Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lorely Burt]

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

[Mr Robathan]

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

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Robathan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Henry Smith]

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

[Mr Robathan]

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

[Rehman Chishti]

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

[Mr Robathan]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Robathan]

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

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

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

[Mr Robathan]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Robathan]

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

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

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

Unsolicited Mail (Christmas)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military Bases

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Nicholas Soames]

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

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

Letter of correction from Andrew Robathan:

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

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

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

[Mr Robathan]

The information is provided in the following table.

Ex-Service Personnel (Prison Population)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent Medical Expert Group (Armed Forces Compensation Scheme)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

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

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

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

Genital injury

Paired injuries

Hearing loss and acoustic trauma

Non-freezing cold injury

Mental health

Brain injury

Spinal cord injury

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

Ofsted Report (Armed Forces Initial Training)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

Grob Tutor (Service Inquiry)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Complaints Commissioner's Second Annual Report

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Written Statements

[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

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Monday 6th September 2010 Written Statements

[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.