Armed Forces Day

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The Military Cross, I beg your pardon. He was killed on Hill 112 at the very beginning of that advance. I will come to what happened there and to the fact that I was on board the Boudicca with 90-year-olds who stayed up later than I did, drank far more than I did and were up earlier than I was the next day.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in paying tribute not only to current armed forces personnel, but to ex-servicemen. Will he add to the list of those he is congratulating and thanking the merchant seafarers, particularly at the Normandy landing? Many civilians took to their boats at very short notice to help to liberate Europe.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman has jumped ahead of me, but I absolutely am happy to pay tribute to the work of the merchant seafarers. They supply our surface fleet and submariner fleet and logistically keep them at sea. They played such a critical role in the Normandy landings and do so today as well, and he is right to point that out.

Today is Reserves Day—I declare that I am a reservist—and we should pay tribute to them. Hon. Members might be aware that many are wearing their uniform today with pride, and I point out in particular that many reservists are part of the Whitehall family. Yesterday at the Foreign Office, we invited all those civil servants who not only work hard for the Government and our country in their day jobs but wear the uniform as reservists. They are in all three services, and it was wonderful to see the variety of support not just from the organisers who put this together to show that there are those who can do both jobs, but the other employers that allow and give time to our service personnel so that they can be reservists, as well as working for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I suspect that following this debate IPSA will be more aware that there is an invitation heading its way.

Another organisation that I hope is well aware that there is an invitation on the way, because I have written to it, is the BBC. I make the following point directly—although the BBC will probably cut this because our debate is being broadcast by BBC Parliament. Our veterans—2.5 million of them—are changing in profile. Sadly, in the next 10 years that number will diminish and go down to 1.5 million, because we will lose the second world war generation. The television is so important to many of these elderly people, who are on their own and use it for company and so forth; we have heard all the debate about this. I simply ask the BBC to look carefully at this issue. Its contribution to the covenant could be to allow our veterans to continue having that free TV licence. I have written to the BBC but have yet to have a reply; I look forward to receiving something in the post very soon indeed.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

There has been consensus thus far in this debate, but I must point out that one way of achieving that would be to bring it in-house; let the Government of the day decide. The provision was in our manifesto and we are willing to introduce it, and it was in the right hon. Gentleman’s party manifesto as well. Let us keep those TV licences free for the over-75s.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point and it is now on the record—unless the BBC has cut that bit as well.

I need to stress the issue of perception, because another aspect of Armed Forces Day is to correct the perception that somehow if someone joins our armed forces they might be damaged by their service. Nothing could be further from the truth: those who serve are less likely to go to prison, less likely to want to take their own life and less likely to be affected by mental health issues. If anyone is affected by any of those issues, then absolutely the help should be there, and we spoke about the importance of veterans support and indeed what comes from the Government too. The idea that those who serve are damaged is perpetuated in society; the Lord Ashcroft report underlined that, and we need to change it. We need to change it for two reasons. First, it does nothing to help recruitment and the next generation wanting to sign up for our armed forces. Secondly, it does nothing for those who have left the armed forces and are seeking a job, as they might therefore not get that job. They might not gain employment because their employer has a false idea that somehow they are damaged. We need to change that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Anthony’s story is very poignant, and we all understand what he, his family and his community have gone through. I appreciate that.

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate and to have the Minister responding. As a native of my constituency, born and raised on the Isle of Anglesey, he will know that my constituency has a proud tradition of service in the armed forces, whether it be the Army—a huge number of recruits go into the Welsh regiments—the merchant navy, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. RAF Valley trains our fast jet pilots to this day.

This year, we celebrated Armed Forces Day for the whole of north Wales on 25 May at Holyhead in my constituency. It was a wonderful seafront gathering, and the armed forces, cadets and various reservists all came together. The port of Holyhead has a proud history, including housing the whole Dutch navy during the second world war. I remember going to school with many people who had Dutch surnames. In fact, I am told that more than 90 Dutch sailors married local women during the second world war. It was not the Americans at the Valley air base but the Dutch sailors who got the women. There is a great tradition whereby we have a memorial to the Dutch navy, at which I helped to host an event with the Dutch embassy to celebrate the great European co-operation with our Dutch friends and allies.

The event on 25 May was not just a traditional celebration of Armed Forces Day and of the work of our armed forces; it was also a poignant occasion. We gave the freedom of the county of Anglesey to the Navy Submarine Service. In this debate we have heard the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) talk about her husband serving in the Submarine Service, which does a fantastic job. Personnel from the Navy Submarine Service told me that it was only the second time that it has been given the freedom of a borough or county—the first being the town and borough of Barrow-in-Furness. It was a great honour for the county of Anglesey, which I am proud to serve, to honour the submarine service, because we have a great seafaring tradition.

The Holyhead maritime museum is known throughout the country for its artefacts from Royal Navy and merchant navy seafarers, as well as from the important volunteers who go to sea in our lifeboats to keep our coastlines safe.

