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.

Defence Vetting Agency: Removal of Agency Status

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Written Statements

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

As part of the programme of work associated with defence reform within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) the Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) ceased to have the status of an executive agency from 1 October 2011.

The DVA was formed in April 1997 bringing together the four National Service Vetting (NSV) organisations serving each of the armed services and the MOD. Since that date the DVA has successfully delivered NSV services to the MOD and its industry contractors, and has also provided similar services to a wide range of other Government Departments. Today it is by far the larger of the two UK Government shared service providers of NSV.

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, announced on 22 March 2011, Official Report, columns 49-50WS, the intention to establish a new Defence Business Services (DBS) organisation, bringing together the delivery of a range of corporate service functions to support all areas of the Department from one organisation. The DBS was launched in July, and the NSV function undertaken by the DVA will be provided under a new business model renamed as DBS National Security Vetting.

This change in operating status will have no impact on the DVA’s customers, and will deliver efficiencies and wider savings to Government. In particular, it will reinforce the DVA’s ability to deliver planned business improvements from its new Cerberus IT system to drive up service to its internal and external customers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had on the medical care of wounded service personnel and veterans.

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

Given the importance that the whole Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, place on this issue, both he and I have numerous discussions with ministerial colleagues and others across the Department, Government and the community and voluntary sector on a regular basis.

[Derek Twigg]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of the concerns expressed by families recently about the care for seriously wounded and injured service personnel who will have to be discharged from the armed forces because of their injuries—including about their care in the NHS thereafter. What mechanisms have he and his colleagues put in place to ensure that those service personnel get the same standard of care as that provided currently by Defence Medical Services?

[Mr Robathan]

I think the hon. Gentleman and I would agree a great deal about this. We are extremely concerned about the future of many badly injured service personnel when they leave the armed forces, and that is why we have put in place a transition protocol. It is also why I often have meetings with Ministers in the Department of Health—indeed my next one is on Wednesday—to discuss how, going forward, we can better serve those who are badly injured. I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman will know of the Army recovery capability that was put in place by the previous Administration, which is similarly helping very badly injured people to go forward with their lives in future.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The question I was about to ask was properly asked by the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), so I shall sit down.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Effective medical support is essential to any operation, so will the Minister join me in wishing 22 Field Hospital a successful forthcoming tour of Afghanistan, particularly as some 30 servicemen and women from 22 Field Hospital are in the Public Gallery watching these proceedings?

[Mr Robathan]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in wishing 22 Field Hospital a good tour. May I say to any Member of the House on either side who has seen the excellent work done by our medical personnel—both regular and reservist—out in Bastion and elsewhere that we should be very grateful to them for the hard work they do? Many reservists give up several months of their time to help our armed forces.

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

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are committed to the Army recovery capability introduced by the last Labour Government. A key element of that was the tracking of personnel in the health service once they had left the armed forces. Is that still part of the programme, and if so, when will the deadlines for implementation be met?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that we are pursuing the policy of the last Government, because on this occasion it was quite right. We are indeed tracking personnel. I am afraid that this is a work in progress, but I will ensure that he receives an update when there is something to update him on.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the close collaboration between the Ministry of Defence and the NHS in dealing with traumatic injuries through the joint unit. Bearing in mind that the NHS does not provide the same level of care for our wounded military personnel, is there not a case for the NHS and the MOD setting up a joint unit to deal with ongoing treatment?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The question of how the transition protocol works is very important, particularly when it comes to health issues. We already have a national centre in Birmingham— the Queen Elizabeth hospital—and I was at the opening in January; it deals with trauma in particular. We are going forward with the Department of Health to ensure that proper treatment is available. We will announce a report on prosthetics shortly, because we must make proper treatment available for people who are injured in the service of their country, and who suffer throughout their lives as a result.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the co-operation on training and support of British armed forces with armed forces in the middle east and north Africa; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T3. The Royal British Legion has said that the creation of the chief coroner“is essential to improving bereaved Armed Forces families’ experience of military inquests” and that Government proposals will“fail to meet the needs of bereaved Armed Forces families.” The Secretary of State’s rant about his budget shows that he has not read the Royal British Legion’s proposals, so will he, in the quiet moments that I am sure will follow later this afternoon, take the time to explain to the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice that failing to introduce a chief coroner will be a betrayal of our brave military personnel?

