Defence and Security Review (NATO)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I am very supportive of the idea that we should be spending even more.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

So am I, if I may say so. My hon. Friend is giving an excellent analysis of the situation. At the NATO summit, Britain was at the forefront of demanding that all NATO countries use 2% of GDP for defence spending. I absolutely support the Prime Minister on this. We want to spend 2% of GDP. Personally, I would rather go further and spend more.

[Rory Stewart]

To come to a conclusion, I am giving the four reasons why we need to spend 2%. The first, which has just been pointed out by the former Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), is UK credibility. The UK led the push for 2% at the Wales summit only six months ago. We stood alongside the United States and went around every other country at the summit saying, “If you’re going be serious, you have to commit 2%.” We emphasised again and again that we were spending 2% of our GDP on defence and that they should spend 2% of their GDP on defence. That was very important in getting a range of countries to commit to spending 2% of GDP on defence over the next five to 10 years. The first reason why we must do it is simply out of a sense of shame. The honour and credibility of the United Kingdom are bound up in this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

It is pretty clear that the ceasefire agreement is not being properly respected. Russia needs to get back to the terms of that agreement and ensure that the fighting stops, that the heavy armour and other equipment I have referred to are withdrawn and that the territory of Ukraine is therefore respected. We have already been supplying non-lethal aid to Ukraine, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we are continuing to consider what further help to provide in terms of training that might help to reduce the number of casualties and fatalities and build up the capability of the Ukrainian forces, which have been subject to an awful onslaught.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

T3. May I also congratulate the Defence Secretary on his forthright warning about an expansionist and aggressive Russia under President Putin representing a real and present danger to the Baltic states and, therefore, to NATO and European peace? May I be the third former Defence Minister from the previous SDSR to urge the Defence Secretary to use the current SDSR to improve defence capability rather than reduce it? May I also reassure him that there is a huge groundswell of opinion on the Benches behind him in support of an increase in defence spending and certainly not in support of a cut?

[Michael Fallon]

I hope that my right hon. Friend, who served with distinction as a Minister in my Department, will recognise that, by investing in two aircraft carriers, committing to a replacement of the Type 23s, investing in armoured vehicles, purchasing fighters and commissioning new offshore patrol vessels, we are improving our defence capability. It is because we sorted out the defence budget that we are able to invest in new equipment in a way that the previous Government could not possibly have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I respect the position from which the right hon. Lady approaches this issue, but as I have said, I believe that maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence is the best way to deter nuclear exchanges, rather than lead to them. In fairness, she has been absolutely consistent and long standing in her views about nuclear weapons, which is more than we can say this week for her party leader.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that we would all like nuclear weapons not to exist, but sadly they do. Given that, is it not rather strange to hear cries for disarmament on the very day we read that former President Gorbachev has said that the likelihood of a nuclear conflict around Ukraine is much greater than it has been since the end of the cold war?

[Mr Francois]

The Conservative party remains firmly committed to continuous at-sea deterrence to provide the ultimate guarantee of our nation’s security, and as a former Armed Forces Minister, I know my right hon. Friend shares that view. Conservative Members also share that view; what is the view of the leader of the Labour party?

Points of Order

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I was not aware that we were, but the nod of the Secretary of State’s head perhaps provides the hon. Gentleman and the House with the succour that he sought.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You very kindly referred to me as potentially gallant—I am not sure whether that is right—but I do not think that we ought to take this practice too far. I am sure you would agree, Sir, that we should not extend it to former members of cadet forces.

[Mr Speaker]

Something tells me, innocent soul that I am, that the right hon. Gentleman, with that rather puckish grin, was having a bit of a dig.

[Mr Robathan]

No, no.

[Mr Speaker]

I will just say that the right hon. Gentleman has made his point with his usual force and eloquence, and it is on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend—I hope he does not mind me calling him that; he knows exactly what I mean, because he is a friend in this regard—on the work that he is doing to support such great schemes. These schemes are doing remarkably good work, not only in delivering better homes but, invariably, enabling the veterans who get involved to learn skills and helping those who have been damaged in any way to restore themselves and get back into the world of work.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I read in the media that the greatest threat to the United Kingdom is considered to be so-called Islamic State and jihadism. While I am not a great fan of deploying troops to Syria, does the Secretary of State believe that NATO, the western powers or the coalition in Iraq—whomsoever—should be reassessing the help they are giving in Syria and in Iraq to defeat Islamic State?

