Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this Adjournment debate on the very important issue of the future of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and on providing me with an opportunity to speak on the issue, albeit rather more briefly than I had expected. I understand his relationship with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and I applaud him for speaking up for the work force. I absolutely accept that that is right and proper. I will put a plug in for myself and mention that, when I first came into the House—in 1983, I think—I served on the Employment Select Committee, as it then was, and instigated and chaired an inquiry into employment in the merchant navy, which was then under serious pressure—as indeed it has been since.

I shall deal in a few moments with the review mentioned by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I say to everyone in the Chamber—there is a surprisingly large number of Members present for an Adjournment debate—that this is not the place from which we would have wished to start. I do not want to get into party political point scoring, but everyone understands that we are in a difficult financial and economic situation and that the Government cannot go on spending money that they do not have.

[Dr Lewis]

I fully appreciate the financial hole in which the Government find themselves, but surely it is a false economy when money has been spent on brand-new vessels such as the Bay class even to think of disposing of them at such an early stage of their lives.

[Mr Robathan]

As I said a moment ago, no one would have wished to start from here, but we have to look at all options. Some programmes in the defence budget have already been cancelled—they have been announced—even though we have spent a lot of money on them. We did not wish to do so, but we had no further money to pour into them.

Let me speak briefly about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It was established in 1905, providing coaling ships to supply the Royal Navy’s network of bases around the world. It has continued to evolve into what we see today in the global reach that the RFA delivers for defence and the Royal Navy. Although its origins are the merchant navy, the RFA has developed in a specialised way to meet the Royal Navy’s requirements. It is linked to the Royal Navy by heritage, which has been mentioned, tasks, management, chain of command and ethos.

The commercial merchant navy has had a long history of working with the Royal Navy over many centuries and has had to fight and defend itself to develop commerce around the world. Defending itself against piracy, for instance, is not a new challenge. More recently, developments in warfare and warships, specialisation of commercial ships and their design limit the utility of commercial shipping to providing core support to military operations. While commercial shipping has little knowledge of warfare, over the past 30 years the RFA has developed to meet the specialised needs of 21st century warfare.

The RFA is the modern example of merchant shipping working and prepared to fight alongside the Royal Navy. It is the means by which the Navy operates globally. Equally exposed to the risk, it is a key enabler for worldwide reach of the UK’s armed forces. The RFA has essential qualities that make it different, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, and that enable it to deliver operational quality effectively to the Ministry of Defence and the Navy, blending the commercial manning and ship management models into military operations. As a result of the versatility of the ships and the knowledge that the work force has accumulated over many years, the RFA has become a deliverer of operational capability as well as an enabler.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this debate. May I ask the Minister whether he would be willing to consider Plymouth as one of the homes of the port basing when he has to decide the location?

[Mr Robathan]

My parents-in-law live just outside Plymouth, which might make this a bit personal. We will consider and review everything, but I make no promises one way or the other to my hon. Friend.

The responsibilities of today’s RFA are far from commercial in nature, but wholly integral to the Royal Navy’s continued deployments and presence around the world. For instance, RFA ships currently operating east of Suez are part of the wider maritime security effort for stability in the region. RFA Cardigan Bay is in the northern Gulf and is the logistics hub supporting the training base for the Iraqi navy, defending its oil platforms. RFA Lyme Bay is the headquarters ship for allied mine counter-measure ships. Fort Victoria has a large team of Royal Marines, a number of boats and a Merlin helicopter and is working with HMS Northumberland on counter-piracy operations off the Somali coast. I suppose I cannot use visual aids, but there is a very good one on the front of the magazine, Navy News. I cannot show it, but it says “Busted” and it is about an RFA ship.

Without describing the RFA in too much detail, I turn to deal with the review, as I believe that it is the review and the strategic defence and security review that really concern the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The RFA’s novel approach to delivering maritime operational support is not bought at the expense of its professionalism. I pay tribute, as did the hon. Gentleman, to the work of the RFA and the dedication of its staff.

