world wars and subsequently. It is shocking that memorials are being violated and vandalised in the manner that we have all read about. I support any plan to protect memorials, and I know that the Home Office and local authorities are committed to dealing with the problem.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

At this solemn time of year, when we remember those who fell to protect our freedoms, there is a small, despicable group of people who go round stealing metal from war memorials. What action are my right hon. Friend and his colleagues across Government taking to bring the full force of the law to bear on those individuals?

[Mr Robathan]

For myself—I should say that I am not sure that this is Government policy—if they were caught, I would ensure that they received exemplary sentences, but that is a matter for my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. In the Ministry of Defence, the sponsored cadet forces are being encouraged to participate in project In Memoriam 2014. The project involves locating and logging the thousands of war memorials across the United Kingdom and marking them with SmartWater, a commercial product that should enable the metal components of war memorials to be forensically traced if they are stolen.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

The desecration of war memorials is an appalling crime, condemned by Members in all parts of the House. Would the Minister be willing to meet representatives from SmartWater, which is based in my constituency? It is doing a tremendous job protecting metal on war memorials, as part of its wider social obligation to our communities. Would he be willing to meet SmartWater representatives to see what more we can do to protect memorials? All parts of the House would support such initiatives.

[Mr Robathan]

I would be very happy to hear their submission. I should point out that the something like 100,000 marvellous war memorials in this country are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The War Memorials Trust is doing excellent work on this, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, we shall see whether we can have a meeting, perhaps with one or two of the people responsible for the matter.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on (a) the Army and (b) UK industry of the capability sustainment programme for the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

16. How many children received support through the additional pupil premium for children of service families in the latest period for which figures are available.

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

Some 45,000 service children have been recorded as eligible for the service child pupil premium in 2011-12. We are working to encourage service families to complete the annual school census so that their children and their schools can benefit from this additional payment to recognise the uniqueness of service life.

[Stephen Mosley]

There are currently 134 children from 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh in eight Chester schools, but parents and teachers seem unsure about the purpose and use of the pupil premium in their schools. What has the Minister done to raise awareness of the actions that the Government have taken to support service children?

[Mr Robathan]

This is a new initiative. We want to raise awareness, and anything that my hon. Friend can do to help in that regard will be very welcome. We have set aside £9 million this year for the pupil premium, and have also set aside £3 million specifically for schools that take a large number of service pupils and may be experiencing problems. We have invited them to apply for the money, but may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that they look up the details on the Department for Education’s website and then apply?

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to support strategically important defence manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T8. The British Legion’s money advice service helped more than 3,000 service families with unsecured-loan problems last year. Today’s Daily Mirror reports that firms such as QuickQuid are targeting military personnel and charging annual rates of more than 1,000%. According to the Daily Mirror, the Minister has never heard of payday loans, so how will he stop those get-rich-quick merchants ripping off our service families?

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

May I counsel the hon. Gentleman? In no circumstances should he believe everything that he reads in the Daily Mirror. However, in response to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who referred to payday loans on Thursday, I made the point that the issue had never been raised with me.

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

You said that you had never heard of them.

[Mr Robathan]

I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would be quiet. I had indeed never heard of them, because the issue is not something that has come across my desk. However, I deprecate these ridiculous, high-interest loans, which are appalling. They are not something that we find in the chain of command. It is true that the Royal British Legion does an excellent job in helping families and, indeed, ex-service personnel when they get into trouble with debt.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

T4. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many force elements at readiness the joint Harrier force had at the time of the strategic defence and security review, and what his assessment was of the number of trained pilots and the force’s ability to conduct strike operations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

T5. There are reports that the Department’s medal review has been stopped and that an independent review will now commence. Can the Minister assure me that that will not cause further delays to veterans, such as those of the Arctic convoys, in getting a decision and that no service personnel facing redundancy will miss out on the diamond jubilee medal?

[Mr Robathan]

Two questions for the price of one. A review of medals is indeed ongoing. It has not yet been finalised. When it is finalised, it will be put before the House in the normal way. No one who is eligible for the diamond jubilee medal on the correct date, which is, I think, 6 February this coming year, will be affected by compulsory redundancy because the qualification date will be before anyone is made compulsorily redundant, although, of course, if they have not done five years on that date, they will not qualify for the medal.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Concern has been expressed about Army recruitment in Swansea because Territorial Army pay is taken off the benefits of Territorial Army personnel, thus undermining demand from those people who are not working to join the Territorial Army. Will the Minister talk to the other Departments involved to try to reconcile that problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. It is within the powers of any local authority to give a discount on council tax, should it wish to do so. I would welcome that if it improves the lot of our service personnel returning from operations.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

If, in the near future, Members of the other place decide once again to remove the chief coroner from the Public Bodies Bill, the Government will clearly have to think again. In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State stand up for the bereaved families of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and encourage the Justice Secretary to adopt the affordable alternative put forward by the Royal British Legion?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was not here or was dozing earlier, but I answered the question—[Interruption.] What I can say to him is that we absolutely care for the bereaved families. That is one of our highest priorities, and rightly so. We wish to ensure that they get decent services inquests, and that is what we are doing. I point out gently to him that it was under the previous Administration that there were problems with inquests.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T7. My family, like many other fans of the Red Arrows, were deeply saddened by the recent tragic loss of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to investigate that tragic incident fully and to ensure that similar tragedies are avoided in the future?

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

What specific new powers are to be given to local authorities to provide affordable accommodation for service families?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raised the matter on Thursday. Only last night the Minister for Housing and Local Government was on television making the point that we are very keen that people returning from operations or from abroad and moving into their home area where they have not lived for some time should have priority in council housing. That is, of course, the responsibility of local authorities, but we are working hard with them to get them to take note that somebody who has been away for six years may be a resident of Islwyn, even if he has been living somewhere else for the past six years.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

This is the first chance I have had to welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his post, which I do with the greatest pleasure and the utmost confidence. Since the Atlanta games there has been an internationally accepted minimal level of protection for the Olympics. Will he confirm to the House that there will be a full range of multilayered defence and deterrence for the London games, including ground-to-air missiles in London?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to have raised the consciousness of the Minister about payday loans in our debate last Thursday, and I am pleased to hear his words of condemnation today. May I press him to go a little further? Will he write to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to back calls for a cap on the cost of credit to protect our forces families, so that he can turn his outrage into action?

[Mr Robathan]

As I said to the hon. Lady on Thursday, I am already investigating the matter, although I make the point again that it has not been raised with me in the past 18 months that this is an issue with service personnel. I think it is an issue, obviously, because the hon. Lady raised it. It is not my responsibility to write to BIS, but if, in the course of investigations, it appears that that is affecting service personnel, I shall certainly take it up with BIS, as I agree with her—surprisingly—that the rates of interest are ridiculously high and should be capped.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does the Minister understand that any satisfaction there may be in Scotland about the announcement of Army units to be deployed at RAF Kinloss is more than tempered by severe disappointment in my constituency that no such similar announcements have been made in respect of RAF Leuchars? Promises have been made. Is it not time we were told how these promises are to be implemented and some guarantees were given?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I remind the House of my interests. In the light of the proposed future utilisation of reserves, does the Minister anticipate any need to change their terms and conditions of service?

