Service Accommodation

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman may not have wanted to add grist to the Minister’s mill, and I do not want to use up all my time debating this, but as you know, Dame Angela, there are a mere 45 SNP MPs in Parliament, and I am here to speak on behalf of all of them. There are a great many more Conservative than SNP MPs in Parliament, so proportionately, I think you will find we are doing rather well, compared with the Conservatives. The right hon. Member might also like to know, since he has got right under my temper, that the Conservative Government, and successive Governments before them—

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Order. We had better get back to the point at issue.

[Dave Doogan]

Very wise counsel, as ever.

Our military personnel have been forced to suffer plummeting living standards in the United Kingdom. If we are serious about creating resilient and robust armed forces, we must be serious about prioritising their basic needs, not least of which is accommodation. The SNP’s core policy is to establish an armed forces representative body. That would be a key step in ensuring that members in uniform could argue for increased adequacy of service accommodation without fear for their career prospects, and without needing to complain to their supervisors and officers, with the attendant concerns that that brings.

Hopefully I will make this point in a not very political way. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned the historical element to this issue. It did not start in 2010, when this Government came in, or in 1997, when the Labour Government came in. Rather, when it comes to service accommodation, we see a confluence of negative headwinds. Very poor-quality accommodation that was built down to a price has not been properly maintained over the last 50 years, and has had a succession of tenants in it; that is just the nature of it. That accommodation has not been properly maintained over the last 10 years, and it is getting worse and worse; some of it is probably approaching the end of its service life. I would be interested to know what the Minister has done to ensure strategic analysis of the entire stock, to see what should be renovated and what should be knocked down.

It is testament to the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme that everyone in this room has either served on that scheme, or in the armed forces. That will have given us first-hand, primary evidence of what many people have to endure. The hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) is no longer in his place, but I know that he has been on the scheme, and he raised these issues too. I have great confidence that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford will get some very compelling evidence for the Defence Sub-Committee’s report. I am sure that the Minister will take time to reflect on that report in detail, and I look forward to seeing the evidence of that.

I am not in the habit of getting a response from Ministers in this place, but I politely request that the Minister advise us why the Government are so opposed to an armed forces representative body. It is not unusual. They have one in a great many other parts of the world, including the United States, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany and Norway. What is unusual about those NATO allies—we could rather ask: what is unusual about the United Kingdom?—that means that they can give their armed forces personnel an opportunity to discuss their terms and conditions, and their ambitions and hopes, with somebody who is not their senior officer, in a way that promotes honesty and hopefully progress? I think that we would both welcome those two drivers.

In summary, I look forward to the Minister perhaps responding to my one question, and I again reflect on how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for securing this debate.

Veterans: Handforth

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for her excellent speech. I am a serviceman. I left the Army in 2019 with no resettlement and no termination but through choice, to become a candidate for the Conservative party. I do not regret it, but having gone through that process and been left on a cliff edge with that immediate loss from the Department, I would say to my right hon. Friend that I empathise greatly with all the concerns raised by veterans. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, and my experience of veterans, having left the Army myself, is that the issue in most cases is not that veterans once served, it is that they are no longer serving. There is a distinction.

We have highlighted a number of issues today, and I wish to make two points very quickly. First, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there are a lot of agencies, charities and organisations that can help, such as RBL and SSAFA. I would urge everyone to make contact with them. I would also want to see the MOD, with the Minister in his place, doing a catch-up, reaching out a bit more to those who have left and having that single point of contact or repository, whereby people do not feel quite so isolated from the organisation they served. Yes, there is a plethora of support out there, but a bit more from the MOD for those who have left the forces would be welcome.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Before I call Esther to reply, can I say that interventions have to be brief, especially in debates of this kind, where other speeches are not allowed? I have been lenient once; I will not be again.

[Esther McVey]

Thank you, Dame Angela, and I thank my hon. Friend for that honest contribution, particularly with such great first-hand knowledge.

To continue with my other point, I was sat next to a very impressive woman who had served and done well in the Army, but who was struggling now that she had left. She, too, felt abandoned. She had gone into the Army to get away from her life. The Army was a fresh start and a new beginning for her. She had grown there and done well. However, on leaving, she felt she was put right back into the place that she had tried to escape from. That left her depressed, as if she had walked back in time, back into the problems that she had tried to get away from. She felt it was worse for her, as there were no other women close by who she could relate to and who shared her experiences. She had seen a lot during her time in the Army.

That woman is based in Cheshire. The support groups for women were in the cities, in Liverpool and Manchester, and meeting online for her was not the same as seeing people face to face. She wondered how she could connect with other veterans, particularly female veterans, who are scattered across the country, without having to incur all the significant travel costs.

All at the session were concerned about support for those with PTSD, particularly those who had been in Afghanistan and Iraq, understanding how it develops and the treatment accompanying it. I have another question for the Minister. How much research have the Government done—or are doing—into PTSD and its treatment, as well as into traumatic brain injury, which is linked to PTSD? Traumatic brain injuries are often overlooked, but they can have devastating effects on physical and mental wellbeing. They can cause memory loss, cognitive impairment, mood swings and a range of debilitating symptoms that can significantly impact a veteran’s ability to reintegrate into civilian life.

