Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

6. What recent representations he has received on the acceptance by licensed premises of his Department’s form 90 as a means of identification.

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

Since this Government came into office, the Ministry of Defence has received a number of letters from Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend, and from the public concerning the use of MOD form 90 as a means of identification for non-official purposes. I am delighted to confirm that we have now agreed to a change in policy, allowing service personnel to use their service identity card as proof of age, and have written to the relevant trade associations encouraging their members to accept it.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Minister for the answer and for the support that he has given my constituent, ex-Coldstream Guard Lance Reah, in his campaign on the matter over the past year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the change will have a big impact on the morale of our soldiers, and that the fact that the Opposition failed to make any progress on the matter in 13 years demonstrates that their actions do not match their words?

[Mr Robathan]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that when I was serving in the Coldstream Guards it was a matter of some upset when young-looking soldiers who were prepared to lay their lives on the line were denied entry to pubs. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaign, and I am particularly pleased to see that I am on the front of “Warrington Matters” in connection with it. I do not think the photograph of me is very flattering, though.

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

7. What progress he has made on the implementation of the Trident replacement programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

11. What plans he has for the future of RAF Machrihanish; and if he will make a statement.

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

The disposal of RAF Machrihanish was announced in October 2008, and it will be sold as soon as possible. We are currently committed to working with the local community body to achieve a sale under Scottish community right to buy legislation. A final decision from the Scottish Executive on whether the community can proceed is awaited.

[Mr Reid]

As the Minister will know, the main problem is the age and condition of the water supply system. I hope that the MOD will continue to work with the Scottish Government, the local council and the Machrihanish airbase community company to ensure that it will be viable for the community company to buy the base and use the facilities to regenerate the local economy. This is an ideal big society project. Will he meet me to discuss the matter further?

[Mr Robathan]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right. For more than two years, the MOD has been trying to dispose of this site, and the sooner we can do so the better for all concerned.

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

The Minister will know that Machrihanish is not the only Royal Air Force base in Scotland facing uncertainty. Is he aware that aircraft have yet again had to be scrambled from RAF Leuchars to protect our airspace from unwelcome intrusion? Will he therefore ignore the siren voices apparently emanating from the Treasury which would put both the base and that capability at risk?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the Minister will want to focus his answer on the question on the Order Paper, while skilfully referring to the concerns expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Mr Robathan]

I will concentrate on the disposal of Machrihanish, but also say—if I may, Mr Speaker—that the future of bases in Scotland, about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is rightly concerned, is being looked at carefully, and announcements will be made soon.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

13. What resources his Department has allocated to strategic planning in 2010-11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

T5. The Secretary of State and his Department regularly meet the Royal British Legion and other veterans organisations. At those meetings, how much emphasis is placed on the fact that the military covenant is enshrined in law and, critically, on determining in what form and when that military covenant will be met?

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

I last met the director general of the Royal British Legion last Monday to discuss this very matter. There are many organisations involved and they all have their views to put forward. I think that the covenant is proceeding well. As the hon. Gentleman said, it has been written into law in the Armed Forces Bill and I hope that he will speak further about it on Report and Third Reading when they happen, shortly.

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

Ministry of Defence police do an essential and difficult job with a great deal of professionalism and expertise, but they face a potential cut of one third in their numbers. That would mean more than 1,000 officers losing their jobs. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of such a drastic reduction in the number of MOD police officers on the protection of military bases?

[Mr Robathan]

I pay tribute to the work done by the MOD police, and the protection of military bases is of course essential. However, we are constrained by the lack of funds left behind by the last Government. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members grimacing; it is true. For that reason, we are having to consider savings in all areas, and I am afraid that everyone must play their part.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T6. As well as supporting the movement opposing Gaddafi in Libya, what steps can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take to support the democratic movements in Bahrain and Yemen, especially in view of the events of recent days?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The House rightly pays tribute to our military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan. On Friday the Minister for the Armed Forces visited the Colchester garrison, where he will have seen on one side of the road former Army housing that is now social housing, on which millions of pounds are being spent by one arm of Government. Can the Minister explain why the same amount cannot be spent on housing on the other side of the road, where the fathers and husbands of military personnel in Afghanistan live?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend has rightly taken up this cause. We want to see all service personnel, whether single or married, in good-quality accommodation. As he will know, there is a huge backlog but we are working on it, although our work is constrained by the £38 billion deficit with which we were left. I hope very much that we shall be able to continue that work, particularly in the Colchester garrison.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of the widespread concern at Defence Support Group in Sealand about ongoing job losses—and, indeed, the Government’s proposals to find a buyer for the business. Why, therefore, has he barred me from visiting the site?

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Written Statements

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

I have today published a report entitled, “The Review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme—One Year On”. The report summarises the recommendations from the review and provides an overview of the work undertaken by the Ministry of Defence over the past 12 months to implement the recommendations. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House or can be accessed at the following website: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/PolicyStrategyandPlanning

The outcome of Admiral the Lord Boyce’s review of the armed forces compensation scheme was announced in February 2010. While the review found that the scheme was fundamentally sound, it made a number of recommendations for improvement. I made some early legislative changes last summer.

I am today pleased to announce the completion of all remaining changes that will lead to significant increases in the value of awards under the scheme. Most notable is the change to guaranteed income payments—paid from the point of service discharge for life—which will be increased to reflect the lasting impact of more serious injuries on future likely promotions and on the ability to work up to age 65.

Other changes include:

An increase, which averages in excess of 25%, to all lump sum award payments. This is except the top award which was recently doubled to £570,000;

Nearly tripling the maximum award for mental illness from £48,875 to £140,000 in order to reflect accurately the impact of the most serious mental health conditions;

The creation of a new independent medical expert group to advise on compensation for specific, relevant illnesses and injuries such as hearing loss and mental health;

A revised approach to awarding compensation for multiple injuries, whereby all injuries sustained will receive some compensation.

No one will lose out as a result of these changes. All those who have already received an award under the scheme will have their case automatically revisited and will receive an uplift.

Support for UK Armed Forces and Veterans

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Democratic Unionist party for raising this important subject. We have had a useful debate, which I have enjoyed. I can honestly say that I do not always enjoy every debate that we have in this place. I thank the Democratic Unionist Members for their contributions. I have great affection for Northern Ireland. I spent the best part of a year of my life walking its streets. We will not go too far into the politics, but I spent most of my life then in a part of West Belfast that does not currently have a Member of Parliament and used to be represented by a man for whom I fear that I do not have a great deal of time, particularly following his service on the provisional army council—something on which the DUP and I would rather agree.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) is absolutely right: this issue should not be a party political football. I think that every hon. Member agrees that we wish our service personnel to receive good treatment while they are serving and, latterly, when they leave. Of course that includes their families and reservists.

