Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
Main Page: Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberI also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry. That was a truly impressive speech. It brings something to this House to have someone from a family that is so closely associated with the military because it allows us to understand some of the pressures that they are under—not least that she went to 10 schools. I went to two and still objected to having to move to the other one. I refer to my entry in the register of interests. I was chair of Annington Homes until its sale to the MoD in January; I currently chair the successor business.
About two years ago, I attended a meeting arranged by the then shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is now the Secretary of State of Defence, at which the German armed forces commissioner was present. I was very impressed. We could see that there was a commitment not just to the military personnel but to their families, who make huge sacrifices on our behalf. There was a recognition that the families, the mental health of the defence forces and the appointment of an independent champion for serving personnel and their families was a huge step forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, explained that fully in her very good speech.
In some of the interaction I have had with the MoD over the years it was very difficult to articulate the need to look after families, especially if the forces person was deployed abroad. There were often many quirks in the set-up, particularly around housing, that defied common sense.
When the Married Quarters Estate was sold in 1996, the MoD retained the maintenance of the homes for some purpose I have never really found out. Overall, the state of maintenance is deplorable. I have seen houses with kitchens that were fitted 50 years ago and some poor souls still trying to use them. If I ever come across Michael Portillo, I will ask him why he did not give the responsibility for maintenance to Annington or some other organisation. Then I will ask him where I should go on my holidays. From day one it has always intrigued me. The homes were an Annington asset and, as such, the commercial imperative would be to keep them in good condition.
One day, I saw at first hand the problems caused by a lack of maintenance. A young mother stopped me as I wandered round a site on my own, taking pictures of houses. She came out and said, “Are you something to do with the houses?” I said, “Well, sort of”. She said, “I have been trying to get somebody to come and look at the bedroom of my 18 month-old child because there is black mould on the walls”. Her husband had had to raise the issue with his commanding officer. A month had passed and nothing had happened. That can cause the death of a child because it is extremely dangerous. That is engraved on my memory. She wanted me to come and see the room. I could not bear to see it because I knew that what she was saying was true. If there was someone else outside the command structure who could expose the danger that family was in, it would have been very useful. As I heard the German commissioner speak, that family was in my mind.
I was born and brought up in a council house. I went on to represent the constituency it was in some years later. It was about 80% social housing. That social housing was well maintained and mostly very attractive. Why could the military bases not be like that? Was it money or organisation? Years later I became a diplomat in Australia, where I saw military houses regularly. They were very attractive and beautifully maintained. In Australia, they revere their military personnel. As we look at the troubled state of the world, will that help us look after the military personnel even better? I think the Armed Forces commissioner could bring about a fundamental shift in the care of the military and their families.
There is another issue. Together with the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Bruce, I was appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, to the Mull of Kintyre Review, under the chairmanship of the Scottish judge, Lord Philip. All three of us were privy counsellors. The helicopter crash on the Mull, on 2 June 1994, was the worst loss of life for the RAF in peacetime. A Chinook helicopter had been refurbished and reconfigured and delivered to the RAF base two days beforehand, on 31 May 1994. No voice recorder or accident data recorder had been fitted. There was anxiety among the aircraft’s pilots and ground crew about familiarity with the reconfigured helicopter before the accident happened. The pilots lost their lives that day and 25 major security staff from Northern Ireland also lost their lives.
Long story short, the pilots were blamed. Air marshals claimed that the pilots were “negligent to a gross degree”, based on no evidence whatever. A fatal accident inquiry was held in Paisley, with 38 civilian and military witnesses. The sheriff concluded that he could not determine the cause of the accident but could not agree with the determination of gross negligence by the military personnel. Later, we were told that the air marshals downgraded the evidence from the air accident team. In that context, I thought of the Armed Forced commissioner. It is vital that, when something as awful as that happens, there is independent and impartial oversight of the MoD. The nature of the person appointed will be very significant. Rigorous, strong and able to see the impact of decisions on the welfare of all MoD personnel and someone with the gumption to fight their corner—that is what the new commissioner can do, and I applaud it.