[Mr Robathan]

May I first pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend, who continues to serve in the Territorial Army, for which I am grateful? As he knows, there are concerns following the Future Reserve 2020 study, which we are concentrating on, such as the under-recruitment of young officers into the TA, which is extremely important. We are yet to decide on changes to terms and conditions. People join initially for patriotic reasons of service, and secondly, quite rightly, for adventure, excitement and such reasons, but we must of course get the terms and conditions right because finance is also important. We are looking at that closely.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I return to the issue of housing? Two weeks ago I was visited by a soldier who is to be invalided out of the Army. He has served in Afghanistan and elsewhere and has local relatives, yet the London borough of Hillingdon is contesting its responsibility to house him. I ask the Minister to liaise with the Minister for Housing and Local Government to get specific advice or instructions on local connection rapidly to local authorities so that they cannot use it to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

[Mr Robathan]

I am sorry to hear about that case. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about it, I will certainly take it up with the London borough of Hillingdon. It is a great pity—I put it no more strongly—that some local authorities do not take sufficient care in their responsibility towards the armed forces. We are setting up community covenants, which many local authorities are taking up. They are about local authorities liaising with the military so that they take in people such as his constituent and give them priority when they need it.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

A recent ActionAid survey found that 86% of Afghan women worry about the return of a Taliban-style Government when international troops leave. What will the Ministry of Defence do in the lead-up to the planned withdrawal of troops in 2014 to ensure that we leave as a legacy an Afghanistan where there is safety and security for women as well as for men?

Armed Forces Personnel

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is highly appropriate that we conduct this defence debate only a few hours after armed forces veterans gathered at their own private commemoration in the churchyard of Westminster Abbey, where His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh was present.

I always wear a poppy between 1 and 11 November, but I do not need to wear a poppy—it is actually on my heart. The date I particularly remember is not this weekend but 6 December 1982, when six men were killed and 35 wounded under my command in Northern Ireland.

This debate is about personnel, so I shall concentrate on that. Getting the manning right is crucial for defence. When I commanded the Cheshire Regiment, I commanded about 600 people. When I joined it, the Cheshire Regiment had 700 people. In my time, tank regiments went from having 56 main battle tanks to having 42. Commanding officers are expected to do just as much as before, but with fewer people.

Of course, reducing manning has a direct impact on operational effectiveness. The strategic defence and security review suggests that Army strength should be at 82,000 with 30,000 reservists. I remain worried about how we shall get 30,000 reservists within a few years. The strength of the Royal Air Force is planned to be 39,000, with only 2,000 reservists. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who is worried and thinks that the RAF has to rethink the matter of reservists. He made the point to me privately—and I think he mentioned it in his speech—that it was reservist pilots who were the most effective in the battle of Britain.

I am worried about how the fitness levels of reserves will be monitored. Will they pass their annual fitness test and their annual personal weapons test? How will they do that? What about their dental records? They have to be dental fit, ready to go almost immediately. Mobilising reserves is not necessarily cheap—certainly not as cheap as some people might think.

The armed forces are still quite top heavy. Apparently, there are more than 250 officers of one-star rank in all three services. During the second world war, a three-star officer—a lieutenant-general—used to command about 100,000 people. That is the current all-out strength of the Army today.

I understand, although I am open to correction, that there are 33 officers of two-star rank and above in the Royal Navy. There are two full admirals, six vice-admirals, and 25 rear-admirals. If we include one-star officers, that means that the Royal Navy has more than one admiral for each of its 40 fighting ships—and, by the way, each officer of one-star rank or above receives a salary of about £120,000 a year.

I will not leave the Army alone, however. The Army has five four-star officers, who are generals, and, although I am not sure, I believe that it now has 17 three-star officers, who are lieutenant-generals.

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

rose—

[Bob Stewart]

The Minister is about to correct me, so I shall sit down and listen.

[Mr Robathan]

Off the top of my head, I think we have four three-star officers in the Army at present, although I share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he is correct. However, I am not trying to give exact figures; I am merely trying to draw attention to a trend, and to suggest that our forces are top-heavy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile]

The body should be asked to give advice, but perhaps ultimately, the decision ought to be made here.

[Mr Robathan]

The Honours and Decorations Committee might be obscure, but it exists to give advice to Her Majesty the Queen, who is the fount of honours and who gives medals, not this House. In my opinion, with which hon. Members may disagree—the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) is right that we are having a review—it is important that politics and party politics should not be involved in decisions on medals, because that should be done in the chain of command. I have been under pressure to intervene in gallantry awards for people whom I have never met. However, the granting of honours must be decided not by politicians, but by others who are involved in campaigns.

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Coming from a mining area, he knows as well as I do how much the lawyers frustrated justice for our miners too. I say this to the lawyers: if the Government have made an offer that is fair and acceptable to the veterans, they should accept it.

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. May I suggest that he says that to the lawyers in terms—not just in the House of Commons, as it is well known that anyone who wants to keep a secret should reveal it on the Floor of the House, but in the “Risca Herald”, or whatever it is called, and that he also talks to a firm called Rosenblatt?

[Chris Evans]

I agree, and I have said it before. I digress from the debate, but the miners’ compensation scheme was a wonderful scheme, yet it was frustrated by the claims farmers and other bloodsuckers who came along and tried to make money out of it. I think I have the support of the whole House in saying that. However, we have an opportunity to give those veterans justice. The Government need to stand up to the lawyers, and we need to do something about them.

When we discuss veterans, we often hear people in this House talking about “the forces family”. When I hear such phrases, I hope that they are not marketing speak or—dare I, a Labour Member, say it?—spin. I hope that they mean something. A member of a family is cared about regardless of what they do in their life; they know that help is available to them. Yet I hear all the time about veterans who leave the forces and receive no help, and in 2005, the Royal British Legion produced a report that stated that 6% of those leaving the forces had welfare issues and nowhere to go. I want the Government to do more.

It is easy, especially at this time of the year, to think of veterans as the old folk who walk in remembrance of their fallen comrades, but a veteran can be anyone—a 21-year-old or a 60-year-old—and we must do all we can to honour them. It is time for the Government to honour them properly, and that means creating a department for veterans. In the United States, George H. W. Bush said:

“There is only one place for the veterans of America, in the Cabinet Room, at the table with the President of the United States of America.”

That is what we should have in this country: the voice of veterans right next to the Prime Minister. At the moment, the Minister for veterans also has responsibility for forces education and accommodation. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was the Minister, I think that he was even in charge of the weather. My predecessor as MP for Islwyn was also a veterans Minister, and he always said that, in the year that he was Minister for veterans and in charge of the weather, the sun always shone and we had the sunniest summer on record. I do not know how true that is.

Veterans need a voice to stand up for them. We have a wonderful organisation in Veterans-UK, but people do not know about it. Its name should be on the tip of everyone’s tongue, just as those of the BBC and many other organisations are. More should be done to advertise it, so that when people leave the forces, they know that there is an organisation that can help them.

I really should not say this, but I am going to give the Government a bit of advice. If they really want to be popular and if they really want to see their poll ratings go up, there is one thing that the Minister could do, right here, right now. He could make veterans day, on 27 June, a bank holiday. In that way, everyone could celebrate, just as they did during the royal wedding. They could celebrate veterans by holding street parties to thank them for all that they have done. That is the least we can do.

We ask our servicemen and women to do a job that most of us have no idea about. We are not asking them to join Barclays bank, or Sainsbury’s or Tesco’s, to do a job of work from nine to five. We are asking them to make the ultimate sacrifice. It is therefore right that, on Sunday, and tomorrow during the two-minute silence, we stand together to thank them and celebrate them. Let us do that in the summer as well; let us put a smile on everyone’s face for once. That is the least the Government can do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He gave me his card and he said, “You can speak in English or in Welsh.” As an Ulster Scot, I choose English. I was not sure about the other bit, because I would probably have got it wrong.

The number of people lining the street from St Mark’s through the town was incredible, and the streets were glowing with pride as crisp Union flags flew from every shop and every house, and were in the hands of many of the people who were there. There was a sense of pride and honour, which permeated through gender, age and religious barriers. All were united when they considered our troops and what they had done, and thanked them for it. That raises the question that we have the opportunity to speak about today: how can this House be more supportive?

