Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Clearly, at this stage it is not possible to identify how many jobs will be created in different parts of the United Kingdom by the equipment programme we currently envisage. However, we enjoy an exemption from European Union procurement rules in respect of defence capabilities when we are procuring them in a way that protects our national defence capability, and if Scotland were not a part of the UK, it would be competing for defence contracts in the open market along with other providers in Europe and beyond.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Since May 2010, £1,250,000 worth of kit and equipment have been stolen from the Ministry of Defence and its bases across the UK. That includes night vision goggles, body armour, military uniforms and boots, and even an aircraft fuselage. How much of the new spend will be covering unexplained thefts which have not been investigated and for which only one person has ever been prosecuted?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady can probably do the maths: she says £1.25 million worth of equipment has been stolen, and I have announced a £152 billion investment, so she can work it out for herself. As a member of the Defence Committee, which asked questions about this matter, she will know that of the equipment listed as stolen, a significant amount has been recovered, but not necessarily netted off against that figure, so in fact the total is probably less than the £1.25 million she suggests.

Scottish-recruited Units

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot remember the number of veterans we have in Scotland, but it was revealed recently—somewhere in the region of 80,000. There are certainly substantial numbers—all of them determined to protect their former ancient regiments, and quite right too. He is right: the regiments bring history, tradition and culture into the new regiment, and that must be worth maintaining.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also about national identity? In Wales, we face potentially losing the 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards, which recruits, almost uniformly, from Wales and the borders. A regiment’s national identity is also important in giving a coherent community and regional identity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Without any shadow of a doubt it would continue to exist. We have a firm, clear commitment that the existing battalions will be not only maintained but developed. [Interruption.] If it is an independent Scotland, the battalions are unlikely to be British, but they will be maintained and continued.

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have very little time, so I will take a quick intervention.

[Mrs Moon]

Everything the hon. Gentleman has said in relation to the golden thread applies also in Wales. There have been suggestions that a political decision will be made not to remove the Scottish regiments for fear of influencing the devolution debate. The reverberations of that in Wales would be tremendous. Some 9% of the British Army are recruited in Wales from 3% of the population. I am talking about some 10,000 people.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is good to see that the cause of Scottish independence is securing support and could have an influence on the recruitment of units in Wales.

I hope the Minister will clarify some matters for us today, because that is the intention of this debate. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State himself is not here today, but I appreciate and respect the fact that we have the Minister here. In even the darkest days of the amalgamation debates of 2004, Geoff Hoon always turned up. He always took the flak and got incredible respect for that. We really needed to have the Secretary of State here today to address our points unequivocally and end this damaging uncertainty.

There has been a suggestion, which has a degree of credibility, that this debate on our names and badges is a smokescreen and masks the Government’s true intention, which is to get on with the job of brutally decimating the Scottish defence footprint.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Harvey]

I am not aware of anybody agitating to that end. Removing such insignia does not form part of the restructuring work; it is not one of the things that we are considering. We have a great respect for these issues of historical heritage. In the Royal Regiment of Scotland in particular, the historic names bring with them a great tradition that is respected around the world, and not only in Scotland or the rest of the UK. I am very sympathetic to the points about heritage that the hon. Gentleman has made in this debate.

[Mrs Moon]

As the Minister has given that assurance, can we be equally assured that any decision about Army restructuring will not be based on the politics of the rest of the UK’s relationship with Scotland and any future plans regarding devolution? The Sunday Times ran an article at the weekend suggesting that the Prime Minister had intervened to say that Scottish regiments must be protected and that perhaps the Welsh regiments could be looked at instead. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that no political interference is coming from No. 10 to protect Scottish regiments because of a fear of devolution?

[Nick Harvey]

The hon. Lady has been involved in politics too long to believe what she reads in Sunday newspapers. This restructuring is a piece of work that is being undertaken by the Army, and the Army will put its proposals forward when its review is complete. Reducing the size of the Regular Army from 102,000 to 82,000 will inevitably mean a reduction in the overall number of units that are available, and a number of critical criteria will inform the decisions about which units will be affected.

We must maintain the right balance across different capabilities—the Royal Armoured Corps, the infantry structure and the roles that different units will perform. We must also balance geographically because of the recruiting pattern; that has always been an important part of the British Army and it will continue to be in the future. We recognise that factor and it will inform the decisions that are taken. Indeed, we will also take account of previous decisions on mergers and deletions, so that we can ensure that there is a fair solution across the generations, as well as between the different branches and different geographical lay-down of the Army. Our aim is to sustain optimal capability. There are issues about basing. We cannot go to a final basing blueprint yet; that blueprint will follow hot on the heels of the current piece of restructuring work that I have described.

Although the focus of this debate has been on Scottish Army units, it is important that we take a holistic view. The Government are committed to the defence of the United Kingdom and each nation and region within it. In addition to its Army regiments, Scotland has one of our three naval bases, which in the future will be home to all our submarines. One of the three main RAF operating bases will be in Scotland. Scotland is also the home of Quick Reaction Alert North. As was made clear last summer, there will also be an Army brigade in Scotland, along with thousands of reserves and cadets. We have set out a clear vision for the armed forces across the United Kingdom, with a very significant footprint in Scotland, as part of a realistic and well thought-out national security strategy.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire made the point that Scottish voters will be invited at some point in the future to take a decision about Scotland’s status. They have a clear understanding of where the UK Government are steering defence in Scotland. They have yet to gain any such understanding of where those who advocate independence for Scotland are trying to get Scottish defences to, and that will be an absolute necessity to inform a realistic and balanced debate.

