Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the blanket guarantee that he has asked for. He will have to wait until tomorrow’s announcement.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Everyone in this House is a total supporter of the Gurkha regiment and former Gurkhas. However, now that the Gurkha regiment costs roughly the same as an English regiment, how can it be that we will scrap four infantry battalions in the next 18 months, some two years at least before the reserve Army comes into full being? That seems crazy to me. I am referring in particular to the 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, the Staffords.

[Mr Francois]

I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his military background of which the House is well aware, is as proud as any Member of the House of the service record of the Gurkhas for this country. As he is aware, we have a particular arrangement with the Sultan of Brunei regarding one of the two Gurkha battalions, which helps to defray part of the cost of their service to the country. That arrangement is likely to continue and our decisions are partly based on that. I reiterate our great pride at having Gurkhas in the British Army. That is something that we wish to continue.

Better Defence Acquisition

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I said earlier, the procurement contracts will still be entered into in the name of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and Ministers will remain accountable to Parliament and to the Select Committee. The permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence will remain accountable to the Public Accounts Committee, and access to and scrutiny and oversight of those contracts will be exactly the same as they are now.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the proposed GoCo have the power to negotiate independently of the Ministry of Defence to try to get a really good deal out of a foreign defence contractor in, for example, the United States?

[Mr Hammond]

If doing so was within the remit given it by the Secretary of State, it would have that power. I need to be very clear about this. The point of hiring a commercial partner is to deploy its commercial expertise. There is no point hiring it and then constraining it so tightly that we do not get any benefit from it. On the other hand, it will be very clear, and I am very clear, that it will always operate within the framework of strategic direction that has been given by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will retain a power to intervene and specifically direct it on a specific point within its management of a programme if necessary.

Reservists

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I start by saying happy St George’s Day to all, and in particular, to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—it is their day, too.

Reservists combine a military role with their civilian job. They are not normally kept under arms, and their traditional military task has been to fight when the country mobilises for war, or to defend against invasion. Reserve troops are not normally considered part of the nation’s standing body of military forces, although now it appears that that might change.

Reservists can be used in many ways. Most urgently, they can be BCRs—battle casualty replacements—for combat losses in front-line units during a conflict, as they were in both world wars and in more recent conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In both world wars, they were also used to form complete units. They can be used for more static activities, such as guarding, security patrols or for manning prisoner of war camps. Most certainly, their expertise enhances military intelligence, communications and medical facilities. Reservists give the nation an immediate increase in soldiers, without the months of training that it would take to build up such combat power. They are usually less expensive than maintaining a standing force, as they are used only when required.

The quality of reservists is often very high. Many have expert civilian skills that are transferable to and improve the professional efficiency of the military. For instance, some reservists involved in cyber-security are second to none, and without the Territorial Army and reservists serving in our military medical services, we would definitely have fewer survivors from the current firefights in Afghanistan. Many in the TA see military service as an integral part of their life. It may be a hobby, but it is a very serious one, about which they are normally extremely enthusiastic. That enthusiasm can often be turned to military advantage. Calling out reserves can also be a visible and deliberate signal of determined escalation during a mounting crisis.

Yet too often in the past, the TA has become the repository for weapons and equipment no longer used by the Regular Army. Selection may be neither as rigorous nor as well funded as that of regular soldiers. Members of the TA obviously do not have the same amount of time to sharpen or maintain their military skills, as they normally hold down full-time jobs as well. TA or reserve service is an add-on to their lives and it is one that sometimes has to be squeezed. Employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, are always concerned that a key member of their team might, just might, be mobilised, leaving them with a gaping and difficult gap in their companies for up to a year.

I accept that the Ministry of Defence fully recognises those problems and is trying to take steps to mitigate them. I agree, too, that a fix is perfectly possible for some of the points I have outlined, but I find it difficult to see how the worries of SMEs, which may lose a vital worker, can be overcome.

Reservists serving on the front line is a subject that has interested me for some time. In 2007, I wrote and presented a television programme on the TA’s involvement in Iraq. In doing so, I interviewed a number of TA and reservist soldiers on the job at the coalition air base near Basra. I was surprised to find that about 14% of the personnel in the British forces there were TA or reservists. In truth, I was very impressed by the TA soldiers and reservists I found there. They were clearly professional and up to the job. In my time in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, I, too, had excellent TA soldiers under my command. They did very well. Today, I gather that routinely about 10% of any force that the UK deploys will be made up of TA and reservists. Since 2003, more than 28,000 TA soldiers and reservists have been deployed on operations. That is a tremendous record of service, which is a great credit to the TA and reservists.