As we come to Remembrance Sunday, we have a timely reminder of the sacrifices that allow us to stand in this Chamber and debate any topic—we are here because of what has happened before. My childhood favourite, Winston Churchill, stood in this House debating the merits of war and the need for war in eloquent fashion on numerous occasions, as the history books show. I do not do that today; today, I stand for our troops and say, “Recruit them, train them, equip them, feed them, speak with them, help them and support them.” For me, and I believe for everyone in this House, “We will remember them” is not a phrase but a promise.

We have had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan on a number of occasions through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, of which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is a member, as indeed are other Members here today. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), the Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord Maginnis were part of the group that went out there in March. Our troops need help on the battlefield, and we were much impressed by Camp Bastion and the medical facilities that were available. People there say, “If you ever get injured, make sure it is in Afghanistan and close to Camp Bastion, because you would not get the same medical help if you were involved in a traffic accident back home.” That is what we were seeing. On that occasion, two helicopters arrived—this was not planned, it was just the way things happened—with some American casualties and we witnessed at first hand the injured being taken into the medical centre and saw clearly the good work that is being done. I commend the staff for that.

The shadow Minister said that wherever we go in the world there will always be a soldier from Merthyr Tydfil. Wherever we go in the world there will always be a soldier from Strangford too. I say that because when I was in Afghanistan I had the opportunity to meet a young lady in the military police whose father I had helped with a planning application and whose mother I had helped with other issues. I also met a sergeant-major in the Irish Guards, who was from outside my constituency but whose uncle and aunt were personal friends of mine. I also had a seat at the Royal Irish barbecue there—for the record, it was a dry barbecue in Afghanistan, as there is no drink there. It was the first time that I can recall being with an Irish regiment at a barbecue where it was all water and lemonade. I sat across the table from a young guy who said, “Jim, it’s nice to see you here. I voted for you.” A guy in Afghanistan is able to tell me that he voted for me. I said, “That’s the reason I’m your MP—because you voted for me.” The service personnel asked me as a parliamentarian, and I believe they have asked every Member of Parliament, to be their spokesperson in the House, and I want to speak for them.

I also had the chance to be on a five-day exercise with the 1st Mercian Regiment in Catterick in north Yorkshire, which gave me the opportunity to speak to the troops and hear what they wanted. They are looking for security of their pensions and for continuity of service. They want the uncertainty of where they are posted to be sorted out quickly. They are looking for their housing issues to be resolved, for confirmation of their jobs and training, and for contact with their family. The Minister spoke earlier about wi-fi and the phone system. We witnessed that clearly in Afghanistan. The voice down the phone was their wife, their mum, their dad or their family and friends, and we noticed how important that was for the troops. We also witnessed the fact that they need a great deal of support.

The troops mentioned an issue which I hope the Minister will address in his closing remarks. They told us that they get 14 days leave, and sometimes on their way home they may find that they have to spend two days sitting in Cyprus, for example. That is two days lost out of their 14 days.

[Mr Robathan]

We have now ensured that if service personnel lose some of their 14 days’ rest and recuperation on their journey because of problems with the air bridge, the weather or whatever the reason may be, those days are added to their leave at the end of their tour. That gives people extra leave without disrupting the operation.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that positive response, which will take care of some of the concerns that were expressed to us when we were in Afghanistan and by other soldiers.

I commend the Minister and the MOD for the work they do for those who are injured, who experience life-changing events, who are emotionally or mentally traumatised, or who have to come to terms with the loss of limbs. I met two such soldiers with the 1st Mercians some time ago, and I have to say that the work done within the MOD was tremendous. The improvement was clearly visible, and the work continues afterwards. One may see the physical changes resulting from the injuries that have taken place, but one does not always see what is happening inside. That is what concerns me.

In conclusion, we send our service people out and ask them to do and to see things that most of us here would not have the stomach or the understanding to see or do. What do we need to give them in return? I believe the unanimous voice from the House will be that we need to give them support. We must support them, and I appreciate the motion being brought before the House. We need to do more than consider our armed forces personnel, as the motion says, but I believe it goes further than that. A commitment has been given, and I believe everyone will support the motion, as I certainly will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Once again, we have had a good debate. Like others, I want to begin by expressing my condolences to the family and friends of the soldier from 4th Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment who was killed in Afghanistan and the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham, who was so tragically killed in an accident.

Like others, I want to pay a personal tribute to the men and women of our armed forces and to their families, who are an integral part of what they do. As has been said, this day—the day before Armistice day—and the days before Remembrance Sunday could not be a more appropriate time to have this debate. I am sure that all of us in the Chamber today will take the time tomorrow to observe the two-minute silence and remember all who have paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving our country, in the many foreign lands where they served, to enable us all to experience the freedoms that are taken so much for granted.

Over the years this Chamber has witnessed many defence debates, in which strong views have been expressed in all parts of the House. However, the one aspect of those debates on which there has been general consensus is the paying of tribute to all who serve our country. That said, it was only natural that we would witness some dividing lines today, especially when so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the reductions in the future numbers serving in our armed forces, and when many other elements arising from the debate on the strategic defence and security review have been raised.

In mentioning Remembrance Sunday, I also want to put it on record that the correct decision was reached in allowing the many holders of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal to wear it proudly at the many services being held across the country on Sunday.

Let me turn to the many fine contributions that were made from both sides of the House. I want first to highlight the speech by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who started by talking about turmoil in the Ministry of Defence, redundancies and changes to allowances. He clearly laid out the role of his Committee—a good Select Committee, one that, frankly, does the business. He encouraged us to think about the debate about wearing a poppy. He said that he lays a wreath—let me tell him that he is worthy of laying a wreath—on behalf of his constituents. We all wear our poppies, as a public acknowledgement of that debt, respect and thanks. We wear them with pride in our country and for those who have given their lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) surprised me somewhat when he talked about canvassing in Kabul. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House would ask themselves, “Does this man have no boundaries at all? Is there no line that he wouldn’t cross?” He talked about the array of skills that people pick up, as he said, by default. It was interesting to hear about the concept that the Americans train warriors, whereas we train soldiers. We know that those we train and whom we put on the front line have additional work to do beyond that. There is a peacekeeping element that we train our military for. My hon. Friend is right, and what I think he wanted to do today was make a plea for more time to debate defence issues. When we look back at the number of debates we have had and what is happening with defence in this country, we see that we need more debates.

There has been a rich variety of contributions today. Let me turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier)—who, with perfect timing, has just appeared, as if by magic. I congratulate him on the part he has played in studying the whole issue of the reserves. He has what I would describe as limitless knowledge of the reservists, as he indicated when comparing them with reserve forces from other nations and how they prepare and perform. He has done a tremendous job. He was also critical of dysfunctional systems, and rightly so.

Another member of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), also contributed to the debate. It was interesting to hear that she spent Remembrance Sunday last year in Poland, and saw the commemoration of many aspects of the Polish resistance. We should never neglect our constituents or the work that we have to do in our constituencies, especially on Armistice day, but we should, if we can, take the opportunity to see how people from other nations view their history and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I was among several Members here tonight who gave up some time the other evening to listen to the RAF presentation team talk about Operation Ellamy, and it was interesting to hear the recognition of the support for and from our NATO allies.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the problems of short notice to deploy, and of families feeling isolated when they are left behind. Help is really important in those circumstances. I do not come from a military family, but I know from talking to my constituents and from contacts in my area that, when people are left alone, perhaps with children, it is more than family help that is required. We must be able to give families further support.

My hon. Friend also expressed disquiet—I will put it no more strongly than that—at the treatment of the Royal British Legion in the light of its struggle over the covenant. At the end of the day, however, I think that we, as a Parliament, got there, and that is what matters more than anything else.

