Military Low Flying 2010-11

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Written Statements

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

The amount of low-flying training carried out in the UK low-flying system during the training year 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. A total of 49,151 hours of low-flying training were conducted across all low-flying areas. In comparative terms, there was an decrease of 8,369 hours, or approximately 14.6% on the previous training year due to the withdrawal of Harrier GR7/9 from service, and the additional operational deployment of Tornado GR4s to Italy as part of the NATO force conducting operations in Libya. The amount of operational low flying (between 250 feet and 100 feet) by fixed wing aircraft was 248 hours, accounting for 0.5% of all low flying activity.

I have today placed in the Library of the House a document giving detailed statistics of the low-flying training that has taken place in the UK low-flying system for the training year.

“1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011”. This statistical appendix may be read in conjunction with the master document “Military Low Flying in the United Kingdom” that is already in the Library of the House.

Additional copies are available on request from the following address:

Air Staff

Complaints and Enquiries Unit

Ministry of Defence

Level 5 Zone H

Main Building

Whitehall

London

SW1A 2HB

Report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill (Government Response)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

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

The Ministry of Defence welcomes the Select Committee’s report on the Armed Forces Bill (HC 779). In this formal response, I will deal with each of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations in turn.

I shall begin with the Committee’s recommendation that Select Committee scrutiny should continue to be the convention for Armed Forces Bills. I believe that the appointment of a Select Committee which was able to take evidence and conduct visits allowed Committee members an opportunity to visit armed forces units, to hear from members of the armed forces and their families, and to develop a better understanding of service life. These experiences helped Committee members in their role of scrutinising the legislation. I therefore welcome the Committee’s recommendation.

The Select Committee spent a significant amount of its time examining the provisions in the Bill that relate to the armed forces covenant report. There were differences of view on some issues, but Committee members were united in their support for service personnel, veterans and their families. I therefore strongly welcome the Committee’s conclusion that military service is unique and that individuals who serve in the armed forces should be recognised for the contribution they make.

The Government have already made significant progress in rebuilding the armed forces covenant. The commitment to produce a report on the covenant will make the Secretary of State accountable to Parliament for this work. The Government’s announcement that they will table amendments to the Bill, so that the key principles of the covenant are written into law, will further strengthen that element of the legislation. I agree with the Committee’s recommendation that, in creating a tri-service document, we should use the term “armed forces covenant” to signify its inclusivity.

Committee members will be aware that we have used that title in the new version of the covenant which we published on 16 May 2011.

I welcome the Committee’s comments about the external reference group. The Government value the important contribution that the group has made and continues to make in driving forward our work on supporting the armed forces community. The group has proved its worth and at no time has its continued existence, or its vital role, been in doubt. Our aim is to strengthen the group rather than to sideline it. The Government agree that its terms of reference should be updated. Ultimately it is for the group to decide how its work will be taken forward, and we have asked its external members for their views on its future role, terms of reference and membership. This includes how they wish to engage with the process of preparing the Defence Secretary’s annual report to Parliament on the armed forces covenant.

I welcome the Committee’s support for the provisions in the Bill in relation to the independence and powers of service police; to drug and alcohol testing; and those which aim to provide greater independence of service complaints panels, where circumstances demand.

Following the Committee’s recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should review service complaints procedures and the powers of the Service Complaints Commissioner, the commissioner published her annual report on 31 March. In the response, I welcomed the commissioner’s acknowledgement of the real progress that the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces have made in relation to the handling of complaints. While I am pleased with this progress, I recognise the importance of the commissioner’s recommendations as to ways to improve the system further. A review of the service complaints system will be undertaken and will consider in full the recommendations made by the commissioner in her annual report, including those specifically related to the powers of her role.

The Committee concluded that the matter of a veterans’ ID card could usefully be explored further. In response, I should begin by saying that a veterans’ ID card which guarantees or provides a very high level of assurance of the identity of the bearer would be an expensive project and would require significant administration. There is no defence need for such a card and it would not provide good value for money. Nevertheless, we agree that there is value in developing a card which confirms the status of individuals as former servicemen or women and can be used in order to facilitate easier access to discounts and other privileges, including those arising from the armed forces community covenant initiative. This option would require a lower level of verification than an actual identification card. The Government announced their intention to introduce such a card on 16 May.