The “Future Reserves 2020” public consultation exercise ended on Friday 18 January. Comments on it have been sought from reservists, their families and employers, as well as members of the regular forces. That feedback is being used by the Ministry of Defence to help shape the White Paper, which is due to be published at any moment. Once that happens, we will have a much better idea about what the future reserves will look like. However, one thing is clear already: the Ministry of Defence wants reserve forces to be an integral and integrated element of the UK’s armed forces, and I support that fully.

A major proposal is to increase the number of trained soldiers in the TA, or what seems likely to be called the “Army Reserve”, to 30,000 by 2018. Apparently, future reservists will be better resourced, better equipped, and better trained than the current TA. They are also expected to take on a broader range of roles to meet the changing security challenges that the UK will face in future. However, all that has to be managed with very little change in man training days—envisaged to be 35 days a year per soldier, I think. Many in the Regular Army, as well as the TA, think that that is too little and, based on my experience, I agree with them.

I understand that the Ministry of Defence is designing Army Reserve units to deploy and operate intact. That has happened in the recent past: for example, the 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion the Cheshire Regiment took on United Nations duties in Cyprus for six months, although at reduced strength. However, to do an operation at full strength when we are not in a total war would be very difficult.

I accept that the Government will maintain that we are in a totally new ball game, but over recent years, the TA has consistently shrunk. In 1997, the 4th (Volunteer) Battalion the King’s Own Royal Border Regiment went on its annual two-week camp with more than 400 soldiers. Last year, its successor battalion, the 4th Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, which is, in fact, an amalgamation of three 1997 volunteer battalions—from the King’s Regiment and the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, as well as the Kings Own Royal Border Regiment—went on its annual camp with just 250 soldiers. That is worrying.

The trained strength of the TA this month apparently stands at 19,000 and its total strength is 26,640. I presume that the figure of 19,000 must be based on TA soldiers who have passed stage two of their training and have picked up their bounty for doing their full annual commitment. However, to be honest, I do not believe that 19,000 TA soldiers are readily available for operational deployment if required.

In 2007, when I researched the programme about TA soldiers deployed in Iraq, my investigations suggested that, from a total TA strength of in excess of 30,000 then, only about 7,000 to 8,000 were prepared to deploy, could be released from their jobs, or indeed, were medically fit enough to fight. A considerable number of TA officers and soldiers seemed to be classified sick or, at least, lacked the required FE medical category—FE meaning “fit for everywhere”. Therefore, I am cagey about believing that the current TA really has 19,000 soldiers ready to fight. I bet that the figure is much lower, and if that is the case, the idea that we will have 30,000 deployable Army Reservists by 2018 stretches belief.

According to Defence Analytical Services and Advice, in the nine months between 1 April 2012 and 1 January this year, the TA actually reduced by 600 trained soldiers. That is hardly a good omen as we start the drive to recruit 30,000 deployable and trained soldiers. I suspect that considerably less than 50% of the current 19,000 trained TA personnel could actually do the business. Even the Defence Secretary, when questioned by the Defence Committee, suggested that that figure was considerably lower—as I recall, about 14,000. I know that disquiet about the exact number of fully trained TA soldiers is also widely shared by current Army officers, both regular and TA.

Two days ago, I spoke to Nicholas Watkis, who has recently retired from the TA after 40 years and, during that time, very often completed specialist operational service in support of deployments overseas. He told me that, to get 30,000 deployable soldiers, our Army Reserve would need to fish for them in a pool in excess of 80,000. He says that he repeatedly made this point when serving and had sent a letter stressing this requirement to the Chief of the General Staff last July. If I am right, getting 30,000 trained and deployable soldiers by 2018 may be something of a pipe dream, and, if so, this will have a dramatic impact on the post-2020 assumption that our Army could reach a total strength of 112,000 trained personnel quickly with mobilisation.

An old military maxim—and a great one—is that soldiers who train together should fight together. Indeed, this was what gave the famous pals battalions of the first world war such strength in battle. They all knew each other well and were determined not to let down their mates. I know that the Ministry of Defence is devising cunning plans to try to ensure that Army Reserve units deploy complete, but getting a large number of people released from their normal jobs simultaneously and with agreement from the individuals, families and employers would be very difficult. Undoubtedly, it would require an incredible amount of staff work and effort, unless, of course, the nation is fighting for its life, as it was from 1939 to 1945. So I am intrigued to see how the forthcoming White Paper will address this difficult problem.