The review of the RFA was initiated by the previous Administration. Some have suggested that it was driven by a decision to commercialise the RFA. It says here that I cannot speak for the intention of the last Administration, but I was glad to hear the hon. Member for North Durham explain that it was indeed driven by the Treasury.

[Mr Jones]

It was.

[Mr Robathan]

I believe that candour is important in politics.

The Government are anxious to ensure that we deliver the capability that is required, and do so as efficiently as possible. To that end, we undertook an informal market exercise over the summer to test the assertion by some that industry could deliver the tasks currently conducted by the RFA more efficiently. I should emphasise that that was not a formal process, but was undertaken to ascertain the extent to which the question was worth addressing—as some, including my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who questioned General Richards a few days ago, have suggested it is.

While there was strong commercial interest in contractorisation of the RFA and the industry would be prepared to operate the service at all threat levels, and although the study concluded that there might be scope for some market efficiency savings, no enthusiasm was expressed for either acquiring the existing RFA flotilla—in whole or in part—or assuming both the capital and operating risks. On that basis, therefore, there is insufficient evidence in favour of changing the current RFA business model, which has served us well for a number of years. However, we are keen to ensure that it delivers the required responsibilities as efficiently as possible.

The strategic defence and security review has involved some very difficult but unavoidable decisions for the armed forces, none of which has been made lightly. They will lead to changes in the size of the RFA that will reflect the changing size and shape of the Royal Navy. Final decisions have not yet been made, beyond the decommissioning of one Bay class amphibious support ship that was part of the SDSR announcement in October. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be in a position to announce the detailed force structure changes shortly, but the House will understand that some reductions in the size of the RFA will be involved. They will include personnel reductions, but, like the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, we hope that they can be made as much as possible through natural wastage. The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the age profile of the work force.

The Department is currently discussing with the departmental trades unions the need for early release activity to manage what will, I fear, be surplus RFA manpower. Until those consultations end, I cannot give the details of how members of the RFA might be affected, or the terms on which reductions will be managed.

My speech has been rather curtailed, but let me end by saying that although the challenges to be faced by the RFA after the SDSR and the value for money study are not insignificant, they are challenges that we believe the organisation has accepted head on, and they reflect an element of the difficult decisions that we have had to make throughout the SDSR. What I understand is known, in nautical terms, as the headmark for the Government remains Future Force 2020. We need to manage expectations and uncertainty—which we do not like—for both uniformed and civilian personnel, and that will be a key leadership challenge at all levels.

Let me again commend the Royal Fleet Auxiliary for the work that it does, and for the capabilities it brings to the naval service and defence now and into the foreseeable future. I am always happy to have a talk with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, and look forward to doing so again.

Question put and agreed to.

Ground Close Combat Roles (Women)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Written Statements

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

In accordance with the requirements of the EC equal treatment directive, the Ministry of Defence has carried out a review of the current policy of excluding women from ground close-combat roles. The policy was last formally reviewed in 2002.

Considerably more direct evidence is available now than was the case when the previous review was carried out. However, the conclusions are mixed and do not provide the basis for a clear recommendation either way as to whether the current policy of excluding women from ground close-combat roles should be retained or rescinded.

The service chief’s view is that women are fundamental to the operational effectiveness of the UK armed forces, bringing talent and skills across the board. Their capability in almost all areas is not in doubt, they win the highest decorations for valour, and demonstrate that they are capable of acting independently and with great initiative. But these situations are not those typical of the small tactical teams in the combat arms which are required deliberately to close with and kill the enemy. The consequences of opening up these small tactical teams in close-combat roles to women are unknown. Other nations have very mixed experiences.

In the light of the inconclusive results of the research and the views of the service chiefs, I have concluded that a precautionary approach is necessary. Accordingly, the current policy of excluding women from ground close-combat roles while ensuring that the maximum numbers of trades are available to provide opportunity to those women who wish to serve their country will continue.