The armed forces are at the core of the UK’s security. They make a unique and vital contribution, for which I hope all of us—whatever part of the UK we come from—are grateful. We will make the decisions that I have talked about—decisions to ensure that the armed forces are sustainable for the future—in the interests of everybody in Scotland and across the UK as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

First, I apologise unreservedly to you for my earlier answer, Mr Speaker, but you have encouraged me to be pithy in the past, and it would have been quite a long answer to give the details in full.

Addressing the concern of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), the honest answer is that we do not know. The Americans are not reducing the total numbers for the purchase of the joint strike fighter, but they have changed the profile of those purchases. Other partner nations have indicated that they will reduce their offtake. That is likely to have implications for JSF prices, particularly those acquired in the early stages of the process, which is when this country intends to acquires its JSFs. We are watching those implications carefully, and I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady separately about the implications for the UK.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

3. How many times the medical emergency response team has been called out in Helmand province in the last year.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The UK Forward Aeromed capability, commonly referred to as the medical emergency response team, has been called out around 480 times in Helmand province in the past year. As air evacuation assets like this are shared between coalition nations, not all call-outs will have been for UK personnel, as the team provides medical evacuation for UK and other international security assistance force troops, as well as Afghan security forces and civilians when appropriate.

[Mrs Moon]

I am sure that the House will want to put on record its appreciation for the dedication and professionalism of the members of the medical emergency response team, many of whom are civilians who risk their lives helping personnel who have been injured. One of the issues I am greatly concerned about is the capacity to rescue people who may have suffered spinal injuries from heavily armoured vehicles, and whether appropriate rescue and cutting equipment and release mechanisms for doors and roofs are available so that when people are removed further damage to their spine is limited. Will the Minister confirm that such equipment is available for MER teams?

[Nick Harvey]

It certainly has not been put to us that there is a problem in that respect, but in the light of the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady, I will take that issue away, look at it in detail and write to her.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I fear that the strategic defence and security review was a cost-cutting exercise rather than an exercise that focused particularly on the defence needs of this country. As those who know me are aware, I have a particular worry about maritime patrol capability.

Following the decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4, we have been left with no maritime patrol capability. The £6 billion Nimrod fleet is now ancient history and resting in a scrap yard somewhere. I do not want to spend any time discussing that again, but I want to consider where we stand without the capability that it would have provided. The former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), summed up the problem in his infamous letter to the Prime Minister:

“Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan.”

I want to examine each aspect of that assertion—first, the rapid deployment of the maritime forces into high-threat areas. The maritime patrol aircraft is there to protect our nuclear deterrent. In mid-December, The Scotsman reported that a Type 42 destroyer had to be dispatched when a Royal Navy battlegroup appeared off the coast of Scotland. [Hon. Members: “Russian navy battlegroup”] I am sorry—I meant a Russian navy battlegroup. Did I say “Royal Navy”? That is a real Freudian slip—I do apologise. Clearly, my meetings with Alex Salmond have left things in my brain that I should not have brought forward. A Russian navy battlegroup appeared off the coast of Scotland, as have a number of Russian submarines. In addition, Russia is building a new fleet of submarines. In the past a Nimrod would have been dispatched to keep a watchful, discreet eye. Instead, we sent a Type 42 destroyer. Without the MPA, we do not know who is out there or what risks we face.

Scotland is a part of what we should consider our back door—the high north. We spend very little time focusing on that region, but we ignore it at our peril. We tend to forget that we are a northern European country, and that the high north is growing in significance. Without a comprehensive maritime patrol capability, we cannot address the strategic and economic importance of the high north. As the ice melts in the Arctic ocean, the 160 billion barrels of oil that are assessed as being in that region are becoming more accessible. No one dreamed of those sea routes being opened up, or of the 40-day saving on travel made possible by the Suez canal being available for our shipping lanes. Without the MPA, we cannot keep an eye on those shipping lanes to watch for military deployments or respond to any disasters, whether they are environmental, security-related or human.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and particularly for the extraordinarily good work that she does on the Defence Committee, including in drawing our attention to issues such as the high north. In the comments that she just made, was she also making a comment about some of the possible implications of Scottish independence?

[Mrs Moon]

It is vital that the House addresses the issue of defence in relation to Scottish independence. I hope that, with the Chairman’s agreement, the Defence Committee will include it in our future programme. It is a matter of grave importance to the security and defence of the United Kingdom, and we should take it extremely seriously.

I turn to maritime counter-terrorism. On a visit to Northwood, information was given to me that having one Nimrod, a maritime patrol aircraft, was the equivalent to having 12 ships. We have only 19 ships, and we no longer have MPA capability. We have the increasing problem of countering piracy, which is a form of criminal maritime terrorism. Naval command said last year that 83 warships were needed to ensure a one-hour response time to merchant ships attacked in the high-risk area, yet in October only 18 vessels were deployed. The area of risk is huge—2.5 million square miles—and over the next 20 years, the volume of trade going by sea will increase by 50% and Navy cover will drop by 30%. Tracking rogue ships over such a wide area needs maritime patrol capability, which we do not have.

Counter-piracy operations conducted through NATO and through EU NAVFOR—Naval Force Somalia—rely on the resources provided by members. The availability of MPA fluctuates according to demands elsewhere, and operations in Libya meant that those limited resources were diverted. We face increasing numbers of attacks in the Indian ocean, the strait of Hormuz and now off the west coast of Africa.