[Michael Fallon]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that ISIL can only be defeated both in Iraq and in Syria. There are now some 50 countries involved in a huge international and regional effort to support the Iraqi and Kurdish forces in their action against ISIL in Iraq, but we also have to consider what more can be done in Syria. We support the United States in its strike missions in Syria, and we are looking at what more can be done to train moderate Syrian elements outside Syria itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The right hon. Gentleman will know better than anybody the work that is being done by the Home Secretary and the Home Office in this regard, stepping up the number of checks that can be made and making sure that those here are deterred from making that journey to fight for ISIL, which as a proscribed organisation therefore involves a criminal offence.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I fully understand the need for democratic support expressed by the House for any military action, and furthermore I have no desire whatever to see our deploying troops either in Iraq or in Syria, but may I gently say to my right hon. Friend, while congratulating him on his relatively new position, that it is important in any military campaign not to rule anything out, because that gives away a great deal to our opponents?

[Michael Fallon]

I hope that it is clear to the House, as the Prime Minister emphasised during the debate, that ISIL can be defeated only in Syria and in Iraq. With the RAF and our own action in Iraq, we have plenty to do to help to check the advance of ISIL, but ISIL’s personnel, equipment and supply routes lie further back in Syria, and it is important therefore that it is countered there, which is why we welcome and support the US and other coalition air strikes that have taken place in Syria.

Unsolicited Mail at Christmas

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I wish to inform the House about the annual campaign to discourage unsolicited mail that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) will be running in the lead up to Christmas (which is 103 days from 13 September 2013).

This Government are dedicated to the care and welfare of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those deployed on operations, which is reflected in the comprehensive deployed welfare package. A key part of that package is ensuring the timely delivery of free personal mail from family and friends. In the past the general public has shown their support by sending unsolicited goodwill parcels. This has resulted in huge volumes of mail, which have overwhelmed the system and have prevented mail from families from getting through. British Forces Post Office (BFPO) estimates that, in the eight-week period between mid-October and mid-December, the volume of mail in the logistic system increases by 65%. The amount of unsolicited mail entering the BFPO system can impact on personal mail, causing severe delays, and can increase pressure on essential in-theatre resources.

It is for these reasons that the MOD will be repeating its campaign to discourage unsolicited mail. Its success in recent years has reduced the volume of unsolicited mail significantly. Key to the success of this campaign is encouraging the British public to show their support, in other ways, through one of the recognised MOD service charities. Service personnel on operations over Christmas will receive a seasonal gift box from the charity, “uk4u Thanks!”. This charity works closely with the MOD, using free space in the existing supply chain to deliver the boxes well before Christmas, without impacting on the normal mail system.

I recognise that it might seem counter-intuitive to ask the British public not to send parcels to troops at Christmas, but to avoid the impact of unsolicited mail and to help prioritise mail to service personnel from their families I ask for full support in directing the public towards MOD recognised charities.

Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Ms Clark, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship; I think that this is the first occasion on which I have had that pleasure.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on securing this debate on an issue that I know is important to many Members of the House. Indeed, I should put on the record the fact that he has already raised this issue with me, both informally and on the Floor of the House, and that he has very much stood up for the Territorial Army in Dudley. However, the issue is also important to many of the individuals who are affected by the important changes that we are making as a result of the wider reserves structure and basing announcement of 3 July.

Any discussion about the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry has to be set in the context of the large-scale and necessary structural changes that are under way to transform our Army—both regular and reserve—so that it can face the challenge of the future. Our reasons for changing the structure of the Army, including placing a greater reliance on the reserves, are well known.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mr Robathan]

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, our reasons for changing the Army’s structure, including a greater reliance on the reserves, are well known. Much detailed and complex work has been done by the Army in support of the complex task of restructuring the regulars and the reserves into what will be a fully integrated, flexible and credible force by 2018. Many difficult decisions have had to be taken in support of that work, but I believe the end product will justify the means.