Our Armed Forces Day event on 25 May also had a special memorial to the submarine HMS Thetis. For those who do not know, HMS Thetis is in the history books for the wrong reasons. It was a T-class submarine of the Royal Navy that served under two names. Her first identity was HMS Thetis, and she commenced sea trials on 4 March 1939. She sank during those trials on 1 June 1939, with the loss of 99 lives. Many of those men are buried in my constituency and we had a special memorial for them on the 80th anniversary. She was salvaged, repaired and recommissioned under the name HMS Thunderbolt, serving in the Atlantic and Mediterranean until she was torpedoed and lost with all hands in 1943. That makes the Thetis one of the few military vessels in service history that have been lost twice with their crews. It was a real sacrifice for those crews, and we rightly remembered them on that occasion.

I am an ex-merchant seafarer, and I want to concentrate part of my speech on the work and sacrifice of merchant seafarers for our country. During the second world war, for example, they kept the trade links open and the food coming to our island nation. I remember, as a 16-year-old on my first vessel, talking to older seafarers who had actually served in the convoys. One in particular, a ship’s cook, joined the merchant navy at 17 and had been torpedoed and survived twice. He was left in the cold waters of the Atlantic while ships were being torpedoed, and bombed by fighter aircraft, around him. It is important to remember the conditions in which our merchant seafarers served during the world wars. We saw the D-day commemorations recently, and many merchant seafarers were involved in D-day. Many sea captains, using their seafaring skills, took the troops across to liberate mainland Europe. I am sure the Minister will join me in paying special tribute to the merchant navy.

More positively, last year we had commemorations in the House and in the country of the centenary of the great war. What was special about those commemorations was the fact that we were talking about real communities and real people. It was a great people’s history, and we were able to celebrate the contribution made by local people to their community and their country. I am a great one for going around village memorial halls, and several small communities on Anglesey have memorial halls, as the Minister will know, that were built more than 100 years ago so that we should remember the great sacrifices made in the first world war. Many of them are rightly dedicated to those who lost their lives. They have now been revamped and are part of our living history. I would like to see small museums and galleries in those memorial halls so that we remember the dedication, service and sacrifice of the communities we all represent for ever and ever.

Before I came to the House 18 years ago, I ran a welfare unit for veterans and dealt with many ex-service personnel. It was difficult to diagnose many of the conditions that they had and to help them with benefits. We have improved considerably in the last 20 years, and I pay tribute to the last Labour Government, the coalition Government and the present Government for the work that they have done to help veterans. We have a dedicated veterans Minister and much support from charities, as well as the MOD. The Minister who opened the debate is no longer in his place, but, I have had correspondence with him as recently as last month—I will be coming back to him—and I know that he looks at these issues meticulously so that we are able to help veterans.

Our casework is getting more complicated and more and more veterans are coming to see us. We really need to target the issue of mental health. Great progress has been made in the House, with many Members talking about their own experiences, but, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, mental health treatment should have parity with physical health services. We must help our veterans. Many relatively young veterans have been in theatre and in many conflicts in recent years, and we must help and support them.

Today, Armed Forces Day, is an opportunity to celebrate not only the work that our armed forces do for our country, but people from communities throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the dedication and service that they have given us. I pay tribute to active service personnel, and to ex-service personnel too.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate that refers to the armed forces—it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, but this is a particular pleasure. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, for his commitment as a soldier, as a reservist and as a Minister.

I thank all those who wear or have worn the uniform, serving this great country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—as others have said, we are better together—through thick and thin. It is little wonder that our armed forces are the envy and measuring standard of the entire world. Our armed forces have supported us in times of peril—through two world wars, the troubles, Afghanistan and Iraq to name only a few. Today, they are stationed around the globe, carrying out work that we do not hear about, yet the world would be a worse place without their efforts and contributions. The blood that they shed and the burden they take upon themselves is all for you—I say that to everybody in the House—and for me as well. To think that they are not fully rewarded for their sacrifices and supported through their own times of peril is disappointing, to say the least.

I declare an interest—I should have done so at the beginning of my speech—as a former part-time solider. I served for 14 and a half years in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army.

Just last Saturday, the gallant Minister was in Lisburn for Northern Ireland Armed Forces Day. It was a smashing day, as he rightly said. I have a request for him, or, in his absence, for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who will respond to the debate. Northern Ireland will be 100 years old in 2021; will Ministers consider a national Armed Forces Day in Northern Ireland to tie in with that centenary?

The armed forces are 9,900 trained personnel short of their Government-set target: the Royal Navy and Royal Marines are some 1,230 short of their 30,450 personnel target; the Royal Air Force is 1,740 short of its 31,750 personnel target; and the British Army is 6,930 short of its 82,000 personnel target.

We are fortunate in my constituency to have a strong tradition of service in all three of the services—the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army. Conscription was never needed because the recruitment was always there. We also have strong TA battalions and batteries in the town, with a new Royal Irish Regiment section in the Crawfordsburn Road centre in Newtownards. We have that service ethic, so it is important to give people those opportunities. We also have active cadets in all three services.

