Community Veterans Mental Health Pilots

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Written Statements

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

The Government are committed to providing effective, through-life, health services for our service and ex-service personnel.

As part of this commitment, the Department of Health and devolved Administrations, with support from the Ministry of Defence, have piloted a new mental health care service for former members of the armed forces in six national health service trusts across the UK. The final pilot, in Scotland, is due to be completed in April 2011.

Independent evaluation of the pilots by the University of Sheffield Centre for Psychological Services Research, which my Department commissioned, has been completed. I am announcing today the publication of their independent evaluation report.

The report identifies key components of successful services and makes a number of recommendations. The Department of Health will consider the report and examine how its recommendations fit with existing and planned enhancements to NHS veterans mental health services, including those recommended by the my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House and also on the websites of the University of Sheffield and the Ministry of Defence.

Armed Forces Pensions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that I will be amending the compensation and pension payments for individuals who die as a result of service while holding acting rank. Pension arrangements under armed forces pension scheme 05 already ensure that any acting rank held at the time of death is taken into account in the pension received by surviving dependants. However, under the armed forces pension scheme 75, in most cases, the acting rank needs to be held for at least a year for it to be recognised in the pension received by surviving dependants. This rule will now be amended to ensure that, in future, those who die as a result of service while holding acting rank will have this higher rank recognised in the pension paid to their dependants, regardless of the length of time the acting rank has been held.

For previous such cases since April 2005, a lump sum payment of £20,000 will be made through the armed forces compensation scheme to ensure the acting rank is recognised in the payments dependants have received.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure adequate care provision for former service personnel.

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

The Government are committed to ensuring that all our former service personnel receive the support they require from across the whole of government. We also remain committed to rebuilding the military covenant.

My officials are in regular discussion with the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions and others to ensure that former servicemen and women get the services they deserve.

[David T. C. Davies]

Has the Minister considered lobbying the Government to change the law so that ex-service personnel can be discriminated in favour of in job interviews? Does he agree that were we to add ex-service personnel to the list of people in our society who can be discriminated in favour of, it would be a true example of positive discrimination?

[Mr Robathan]

I would say to all potential employers that most ex-service personnel bring with them a resilience and hard-work ethos that they may not find in every civilian. I would also say that we have very good resettlement packages for people going out into the civilian world, and we will certainly lobby employers to take disabled and other ex-service personnel on to their books. However, positive discrimination is illegal, and I do not think we are aiming to change the statutes. It is also unlawful to discriminate against disabled people.

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

The Minister has said in recent letters to Members that the Government have no plans to introduce a veterans card scheme, which many believe would assist in identifying veterans to ensure that they get the care they deserve. However, the report on the military covenant commissioned by the Government and published last week recommends implementing such a scheme. Will he now reconsider his view on this matter?

[Mr Robathan]

There is no point in commissioning a report without looking at it, and we are doing so closely—as the hon. Lady will know, we are already implementing one or two of its recommendations. The veterans card is a difficult one, because, as Labour Members in the last Administration will know, it is difficult to identify who has been in the armed forces over a period of perhaps 60 years, and to ensure that it is feasible. It is also difficult to identify what exactly would be the point of it. We should remember, for instance, that there is already a discount service for those people.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

What about the veterans badge?

[Mr Robathan]

The veterans badge does not bring with it any privileges.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

3. What timetable he has set for the decommissioning of Harrier jets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

7. If he will take steps to implement the recommendations of parliamentary Committees in the last Parliament and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to end the recruitment of under-18s into the armed forces.

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

The United Kingdom ratified the optional protocol on children in armed conflict in June 2003. The minimum age at which individuals may join the armed forces remains at 16 years, which broadly reflects the minimum statutory school leaving age. There are no plans to change this.

[Nic Dakin]

Some 28% of recruits into the armed forces were aged under 18 in 2008-09. Recruitment to the armed forces carries significant emotional and physical risks to well-being for young people. What steps are the Government taking to mitigate those risks?

[Mr Robathan]

I recently took a passing-out parade at Bassingbourn, and I was struck by how happy all the young recruits under training appeared to be. We take our duty of care very seriously. It is a tough environment, but the recruits are well looked after, and most of the young people I met were desperate to join their units. We do not allow people under 18 to go to operational theatre as a matter of policy.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the value-for-money of the contract to build two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to raise the standard of service accommodation.