I should like to touch on a couple of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke about mental health, which is very important to us, as shown by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has produced his report, “Fighting Fit”. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that service charities play a huge part in how we hope to deliver the covenant and, indeed, are part of the big society. He mentioned Treasury rules relating to service charities, and I am looking at that and, indeed, have a paper with me at the moment that I wish to progress. Finally, he mentioned suicides and the Falklands. I would love to have some evidence about such suicides, but I am afraid that I know of none.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has apologised to me for not being in his place now, was much more emollient than the shadow Secretary of State has been recently, and I agree with a great deal that he said. It is a pity that he then got into party politics, with a rather incoherent position on the justiciable rights that he might want to put into law.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has a long record on such things, for speaking movingly about care for the disabled. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) spoke with genuine feeling. I, too, should like to congratulate him. I did not realise that he is a great fundraiser for service charities, so I should particularly like to thank him for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) paid tribute to Monty’s driver—his constituent—and spoke very well about service charities. He was followed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who quite rightly reminded us that Montgomery came from the Province and about the many contributions by Northern Ireland personnel in our services, particularly in the first world war and subsequently. I agree absolutely with what he said about the moral obligations of the covenant.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) that we should commemorate what happened in the Falkland Islands. I lost many friends in the Falkland Islands some 29 years ago. Our major commemorations in this country tend to take place on the 25th anniversary, as happened a few years ago, and on the 50th, but that does not stop people commemorating every anniversary. He will be pleased to hear that I got the message about his wanting Plymouth to be the centre for armed forces day in the near future. He might wish to know that the Combat Stress helpline for mental health went live on Monday. That was one of the recommendations in my hon. Friend’s “Fighting Fit” report.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) spoke with passion about service, especially in the Royal Irish, and about the excellent health care that personnel receive in Afghanistan. The trauma care that people have learned about in Afghanistan is going forward into the national health service. That is not dissimilar to what happened with gunshot wounds and the Royal Victoria hospital, which became a repository of unbelievable knowledge in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) quoted the Library document from 2007 about the unspoken moral commitment that is the covenant—

[Mr Donaldson]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the valiant service and sacrifice given by the members of UK armed forces in the defence and security of the UK; notes concerns about the current level of support provided to veterans and the families of service personnel; and calls on the Government adequately to fund aftercare services for veterans, including those who have physical disabilities or mental illness, to provide the best support to the families of those who have died as a result of their service, and to honour in full its commitments in relation to the Military Covenant.

Written Parliamentary Question (Correction)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Written Statements

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

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in my written answer (31219) given on 20 December 2010, Official Report, columns 987-88W.

The response said that that there were 265 civilian staff employed in London by the MOD currently not paid at a rate equivalent to or above the London living wage. I can confirm that excluding trading funds, there were no civilian staff employed in London by the MOD currently not paid at a rate equivalent to or above the London living wage.

Military Covenant

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The British people and, indeed, a great many Members will have been puzzled by today’s debate, because all parts of the House agree on the substance of the issues and on looking after the armed forces, and we have heard from both sides how much people care about armed forces personnel, their families, veterans, the injured, widows and so on. So what we have heard, I fear, is a synthetic debate about semantics—dancing on the head of a pin. We on the Government Benches are absolutely concerned about results, not about party political point-scoring.

I shall turn my attention first, if I may, to the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), who gave a very moving account of his father on D-day. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we all, of whatever age, owe a huge debt to those who fought in the second world war on D-day and on other occasions. I have to say, however, that I am sorry he thought that people who went off after D-day and voted Conservative were voting weirdly; I have always thought that it was a bit weird to vote Labour, but never mind. We agree also on defence expenditure, but if I may say so gently, we cannot spend money that we do not have, and that is why we have to cut the defence budget.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) made, without doubt, the best joke of the day. He also spoke sensibly from experience, including recent operational experience, and I say to him, “Trust me. We will not forget the reserves.” The reserves review will report this year to me.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) started calmly and asked to be non-political, but then I found that, rather sadly, she turned tribal and became rather party political. I do not doubt her sincerity, however, and I assure her that I and Her Majesty’s Government similarly care deeply for the armed forces.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) spoke from experience and, again, rather movingly, this time about the covenant manifested in Newark. I thank him for his contribution, and he is right: we must, indeed, look after our people in the armed forces.

Turning to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), I am sorry to say this, but “the Ark of the covenant” was without doubt the worst joke of the day. Again, however, I do not doubt her commitment to, and support for, the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is a great supporter of the armed forces and, indeed, of the covenant, and he made a sensible and knowledgeable contribution.

The hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke about pensions, and again I do not doubt their sincerity. We are deeply concerned about, and looking specifically at the issue of, widows and maimed personnel in terms of pensions. The hon. Lady referred to a 40-year-old squadron leader and how much his pension might be affected, but she should know that I have drawn a pension from the armed forces for more than 20 years, and although she may not think it, I have managed to earn a little on the way as a Member, so we need to be realistic about the issue: we cannot exempt everybody from the change to CPI from RPI. People who think we can are totally in denial about the state of the public finances, which the previous Government left to us. We have to clear up that mess, and we have no other duty than to do so before we deal with other matters.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Nick Smith]

rose—

[Mr Robathan]

I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because she sat through the debate and did not get in.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister is being very generous. Is it not the case, however, that the current Government knew about the deficit before the election? On that premise, why did they make the promise that they made to the electorate?

[Mr Robathan]

We did not appreciate quite what an awful state—[Interruption.] I could point the House to innumerable references to, “When we open the books, we will find out what things are like.” We did not appreciate the awfulness. We certainly did not know that the MOD budget for the next 10 years was overspent by £38 billion. I am not sure what promise the hon. Lady is alleging that we are breaking, because I cannot see one.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

Yes, but I will make this the last time.

[Nick Smith]

The Minister hinted that he might be able to make some progress on pensions for widows and for people who have suffered injury. Can he give us some more detail on that?

[Mr Robathan]

I have had many discussions with representatives of the War Widows Association and the Forces Pension Society, and we are looking at particular cases and how we can perhaps take this forward. I cannot make any concrete commitment, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that should we make any progress or change, I will let him know.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution. He, too, has been in receipt of a pension for a few years—a bigger one than mine, but there we go.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), although not gallant herself, is married to a gallant officer. I am grateful for her contribution, in which she spoke from her experience of service family life. She is of course absolutely right: we have to look after the armed forces, and that is what we pledge to do.