The House might wonder why I brought up those figures, but the link is clear: why would someone put their physical and mental health on the line for the minimum wage? Why would they leave their family and all those they love for months on end when their Government—my Government—cannot give them pay that reflects their sacrifice? It is little wonder that so many of our trained and elite leave the service and serve privately—the pay is quadruple that which the uniform pays. The shadow Secretary of State referred to pay, and she was absolutely right to—we need to think about that.

Why would someone take the minimum wage when, added to that, they now know that they could well be abandoned in later life should another armed regime such as the republicans seek to rewrite history? Would it not be fair to say that the treatment they can expect once they retire is the reason they are not joining? Just like soldier F, they have to contemplate the prospect of facing prosecution for doing their job. The Government have to do more to protect their soldiers. That issue has come forward on numerous occasions. Soldiers should be allowed to retire in peace; that is the least we can do for them. The Democratic Unionist party, of which I am proud to be a member and to speak on behalf of today, supports our armed forces. We will not watch silently as our armed forces are dragged on their knees to appear in court at the age of 75. The witch hunt must stop now.

Our soldiers cannot simply disobey orders. That is called insubordination, and they would be punished for it. They cannot win in that scenario. They face two choices: be punished by their superiors for disobeying orders and for not following the appropriate procedure, or be punished by the media agenda of the day and even by the judicial system. Why should they willingly have to sign up to that? They should not have to do so, but they do. I doubt soldier F knew that that was what he was signing up to. Our soldiers deserve better. The very least that they deserve for protecting us is the right to protection in the courts. The sacrifice that they make for all of us to sleep safely at night is immeasurable, yet that is how they are treated. On behalf of all those soldiers who face the prospect of an investigation, let us make it clear that we stand by them and support them in these legacy battles. I believe that there is a consensus of opinion in the House to support that view.

We should remember that the soldiers who did wrong were prosecuted during the troubles in the appropriate way through the Army. They did face justice. What they face now is not justice; it is unacceptable. It is a sop to a republican agenda, and the antithesis of justice. For all the sacrifices that they have made, it is appalling that they do not receive the support they need when they retire. Royal Irish veteran Robert McCartney of the charity Beyond the Battlefield has estimated that some 400 veterans attempt to take their own lives each year in Northern Ireland, 30 of whom succeed. Those statistics are accurate, and they reflect the concern that we have for our veterans in Northern Ireland. I commend Robert McCartney and many other charities such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, Help for Heroes, St Dunstan’s, and the Royal British Legion—they are almost too numerous to mention. They all help greatly, but we should be doing more to help our armed forces.

I do not think that there is one Member today who has not mentioned mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental issues that have come about because of things that have happened in the past.

[Albert Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman add to that list of charities the Mission to Seafarers, which does excellent work for UK shipping veterans both here in the capital city and across the UK and the globe?

Milton Keynes: 50th Anniversary

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. Friend and near neighbour. I thank him for the good wishes from the people of Bedfordshire. He is absolutely right: the environmental benefits of Milton Keynes are enormous. I think I am right in saying that we have more trees per head of population than anywhere else in the country. That was one of the great foresights of the city’s founding fathers.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend intervened, because it leads me neatly on to talking about what I see as the next stage of Milton Keynes development. That includes the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor that the National Infrastructure Commission is looking at and projects such as the east-west rail line, which the right hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned, and the Oxford-Cambridge expressway. I believe they will unlock considerable economic and housing development.

If that development is done in the right way—using the smart city and transport technology that we are innovating locally to develop new types of village communities that people want and not the massive urban sprawl that they fear—we will respect and improve on the basis on which Milton Keynes was founded. In doing so, we need to find a way to develop a new partnership between Milton Keynes and neighbouring authorities, such as Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council, to develop joint planning and delivery mechanisms. I know that my right hon. Friend is setting up an all-party group to look at the creation of the England economic heartland body, which will do a lot of important work in that space.

Last year in Milton Keynes we had the publication of the “MK Futures 2050” report, which was chaired by Sir Peter Gregson of Cranfield University. It presented a bold vision for our future, including the creation of MK:IT, a technical university modelled on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States. That absolutely fits with the NIC’s plans and the Government’s industrial strategy, which was outlined earlier this week and will develop our skills base for the future. All those debates and initiatives are live, and I look forward to playing my part in shaping them. We have an incredibly bright future and many opportunities, but I conclude today simply by wishing my fellow residents in Milton Keynes a very happy birthday. I am proud to represent such a wonderful place, and I look forward to playing a part in its next half century.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that the debate will finish at 4.41 pm. I offer my congratulations to Milton Keynes.

Iraq Historic Allegations Team

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Iraq Historic Allegations Team.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Because of time factors, if the Member who secured the debate takes 10 minutes, all the seven Back Benchers, including Mr Stewart, who have indicated that they want to speak will have four minutes before I bring in the Scottish National party and Labour party spokespersons for five minutes each, and the Minister will have 10 minutes to respond.