The “forces’ pensioner”, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), was right to say that the covenant must be applied right across the country, and that there must be no differential between one location and another. It must be there for all. I saw him last week in Westminster tube station collecting for the poppy appeal. All credit to him and others who did likewise. When I left London last Thursday morning for Swindon, I saw a Guardsman doing the same on Paddington station. When I returned some eight hours later, he was still there. He was in uniform, and he was attracting people to make a significant financial contribution. It is through such sterling work that people show their support for the poppy appeal.

[Mr Robathan]

People collecting at tube stations is a new addition, and the hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that the London poppy appeal has already raised more than £430,000. I think that that is the correct figure.

[Mr Brown]

If that is the case, we should congratulate all those who have made the effort to reach that sum.

The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire also mentioned 2014. We often commemorate wars coming to an end, but he is right to suggest that we should commemorate and reflect on the outbreak of the great war. I fully support his proposal. I must, however, share with the House a certain anxiety, because 2014 is also the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, and I suspect that some people—not necessarily from my party, but from others—might wish to celebrate that as well.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made a poignant speech in which he clearly impressed on all of us the significance of this weekend. That was not lost on anyone. The hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has had to leave for another engagement but he said that it was important to get manning levels right. We are expected to do just as much as before, but with less, so the manning levels have got to be right. He shared with us his concerns about the reservist figures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) referred to her concern about the chief coroner’s office and the issue of homelessness and resettlement, which a number of Members have raised.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) spoke about the covenant, housing and health care. As to the strategic defence and security review, he made it clear that when it came to redundancies there should not be a cut in the resettlement package.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) referred to the tragedy in her constituency during the second world war. As others emphasised, she too highlighted the need to protect and preserve memorials and I say to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that legislation that might be relevant is already in place—though I stand to be corrected—regarding the handling of stolen goods. The question is how honest those in a position to receive something are going to be about reporting the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow also mentioned the chief coroner’s office and said, basically, “Think again.”

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) mentioned the Special Boat Service, his support for the covenant and the importance of overall assistance for families. He also referred to social housing and housing waiting lists. Let me share with the House the fact that one of my registered social landlords has, thankfully within the last two or three weeks, agreed that when people know they are about to leave the forces, he will treat them as having been in tied accommodation and make a serious attempt to house people before they leave the military. That, I think, is the first registered social landlord in the whole of Scotland who is doing this. I hope that good practice like that can be shared with others. People who have served in the military should not find themselves homeless on leaving it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), whose partner is currently serving, talked about the vulnerability of individuals. This was a speech I would have expected from her because of her deep concern about the debt problems that people can face. There are issues there: with the Royal British Legion ending support for people with debt problems, more needs to be done.

I am conscious of the time and want to hear the Minister speak. Let me quickly say that there were good contributions from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who spoke about mental health issues and combat stress, while my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) made loud and clear a plea for the veterans who were victims of nuclear tests.

Incidentally, the Minister pointed out that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was responsible for the weather when he was the Minister, but I have also been assured that he was the Minister for UFOs—but we will not go into that.

The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned military accommodation, as we would expect, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) paid tribute to the Royal British Legion and local support for military personnel. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) raised her concerns about search and rescue and the important matter of the length and frequency of deployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) spoke about regimental associations and service charities, and the need for ongoing support for veterans on all fronts.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) was the first to speak about the inheritance with which his Government was left and he also spoke about the strategic defence and security review. Only time will tell how strategic it is, but let us hope that there will be no serious consequences.

The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) spoke about service housing, which, as he said, is a vitally important subject. I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for allowing me to attend the meeting on the services trust the other day. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take all that on board. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made important points about redundancies, and about those who should qualify for the diamond jubilee medal.

I must end my speech there, although there are other issues that I should have liked to raise. We have heard some excellent contributions that gave us plenty of food for thought, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

Let me add my condolences to those that have been expressed in relation to all our service personnel who have been killed in Afghanistan. It would have been strange if we had not all shed a tear at some stage for those who have come back from that country in coffins. Let me also mention, in particular, the Red Arrows pilot who was killed in a tragic accident earlier this week.

This is a fitting day for our debate, and, just in case anyone thought that the timing was a coincidence, let me make it clear that it was not. Over the next few days, ceremonies will take place and wreaths will be laid throughout the nation to commemorate local sacrifices and local heroes. I am sure that every Member in the Chamber will be taking part in them. In Afghanistan, services will be held to remember not only the many who have given their lives in past, but friends and colleagues whose memory is very fresh and very real.

Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), mentioned the appalling desecration of war memorials. One can hardly believe that it takes place, and it reflects very sadly on those responsible. I have my own views on what punishment they should receive, but all I ask is that an exemplary punishment be imposed when some of them are caught, for reasons that we all understand. That is not Government policy; it is only my own opinion.

I am sure the whole House agrees that the nation’s true feelings towards the armed forces, particularly the fallen, have been demonstrated spontaneously over the last few years by the people of Royal Wootton Bassett, and, now, outside Brize Norton. It is about honouring the debt to the fallen.

I believe that 25 Members spoke in the debate. I shall respond to some of them as quickly as I can, and I hope the House will forgive me if I do not take interventions.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about a great many things, but I thought that the tone of his speech was churlish, if I may quote my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. The record will show that it was depressingly partisan and carping, and self-congratulatory at the same time.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned pensions and the change from RPI to CPI. I declare an interest: I am in receipt of a military pension. The hon. Gentleman knows that public sector pensions must be sustainable. The public sector pension time bomb has featured in the newspapers and other media for well over a decade, and it is incumbent on Governments to make difficult decisions. The previous Government ignored the time bomb, but this Government are dealing with it. In Greece and elsewhere in the eurozone, untrammelled Government spending and debt are leading to huge problems. It is no good the hon. Gentleman’s shaking his head; I am afraid that that is what is happening.

Many Members raised the issue of the chief coroner, and I understand why people become concerned about it. It is incredibly important for coroners to be properly trained, and we are taking steps to ensure that they are. We are looking at ways in which we can improve the position still further. That is, of course, the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. The question is, do we want box-ticking or do we want results? The answer is that we want results.

In my view, the campaign on this issue has been somewhat depressingly overstated. According to a document that I have here, recent ComRes polls clearly support the case for a chief coroner. Sixty-six per cent. of people questioned

“believe that a Chief Coroner is needed to ensure that coroners treat bereaved Armed Forces families sensitively.”

The poll was taken in September, before it really got going, and I suggest that 95% of people on the streets of our constituencies had never heard of the issue before that. What is important is the results of inquests and the good treatment of people at them, and we will get that right.

The hon. Gentleman told us a mere seven times that he had been a Minister, yet he took no responsibility for the dreadful state of affairs that we inherited in the MOD. There was a £38 billion black hole. [Interruption.] There most certainly was. Much as he may carp about the painful decisions taken in the strategic defence and security review, he must also answer for his responsibility as a member of the previous Government.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Select Committee, brought us back to a more balanced view of life. He made a very sensible and thoughtful contribution, and I especially agree with him about wearing poppies.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) also made a thoughtful speech, in which he rightly emphasised the legal and moral complexities of armed forces’ international work, as well as the practical issues of support and equipment. I thank him for that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) for his work on Future Reserves 2020, and I agree with him about young Territorial Army officers. I am looking into the security issues involving 7 Rifles officers, but I understand the people concerned had left several years earlier. We should be pragmatic and sensible on this issue, however. Since I first entered the House a depressingly long time ago, my hon. Friend has been a consistent champion of the reserves.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) reminded us of the whole nation’s role and responsibilities in respect of the defence of the nation. She also reminded us of the excellent performance in Libya of the RAF, the Navy and, indeed, some soldiers. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for his excellent work on prosthetics and mental health, and I look forward to hearing more from him about world war one, and to working with him on plans for world war one commemorations.

The hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is no longer present, but he drew our attention to remembrance and to our responsibility in this place to the armed forces, and especially to bereaved families. I agree with him on that.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is also not present. He said there were 15 three-star generals, and I may not at the time have responded accurately; I said there were not that many, but I may have given the wrong number. There are, in fact, eight three-star generals in the Army at present. He made a valuable point about the fitness of reservists—and I know he will be leading by example on that.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) paid tribute to James Eastwood and his parents, and I agree. Everyone who serves in Afghanistan deserves proper treatment, although I am not sure that a chief coroner would improve the service received by bereaved families. We are certainly concerned about anybody who is homeless, including ex-service personnel. It was said that 25% of homeless people are ex-service personnel. I think that would have been an exaggeration even 10 or 15 years ago. The proportion now is approximately 3% or 4%.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) made an important point about fragile states and concerns about Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development involvement. I will look into the issue of the 217 Field Squadron (EOD) reserve, and I will be happy to speak to him about it.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) reminded us of the sacrifice east enders made in the second world war, and we agree entirely about vandalism to war memorials.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) mentioned the constant need to maintain, refurbish and upgrade housing. All of us who own houses know about that, so I agree, but that is particularly difficult and the previous Government found it difficult and worked hard on it as well.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has taken a break from tweeting or twittering—or whatever the Prime Minister called it. She raised an important point about debt. I had not heard of QuickQuid and the targeting of service personnel, but we are not complacent and I have asked questions about this already. This specific point has never been raised with me, however, and I will look into it further. She was talking in particular about those who have left the services being targeted. All personnel get financial planning as part of their phase 1 training. That will include advice on not taking on a loan at ridiculous interest rates—I agree with her about that. Furthermore, we put particular emphasis on resettlement training, including for those early service leavers. I have never heard of payday loans, but I will look into the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who is a champion for his constituency and for the Royal Marines, concentrated on mental health issues, raising very real problems. I walk on eggshells when discussing mental health issues, because the subject is very difficult, but we and the armed forces are very concerned about it. Again, I refer him to the “Fighting Fit” report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire and to the work we do with Combat Stress.

I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) about the standard in St Mary’s church in Risca, because I believe that the reredos behind the altar is in fact a memorial to my great grandfather, but I will check it out. He referred to some lawyers as “bloodsuckers”—his term, not mine. All I would say is that those who served in the 1950s, when of course there was national service, deserve our respect. They were doing their duty when they were at the nuclear tests. We do study these things and, in fact, if someone was in the forces, including in that cohort who witnessed the nuclear tests, they are less likely to be dead by now—their mortality rate is lower—than those who were civilians at the time. So we need always to work on the basis of facts rather than emotion on this. Those people who have suffered or think that they have suffered as a result of their service watching the nuclear tests have been given war pensions, because the balance of probability means that it is very much on the Ministry of Defence to prove that we were not responsible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester stood up for the armed forces, as always, and I would like to thank him for his great contributions to the debates on the armed forces and on the Armed Forces Bill. I say to him that mouldy carpets are absolutely not acceptable and I thought he was a very brave Liberal Democrat to quote from the Daily Mail.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that people in Northern Ireland have every right to be proud of their contribution to the UK’s armed forces, and I agree entirely. I was discussing that contribution only yesterday with Edwin Poots, the Health Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and we also talked about the Camp Bastion medical facilities, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I look forward to hearing his next contribution in Welsh.

I will need to come back to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on search and rescue, but she did ask an interesting question about manning discrepancies between RAF and Royal Navy helicopters. I am told that they are not that large, but we can see. I have been to the Naval Families Federation in Portsmouth, and she is absolutely right to say that the harmony arrangements in the Royal Navy are extremely difficult. I am sorry about the redundancy announcements. They are actually chosen not by Ministers, but by the armed forces and single services. However, she made a very good point about timings. All redundancies are painful, and that is certainly the case when they are compulsory.

The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), to whom I pay tribute for his work as veterans Minister, was right about the situation in 1919. We have moved on, for a number of reasons, but I am old enough to remember the stories about ex-servicemen with one leg selling matchsticks on the corner. We have gone a long way beyond that, and rightly so, but we must go further still. He referred to the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces in Afghanistan and the need for success there, and I am entirely with him on that.

I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for his work as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the MOD and I am delighted to see that he has a new job in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [Interruption.] He has got another job, so the hon. Member for North Durham should not worry. My hon. Friend made my speech for me on both our policies and the early failings of the Afghanistan campaign.

I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) for his work on the Armed Forces Bill. I agree with him about the serious housing issues, on which we will continue our work. We have a group, involving the Housing Minister, that discusses the difficulties that service personnel face in buying houses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) raised the important issue of wills. I recently met a young lady who made some sensible suggestions on this subject. Her fiancé was killed in Afghanistan and she has had the most terrible time. We are looking at this, but we cannot compel people to make wills. We are including a software check-box that people must tick if they have not completed a will. I will certainly talk to my hon. Friend further about this issue; I am very happy to meet him to discuss it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about naval redundancies, which are painful. Community covenants, which we introduced, allow local government organisations to take proper note of service families. I agree that reservists want to deploy and about the need for education. That is why I commend the armed forces parliamentary scheme for the work it has done for so many people.

Our soldiers, sailors and airmen are good people and they deserve our respect. We have had to take some very difficult decisions in the light of the dreadful state of the defence programme that we inherited. That is a matter of regret, but I am proud of what we have achieved in the past 18 months. Tomorrow—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government statement today on Project Avanti, which is about Army restructuring, is very interesting, and is made all the more so because it appeared in an American defence magazine on 7 November. It is important that we understand why the American defence community knew about the statement in quite a lot of detail, including naming names, three days before the House did. Will the Secretary of State for Defence, when he is available, come to the House to give an explanation or, at the very least, instigate an investigation within the Department into how that happened?

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not aware of that. I will most certainly ensure that it is looked into very closely and I will let the hon. Lady know.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I hope that has clarified the point of order. The Speaker has let it be known on several occasions that when Government announcements are made, they should be made to the House first.

Pingat Jasa Malaysia

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Written Statements

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

Her Majesty the Queen has given her approval to a recommendation from the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals that those entitled to accept the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) medal should now also be permitted to wear it.

The Government of Malaysia introduced the medal in 2005 and awarded it to British and Commonwealth veterans who had served in the conflict in Malaya in the late 1950s and 1960s. Approval is not normally given for foreign medals to be accepted if British recognition for the same campaign has already been presented. As an exception, veterans were originally permitted to accept but not wear the medal. This was done to recognise the generous gesture by the King and Government of Malaysia, and their wish to award the PJM in recognition of service given by many veterans in the difficult years leading up to and following Malaysian independence.

Following this change to the original decision we are taking action to ensure that as many holders of the medal as possible are aware, to enable them to wear their medal with pride at remembrance events this week.

British Nuclear Test Veterans

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Written Statements

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

The Government are committed to providing effective, through-life health services for our service and ex-service personnel.

As part of that commitment, last year we commissioned an independent health needs audit by Miles and Green Associates. I am announcing today the publication of their report. I would also like to express my appreciation for the help and support provided to Miles and Green Associates by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA).

The audit records the direct experience and views of nuclear test veterans about their health and social care needs. Whatever their particular health needs, most respondents indicated that, in general, they felt their health and social care needs were being met by the NHS although a number of issues were raised about access to social care. The veterans also made suggestions for the future relating to general health and social care needs, those more specific to veterans and ways in which relations and communications with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) could be improved.