In parallel with this statement, I am publishing a full report on the review, including the research that was carried out, on the Department’s website at

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/PersonnelPublications/EqualityandDiversity/Gender/WomenInCombat.htm.

UK Veterans Administration

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start, as is traditional, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on securing this debate to discuss the important topic of how we look after former members of our armed forces. I am glad to hear that I, too, am expected to grasp nettles like the infant Hercules; I am not sure whether there is a mixed metaphor somewhere in there, but there probably is, although that is my fault, because I am not such an illustrious author. By the way, I am not a very distinguished soldier either—although it was very sweet of my hon. Friend to say that I was. Never mind, I take all flattery when it is given.

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) here today, and I have heard his submission for Armed Forces day 2012. I am sure that he will make it again, but I will note it and take it into account when decisions are made.

I confess that I was rather sorry to hear that the title of the debate had changed from “Care for UK Ex-Servicemen” to “UK Veterans Administration”. Although I am officially the Minister for veterans, I cannot help feeling that many of those who have served are more comfortable with a term that highlights exactly what they have done—that they have served their country in a way that is unique. My only qualification would be to add that today more and more ex-servicewomen swell the ranks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby raised several important points, and I shall respond at length on one or two. I do not want to take up too much time, and I may not have all the information to hand, but we will enter into correspondence about the issues. I do not agree with everything she said, as I shall explain, but what has come across clearly is that she and I, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, share two fundamental principles. The first is that the nation and the Government have a moral obligation to care for those who have made a commitment by joining the armed forces, and taking on the duties and sometimes the sacrifices that service requires. I will return to the question of the armed forces covenant later.

The second principle is that when we provide support, we must place the ex-serviceman or woman at the heart of what we do. Organisations and structures are only the means to an end, and what matters is how we can best help each individual, such as the person whom my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport met in a bus shelter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby highlighted the range of services that former service personnel may need to call on during their lives, and the variety of agencies that provide them. She argues that it would be more cost-effective to provide those services if they were brought together in a single administration. I do not agree, because when a service is already provided by one Department for the majority of the population, there needs to be a very strong case to set up a separate organisation to do the same thing for the remainder. Ex-service personnel live among us; they are not separate from the community that they have worked to protect. There are three ex-regular army officers in the Chamber and one former Territorial officer. We are here; we are not separate from the rest.

For the most part, veterans’ needs are the same as those of their fellow citizens, whether they involve health care, housing or benefits. Most of our ex-service personnel do not want that period in their lives, which may be quite brief, to be the dominant factor in deciding how they access services for the rest of their lives. A great friend of mine, General Sir Robert Fry, recently said that some of the reaction to the armed forces at the moment is somewhat mawkish, and that is true up to a point. I do not mean that the armed forces, the House or I myself do not relish the fact that people are now giving due respect where it is deserved—but we must be careful that we do not adopt a mawkish attitude to people who are just getting on with their lives in the service of this country.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Some people might not consider that to be mawkish. From my time in Northern Ireland, I know some soldiers who would benefit greatly from better veterans’ services. Our problem with mental casualties will increase hugely. On average, one person is killed for eight wounded, but in the Minister’s and my time that was one to three. The problem will get worse, and we must ensure that our services for those veterans are as good as possible.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. and gallant Friend not only spent a longer time in the armed forces than the rest of us in the Chamber today, but came away much more covered in glory and honour than anyone else. I assure him that I and the Government appreciate, as did the previous Administration, the long-term problems that may arise from many of the casualties in Afghanistan. I will return to mental health shortly, because I want to raise several issues.

The US model is often held up for comparison, but the great difference between ourselves and our American friends is, of course, that in this country we have a national health service within a welfare state. It has the vocation to provide the very best care for everyone. Since 1948 the NHS has given excellent service day in, day out to millions of ex-servicemen and women and their families.