[Richard Benyon]

Thank you, Mr Owen, for overseeing our proceedings today. I am grateful to the Minister for being in her place and to so many colleagues for showing so much interest in this important matter.

I have a view of our armed forces that is similar to my view of other public services. Just as with the NHS and the police, I revere the people who work for those services for being the best at what they do and for showing exceptional courage and professionalism. I also accept that the armed forces, like other public servants, sometimes fail. In wanting them to remain the best armed forces in the world, I want there to be a proper sanctioned system, clearly understood by all ranks, to act as a deterrent against those who might break the rules of law. Here I admit a prejudice. As somebody who has served on operations and saw men under my command have their self-control tested to the extreme, I constantly wonder how young men, often with little education, can show such intelligent restraint at times of great provocation. I am only talking about Northern Ireland.

This year sees the 25th anniversary of the first Gulf war. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women have seen more combat in the quarter century since than in any period since the Korean war. To mark it, Help for Heroes, in conjunction with King’s College London, has produced an in-depth report that shows that roughly between 60,000 and 70,000 regular veterans and around 20,000 reservists will need our support in the coming years as they face the effects of combat. Those are the people I will talk about today and they should be our absolute priority.

I secured this debate because something has happened to some of our veterans in recent years that I think needs the urgent attention of Government. Some call it “lawfare”. It is having a profound effect on the morale of our armed forces and on how we will be able to fight wars in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that incidents such as that of the arrest of Lance Corporal J of the Paras under caution should cease. Society wants a line drawn under such things. We seem to have moved too far towards favouring the actions of our enemies and we do not seem mindful enough of those to whom we owe a great debt.

The recommendations I have just outlined are clearly set out in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling. It makes it clear that we are not only talking about alleged victims of war crimes, excessive violence in combat or the mistreatment of prisoners. The definition of “lawfare” extends to the ability of the courts to judge the actions of commanders—decisions often taken in the heat of battle and then judged years later by people for whom such circumstances are alien and with the mantle of hindsight.

I go back to my own experience. I got to know well a 19-year-old soldier who, in a tense situation, shot and killed someone contrary to the so-called “yellow card” rules for opening fire. He was convicted for murder. The case has haunted me for 34 years. My worry is that the legal imperialism we have seen in recent years and the existence of organisations such as IHAT will put a dangerous caution in the minds of the sniper of the future. Rather than taking a life to save many, caution prompted by a fear of legal implications might, to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex,

“put a splint around his trigger finger”.

The analogy extends into every area of war, involving everyone from the most junior soldier just out of training to the most gnarled veteran of a quarter century of expeditionary warfare. The Apache pilot, the mortar platoon commander and the frontline rifleman all need to be governed by the rule of law—but which law? That is the matter that the Minister and the Government must tackle with haste. However despicable we might think the actions of certain lawyers are, they are only responding to circumstances created by Governments past and present. My argument is that the rules we have created put our servicemen and women in greater danger in future. That cannot be right.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Given the length of the last speech, the remaining speakers have three minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for his kind words and for calling for the debate. I will try to reduce my speech in so far as I can, but these matters did concern me in my working life for many years. I was in charge of the MOD’s litigation team in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department when the claims started flooding in in 2010. We faced a tsunami of litigation. I am not going to talk about individual cases, but I will give some recommendations from my experience.

First, IHAT was the least bad option available. The civil courts are not the place for criminal investigations to take place. Some of the claims made were very serious and needed to be investigated. IHAT is independent but secure. It is staffed by excellent officers who can investigate criminal allegations. Unlike the Baha Mousa inquiry, for example, they can refer cases to the Service Prosecuting Authority. Given where we are at the moment, IHAT should be encouraged to press on, but we should find new ways to deal with such issues in any future conflict.

Secondly, lawyers should not act without real clients with whom they are in touch and from whom they can take instructions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] If, for example, offers of settlement are made, it is essential that a lawyer can get in touch with their client immediately; anything less makes litigation impossible.

Thirdly, access by IHAT officers to the Iraqi complainant should have been provided with speed, but it was not. I can see no explanation for that at all. There is no need, nor is it usual in police investigations, for those who complain of a crime to be represented by a lawyer from the other side of the world.

Fourthly, our disclosure rules should not be used to pervert the course of litigation and push the Ministry of Defence into a position where it feels it cannot defend itself or its soldiers. Fifthly, I support scrutiny of whether legal aid should be available to non-UK nationals bringing action against the Government. That money, in my view, would be much better spent on rebuilding Iraq than on lawyers based in the UK.

Sixthly, I think the UK should derogate from the European convention on human rights—I am certainly no anti-European—whenever we deploy soldiers abroad. The authors of the convention, who were writing at a time when the horror of the holocaust and the battlefield was still fresh, intended international humanitarian law to apply to soldiers. International humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict is robust law, designed for that very purpose; the ECHR is not.