There really is not much recruiting and training time until 2018, and yet we still have no idea about where Reserve Army units will be based, especially as it is suggested that many TA centres will be sold off. If local TA centres go, I think there is far less chance that Army Reserve soldiers will travel long distances from home for training, presumably in Regular Army bases. Not having their parent unit close to their families is hardly an Army Reserve recruiting incentive. On that point, local TA centres will often be the only evidence available to local people that we actually have an Army, as the regulars all seem to be being grouped in regional super-garrisons.

As the Army Reserve expands, the Government plan to cut the number of regulars in the British Army by about 20,000 to 82,000. If that happens, one in three of our soldiers will be civilians in uniform. To me that seems a high percentage and a gamble with our nation’s defences. Ministers have told me that they are confident we will reach that target of 30,000 available Army Reservists by 2018. I truly hope they are right, but I remain to be convinced. I am also a little worried that identifying, training, deploying and retaining such individuals will really be a saving on the costs of maintaining regular soldiers when all other factors are considered, including the difficulties of getting people mobilised, up to speed militarily and then looking after them and their families when their specific operation ends.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. There is a further danger that he has not yet described. If this grand plan works, all will be fine and dandy, but there is a huge problem of timing. The redundancies in the Regular Army are happening now, but we will not know until 2020 whether recruiting the TA to replace them has been successful. If it is not successful, we as a nation are scuppered.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention. I totally agree with it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and for giving way. I can agree with much of what he has said because when I worked in industry many years ago, it bothered me that people always had difficulty getting time off for the TA, or civic duties, as we used to call them then. We are reducing the numbers of regular soldiers at the expense of some famous regiments. The matter has not been resolved yet. That bothers me, particularly in the case of regiments such as the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. What we will get is a substitute for a Regular Army if we are not careful. History tells us that we cannot have that substitute.

[Bob Stewart]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I will expand on that subject in a few minutes.

There is a serious need to address reservists’ and their families’ support requirements, which are different from those of regulars. Findings by the King’s Centre for Military Health Research indicate that, after operations, reservists are at greater risk of suffering mental health-related problems than regular soldiers. A 10-year study on the health and well-being of UK Gulf war veterans concluded that reservists were twice as likely to have mental health problems as their regular counterparts. The reasons behind this increased risk are not fully known, but the issue may in part be because of the differences between support networks for regulars and reservists. Unlike their colleagues in the regular forces, reservists do not have an extended period of time surrounded by their peers when they return home from duty. They often swiftly revert to their civilian job, without the opportunity to share experiences with others who have served alongside them. Support networks are hugely important for the soldiers themselves, and indeed their families, who often feel isolated when their loved one is away.

Perhaps my greatest worry about providing more than 30% of the British Army’s order of battle from reservists is my simple belief that the British Army is too small. We now have fewer infantry battalions than the small county of Cheshire had in the first world war. We have already cut the infantry too far. Four fine battalions: 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers; 2nd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment; 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment (the Staffords); and 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh Regiment are due to be disbanded over the next 18 months, a point made by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). That is well before the MOD will have anything like its forecast 30,000 trained and deployable reservists.

There will be at least a four-year gap between the battalions going and the surge of reservists ready and able to take their place. Obviously, I am a little sceptical about what will happen. Sense suggests that we should not cut our regular infantry until we have the Army Reserve in place. I would like to see these premature disbandments stopped until the MOD proves its case.

I am truly concerned that the future reserves will not be able to deliver what is expected of them. It will be through no fault of their own. The first duty of Government, above all else, is the defence of the realm. History must surely show us that cutting our defences to the bone—and, in my view, beyond that—is folly. Nobody knows what will happen in future. I believe we have a duty to maintain what we think to be sufficient soldiers to defend our country at whatever price.

I was and remain a huge supporter of the TA, but I simply have grave concerns about whether its successor, the Reserve Army, will be able to provide crucial and immediate support to our front-line troops if that is required. I have suggested some of my main worries in these opening remarks. I now look forward to listening to the opinions of the Minister and my colleagues.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have implemented a number of measures internally, including a very tight control on new commitments, constant monitoring of budgets, and attention to this issue at the highest levels of the Department, including ministerial oversight. I am very confident that the defence budget, having been got into balance, will be kept in balance, however difficult the decisions that have to be made to ensure that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only guaranteed nuclear deterrent is one that is carried by a submarine, launched by a ballistic missile, and on duty 24 hours a day, every day of the year?