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

The Government place a high priority on the welfare of service personnel and their families and will therefore seek to improve accommodation where necessary. More than 95% of service family accommodation properties in the UK are currently at the top two standards, out of four, for condition.

[Ian Lavery]

The Minister will be aware that as a result of the sale of the Chelsea barracks in 2007, £959 million was raised. Can he confirm that that money will be ring-fenced for service accommodation and that any future investment during the comprehensive spending review period will be new, rather than previously allocated, investment?

[Mr Robathan]

There was a story in the News of the World which was not entirely correct. [Interruption.] It was not entirely correct. A great deal of money was raised from the sale of Chelsea barracks but that was some four years ago when I do not recall our being in power. Having checked on this we have discovered that although the money is not ring-fenced, because we do not believe it should be, we have spent the vast majority of it and we will spend well in excess of that amount. As a matter of interest, on Thursday I was fortuitously at Bulford, where I started the work on a new married quarters estate that will provide 260 state-of-the-art houses for our deserving personnel.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

19. What effects the redundancies in the armed forces announced in the strategic defence and security review will have on standing commitments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T4. Will the Minister update me on the progress of the reserved forces review, mentioned in the SDSR, and confirm that there will be no cuts to 56 Signal Squadron? It is partly based in my constituency, and I personally had the good fortune to witness the skill and dedication of its members during the cold snap, when, if it had not been for them, I think my local hospital would have struggled to stay open.

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

I certainly pay tribute to the Signal Squadron and its work during the cold snap. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot pre-empt the review, which only started less than two months ago, by saying whether there will be any changes to the squadron’s configuration. What I can say is that we very much value the commitment and contribution of the reserves both at home and, now, on operational deployments.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

We are constantly being told that the next Parliament after 2015 will have to take the final decision on replacing the Trident nuclear missile system. Exactly how much money, which would otherwise not need to be spent, will be spent between now and then in preparing for that decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T7. My hon. Friend will be aware of the sacrifice of the thousands of men and women of Bomber Command during the second world war. That sacrifice has never been properly recognised by the award of a campaign medal. When will it be?

[Mr Robathan]

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those of Bomber Command and, indeed, to the whole of the Royal Air Force during the second world war? They fought to defend our freedom so successfully and we owe them an enormous amount.

A review into medals is taking place—indeed, there are meetings this week—and I am also having meetings about a Bomber Command memorial, which will go up opposite the Royal Air Force Club in St James’s park. It is a very fine memorial, and I look forward to it being erected and to paying proper tribute to Bomber Command, which I know some people feel has been slightly forgotten.

War Pensions: Uprating 2011

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Written Statements

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

The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2011 are set out in the following tables. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2011 will take place from the week beginning 11 April 2011. Rates for 2011 are increasing by 3.1% in line with the Consumer Price Index as outlined in the Budget.

Defence Spending (Wales)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs James]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the Government cutting off their nose to spite their face does not help people in south and wider Wales.

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

I am listening with surprise to the hon. Lady, because she seems to be saying that we should make defence decisions based on employment in south Wales, rather than on the needs of the armed forces and the nation. Is that right?

[Mrs James]

I cannot agree with the Minister. I am saying—I thought I had done so clearly—that there is a disparity, which would have been reduced if the Government had decided to go forward with the defence technical college. It is not rocket science; a decision to build the college would have provided more equality and fairness. It would not have endangered front-line services, but would certainly have helped our forces, who serve so valiantly in Afghanistan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that I am able to quote. The black hole of £38 billion in unfunded procurement commitments to which I referred is from an MOD brief, post-SDSR defence SB, from 19 October 2010. If that is good enough for the MOD, it is good enough for me. I am sorry that it is not good enough for him.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. The figure is not fallacious; the MOD budget was projected to be overspent by £38 billion over the next 10 years.

[Chris Bryant]

Drivel.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Mr Robathan]

It is not drivel. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) knows that the previous Labour Government were planning cuts across the board, throughout Government spending, of 20%. Hearing people defending such matters does not go down well.

[Simon Hart]

I thank the Minister for his intervention.

Let me turn briefly to St Athan. It is not my normal habit to come to the defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), but he is actually in the Vale of Glamorgan today, where he is working hard on behalf of his constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This is the first Westminster Hall debate to which I have contributed in the past five years. It is a pleasure to be here and to be under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on securing the debate. She spoke about the effects that choices on defence spending can have on regions of the United Kingdom, and I hope to return to her words shortly.