I welcome the Committee’s support for the existing policy in relation to the recruitment of under-18s. However, following a review of discharge policy I am pleased to announce that, for those under the age of 18, the ability to be discharged will in future be a right up to the age of 18, subject to an appropriate period of consideration or cooling off. My officials are currently finalising the policy details and these will be brought forward shortly in secondary legislation.

The Committee’s final recommendation was in relation to trials of service personnel. The Committee recommended that the Ministry of Defence should consider whether there might be a benefit in transferring the handling of some cases to the service courts and whether there might also be scope for the creation of a power in civilian courts to remit cases to the service courts for sentence. Proposals for changes in both of these areas were discussed at a meeting of the service justice board in January 2011, when it was agreed that staff in the central legal services directorate should lead further work to assess whether greater flexibility could be achieved in the transfer of cases between jurisdictions and the possibility of transferring cases to the court martial for sentencing. That work is in hand at present.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. Whether he has discussed with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the merits of a council tax rebate for members of the armed forces who are serving overseas.

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

The Government recognise the value of council tax rebates for many members of the armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make an announcement to the House on this matter later today.

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. One constituent who raised the question with me was not looking for blanket discretion for all deployments, but said that there was some resentment among those deployed to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq when they found that different local authorities exercised their discretion in different ways. Will the Minister encourage consistency and generosity in this matter?

[Mr Robathan]

I am delighted to be able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We would encourage consistency. I will not pre-empt what the Secretary of State will say at 3.30 pm. [Interruption]. I will not pre-empt what the Secretary of State will say at 3.30 pm. However, if people are in receipt of the deployed welfare package, they get council tax relief, which is paid for by the Ministry of Defence. What local councils do at the moment is up to them. We encourage them to give due discretion where possible and to assist our members deployed on operations overseas.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

6. What discussions on security and defence issues he has had with his counterparts in the US Administration, Pakistan and Afghanistan following the death of Osama bin Laden.

--- Later in debate ---

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

7. When he expects to make a decision on the location of events to mark the 2012 Armed Forces day for the nation.

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

Plans for the national event to mark Armed Forces day 2012 are being considered and a decision will be announced as soon as possible. In the meantime, I look forward to this year’s Armed Forces day on Saturday 25 June, including the national event, which will be hosted by Edinburgh.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and for all his care and diligence in deciding on the location. Is he able to share with us the criteria that will be used in making that decision?

[Mr Robathan]

On the subject of honouring our armed forces, I think that the whole House would wish me to remind everyone that today is Albuhera day—the Middlesex day. Today is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Albuhera, and that explains the naming of Middlesex day. The Middlesex Regiment subsequently became known as the Duke of Cambridge’s Own Regiment, which is particularly fitting this year.

In answer to my hon. Friend’s question about Armed Forces day, I can say that there are no set criteria. However, I have heard at great length his pleas on behalf of Plymouth and I shall certainly bear them in mind.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I urge that one criterion might be that the area sends a lot of young men and women into the armed forces? That would enable the Minister, next year or in a future year, to consider using not just the major cities or the major places where people are based, but an area such as the south Wales valleys, which sends a very large number of people into the armed forces—that is, as long as he has not made the wrong decision about 160 Brigade being based in Brecon.

[Mr Robathan]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have made no decisions about 160 Brigade. Of course the main national event for Armed Forces day was in Cardiff last year. It is the responsibility of local authorities to deal with the infrastructure and the work involved in the Armed Forces day celebrations. If people in the south Wales valleys say that they will arrange a great event there that could be the national focus, I am sure that we would listen to that sympathetically as well.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the security situation in the middle east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

11. When he expects to receive the findings of the independent health needs audit of British nuclear test veterans; and whether he plans to publish a response to the study.

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

The findings of the health needs audit are expected this summer. The study will document veterans’ self-reported experience of ill health and their experience of health and social care services, and it aims to provide practical, forward-looking recommendations on how health and social care services for this group could be improved. We intend to share the outcome of this work with other relevant areas, such as the Department of Health, and we will publish the report’s findings and any response.

