Ex-Service Personnel (Prison Population)
Lord Robathan Excerpts(15 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(15 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(15 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(15 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Service Complaints Commissioner's Second Annual Report
Lord Robathan Excerpts(15 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House, the Ministry of Defence’s formal response to the Service Complaints Commissioner’s (SCC) second annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
The MOD accepts the SCC’s 10 new recommendations, three updated recommendations and two new objectives. The formal response sets out how the MOD proposes to address the recommendations and what we will be doing in the coming months.
Progress made against the recommendations in the 2008 annual report has done much to improve awareness of the service complaints process and brought some important organisational change. We shall maintain and build on that progress in the coming year as we address the recommendations in the 2009 report, further improving on our current system and increasing confidence in it among our service personnel.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Robathan Excerpts(15 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
3. What plans he has for the future of the Army recovery capability; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The coalition Government are fully committed to supporting injured servicemen and women who have sacrificed so much for our country’s security. We are therefore proceeding with the delivery of the Army recovery capability, which was announced by the previous Administration in February this year, in partnership with Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. This extremely laudable initiative will make a real difference to the support that the sick and wounded receive during and after the excellent clinical care from which they already benefit. Last Wednesday, I met the future Chief of the General Staff to discuss progress with the delivery of this capability, and to consider what more can be done to support these individuals as they return to duty or make the transition to civilian life.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer. Will the Government confirm that the three new personnel recovery centres are on track to open according to the time scale set up by Labour?
Mr Robathan
May I first, unusually, pay tribute to the previous Administration? The Army recovery capability represents a really positive, sensible move forward. They committed resources to it, and we shall continue to do so. Yes, at the moment, we are definitely on track for the opening times. I visited the current centre at the Erskine homes in Edinburgh three weeks ago and saw the work that has been going on there. That is improving the whole time. I should say that this is a new development, and things will evolve as we move forward.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
One of the centres will be in Bulford and Tidworth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), and it will open in 2012. Does the Minister agree that, as well as looking after the injured servicemen, there are two elements that we must not lose sight of? The first is to look after their families, who often suffer greatly. The second is to find really practical ways of giving these people jobs and putting them in touch with employers, so that they can be employed for many years to come.
Mr Robathan
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Families play a hugely important role in that regard. Indeed, I regularly meet members of the families federations of the Army and the other forces, and I can assure him that they let me know their views in no uncertain terms. Regarding his second point, the Army recovery capability is working on ensuring that, whatever the future of the personnel it is treating, they have a future either in the armed forces or in civilian life.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister has seen in The Sun newspaper this morning the proposal to throw out of the armed forces those who have been severely wounded on active service. I note that the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State are citing the introduction of manning control points as a justification for that. When I was the Minister responsible for these matters, I resisted the introduction of manning control points, and it was only after intense pressure from the head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, and the Army Board that they were introduced. What was clear, however, was that they would not be used as a way of getting rid of brave servicemen and women injured in the defence of this country—a position that was underlined when General Richards and I launched the Army recovery capability in February. At the time, General Richards said that he expected
“that no soldier who thinks it is in his interests to stay will be forced out.”
May I ask the Minister whether that has now changed? Is it now the intention of the Ministry of Defence, under pressure from the Treasury, to use manning control points to force out those injured in the line of duty? If it is, it will be a moral betrayal and run contrary to all the rhetoric—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have got the thrust of the question, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). A brief reply from the Minister, please.
Mr Robathan
I hate to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I think it would be a moral outrage if we were to throw people out through manning control points after they had been injured on active service. As he will know, if people have been treated through the Army recovery capability, they will be going down an entirely different route and no manning control point will be used at the time. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against believing everything he reads in The Sun or any other newspaper.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
5. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on provision of facilities for retired service personnel diagnosed with combat stress.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Ministry of Defence works closely with the Department of Health on issues relating to support for former service personnel with mental health needs, in particular through the Partnership Board, which brings together the MOD and the four UK Departments of Health.
Oliver Colvile
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has produced a report on combat stress, and I wonder whether the Minister knows when it might be published. Both the Combat Stress charity and the Plymouth and district branch of Mind are interested, and they would like to read it sooner rather than later.
Mr Robathan
May I first pay tribute to Combat Stress—an excellent organisation—and its current chief executive Dave Hill, whom I understand is retiring shortly to Northumberland, where he lives? It does excellent work among ex-service personnel. As to the date of publication, there is an old parliamentary procedure: it will be published shortly.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
It is an admirable aspiration for veterans to get priority in receiving NHS treatment. Will the Minister update us on how former veterans will be identified, and what progress he is making with the Department of Health on achieving that?