The MOD will now consider the report’s findings and suggestions made by the veterans in detail and in consultation with other Government Departments and will wish to work with the BNTVA going forward on looking at the various issues raised.

A copy of the full report will be placed in the Library of the House and will also be available on the MOD’s website at the following address:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/HealthandSafety/NuclearTests/

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 5.

[Mr Robathan]

This group of amendments deals with the armed forces covenant report. Amendment 1 reflects the concerns in the other place about what some considered to be an unfortunate juxtaposition that would result from inserting the armed forces covenant report clause in the Armed Forces Act 2006 directly after section 359, which deals with pardons for soldiers executed during the first world war. This Lords amendment, which the Government accept, will have the effect of moving the clause to a different position in new part 16A to the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the new part will be entitled “Armed Forces Covenant Report”. So, for the future, the covenant report will have its own part within the legislation. I commend this change to the House.

Lords amendment 2 deals with inquests. It responds to the views expressed in this House and in the other place about the desirability of including the operation of inquests in the list of topics to be covered in the armed forces covenant report. It addresses an issue that is close to the heart of many right hon. and hon. Members. Our intention has always been that, when the Defence Secretary prepares the annual report, he should have regard to the whole range of subjects within the scope of the armed forces covenant, including the operation of the inquest system for bereaved service families.

We have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed in both Houses and we have decided to accept the amendment. In so doing, I wish to put on record our understanding of what the amendment envisages. The effects of service that the Defence Secretary could cover as a result of this amendment could encompass a wide range of inquests for both veterans and serving personnel. In accordance with his understanding of what the amendment envisages, the Defence Secretary will exercise the same discretion on this topic as on the other mandated topics—namely, he will consider which groups of service people and which aspects of the operation of inquests it is appropriate to cover in his report.

Quarterly ministerial statements on military inquests are already provided to Parliament; indeed, they have been since 2006. They are accompanied by detailed tables outlining progress in conducting an inquest for each fatality resulting from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the wide range of potential issues, our expectation is that in current circumstances the annual report will focus on similar matters to those covered in the quarterly statements. Our understanding of what the amendment envisages is that it is intended to be broad, but that there are matters that should not be covered in the annual report.

Members are well aware that inquests and coroners are independent of Government. In so far as the Government provide a legislative framework for inquests, this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, so I wish to make it clear that the Defence Secretary will not report on matters concerning the general operation of the inquest system, but only on those that affect service people.

It is clearly essential that investigations into the deaths of service personnel are treated equally in the annual report, regardless of where they are held in the UK. So, where appropriate, the Defence Secretary will under his general powers under this clause report on matters relating to the operation in Scotland of fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of service people. Inquests are a crucial part of how we support those who died in the service of their country. This amendment emphasises the debt we owe to the members of our armed forces who have given their lives and to their families. I urge the House to agree to it.

I deal now with the three Government amendments 3 to 5. These relate to the involvement of other Government Departments and the devolved Administrations in the preparation of the annual report. The fact that there are three separate amendments simply reflects the advice that the proposed new section of the Act was becoming too long and should be split up. It has no other significance.

During the Bill’s passage much attention has been paid to the relationship between the Secretary of State for Defence, who will be responsible for laying the annual report before Parliament, and the Ministers and Departments responsible for delivering many of the services discussed in that report. The annual report will of course be on behalf of the United Kingdom Government as a whole. However, the Government have responded to concerns expressed in both Houses, and the amendments introduce a framework enabling Parliament to be absolutely clear about who is contributing what to the report.

The Defence Secretary will in future be under an obligation to obtain the views of the relevant Departments on the matters covered in the report, and to seek those of the relevant devolved Administrations. That difference in emphasis reflects the different constitutional position. We are working with the devolved Administrations on the covenant, not imposing new duties on them. The Defence Secretary will be required to set out those views in full, or to obtain the Department’s agreement to any summary of their views. If the devolved Administrations have not contributed to part of the report, the report will make that clear.

I also draw the House’s attention to a number of undertakings given in another place on 4 October by my noble Friend Lord Astor of Hever on how the annual report will be prepared. In particular, the Government have made a commitment to consult the covenant reference group at an early stage on the issues that will be addressed in the report. The amendments, together with those commitments, underline our determination that the preparation of the annual report should be an inclusive and transparent process, so that Parliament can rely on its highlighting the key issue of the day. I commend them to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 5 agreed to.

After Clause 23

Commonwealth Medals

[Mr Robathan]

1 beg to move, that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.

The amendment inserts a new clause in the Bill which would permit members of the armed forces and Crown servants who are, or who have been, awarded Commonwealth medals to wear them without restriction. The debates in another place on the subject of medals leave no doubt about the emotions surrounding this important issue. The amendment raises questions about the process and rules for deciding on the acceptance and wearing of awards given by foreign and Commonwealth nations, about the position within that process of Her Majesty the Queen, and about recognising and supporting the Commonwealth.

The Government’s position on the fundamentals of how the system should work remains the same as that of the last Government, who, I remind the House, were in office when the issue of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal was considered. It has been held by every previous Government since King George VI established the current system. The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—the HD committee—was set up to advise the sovereign on all issues relating to honours, decorations and medals. It consists of senior Crown servants from the Departments most involved. Where relevant, the views of service Chiefs of Staff are fed in and reflected in the advice given to the sovereign.

The thinking behind this approach is straightforward. When British citizens, whether civilian or military, carry out their duty to the sovereign and to their country, it is for the sovereign to decide on the award of honours for that service. That allows us to be consistent in our response to all foreign or Commonwealth states. It prevents a situation in which, if other states were free to honour UK citizens as they chose, there might be suggestions of patronage or influence. It also means that the advice given to the sovereign about the grant of honours is consistent across Government and, as far as possible, dispassionate. Decisions on whether to reward service should not be made in the glare of public or political debate. I do not pretend that absolute consistency has been, or always can be, maintained. Sometimes exceptions have been, and no doubt will be, made. This amendment would lay down for the future a new rule about medals: that those awarded a Commonwealth medal shall be entitled in all circumstances to wear it. However, it would also apply that rule to Commonwealth medals awarded in the past, including the PJM medal.

I do not wish to dwell today on the issues surrounding the PJM or any other specific medal. The Government will remain engaged with the Lords, who have argued strongly that the present arrangements for the PJM are not right. I recommend that the House should disagree with amendment 6 as this is not an appropriate matter for legislation.

The amendment overturns past decisions made on Commonwealth medals. In doing so, it establishes the precedent that Parliament may overturn—after any length of time—any decision of the sovereign as the fount of honour. It takes away from the sovereign—and, indeed, from the United Kingdom—any control over the acceptance of Commonwealth medals in the future. It is drafted in terms which apply whenever a Commonwealth country chooses to honour members of the armed forces, veterans or other Crown servants, even if that was against the wishes of our armed forces or, indeed, the sovereign. More generally, it establishes a further precedent that Parliament can lay down and change the rules which are to be applied to decisions on the acceptance of honours. It does away with the safeguards I have mentioned, such as the need for a basically consistent approach to awards by all friendly and allied states. It takes us to a system where decisions on the award of past, present and future honours are made in the party political environment of parliamentary consideration, rather than through the largely non-political approach set up by King George VI. I believe this is wrong in principle.

In addition, the amendment would create a different principle for the wearing of medals awarded by Commonwealth nations from that which applies to those awarded by other allies. The operations in which our armed forces are involved are increasingly international, with British units working alongside United Nations, NATO or European Union partners. We could not readily explain to non-Commonwealth allies, and especially to the individuals they wish to reward, why we treat their awards on a fundamentally different basis from those offered by a Commonwealth nation. Making a distinction of this kind is not the way to reflect our respect for the Commonwealth.