[Mr Brine]

I thank the Minister very much for that response. Like many Members, I look forward to the Secretary of State’s statement on the armed forces covenant shortly. One could argue that the duty of care it entails is also relevant to Britain’s nuclear test veterans. What action is the Minister able to take after so many years—it has been many years now—properly to recognise the sacrifices of our nuclear test veterans and to bring some much-needed closure to survivors and their families?

[Mr Robathan]

I think the whole House would join me in paying tribute to those who served in the armed forces in the 1950s. Most of those involved were national servicemen and were doing their duty, as it was explained to them, by witnessing the nuclear explosions. We provide war pensions to anyone who suffers from an ailment that is linked to the service they underwent, such as watching nuclear tests, but it is necessary that we provide pensions and compensation only to those who were harmed by their service.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that this is a sad and sorry business? Those people suffered grievously many years ago and successive Governments have prevaricated and obfuscated on the matter. The nuclear test veterans need help, support and compensation, and above all they need an apology from successive Governments for the way they have been treated.

[Mr Robathan]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He says that people suffered grievously. Some people are of course ill, and some are ill because of their service. It is important that the Government should look to that. The previous Government did, as we do, through the war pensions system. However, there is no study showing that people who witnessed those nuclear tests have more cases of cancer than their cohort groups. We must base our response and expenditure of taxpayers’ money on evidence, not on emotion.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

12. When he plans to publish the recommendations of his Department’s basing review.

--- Later in debate ---

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

16. What plans he has for the future of service family accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

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

In the strategic defence and security review published on 19 October last year, we announced that we will undertake a detailed review of our approach to accommodation with the aim of meeting the aspirations of service personnel for affordable and good-quality housing. Work is now under way and we will report in the summer of 2012.

[Alison Seabeck]

I draw the House’s attention to the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), for reasons that I have put on the record on a number of occasions already this Session.

All the evidence is that constant moving, perhaps every couple of years, between homes and schools for service personnel and their families is extremely destabilising and not good for family life. Has the Minister therefore made any representations to the Department for Communities and Local Government about the impact of the flexible tenure proposal in the Localism Bill, and about the effect that it will have of perpetuating the cycle that such people currently experience?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady is quite right: service personnel can be disadvantaged in many ways by the many moves that they make. As it happens, not two hours ago I was at a meeting at the Department for Communities and Local Government with the Housing Minister to discuss that among other matters. Unfortunately, I left before that matter came up on the agenda in order to come to the House, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are looking at the issue very carefully and we did have that conference this lunchtime.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

T3. I welcome the historic decision to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law, but what else is being done to ensure that ex-service personnel are not discriminated against, especially when they set up a home?

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

My hon. Friend is quite right, and as I said just now we had a meeting at DCLG just a couple of hours ago. We are determined that armed forces personnel, be they serving or just leaving the services, which is often when they want to buy a house, are not discriminated against by mortgage providers or, indeed, by credit reference agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Further to oral Question 16, does the Minister understand that soldiers who have returned recently from Afghanistan are living in family accommodation that is not up to the right standards, while across the road, former Army houses have been modernised at a cost of millions of pounds of public money? If the Government can find money for that side of the road, why can they not find it for our soldiers’ families?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I have driven along that particular road and seen the situation. [Interruption.] I hear somebody shouting from a sedentary position, “It’s your Government!” Actually, the houses were built under the last Government, and the houses that have not been done up were not done up under the last Government. We are trying.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

What assessment have the Government made of the proposition put forward at the weekend by the Scottish National party, that in an independent Scotland, armed forces bases could be shared?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Will Ministers update the House on the provision of mental health support for our service personnel, in particular those who have returned from theatre? As we know, such problems can take many years to emerge.