Our reliance on the sea is enormous. In 2010, 35% of our total natural gas imports arrived by sea. By 2020, 70% will be imported in that way. Some $952 billion of trade a year passes through the Suez canal, and piracy costs the international economy between $4 billion and $7 billion a year. Those figures are being passed on to taxpayers through the rising cost of the goods transported through the region.

There are huge problems with the proposal to post armed guards on merchant ships. I have particular concerns about the rules that would be needed to govern the licensing of firearms on UK-flagged vessels, and about what would happen to the pirates who were captured. Kenya is no longer willing to help. How will pirates be transported to third countries for trial, and what will the legal position be of both the pirates and the maritime security company that transports them there? Are we in danger of giving rise to the issue of rendition?

I turn to our long-term search and rescue obligations. In 2010 our Nimrods were called out between 30 and 40 times to assist with search and rescue. We have an international responsibility for search and rescue covering 1.2 million nautical miles, but in a collection of letters in The Daily Telegraph in 2010, one writer said:

“I advise mariners to avoid requiring rescue more than 250 miles from shore.”

Without a maritime patrol capability, our capacity to rescue our seafarers is removed.

I wish briefly to consider the Falklands. I remind the House that when the invasion started on 31 March 1982, a Nimrod arrived at Ascension island on 6 April. A battle group of Harriers did not arrive until 1 May. That maritime patrol capability gives us the flexibility that we need, and it is a matter of great urgency that the House is advised on when it will be restored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley]

The hon. Gentleman makes some fair comments, but the Government have not established that the level of risk facing the country is declining, so they have not made the case in defence and security terms for the reduction in expenditure that they are making.

The United States, the UK, France, Greece and Albania are the only NATO members that spend at or above 2% of their GDP on defence; the other 23 of the 28 NATO allies spend less. The Libya campaign showed that current European spending on defence is not sufficient to conduct an effective military operation against a poorly armed regime distracted by a civilian uprising in a sparsely populated country with only 6 million inhabitants. Within weeks of the start of military operations, European countries were running out of precision-guided missiles and needed to turn to the United States to provide them. We also needed to turn to the United States to provide surveillance aircraft to identify targets and to provide air-to-air refuelling.

All 28 NATO member states voted for the Libya campaign, but less than half participated in it and fewer than one third contributed to strike operations. In June 2011, in a speech in Brussels, the outgoing United States Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said that

“many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they cannot. The military capabilities simply aren't there.”

That led Mr Gates, just before he left office, to question the future of NATO, and in the same speech he said:

“If current trends in the decline of European defence capabilities are not halted and reversed, future US political leaders…may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.”

Robert Gates is not a maverick. He served as Defence Secretary under the Bush presidency and under Obama, and in that speech he articulated views that are frequently expressed by members of the United States Congress and other US speakers at meetings of the NATO Parliament Assembly, which I attend along with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who leads our delegation. Indeed, a report adopted by the economics and security committee at our most recent meeting in October 2011 stated:

“If anything, Secretary Gates was being diplomatic. Europe’s defence posture has grown woefully weak…It is time for Europe to get serious about this issue.”

In November, in a speech to the Australian Parliament, President Obama declared that the United States was a Pacific power, and said that maintaining a military presence in the Asia-Pacific region was a top priority and would not be affected by United States defence cuts—a point that he re-emphasised earlier this month in a speech at the Pentagon about the US comprehensive defence review.

Those statements from our American allies make it clear to me that we in Europe need to do more than we are currently doing. Although we stay above the NATO target of 2% of GDP spending on defence, our defence cuts in the UK make it harder for us to persuade our European allies of the need for them to do their bit and get their spending up to that target.

In President Obama’s speech at the Pentagon he said:

“the size and the structure of our military and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around.”

The UK Government need to operate on the same basis. I therefore believe that the defence cuts that the Government have announced should be contingent on the successful implementation, on a Europe-wide basis, of a strategy to increase defence expenditure and make better use of the resources that we already have by eliminating waste and duplication.

The UK-France defence and security co-operation treaty is a step in the right direction. It will allow the shared deployment of aircraft and aircraft carriers and air-to-air refuelling capabilities, and I am sure that as a result capabilities will be provided more cost-effectively than if we did such things alone. The nascent Nordic defence co-operation is another example. But we clearly need more shared assets in Europe. Why are we not buying strategic airlift on a joint basis with allies, as NATO did with the airborne warning and control system, or AWACS—although the UK, of course, did not join that initiative? Why do we not do the same with air-to-air refuelling?

Most of all, we need better co-operation in our defence industries. The armed forces in Europe have more service personnel than the United States, but we are way behind in terms of defence budgets, investment and capabilities.

[Mrs Moon]

One way to resolve the problem of sharing capacity would be to have an agreement with Luxembourg, a land-locked country that has no coastline but two maritime patrol aircraft. Perhaps we could agree to share its maritime patrol capability, as we have none.

[Hugh Bayley]

My hon. Friend has made her point well. I would like us not only to make bilateral agreements with other countries but, far more, to look strategically across Europe at how we should restructure our defence industries to eliminate duplication and produce what we need—common equipment on a common basis. We should acquire major capital items of equipment that will be shared in NATO operations on a common basis.

In the few seconds that I have left, I would like to say a word or two about the local implications of the defence cuts for my constituency and the rest of Yorkshire. The latest figure that I have for the number of regular military personnel based in Yorkshire and the Humber is 14,730; for North Yorkshire the figure is 13,310, and in my constituency of York it is 880. The figures date from 2009, before the general election. If between now and 2015 those figures reduced in proportion with the overall reduction in the numbers of our armed forces—that is, by 8.5% or 9%—one might expect force reductions of about 1,300 across our region, of whom 1,200 would be in North Yorkshire and 70, perhaps, in York itself.