No system is perfect. As my noble Friend Lord Astor has stated in another place, officials have been instructed to look at the process by which advice about the institution of medals and the acceptance of foreign awards for military service is put together, considered and submitted to Her Majesty, and at how decisions are promulgated. They will then consider whether any advice should be given to Her Majesty about the need to review the process and make changes. We aim to conclude this work before the end of the year.

Lord Astor also said that, in the light of the continued strength of feeling about the PJM, we would put in hand representations to the HD committee to reconsider the position. That is the right way to handle such matters. The wrong way is for Parliament to overturn Her Majesty’s decisions and to establish a precedent for Parliament to lay down new rules. In particular, we should not make a rule which removes all further involvement of Her Majesty and the United Kingdom from decisions on Commonwealth awards.

These awards should be made in a measured, dispassionate and independent manner away from the glare of public debate. I urge the House to disagree with the amendment.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I will not detain the House for long. The Minister said party politics should not be involved in the granting of awards and honours, particularly those from Commonwealth countries. I entirely agree, and I think he will agree that this amendment is intended not necessarily to change the law on these issues, but rather to bring attention to the situation with regard to the PJM medal. Our constituents have great difficulty understanding why these veterans, who are probably in their 60s and 70s and who have been awarded this medal by Malaysia, can receive it but cannot wear it. The approach is strange and very inconsistent. The Minister has said that there has not been complete consistency in the past on how these medals and awards are dealt with. I do not think for a second that a precedent would be broken here, because precedents have already been broken on who can and cannot wear particular medals.

--- Later in debate ---

I am grateful that the Minister indicated that the Government would look again at the issue of the PJM medal.

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent case for reviewing the entire system, and we are currently carrying out a medals review. I assure him that it is a genuine review, not a—[Interruption.] Not one as conducted by the Government of whom the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) was a member.

[Paul Murphy]

The Minister has already indicated that both Governments did not really resolve this issue. The previous Government examined it carefully. Lord Touhig, the then Member for Islwyn, raised it on a number of occasions, both by way of an Adjournment debate and elsewhere, but he got nowhere with the Government of whom I had been a member. Nevertheless, it is important that the Minister understands the huge strength of feeling on this issue up and down the country. This is not about taking away the powers of the sovereign and it is not about the prerogative; it is about dealing with the simple issue that veterans who fought in Malaya in the 1960s should be allowed to wear the medal which they have been allowed to accept.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this amendment, and I am very disappointed that the Government are objecting to it. Lord Craig of Radley made a strong case for his amendment in the other place, supported by Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig, arguing that our veterans and service personnel should be permitted to wear Commonwealth medals that have been awarded to them. It is very humbling to talk to service personnel and veterans about the experiences that have led to the awarding of a medal, and they should have the right to wear proudly the medals that they have earned.

I support the need for the awarding of medals to be fully considered by the cross-departmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, but we cannot continue to have anomalies such as veterans being awarded a medal but not being given the right to wear it. This amendment therefore seeks to address the specific issue in relation to the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal.

[Mr Robathan]

I know that—[Interruption.] Actually, I think it is quite gentlemanly. The hon. Lady cannot be held responsible for the actions of the previous Government because although she may have supported them, she was not in the House, but sitting next to her is someone who was doing my job not 18 months ago—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). This was not a matter of any concern to him then.

[Gemma Doyle]

That is not an argument for not acting this evening. If the Minister will allow me to make a little progress, he will understand why we are supporting the amendment this evening. I have no desire to upset royal prerogative, and I respect traditions and conventions, but I did not come into Parliament to accept the status quo meekly—I stood for Parliament to challenge conventions that institutionalise unfairnesses such as this. As we have heard this evening, many Members in the House have recognised and acknowledged that unfairness in their support for holders of the PJM.

Colleagues on both sides of the House, some of whom have now moved to the other place, have campaigned on this issue for many years. I think that in the beginning they would have accepted the response that this was a matter for the HD committee, but now, after years of politely asking the committee to reconsider this matter, Parliament must stand up and take a lead. There cannot be many Members here who have not been contacted by a holder of the PJM who would dearly love to wear their medal. My constituent Moira Murray from Dumbarton, who served in the RAF and travelled to Malaysia to collect her medal, visited me during the summer to say how proud she would be to wear it. Moira is joined by thousands of other brave British veterans who served in Malaysia in the 1950s and ’60s who have been awarded the PJM by the grateful Malaysian nation, which was keen to recognise their contribution, but the HD committee decided that they should be allowed to accept it but not to wear it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

Before addressing Lords amendment 6, I wish to join colleagues in paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces, wherever they serve, and expressing gratitude for their hard work, bravery and courage.

I agree with the Minister. The Liberal Democrats will be disagreeing with our friends in another place on this matter. We need a full and thorough review of all the issues associated with the awarding of Commonwealth medals. It is pernicious for the Opposition to pick one medal and try to make political capital out of it, rather than looking at the matter overall. However, I say to the Minister that this will be the second review that the coalition Government have had on the awarding of medals. It is important that this time we learn from the failure of the previous review to secure cross-party support and get it right for the long term. The terms of reference and the timeline for the last review were not made public and it failed to consult interested stakeholder groups, including the veterans to whom the medals are awarded. I ask him to give an assurance that those three concerns will be resolved in the new review.

[Mr Robathan]

We have since consulted specifically on each issue and await the approval, or otherwise, of the medals review, but I am afraid that it has not yet been approved.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I thank the Minister for his intervention.

Bomber Command (Campaign Medal)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this debate on the very brave men and women of Bomber Command, and their appalling sacrifice, which she has described, during the second world war. I will cover this in more detail, but there are two issues here. One is the respect and admiration that we should have for those very brave people who gave up their lives in many instances in service to their country in incredibly difficult situations. The second issue is how we should recognise their bravery and continue the world’s knowledge of what they did, 66 years after the end of the second world war.

If I may recap, more than 8,000 aircraft were lost. Out of 125,000 air crew, 55,573 were killed. Statistically, a Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in world war one. Some 19 members of Bomber Command received Victoria crosses. I can assure everybody here that the Government maintain a deep appreciation—a real appreciation and admiration—of the courage and sacrifice of all those who served in Bomber Command during world war two. We owe them a great deal. My own view is that every schoolchild should know what they did, and I fear that they do not. Everybody in this country should understand that one in six UK fatalities in the second world war were in Bomber Command—a staggering number.

Aerial bombardment was not new in 1939. Indeed, the first recorded example of aerial bombardment took place in the summer of 1911 when Italian aircraft, sent to north Africa to fight the Turks, dropped modified grenades on to an enemy camp near Tripoli. Damage was slight and world reaction insignificant, but it was a significant development in air power. World war one firmly established this new role. Between 1914 and 1918, two distinct types of aerial bombardment emerged. The first, practised eventually by all combatants, involved the fairly simple concept of dropping high explosives on to enemy rear areas, hitting lines of supply, command networks, fuel dumps and military concentrations. This became known as tactical bombing or, if it entailed isolating enemy forces from their own support echelons, interdiction bombing. Exactly where close support and ground attack ended and tactical bombing began was, and often still is, a debatable point.

The second form of aerial bombardment was the concept of strategic bombing. The founder of the RAF, Lord Trenchard, had postulated that the bomber was a potential war-winning weapon, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock suggested. If raids could be sustained, industrial plant would be destroyed and civilian morale undermined to the extent that the enemy would be unable to continue the war. So persuasive were those arguments by 1939 that it was a widely held fear, particularly in Britain, that city areas were doomed to destruction within days of the outbreak of war.