[Mr Hammond]

There is no doubt in my mind that the most cost-effective way of delivering a credible and effective nuclear deterrent is through continuous, at sea, submarine-based deterrence.

Maritime Surveillance

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady, and I thank our Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), for pressing for this debate. While I am in this congratulatory mood, may I also thank the Clerks of the Defence Committee who, with the advisers, have really done all the work?

I classify maritime surveillance as the ability to see and understand what is happening above, on and below the sea, as well as along the coastline. We need to do that not just around the United Kingdom, but throughout the NATO area of responsibility. We also need to support our deployed operations when they are outside the NATO area. Maritime surveillance involves a combination of platforms and sensors to provide a 3-D picture of what is happening, and it uses the combined work of satellites, aircraft, helicopters, ships and submarines. Our maritime surveillance capability has been eroded gradually since the end of the cold war, and significantly reduced since the 2010 strategic defence and security review.

What capabilities have we lost? Most importantly, as we all know in the Defence Committee, we have lost the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft programme. We all understand and accept the reasons for that, but it does not stop us worrying about it. The Nimrod would have been the lynchpin of our maritime surveillance capability if it had been brought into service. The Ministry of Defence says that the UK has a maritime surveillance capability gap; it acknowledges it a little grudgingly but accepts that that gap cannot be covered by the assets that we have in service at the moment. Getting a maritime patrol aircraft back in service is probably the key to solving the problem. A large maritime patrol aircraft fitted with modern sensors, weapons and systems is operationally very flexible. The old roles of the UK’s maritime patrol aircraft fleet included strategic tasks such as intelligence gathering and, as my friend the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, the protection of our continuous strategic nuclear deterrent at sea with the Royal Navy’s Trident submarines. What does that mean? It means that a maritime patrol aircraft would ensure that our one ballistic submarine at sea providing our deterrent was not tailed by an enemy submarine without its knowledge. The need for that has not diminished.

Our country is internationally responsible for search and rescue to about 1,200 nautical miles into the Atlantic. Right now, however, we can only really reach out to 240 nautical miles, which is the extreme range of the Sea King search and rescue helicopters. We are thus failing to meet our international Atlantic oversight obligations. Of course, the Ministry rightly maintains—I would say the same if I was in the Ministry of Defence—that we can turn to our allies, and the French, Portuguese and Spanish all have maritime patrol aircraft.

Close to shore, we rely on the excellent services provided by the our ageing military Sea King fleet, which will go out of service in 2016, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire said. Of course, we must not forget that the coastguards also have some search and rescue helicopters. In effect, short-range search and rescue operations—by short range, I mean out to 240 nautical miles—are conducted by a mix of military and contractor-operated helicopters, which do an excellent job. They are aided hugely by those incredible men and women of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, who regularly put their lives at risk when there is a need, regardless of the foul weather, to help people in distress. Everyone in the House will agree that they are fantastic.

Fixed-wing aircraft are just one part of the equation. Maritime patrol aircraft have historically been teamed with the Royal Navy’s frigates, destroyers and organic helicopters in a range of roles, including not just anti-submarine warfare, but search and rescue. Once again, the decisions in SDSR 2010 have had a cumulative impact.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as being able to take a more co-ordinated and strategic approach in the future, the maritime security and oversight group and the National Maritime Information Centre, which our Chairman mentioned, can help to mitigate some of the gaps my hon. Friend has correctly identified?

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend. I certainly do agree. It is good that we have those bodies, and I may speak about that a little at the end.

SDSR 2010 got rid of a number of frigates, including Type 22s and Type 23s, as well as their on-board helicopters. That has further reduced our maritime reach and capabilities. The good thing about such Royal Navy vessels is that they can travel great distances, remain at sea for considerable periods and, crucially, demonstrate intent and presence when that is needed, as part of a combined taskforce or individually.

Collectively, members of the Defence Committee are concerned about the loss of our sovereign long-range maritime surveillance capability. They are also concerned about the United Kingdom’s current dependency on its allies for operations out into the Atlantic and in terms of our wider military defence capability.