Mr Robathan
People who have served in the armed forces need to declare that they have done so, but under the previous Government much work was done to ensure that as people leave the armed forces, they are identified by GPs as former service personnel, and that is how we are progressing. The report that will be produced shortly by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) will deal with this issue. I pay tribute to him for his work, and thank him on behalf of the House and the Government.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Post-traumatic stress disorder is a serious condition, and the lack of diagnosis has led to significant compensation claims. Considering that in the UK health is generally devolved to the various Parliaments and Assemblies, what action is the Minister taking to ensure a consistent response and to address the issue of compensation payments?
Mr Robathan
PTSD is indeed a serious condition and should not in any way be treated lightly. It is certain that some people returning from combat do suffer from PTSD. The King’s Centre for Military Health Research, led by Professor Simon Wessely, has done a lot of work looking at the condition and what further we can do. I do not have an immediate answer to the question of how we can have settled compensation, except that under the armed forces compensation scheme each person with some form of health problem has a particular tariff, which might apply to PTSD too.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
6. What recent discussions he has had with Ministerial colleagues on the sharing of military equipment with other countries.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
14. What recent assessment he has made of the provision of mental health care for members of the armed forces and for veterans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Ministry of Defence has a wide range of measures in place to monitor and manage the mental health of serving personnel, and has been exploring with the NHS to ensure ex-service personnel get the care they require. The current strategic defence and security review will include consideration of possible enhancements to medical care, including improved mental health care. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Prime Minister has asked my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) to conduct an independent study of the provision of support and services to the armed forces and ex-service personnel and to make recommendations for improvement, particularly in the area of mental health.
Chris Evans
I thank the Minister for that response. Given that he implied on the BBC’s “File on 4” in June that he does not believe people should be screened for mental health problems, will he give an assurance that the Government are still committed to a compulsory mental health check for people on discharge from the services?
Mr Robathan
If I might say so, the hon. Gentleman misquotes what I said on “File on 4”. We take mental health very seriously; for instance, as I said in answer to an earlier question, we are looking into post-traumatic stress disorder and, indeed, I will visit the King’s Centre for Military Health Research next month to discuss that matter with Professor Wessely. It is very important that we take mental health seriously, and we are looking at how we can identify mental health problems, but I am not a clinician—I am not aware whether the hon. Gentleman is—so I cannot do other than take the advice of mental health professionals who say it is very difficult to screen people correctly and accurately for mental health problems until they present themselves with those problems.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
May I ask the Minister to continue to recognise the wider impact of combat stress, particularly on Army families? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) said, and as we discussed when I went to the launch of a new charity in Tidworth, combat stress has a huge impact on the wives, children and husbands of serving armed forces members. Please will the Minister also confirm that other measures, such as our educational premium for Army children and scholarships for the children of the fallen, will survive the spending review, as they are critical to bolstering the military covenant?
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend has put her finger on exactly the right spot: we are looking at the military covenant and how we may enhance the relationship between the Government and people of this country and the armed forces and the work they do. We are looking very closely at some of the issues my hon. Friend mentioned. As she will know, one or two of them are covered in the coalition agreement for government document and I think it highly unlikely that any Minister would dare renege on that programme for Government.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
First, may I say that I agree totally with the Minister’s opposition to screening for mental health? He is right on that. Contrary to the rhetoric before the last general election, as a member of the last Labour Government I was pleased to be part of an Administration who delivered the seven mental health pilots and the partnership agreement between Combat Stress and the Ministry of Defence and who funded the research at the King’s Centre for Military Health Research. Can the Minister give an assurance that those mental health pilots will be rolled out and that he will fight hard to ensure that not only are the lessons learned but the money is there to support them?
