Corporal Stewart McLaughlin

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister of State for defence personnel, welfare and veterans and hope that she will be able to deal in detail with my arguments today. A member of the shadow Cabinet is not often successful in applying for a Westminster Hall debate, so I want to thank Mr Speaker for allowing it to happen.

My aim is to persuade the Government to right a great injustice and finally to allow Corporal Stewart McLaughlin’s heroic actions during the battle for Mount Longdon to be considered for the recognition that they so clearly deserve. I will end my remarks early to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who also served in the Parachute Regiment, to add his voice to the plea for the long-overdue consideration of a gallantry award for Corporal McLaughlin.

The circumstances that have led us to this debate, 32 years after the event, are well known and not disputed. In July 1982 Corporal Stewart McLaughlin was a section commander in 5 platoon, B company, 3 Para, which during the Falklands war led the successful assault on Mount Longdon, overlooking Port Stanley. It was a crucial victory that led, just days later, to an Argentinian surrender. As is acknowledged, the successful outcome of that battle was substantially in doubt.

Corporal McLaughlin’s men were under sustained fire, but he reassured them by running into danger to pull the injured back to relative safety. He also protected them by leading the charge to the cover of nearby rocks. Apparently, when he realised that their position there was unsustainable, he shouted, “I will count one, two, three, and then we all go.” According to his commanding officer, he shouted, “Come on, lads, I’m bullet-proof. Follow me!” He then ran straight towards the gunfire, followed by the rest of the section, and they all reached cover. Members of the section apparently commented that it was the bravest thing they had ever seen. The regimental colonel said that Corporal McLaughlin’s heroic actions on that day are so widely known that they are now in the DNA of the regiment.

As I stood on Egremont prom on Remembrance Sunday to honour our war dead, it occurred to me that no story expresses the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces better than that of Corporal Stewart McLaughlin, who was killed later that day in 1982, at the age of only 27. After the battle, Corporal McLaughlin’s commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Hew Pike, wrote up a citation for bravery, but in the chaos and confusion after the battle the citation appears to have been lost, so it was never processed or considered.

The McLaughlin family are a big military family and they do Wallasey proud. Stewart’s dad, the late Edmund Joseph, served, and so did six of his eight sons. Stewart’s mum, the late Elizabeth, had much to be proud of. After Stewart McLaughlin died in June 1982, the family went to a memorial service for the fallen Paras in October of that year. At the memorial, Major Mike Argue, Stewart’s officer commanding, told Edmund that he had put Stewart in for the highest award for gallantry. Three weeks later, when the awards were published in The Gazette, Stewart’s name was not even mentioned. That was when Edmund knew that something was wrong and he started his campaign to get Stewart the recognition that everyone knew his actions merited.

Corporal McLaughlin’s family have run a tireless campaign for the proper consideration of Stewart’s actions, because they rightly believe that recognition of bravery should not be refused simply because of some kind of administrative error, and it was administrative error that is at fault. I first visited Edmund and his wife Elizabeth in the 1990s to lend my support to the campaign. In July this year, hundreds of Paras, family and friends marched to Downing street asking for Stewart’s bravery finally to be properly considered for an award. Thousands of people have signed a petition and it was handed to the Prime Minister on that day.

Since then, however, it is fair to say that we have come up against a brick wall of intransigence. I have received two letters, one from Lord Astor and the other from the Prime Minister, turning down a request for what they call a “review” of the situation. They are understandably worried that a gallantry award granted to Corporal McLaughlin after the passage of so many years might somehow open the floodgates, but I argue strongly that Stewart’s case cannot be reconsidered, because it was never considered in the first place. The response I have had from the Prime Minister fails to address that crucial issue.

A citation was written, but never processed. The letter from Lord Astor, a Minister at the Ministry of Defence, seems to intimate that perhaps Sir Hew Pike never submitted the citation at all. That point is patently untrue, however, and I ask the Minister present today to confirm that on the record. Sir Hew Pike, who is in the Public Gallery listening to the debate, along with Stewart’s entire chain of command in the Paras, recalls submitting the citation and has recently taken the unprecedented step of rewriting it. In it, he states:

“Cpl McLaughlin’s leadership through a terrible battle, of which his young soldiers had no previous experience, inspired confidence in all and sustained those who might otherwise have faltered.”