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because we take it very seriously. She will know of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) entitled “Fighting Fit”, which is extremely valuable. We are taking forward its proposals. For example, there is already a helpline for those who have concerns, and I have phoned it to check that it works. We continue to be concerned and are working with Combat Stress to ensure that people who have concerns or who may have mental health problems can raise those issues with the authorities. Along with Combat Stress, we will ensure that they have the best possible care.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

May I tell the Secretary of State that his earlier answer on Libya will cause a great deal of anxiety? Is it now the policy of the British Government, despite the denials, to take Gaddafi out by one means or another and bring about regime change? Would that not be totally outside Security Council resolution 1973?

Points of Order

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful that the House has had the opportunity to question Ministers on the statement made today. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I saw the newspapers myself over the weekend. I think that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but if a Minister from the Ministry of Defence, possibly the right hon. Gentleman to whom reference has just been made, wishes specifically to respond, he can do so.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read what was in the newspapers, he will discover that what he has said is not in fact in any way correct.

[Mr Speaker]

We must leave it there for today.

Written Parliamentary Question (Correction)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2011 Written Statements

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

I regret to inform the House that, unfortunately, an error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), Official Report, 26 April 2011, columns 71-72W. I apologise for the error, which was not identified at the time.

The full answer given was as follows:

Departmental Travel

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on ministerial travel by (a) ministerial car, (b) train, (c) bus, (d) commercial aircraft and (e) private aircraft since May 2010. [50223]

Mr Robathan: In order to keep costs as low as possible our Department uses an electronic booking system together with Hogg Robinson Group that search for and provide the cheapest and competitive prices available through their travel search engines.



Our data currently only extend to January 2011 and are provided in the following table:

Armed Forces Redundancies

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on armed forces redundancies.

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

Today, the Army and the Royal Navy will announce details of their tranche 1 redundancy fields, setting out the specialisations, branches and ranks from which we are seeking volunteers for redundancy. This was a planned, publicised and expected announcement, following that already completed for the Royal Air Force on 1 March this year to deliver the necessary reductions in the size of our armed forces as required by the strategic defence and security review.

We had wanted to lay a written ministerial statement at 4 o’clock this afternoon—a time chosen by the services to allow sufficient time for them to brief service personnel ahead of their hearing about it from a third party. Indeed, many will have read a story on armed forces redundancy published in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday. It was extremely disappointing that any details were leaked and equally appalling that the press would publish a story that will in no way change the difficult decisions we have to make, but adds a further concern to service personnel and their families—a position we have striven to avoid. Indeed, it was to allow all personnel to be briefed that we passed details to the chain of command on Friday.

As has been made clear in this House on several occasions, we would prefer not to make anyone redundant, but we have to do this to make the very real required savings in defence costs to take control of the deficit. As has been emphasised, this Government will not, for political expediency, shy away from announcing details when they are expected; our armed forces deserve this honesty.

The redundancy programme will not impact adversely on the current operations in Afghanistan or in Libya, where our armed forces are fighting so bravely on this country’s behalf. This was a key assumption in the strategic defence and security review. We will inform all those individuals selected for redundancy in this, the first of up to four tranches, in September 2011—specifically, 1 September for the Army and RAF and 30 September for the Royal Navy. Those voluntarily leaving the armed forces will do so within six months; non-volunteers will do so within a year. For all those leaving the armed forces as a result of these changes, every effort will be made to assist in what can often be a difficult transition. We will continue to work hard in this area. Our people deserve nothing less.

[Mr Murphy]

For the third time in just seven weeks, Ministers have had to be summoned to the House of Commons to speak about the treatment of our armed forces. I should have thought that after the sacking of warrant officers by e-mail and the sacking of trainee RAF pilots by media press release, Ministers would be banging on your door, Mr Speaker, demanding the right to come here to make a statement rather than being summoned to appear before the House. Let us hope that this is the last occasion on which Ministers will be dragged here to explain their Department’s actions. On previous occasions the Secretary of State has simply shouted some political slogans across the Chamber, and I hope that the change of Minister today signals a change in tone, because armed forces families are expecting a different tone.

Labour Members are committed to a bipartisan approach to policy on both Afghanistan and Libya. The Secretary of State originally gave a commitment that none of those currently serving in Afghanistan would be sacked on their return, but has since had to admit that he cannot honour that commitment, and that personnel will be sacked after their post-operational leave. Can the Minister confirm that those serving in and around Libya at this very moment will also be liable for compulsory redundancy in September?