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

As I thought had been made pretty plain earlier, this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, not the Ministry of Defence. However, I hope that everyone in the House would agree that the important thing is that well-trained coroners do a good job in their inquests on deceased service personnel. That is what we are working to achieve, and I know that the Ministry of Justice is determined that that shall happen.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

T8. Members of the armed forces often have to move very quickly and with short notice, which can affect the education of their children, particular if it happens when school has already started. Will the Minister therefore congratulate the George Spencer academy in my constituency, which intends to change its policy so that priority is given to such children, especially those moving to the Chetwynd barracks, which is also in my constituency?

[Mr Robathan]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating that school. She will know that admissions codes can now allow favourable treatment for children of service personnel, and we must not forget that the Department for Education has introduced the pupil premium, which will also benefit service children. We have also put £3 million forward to assist schools that have a disproportionate number of service children when they have problems. In general, though, service children do rather better in education than other children.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I recently visited the Brentford air cadets, squadron 342, in my constituency and was really impressed by the training that the young people are given in respect, discipline and community responsibility. What more can we do to encourage more young people to get involved in the cadets?

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because I, too, absolutely support the cadet forces. They do fantastic work that is very much in tune with the Government’s policy of the national citizen service. They keep children off the streets and give them excellent training and discipline, which I think we all applaud. We also have the youth engagement review, but I will brief her on that later if she would like, because you, Mr Speaker, would stop me if I went on too long now.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6. The Secretary of State and I have a considerable number of constituents who work at the MOD’s Abbey Wood site in Filton. There is real uncertainty there at the moment about how many jobs will be lost, what new work will be sent there and what work will be lost. Could he give some certainty to the people working at the plant about the future of their jobs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

What future does the Secretary of State envisage for the Ministry of Defence police?

[Mr Robathan]

The Ministry of Defence police are, sadly, as everybody else is, touched by the strategic defence and security review because of the £38 billion black hole that we were left, but I envisage a future for the Ministry of Defence police—providing security for our service personnel and their families—and I visited them in Portsmouth dockyard only last month.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

The future of European security will be enhanced by military capability, interoperability and co-operation; it will not be enhanced by an unnecessary duplication of military headquarters. What more can we do to convince our European colleagues that that is not a sensible proposal, particularly at a time when defence budgets are falling across the continent?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Ministry of Defence has invested considerably in additional reserve forces, which are welcomed by many of us across the House. What steps might the Secretary of State be able to take to ensure that the jobs of our reservists, such as those serving in 6th Battalion The Rifles in my constituency, will be protected, especially given that 10 of them are returning from Afghanistan this week?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue, and I pay tribute to those reservists who go out to Afghanistan, including those from 6 Rifles. We have the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, both of which should protect reservists deployed on operations, but he is quite right to raise the issue, which we keep under close review.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Ministry of Defence medical services has a good record of engagement with the carers of wounded service people, but when servicemen are transferred to the NHS system, carers are often told that, because of patient confidentiality, they cannot be engaged with and information cannot be shared. Will the Minister ensure that such continued engagement with carers takes place for service personnel, especially those with traumatic brain injury or mental health problems, once they enter the NHS?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue, of which I was not aware. Practitioners in the NHS certainly should get full medical records from the military medical services. If she were able to raise some specific cases with me, I would be most interested to hear them, and I look forward to hearing from her.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The reason why so much public money has been invested in BAE technology is to protect British interests and British jobs. What steps can Ministers take to ensure that jobs at Brough and other BAE sites are retained in this country and not shipped abroad?