In conclusion, we are not dealing in the main with the fog of the battlefield, but rather with the confusion of detention and interrogation. In Iraq, solders were detaining men who minutes before might have been shooting at them or killing their friends or who were believed to have had information that might have helped us to prevent further attacks on our troops. They were usually not in custody suites, offices or cells, and time for gathering information was perilously short. It was hot—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steven Paterson]

I will resist getting into party politics. This is a serious case and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made his point very well there—[Interruption.]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Steven Paterson]

Time is now against me, but to address the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that we all accept the need to uphold standards of human rights. That should be the case across the world, wherever we send our armed forces. Our armed forces have our support and gratitude for the difficult work that they do on our behalf in defending not only us but our values. That means that our armed forces must always live by and espouse the same values that they defend with such distinction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is right, and he knows what he is talking about.

When the courts entertain claims against our armed forces of the likes of an insurgent bomb-maker suing us for not shooting him in a fire fight, but instead taking him prisoner and holding him until we could guarantee he would not face mistreatment in the local justice system, it is not just our armed forces who suffer the strain on them and the corrupting effect on their behaviour in the field; the cause of human rights suffers too. Today, when faced with the likes of Leigh Day and PIL, we need to wrap our service personnel in more than just body armour when we send them out to defend freedom.

Shortly the National Security Council will meet to decide on a number of options to address all the concerns that hon. Members have expressed this afternoon. Over the last eight months, extensive work has been going on in the MOD and the MOJ on these issues. Hon Members have mentioned some of the options that may be brought forward, and there are others.

Specifically with regard to spurious litigation being brought against our service personnel and the conduct of legal firms, the Prime Minister has announced that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and I will chair a working group to tackle every aspect of that, including conditional fee arrangements, legal aid rules and disciplinary sanctions against lawyers who are abusing the system or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Against that backdrop, I understand that the work of IHAT has been tarred with the same brush. Hon. Members have spoken about why it was set up. It was to ensure that we have a domestic process as opposed to an international one. I want to give an insight into some of the cases, because they are illuminating.

In case No. 377, it was alleged that a passenger in a car was shot by an

“hysterical British soldier in a tank.”

That IHAT investigation ascertained that PIL had submitted the allegation in October 2014, despite Danish armed forces accepting liability for the incident and paying compensation in 2003.

In case No. 123, it was alleged that a 13-year-old girl had been killed when she picked up part of a UK cluster bomb that had failed to detonate. The IHAT investigation established that a 13-year-old boy had been killed, but was unable to ascertain whether Iraqi or UK munitions were responsible. PIL challenged the MOD’s decision not to refer it to the IFI—Iraq fatality investigations. The MOD defended the challenge on the basis of that information. Shortly before the hearing, PIL disclosed a witness statement by the boy’s father, made before the IHAT investigation, in which he said that the boy had been killed while in the vicinity of an Iraqi mobile missile launcher preparing to fire missiles into Kuwait that was destroyed by a coalition helicopter. There are many other cases that I could mention. It was concluded, after thorough investigation, that UK service personnel had acted in self-defence, in the defence of others, and lawfully.

IHAT enables us to meet our obligations to investigate serious wrongdoing, and its work is exonerating those wrongly accused and rejecting bogus allegations. I would add that the sniper case that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury mentioned is not an IHAT case. Its investigators—a mix of service personnel, police officers and legal experts—are doing a public service, and I pay tribute to them. They feel their responsibilities keenly. Those investigators did not set up IHAT; we did. That was done not by anyone in this Chamber today, but by a previous Government, and for sound legal and policy reasons—there should be a domestic system of accountability, because without that there would be an international one. I hope that I have set the record straight on that. However, some questions remain for us, the politicians.

Does the existence of IHAT invite such claims? Were we not funding it, would fewer cases be brought? Why are so many cases brought and why are they so poorly researched, lengthening the investigation process? How can we speed that up? What support is given to our armed forces during the process? The work of IHAT is independent of the MOD, and we would not interfere with its investigations or work, but those are genuine questions to look at. It is right that we look at further ways of speeding up the process without compromising the quality of its output or its independence.

I can reassure hon. Members that we do all we can to support our armed forces through such investigations, and that support is also embedded in the practices of IHAT. It does give notice of investigations, and hon. Members must flag it up if they have heard of instances in which that has not been the case. Support that the MOD routinely provides to service personnel includes the funding of legal costs and, where appropriate, the funding of judicial reviews, as well as pastoral support. We fund medical assessments and applications to excuse from giving evidence veterans and serving personnel who are not medically fit to do so. Indeed, some in the judiciary have criticised the MOD for providing the level of support that we do provide. Those obligations remain, whatever the theatre in which the actions took place, whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland or elsewhere, but we recognise the cost of all this to our servicemen and women and to the public purse.

The al-Sweady case, in which our armed forces were exonerated and which resulted in Leigh Day being referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, cost the MOD and the British taxpayer £31 million to stage—£31 million, I would argue, that would be better spent on equipment and support for our armed forces. The status quo is financially unsustainable and morally unjustifiable. To put this right falls to us in this place, and we must all be resolved to do so. This issue and the solutions that we will bring forward are complex, but the objective is simple: we must protect human rights and we must protect those who defend them—our armed forces.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

We have run out of time, but I will give the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) one minute. I apologise for the time restraints.