I was rather surprised when the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), for whom I have always had a bit of affection, started to quote from blogs. I think we all read blogs from time to time, but most of the stuff that is written there is not worth repeating.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Far from blogs, I also quoted Chris Simpkins of the Royal British Legion, who said:

“The British public has shown it sees”

the role of coroner

“as vital in ensuring bereaved Service families can have confidence in the investigations of their loved ones’ deaths. We believe it is fundamental to the inquest process and to the fulfilment of the Military Covenant”.

The Minister should not respond to the blogs but to the Royal British Legion.

[Mr Robathan]

I will come to that if I have time at the end.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) might qualify as almost gallant in her role in the Royal Naval Reserve. I am grateful to her for what she said. She is absolutely right that this Government believe in action, not words—not spin, but results.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made three swift points that seemed pretty reasonable. I would love to respond and wonder if she could write to me about them.

I now turn to the Front-Bench contribution by the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). I expect that he now regrets having called this debate, because he has not come out of it with any credit. Like the hon. Member for Ogmore, he quoted at length the Royal British Legion. I have here the Royal British Legion’s initial comments on the proposed armed forces covenant, dated 21 January—not four weeks ago—in which it says that it broadly welcomes the proposals. I am afraid that one can quote selectively at any stage, and Labour Members are doing so.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) regurgitated the arguments that we have heard in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and they had no more resonance. The Committee has made three visits—to the Nottingham reserves centre, to Colchester and to Headley Court—and I am disappointed that of the six Labour Members on the Committee, who make so much fuss about these things, three did not come on any of those visits.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

National Defence Medal

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time in Westminster Hall, Mrs Brooke. I am sure that there will be many more such occasions. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) on securing this short debate on a proposal for a national defence medal. He speaks with some history on this long-running campaign, and I acknowledge that he has an interest in the recognition of former service personnel; indeed, I have with me the letter he sent to the Secretary of State in January. I am sorry to hear that today the right hon. Gentleman regards me as representing the enemy but, nevertheless, that appears to be my position.

First, I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of both current service personnel and those who have served in the past—those from the second world war who are still alive and those have served since then whether as part of national service or whatever. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister uses words such as “awesome” to describe our armed forces, but no words can describe the outstanding, courageous work they are doing today and, indeed, have done in the past. There can be no doubt that they have earned the nation’s recognition of their service to our country and the nation’s gratitude.

As a former serviceman, I know the hardships of service life and the pride of earning a medal. I got two after 15 years; I had to rejoin the Army to get the second one, but I do not know of anyone who joined the services in order to gain a medal. Heroic personnel who perform gallant acts do not perform such actions in hope of a medal; they do so out of instinct and because they feel it is the right thing to do. I question the value of a medal that is essentially given to anyone who has served in the armed forces. Medals should be earned not expected, and I would certainly be surprised if they were demanded.

There is a belief that the rules governing the award of medals have been applied inconsistently, so the coalition Government pledged to address that in their agreement. We have honoured that pledge and have undertaken to review the rules governing the awarding of medals. The review is considering the numerous campaigns by veterans to reconsider past cases and the justification for a national defence medal is again being re-considered as part of that. The review will report to me and work is now under way. Senior military officers—Major General Blimps, the right hon. Gentleman might call them—are contributing to the review and the chiefs of staff have been consulted. Campaign representations have also been considered.

The review aims to report its conclusions in the near future and will address the following four issues: the principles underpinning the award of medals, operational medals currently awarded to the armed forces, the award of foreign medals and proposals, such as this one, for medals for past service. At present, the position remains that medals are not awarded solely for service. The only exceptions are coronation and jubilee medals, and even then strict qualifying criteria have to be satisfied before a medal is issued. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that position cannot change until the review has concluded.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are already many forms of recognition that acknowledge many aspects of service in the British armed forces. I shall set out clearly what they are. First, service personnel are already recognised for their extra effort, for courageous, distinguished and gallant acts, and for the risk and rigour they face on operations, by the award of state decorations, meritorious medals, campaign medals and commendations. The integrity of the operational honours system is a matter of the utmost importance to the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, to all service personnel to whom I speak. Medals are generally introduced for particular operations when there is the presence of particular risk and rigour. However, many service personnel have served and continue to serve on commitments that are demanding in their own way but are not recognised by a medal.

There is no evidence that today’s personnel have any particular desire for a universal defence medal. New medals are instituted primarily for serving personnel, not for veterans. Medals awarded to members of the British armed forces have a relative scarcity about them, which is not shared by many other nations; for example, the former Soviet Union, North Korea and, indeed, some of our allies. Such an approach leaves people in no doubt that medals have been truly earned. That ethos has stood us in good stead in the past and we should be cautious about changing it.

Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, long service and good conduct are also recognised. Thirdly, official recognition from the Government for service in the armed forces is awarded in the form of Her Majesty’s armed forces veterans badge, to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has already alluded. Although the national defence medal supporters claim that the badge is insufficient recognition for having served, almost 1 million veterans have claimed a badge and one is now issued to all personnel as they leave the armed forces.

I have taken the time to look at the national defence medal veterans recognition report, submitted to the Ministry of Defence in June 2009 under the previous Administration. I was interested to see that the campaigners for the medal agree with, and quote, the words of Winston Churchill:

“The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it, it is of less value. There must, therefore, be heartburnings and disappointments on the borderline. A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one which does not admit of a perfect solution. It is not possible to satisfy everybody without running the risk of satisfying nobody. All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to hurt the feelings of the fewest.”

That was written in 1944 when Winston Churchill was busy with the second world war, and it is extraordinarily prescient. Is it not true, therefore, that just to give a medal for service would challenge that comment?

Some argue that by serving in the armed forces and by performing the daily duties of service life, service personnel should automatically receive a medal irrespective of the duties they undertook. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that duties undertaken in areas of heightened risk and rigour are not comparable to those undertaken by service personnel based in Chelsea, for example, or in Germany or Colchester. Should they qualify for the same level of recognition? A similar argument could be applied to many other professions. Doctors, nurses, police and firefighters, to name but a few, perform selfless acts on a daily basis, but they are not automatically awarded a medal in recognition of their efforts.

There needs to be a compelling argument as to why service in the armed forces should be so completely different. Some argue that being on call to deploy on operations should entitle personnel to a medal, but joining the armed forces does not guarantee operational service, even though it is highly likely in today’s climate. Many have stood ready to go to war, but thankfully were never called on to do so.

Some argue that those who undertook national service should receive special recognition, such as a national defence medal, on the grounds that conscription was mandatory and disrupted lives. Many feel that the sacrifices that were made have largely gone unrecognised by the nation. However, although there is no medal specifically for those who performed a period of national service, those conscripted for military service could qualify for the same medals as their regular colleagues, and many did. Furthermore, since national service was terminated in 1960, it has been the personal choice of an individual to join the armed forces. It would be divisive, and I have to say curious, to offer national servicemen a medal simply for being conscripted, when those who volunteered for service would be excluded from receiving the same award.