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

What further support are the Government going to give to ex-service people who belatedly discover that they have post-traumatic stress disorder?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue, not least because PTSD can take many years—up to 16 years—to show itself. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the report of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), called “Fighting Fit”, which leads a way forward.

Things are not perfect yet, but we are going forward. We are deploying additional mental health nurses across the country in NHS hospitals and we are working closely with Combat Stress to ensure that ex-service personnel get the opportunity, through both a call line and otherwise, to get treatment as necessary. It is extremely important that they get that treatment.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Today is world homeless day. What recent progress has the Secretary of State made in reducing the number of ex-service people who find themselves homeless?

[Mr Robathan]

This looks like my afternoon.

Although there are homeless ex-service personnel, in fact their number is much less than one might expect. Analysis has shown that those ex-service personnel who are homeless very often left the forces some 20 and more years before.

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

It is 3.8%.

[Mr Robathan]

I hear from the Opposition Front Bench that the figure is 3.8%, and one might expect more than that. We do work with Veterans Aid in London, among others, to ensure that the maximum support available is given to ex-service personnel who, unfortunately, find themselves homeless.

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

Is the Minister aware of the campaign by the Royal British Legion Scotland to get a Ministry of Defence hospital unit based in Scotland? I understand that the tendering process for that is due to commence in 2013. Will the Minister look into the issue and try to get a better geographical spread for such units?

Defence Equipment and Support: Recruitment

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Anas Sarwar]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of recruitment and retention rates for Defence Equipment and Support staff based in (a) Glasgow and (b) Bristol.

[Official Report, 6 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 546W.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Robathan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) on 6 September 2011. The original answer failed to take account of organisational changes that took place in April 2011 but which were not recorded on the departmental HR management information system until August. The data provided in the original answer covered the period August 2010 to July 2011 only.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

Defence Equipment and Support currently employs around 100 civilian staff in Glasgow and around 5,500 civilian staff at its headquarters in Bristol. The significant difference in numbers means that direct comparisons cannot readily be made. In the year to July 2011, about 2.5% of Bristol staff and about 1% of Glasgow staff left through retirement or resignation compared with around 4.5% for Defence Equipment and Support as a whole.

The restrictions on recruitment across the whole of the Ministry of Defence mean that there has only been external recruitment into critical or specialised posts. In the year to July 2011, we recruited around 150 new staff in Bristol and none in Glasgow.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Robathan]

As at 31 August 2011, Defence Equipment and Support employed around 200 civilian staff in Glasgow and around 6,700 civilian staff at its headquarters in Bristol. The significant difference in numbers means that direct comparisons cannot readily be made. In the year to August 2011, about 2.2% of Bristol staff and about 0.5% of Glasgow staff left through retirement or resignation compared with around 4.1% for Defence Equipment and Support as a whole.

The restrictions on recruitment across the whole of the Ministry of Defence mean that there has only been external recruitment into critical or specialised posts. In the year to August 2011, we recruited around 160 new staff in Bristol and none in Glasgow.

Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Written Statements

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

In accordance with the Cabinet Office’s recent guidance on public bodies, which took effect from 1 April 2011, I have launched a review of the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation (CAC). This review will examine the Committee’s functions, as well as its corporate governance procedures. The review is due to be completed later this year and I shall inform the House of its outcome.

Management of Unsolicited Mail at Christmas

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House about the annual unsolicited mail campaign the Ministry of Defence (MOD) will be running in the lead-up to Christmas, which is 100 days from tomorrow.

This Government are dedicated to the care and welfare of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those deployed on operations. This is reflected in the comprehensive Deployed Welfare Package which is constantly reviewed to ensure we give appropriate support to our deployed service personnel. A key part of that package is ensuring the safe and timely delivery of free personal mail from family and friends. In the past this mechanism has also been used by the general public to show their support by sending unsolicited goodwill parcels through the mail system.