On the day last week when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), made his written ministerial statement about the second tranche of redundancies, I tabled a number of parliamentary questions asking for these regional numbers at the time of the general election, in December 2011, and in 2015. At business questions last week I asked whether the Leader of the House could make sure that I got answers before this debate. I received a letter from the Minister with responsibility for defence personnel, but it did not contain the figures. I hope that those figures will be provided to me as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to take part in the debate, and I commend our Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), for his work on securing it. It is also an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything that he said, although I would suggest that many people did see the second world war coming. That was his only example that perhaps fell down slightly.

What I find amazing about the Defence Committee’s work is not only the bipartisanship under which it operates under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire but the breadth of knowledge of its members. We have seen that illustrated again today in the contributions from the right hon. Gentleman, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and from others. We produced a report following our forensic investigation into the strategic defence and security review, and our conclusions were clear and damning. We concluded that the SDSR was a Treasury-driven budget settlement that would have dreadful consequences for the defence of the realm; it would be dreadful for the morale of service personnel, and for UK manufacturing.

The decision on carrier strike capability was rushed and bizarre. On the question of the air frame, it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to consider whether the F35-B was the correct choice in the context of Future Force 2020. After all, the United States had placed the B variant on probation, and there were technical concerns about the lift. My understanding is that, at that time, only the United Kingdom and the United States had signed up to take an order. It is also valid to argue that we should consider the question of interoperability with our allies, as well as the value for money of the air frame to be chosen. Those are all reasonable elements that a sensible Government should examine.

Unfortunately, the Government did not bother to take the time to understand the consequences of the decision to switch variants. For example, the F-35C cannot land on the French carrier, thus defeating the argument of interoperability, particularly given the Anglo-French alliance. The cost of the F-35—B and C—is still not known, and that is a concern shared by the Defence Committee and our counterparts in the United States Congress, the Pentagon, the Canadians, the Australians and every other country that is purchasing either the F-35B or C.

Lastly, many of us do not have confidence that, most crucially, the F-35C will be able to land on the Queen Elizabeth class carrier. It would be a good idea if it were able to come down safely to our own carrier, although perhaps I am a bit of a traditionalist.

[Mrs Moon]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, Commander-in-Chief, Fleet, said in a speech to industrialists in the US that, due to the US defence cuts, the chance of us being able to buy the joint strike fighter are reducing, as it will not be delivered on time? As alternatives, we will have to look at the F-18 from the Americans and the Rafale from the French.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is right. The Times paints a disturbing picture today. We on the Defence Committee and the wider defence community have for some time had serious concerns about the capability of Lockheed Martin to fulfil the aspirations set out. When the Minister appeared before the Defence Committee, it was disturbing that he adopted a relatively blasé approach to the problem, in direct contradiction to the postures of Secretary Gates, who has already been name-checked, and Secretary Panetta, who have been turning the screws on Lockheed Martin. As the decision has been rushed, we might have to go back and reverse it, and go to the F-35B, which would be not only embarrassing but a vast waste of money. We have only two other options: as my hon. Friend says, the F-18 Super Hornet, a proven air frame, of which the Australians have just ordered additional quantities, and for which Secretary Panetta has announced an additional order, or the French variant, which, to be fair, would at least solve the Charles de Gaulle issue.

On the carriers themselves, it is no secret that I have absolute scorn for the decision that was taken to take the Invincible class out of service. In fact, despite the claim of a minority on the Government Benches that the Libyan operation justifies the decision, the reverse is true, as it demonstrates absolutely the need for carrier capability throughout the decade.

Armed Forces Personnel

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

We certainly want the covenant operating, in practice and effect, across the whole UK. The armed forces are drawn from, and stationed across, the whole UK, and it is certainly our view that this should be a whole-UK effort as well.

Unfortunately, owing to the fiscal situation, we have had to make some difficult decisions to balance the defence programme and to begin building the formidable, adaptable and sustainable armed forces that the country will need for the future. I regret to say that this has also affected the pace and sequencing of measures to improve the welfare of service personnel, their families and veterans. I know that some of the decisions required to bring balance to the defence programme directly affect people—for instance, decisions on pay and allowances, and the decisions to reduce the size of the armed forces establishment. I greatly regret that we have had to take some of these measures, just as I regret the need to cut the defence budget as a whole to contribute to deficit reduction, but that is the reality of the situation the country is in.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one cut that has hit families particularly hard has been the decision not to refurbish 49,000 units of armed forces accommodation? Yet again, many, many families will be spending a desperate winter in unfit and unsuitable accommodation. Will he consider that point, especially in the light of the plans to save £250 million by bringing troops back from Germany? Perhaps some of that money could be invested in our armed forces families’ accommodation.

[Nick Harvey]

Unless I misheard, the hon. Lady suggested that the impact would be felt this winter. The regrettable pause announced to the housing programme will not take effect for another two years, so there is no question of it having a marginal impact this winter. It is a matter of profound regret that we have to pause the programme, but I must stress that the majority of family houses in the defence estate are in the upper two quality bands. Obviously, however, it remains the commitment of any Government to get all the housing into those top two bands over the long term.

I want to make it perfectly clear that routine maintenance and repairs are not affected, and specific improvements to kitchens and bathrooms will continue during the pause. Furthermore, as the coalition agreement states, we will continue to look for savings elsewhere in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation budget, and if we can make them over the next two or three years, we will put them back into the housing improvement programme in due course. I hope very much that we can achieve that. However, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly valid point, and it is one that I acknowledge and regret. I hope that we can do something about it, but this is the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.