Armed Forces (Redundancies)

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The cases are different for civilian and military personnel. In the military there is a compulsory redundancy programme, so that we maintain the shape of the armed forces. We must maintain not just those on the front line, but the enablers whom they require. Things are different in the civil service—and while we will be losing 17,000 personnel across the armed forces, we will be losing 25,000 from the civil service in the Ministry of Defence.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

RAF Valley, in my constituency, is a centre of excellence for fast jet training. Civilian staff and trainee pilots were unsettled, to say the least, to read reports over the weekend about redundancies. As the Secretary of State said, it is not for him to make redundancy announcements in the House. However, as Secretary of State, surely he should indicate what the impact of his announcement of job cuts will be on the RAF, so that bases such as RAF Valley have the stability and clarity that they need for the future.

[Dr Fox]

We set out in the SDSR what we believed the shape and size of the RAF would be, and the need for fast jets in the future. When it comes to redundancies, it is hugely to be regretted that not only did the information appear first in a national newspaper, rather than coming down the chain of command to those involved—which is the correct process—but much of the information was inaccurate. That was a double blow for the personnel. As I said, those personnel will be informed personally of the decisions that affect them, so that their personal circumstances can be taken into account. I have no intention of announcing redundancies through the House of Commons.

Defence Spending (Wales)

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs James]

As we understand, things have been—and are—very difficult. There was an alternative, and under a Labour Government there would have been an opportunity for the defence technical college. As Welsh MPs, we lobbied long and hard for the defence technical college, because we knew that it would bring opportunities and investment.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

One of the big success stories of the defence budget in Wales, and the UK, is RAF Valley in my constituency. It is a centre of excellence for fast jet training, and has had hundreds of millions of pounds of new investment. That is now under threat.

[Mrs James]

I agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on that; it is important that places such as RAF Valley continue to thrive and prosper. They add to the defence footprint in Wales and need to be enhanced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

No. It is simply not possible to have this conversation as if the UK economy did not exist. We have to operate within the context of the wider economic circumstances in which, for whatever reason, we have been placed. That is where we are. Of course the decisions have to be taken with local interests in mind, but, ultimately, as the Minister said earlier, surely this has to be about defence needs in that wider context.

[Albert Owen]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I want to distance myself slightly from something that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said. This is a serious debate, and Labour Members do not see it as fun. Wales is strategically important for defence training and the security of the whole United Kingdom, and Labour Members are proud of the investment that has gone into enhancing that capability over the past 10 years. The best pilots in the world are trained in Anglesey, and they are there because of the strategic importance of its RAF base. Those facts do not bear out any of the hon. Gentleman’s points.

I pay tribute to the Welsh personnel who serve in the armed forces and who serve overseas. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, I think it is important also to mention those behind the scenes who are involved in setting up operations. Similarly, it is important to mention the Territorial Army, and that is one thing on which I agree with the previous speaker; Wales makes one of the greatest contributions of volunteers, and I pay tribute to them. I am sure that the Minister will join me in that.

Defence spending in Wales is vital to defence training in the whole United Kingdom and to the important role that that plays in NATO. The United Kingdom is part of NATO, and plays an important defence role in that context. However, we need commitment and sustainability for the future, and that is what the debate is about.

I am concerned that the strategic defence and security review was conducted in a hurry. It was done just before a comprehensive spending review and was, frankly, caught up in it. I would rather that decisions had been made in the cold light of day, based on strategic defence requirements, than in the heat of a comprehensive spending review. The strategic defence and security review must be bolder and look at broader issues. It must look at least a quarter of a century ahead. I welcome the Government’s five-year review, which is important, because things change. The threats to the United Kingdom change considerably, and we do not know where they will come from in the next three to four years, let alone the next 25 years. I therefore agree with the idea of a five-year review.

It is important that the Minister tells us what impact the departure, in my constituency, of 5,000 air personnel from the RAF would have on defence spending and defence personnel in Wales.

[John Glen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

I will give way briefly, but I am aware of the time constraints.

[John Glen]

If the hon. Gentleman is so supportive of a regular review of defence spending now, will he tell us why there was not one between 1997 and 2010?

[Albert Owen]

Actually, I have lobbied on these issues. If the hon. Gentleman knows me, he will know that there is no difference between my criticisms of the Labour Government and of the current Government when I think that they are wrong. I think the current Government are wrong to have carried out the review so quickly. There is a window of opportunity to review things in five years, but that might be too late—that is the risk. We should have taken about 18 months to have a proper defence review. Whichever party was in office, the comprehensive spending review would have had to be done, and there would have had to be cuts, but we could have seen things in the cold light of day and had those strategic defence reviews in the future. That is my point.