Ex-service personnel are entitled to priority in NHS treatment for conditions resulting from service. The main problem has been lack of awareness of that entitlement among ex-servicemen and women, and especially among practitioners, which is why we have supported recent steps to publicise it more effectively. At the new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, we see evidence every day of the superb level of care that the NHS provides to our people who are injured in Afghanistan. They are still serving, of course, but that shows the first-class co-operation that can and does exist between different parts of Government. We must ensure that that is everyone's experience.

We must also recognise that part of the support for ex-service personnel comes not from the Government but from the voluntary and community sector; my hon. Friend the Member for Corby mentioned that. Sometimes the service charities are described as substituting for what the Government should be doing. I believe that that does them a great disservice. I say philosophically that Government bureaucracy is not necessarily the best way to deliver some of the extra services and care that service charities deliver. The help that charitable and voluntary organisations and—dare I say it?—the big society have given to people returning from warfare goes back a long way. It is not for the state to do everything, and the state is not necessarily best placed to do that. We all have social responsibilities, and service charities are an excellent example of the big society in action. I pay tribute to their vital and irreplaceable role in our national life.

This week—it seems to have been quite a long week—I had an opportunity to visit the Royal British Legion on the south bank, and Combat Stress, two organisations that work as active and independent charities, but collaborate closely with the Government in the interests of ex-servicemen. Several formulae have been suggested over the years to strengthen the focus on ex-service issues in the UK. They range from the full-blown US-style Veterans Administration to more modest changes to Government machinery. Some give a greater role to the Ministry of Defence; others look to central Government to take on the responsibility. The creation of a Minister for veterans can be seen against that background, but my role, quite properly, has its limits. I can act as an advocate or as an interlocutor for ex-service personnel, but I do not want to tell the Department of Health and its devolved equivalents how best to deliver health care. Rather, I want to see ex-servicemen and women treated correctly across government, and not pigeonholed.

If we are to rely on our current range of providers to support former members of the armed forces, that will impose two requirements on us. The first is that the services that the nation provides should be attuned to the particular needs of veterans, where that is appropriate. Mental health has been mentioned, and it is an excellent example. It is generally acknowledged that ex-service personnel who are suffering problems as a direct result of their service—for example, those with post traumatic stress disorder— might respond better to an environment in which their particular experience is recognised and understood. I have heard this referred to as “cultural sensitivity”. Hence the importance of the six mental health pilots, designed to trial best practice in this area, which are going on now.

Getting our mental health services right, and tailoring them to the needs of the ex-service personnel who need them, is a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has considered fully in his recent report. We are now taking forward his recommendations. To illustrate the priority that we attach to this, when I visited Combat Stress headquarters earlier in the week and had a chance to learn more about its activities, I was joined not only by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire but by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). I hope that represents a true example of joined-up government. I heard exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said on these matters, but rather than going into them in great depth now, I want to discuss one or two of the issues with him later. Perhaps he could buy me a cup of tea.

[Oliver Colvile]

indicated assent.

[Mr Robathan]

Ah, good. [Interruption.] He is quite well off, I think.

That joint approach brings me to the second requirement, which is co-ordination between providers. I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who used to do my job, will agree that the co-ordination between providers has not always been good. Ex-service personnel want services that meet their needs efficiently and effectively. They do not want to be shunted about, or to fall down the cracks. That has happened in the past, and it is still happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby has referred to the efforts that the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency makes to co-ordinate the different services that ex-service personnel can call upon. Its helplines are very successful, for example, handling 150,000 to 200,000 calls each year. When I visited Norcross earlier this year, I listened to some of those calls, and heard good practical advice being given in a clear and sensitive way. I would like to put on record today my appreciation for what the SPVA staff do to assist ex-servicemen and women. Whether it involves managing pensions and compensation, staffing the helplines, delivering the veterans welfare service or issuing veterans badges—which are very popular—they make a real difference.