We cannot do all that we would want to do straight away to improve the welfare of personnel, because the money simply is not available. As a result, we have had to prioritise ruthlessly in order to ensure that any extra money that we can spend, we spend wisely and on those things that are most urgent. So let me set out what we have done. First, there is operational welfare: operations have to come first to ensure that those in the firing line have the tools and protection that they need to do the job. That is not just about strategy and equipment, but about ensuring that personnel and their families are looked after too. As Montgomery set out in his principles of warfare,

“the morale of the soldier is the most important single factor in war”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Harvey]

I can assure my hon. Friend that he is quite right about that. The changes made are important, and we have discussed them with colleagues in other Departments. We are pleased that the Government have been able to agree them, but he is absolutely right that the costs will be met where they fall and that the Departments responsible for providing those services will be the ones paying for them.

We have endorsed all the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in his report on improving mental health care, in particular: a structured mental health component in existing medical examinations performed while serving; an uplift in the number of mental health professionals conducting veterans outreach work from mental health trusts; the trial of an online early intervention service for serving personnel and veterans; and the means to allow the newly formed veterans information service to contact service leavers after they have left the armed forces. The new round-the-clock veterans mental health helpline is funded by the NHS and run by Rethink Mental Illness on behalf of Combat Stress.

[Mrs Moon]

Will the Minister confirm that we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Royal Marines and charities such as Combat Stress for highlighting the need to focus on mental health issues in the military? They have helped to make mental health issues not something that people hide, but something that they seek help for—something that people are proactive in admitting is becoming a problem and in dealing with before it becomes too difficult and damaging for themselves and their families. We owe those groups a debt of gratitude for working to make it acceptable to seek help.

[Nick Harvey]

We certainly do, and I agree very much with what the hon. Lady says. The Royal Marines were undoubtedly pathfinders in being the first to take measures to address the issue, and I know that the other services have sat up and taken notice of what they did. I believe that awareness of, and attitudes towards, mental health are shifting throughout the services, and I pay tribute to those in the services who have helped to bring that about. However, the hon. Lady is also right to pay tribute to those outside the services who work with them and who are beginning to address what, for many people, is a real problem.

We know from previous conflicts that some of those presenting with symptoms of mental illness as a result of their engagement have sometimes come forward many years later. However, the statistics show that people are coming forward rather sooner from the current operations in Afghanistan and the previous operations in Iraq, and they will probably continue to do so for many years. Far more have come forward far sooner than in the past, which must in some way reflect the changing attitude towards and awareness of the issue, and the growing availability of support and help to people on the outside. I pay tribute to everybody who is involved in all that.

That co-operative structure in delivering support—government at all levels working with professionals and charities—is being taken forward in other areas too. The defence recovery capability, which is a joint venture between the MOD, Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and other service charities, is taking the way we support our wounded, injured and sick personnel to a new level. For complex cases, world-class care is provided at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court for serving personnel. Personnel recovery centres and recovery and assessment centres are being established in major garrisons, where recovering personnel will be in a position to take advantage not only of excellent medical and rehabilitation services, but of the full range of facilities in large garrison areas. In prosthetics, the Government will work with service charities, including Help for Heroes and BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association—as well as specialists in the NHS, to ensure that high-quality NHS facilities are available to our servicemen and women once they leave service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who chairs the Defence Committee with great integrity, honesty and ingenuity and sets the standard that the rest of us aspire to reach, and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), my fellow Welsh member of the Select Committee—the Committee has a great tradition of having a large number of Welsh members. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) is also a member of the Committee, and he always seems to have a downer on the RAF.

Last year, I spent Remembrance day not in my constituency but in Warsaw, where I took part in a remembrance parade there as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which was gathered in that city. As we stood there and looked across at the veterans from the Polish army and the Polish resistance, we really understood what Remembrance day was about. We never truly experienced, as those people did, the real horrors of war. When we are at war, defence is not the responsibility of our armed forces alone. Let us not forget others who gave their lives: our firefighters; the merchant navy, which lost more people than all three services; the munitions workers; the agricultural workers; the Bevin boys; the home guard; and the ARP workers. Defence is a whole community responsibility.

We are here today to talk about our armed forces personnel. It was with particular delight that this week I hosted an event here in the Commons for the RAF presentation team. In the very first words of introduction, we spoke about the team’s need to talk to local communities about why they fund their armed forces and why that funding is essential for the defence of the country.

We then went on to host people who had taken part in NATO’s Operation Ellamy and Operation Unified Protector. They talked about the commitment, creativity and, in these days of defence cuts, the increasing needs of our armed forces personnel, as well as the huge capacity that our people have. They talked with great passion about the partnerships within NATO. I know that Italy is going through a period where there is a certain amount of humour about its financial difficulties, but they spoke with great passion about the help and the support that they had received from our Italian NATO allies. For example, they described having arrived at a base in Italy where the accommodation they were given was ill equipped and had poor facilities—the equipment and services that we would have offered on many of our bases would have been similar. The Italians sent their people in and they worked 24/7 to bring it up to the standard that they knew that a NATO ally deserved. We should honour that commitment from a NATO ally to our forces, because it is about their recognition that that NATO partnership is important and that our service personnel, wherever they come from, respect each other.

Those service personnel also talked about the partnership that is essential to all armed forces personnel when they go into theatre, including the partnership with their families, who support them in going and send them messages of support. The support and safety of their families is integral to their ability to do their job well.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Isolation and worry are significant problems for many families when their loved ones are away. Does the hon. Lady agree that support networks such as Troopers Mums in my constituency, which do good work in keeping families calm and holding everything together while our military personnel are away, ought to be congratulated and encouraged?