The hon. Member for Dudley North will already be aware that the principle of greater integration was established in the report published by the independent commission to review the United Kingdom’s reserve forces, which was published in July 2011. In delivering the Future Reserves 2020 proposition, and Army 2020, we are committed to expanding the volunteer Army Reserve to a trained strength of 30,000 and to integrating it fully into the structure of the Army as a whole. Achieving that has already involved hard choices on the regular side to ensure that the Army plays its part in allowing the Ministry of Defence to continue to live within its means while maintaining an Army that can operate across the full spectrum of operational capability and offer its reserve members fulfilment and challenge.

We do not underestimate the challenge of growing the reserve to 30,000. However, as I have said in the past, the target of a trained reserve of 30,000 is well within historic norms. In 1997, the Territorial Army was over 50,000 strong, and it had already been reduced to about 40,000 by 2000. By 2009, it had declined in size to just over 26,000. That shows that the current initiative to increase its trained strength to 30,000, while challenging, is perfectly achievable. However, given its importance to our nation, that will require support and encouragement from all of us, which is why it is valuable that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue.

We recognise, of course, that while previously the Territorial Army was essentially designed to augment the regular Army, it will in future be a vital part of an integrated Army, ready and able to deploy routinely at sub-unit level, and in some cases as formed units. Having said that, I should not overlook the contribution to operations already made by reservists, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In the past 10 years, almost 30,000 members of the TA have deployed on operations overseas. Since 2003, more than 70 members of the TA have received operational honours, while 21, sadly, have died on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I know that those present today will want to join me in saluting their sacrifice.

We are investing heavily in the reserves to ensure that they will be trained, equipped and supported accordingly for the new role they will be expected to play. We plan that, over time, reservists will have access to the same training equipment currently used by regulars. In exchange, we expect them to commit to specific amounts of training time and, for the Army in most cases, to accept liability for a maximum deployment of up to six months plus pre-deployment training in a five-year period, dependent on operational demand. There will be opportunities for shorter periods of deployed service commitment for those in some specialist roles. Reserves will also routinely fulfil roles that were historically the preserve of the regulars, and officers and soldiers will have command opportunities that have not always been available in the recent past.

The changes will provide career prospects that have not necessarily been available hitherto for reservists. Similarly, the skills and experience gained by reservists will be of considerable value to their civilian employers, making the proposition all the more attractive. Alongside the improvements and changes being made to the offer, we are overhauling the structure of the Army reserves to align with the regular structure, which is what will allow the Army to become a single entity.

On the specific circumstances of the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry and the changes we will be implementing, I understand that there has been some concern among those serving in the regiment and in the local community. I assure those people that the locations currently used by squadrons of the regiment will remain in use, and it is intended that the squadrons will continue to bear the historic names handed down over time.

The RMLY was formed in 1992 and is the youngest of today’s four yeomanry regiments. It was established following the amalgamation of the Queen’s Own Mercian Yeomanry and the Duke of Lancaster’s Own Yeomanry as part of the “Options for Change” programme initiated to redesign our defence forces following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. The antecedent regiments of the RMLY, the oldest of which was raised in 1794, are steeped in a rich and distinguished military history, having served with distinction in South Africa and seen action during the world wars in many theatres in roles as diverse as cavalry, artillery and signals. That heritage will of course be preserved for future generations. Since we have time, I will digress in a way that I was told not to: one of the regiment’s squadrons, based on the Cheshire Yeomanry, was involved in the Peterloo massacre, but it was a long time ago, so we need not argue about that now.

Under the new structure, the overall number of yeomanry regiments will remain the same, although the number of squadrons will be reduced. Three of the regiments will be in the adaptable force, paired with regular light cavalry regiments, while the Royal Wessex Yeomanry will provide support to the reaction force. The changes have been designed to allow better regular-reserve unit pairing with all the associated benefits that that brings: improved access to training facilities and equipment, better use of full-time manpower and increased opportunities for recruitment.