Mr Robathan
I am glad that we are agreeing about so much today, but I am afraid that I cannot prejudge the SDSR in any way, shape or form, as that is more than my job is worth. However, I will say this: I think it highly unlikely that we will reduce the mental health services provided for our serving and ex-service personnel because, frankly, we have made commitments on that and we cannot possibly renege on them.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
15. What steps he is taking to develop a military cyber-security policy.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Many former British military personnel are working in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq on UK and US Government security contracts. What steps are the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State taking to ensure that when former British military personnel lay their lives on the line, like their currently serving colleagues, the terms, conditions and welfare of those very brave men and women are looked into and they are looked after and taken care of?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The hon. Gentleman asks a very interesting question. Of course, people who go out to Afghanistan for commercial organisations are usually paid a great deal more than our service personnel, which is often why they have left the Army, for instance, to work for security companies. I pay tribute to their bravery in Iraq, now and in the past, and in Afghanistan, but I am not sure it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence to compensate them should they be injured while on a commercial contract with a commercial company.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
T9. I declare an interest as a serving Territorial Army officer. In considering the defence review, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the important role of reservists in recent military conflict, and the potentially more important role that they might play in future conflicts?
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Hon. Members: “Gallant.”] Indeed; my hon. and gallant Friend, if hon. Members like, because he certainly is. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), as they have both served in operational theatres, gaining invaluable experience, which they bring to the House to provide knowledge for those debates from which it may conceivably be lacking. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), and to the reservists. He is absolutely right: historically, for instance in both the first and second world wars, it was the Territorial Army, the yeomanry and so on who made up the bulk of our forces who defeated our enemies.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
As well as being a world leader in weather forecasting, the Met Office is playing an increasingly important role in accurately monitoring climate change. What discussions has the Secretary of State had regarding its privatisation?
Aggregated Service
Lord Robathan Excerpts(15 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I am pleased to be able to announce to the House details of changes to eligibility for the award of campaign medals to personnel serving in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen following recommendations by the military chiefs of staff. These amendments will be backdated to the start of both operations and will ensure that personnel who have served on both operations receive the recognition that they deserve.
The current eligibility criteria for the operational service medal (Afghanistan) and the Iraq medal require personnel to have served within the qualifying area for 30 continuous days. As a result, groups of service personnel who hitherto fulfilled their duty obligations during difficult and sometimes dangerous tours of duty but who did not meet the 30 days continuous service requirement were excluded from qualification for a medal. Examples of such groups include, but are not exclusively limited to, the aeromedical evacuation teams who have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and who accompany injured patients back to the UK. Similarly, personnel based at the Kuwait support facility who conducted convoys into Iraq but who did not accumulate 30 continuous days service in Iraq have not qualified for the Iraq medal.
Personnel who deploy to or from the operational theatre for short periods to complete specific operational tasks, and subsequently return on one or more occasions, will now be allowed to accrue aggregate qualifying service in the defined medal earning area. The qualifying period for aggregate service will be 45 days which is longer than that required for continuous service in recognition of the intermittent rather than continuous exposure to risk and rigour. The eligibility criteria will distinguish between those on operational duty and visitors who will continue to be ineligible for medals on an aggregate basis.
Personnel who are evacuated from the operational theatre as a result of either death or wounding are awarded the appropriate campaign medal no matter how long they have served there and this will not change.
The inclusion of aggregate service will be retrospective to the start of both operations in Afghanistan (11 September 2001) and Iraq (20 January 2003). Individuals who believe that they meet the new criteria are invited to apply for the OSM (Afghanistan) or Iraq medal directly to the MOD Medal Office. Information will be promulgated internally to each service and externally (for those who have now left the armed forces) via service and ex-service organisations.
Armed Forces Compensation Scheme
Lord Robathan Excerpts(15 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The outcome of Admiral Lord Boyce’s review of the armed forces compensation scheme (AFCS) was announced in February. While the review found that the AFCS was fundamentally sound it made a number of recommendations for improvement. The majority of these improvements require legislative amendment to the scheme. While all the changes recommended by Lord Boyce will be implemented in new legislation by February 2011, I have taken the opportunity to make some changes more quickly, and these will take effect in early August.
Most importantly, the time limit to make a claim for injury or illness is to be increased from five to seven years. This ensures anyone who wishes to make a claim for compensation for an injury or illness that has arisen since the scheme was introduced in 2005 can still make a claim.
As well as the increase to time-limits, I have also made the following changes:
Increase in the maximum level of bereavement grant from £20,000 to £25,000. This reflects the increase in armed forces pay since 2005, and as a result the only change recommended by Lord Boyce as applying to future claimants only.
Increase in the maximum level of bereavement grant for reservists who are not members of a reserve forces pension scheme to £37,500, to help bring their benefits in line with their regular forces colleagues.
Uplift of the majority of awards for hearing loss by one tariff level.