[Mrs Moon]

I most certainly do congratulate such organisations. Service personnel have mentioned to me how important community support is for their families—for example, it is important to know that teachers are aware if children in their class have fathers who are away on operations. I am talking about Operation Ellamy, but I am sure that this is equally important for service personnel in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. However, when personnel leave at short notice, as was the case in Operation Ellamy, it is even more important because they do not have time to prepare their families. The support of the organisations that the hon. Lady talked about is absolutely integral.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Moon]

I most certainly will give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

[Bob Stewart]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) said, one problem is that when reservists and people who live away from their camp are deployed, their wives and families are left isolated. The Ministry of Defence is trying to find a way to ensure that people who are not on base are looked after properly, because they get extremely worried when they feel isolated. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees with that.

[Mrs Moon]

I most certainly do agree. It is even more important that we recognise the need to give such service personnel help and support to reintegrate into their families. Often, their families have not had help and support from other service personnel, so when their family member comes back, their anxiety can add to the tension within the family and cause a lot of conflict.

It was interesting to hear about the important role played by employers, particularly the employers of reservists, in supporting people in going away and returning, so that they can settle back into their normal employment. When one has been working with the brakes off, 24/7, in the theatre of operations, it is difficult to come back to the slower pace of civilian life. That is an important lesson that employers need to build into their approach when they welcome service personnel back.

Industry is also important. Everybody has made a great deal of distancing themselves from industry today, but in Operation Ellamy, we needed the support of industry to ensure that the forces at the front of the fighting constantly had the supplies they needed, and so that Operation Unified Protector could provide the protection that was needed. That team spirit and can-do attitude is incredibly important.

The service personnel also talked about the range, reach and accuracy of our weapons—I see smiles on the faces of those who were at the meeting. We need to recognise that new is not always best. They talked with delight about how the VC10 is still such a valuable piece of kit.

I would like to mention briefly a wonderful piece on the front of Defence News entitled, “Stop Doing Things That Are Stupid”—a lesson that the Ministry of Defence should always bear in mind. Perhaps it should be on the front of every Minister’s desk. The USA is giving front-line personnel reports to send back about kit and equipment so that they can say, “This works,” or “If you did this it would work better,” or, “This is useless. Get rid of it.” We should stop asking people back at the Ministry of Defence to answer those questions. Why can we not follow the US example and get our front-line personnel to tell us what they want and what works best in theatre?

One of the sad things we heard was that NATO bases’ interoperability has been lost. I will take that up in my role as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We need our forces to be able to move around the NATO countries and know where they are and where they can find the things they need to make us more effective. A matter that we have repeatedly heard discussed is intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. In refuelling, we have relied on the Americans, but we cannot continue to expect them always to meet that requirement. It is critical that we consider how to develop and increase our own resources.

We owe the RAF, Navy and Army pilots a debt of great thanks for their professionalism. There were no deaths among our forces on Operation Ellamy, and they ensured that civilian deaths were kept to an absolute minimum. They showed a new way of operating in theatre. With few forces on the ground, they had to take greater responsibility for civilian life.

I wish briefly to discuss the military covenant. I have been extremely distressed to see the Royal British Legion being treated pretty shabbily for its involvement in the campaign and accused of delaying reform. The RBL is a vital voice for our armed forces, and especially for our veterans. I also struggle to understand why the chief coroner has come to be seen as surplus to requirements. I hope that the Ministry of Defence is considering that matter.

We have heard briefly about mental health. We know that American studies show that one third of American veterans needed psychological care, while one in five soldiers suffered combat-induced psychological problems post-Iraq. We also know that members of the reserve forces are more susceptible than others to mental health problems. We must commit to ensuring that every serving armed forces member and every veteran has access to the help and support they need, whether it is while they are serving, in theatre, when they come home, or many years later. We must not allow compassion fatigue to mean that as the years go by, we forget the service that people have given.

On accommodation, I welcome the Minister’s statement that money will go back into the accommodation budget if it can be found, but Julie McCarthy, the chief executive of the Army Families Federation, has said:

“The feedback we are getting is one of resigned disappointment. The upgrades that are being cancelled involved a total rebuild of houses—new roofs, windows, carpets, kitchens and bathrooms.”

The programme was about not just repainting a few rooms, but making quarters habitable. Our armed forces deserve habitable accommodation. They deserve the best that we can give them, and I hope the Minister will find the additional money needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to take part in today’s debate, especially at a time when the whole of Britain and the Commonwealth is preparing to mark a weekend of remembrance in the most dignified and unique way, and, here at home, in a very British way. The great British sailor, soldier and airman are the very best in the world. Throughout our nation’s rich history, our armed forces have never let us down—generation after generation of excellence and endeavour, courage and commitment, dedication and delivery; never turning away, even in the darkest hour; always the first to stand between home and danger. It is right that Remembrance Sunday is a focal point for Britain and that the whole country pauses to remember.

[Mrs Moon]

Does my hon. Friend share with me a great sigh of relief that it has finally been agreed that those service personnel who were awarded the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal will be able to wear it this year and at last honour their colleagues who fell in the service of this country in Malaysia?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, especially on the eve of Armistice day. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces for naming Plymouth earlier this year as the venue for next year’s national armed services day events. I am sure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) also welcomes that. Plymouth, needless to say, is a very proud city with a very fine Royal Marine and Royal Naval heritage. The authorities there will most certainly handle armed services day with enormous professionalism, and it will be incredibly well organised.