Some argue that we should adopt the principles of other countries such as Australia and New Zealand, but they withdrew from the imperial honours system many years ago. It is for them and their Governments to decide which medals they wish to institute.

The right hon. Gentleman and the national defence medal campaigners claim that there is a significant amount of support for the institution of such a medal. Although I am sure that many people are concerned about the matter—indeed, some of them are here today—in reality the representation made to my Department is very low. Of the estimated 4 million former service personnel who would qualify for the medal, less than 200 have contacted the Ministry of Defence either directly or through their Member of Parliament. Frankly, those communications are likely to be the result of the national defence medal campaign targeting former service personnel to lobby as many MPs as possible on their behalf. It is notable that an e-mail was sent out yesterday. It said that “you might suggest”—

that the recipient—

“use the short letter below for your MP to send directly to the Defence Minister...If you haven’t already could you please send me your postcode so I can ensure that every MP in the country has at least one active supporter in their constituency.”

I am sure that there are many active supporters in every constituency, but that would make a grand total of 650 people campaigning on behalf of the proposal, and I do not think that would be a great many.

I shall briefly touch on the issue of cost. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that it is estimated that approximately 4 million people could apply, either for themselves or on behalf of a deceased relation, for a national defence medal, should the review conclude that one should be instituted. The estimated cost of a national defence medal could extend to as much as £300 million, or even more, because one would have to research each case where somebody claimed to qualify for a medal. Otherwise one would just be giving out medals to anybody who claimed that they were in the forces. The right hon. Gentleman grimaces, but not far from my constituency in Burbage there was a man who used to go to Remembrance day ceremonies wearing a Special Air Service beret, a full array of medals and a blazer. People thought that he was very smart until they started looking at the medals; indeed, I understand that he is currently being prosecuted. The medals he wore included medals for the Korean war, the Falklands war and, I think, the Afghan war. It is quite difficult to fit in all those wars in one period of service.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the medal would cost a huge amount of taxpayers money, especially in the current financial climate. To justify such expense would be hard, particularly when the grounds for doing so appear to be somewhat thin. I must state that we would be unlikely to decline a proposal for a new medal on the grounds of cost alone, but such an expense must be warranted.

Campaigners for the medal have suggested that it could be paid for by individuals. Medals are awarded free of charge to individuals who meet or exceed the published qualifying criteria laid down for each one, from a grateful nation, expressed by the Queen. If a charge was placed on such a medal it would devalue the status of the award, and the UK honours and awards system more generally. I understand that one can buy commercially produced medals to commemorate having served under national service. However, I think that is not what people wish to have.

I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman and I assure him that we firmly believe that it is important to review the rules governing the award of medals, and that we are considering carefully the case for a national defence medal. In conclusion, I must say that those who are serving at present, or who have served in the past 50, 60, 70 or 80 years, have done their duty. The Government and I pay the highest tribute to them, but I am not sure that most of them would want that tribute recognised by the receipt of a material object such as a medal simply for having been there. The right hon. Gentleman said that the time has come. Well, it is noteworthy that this campaign started relatively recently, when personnel are earning many campaign medals—many more than I did when I was serving—but little demand for this was heard in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or even in the 1990s. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has urged me not to disappoint. I fear that I will disappoint him, but we will await the results of the review.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

I thank all the participants in the debate. As everyone we need for the next debate is here, we can commence it. I call Charlie Elphicke. You have two extra minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

2. What estimate he has made of the number of armed forces personnel and their dependants who will be affected by proposed changes to the uprating of armed forces pensions; and if he will make a statement.

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

The change in the future uprating of public service pensions to the consumer prices index applies to all new pensions coming into payment, those pensions currently in payment and to the future uprating of deferred pension rights. CPI is deemed more appropriate than the retail prices index because the Bank of England uses it to measure inflation and it is an internationally standard measure. We understand the concerns that have been raised about this matter, but such is the scale of the economic problems that we inherited that no part of society—not even the armed forces—can be fully exempt from the need to find ways to reduce the budget deficit.

[Mr Hanson]

I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that the change to CPI will mean a lower pension for those currently on one, which will be particularly difficult for service personnel who are retiring early because of grievous injuries caused in conflicts we are currently undertaking. Will he confirm to the House whether the change is intended to be temporary for the purposes of deficit reduction, or whether he intends to short-change our personnel on a permanent basis?

[Mr Robathan]

We most certainly do care about those whose pensions may be affected. In April 2010, RPI was less than CPI—it was actually negative—so RPI is not always better than CPI for pension uprating. The move is intended to be permanent because it will go forward for all public sector pensions and will be how public sector pensions will be determined in the future. If the Opposition wish to change that, perhaps they should announce now that they will change all public pensions back to RPI, should they ever—God forbid—be re-elected to office.

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

There is increasing anger about this policy, and that has now been joined and taken up brilliantly in a campaign by the Daily Mirror. Yet the Government will not say how much the move will save them; they will not admit that it could cost a young Afghan war widow £750,000 in payments; and they have not explained that although the deficit is temporary, this cut is permanent. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to offer a direct answer to a direct question: given that, as we now know, this is not about deficit reduction, has he consulted the armed forces families federations, and what have they told him about this permanent cut?

[Mr Robathan]

I shall be meeting the armed forces families federations in the very near future. However, I have been reading an article by the right hon. Gentleman in which he said that his pride in the armed forces was “lined with anger”—an interesting use of English! I was proud of the armed forces throughout the 18 years I served, and I, too, am angry—I am angry that we are faced with a financial situation that is damaging this country and our armed forces.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of Iran’s potential nuclear weapons capability; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

5. What his policy is on the provision of benefits to veterans; and if he will make a statement.

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

Veterans who are injured as a result of their service before 6 April 2005 can apply for compensation in the form of a war pension. For those whose disablement affects their ability to work, additional provision may be made in the form of supplementary allowances, paid in addition to the war pension.

[Nic Dakin]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he explain why it is proving so difficult, in terms of benefits, to treat the UK’s atomic veterans as fairly and equally as the atomic veterans of other similar nations?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman ought to discuss that matter with his own Front-Bench team, as it was the last Government who appealed against the ruling in favour of the atomic war veterans—

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

Which you agreed with.