The Committee was advised that the anti-submarine warfare capability gap that resulted from the loss of the Nimrod MRA4 is covered by a mix of helicopters, ships at sea and support by our allies. I do not buy that argument. The external situation has not changed. Indeed, with a resurgent Russia and the proliferation of smaller submarines in many areas of the world, it has arguably got worse. To counter such threats, the UK has reduced its capability and capacity by removing maritime patrol aircraft completely, as well as by removing appropriate frigates and destroyers, including their organic helicopters.

As has been mentioned, the Ministry is considering a number of future options. In particular, a decision on maritime patrol aircraft may be considered as part of SDSR 2015. However, such a decision would result in delivery of the new operational capability closer to the 2020 time scale. I would prefer us not to wait until 2015 to make such a decision. I would like it to be considered as soon as possible.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Stewart]

To my Chairman? With the greatest of pleasure.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Mr Brady, you are our Chairman, of course.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me, Mr Brady. Two Chairmen in one—I’ll buy it.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend danced lightly over the possibility of regenerating the capacity and the skills to fly these aircraft. Such skills are difficult to maintain, let alone to regenerate. Is he coming to that important point, which needs to be covered?

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my other Chairman. The answer is that I was not, but I am glad that he has raised the matter. We also highlighted the difficulty of keeping these skills alive, and no one has mentioned it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us—you will, won’t you, Minister?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I will.

[Bob Stewart]

Good. The Minister will tell us how we are to keep those extremely specialised skills alive. I suspect it will be by using allies such as the Americans. I thank my other Chairman for raising what was an omission in my speech.

Of course, an effective and modern maritime patrol aircraft capability is available, without the need to wait to 2020. Even assuming that SDSR 2015 looks at it, however, there is no guarantee that a decision will be taken to return to this extremely vulnerable capability—[Interruption.] Goodness me. Forgive me, Mr Brady. That was probably the Prime Minister calling.

I very much welcome Ministry of Defence funding for investigative work on other potential options. We have had briefings about unmanned systems, lighter-than-air vehicles and space technology. Additionally, hybrid air vehicles, such as the AIRLANDER, which have long endurance and operating costs a fraction of those associated with aircraft, are being considered. Of course, all those options need to be studied, and when the results are analysed, we must ensure that delivery time scales and effectiveness are carefully assessed.

I endorse the establishment, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire has highlighted, of the maritime security oversight group and the National Maritime Information Centre. Those are superb moves. They are steps towards a more strategic and co-ordinated output and will help, as my right hon. Friend—I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt); she will be right hon. in due course—has already highlighted, to mitigate some of our capability gaps, I hope, quickly.

We need a decent maritime surveillance capability for the United Kingdom as quickly and effectively as possible. We must of course consider a range of options, but a rejuvenated maritime patrol aircraft capability, with a truly multi-role capability, should probably remain a key element—if not the key element—of any proposed solution. I apologise for the Prime Minister interrupting my speech.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I commend the Committee for its excellent report; I too have had the pleasure of serving under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I would probably bow to no one in my respect for the knowledge that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has of ageing military capabilities. [Laughter.]

[Bob Stewart]

I take that personally; I will get you later.

[Thomas Docherty]

I look forward to being shepherded out safely by the Doorkeepers later.

If the decision about the carrier was the largest financial decision, the break-up of the Nimrod aircraft is probably the most visually impressive one to come out of the 2010 SDSR. I do not think that there is anyone who did not watch those images of JCBs tearing up a multi-billion pound project with incredulity. I shall touch briefly on the lessons that the MOD must learn and things that the Committee has discussed in our subsequent report on defence acquisition.