Tomorrow, 3 Commando Brigade, which is based in my constituency, will march through the city. I am absolutely sure that there will be a very big turnout of people who wish to demonstrate just how loyal to the brigade they are, and how proud they are of the service personnel who have acted in Afghanistan during the past few months or so. Tomorrow and Sunday will provide an opportunity for us to show our respect, alongside civic leaders. It will tinged with sadness, of course, because there have been some casualties, including Corporal Mark Palin, whose funeral I attended in the summer, who lived in Devonport and made the ultimate sacrifice.

In passing, I wish to thank FIFA for deciding, eventually, to allow our English footballers to wear their poppies. That is appropriate, because in 1915, in no-man’s land, there was a ceasefire at Christmas, so the soldiers could play football. Unfortunately they did not play cricket or rugby, but they decided to play football. That is a clear indication of the part that football has played.

Today’s debate is about how we value our armed services, and valuing them is very important. As a Navy brat, with a father who served in the Royal Navy and was partly responsible for getting the gold and the King of Norway out of Norway in 1940, and with a whole series of family members who have served in the services, I can safely say that I think I have had a fairly good understanding of what it is like to serve in the armed forces and make the ultimate sacrifice.

Not only do I represent one of the principal naval ports, but as vice-chairman of the armed forces all-party parliamentary group with special responsibility for the Royal Marines, and through my participation in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have gained a much better understanding of how the armed services play such a significant part in the defence of our country.

During the summer on a trip from Malta to Majorca with one of the ships, I had the opportunity to see first hand how our Royal Navy people go about their jobs. One thing they talked about was how they felt let down that they did not have the opportunity to receive a medal for their anti-piracy work. They said that they got one from the EU but were not allowed to wear it because it has not been approved by the Queen. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister ensure that that situation is looked at?

[Mrs Moon]

I understand that there is to be review of the body that is responsible for giving medals, which is an obscure and almost secretive organisation. Should not that responsibility lie with the House and not with some obscure group of flunkies somewhere in a back room?

[Oliver Colvile]

The body should be asked to give advice, but perhaps ultimately, the decision ought to be made here.

[Mr Robathan]

The Honours and Decorations Committee might be obscure, but it exists to give advice to Her Majesty the Queen, who is the fount of honours and who gives medals, not this House. In my opinion, with which hon. Members may disagree—the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) is right that we are having a review—it is important that politics and party politics should not be involved in decisions on medals, because that should be done in the chain of command. I have been under pressure to intervene in gallantry awards for people whom I have never met. However, the granting of honours must be decided not by politicians, but by others who are involved in campaigns.

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

[Oliver Colvile]

If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene again, she is very welcome to do so.

[Mrs Moon]

Transparency is essential, and the big problem with the Honours and Decorations Committee is that it is not transparent.

[Oliver Colvile]

It is the job of the Queen to make decisions on who gets such honours.

In the few minutes available to me, I want to concentrate on the mental health of those members of the armed forces who serve to defend our country. Other hon. Members have spoken with some knowledge of that, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), whose paper on mental health and combat stress, “Fighting Fit”, has made such a significant contribution in helping us to determine our armed forces covenant and the Armed Forces Act 2011.

There is a great deal of difference, however, between passing legislation and ensuring that recommendations are put into action. For many, serving in the armed services will be one of several careers that they will have. It is important that they do not find themselves handicapped from having other careers and doing other jobs. Some might go into teaching and others might go into security or whatever, but it is important that we ensure they can go into other jobs.

A great deal of publicity was given to the fact that a significant minority of servicemen and women suffer from mental ill health as a result of their experiences. It is important that we ensure they are capable of going into other jobs, but according to research by the excellent Combat Stress, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, was set up in 1919 and which currently helps 4,600 veterans, suggests that of the 191,000 personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 4.6%—about 7,600 people—could develop post-traumatic stress disorder, and that another 37,600 people, or 19.7%, could be battling other debilitating mental health problems, such as depression, mood disorders and anxieties. It can take up to 13 years for mental illness to become apparent. We must not waste any time in finding a solution and putting a strategy in place. I welcome the Government’s changes to the delivery of our health services, but I am keen that there be a strategy to ensure that our general practitioners and other health professionals think through how to handle those mental health issues, especially in a garrison town such as Plymouth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue, and I pay tribute to those reservists who go out to Afghanistan, including those from 6 Rifles. We have the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, both of which should protect reservists deployed on operations, but he is quite right to raise the issue, which we keep under close review.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Ministry of Defence medical services has a good record of engagement with the carers of wounded service people, but when servicemen are transferred to the NHS system, carers are often told that, because of patient confidentiality, they cannot be engaged with and information cannot be shared. Will the Minister ensure that such continued engagement with carers takes place for service personnel, especially those with traumatic brain injury or mental health problems, once they enter the NHS?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue, of which I was not aware. Practitioners in the NHS certainly should get full medical records from the military medical services. If she were able to raise some specific cases with me, I would be most interested to hear them, and I look forward to hearing from her.

Defence Transformation

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Our economic well-being, as an island where 94% of our exports go by sea, is also dependent on the security of the international sea lanes and the Royal Navy’s contribution to that. Some would say that that is not a necessary function because it is outside the United Kingdom, but it is about the protection of UK interests, and I am afraid that in a truly globalised economy it will continue to be that way.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

In his recent address to NATO, Robert Gates expressed grave concern about NATO’s increasing inability to defend itself and about our unwillingness to pay the true cost of our own defence, relying on America to fund up to 80% of NATO. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that today’s announcement of 17,000 cuts across our armed forces and an increased reliance on a reserve force that is yet to have the capacity to fill a 30% gap will cause great consternation not only in relation to the defence of the UK but across NATO?