There are many contemporary accounts of Corporal McLaughlin’s actions on that night that are not disputed. Yet the Prime Minister’s letter refers to “reopening honours boards” and “reconsidering” Stewart’s actions which have been “rigorously examined”, even though we have established that his bravery was never considered for an award in the first place.

The Prime Minister goes on to say that there cannot be an award at this distance, because it would be unfair to those who “fought alongside him”. Yet it is precisely the testimony of those of his comrades who did fight alongside him that provides the irrefutable evidence of his heroism on that day. Indeed, some of them were on the march to Downing street in July.

It is of course right that our honours system is rigorous and above reproach. It is also right that politics should play no role in making awards. All the campaign has ever been about, however, is ensuring that Corporal McLaughlin’s actions are finally properly considered in the way that they would have been without the administrative error. The circumstances are so exceptional that I do not believe a dangerous precedent would be set if the Minister were to make us all extremely happy and announce a belated consideration in her response today.

It would not be the first time that a retrospective award has been made. For example, in 2012 the Prime Minister announced that sailors who delivered supplies to Russia during the second world war should receive the Arctic Star. Only a month ago, the Prime Minister awarded the South Atlantic medal to soldiers who served in the Falklands in the weeks after the war had concluded, and that was done after a review. I have examples of half a dozen soldiers granted the Victoria Cross decades after their death in the late 19th century. What we are asking for would not be unprecedented.

Corporal McLaughlin gave his life in the service of his country, but he has been failed by a rigid administrative system that has forgotten his sacrifice. His citation should have been processed, but it was not. The Minister has a chance to put that right. Every Minister whom the family have met has agreed that Corporal McLaughlin displayed enormous bravery worthy of recognition. Anyone hearing his story, or reading it in much greater detail than I have presented today, would agree. Will the Minister not agree that it is now appropriate that the rewritten citation should be properly considered alongside the contemporary accounts of Stewart’s undoubtedly brave actions that day in order to give a man who gave his life for our country his due recognition?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on securing this debate and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on his speech. I have 14 minutes in which to try to respond to a difficult situation. It would trouble anybody to have to respond to what is undoubtedly an extremely difficult case, and if I sound as though I am rushing, I apologise absolutely, but there are some important points that need to be made.

The first such point is that I speak without fear or favour. I do not speak on behalf of any civil servant; I say what I believe to be right and true. I will begin by reading a small section of the speech prepared by me, because I want these words recorded in Hansard. I will then respond as far as is possible to all the important points that have been made.

We have heard today how Corporal Stewart McLaughlin was killed by mortar fire in the Falkland Islands in June 1982, after he had led a series of charges against the Argentines, notably machine gunners, in the battle of Mount Longdon. Like many others, Corporal McLaughlin was in the prime of his life when he died. He was only 27, and I know that he left a young son only four months old.

We know that a quarter of 3 Para lost their lives fighting on Mount Longdon. It is a remarkable story of courage, valour and achievement that Mount Longdon was taken at that time. We have also heard of Corporal McLaughlin’s exceptional bravery and his leadership in the face of heavy enemy fire.

Having been briefed in detail on his actions in June 1982, I absolutely agree with the assessment of those actions. There can be no doubt whatever that Corporal McLaughlin demonstrated exceptional courage and bravery, in the finest traditions of his regiment—and, of course, the British Army—throughout the Falklands campaign. His family, his compatriots and the nation are right to remember him in that light. He was heroic.

We have also heard mention of a letter written to Corporal McLaughlin’s son by the Prime Minister. I will repeat the lines quoted by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central:

“I have no doubt of the gallantry and incredible selflessness that was demonstrated by your father through his actions on the Falklands Islands. Our country owes a debt of gratitude to him and many like him which can never be repaid.”

I will now describe, in short, the system as I understand it. I am happy to be corrected—notably, if I may say so, by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, who knows this system because he has served himself, no doubt with courage and gallantry. As I understand it, after a battle, once the theatre of war has ceased, there is a gathering of officers who make representations to the commanding officer about those men—as they invariably are, although there have been women, as well, in more recent times—who have acted well above and beyond the call of duty. As a result, citations are prepared; that certainly happened after the battle for Mount Longdon.