Quite a lot has been said about the Nimrod model and its role, but other capabilities were deleted as a result of the SDSR. The most notable for maritime surveillance was, of course, the Type 22 frigate, which the hon. Member for Beckenham also mentioned. The Type 22 was, as the report says, originally designed and constructed purely as an anti-submarine warfare vessel during the cold war. In its latter years, it took on a broader role, and the Committee was, I think, unconvinced by some of the MOD’s arguments that that capability had been fully covered. Perhaps the new Minister for the Armed Forces will say something about how that matter is being addressed. I should probably take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to his new role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful comments. I respectfully disagree, in this sense: I was having a private dinner with members of the defence community last night, and we were talking about lack of intellectual curiosity. There were examples that I shall not go into today, but I think that far too often there is a lack of the intellectual curiosity to challenge defence procurement decisions, among those in uniform, politicians—both in the Committee and perhaps in Departments—and civil servants. Too often, Governments have simply gone along with what they are told. But I absolutely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that BAE Systems is a major villain in this play. Nevertheless, the current Government need to take some responsibility, and I will explain why shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), who has had to step out briefly, talked about Nimrod and the deterrent. I was actually wondering at one point if I had wandered into a deterrent debate. She mentioned Lord Browne of Ladyton, who has been a friend of mine for more than 15 years. I typed up—I will not say that I wrote—his maiden speech for him, back in the days of 7 Millbank, Mr Brady, when you, too, first entered the House. You will remember—it is not so many years ago—Mr Browne, as he was then, as a new MP. I have a huge amount of respect for Lord Browne, but I respectfully disagree with his analysis yesterday in The Daily Telegraph. It was a thoughtful piece, but Lord Browne—who, as I say, I have known for many years and regard as a friend—has a habit of treating a conversation as a one- way talk, and I hope that what he has actually done is to help to stimulate a broader debate.

[Bob Stewart]

He was a friend of yours.

[Thomas Docherty]

Much in the same way that the hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine, probably.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock made a thoughtful contribution this afternoon, but again I must respectfully say that her logic is back to front. We need to make a decision about the deterrent and then decide, in effect, the relatively minor costs of providing maritime surveillance; maritime surveillance needs to come second. We do not say whether or not we will have a maritime surveillance capability and therefore whether or not we will have the deterrent, but I suspect that we will have that debate on more than one occasion in the next two to three years.

[Bob Stewart]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not just need maritime patrol aircraft for the deterrent; we need maritime patrol aircraft because of our international responsibilities of oversight out to 1,200 nautical miles, and we cannot do that properly at the moment.

[Thomas Docherty]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to that very point shortly.

There has been some discussion already about the joint equipment programme and the whiteboard, and we have touched on the balanced budget. Without prejudging what the Minister might say in response to the debate, I suspect that that might be one of the arguments that he seeks to advance. He knows well my view—and, I think, that of the Defence Committee—and that is a healthy scepticism about the claims that have been made about the size of the so-called black hole and whether or not, in the space of eight months, it has been balanced.

One of the things that concerned us in producing our report was an issue that was touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Beckenham: the long-term replacement for the maritime surveillance capability is sitting on the whiteboard, without a funding line and without even a probable time line for moving off that whiteboard and into the joint equipment programme. I wonder whether the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will clarify for the House what the status is of the whiteboard. The Minister shakes his head. With the greatest of respect to him, it is difficult for the Defence Committee to believe that the Ministry of Defence has a fully funded JEP and a clear idea of what is on the whiteboard when they will not tell us what is on the whiteboard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not withdraw it, but I will move on, because the issue is important and the hon. Gentleman and I often find common cause on it. It is important that the public understand, and that we remind them, what the challenges are. I am coming to a point that he will like.

The second reason why we had to cancel was financial exigency. We had to make some pretty difficult decisions in the Ministry of Defence. My argument is that extra funds should have been made available to ensure the continuation of a maritime patrol aircraft capability, even if it was not the Nimrod. I agree with all those who said that capability must be regenerated as soon as possible, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say something about what our friends and allies are doing to help us regenerate it in due course.

There are, of course, lots of options. Extreme Global Solutions has been to see me about an option involving the BAE 146, which could be done on a contractor-provided basis, and mention has been made of Hybrid Air Vehicles, which is doing a fantastic job and has won a $500 million order through Northrop Grumman in the United States. There are numerous options. We do not need to rely on the Nimrod, although I was one of those who could not watch aircraft being cut up on television. As an aviator, I find it hard to take, even though, as I said, the aircraft had not delivered what the company promised to deliver.

If we agree that it is a key capability that should be regenerated as soon as possible, and that there are various options that could deliver that regeneration, what stands in our way? What stands in our way—the whiteboard has been mentioned—is that there is currently no funding. I said to the Prime Minister on the day I was relieved of my responsibilities—he was kind enough to recommend that Her Majesty confer a knighthood on me, for which I am most grateful to him—that I had not met a Conservative in the country who believed that it was right to ring-fence overseas aid and cut defence.

I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife can agree on this. I do not like disagreeing with him; I am just not a fan of his friend.