[Mr Robathan]

Absolutely. As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) will know, the courts have now decided in favour of the Government. I pay tribute to those who took part in the tests many years ago, but it was about 60-odd years ago and I am afraid that the courts have found that there is no causal link whatever between many of the disabilities and illnesses suffered and exposure to any radiation.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Will the Minister expand a little on his reply in respect of the long-term help that veterans will receive. He has referred to the short-term help, but many of the injured veteran personnel in my Devizes constituency are concerned about where the support will be in 20 or 25 years’ time.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Injured personnel have a high profile and the support of the country at the moment, but in 15, 20 or 30 years’ time, it might be rather different. We are putting in place a whole raft of initiatives. I pay tribute to the last Government, who put a lot of it together. We supported the personnel recovery centre, among others, and there will be such a centre in Tidworth. God willing, we look forward to opening it in the near future.

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

The Deputy Prime Minister announced a “health for heroes” scheme for veterans in a newspaper article on 23 January. How much funding has the Ministry of Defence dedicated to this scheme?

[Mr Robathan]

This is not actually an MOD but a Department of Health measure. As I understand it, the whole mental health package is worth £400 million and it will be announced in April. Some part of it will go towards assistance with mental health problems among members of the armed forces. We already provide a great deal of support to those with mental health problems, not least through the “Fighting Fit” report of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

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

7. What his policy is on the use of individual and direct offset agreements in defence contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the effect on armed forces pensions of proposed changes to indexation arrangements for public sector pensions.

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

No robust assessment of the kind requested can be made as future movements of the retail price index and consumer price index are not known. To use the current 2010 rate as the basis for any forecast would give an unreliable representation of future payments in the long term as these rates will fluctuate over time.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not agree that most studies suggest that CPI produces a higher pension than RPI? Does that not count as a cut in military and service personnel pensions?

[Mr Robathan]

If I may gently prod the hon. Gentleman, he has it the wrong way round: RPI is more likely to produce a higher pension than CPI, which is not what he said. As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), there was no upgrading of pensions at all in April 2010 because RPI was negative in 2009, and that is the way things are. It was a hard decision, but we believe that it is in the best interests of the country and of the armed forces as a whole.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

15. What estimate his Department has made of the cost to the public purse of returning British troops from Germany (a) between 2010 and 2015 and (b) between 2015 and 2020; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. What recent discussions he has had on civilian personnel reductions in his Department.

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

I have regular discussions, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on civilian reductions. There is also an ongoing dialogue between officials and the recognised departmental trade unions over the implementation of the civilian reductions.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the Minister for that response. Can he kindly outline which units in the Ministry of Defence he anticipates the 25,000 job losses announced in the strategic defence and security review will come from? If he cannot say now, can he outline when he will be able to end the uncertainty?

[Mr Robathan]

That is a perfectly reasonable question from the hon. Lady, but I am afraid I cannot say now. There are two things that I should say, however: first, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are meeting the trades unions about those reductions late in February; and secondly, the permanent secretary to the MOD announced on Friday night—released, therefore, to most people this morning—the forthcoming launch of the voluntary early release scheme. I am sure that the full text will be in the Library.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

T5. The Big Lottery Fund has recently extended the deadline for the excellent Heroes Return 2 scheme, administered from Newcastle, that provides funding to help veterans and their families take part in commemorative visits, either in the UK or abroad. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been encouraging my constituents to take advantage of the scheme. Will the Minister outline what support he and his colleagues are providing to encourage uptake of that funding?

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

We certainly support the scheme, which I understand is largely run by the Royal British Legion, although I do not have the details at my fingertips. It is an excellent scheme. We support the national lottery, the Royal British Legion and the whole programme.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T7. Given the Government’s desire to improve armed forces accommodation and obtain greater value for money for the taxpayer, does the Minister accept that useful lessons can be learned from the Canadian Government’s example of outsourcing the management of armed forces housing, a policy that produced savings and improvements to accommodation facilities?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend is right. We are looking at every option as to how we can make housing for our troops more efficient. We shall certainly look at what my hon. Friend has mentioned as well; if he wants to make a submission, he is very welcome so to do.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The Ministry of Defence is aware that Moray is the most defence-dependent community in the UK and uniquely faces the threat of a double RAF base closure. Does the Secretary of State understand the damage that the delayed basing announcement is having on the economy of the north of Scotland? Why is there a delay in the announcement in the first place, given that the RAF made its basing recommendation at the end of last year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Health Protection Agency has said that servicemen present during atomic bomb tests more than 50 years ago have since been plagued with cancers and rare medical conditions. Did the Minister see reports in the media yesterday that the MOD has ignored urgent calls for research into the health of nuclear test veterans, and will he agree to have the DNA of test veterans studied as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Robathan]

There have been many studies into the health of those who witnessed the explosions on Christmas Island, and they have concluded that those who witnessed the explosions have not suffered greater health problems than others. I stand by the clinical and legal position on that, as did the previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman would presumably like to say he supports.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State assessed the state of rehabilitation services for members of the armed forces who have received trauma care, and who are living with complex, life-changing injuries? Will he accept representations from me on behalf of a constituent?

[Mr Robathan]

I would be happy to accept representations. The trauma care given by the medical services in the armed forces is excellent. There is a 25% chance of survival, whereas there is only a 6% chance of survival in the national health service. The Secretary of State for Health and I went to Birmingham 10 days ago for the opening of the new Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology research centre at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. That is an excellent facility that leads the way in trauma care in this country.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Given that the Department is currently holding a consultation on how to decommission nuclear submarines, will the Secretary of State give my constituents a cast-iron guarantee that not a single bolt will be taken out of those submarines until a waste route has been identified and, crucially, established?

Armed Forces Allowances

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Written Statements

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

As part of the strategic defence and security review, the Government announced that the amount spent by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) each year on personnel allowances would be reduced by over £300 million. Reductions to civil service allowances will necessarily be dealt with separately to those affecting the armed forces. I am now able to detail the changes to armed forces allowances, which will achieve a reduction in spend of some £250 million by financial year 2014-15.

A strong economy is a national security imperative, and the Government conducted the strategic defence and security review (SDSR) against the background of a dire fiscal situation, which requires difficult decisions on reducing public spending. Proper support to our service personnel is equally essential. An appropriate set of allowances is an important element of that support, and will remain so in the future. However, it cannot be immune from careful scrutiny to ensure that it remains appropriate. While reductions in this area will never be welcome, the package of changes which we are introducing has been developed in full consultation with the service chiefs of staff and represents the best balance between affordability and fairness.

Service personnel are entitled to appropriate notice of changes to allowances, and there will be a minimum of three months notice before any alterations which affect those currently serving take effect. In specific cases the notice will be longer (up to 12 months).