As for the sacking of RAF trainee pilots, the Secretary of State said—quite fairly, I thought—

“It would make common sense to ensure that those closest to the end of their course could be allowed to continue, if possible.”—[Official Report, 15 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 820.]

How much common sense has prevailed? How many trainee pilots have been sacked within just 10 hours of earning their RAF wings?

We all know that no one can stop all redundancies in the Ministry of Defence. However, the first time this was mishandled, Ministers said that it had been an accident. The second time, they said that it had been a mistake. In the opinion of Labour Members, the third time is simply inexcusable. It is time for this shabby treatment of our armed forces to end, and it must end soon.

[Mr Robathan]

This is no accident. On 1 March, the Secretary of State said in response to a question from the right hon. Gentleman that there would be an announcement today on redundancies as they were planned. [Interruption.] It was in the House of Commons. As Opposition Front Benchers know full well, it was planned for a written ministerial statement to be issued at 4 pm, and indeed I was going to conduct a briefing for Members of Parliament in all parties to explain the situation. Instead, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), has decided that a Minister should come to the House of Commons. What we are announcing is not new; this is political expediency on the part of the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman was told on 1 March that the written ministerial statement would be issued.

The right hon. Gentleman raised three points in particular. First, he mentioned redundancies following post-operational leave. Of course those who have served in Afghanistan may have to be considered for redundancy, because 55% of the Army [Interruption]—which, as Opposition Members have spotted, amounts to 11 out of 20—will have served in Afghanistan.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of people on operations in Libya. We do not yet know what operations will be current in September, when people will receive their redundancy notices. We are considering the matter carefully, and we would certainly not wish to make anyone who is serving on combat operations redundant.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about redundancies of RAF pilots who had only had 10 hours of training to go. I am afraid I cannot comment on that, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman and let him know the answer.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister remind the House how many uniformed armed services personnel will need to leave the service over the next two years under the current plans, and will he tell us why this cannot be done by means of natural wastage rather than redundancies?

[Mr Robathan]

As far as possible, it is being done by means of natural wastage, and indeed by reducing recruiting, but, as my right hon. Friend will understand, we must continue to recruit because otherwise there will be an imbalance in the armed forces. The number that we are looking at, off the top of my head—in fact I have it here, if my right hon. Friend will wait one second—is 11,000.

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

The Minister says these cuts will have no impact on either Afghanistan or Libya, but can he confirm that, despite the leading role we have played in the Libya operation, we are providing only about 8% of the aircraft being used in the no-fly zone and the Chief of the Air Staff has today said that the Royal Air Force is stretched to breaking point? How does the Minister square the following three points: the stretch, the fact that we are providing only 8% of those aircraft, and his insistence that the cuts are having no effect on operations?

[Mr Robathan]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman played a very honourable part in the last Government explaining to the then Prime Minister how he was trying to increase operational capacity without increasing spending, and I know that he pointed out to the last Prime Minister that there was not enough money for our operational requirements. On the Royal Air Force in particular, as the Prime Minister said in October, and as the Chief of the Air Staff has confirmed and explicitly stated in his article, we wish to see an uplift in real-terms defence spending from 2015. The Prime Minister has said that.

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

Will my right hon. Friend outline the extent to which the rules on regular reserve liability will affect those being made redundant, and confirm that those who do have that liability will be kept close, up to date and informed, as they form a very valuable potential contingency in the event of a declining international situation?

[Mr Robathan]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The regular reserve personnel do indeed play a very important role, and I will make sure that they are kept informed.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

May I point out to the Minister that the armed forces do not have any trade union or federation representing them, and it is up to everyone in this House to look after their interests? What is the Minister doing to ensure that, for those who might be affected by these cuts, there are after-care services in place so they have assistance in looking for jobs and families are not moved out their homes? What are we as a Parliament going to do to ensure that we look after the people who protect this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have a responsibility to make sure our armed forces personnel and their families are properly looked after, and that is what I do. I should say that in September when individuals are issued with redundancy notices, volunteers for compulsory redundancy—that is the way it is put—will have six months of notice to work, while those who are compulsory non-volunteers will have 12 months of notice to work. They have full resettlement courses, which are extremely valuable, and I should say to both the House and the people outside that the personnel who serve in the armed forces are first rate and almost invariably find that outside employers wish to take them on because of their qualities.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the strategic defence and security review has factored in operations such as the one we are undertaking in Libya, and that we will retain the personnel to be able to respond to such events again?