Many believe that, despite the growing body of scientific evidence linked to traumatic brain injury and PTSD, the UK Government have failed to allocate the necessary resources and funding for a comprehensive researched diagnosis into the treatment and conditions. If that is the case, we are doing a disservice to our veterans, which does not live up to the promises made in the armed forces covenant. I hope the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case, and that much work is being and has been done.

When he responds to the debate, will the Minister let me and my constituents know what the Government are doing to support veterans with mental health conditions and how they intend to support them and their families? My constituents are helpfully proposing that, either prior to or after discharge date, the MOD sends individuals to a medical facility for an all-round health screening, to diagnose any injuries that have been missed while on active service. That could also lead to an understanding of what might happen to them in future.

The armed forces covenant, established in 2011, was intended to be a solemn agreement that our Government and local authorities would provide adequate support, recognition and assistance to those who had served our Army in uniform. I would like an update on what the Government are doing to adhere to that covenant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent steps Veterans UK has taken to support veterans and their families.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

9. What recent steps Veterans UK has taken to support veterans and their families.

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I look forward to the outcome of the review of welfare services, which was cited earlier. In the meantime, the Ministry of Defence is investing more than £40 million in digitising old paper-based practices, improving processes and creating a single entry point for pensions and compensation by the end of 2024. We have successfully launched a new digital claims service for compensation and pension schemes, making it easier for our people to process their claims. Over time, this will make a very big difference.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that the final report will be delivered within, I hope, a few weeks. He will have to await the Government’s response, of course, but it ties in with some of the findings of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, which we discussed earlier. I am concerned about any reports that the service is not as good as it ought to be. I will take that review and the APPG’s findings extremely seriously, but I am bound to cite the fact that there were 122 complaints versus 1,715 thank you letters, which I find persuasive in forming a conclusion that the people working for Veterans UK are working hard and doing their very best in quite difficult circumstances in the interests of people who serve or have served our country.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is great to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My constituents have had similar problems trying to engage with the quinquennial review of the armed forces compensation scheme. They find it slow to make decisions, difficult to engage with and not user-friendly. When the Minister publishes the review’s findings, I hope he will come back to the House to explain how he will make the system much easier for veterans to engage with, as my constituents have told me it is very difficult indeed.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this. As I said earlier, I cannot overstate how important it is that we are increasingly digitising the service. When people go to Norcross and see the mountains of paperwork that Veterans UK is having to cope with, they begin to understand how vital it is that we properly digitise the service and bring it into the 21st century, which is our intention.

The hon. Lady might like to know, because it is a barometer or litmus test of how the service is doing, that the proportion of armed forces compensation scheme cases going to tribunal has been falling since 2014-15, which balances some of the remarks we have heard about Veterans UK not being up to scratch. We need to review it, which is what we are doing, but I am convinced that the service will be better than it is at the moment, if that is of any reassurance.

Defence and Security Industrial Strategy

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

Action this day, Mr Speaker. First, I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the date is the same; it will be 2022. I was under the impression that my officials were speaking with the local council. I sincerely hope that is the case. I will follow it up today. If there is any dilatory behaviour, I will get back to my right hon. Friend, but I hope that is not the case and that decisions are being progressed.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]]

Perhaps we will have to wait for the shipbuilding strategy document, but will the Minister tell us what action his Department is taking to ensure that a very high percentage of domestically produced steel will be used in the build of the next generation of Royal Navy ships and that the work will be done in British shipyards, not least Cammell Laird in Birkenhead?

[Jeremy Quin]

We are grateful for the work of Cammell Laird on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and the company continues to perform on our power improvement project for the Type 45s. It does a good job by us.

Decisions on steel are made by our primes, but the hon. Lady is right. The vast majority of the steel used in the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers was British, and more than half, by value, of the steel used in our Type 26s comes from the UK. Given the extra shipbuilding signalled via yesterday’s Command Paper, I am confident that there will be further opportunities for British steel in the years ahead.

Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I know many fine major generals but I do not know any that would wish to return to the 1650s. I can also reassure him that there is no way that the armed forces will be used to enforce coronavirus regulations.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

May I also express the thanks of my constituents for the work that the armed forces have been doing in response to the coronavirus pandemic? The Minister has already revealed to the House that military assistance to civil authorities’ requests has quadrupled this year, for understandable reasons. As we approach the end of the year, with the potential for a vaccine to be deployed and, it has to be said, some of the pressures that will be placed on the country as a result of Brexit, is he confident that all future MACA requests will be able to be met because he has the appropriate capacity?

[Jeremy Quin]

First, I wish the hon. Lady’s constituents well at a difficult time, and I am glad that the military has been well received in her constituency. We are looking at how we scale up. We are always in the process of planning to see how we can get the extra resources if required and if called upon, so I have a great deal of confidence that we will be able to continue to meet MACA requests.

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.