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.

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.