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because he is absolutely right. The National Security Council came up with various scenarios, including operations such as the one in which we are currently partaking in Libya.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister say how many people in the armed forces will be made compulsorily redundant?

[Mr Robathan]

All 11,000 redundancies are termed compulsory. We are hoping that we will receive volunteers for as many posts as possible, but we are not just going to accept volunteers because some of them will be people we wish to keep, so we will not want them to enter the redundancy programme.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

We all very much regret every single compulsory redundancy under this deficit-driven SDSR, but we none the less accept they have to happen. Does the Minister agree that it is terribly important that those involved are given the most generous possible conditions of redundancy, whether voluntary or compulsory, in keeping, of course, with their normal terms of service?

[Mr Robathan]

Yes, I do agree. Individuals will find that the terms of redundancy are generous and attractive, which is why we expect a lot of people to volunteer.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister order an official inquiry into the way that our armed forces personnel continue to learn of their fate through the newspapers, and will that inquiry investigate Ministers themselves?

[Mr Robathan]

No.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that the reductions in manpower announced today are not in addition to anything announced in the strategic defence and security review? Were all the reductions planned, and had the Minister always planned on coming to the House today to announce them?

[Mr Robathan]

Indeed, we announced to the House on 1 March that the redundancy programme would be announced on 4 April. That is exactly what was planned in the SDSR and there is nothing in addition. I am sorry that some people have wished to make political capital of the matter.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why do two out of three items of vital equipment fail to reach our combat troops on time?

[Mr Robathan]

I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time and know that he takes a particular interest in these issues, but I do not think his facts are correct on this occasion. There were issues in the past but—and here I will be rather consensual—equipment procurement got a lot better during the final years of the previous Administration. Equipment procurement is now much better, particularly in operational areas.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for his doughty response. We will now return to the subject of redundancies.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no doubt about the ability of our armed forces to fulfil the tasks given to them, but I have some worries about morale. Will the Minister join me in appealing to the media to take a responsible attitude to the way they report these facts, and to have respect for the chain of command?

[Mr Robathan]

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend because, like him, I have served in the armed forces and I find the political posturing and use of the media in these cases deeply regrettable. All that does is create an atmosphere in which people are uncertain and concerned about their futures.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the UK manufacturing industry’s profound disquiet at the continued reduction in the capacity of the armed forces? Has he discussed such matters with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, or only with the Treasury?

[Mr Robathan]

UK defence manufacturing is not my responsibility and I have not discussed it with the Secretary of State.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that the redundancies apply only to regular and not reserve forces?

[Mr Robathan]

I am confident that the review into reserve forces, “Future Reserves 2020”, will lead to a more robust reserve forces scenario and I look forward to reading it shortly.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In his initial comments, the Minister deplored the fact that these details had been leaked to the media, yet he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that he would not hold an investigation into the matter, and that he would not be looking into Ministers’ offices. That is despite the fact that there have been regular briefings that clearly cannot have come from anywhere other than the Ministers’ offices. He cannot have it both ways; he must stop briefing and ensure that newspapers do not get these stories unfairly.

[Mr Robathan]

I find it a strange accusation that I have been briefing the media on redundancies in the armed forces. It is not a pleasant subject and has not given the Government tremendously good publicity—I think we can agree about that. On past occasions, the Secretary of State has indeed instituted investigations into leaks, but I assure the House that this leak did not come from Ministers.

Service Complaints Commissioner's Report

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Written Statements

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

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

The commissioner continues to provide an independent oversight of the system and has been effective in beginning to drive improvements in the way in which we handle service complaints. She has added value and challenged the services’ established ways of working.