I am conscious of the time, and had wanted to speak a bit longer than I will now be able to, because the subject is very important to Wales and my constituency. As the Minister knows, RAF Valley is in my constituency and is a centre of excellence for fast jet training with Hawks. There has been huge investment there in the past 10 years. Only last week a new building was opened, which will house the new Mk 2 jets. They are fantastic equipment and I am proud that they are British and will be part of our defence training.

The search and rescue headquarters is also based at RAF Valley. I was not 100% keen on the decision of the previous Government about part-privatisation, but I did understand the need to harmonise Navy and RAF helicopters, and, indeed, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency search and rescue, and bring them together. That decision—with billions of pounds of private investment coming into it—has been put on hold, and that will have a considerable impact on defence expenditure in Wales and my constituency. I am concerned about it and would like the Minister to clear up the matter of whether we shall continue with a part-privatisation, or whether there will be full privatisation. The uncertainty is affecting the morale of people employed in my constituency, who include a very famous member of the royal family, Flight Lieutenant Wales; that has got some attention.

The base is strategically important for search and rescue. If the part-privatisation had gone ahead, RAF Valley would have been the first base for such training in the whole United Kingdom. That would have been massively important to the local economy of north-west Wales, and the rest of Wales. I want some answers from the Minister about that, if possible. It is hugely important, and the base is there not because of job opportunities but because of Anglesey’s strategic importance to the United Kingdom. The base has an excellent record.

As to the strategic defence review itself, the impact that the loss of 5,000 personnel from the RAF alone will have on Wales is important. I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers, but I was very concerned—I want the Minister to deal with this if he has the opportunity—to read an article in The Sunday Times of 28 November with the headline “Cuts leave RAF with fewer jets than Sweden”. I do not know much about Swedish defence, but I know that Britain trains and provides the best fighter jet pilots in the world, and I want that to remain the case. The article continues to say that many of the smaller NATO countries—and on the graph we are one of the smallest NATO countries with military fighter attack—would use a NATO base in Texas. I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of the Americans, but I do not think that their pilots are as good as ours. We need European and British involvement in NATO, and I cannot see why we cannot enhance our bases here, and get more Americans and Canadians. Canadians, Indians and Saudis come to RAF Valley now to train.

Billions of pounds have been invested in strategic defence. Hundreds of millions have been invested in the past 10 years in RAF Valley. I want that to continue. There are 1,500 personnel there, both civilian and military. It is top quality. It is a centre of excellence, not just in this country, but in the world. The search and rescue headquarters has people coming from all over the world, including Hong Kong, to see what we do, because we do it best. I am concerned that the strategic defence and security review, coupled with the comprehensive spending review, could undermine that and have a huge impact on strategic defence, and on local economies in Wales.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this feisty and entertaining debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part and congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on securing it.

As hon. Members can probably tell, I am not a Welsh speaker or, for that matter, a Welsh Member of Parliament. I represent Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, one of the finest naval bases in the country. I am struck by the fact that no one seems to have mentioned at any length during the debate the financial position that the coalition Government found they were in when they came to power. [Hon. Members: “ Oh!”] I know that it is something we would all like to try to ignore, but unfortunately it is an issue that must be tackled. Whether hon. Members believe it or not, when the Government came to power they found that they had a £38 billion shortfall in the Ministry of Defence budget. At some stage that had to be dealt with. I realise that there are some who may feel that we do not need to tackle that issue at this stage of the game, but the civil servants who gave the coalition Government advice are the same ones who were in post prior to the general election, and they gave that advice to the Labour Government.

[Albert Owen]

I think that we need to kill this myth. We are talking about strategic defence for the next 25 years, not an economic cycle. Is the hon. Gentleman honestly saying that the Government are setting their priority for the defence of the nation within that five-year cycle?

[Oliver Colvile]

I wrote, during the run up to the strategic defence and security review, my own submission, in which I said that we certainly needed to re-order our priorities, and that defence was No. 1 of the two issues that I thought were important, along with long-term care for the elderly, which I still think is a very important issue for us to deal with. However, we are where we are. None of us came into the House to vote to cut defence expenditure. I for one will continue to campaign to ensure that my constituency stays firmly up in its position alongside other such places.

Before I go any further I pay tribute to the Welsh servicemen who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those who have served in the Falklands, along with many Royal Marines from my constituency; no one should underplay the contribution they made.

Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has, in the past 10 years, had similar concerns about what would happen to it to those outlined by hon. Members. Frigates were potentially to be moved to Portsmouth—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

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

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

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

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

[Albert Owen]

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

[Mr Robathan]

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

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

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Albert Owen Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because one of the major advantages our country has is the number of alliances in which we play such an effective part. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and an extraordinarily prominent member of the Commonwealth, and we are also a member of the G20 and all the other Gs. We seem to be able to reinforce that by our strong defence posture, which is itself hugely based on the training and quality of the men and women who make up our armed forces. We must remain proud of that, and we must do whatever we can to ensure that we keep that influence and that strength. While I would not go along with the way my hon. Friend illustrates his point, I do think we need to bear in mind where we want to end up as a country and work out the best way of getting there.