[Bob Stewart]

I think you made that clear.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Good. I am so pleased.

Military Justice System

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Dobbin, to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is a very important and serious debate this afternoon.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank colleagues for their support. A number of colleagues who wanted to speak in this debate have been unable to do so, either because of Committee meetings elsewhere in the House or constituency responsibilities.

The British military is a highly efficient, effective and disciplined force. This debate will examine the military justice system. Serving and ex-service personnel, military and civilian charities, and statutory and non-statutory organisations have all expressed to me their concerns about the system set up to address both complaints and criminality. I repeatedly asked everyone I met, “Is there a problem?”, and I was told, “Yes, there is. Keep digging.” I thank them all for their willingness to share what at times were distressing stories about the complaints and injustices that people have faced. It is right and appropriate that the problems within the armed forces are raised in this House. It is Parliament’s responsibility to ensure that necessary changes are supported, promoted and implemented.

This will be a wide-ranging debate. I could take 60 minutes of the 90 minutes allowed for the debate just for my speech—I promise Members that I will not do so—and still not do the subject justice. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), will respond to the debate. He has been most generous in meeting me, along with senior military police officers, to discuss some of the concerns that I am raising today; I thank him for that. I am confident that he is also eager to address the problems that I will outline today, and I am also confident that we will get the changes that we need.

As I explained to the Minister when we met, my interest in military justice was sparked by learning of the extent of rape and sexual assault in the US armed forces. A report found that in the US a female soldier was more likely to be raped than killed or injured by enemy fire, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the US in 2011, 3,192 service personnel reported being raped or sexually assaulted. The US Department of Defence admitted that 80% of victims do not report the crime against them, and the conviction rate for sexual assault was just 8%.

However, the US is tackling the problem. Having visited numerous US bases recently, I can report seeing billboard-size posters on the walls of bases, and every toilet door has a poster and every corridor is covered in posters, all of which highlight the importance of ending sexual assault and rape within the US military. In Australia, the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, recently issued an apology to all servicemen and women who had suffered abuse. So Britain is not alone in needing to tackle this issue. We do not have the same scale of the problem as in the US, but we cannot be complacent. For the sake of the reputation and integrity of our armed forces, the issues raised today must be addressed.

I have been inundated by e-mails and letters from people who have been through the military justice system having their complaints and offences examined. All of them felt that they did not receive justice and were dealt with unfairly. Most of them wish to remain anonymous, as they are fearful of what will happen if they are identified as complainants. Meetings away from the House to protect the identities of individuals have been necessary and—well-founded or not—a level of fear exists. Sadly, for many people the experience has led to mental health problems.

Cases have highlighted problems with the conduct of summary hearings and problems created by the lack of access to an independent employment tribunal system. Many people accepted the findings of a summary hearing, which they saw as a hearing into a disciplinary issue, without realising that they would incur a criminal conviction. Many only discovered that years later when they left the services and applied for residency or civilian employment. They accepted the summary hearing and its findings because the alternative would have been a court martial.

The system runs on a basis of “Shut up, put up and don’t make waves or you’ll regret it”. Stories of bullying and harassment resulting from complaints and attempts to fight injustice were numerous. I apologise that I will not have time to refer individually to the many stories that I have heard.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Are you suggesting that someone found guilty of absence or minor theft incurs a criminal record that follows them into civilian life? If you are, I am slightly concerned by that.

[Mrs Moon]

Mr Dobbin, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that you answer the question, but I can confirm that someone guilty of a minor theft would incur a criminal record. Someone responsible for a disciplinary issue of a minor order, such as failing to salute, would not. What is sad is that criminal records are seen differently depending on which part of the United Kingdom they are recorded in. Someone might get a criminal record for a certain offence in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. I hope that other Members will address that issue later, as I will not have time to do so. In the system, people face bullying when they register complaints.

In 2005, the Equal Opportunities Commission suspended a formal investigation into sexual harassment following an agreement with the Ministry of Defence. Surveys were instituted in 2006, 2007 and 2009 asking servicewomen and men how they perceived sexual harassment, what experience of it they had had and whether they had reported it; sexual harassment goes through the complaints system.