No one will lose out as a result of these changes, or those that are to be implemented next year. All those who have already made a claim under the scheme since 6 April 2005 will have their award automatically revisited and will receive an uplift. Due to the complexity involved in revisiting such a large number of previous awards, this process will take time. We aim to have all additional payments made by June 2012.
Making these changes demonstrates the Government’s commitment to injured service personnel, and to implementing the recommendations of the Boyce review as soon as is practicable. I will provide a further update when the remainder of the recommendations are put in legislation early next year, after which time the review of awards already made can commence.
Military Low Flying
Lord Robathan Excerpts(15 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK Low Flying System (UKLFS) during the training year 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. A total of 57,520 hours of low flying training were conducted across all low flying areas. In comparative terms, there was an increase of 5,632 hours, or approximately 11% on the previous training year due to operational pre-deployment training for both fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, and the continuing introduction of Typhoon into service. The amount of operational low flying (between 250 feet and 100 feet) by fixed wing aircraft was 309 hours, accounting for 0.5% of all low flying activity.
I have today placed in the Library of the House documents providing a detailed account of the low flying training that has taken place in the UK Low Flying System for the training year 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010.
This year, information about how military low flying is conducted is contained in a main document with the annual statistics in a separate appendix. The format in which the statistics are presented is the same as the previous year to enable comparison. In future years, only the statistical appendix will be produced unless there are major changes to the UKLFS.
Additional copies are available on request from the following address:
Air Staff
Complaints and Enquiries Unit
Ministry of Defence
Level 5 Zone H
Main Building
Whitehall
London SW1A 2HB
Alternatively it can be viewed on the MOD’s web site: www.mod.uk/aboutdefence/whatwedo/airsafetyandaviation/lowflying
First World War Commemoration
Lord Robathan Excerpts(15 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
May I say how nice it is to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? This is the first occasion on which I have been in the Chamber when you have been in your place.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for drawing attention to the fact that in four short years we will be commemorating an important milestone in our nation’s history—100 years since fighting broke out all over Europe that would rapidly plunge the world into its first world war.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s arrival in Parliament. He succeeds the former leader of the Conservative party and a very great parliamentarian, Michael Howard—a man for whom I have huge respect and affection. I suspect that all Conservatives will echo that sentiment. I hope that my hon. Friend will emulate Michael Howard in many ways in the course of his career, especially after dark. Perhaps he, too, will become the leader of the party and the Home Secretary, and perhaps he, too, will hold many other of the great offices that Michael Howard held.
I was interested to see what my hon. Friend made of his victory on 6 May. Soon after the general election he wrote an article in The Romney Marsh Times, which I assure him is weekly reading for me. He described a mixture of gratitude—something we all feel—weight of responsibility for the trust placed in him and a keen sense of anticipation for the work ahead. He related a memorable encounter on election day when a woman outside the New Romney scout hall told him:
“We voted for you, now go and change the world for us”.
My hon. Friend wrote:
“Changing the world is the responsibility of all new MPs, to use our position not only to champion the interests of our community in Parliament, but also to support policies that can change our society, and ultimately our world.”
I am delighted to hear a new MP elucidating such noble principles; they are the principles that should drive all of us to enter Parliament, and certainly drove my hon. Friend’s predecessor, Michael Howard.
The first world war certainly changed our world, so it is fitting that we are discussing those historic events and plans to mark them so early in the new Parliament. As an historian, I shall touch briefly on some of the chronology of the calamitous events during the apparently glorious summer of 1914 that were to lead irrevocably to war.
On 28 June, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, was assassinated in Sarajevo by Serbian nationalists. He was on his way to a hospital to visit attendants who had been injured by an anarchist bomb—something we see often in not always terribly funny sketches—thrown at his car earlier that day in a failed attempt to kill him. On the way to the hospital, the driver took a wrong turn. When he realised his mistake he began to reverse, but another Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, stepped forward and fired two shots. The first killed the archduke’s pregnant wife, Sophie, almost instantly, and the second hit the archduke in the neck, and he died a short while later. So much trouble after taking a wrong turn and then making a U-turn; it is not a joking matter, but it could be a lesson to us all.
Exactly a month later, on 28 July, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and events moved quickly. On 1 August, the French and Germans mobilised and Germany declared war against Russia. On 3 August, Germany declared war on France and broke the 1839 treaty of London by invading Belgium on 4 August. As a result, later that day the British Cabinet voted almost unanimously to declare war.