There has been some suggestion that the Government are, in some way, anti-Welsh; that they have their daggers out for Wales. That is absolutely not the case. Let me give my own credentials. My great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather were doctors in Islwyn, in Risca. My grandfather was headmaster of Llandaff Cathedral school.

[Chris Bryant]

So what?

[Mr Robathan]

I am just saying that I am not Welsh- [Interruption.] Rather, I am not anti-Welsh. The name Robathan is Welsh. In fact, in Islwyn, there are many Robathans in the telephone book. I had a great-uncle in the Welsh Guards, and another great-uncle who was killed at Gallipoli.

[Chris Bryant]

That has nothing to do with it.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman is always full of hot air. If he could listen for a bit, he will hear what I have to say about some of the comments that have been made. I also had a great-uncle in the Welch Regiment who was killed at Gallipoli. I would rather not be accused of being anti-Welsh. I can promise that I have spent more time on the Brecon Beacons in the driving rain and snow and in Sennybridge than most people in this Chamber, possibly with the exception of you, Mr Gray, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). I have also climbed from Capel Curig adventure training camp. Those are all the military assets in Wales that I have used in my life. I would rather not hear the suggestion that we are anti-Welsh. This is the first Welsh debate in which I have taken part, because I am not representing Wales.

Let me pay tribute to all the civilians who work for the MOD and in defence projects in St Athan and elsewhere in Wales. I should also like to pay tribute to all the armed forces who are based in Wales or who are from Wales. Indeed, I support anyone who supports the defence of the United Kingdom from wherever they come.

I have been surprised by this debate because I have found it extraordinarily narrow and partisan [Interruption.] Did the hon. Gentleman say because it is Welsh? I find it astonishing. The hon. Member for Swansea East compared the desecration of war memorials in her constituency with the fact that we are not proceeding with the Metrix bid at St Athan. I can see no relationship there at all; I do not believe that her constituents or people outside will, either.

Hon. Members have spoken about the SDSR, but let me be quite clear about it. Across Government, we have faced the worst financial and economic crisis that anybody in this room has seen in their lifetime. [Interruption.] It is no good groaning. The hon. Member for Rhondda was a Minister in the previous Government and he knows that it is true.

We are currently borrowing £143 million a day. In terms of defence in Wales, that would buy, every week, three Type 45 destroyers. [Interruption.] Do they never go to Welsh ports? It is not fallacious, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said—[Interruption.] Gosh, he witters. It is not fallacious that the defence budget was overspent by £38 billion; it is true.

Let me turn briefly to some of the remarks that have been made. First, the hon. Member for Swansea East quite reasonably wants to hear about St Athan. One of the biggest decisions that the Ministry of Defence had to take was on the defence training rationalisation programme. We have heard at length about its cancellation. Put simply, that project, in the guise that it was in, was never going to be made affordable. Despite strenuous efforts by the Department—under both the previous and current Administrations—it became clear that the bidder, Metrix, was unable to deliver an affordable, commercially robust proposal within the prescribed period. On that basis, the Defence Secretary decided to terminate the project.

We continue to believe that individual technical training co-located on fewer sites, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, remains the best solution for the armed forces, but not necessarily for St Athan. The SDSR committed the Government to continuing to look at options from pre-training across the services.

[Chris Bryant]

This is a serious point. Many of us believe that bringing together all the forces for technical training is an important part of what was suggested in the past. It has worked extremely well at Shrivenham. Who would ever have thought that the Royal Navy would be prepared to leave Greenwich? It has, and it has worked. Is the Minister still saying that he wants to achieve purple training in, we hope, St Athan or elsewhere?

[Mr Robathan]

As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I have to be very careful not to commit myself to things that we are reviewing at the moment. None the less, we do see a need and a sensible way forward for more purple training on some issues. Some of that may take place in St Athan and some elsewhere.

I can assure hon. Members that St Athan is still being considered; a substantial amount of training continues at St Athan.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give us some indication of the time frame in which we will get clarity over whether there will be a joint establishment and where it will be? Will it be in a year, two years, three years, or does he just not know?

[Mr Robathan]

The review does not have an end date, but I expect it to be within the next few months.