The Ministry of Defence and the services have worked closely with the commissioner over the last three years to take practical steps to implement her recommendations for improving further the service complaints process. I and the service chiefs welcome the fact that this report acknowledges the progress that has been made, and the initiatives that have been implemented in a number of the areas since the first report was published in 2009.

While progress has been made, we recognise that we can improve further the manner in which we handle complaints.

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

UK Gulf Veterans (Mortality Data)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Written Statements

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

Today we have published the most recent figures on the mortality of veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, covering the period 1 April 1991 to 31 December 2010. These figures have been published as a national statistic notice on the Defence Analytical Services and Advice website.

The data for Gulf veterans are compared to that of a control group known as the “Era cohort” consisting of armed forces personnel of a similar profile in terms of age, gender, service, regular/reservists status and rank, who were in service on 1 January 1991 but were not deployed to the Gulf. As in the previous release, the “Era” group has been adjusted for a small difference in the age-profile of those aged 40 years and over, to ensure appropriate comparisons.

Key points to note in the data are:

There have been 1,193 deaths among the Gulf veterans and 1,216 in the age-adjusted Era comparison group.

The 1,193 deaths among Gulf veterans compare with approximately 1,998 deaths which would have been expected in a similar sized cohort taken from the general population of the UK with the same age and gender profile. This reflects the strong emphasis on fitness when recruiting and retaining service personnel.

These statistics continue to confirm that UK veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict do not suffer an excess of overall mortality compared with service personnel that did not deploy.

The full notice can be viewed at the following address: http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=66&pubType=1

A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

Parliamentary Oral Question (Correction)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2011 Written Statements

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

I regret to inform the House that an answer I gave in response to a supplementary question about nuclear test veterans from the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) during Defence oral questions on 31 January 2011, Official Report, column 573, could have been misleading. I said:

“the courts have found there is no causal link whatever between many of the disabilities and illnesses suffered and any exposure to radiation”.

This statement could have been open to interpretation and I wrote to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe in response to a letter from him to clarify the position on 23 February. I also mentioned this to him when we met on 1 March. The position is that the Court of Appeal judgment in the Atomic Veterans Group litigation granted the Ministry of Defence’s appeal on limitation, not on causation. However, as part of this judgment, the Court said that the claimants have produced no evidence which begins to satisfy those usual causation requirements and that the general merits of the claims were extremely weak.

Ex-service Personnel

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Written Statements

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

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) and I wish to make the following joint statement.

Further to the announcement on 15 September 2010, Official Report, column 40WS on the number of ex-service personnel in prison in England and Wales, we want today to announce the findings of the Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) study into the number of former service personnel on probation in England and Wales. DASA estimates that 3.4% (or 5,860) of those supervised by probation trusts in England and Wales, as at 30 September 2009, had previously served as regulars in the UK armed forces. The figure has been adjusted upwards to take into account the incompleteness of DASA’s service leavers database which did not hold reliable records for those who had left the services prior to 1979 (Naval Service), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF).

The analysis entailed matching the personal details of all 18-year-olds and over with a supervision record held by the 35 probation trusts in England and Wales (172,203 records as at 30 September 2009) against DASA’s service leavers database (1.3 million records). Of the matched records, 57% were for community orders; 25% for suspended sentences orders and 18% for post-release licences. DASA also found this group to be predominately male (99%), ex-Army (81%), other rank (99%), with 50% being 35 years of age or over. DASA calculated that for ex-service personnel on probation, the time between discharge from the armed forces and the start of their current supervision record varied from zero to 47 years, with 49% having received their supervision record within 10 years of leaving and only 6% within a year of leaving. Information on previous cases of supervision records for these individuals was not available. However, DASA also estimated that overall, a male member of the general population aged 18-54 was 12% more likely to have a probation supervision record than a former member of the armed forces. The proportion of the general population who had probation records for criminal damage was 74% higher than for a veteran. On the other hand, DASA determined that the proportion of ex-service personnel subject to probation supervision records for robbery was 37% higher than the proportion of the general population of similar age group.

DASA’s report is published in full on their website: www.dasa.mod.uk?pub=veterans_on_probation. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.