The changes affect the following allowances:

Incidental Expenses Allowance—This a contribution to minor expenditure incurred during temporary duty involving overnight absence; it is paid at a flat rate of £5 per day. In future this allowance will only be paid to personnel in hospital. All personnel will continue, as now, to be reimbursed for the actual costs of travel, food and accommodation.

Local Overseas Allowance—This allowance contributes towards the cost of living, when service personnel are required to serve overseas. We will be modernising the way in which the allowance operates by re-evaluating the items used to construct it, and by reducing the number of rank-based bands from 13 to three. In view of the significant impact of these changes on some service personnel and their families, they will be staged over two years.

Food and Incidentals Allowance—This is a contribution to the additional costs which are incurred by unmarried service personnel and those serving unaccompanied, if they do not have access to service accommodation or messes. In future the allowance will be based on more realistic assumptions and a reassessment of the extra costs incurred. As a result the allowance will reduce from £12.41 to £8.50 per day.

Living out Supplemented Rates of Local Overseas Allowance—This allowance achieves the same aims as food and incidentals allowance but for personnel based abroad. The allowance has been removed and replaced with food and incidentals allowance paid in local currency.

Home to Duty Travel—This assists service personnel with the cost of daily travel between their home and place of duty. At present, individuals are responsible for the first three miles of their journey. In future, this will increase to nine miles, even when they have no choice in the location of either home or duty premises. This change will be introduced over a period of three years to mitigate the affect on individuals.

Recruitment and Retention Allowance (London)—This allowance is designed to encourage personnel to serve in London. Since changes to this allowance would have the greatest impact on those on the lowest salaries, the allowance will be maintained for all those of the rank of corporal and below. For all others it will be removed. To allow adequate preparation for this change, it will not be introduced until 2012.

Disturbance Allowance—This flat-rate allowance was intended to compensate for the necessary additional expenses that arise when service personnel are required to move to take up new assignments. In practice, many significant costs associated with moving (removals, storage etc) are covered through other allowances. It is therefore appropriate to reduce the value of this allowance by 10%. For those with children, the additional elements previously paid will be reduced by 53%.

Daily Subsistence—This allowance reimburses actual allowable subsistence expenditure. We have reduced the maximum rate payable to £25 per day, in line with the rates paid by other Government Departments, and made similar percentage reductions in overseas rates.

Get You Home (Early Years)—This allowance is designed to enable junior members of the services to maintain links with close family as they adjust to service life by funding four journeys to the family home per year. In future it will be available only to those undergoing initial training and for all personnel under the age of 18.

Get You Home (Seagoers)—This allowance is designed to support retention of seagoing personnel by reducing the impact of routine separation. The current provision of 12 journeys to the individual’s place of residence will be reduced to 10.

Motor Mileage Allowance—There are three rates of motor mileage allowance currently in use. These will be unified to a single rate of 25p per mile, in line with the HMRC basic rate.

Commitment Bonus—Commitment bonuses are paid at specified career points, and reward completed service. Due to current service manning levels and the redundancy programme we announced in the SDSR we have decided to reduce the value of these bonuses by 50% for all new entrants, implemented with immediate effect.

Specialist Pay (Reserve Banding)—Specialist pay is paid to service personnel with specialist skills in order to help recruit and retain them. Reserve banding is used to facilitate a gradual reduction in specialist pay when individuals are in positions not requiring specialist skills. The period of gradual reduction has been changed from six years to three, and will cease after the recipient has spent three years out of specialist assignments. Additionally, we will remove specialist pay from those who give notice of resignation. We will not implement this change until 2012. Outwith these changes, we have asked the armed forces pay review body to review all specialist pay as part of its 2011 programme of work.

In addition to the changes described above, we have made alterations to a number of other smaller allowances, to simplify the allowance system and contribute to the reductions in our allowance expenditure.

Ex-servicemen: Radiation Exposure

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Chris Evans]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benchmarking assessment his Department has made of the provisions for nuclear test veteran compensation under the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

[Official Report, 8 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 281W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Andrew Robathan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on 8 December 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

No benchmarking has taken place.

In the United Kingdom evidence was provided in the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) reports of the three follow-up studies on the health of over 20,000 nuclear test participants and a matched group of military controls. For the United States atomic veterans no comparable large scale epidemiological US study was carried out.

The Ministry of Defence also provides pensions automatically to nuclear test veterans who have one of a list of 22 cancers presumed to be causally linked to service. For other cancers, claims may be accepted on the basis of calculated radiation exposure assessment. In the US, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) will pay a one time lump sum of 75,000 US dollars for cancers on their own list.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Robathan]

No benchmarking has taken place.

In the United Kingdom evidence was provided in the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) reports of the three follow-up studies on the health of over 20,000 nuclear test participants and a matched group of military controls. For the United States atomic veterans no comparable large scale epidemiological US study was carried out.

The US Department for Veterans Affairs provides pensions automatically to nuclear test veterans who have one of a list of 22 cancers presumed to be causally linked to service. For other cancers, claims may be accepted on the basis of calculated radiation exposure assessment. In the US, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) will pay a one time lump sum of 75,000 US dollars for cancers on their own list.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with those comments, because we are all equal before the law. However, if taking that information helps to address what is a massive problem, it should be done. The probation service in Cheshire and north Wales is also doing that, and that is being led by ex-service people. No prejudice is intended at any stage.

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

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important topic, and one that should not be taken lightly. I wonder whether he has read the analysis in the Defence Analytical Services and Advice report of the number of former service personnel who are in prison. It suggests not that they are over-represented, but the contrary.

[Mr Llwyd]

The Minister knows that there has been an argument about that because we do not know what the figures are.

[Mr Robathan]

Yes, we do.

[Mr Llwyd]

What is the current figure?

[Mr Robathan]

DASA’s initial finding was that the figure was about 3%, but after it analysed everybody in prison who had said that they were formerly in the armed forces, it came up with a figure of approximately 3.5% of the prison population who were ex-services. In contrast, more than 7% of the general population have been in the services.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, but if I remember rightly, the methodology of that particular report was somewhat questionable. [Interruption.] May I finish my point? The reservists were not included, nor were people under 18 or women who had served in the Army. I believe that one other category of people was excluded—there were four such categories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as ever, shows his fancy footwork, blaming both his Government and the previous Conservative Government. I must agree that his Government are not doing enough to support housing.

Opposition Members are deeply concerned that although the Ministry of Defence is happy to place new onuses on local authorities and the NHS, the one group of people that should not have statutory responsibilities according to the MOD is, funnily enough, the MOD. By that rather large omission, clause 2, which covers the charter, is in effect toothless. The organisation that, more than any other, has responsibility for the welfare of our service personnel, their families and our veterans is, of course, the MOD. When he replies to the debate later this evening, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) will assure Labour Members that the MOD will re-examine that glaring omission.

The hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) and others often accuse Labour Members of not coming up with funding solutions to meet such commitments. I will indulge her by providing a simple example of where we can find more than £100 million, which could be put into accommodation for service personnel. According to the MOD, we spend—before she jumps to her feet, I accept that the previous Government did not do enough to tackle this issue—£110 million on private school fees for the children of service personnel. Almost half that money—some 40%—goes to officers in the top ranks of lieutenant-colonel and above, who are effectively the top brass, while only 10% goes to the ranks of staff sergeant and below. It is, in effect, a subsidy for public schools.

[Mr Robathan]

I want to shoot this canard, fox or whatever you like. People in junior ranks, both officers and non-commissioned officers, tend to be younger. Guess what? They do not have children who want to go to such schools. In fact, there are private soldiers whose children go to private schools, and there are junior officers whose children go to private schools. They are not at home, and they need the continuity of education provided by that allowance.

[Thomas Docherty]

I thank the Minister for spelling out his position. This evening, I have tabled a written question to clarify how many of the service personnel who receive the £110 million subsidy—the schools get the money—are serving overseas. One of our concerns is that those officers are on not two or three-year furloughs overseas but six-month deployments. The MOD is, in effect, providing a ring-fenced sum of money for public schools, which is disappointing at a time when we are seeing job losses in both the armed forces themselves and in companies such as British Aerospace. When the MOD made cuts, it did not take a penny out of the continuity of education allowance, and that decision should be re-examined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I shall clear that up before giving way to the Minister: if the argument for spending £110 million a year on public schools is based on soldiers being posted for six months to Afghanistan before returning to Britain, it is not an acceptable use of public money.

[Mr Robathan]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are tightening up the rules on the continuity of education allowance. If he would like to come along to the MOD and meet them, I can introduce him to people who will tell him, as they tell me, that their children have changed schools as many as four times in five years, which is not good for continuity of education or for keeping good personnel in the armed forces.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to meet me to discuss the matter outside the House, which I shall certainly take up. I will not labour the point for much longer, because other hon. Members want to speak. As we move to withdrawing troops from Germany in 2015—perhaps it will be slightly later, if the MOD does not get its timetable right—it is the right time to consider scrapping or phasing out the continuity of education allowance.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have participated in the debate. After hearing the rather fierce winding-up speech by the shadow Minister, I point out that two Labour Back Benchers participated in the debate and that substantially more Conservative Back Benchers took part, which shows how much interest there has been in the House.

[Mr Jim Murphy]

And a Liberal.

[Mr Robathan]

If the right hon. Gentleman were any good at maths, he would work out that one Liberal means that at least five Labour Back Benchers should have participated.

Leaving that to one side and returning to the Bill, the Government are required to introduce an Armed Forces Bill every five years, because those Bills provide the legal basis for the armed forces and for their discipline. Five years ago, the Armed Forces Act 2006 established a single system of service law, which applies to all members of the armed forces wherever they are serving in the world. It was a significant piece of legislation. The Bill that we are considering today is much smaller, and much of it was implemented under the previous Government. We are, in fact, pursuing the policies that the previous Government introduced, so I was particularly saddened by the shadow Secretary of State’s extraordinary speech. [Interruption.] The term that applies to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is “chuntering”.

The covenant has engendered a great deal of discussion in the debate, and we are fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge to put the matter on a statutory basis in this Bill. Every year, there will be a report on the covenant, which the House may wish to discuss. Returning to the hon. Members who have spoken, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who is an extremely sensible friend, made some interesting points. He asked about the air bridge, which we are working on. Because, like me, he has travelled on it and been delayed on it, he knows that part of the problem is the age of the aircraft. He asked whether we will add days lost on rest and recuperation to post-tour leave, which is now our policy and is happening already.

My hon. Friend gave his view, which comes from serving in the Territorial Army, on medals. He also mentioned reservists. I agree with him entirely that support for such servicemen who return from operational tours is difficult. I pay tribute to those whose day job is not serving in the armed forces but who go out on operational tours and do excellent work helping our regular armed forces, and I pay tribute to their families, too.

Turning to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—[Interruption.] I think that I am more Welsh than the hon. Member for Rhondda.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister withdraw that remark?

[Mr Robathan]

If it is the case that the hon. Gentleman is, in fact, Welsh, contrary to all expectations and signs, of course I withdraw the remark.

The armed forces are under-represented in the prison population. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd did not mean to do this, but it is important that we do not patronise our soldiers, sailors and airmen, who are more law-abiding than most. Of course some of them go to prison, but we are talking about responsible adults, some of whom commit crimes. Interestingly, the chances of being in prison if one has been in the armed forces are considerably less than if one has not. Our armed forces members want to be treated as responsible adults and not as victims.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—he is a doctor and he is very gallant—for his extremely important report “Fighting Fit”. He asked whether we should call the armed forces covenant the military covenant in the Bill and I shall look into that. There is a legal issue involved, but I can certainly say that the covenant report will not be a tick-box exercise.

The very Welsh hon. Member for Rhondda was particularly keen on armed forces members from Wales being able to serve in Wales, but my experience of young people—both those going into the armed forces and those going to university—is that they often want to get away from their home environment. I have not heard many complaints about this before and I think they might not wish to be close to home. In my period in the armed forces, a very long time ago, I spent a disproportionate amount of my time training in Wales—in the Brecon Beacons at Sennybridge, in Snowdonia and in other places. The hon. Gentleman was very disparaging about Sennybridge, but I rather liked it.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) referred to the system of having a Bill every five years as technical, but I disagree entirely. I notice that he read history, but I do not know whether he got his history degree.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is a work in progress.

[Mr Robathan]

There is a lot of that going on.

This is not a technical Bill: it is incredibly important. Those of us who know the history of the Bill of Rights 1689 know that it is incredibly important to have parliamentary authority for the armed forces. That remains as true today as it was more than 300 years ago; that is why we have a democracy. The hon. Gentleman then blamed the Government for the poor housing, which I thought slightly strange. He said that “the money was put in place for sorting out the housing,” but I think that might have been part of the £38 billion that we could not find when we came into office.

The hon. Gentleman then spent a long time showing his prejudice against private education, harking back to the good old days of class warfare. There was no logic involved—just prejudice.

[Thomas Docherty]

May I clarify that I have no prejudice against people choosing to spend their own money on private health care or private education? I just object, when there are severe budget cuts for the MOD, to £110 million of taxpayers’ money being spent subsidising other people’s private education.