[Dr Fox]

I have of course had discussions with my American counterpart about some of our ideas. For the United States, the idea that we should have such a ratio between regulars and reserves is nothing unusual. When Bob Gates was criticising some of the countries that the hon. Lady mentioned—and when he looked at the United Kingdom, still spending above 2% of GDP on defence, with the fourth biggest defence budget in the world, and investing in the carrier and the joint strike fighter—I do not really think it was us he had in mind.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I think we need to begin such a process by dealing with any such issue with a clean sheet of paper and a clear mind. The advantage of what Lord Philip and his team have done is that they were hugely objective. They had no preconceived view, nor did they have any knowledge in detail of the events that they were looking into. That in itself was a huge advantage in allowing them to see the details that needed to be seen that had perhaps been overlooked before.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Today’s statement represents the successful persistence of many right hon. and hon. Members. It also represents the success of common sense over legal advice—but to be longer lasting, it must represent a new chapter in how we conduct such inquiries in future. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State confirming that new standards and new ways of conducting such inquiries will be in place for the future?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point, and it is one that I raised with Lord Philip and his team. Given that I think there is wide acceptance in the House that they came to a conclusion that had been missed too often by previous inquiries, the question is: why? I have asked Lord Philip whether he would mind setting out why he thought this particular inquiry had worked, and, from his perspective and that of his team, why they thought they were able to get at the kernel of truth that was missed so many times in the past. Looking at their methods, and how they went about drawing up their report, would be hugely instructive and helpful as a template for similar inquiries in the future.

Military Covenant

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I am incredibly pleased to follow the first two Back-Bench contributions to this debate. I hope that my contribution will be of the same incredibly high order, because it is that high level of debate that our armed forces want to hear from this Chamber, not the yah-boo politics that we heard from the Front Benches.

The military covenant is about the duty of care and the principles of that duty. It must set out the responsibilities of the Government and the country to those who serve and have risked their lives, just as the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) did and as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) has done. The military covenant is about people who do not have a choice over where they go or what they are called on to do—people who have no right to strike or raise objections; people who have no voice. The military covenant should give a voice to those voiceless, and it must be enshrined in law.

Why must the military covenant be enshrined in law? At the moment, our military is suffering from insecurity and instability. Morale is at an all-time low. Everyone in the Chamber has talked to military families. They will have had military families come to their surgeries who are concerned about how they will weather the strategic defence and security review, the cuts in allowances that have suddenly come upon them and the job losses, whether they are civil servants, many of whom are ex-military, or serving military personnel. There are pressures and tensions everywhere across our armed forces.

The sacking of personnel by e-mail has sent shock waves through the armed forces. The failure to follow through on the training commitment to those young people—many were hours away from completing four years of training to achieve a qualification that would have carried them through the rest of their lives—has devastated families and young people.

Why has the British Legion taken the unusual step of writing to Members of Parliament to ask that the military covenant be endorsed in law? This is a matter of trust, but I do not think that we demonstrate a tremendous amount of trust when we descend into making party political points about the military covenant. I am sorry to say that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have already become the parties of broken promises and broken commitments—[Interruption.] I have to say that promises have also been broken by my party.

All of us have a duty to make the highest level of commitment to our armed forces, and we should be judged by our actions. We can all make a list of the things we have done and the things we have failed to do, but what we really need to do is think of the consequences in our communities, because families can be devastated by the decisions that come out of this Chamber. Young people’s futures can be destroyed when their dreams of serving their country are thrown away, after they have read about the decision in a national newspaper.

The military covenant must not be simply a concept or a philosophy; it must be something that people can hold in their hands and feel secure about. It must be something that we, as a country, stand up to and stand by. Our armed forces and their families need to know that, whatever Government are in power, we will stand strongly by our commitments to them and that we will honour those commitments. As I have handed over veterans badges across my constituency over the past few years, I have seen the pride that people still felt about their years of service. They felt that those were the best years of their lives, and the times when they were most alive. We must honour those people, and make a commitment to them in law. If we are to have only a report, there must at the very least be a commitment to a free vote on the covenant for every Member of the House.

Afghanistan

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

There would be a real risk of instability in the whole region. Again, I go back to the issue of Pakistan. When one talks to the political or military leaders in Pakistan, one finds an increasing understanding that they cannot simply deal with the Pakistan Taliban and not deal with the Afghan Taliban, because ultimately there is a threat to the stability of the Pakistani state itself. The concept that we must fight a common threat together is one that is increasingly understood in Islamabad. Although we will have criticisms of what might not be done in Pakistan, we should also welcome political and military activities there that are helping in what is increasingly regarded as a common fight.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Select Committee on Defence was able to see first hand how the training of the Afghan national security forces is improving and how the investment is paying dividends. However, Afghanistan has a very small air force—an excellent air force, but a small one—and will never be able to provide its own strategic air cover. What role does the Secretary of State see Britain’s RAF playing in providing that air cover, in the way that it did over Iraq for the Kurds? Does he see that as part of our ongoing commitment, and is he happy that we will have the capacity, in pilots and planes, to carry that through?

[Dr Fox]

Strategic air cover for Afghanistan is some way down the line, but it will be required when there is a stable state able to maintain its own security. That, of course, is some way in the future, but given that Afghanistan’s capacity will be small, as the hon. Lady said—at the moment it is well behind where it needs to be—how arrangements for that process are put in place will be a matter for the whole of the international community, not just the United Kingdom.