Previously, this has resulted in huge volumes of unsolicited goodwill parcels which have overwhelmed the in-theatre postal and logistic capacity, resulting in a considerable delay to personal mail from family and friends. British Forces’ Post Office (BFPO) estimates it will handle approximately 22,500 parcels per week over Christmas this year (the eight-week period between mid-October and mid-December) as opposed to 10,000 over a “normal” eight-week period. In 2009, unsolicited mail added 64 tonnes to BFPO’s logistical effort. In addition to the impact on personal mail, which can be severely delayed as a result, delivering unsolicited packages over the “final mile” to forward operating bases and patrol bases puts increased pressure on essential in-theatre resources. Additional helicopter journeys and road convoys are required, both of which take essential transport assets away from their primary task and place our personnel at increased personal danger.

It is for these reasons that the MOD will, for the fourth consecutive year, be repeating its unsolicited mail campaign. The campaign was so successful last year it reduced the volume of unsolicited mail by 90%. Key to the success of the campaign is to encourage the British public to show their support through one of the recognised MOD service charities rather then sending unsolicited goodwill parcels.

All service personnel on operations over Christmas will receive a seasonal gift box from the MOD-endorsed charity, “uk4u Thanks!”. The charity continues to work closely with the MOD, using free space in the existing supply chain to deliver the boxes well before Christmas, without impacting on the normal mail system. Other charities which help to support deployed troops with welfare items include SSAFA, Afghan Heroes, Support our Soldiers and Thank the Forces.

I recognise that it might seem counter-intuitive to ask the British public not to send parcels to troops at Christmas, but due to the impact of unsolicited mail I ask for your full support in directing the public towards MOD-recognised charities.

Service Voter Registration

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Written Statements

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

I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the report of a survey on service voter registration levels in 2010 conducted by Defence Analytical Services and Advice in January 2011. As in previous years the survey was conducted to provide an estimate of the numbers of armed forces personnel who are currently registered to vote, and to assess the success of our information campaign.

I welcome the survey. It indicates that 75% of service personnel are registered to vote, up from 69% in 2009 and 60% in 2005. This represents the highest level of service registration since I first raised the issue back in 2005. Of those registered in 2010, the majority (77%) chose to register as ordinary rather than service voters. The level of voters registered as overseas voters has remained at 1%.

We recognise that there is still work to be done. Alongside the challenges presented by service mobility and the high proportion of young personnel in our armed forces, the results of the survey will help to inform how and where we should best concentrate our efforts in the future. We continue to work closely with our colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission to further improve the quality and timeliness of information available to our service personnel and their families. It remains our firm commitment to improve arrangements for the service community to enable them to play a full part in the electoral process.

Ofsted Report (Armed Forces Initial Training 2010-11)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Written Statements

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

Today Ofsted publishes its third report on welfare and duty of care in armed forces initial training, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Following visits to 11 armed forces initial training establishments, Ofsted reports that recruits and trainees feel that their welfare needs are met and well supported.

The armed forces remain committed to ensuring that the training they provide is both efficient and effective, recognising the need to continuously evaluate what works well and areas that need improvement. Ofsted inspection suggests that review processes in training establishments are improving and in one location the overall effect is judged to be “outstanding”.

We need to continue to provide effective training in the face of resource and operational pressures, while providing a supportive training environment that enables instructors to bring out the best in young recruits and trainees without lessening the tough nature of armed forces training.

Defence

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Ministerial Corrections

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

The Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) was approved as a non-departmental public body in June 2009 and will be established soon. It is expected to be established later this year and it will continue the work previously undertaken by the Defence Science Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL).

SACMILL’s purpose will be to provide: advice on the biophysical, biomechanical, pathological and clinical aspects of generic classes of Less Lethal Weapons; independent statements on the medical implications of use of specific Less Lethal Weapons; advice on the risk of injury from specific Less Lethal Weapons systems striking specific areas of the body in a format that will assist those responsible for developing policy and, separately, guidance to users, as well as operational users themselves in making tactical decisions.