We must ensure that Government Departments work together as a matter of course. They need to take into account the needs and concerns of former service personnel at all stages of their work, from developing policy to delivering services on the ground.

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

I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s point about co-ordination at local level. We piloted the welfare pathway—I understand that he does not like that name—and I wonder whether he is going to roll it out further. It was all about getting people at local level talking to each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I recognise and pay tribute to the work that the last Administration did. If we look back 10 years, or even five, the situation was not what it is now—let us not blame whoever was in government 10 years ago—and I pay tribute to what they did. Now, the situation is very different from what it was even three years ago. He is quite right to say that I do not like the term “pathway”; it sounds a bit like new Labour-speak to me. However, in answer to his question, we are making no commitments at the moment, but we are certainly looking towards this way, because if it works, it will be the best way forward.

As I was saying, Government Departments need to work together as a matter of course, and to take into account the needs and concerns of veterans at all stages of their work, from developing policy to delivering services on the ground. I have even put into my speech here that I believe that the previous Government were right to emphasise that principle, when they published the command paper “The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans”. To ensure that that happens, the Cabinet Office chairs a Committee at senior level to bring Departments together.

What we have been discussing is at the heart of the military covenant. Our own commitment to rebuilding the covenant featured prominently in the coalition programme for government. That programme includes a range of proposals to benefit ex-service personnel, from mental health to troops to teachers, which was mentioned only yesterday and, I noticed, was the subject of a headline in the Evening Standard. I am not sure that I quite understood the newspaper’s interpretation of the proposal, but there we go. On Troops for Teachers, I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education yesterday confirming our commitment to a scheme that will help both ex-service personnel and our schools.

I suggest to the House that the key to making things work better for ex-service personnel is that kind of holistic, co-ordinated approach, working together to a common end, rather than an organisational upheaval. Our intention is that the new tri-service armed forces covenant will set the tone of what we do across Government.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues today. I will take up many of the points that she has raised and discuss them with her further. Her interventions remind us that one of the yardsticks by which a Government are judged is how well they treat their ex-servicemen and women. We are determined to treat them with dignity and respect and to reflect the huge debt, which my hon. Friend spoke about, that we all owe to all of them. It is our moral duty to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

9. If he will bring forward proposals for a national defence medal to recognise non-operational military service.

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

The Government hold the professionalism, courage and contribution of all those who serve or who have served in the armed forces in high regard. I understand that some people believe that their service, and the service of all personnel, should warrant a medal. The coalition Government are committed to reviewing the rules governing the award of medals. However, at present, there are no plans to recommend to Her Majesty the introduction of a national defence medal.

[Lorely Burt]

I very much welcome the review. We are just a few days away from Remembrance day, and since 1919 we have been remembering the sacrifice of our armed services. Today, however, we have much improved media and greater transparency, and we understand more the mental, emotional and physical sacrifice that all our armed services personnel make. Is now not the time to include a national defence medal in that review?

[Mr Robathan]

We are going to have that review, and may I recommend to the hon. Lady that she puts forward her views at that time? Indeed, I know that they represent her party’s policy, which it adopted at a recent conference. Medals are awarded for campaign service because they recognise the risk and rigour of deployment, which is considered to be more extreme than when, I am afraid, people are in a barracks or at home on a base.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

May I urge the Minister to err on the side of generosity? The previous Government could not take on the review committees of retired colonels and General Blimps, who refused to order even a Bomber Command campaign medal. People like to wear medals and are very proud of the Army now, and they also serve who serve in this country. I hope that the Minister will not shove the idea out to a review. He should come back and accept the hon. Lady’s suggestion.

[Mr Robathan]

As I have said, we are not shoving the idea out but having a review. Some who have served would like to see a national defence medal, but my experience is that probably the majority of those who have been in the armed forces and then left accept the decisions that were made when they were serving and do not wish to revisit history in that way.