In the Select Committee report, we express strong criticisms of the process the Government are now pursuing. We welcome the creation of the National Security Council and the expansion of the review to include security issues because it is increasingly impossible and unwise to try to draw the distinctions between defence and security that might have been appropriate in previous times. The world has become smaller. The threats we face are trans-national and the solutions must be comprehensive and cross-governmental. However, we now have a review that is being conducted by a body—the National Security Council—that until a few months ago did not exist, and at extraordinary speed. Our major concern, therefore, is lack of time. In practice, the timetable has been about five months.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his measured comments yesterday on his report, which he is rehearsing again today. He says the world is a smaller place. That is because there is greater mobility. In order for us to contribute fully to the international forces, we too need to have greater mobility. At the core of that are aircraft carriers and the RAF. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the RAF plays a vital role not only in our combat operations but in our strategic role around the world, and that the RAF as an institution should be preserved?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

It would be quite wrong of me to fail to pay tribute to the RAF. It achieves extraordinary things with a very small force—they are few in number. The same can, of course, be said of our Royal Navy and Army. I certainly share in the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the RAF; it is well deserved.

As I said, the timetable for this review has been about five months. Most of the work has already been completed, about six weeks before the issue of the review. Even as I stand here, it is being finalised by the Treasury and the NSC. That means that the review has taken much less than half the time of the defence review of 1997-98, even though it is arguably even more important than that earlier review. Also, the current review should be based on an identification of the UK’s defence and security needs and what the threats are to us as a country and our interests, but it appears that it will end up being driven by the need for financial cuts and by little else.

The haste with which the review is being pursued has had some obvious consequences. Some 40 or so work streams fed into it, which is too few, and their analyses and costings cannot be as robust as they otherwise might have been, which threatens to weaken the review’s conclusions, possibly seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ainsworth]

I would not have given way to the hon. Gentleman if I had known that his intervention was going to be a boring repetition of things that are said repeatedly. I will come to the substantive point that the Chair of the Defence Committee raises in a while. I do not underestimate the difficulties that the Government face and the hard choices that need to be made, but they are not going about this in the way that will capture the support of the country, of the armed forces and of Parliament as a whole, and that will enable them to do as good a job as they can in the circumstances. If Government Members were to stop and reflect on that, they would know that what I am saying is true.

The Government will need to address the failure to consult the public and the broader defence community, as identified by the Defence Committee’s report. The failure to consult industry properly will have a serious impact on the ability to supply equipment to our armed forces. The Government appear to have stopped their work on acquisition reform, and will publish their industry and technology policy only next year. They cannot treat procurement and industrial capability as an afterthought; it must be an integral part of the strategic defence and security review.

The Defence Secretary has undergone a remarkable transformation since being in government. He has gone from being Oliver asking for more to being the Artful Dodger, ducking responsibility for his decisions. As entertaining as that spectacle has been, I would prefer to have a Government who acted like a Government. Before the election, the Conservatives called for an extra three battalions for the Army and more helicopters—how many times did they demand more helicopters? They also called for more vehicles and more ships. They now claim that they did not know what the financial position was, but that simply does not stand up.

I say to the Chair of the Defence Committee that we all knew that there were pressures on the defence budget. That is why we commissioned the Gray report and why I took the tough decisions I did last December. I decided not only to prioritise equipment for Afghanistan, but to reduce, ahead of the strategic defence review and to the degree that could be done outside an SDR, the pressures on the defence budget. What was the response of Conservative Members? They howled their disapproval at the cuts that were being made. They knew the situation, they knew the general financial framework of the world markets and what that had done to the British economy, and they knew that there was overheating within the defence budget, yet they continued to howl for more. As a result of what they said and did in the run-up to the election, there is not a member of the armed forces—not one—who would have believed that a Tory Government would not have brought extra funding. The Conservatives told people that efficiency savings would be all that was needed to deal with the budget.

Now the tune has changed but the methods are really quite worrying. Every week in the Sunday papers—rapidly, it is becoming each day—we are treated to more and more briefings dripping out of Whitehall. Will the carriers go? Will the Royal Marines be brought under Army command? What is the future of the joint strike fighter? What about the Tornado? It is government by leak and spin despite all the noble talk.

Nobody is laying out the options. Nobody is explaining the dilemmas to the country, to industry or to the armed forces. Nobody is pulling together and presenting a coherent plan. That is not the way to conduct a strategic defence and security review.

[Albert Owen]

The shadow Secretary of State is right to compliment the Defence Committee Chairman’s outlining of the fears that cutting too quickly will hurt even more. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that one effect of the leaks and stories before the announcement is that they are damaging morale, particularly among those people who are training for the long-term future and who will be posted overseas into combat? Morale has been affected hugely, and any hasty cut could also end up costing the country more money in the long run.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before Mr Ainsworth replies, may I say to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that we must try to have short interventions? A lot of people want to speak and there is a lot of interest in the debate, so I appeal to all Members to make sure that interventions are short.