As the Defence Secretary said on 3 July, it will be necessary to merge or close some units and raise some other new ones so that they can more easily be paired with regular counterparts. The Army will also consolidate some small detachments, most of which have been poorly recruited over recent years, to enable better pairing arrangements.

The pairing arrangements have meant that the current regimental headquarters of the RMLY in Telford is not well placed to pair with any of the regular light cavalry regiments, all of which are many hundreds of miles away in Leuchars, Catterick and Swanton Morley. Other yeomanry regiments already in the north-east and south-east are well placed to pair with Catterick and Swanton Morley respectively, but the distance between Telford and Leuchars is thought to be too great to enable an effective pairing relationship. Therefore, the decision has been taken to leave RMLY squadrons in situ by resubordinating them to the nearest of the two other yeomanry regiments, and to move the regimental headquarters to Scotland where it will take command of the existing yeomanry squadrons in Belfast, Ayrshire and Fife and be very well placed to pair with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards in Leuchars. The RHQ is largely, although not exclusively, composed of regular staff and instructors. I particularly congratulate the RMLY on the recruiting successes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Subject to the necessary endorsement, the regiment in Scotland will be renamed the Scottish and North Irish Yeomanry. As I mentioned, the locations currently occupied by RMLY squadrons will remain in use, and it is planned that, subject to endorsement, the squadrons themselves will retain their titles, although their command will be transferred to other yeomanry regiments. That means that there will be little disruption for the people attending the units. They can continue to serve, as before, as yeomen.

I recognise the strong feelings that exist on this subject on both sides of the House, particularly among those who have first-hand experience of Army service and those whose constituencies will be directly affected. I am confident, however, that we have grasped the proverbial nettle and taken the necessary difficult decisions to deliver a single, credible future Army fit for the challenges of the 21st century. In closing, we value enormously our regular and reserve forces, especially today. I thank the members of the RMLY for all the work that they have done in the service of our country.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

5. What progress he has made in drawing down the number of UK troops in Afghanistan to around 5,200 by the end of 2013.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

As the Prime Minister announced on 19 December 2012, UK force levels will reduce from 9,000 to 6,000 from this autumn, and to about 5,200 by the end of 2013. That figure may, of course, fluctuate and occasionally exceed this total due to temporary surges into theatre. Our force level reduction is in line with the draw-down plans of our NATO allies and reflects the progress of the Afghan national security forces in assuming overall security responsibility for the country.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, I put on the record my salute to all those brave servicemen and women who have given their lives or been injured, and those who place their lives on the line every single day, in support of our security. The worst thing would be if we withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and then have to go back. Will he inform the House on what progress he is making on getting the ANSF to take over from our brave servicemen and women?

[Mr Robathan]

As my hon. Friend will know, the focus of our armed forces is now on encouraging the ANSF and training, helping and mentoring them. We are very encouraged by the progress that we see. For instance, a major operation took place in the summer in the Logar and Nangarhar provinces, involving a large number of Afghan troops. It was very successful and it also demonstrated the increasing capability of the Afghan air force, so we are on track. Despite the scepticism of some, the ANSF are looking on track to assume responsibilities overall.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister also update the House on whether any decisions have been made on the post-2014 UK contribution to Afghanistan and when he will be able to share any likely numbers?

[Mr Robathan]

I cannot share the exact numbers with the hon. Lady. What I can say is that our focus will definitely be on the Afghan national officer academy, which is just outside Kabul. We are very much concentrating on that, but of course we need to consider force protection and other issues, and the actual details cannot yet be given.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

At a time when some commentators outside the House doubt the utility of UK military force, it is crucial that those from all parts of the House again put on the record our respect for the remarkable contribution that our men and women are making in Afghanistan.

Let me return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), on which the Minister attempted an answer but did not give enough details. Will he say to the House in more detail what he understands to be the current commitment for UK equipment being retained in Afghanistan post-2014? When will the Government be in a position to share with the House the precise number of UK military personnel who will remain in theatre post-2014?

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about our armed forces, which, notwithstanding any excitements last week, are still doing an extremely good job in Afghanistan. I pay tribute to them as well.