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

15. What support his Department provides to former armed forces personnel who have served in Afghanistan.

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

Regardless of where, or for how long, a member of the armed forces has served, all are entitled to receive some form of resettlement support. That ranges from housing advice through to vocational training. In addition, employment consultancy support is available through the career transition partnership for up to two years after leaving, as well as lifetime job-finding support. Those who are medically discharged will receive the full resettlement package.

[Henry Smith]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. My local authority, Crawley borough council, is interested in investigating ways in which people who have left the services and are returning to their home town will not be disadvantaged by going on to the social housing list. Can he assure me that the Defence Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will work together to ensure that military personnel leaving the forces are not disadvantaged on the housing list?

[Mr Robathan]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s local authority is taking that action. All service personnel are entitled to briefings on their housing options, and some 50 briefings a year take place nationwide and, indeed, abroad. Advice includes obtaining property through a local authority, private renting or owning, and service leavers retain their key worker status for up to one year after having left. My hon. Friend will know that at the moment we are in very close discussions about the military covenant and how we can ensure that no one who leaves the services is disadvantaged when they return to their home area.

[Rehman Chishti]

I pay tribute to the Royal Engineers, who have two regiments serving in Afghanistan. What steps are being taken to ensure that veterans are given support in the transition back to civilian life?

[Mr Robathan]

I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the Royal Engineers. Veterans receive a great deal of support in resettlement. Everybody trying to return to civilian life from the services now receives support, and—[Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) would not interrupt me. I was just going to say that a lot of that was put in place under the previous Administration. I accept that absolutely and pay tribute to them.

However, there are resettlement courses. Everybody now receives them, and as they move on to seek employment, organisations such as the Regular Forces Employment Association help those who have left.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update the House on what progress he has made in working with the national health service to ensure that those who have left the armed forces continue to receive priority treatment?

[Mr Robathan]

We are looking at how the Ministry of Defence and the service charities, and everybody else, interrelate in the military covenant. The local authorities to which I referred interrelate, and certainly the NHS does. There have been frankly regrettable incidents in which people have been unable, for instance, to get dental services or to get on to an NHS doctors list. We are looking at improving that situation. Again, I hate to say this, but the previous Administration did some good work on this as well.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions he has had on compulsory redundancies from the armed forces as a result of the outcomes of the strategic defence and security review.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T8. As we approach Armistice day and pay tribute to all those who gave their lives for this country, let me say that I will be attending the opening of the redeveloped Chiswick memorial homes. What message can I give our veterans about what this Government will do for them?

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

It is indeed Armistice day on Thursday, and the plethora of poppies around this Chamber are not just for window-dressing, but show that people in this Chamber care about Armistice day and the sacrifice that past generations have made. The message that I would give to veterans is that we will certainly look after our ex-service personnel as best we can. We are pledged to reinvigorate the military covenant, and if my hon. Friend watches this space, as it were, she will see that happening pretty soon. Finally, I understand that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth) will be attending the event in Chiswick, and I hope that it goes extremely well.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

What estimates has the Minister made of the total financial cost of military base closures in Germany?

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T9. I thought that the Minister’s response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) was lacking in political direction and conviction. Bearing in mind that Her Majesty the Queen, as the Head of State of both Australia and New Zealand, has graciously authorised the award of a national defence medal, can we not have that in the United Kingdom for those who have served?

[Mr Robathan]

We are certainly never lacking in direction. What I would say is that when the Queen is dealing with matters in New Zealand and Australia, she is the Queen of New Zealand and Australia, and that does not necessarily mean that we will follow exactly what happens in New Zealand and Australia. We are reviewing matters, but as I said before, campaign medals are awarded for the deprivations of campaigns and the extra need to recognise people for their hard work on campaigns. That is not to denigrate service in barracks, but it is a very different thing, if I might say so.

--- Later in debate ---

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

From 13 December Camelot intends to change its rules, which will prevent many members of our armed forces who are serving overseas from playing the national lottery. It is a simple pleasure, and as they remain UK taxpayers, will the Secretary of State look into the matter and attempt to persuade Camelot to change its mind?