[Mr Robathan]

As I explained, the reason for the continuity of education allowance is so that children do not have to change schools often. I have heard of changes more than four times in five years and I do not think that is very fair on those children or their families. With that sort of system, people would tend not to stay in the armed forces. Be they private soldiers or generals, they would say, “I am not staying in the armed forces; I am going to do something else.” That is the reason for the allowance. [Hon. Members: “Private soldiers?”] Yes, private soldiers do send their children to independent schools. [Interruption.] I cannot speak on this in detail, but I assure Opposition Members—who presided over the system, which we are tightening up dramatically—that nearly 50% of those who use the continuity of education allowance are not commissioned officers.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

No, not again.

I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made his speech. [Interruption.] That is what it says here. He particularly seeks the maximum involvement of armed forces charities in the work of the covenant and that is absolutely what we want.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) talked about the heroism in the armed forces, recognised in Wootton Bassett in his constituency, and I think that we all agree on that. He welcomed our commitment to the armed forces covenant and the fact that our manifesto commitment will be kept, but he should watch how the issue develops, because I think that he will be more satisfied than I understand he appeared to be in his speech. The provision is not a “sad little clause”; it is an important step forward in fulfilling our obligations to the armed forces.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for his service in Afghanistan. I was glad to hear that he welcomed clause 2 and was critical of the previous Government’s record on the covenant. It seems rather strange that we get criticised for all these things after seven or eight months, whereas I seem to remember that the previous Government were there for 13 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) asked us to go the extra mile for the armed forces. He is absolutely right. They are in a unique position, and we should and will go that extra mile; we are committed to doing so. He talked about service family accommodation. We are working on improving quality. I recently cut the turf on a new estate, the Canadian estate in Bulford. It was put on hold under the last Government, but we have started again. There is, of course, a big issue about cost. We are also working towards greater home ownership. My hon. Friend may know of the new employment model, which will mean that the Army will tend to be based more in the same place, rather than moving around the country.

I heard the plea that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made for Armed Forces day in Plymouth, and we will certainly consider that. I absolutely agree with his central point, which is that we must make the armed forces feel valued. I know that I am a bit older than some people on the Opposition Front Bench—

[Mr Jim Murphy]

All of them.

[Mr Robathan]

—all of the people on the Opposition Front Bench; I can remember the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979. The pay of the armed forces was reduced so much, and was so poor, that people left in their droves, and we ended up with something called the black hole of officers. So many officers of captain and major rank left that there was a huge black hole, which was quite good for promotion, but not much good for the armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is extremely proud of Dover and military life there—I got that message—mentioned electoral registration. We are working on ensuring that it is easier for service personnel to register only once, because the system has become extremely complicated under quite well-meaning measures of the previous Government.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), gave her first speech from the Front Bench. I congratulate her and welcome her to the Front Bench. I also welcome the service personnel Command Paper; I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is not here, was partly responsible for it. It is basically a good piece of work that we support, and we are going forward with many of the improvements that were suggested and started by the previous Government; I think that we can say that.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire then, I am sorry to say, went on about the external reference group, which we value. We have no plans to get rid of it, or to not publish its reports. It will produce a report, which will be seen and will be transparent. I assume that it will become evidence to the report on the covenant that the Secretary of State will have to make to Parliament. As I explained to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, that is about the accountability of the Government to Parliament, on which I hope we all agree. This is a non-story, a non-issue; the process will be transparent and accountable. We will listen to the external reference group, and if it does not like what we have done, I would expect it to say so. Hew Strachan and I have regular meetings. I always counsel people not to believe everything that they read in the newspapers.

We will look at the idea of a veterans identity card, which the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire was lauding, but one of the issues that should be addressed is: who actually wants it? It is quite important that a little bit of market research is done on that, to start with. She asked whether I was having meetings with people on the Bomber Command memorial. I had a meeting just before the recess with the new chairman of the Bomber Command memorial. We had a very constructive meeting, and I am helping him on one particular issue that I do not want to get into now; difficulties had arisen over planning permission in the royal parks.

The hon. Lady attacked us regarding the covenant. We are introducing the covenant. The Labour Government did not do so. It is rather strange to hear us attacked in such a way for what we are doing on the covenant. It is work in progress, like the degree of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

[Chris Bryant]

And like this speech.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman does an awful lot of chuntering. I am surprised that anyone lets him in.

Finally, I turn to the speech from the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the shadow Secretary of State. Disappointing is the best word to describe it. He said that our attitude was heartless. He was a member of the previous Government under the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). I point out to him that one cannot spend money that one has not got. The previous Government spent it like water. They destroyed our economy.

The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire grins back at me. He highlighted the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to change the indexation of service pensions from RPI to CPI, so perhaps now he will stand up and pledge that should, God forbid, the Labour party be returned to government at the next election, it will return the indexation of armed forces pensions and perhaps all public service pensions from CPI to RPI.

[Mr Murphy]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to rise, and I encourage the Secretary of State to rise to defend his policy. The question is whether it is right to take away from war widows and those who were severely injured on the battlefield in Afghanistan pension entitlement that they had reasonably expected. Perhaps the Minister should focus less on what will be in our manifesto in two, three or four years, and more on his policy this very evening. He should try at least to do what the Secretary of State failed to do and defend his own policy.

[Mr Robathan]

After that extremely long intervention, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. He says that we are taking money away from people. We are doing nothing of the kind. That is scaremongering. We are changing the indexation going forward, as he is well aware. We must address the huge debt left behind by the previous Government. [Interruption.]. Opposition Members are obviously in denial. That is what we have to do.

The Bill is important, as I have explained, because it is part of parliamentary control of the armed forces. It provides the legal basis for the armed forces to exist. Without it, there would be some rather interesting and difficult situations.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

No, I think not.

There is an annual continuation order, which must be approved by both Houses every year. The Bill is the primary legislation, which we must have every five years, as most Members of the House know. I have a real interest in the safe passage of the Bill. Perhaps I should have declared that I am a recipient of an armed forces pension changing from RPI to CPI indexation. It will be a privilege to take the Bill through the House.

Finally, I pay tribute to all members of the armed forces who are even now serving on duty in Afghanistan in real danger on our behalf. I also pay tribute to the families and the communities who support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

armed forces bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:

Select Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.

2. The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before 10 March 2011.

Committee of the whole House, consideration and Third Reading

3. On report from the Select Committee the Bill shall be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.

4. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on re-committal, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day’s sitting.

5. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings or at the moment of interruption on that day, whichever is the earlier.

7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

armed forces bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:

1. The Committee shall have 14 members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

2. The Committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it;

(b) to admit the public during the examination of witnesses and during consideration of the Bill (but not otherwise); and

(c) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Bill. —(Angela Watkinson.)