Our focus after the end of next year will most definitely be on the Afghan national army officer academy outside Kabul. I am afraid that I cannot yet give the right hon. Gentleman or the House details of equipment that we might be leaving behind or anything like that, but we expect to announce it by the end of the year.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

7. What progress his Department has made in the assessment phase for reform of Defence Equipment and Support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

T2. In July the Secretary of State announced that the Territorial Army centre in Stratford-on-Avon would close and made assurances, through a Minister, that tenants of the centre, such as the local ambulance association, would not be left homeless. The Minister also made assurances that the facilities would be provided for the local cadets and that recruitment to the historic 867 Signal Troop based there would not be negatively impacted. Two months on, could the Minister update my constituents and me about plans for the New Broad Street centre?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I can tell my hon. Friend—who is quite right to be concerned about these things, and I understand his constituents’ point of view—that the long-term future of the centre in Stratford-on-Avon has yet to be determined and that there will be re-provision for any cadet units and any lodging units when that happens. We have yet to decide what the wider defence uses might be for the site. If there is no long-term defence use for the site it will be disposed of in accordance with standard procedures, but without, I hope, any bad impact on the cadets or other lodging units.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

A leading commentator in Australia recently characterised the Syrian conflict as not “goodies versus baddies”, but rather “baddies versus baddies”. Does the Secretary of State share that simple assessment of our political and military dilemma?

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T4. Ministers’ summer reading will have included the report of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, including its concerns about export licences for dual-use items to Syria. In responding to that report, will the Minister confirm that British exports will not have contributed to the military strength of the Assad regime?

[Mr Robathan]

I am glad to answer that question because it allows me to provide a rather more full answer than was given to the somewhat hysterical outburst from the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). The licences that are mentioned in the newspapers today, which I think are those that concern the hon. Gentleman, are two standard individual export licences that were issued in January for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride. As everybody in the House will know, sodium fluoride is used in the fluoridisation of drinking water and in toothpaste—I suspect that we will all have some today. Potassium fluoride has applications in the metallurgical industry and in the manufacture of pesticides. When it was considered that those substances could be precursors in some other application, the licences were withdrawn. Nothing has been exported.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The head of Britain’s armed forces, General Sir Nick Houghton, has admitted that he faces a “huge challenge” in maintaining morale and performance. Figures that were released just the other month show that the proportion of service personnel who feel that their morale is low has gone up to 30%. That is a shocking situation. What will the Government do about it?

Armed Forces

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The hon. Gentleman said that those comments came from the Treasury, but I gently point out to him that the person who actually made them is a member of his part of the coalition.

[Sir Bob Russell]

The Minister is absolutely right, but of course the briefing was given by Treasury officials. I do not think that the Defence Minister is saying that he is never briefed by his officials. If that is the case, it is a very worrying situation.

With regard to the armed forces covenant, the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, recently conducted an inquiry into education for the children of service personnel. There is a conflict between the armed forces covenant and the Education Act, both of which are laws of this country, and that conflict needs to be addressed. Other conflicts are emerging already between the armed forces covenant and the definition of social housing for single former military personnel. I think that there has to be a ruling on that, because some local authorities are interpreting it differently from what the armed forces covenant means. I am concerned that the community covenant might, in some cases, be paying lip service, rather than being a reality. We need to look at that.

We also need to look again at serving Commonwealth soldiers being obliged to leave compulsorily on health grounds and then not being treated by the armed forces covenant. Again, the covenant is not being fair in the way the financial packages for voluntary redundancies are being looked at. I have a constituent who accepted the terms of redundancy based on his years of service, only to have the financial package withdrawn after he agreed to leave. I think that case might end up in the courts, so I will leave it there.

The armed forces covenant has a long way to go with regard to the condition of Army family housing. The Government have been able to find money to upgrade former military housing for use by civilian families, which I support, but they claim that they do not have the money to upgrade Army housing. I recognise that every pound of public money spent on those houses boosts their value for Annington Homes—in a shameful act, the last Conservative Government privatised the houses and in 13 years the last Labour Government failed to deal with the issue, although I raised it on many occasions.