[Mr Robathan]

This is news to us. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will certainly look into it and let him have a proper answer when I have done so.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State will be in Oslo this week for meetings with Nordic Defence Ministers. How will he convince them that he is serious when he has just scrapped the UK’s maritime reconnaissance fleet, is thinking of moving the joint combat aircraft away from the north of Scotland, and is considering closing both airbases closest to Norway?

Unsolicited Mail (Christmas)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Written Statements

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

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

This Government are dedicated to the care and welfare of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those on operations in Afghanistan. This is reflected in the first class deployed welfare package which is constantly being improved to maximise the support we give to our armed forces on operations. A vital part of that package is ensuring the safe and timely delivery of personal mail from family and friends. To that end, we have a policy in place which encourages the generous British public to support our troops in ways other than by sending unsolicited goodwill parcels through the mail system.

By way of background, during the build-up to Christmas 2007, the volume of unsolicited goodwill parcels overwhelmed the in-theatre postal and logistic capacity, resulting in a considerable delay to personal mail. British Forces Post Office (BFPO) estimates it will handle around 19,200 unsolicited parcels over Christmas this year (the eight-week period between mid-October and mid-December) as opposed to 6,400 over a “normal” eight-week period. In addition to the impact on personal mail, delivering unsolicited packages over the “final mile” to forward operating bases and patrol bases puts increased pressure on essential in-theatre resources. Additional helicopters and road convoys are required, both of which take essential transport assets away from their primary task and place our personnel at increased personal danger.

It is for these reasons that the MOD will be encouraging the British public to show their support through one of the recognised MOD service charities rather than sending unsolicited goodwill parcels. All service personnel on operations over Christmas will receive a seasonal gift box from the MOD endorsed charity, “uk4u Thanks!”. The charity works closely with the MOD, using free space in the existing supply chain to deliver the boxes over a period of time, so without impacting on the normal mail system. Other charities which help to support our troops include Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA), Afghan Heroes, Support our Soldiers and Operation Shoebox.

This is not an easy issue and will seem counter-intuitive to many, but I ask for your full support in directing the public towards MOD recognised charities rather than sending unsolicited mail as a means of expressing their much valued support to our deployed personnel.

Military Bases

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Nicholas Soames]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many permanent UK military headquarters there are; where each is located; who has command at each such headquarters; and what the staff is of each.

[Official Report, 20 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 182-84W.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Robathan:

Errors have been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on 20 July 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

[holding answer 15 July 2010]: There are five permanent military headquarters (HQ) in the UK. Details of the location, who has command and staff employed at each are shown in the following table:

[Mr Robathan]

The information is provided in the following table.

Ex-Service Personnel (Prison Population)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

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

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

On 6 January 2010, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice—under the previous Administration—announced in a written ministerial statement, Official Report, columns 6-7WS, the findings of an initial study by the Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) which estimated that 3% of the prison population in England and Wales are ex-regular service personnel. DASA has since revised their estimate to 3.5% to take into account the incompleteness of their service leavers database which did not include reliable data for those who had left the services prior to 1979 (Navy), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF).

DASA has also determined the demographic and service variables of veterans in prison. They are predominantly male (99.6%), British nationals (96.7%)), ex-Army (77%) other rank (92%), with 50% being aged 45 and over. Only 1% are recorded as officers and 7% had no rank status attached to their records. DASA calculated that for veterans in prison the time between discharge from the armed forces and the start of their current sentence ranged from 0 to 41 years. 41% began their current sentence 10 years after leaving the services, with only 6% having started their current sentence within a year of being discharged. However, DASA estimates that for males aged 18 to 54, the proportion of the ex-regular service personnel in prison was 30% less than the proportion of the general population in the same age group.