I appreciate that the cancellation of the DTR was not something that the hon. Member for Swansea East or the people of south Wales wanted to hear. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) pointed out the rocketing costs of the DTR in St Athan. He said that in two years they had gone up from £12 billion to £14 billion. He mentioned the job losses. He said that almost half the people who were employed by the MOD 13 years ago are now not employed. He also talked about the Red Dragon hangar. The previous Government decided to build that hangar. It cost £107 million and it was to accommodate the refurbishment of 48 Tornados and Harriers. The repairs and refurbishment were cancelled before the hangar was completed in 2004; it was a complete waste of money.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about the Metrix decision being made in the context of the SDSR. He is wrong. It was separate from the SDSR and not part of our overall view. He also talked about RAF Valley. I can reassure him that RAF Valley plays a very important role in pilot training—fast jet training. If there are changes, we will keep him informed. He is also welcome to write to me, and I will write to him if changes come up.

The hon. Gentleman talked about Texas. I have to say that the weather is generally better there than in Anglesey.

[Albert Owen]

Will the Minister tell us the position with regard to replacing Sea Kings with Sikorsky helicopters? The £7 billion contract is important.

[Mr Robathan]

I am afraid that I do not have the time, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

In conclusion, the previous Government let down the United Kingdom. They let down United Kingdom defence and they let down Wales. I was told today that Labour was standing up for defence. It has not been standing up for defence in Wales but for narrow partisan interests. Frankly, it is a scandal. We will not make defence decisions based on regional party political advantage, or on the advantage of the Principality; we will make a clear-headed assessment on what is best for our armed forces, the United Kingdom—including the Principality—and its defence.

Foreign Affairs Council in Defence Formation

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Written Statements

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

Please find the agenda of discussion points for the Foreign Affairs Council in Defence Formation on 9 December 2010 detailed below. I am writing as Duty Minister. The Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for international security strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), will attend.

Informal meeting with NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen: Ministers will be accompanied by the NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for an informal discussion of EU-NATO relations. No firm agenda has been released for this session, but it is likely to encompass capability development in the form of “quick win” projects, and ongoing contact between the European Defence Agency and the Allied Command Transformation. The UK’s objectives are to welcome the renewed focus on EU/NATO relations under Ashton and Rasmussen and to continue to press for improved co-operation.

Formal working session on military capabilities: This formal discussion of capabilities will follow on from the informal meeting in Ghent in September. Again, no agenda has been issued, but we expect the discussion to concentrate on initiatives for pooling and sharing capabilities, and on bilateral and multilateral co-operation in capability development. This will highlight the UK-France defence agreement. The UK will welcome the continued emphasis on capability development, but resist calls for the creation of any additional institutions or processes.

EDA Steering Board: Ministers will discuss the work programme for 2011, the nomination of the new chief executive, the level playing field, Single European Sky, defence research, and pooling and sharing. The UK will work with the agency and its member states to develop and improve the agency effectiveness and performance, but will urge the EDA to be realistic about its budget requirements. Unless postponed, the EDA budget will be discussed as an agenda item in the Council meeting. On current plans, we intend to oppose any budget increase for the agency in 2011.

Informal working lunch discussing operations: Ministers will be accompanied over lunch by the three EU operational commanders (Op ATALANTA/ Op ALTHEA/ EUTM Somalia) in an informal discussion of progress. Some member states will also wish to discuss possible future operations, likely to focus on the Sahel and the Sudan. The UK supports the ongoing operations, and will stress the urgency of developing an internationally recognised strategy for Somalia.

Taskforce on the Military Covenant

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Written Statements

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

In July the Prime Minister asked Professor Hew Strachan of Oxford University to lead an independent taskforce to develop innovative ideas to help rebuild the military covenant.

His report, published today, looks at support that can be provided across Government and throughout society and makes many recommendations for the Government to consider. A copy of the taskforce report will be placed in the Library of the House.

I will publish a full response to this report’s recommendations on behalf of the Government in spring 2011. However, we intend to take forward work on two of the report’s recommendations in advance of that. The first is for an armed forces community covenant, which will encourage communities across the UK to volunteer support for their local armed forces. The second is for a chief of defence staff commendation scheme, which will allow the head of the UK’s armed forces to thank individuals or bodies who give exceptional support to our armed forces.

The Government are very grateful to Professor Strachan and his team for their contribution to rebuilding the military covenant.

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.