The citations are submitted to a committee to decide whether honours should be awarded. That committee then goes into considerable detail, often taking evidence from others who served. It looks at the whole theatre of war and—I will be corrected if I am wrong—tries to make some assessment of what awards should be made and on what grounds. It takes all matters into consideration at that time.

All that is done in the strict confidence. Unfortunately, this case is an example of why that confidentiality exists. It would be quite wrong for a family to be given some sort of false hope: “Your son was remarkable”—I actually take the view that they are all remarkable—“and is being put up for an award.” If that young man then does not receive an award, that family quite rightly feels that some injustice may have been done and that, in some way, some criticism has been made of the otherwise heroic actions of their loved one. That is why this is done in confidence, and I do not have any difficulty with that whatever.

In the event that a citation that has been put forward does not result in an award, there is a period in which the commanding officer can, effectively, say, “What went wrong there? What happened? We put forward this person for an award. He didn’t receive one. Why didn’t that happen? Has some injustice been done? Is there some new evidence that can be brought forward to make sure justice is done?” I am told it is a five-year period, although, normally, these things happen quite swiftly after the awards have been announced.

Unfortunately, in this case, no such representation was made at that time. Sir Hew Pike has talked about that and his grave regret that that was not done at the time. It may be that if it had been done at the time, we would not be having this debate today, and this perceived—and I think it is an injustice—would not be being put forward in this way. But it was not done, and I know that Sir Hew, in meetings with the family, has expressed his regret that it was not done.

What do we know has happened in this case? If Sir Hew says he wrote and submitted a citation, it is not for me to say that he did not. What we do know, however, is that no citation was received and therefore the board, the committees and so forth never considered the case for Corporal McLaughlin to be given an award. We could go back and perhaps talk for ever about why that citation did not go forward. Sir Hew has talked about the constraints of time, and he has said, according to the minutes I have seen, that, perhaps, in the heat of the moment, after all that had happened, the issue simply did not catch somebody’s eye—I think that is the expression he uses—and the citation was, therefore, not submitted. In any event, however, it was not submitted and, therefore, could not be considered. Then, unfortunately, no one came forward—it has to be at the highest level—to say, “What’s happened with the case for McLaughlin? Why hasn’t he got an award?”

So here we are, 30 years later, in this awful position, where there is no doubt about Corporal McLaughlin’s gallantry, heroism and bravery, but the question is, how do we fix something 30 years on? I have thought long and hard about this—forgive me, but I listen to my officials and I respect all that is said—and I genuinely do not see any way round this, because of the passage of time. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central will no doubt disagree with me—I am more than happy to be intervened on—that everyone who serves knows what the rules are. These are the rules, and they can sometimes result in injustice, because it is also the case—

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

May I just finish this point? I am quite happy to take an intervention, although I am conscious of the time.

The hon. Gentleman and others listening to the debate will know that there are many who conduct themselves well above the call of duty and who do the most astonishingly brave and heroic things, but who, for whatever reason, never even get a citation—those wonderful acts never come into the light, so they never get the recognition that they should. Apparently, I am told, that is an accepted part of the system; it is not a perfect system, but is as good as it can be.

[Ms Eagle]

I understand the argument the Minister is making about precedent and the way the system works, but we have now established that the citation was written —Sir Hew Pike, who is here listening to the debate, says it was written—but never actually typed up and transferred over. Therefore, Stewart McLaughlin’s actions were never considered at the time.

Given the exceptional nature of this occurrence, where we have the word of the commanding officer at the time and we have extremely detailed contemporaneous information about what Stewart did on that night, I wonder whether the entire system would collapse and the floodgates would open if the Minister said, “This is exceptional. We need to go back and consider, with all the evidence we have, the citation that was originally written and accept that there was an unexpected administrative error. In this case, therefore, we should go back and reconsider.”

[Anna Soubry]

I hear the power of the argument, but I fear that this may not be the only such case. Yes, I do believe that it would not be a good precedent, because of the 30 years. If it were not for the 30-year period, there would be much more merit. It is perhaps unfortunate that we did not have this debate many years ago, because we could perhaps have resolved this. However, it is the 30-year period that agitates concerns.