The DASA follow-on report on the demographic and service variables of veterans in prison is being placed in the Library of the House and published in full on their website:

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub =VETERANS_IN_PRISON

DASA’s report provides a detailed statistical analysis of the demographic variables of veterans in prison. It does not explore why veterans come into contact with the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence will consider what further work might usefully be commissioned to understand the reasons behind this.

Independent Medical Expert Group (Armed Forces Compensation Scheme)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

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

As a result of Lord Boyce’s review of the armed forces compensation scheme, published in February 2010, an independent medical expert group was established. Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor CBE FMedSci has led this group, which comprises senior licensed consultants drawn from relevant specialties, representatives of ex-service organisations and serving members of the armed forces.

The group’s role is to advise on the appropriate levels of compensation for a number of specific injuries, illnesses and diseases highlighted in the AFCS review as being areas requiring further detailed work. The group is providing advice on a range of complex issues, including:

Genital injury

Paired injuries

Hearing loss and acoustic trauma

Non-freezing cold injury

Mental health

Brain injury

Spinal cord injury

There are several important topics that the group has begun that require more detailed analysis, including on mental health issues. As a result of this, I am going to extend the group in its current form to March 2012. I will review the group’s status in 12 months’ time. Therefore I am renaming the group the “Independent Medical Expert Group”.

Ofsted Report (Armed Forces Initial Training)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

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

Today Ofsted publishes its report on welfare and duty of care in armed forces initial training, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House. Over the course of a year, Ofsted inspected 10 initial training establishments, meeting with recruits, trainees and staff to assess the effectiveness of the care and welfare arrangements.

Training to join the front line in the armed forces is recognised as a challenge for recruits and trainees and the staff who look after them, which is why providing a safe and supportive environment is essential if the training is to be fully effective. I am pleased that Ofsted regards most recruits and trainees as well motivated, thoughtful and confident individuals who feel safe and well supported.

Ofsted reports that where problems exist, they are not related to the quality of welfare and duty of care support, but to structure, management systems and staffing issues and it is these aspects of provision that are judged as being “inadequate” in two locations. These concerns are being addressed and followed up through the chain of command.

The impact of operations on the training environment is noted by Ofsted in the report and this, combined with the current resource climate, means that we must strive to continue our efforts to improve ensuring that the impact of change is evaluated and the effect on recruits and trainees remains positive.

Grob Tutor (Service Inquiry)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House today of the findings of the Royal Air Force service inquiry into the loss of Grob Tutor, G-BYXR, on 14 June 2009 in Oxfordshire. Tragically, the volunteer reserve pilot, Flight Lieutenant Mike Blee, and Combined Cadet Force (CCF) cadet, Nicholas Rice, were killed. Our deepest sympathies remain with their families and friends.

The purpose of a service inquiry is to establish the circumstances of the loss and to learn lessons from it; it does not seek to apportion blame. The service inquiry was convened on 15 June 2009 and has now presented its findings. The service inquiry found that on the afternoon of the 14 June 2009, Grob Tutor G-BYXR, departed from RAF Benson, to conduct an air experience flight for the CCF cadet. The aircraft was involved in a mid-air collision with a civilian standard Cirrus glider. The civilian glider pilot parachuted to safety with only minor injuries.

The service inquiry was able to identify the sequence of airborne events and concluded that the cause of the accident was the controlled flight of Grob Tutor G-BYXR into the glider. Five contributory factors were identified including the medical condition of the pilot and supervision arrangements. The RAF has apologised privately to the bereaved families for the shortcomings in its supervisory processes and I wish to restate that apology today.

The service inquiry panel made a total of 18 recommendations primarily relating to procedures, equipment and training. Twelve of these recommendations have already been implemented and the remaining six recommendations are under active consideration.

A redacted version of the inquiry findings will be placed in the Library of the House today. It will also be made available on the MOD internet site and can be found by following the link below:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/BoardsOfInquiry/serviceinquiryinvestigatingtheaccidenttotutorgbyxr.htm