Will the Ministry of Defence look at how the pay and dine operation works in practice? A car will run only if it has petrol in the tank; our soldiers can operate at full capacity only if they eat the right amount of food at the right times and in the right quantities.

Having praised those in uniform, I want also to praise the civilian work force, without whom our armed forces could not operate. I include the Defence Support Group, the MOD police who under successive Governments have taken a massive cut; in my constituency, 33 MOD police officers have been reduced to zero. I should also mention other guard services, the MOD fire service and all the support staff—not forgetting Garrison FM, which operates in the principal garrison towns of this country. I wish to broaden the wider military family and include the cadet forces.

The reduction in the size of the Army is not good news. I repeat what I said to the Prime Minister:

“On the Prime Minister’s watch, the Army will reduce to its smallest size since 1750 and will be half the size it was at the time of the Falklands war. Does he accept that history is not kind to Prime Ministers who are perceived to have left our country without a strong defence capability?”—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 309.]

I do not think that trying to plug the gaps of a smaller regular force with reservists is the way forward. I support reservists, of course I do—we have fantastic Territorial Army people in my constituency. However, cutting the Regular Army and trying to plug the gap with Army reservists is not the solution. The move is being driven by the Treasury. Those at Treasury questions today will know the response to my question about how many civilian employees at HM Treasury had volunteered to join the Army reservists since requests for civilians were made in January this year: zero.

Armed Forces day in my constituency was launched yesterday in the town hall, with the mayor and garrison commander in attendance. The town and garrison have excellent joint facilities, including the athletics track and the Phoenix club house, which I opened earlier this month.

I end by praising the last Government for providing the new Merville barracks, the best in the country, and welcoming the current Government’s proposals for the first world war commemorations, which will commence in August next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I am pretty sure that I do not have to, but I will anyway, declare that I am in receipt of a service pension so I have an interest in this debate.

I will not be able to respond to all the points that have been raised today, but I will try. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be hesitant in sending me letters if they want a particular point answered to which I have not been able to respond.

Today’s debate has been remarkably consensual, which I welcome. It has demonstrated that Members of the House care passionately about supporting our service personnel. We are fortunate to be able to rely on the men and women of our armed forces, for whom as Minister for the Armed Forces I have some responsibility. It is a much over-used word, but it is a real privilege to have that responsibility and to work with members of our armed forces. I know that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has done that, as well as others in the House.

The dedication of our armed forces to maintaining our security and protecting our interests and values means that Britain is able to act as a force for good in the world, defending our national interests and our international obligations. We are all proud of what they do.

I was in Scotland this morning visiting one of our deterrent submarines and the submarine service on the Clyde, and it was extremely impressive and very professional. I know that other hon. Members will have seen that as well. The role of the armed forces both in the deterrent and elsewhere is difficult and sometimes dangerous. I pay tribute to their bravery and professionalism, which represent the very best qualities our nation has to offer. We owe them and the families who support them an enormous debt of gratitude. That is why the Government are committed to supporting the success of Armed Forces day, which was indeed introduced by the previous Government. It allows the public to express their appreciation of those who have served their country.

I was going to say that the right hon. Member for East Ranfrewshire, sorry Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy)—

[Mr Murphy]

It is not that hard to say.

[Mr Robathan]

Sorry, it is for me. I was going to say that he was better at running a marathon than—but then he was very consensual, so I won’t. I pay tribute to his time for the marathon. As he knows, I set him a target, which he beat very easily. Well done.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) will have to wait for the White Paper for a decision about moving 38 Signal Regiment from Sheffield. I would like to have heard more discussion from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) about the Supreme Court judgment last week on extending human rights to the battlefield. It is a subject on which Members from both sides of the House may wish to comment. I know that we will be looking carefully at that judgment, and that we have some concerns.

I was sorry to hear about the constituent of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), wrote to him only yesterday and we do not believe that this is a general problem. Leaving aside the armed forces and reservists, I thought that the Opposition had accepted that we need to make serious savings, as we have been doing over the past three years, for all the reasons that he understands. On this day the newspapers have published the letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) which says that there is no money.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The Government’s policy clearly states that armed forces personnel families are supposed to be exempt but, after three months, it is clear that they are not and that councils throughout the country are interpreting the policy in such a way that only reservists count, not permanent members of the armed forces.