The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, memorably said as he stood at the window of the Foreign Office, across the road from his house, watching the lamps being lit as dusk approached:
“The lamps are going out all over Europe: we shall not see them lit again in our time.”
In fact, he and the nation would see the lamps lit again, but the intervening slaughter was unimaginable.
Fatalities in the British imperial forces alone totalled more than 1 million, with more than 2 million wounded. Overall, it is reckoned that by the time the first world war ended in November 1918 it had caused 37 million casualties, military and civilian, of whom about 16 million were fatalities. As my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) have pointed out, it was not the war to end all wars, but its scale robbed this country of a generation of young men.
Each year since, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, those who served in the great war and the generations who followed have stood in silent respect for the sacrifice. On the 50th anniversary of the start of the great war, in 1964, the BBC produced a majestic documentary series, “The Great War”, which was a small-screen alternative to tributes in stone and bronze. Some of us, including I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, watched those programmes. It was a brilliant series, made in black and white, and I suspect that the BBC will sensibly re-release it in four years’ time.
Many of those who served in the first world war were able to return to northern France and Belgium to pay their respects to their fallen comrades. Alas, as we know, the last active UK combatants in the great war passed away last year so there will be no further trips for those who fought in the first world war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about plans to mark the centenary. The Government have no specific plans to do so. However, my hon. Friend will understand that I speak as a Defence Minister and now, because everybody who served is dead, we view the first world war as a historic, heritage event, so we shall talk to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the museums my hon. Friend mentioned to see what plans they may have.
It remains, in my opinion, hugely important to remember the sacrifices that were made in the great war. It affected the whole country—every family, almost without exception. Certainly I suspect that hon. Members present will have family members who died in the first world war. My mother’s uncle was killed on the Somme, my father’s uncle was killed at Gallipoli, and many other members of my family, as was the case with every family, served in the first world war.
As we did with the 90th anniversary of the Armistice in 2008 when our last three serving personnel, Henry Allingham, Harry Patch and Bill Stone, laid wreaths in a poignant ceremony at the Cenotaph, we will certainly remember in 2014 with great poignancy the 100th anniversary. Twelve months after that commemoration of the 90th anniversary, we remembered the passing of the entire world war one generation in a service in Westminster abbey attended by the Queen—that was last year. Our children, and their children, who have grown up without the threat or shadow of world war, need to be taught how the freedoms they take for granted were won, and at such heavy cost. I would say to my hon. Friend that I think more than anything else this centenary should be one of education—education in schools, and with everybody taking part, so that nobody forgets.
We will be discussing with colleagues across Whitehall, particularly in DCMS, how the centenary may be commemorated, and we will work with other interested parties, such as the Imperial War museum, to develop a co-ordinated approach to ensure that the centenary is given the highest possible profile. My hon. Friend mentioned the meeting today at the Imperial War museum, and I understand it is prepared to lead the national commemoration of the centenary of 1914 and has already appointed a programme manager. It will create digital resources for education and ensure that all events, activities and exhibitions relating to the centenary achieve the highest possible profile. Forty-five organisations attended the conference today, and more are now expected to join.
There is also a need to recognise the significance of the first world war globally, because it was, obviously, a world war. The Imperial War museum is establishing a series of international collaborations with organisations such as the Smithsonian and Les Invalides. We will of course do likewise with our international partners. The UK Government and our partners are well used to marking such important occasions. Traditionally in Britain, we mark the end of a conflict, but we understand the historic significance of this centenary and the additional poignancy and we expect that to be reflected in widespread media and public interest.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for the suggestions that he has made. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that I am a great believer in keeping up war memorials, so that we do remember and do not forget. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made some very sensible points about the second and first world wars.
I am quite a believer in bank holidays—frankly, the more the merrier—but I do not think it would be appropriate to press for an additional bank holiday to commemorate the first world war, given that the day in 1914 ultimately resulted in millions being sent to their deaths and millions more injured. We will look at the other suggestions that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe made closely, and plans are emerging to commemorate this important and sombre event in a fitting way, although precisely what form it will take we cannot yet say.
I can say this, however, and I say it from the heart. We will not forget the duty we have as a nation to commemorate properly all those who fought in the great war, and to reflect on the sacrifice that they were prepared to make. If for no other reason, younger generations and generations to follow must never forget what their forefathers did on their behalf, in the hope that younger generations are spared the horrors that our fathers’ and grandfathers’ generations endured.
Question put and agreed to.