The RAF went to war organised into four separate command units: Fighter Command, Bomber Command, Coastal Command and Training Command. My hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) will need no reminding of the feats of Fighter Command during the desperate days of the battle of Britain, but it was then, at least, primarily a defensive force. Bomber Command’s great asset was that it could take the fight to the enemy—an all too precious occurrence in those early war years. However, by the time he took over as head of Bomber Command in February 1942, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris had become disillusioned with the effects of precision bombing and was turning to area bombing. This technique required the assembly of very large bomber fleets, up to 1,000 or more, and the inundation of whole areas with high explosives and incendiaries. The aim was to use statistical probability rather than selectivity to destroy military targets, and to make a direct assault on German civilian morale. At the time, it was considered a proportionate response to the terrible damage inflicted on London, Coventry and many other British cities during the Blitz and the later V-bomb attacks.

I do not think that there should have been any guilt felt then, or now, because this was a war to the bitter end. I certainly do not believe that anybody who was involved in Bomber Command should believe that they were doing anything other than furthering the British war effort between 1939 and 1945. Debates may still rage about the strategy, but there is no doubt about the bravery and integrity of those who took part. Night after night, these brave volunteers risked giving their lives—indeed, many gave their lives. The danger was enormous: enemy night fighters, anti-aircraft fire, mechanical failures, extreme navigational challenges, and the prospect of imprisonment for those who managed to bale out in time. Sorties could take eight to nine hours and brought with them a mental as well as a physical ordeal, the intensity of which would be unfamiliar to their colleagues in uniform on the ground or at sea.

I recommend that hon. Members visit the RAF museum in Hendon, look at a Lancaster and see how the whole crew had to get out of a hatch in the front, no bigger than one of the chairs in this room, while wearing a parachute. That is, of course, one reason why so many did not get out, which is a terrifying prospect. Bomber Command pilot Mike Lewis described the experience thus:

“We went in under an absolutely cloudless sky. We were literally over the harbour when the next thing people started reporting was that fighters were climbing up. The German pilots...turned in and just sat blasting away at us and blowing us out of the sky until eventually they ran out of gas and had to go home themselves. If there had been more gasoline I think none of us would have reached our home. We were sitting ducks. It was terrifying.”

Let us not forget the absolutely crucial role of the ground crew and the in-flight engineers—more than 100,000 of them. Without them, Bomber Command would not have been able to carry out 364,514 sorties, drop more than a million bombs, and tie up vast amounts of scarce German resources that would otherwise have been used elsewhere in their war effort.

The dedication and sacrifice of those who were part of Bomber Command is not in question; the debate has always been about how best to recognise it. Those who served in Bomber Command during the second world war were eligible for one of the stars instituted for campaign service: for example, the 1939-45 star. In addition, a series of campaign stars were created for participants in particularly hazardous campaigns—this was certainly one—and many Bomber Command personnel qualified for the much-prized Air Crew Europe star or the France and Germany star.

The case for awarding a medal to those who served in Bomber Command was also considered by the relevant Committee at the time, 66 years ago. However, it was decided that this would not be appropriate specifically for service in a particular command. There is no other example that I can think of, of a particular command getting a medal. That decision was made with the benefit of evidence from all interested parties at the time—something the present Committee does not have the benefit of now.

It should be clear that these brave men and women were not overlooked. They were considered at the time. In 1985, Lady Harris awarded an unofficial medal and began a campaign historically supported by the Daily Express. Both my hon. Friends have said that there is a huge body of opinion supporting this; actually, although there is a great deal of sympathy and a huge amount of respect for those who served in Bomber Command, I have not seen the evidence of a huge weight of opinion that says that we should institute a medal now.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I wrote to the Minister on 13 August last year on this very point, and included a copy of a letter from Mr Henry Pam, who served in Bomber Command. He made the point:

“The Air Crew medal was not presented to those of us operating after the invasion of France etc. in 1944. Why?”

Many of those gentleman—and ladies perhaps, but mostly gentlemen—who served in Bomber Command are no longer alive. It seems mean-spirited not to consider what is happening to those who remain and to the families. We should grant some recognition by way of a medal.

[Mr Robathan]

I am just coming to recognition, but I point out to the hon. Lady that, if we were to institute a medal, that medal should go to every person who was killed in the second world war, or their descendants, and indeed to all those who served in the second world war. It would not only be the survivors; everyone would deserve a medal. If people were killed in the first or second world war, their campaign medals were still awarded. That is how such things are done. People who served and were killed certainly deserved their campaign medals, which were given to their descendants. That is right and proper and still happens today.

[Tessa Munt]

Were those particular gentlemen not extraordinary in their courage and bravery? As the Minister wrote in his letter to me, Mr Pam had received the 1939 to 1945 star, the France and Germany star, the defence medal and the war medal for 1939 to 1945. The peculiar situation in which Bomber Command found itself should surely be a prerequisite for handing out some sort of medal in recognition.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady is of course entitled to her opinion. Those people were incredibly brave and I in no way wish to detract from my admiration for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke referred to his son, and yet the even younger men of Bomber Command did things one can hardly believe—but then, so did those who served in Fighter Command, and they did not get a medal, and nor did those brave men and women in the Special Operations Executive who parachuted into occupied France, the majority of whom were executed when they got there. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is saying that the people of Bomber Command were brave, and I believe that we recognise their bravery—we should do so, and we pay tribute to it—and that is what I am coming on to.

Since I became a Minister, I have been involved with the Bomber Command memorial. The Bomber Command Association is establishing a national memorial and has even cut the turf—I went to the turf-cutting ceremony in the summer. In October 2008, the Prime Minister, while in opposition, said:

“I have always believed that the 55,000 brave men of Bomber Command who lost their lives in the service of their country deserve the fullest recognition of their courage and sacrifice.”

I believe the same.

The Ministry of Defence is pleased to chair the Bomber Command memorial funding campaign, which is moving ahead with pace, and that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. A construction contract has been awarded and the Bomber Command memorial will be located in Green park, opposite the RAF club on Piccadilly. We are aiming at a completion date in 2012. I am actively supporting the memorial and was meant to be having a meeting in a little over an hour with Malcolm White of the Bomber Command Association. Unfortunately, we had to cancel that meeting, but I shall be meeting him shortly to discuss how to facilitate the memorial, as well as various issues that have been in the newspapers. That will be the best and most fitting memorial, which will last long after we have all gone, reminding people of the sacrifice of our forefathers.

On the medal review, in the coalition’s programme for government it set out its intention to review the rules governing the award of medals, as a part of the commitment to rebuild the military covenant. A draft review was produced to enable us to consider the various views, and we sent the draft report to the campaign groups, including the Bomber Command Association, along with an invitation to submit comments. That review has now been carried out and the closing date for responses from the campaign groups has now passed. The formal responses we received have been carefully considered, but it is worth noting that the Bomber Command Association offered no comments on the medals review. The review will be published in the not-too-distant future.

There is no doubting the bravery and sacrifice of all those involved in the thousands of sorties made by Bomber Command over occupied Europe during the second world war. They made a real difference to the outcome of the war. It is equally clear that that difference was a crucial one, recognised by the other side. Hitler’s armaments Minister, Albert Speer, who more than anyone else in Europe knew about the true effect of the bombing campaign and the ability of the Germans to maintain the war, summed it up thus:

“It made every square metre of Germany a front. For us, it was the greatest lost battle of the war.”

In a sense, there could be no more convincing testimonial.

We support the erection of a fitting memorial to those whose courage made such a critical contribution to the successful prosecution of the air campaign in the second world war. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is right when she says that it is not too late to honour the brave men and women who took part in Bomber Command. We are honouring them next year with the erection of the memorial, which I applaud.

Question put and agreed to.