As an advisory non-departmental public body it will advise Ministers, but not employ staff or incur expenditure on its own account. The Surgeon General will be a member of the Executive Committee and will provide the secretariat functions for the committee from existing full-time HQ Surgeon General Staff. In addition, the committee may draw on the pool of expertise found within the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments for specific tasks.

The total cost to the Department for DOMILL legacy work undertaken during the financial year 2010-11 was £39,355.56, principally for travel and subsistence costs. Work is currently under way to finalise the tasking arrangements for the financial year 2011-12; a similar level of expenditure as the previous year is expected.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Robathan]

The Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) was approved as a non-departmental public body in June 2009 and will be established soon. It is expected to be established later this year and it will continue the work previously undertaken by the Defence Science Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL).

SACMILL’s purpose will be to provide: advice on the biophysical, biomechanical, pathological and clinical aspects of generic classes of Less Lethal Weapons; independent statements on the medical implications of use of specific Less Lethal Weapons; advice on the risk of injury from specific Less Lethal Weapons systems striking specific areas of the body in a format that will assist those responsible for developing policy and, separately, guidance to users, as well as operational users themselves in making tactical decisions.

As an advisory non-departmental public body it will advise Ministers, but not employ staff or incur expenditure on its own account. The Surgeon General will be a member of the Executive Committee and will provide the secretariat functions for the committee from existing full-time HQ Surgeon General Staff. In addition, the committee may draw on the pool of expertise found within the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments for specific tasks.

The total cost to the Department for DOMILL legacy work undertaken during the financial year 2010-11 was £39,355.56, principally for Defence Science and Technology Laboratory daily rate staff costs. Work is currently under way to finalise the tasking arrangements for the financial year 2011-12; a similar level of expenditure as the previous year is expected.

Defence Vetting Agency

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Written Statements

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

Key priorities have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) for financial year 2011-12 to deliver national security vetting and related services for Defence personnel and for contractors working for the Ministry of Defence. Vetting for its repayment customers across Government will be delivered against standards set in individual joint business agreements with the agency.

Following Defence reform, it is likely that vetting services will be provided under a new business model from 2012, and I expect the DVA to be disestablished as a next steps agency from April 2012. The following key priorities are for its final year of operation. They also reflect the introduction in March 2011 of a major new vetting management and information system (Cerberus). As is common in such substantial transition programmes, short-term operating difficulties have been encountered. These are, however, being resolved, and the expected benefits should be delivered within the period covered by the key priorities.

Maintaining quality

Key priority 1: External validation of quality of defence vetting cases.

To achieve at least a 98% satisfaction rating with 200 cases independently selected and reviewed from a random sample of security cleared (SC) and developed vetting (DV) cases completed in the preceding 12-month period.

Key priority 2: Delivering excellent customer service to all our customers.

To maintain customer service excellence accreditation.

Restoring service delivery

Key priority 3: For all routine defence cases received after 1 January:

a. 85% of counter-terrorism checks (CTCs) to be completed within 25 calendar days,

(improved from 30 days);

b. 85% of SCs to be completed within 25 calendar days, (improved from 30 days);

c. 85% of DVs to be completed within 95 calendar days, (improved from 100 days).

Key priority 4: For all defence priority cases received after 1 October:

a. 95% of CTCs and SCs to be completed within 10 calendar days, (no change);

b. 95% of DVs completed within 30 calendar days .(no change).

Key priority 5: Completing defence aftercare cases received or scheduled for action after 1 October:

a. Take into action all aftercare incident reports (AIRs) within seven calendar days of receipt, (no change);

b. Take into action 95% of scheduled aftercare within 30 calendar days of the scheduled date of review, (no change)

c. Taking into action (where appropriate) 95% of security appraisal reviews within 21 days of receipt, (no change).

The above timeliness targets represent net performance that excludes delays outside of the DVA’s control.

Business Improvement

Key priority 6: Business transformation

By 30 September 2011 produce a transition plan to implement the move to the Defence Business Support Organisation during autumn 2011, and remove agency status by 31 March 2012 (new).