[Mr Robathan]

As I said, my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to the hon. Gentleman. They should have further discussions, because my right hon. Friend knows the details, but I fear that I do not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made a wide-ranging speech in which he stood up for Colly, as soldiers used to call Colchester, although I think that they were referring particularly to the military corrective training centre. He also talked about bands. From the Government’s point of view, bands are an integral part of the Army, and indeed of the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. Anyone who has ever marched to a band knows how stirring that is. I remember Academy Sergeant Major Huggins at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst saying, “If the hairs on the back of your neck don’t prickle when you hear a military band, you are in the wrong business.” On the Ministry of Defence police, I saw them yesterday at Coulport. They do a good job there and I pay tribute to them on my hon. Friend’s behalf.

The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) talked about the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry. I fear that I cannot pre-empt the White Paper, but I certainly would not want any damage to be done to the recruitment of reservists in Dudley.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) talked about the proud and close relationship between the Navy and her constituency. Indeed, my undistinguished service career began at the admiralty interview board in Gosport. I thought that “Up something or other creek without a paddle” was from Falstaff, but my excellent officials tell me that I am wrong, although I am still going to check it all the same.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) does excellent work with the RAF all-party group. It will astonish many to know that I got on so well with Bomber Command that I was made an honorary member of it, so I might just drop in for a quick chat later. My right hon. Friend the Minister tells me that she will certainly receive a reply to her specific question before the summer recess.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about the service complaints commissioner. I am afraid that she will have to discuss that further with my right hon. Friend, but I understand that we are looking at the matter closely.

I was glad to hear the support of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for the armed forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and I have not dissimilar backgrounds. No Defence Minister wishes to see cuts to the armed forces or defence spending, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for coherently explaining the continued need to maintain defence spending throughout the current review. I think that he has done a pretty good job, and the story has been in the newspapers. On my hon. and gallant Friend’s point about reservists, he will also have to wait for the White Paper.

I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his service in the Ulster Defence Regiment during difficult times in the Province. He stood up for Northern Ireland, and he was absolutely right that Northern Ireland makes a great contribution—indeed, a disproportionate contribution—to our armed forces.

I share the respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for service charities, which do fantastic work. We will ensure that someone gets up to see them, but that might be my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. My advice to my hon. Friend is that a good start would be to set up a military wives’ choir, and I am sure that military husbands and the non-military could be involved.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was rather cut off in full flow, but I agree with him about the ARRC. I shall shortly be visiting it and its commander, James Bucknall, who is also colonel of the Coldstream Guards, as I am sure that that hon. Members know. On hearing about Charles Irving, I feared that the lieutenant-general whom he speared with a bayonet was British, rather than German. The hon. Member for North Durham and I have sparred across the Dispatch Box for more than three years, but his speech was the most consensual that I have ever heard him make.

I am extremely proud of our armed forces, as I know that we all are, but I am also proud of the work that the Government have done to help to improve the support that we give them. In a consensual manner, let me say that we have built somewhat on work that was done previously. We owe our armed forces our very best efforts, because that is what they give us day in, day out, wherever they are stationed and whatever the conditions. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech, the first duty of Government is the defence of the realm, and we must never forget, and we must thank our armed forces for, the service that they provide in fulfilling that duty on behalf of everyone in the House and the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House celebrates and commemorates the contribution of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families, in particular those currently serving overseas; recognises the important introduction of Armed Forces Day in 2006 and urges the nation to come together and champion the Services’ achievements throughout the decades; pays tribute to the UK’s Forces, their families and the charities who do so much to support them; recognises the enormous contribution of the staff who support the UK’s Forces from within Government and the workforces in industry who supply them with world-class equipment; urges all those in public life to seek additional ways to support the Armed Forces Covenant; urges the Government, local authorities, business and charities to deliver the best possible post-service support; and considers the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant essential to uphold, through public policy, the provision of welfare and frontline support.