A total of 9,000 servicewomen responded to the survey in 2006, and reported widespread sexualised behaviour. Some 67% had encountered behaviours ranging from unwelcome comments to sexual assaults; 21% cited their line manager as a perpetrator, and 36% cited another senior person. Some 35% said that they did not think they would be believed if they complained, and only 5% made a formal written complaint. In 2009, 78% of the 16,000 servicewomen who replied had experienced an unwelcome comment, and 65% had been asked about their sex lives or been told sexual jokes. The number of people who made formal complaints hardly changed between 2006 and 2009, although awareness of what constituted sexual harassment increased.

I quote two brief responses to the 2006 survey:

“A friend was out on an exercise when a group of men ducked her head in a bucket of water and each time she came up for breath she had to repeat ‘I am useless and I am a female’. She told the story and said it was a joke but I could see she was upset.”

Another person said:

“Go through the complaints procedure—you must be joking! We’ve no confidence in it at all. One senior officer was suddenly removed from the unit I was on…all kinds of high-ranking bods came to investigate. It was a sexual harassment case. But he popped up elsewhere and we never heard any more about it. It doesn’t give you confidence when you see the officers getting away with it”.

The military knows that it has a problem. Why else would the Adjutant-General ask Major-General Lorimer’s views on equality and diversity? Major-General Lorimer, replying in November 2012 after his survey of 6,000 personnel, said:

“Every female officer or other rank that my Command Sergeant Major has spoken to claims to have been the subject of unwanted sexual attention…There is an overriding sense that soldiers who believe that they have been treated unfairly are not inclined to report the fact because they lack trust that the chain of command will deal appropriately with the complaint.”

Sexual harassment has not gone away. I am told that in the military culture, sexual harassment is an everyday occurrence. Making a complaint is not an option because it involves reporting through the chain of command, which could include the perpetrator or a friend of the perpetrator, and because the complaint could have consequences for the victim’s future career. The perpetrator may often be seen as a good soldier who is not to be lost and who must be protected. I am told that reporting results in social isolation and ostracism within the unit and is seen as showing a lack of mettle and an inability to get on with others. The victims are seen as being at fault: they are the ones who should not have been drinking or in the room, and apparently they also lack a sense of humour. In the military, fortunately, at least women cannot be blamed for wearing high heels and short skirts.

A culture in which sexual harassment is prevalent can be a factor in rape and sexual assault, which are criminal offences. A US Department of Defence survey found that 55% of women and 38% of men reported that their assailant sexually harassed or stalked them prior to the incident of rape or sexual assault.

I have tried to establish how many rapes and sexual assaults are reported by serving personnel, and have received conflicting data. A response to one of my myriad parliamentary questions stated that 18 rapes were reported across the three services in 2011. When I asked for a gender breakdown of those 18 rape victims, the number dropped to four: three female and one male. In a letter from the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), I was informed that the figures were lower because the original figures included reports by civilians, which implies that 14 civilians or members of the local community had been raped by members of the armed forces.

The figures for sexual assault in 2011 are confusing. A reply from June 2012 said that there had been 36 reported sexual assaults across the three services, but one in July 2012 said that there had been 58, and one in November 2012 said that there had been 40. Yet the Army Justice Board’s item 6, “Allegations of rape and sexual offences”, shows more than 80 allegations of rape and more than 60 allegations of sexual assault in 2011. In the three years between 2010 and mid-2012, a parliamentary question informed me that there had been 53 rapes, but Army Justice Board figures show 268. According to a parliamentary question, there were 86 sexual assaults, but again, an Army Justice Board slide shows 179.

The figure of 53 rapes is for those reported to the service police. The Times was told that the 268 cases may include cases reported by members of the Army and cases investigated by civilian police in which the alleged victim was not a member of the armed forces. However, the Home Office tells me that it has no equivalent data on civilian police referrals of rapes and sexual assaults within the armed forces. The MOD reply to The Times states that the figures include that information. It also suggests that 215 civilians may have been raped by serving members of the military.

This is not just about the rape and sexual assault of women. Although the figures that I have are small, servicemen too are victims of rape and sexual assault; in the 2007 survey, 26 servicemen reported having been sexually assaulted. I asked a parliamentary question about how many service personnel had been discharged or left the forces following a conviction. I was told that the information was not held centrally and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

Another parliamentary answer underlined further confusion, stating that

“in the UK the civilian police deal with the vast majority of cases of rape or sexual assault allegedly involving a member of the armed forces. The Service Police investigate a relatively small number of cases.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 36W.]

It is not clear whether that refers to rapes or sexual assaults perpetrated against personnel or by personnel against civilians, or why service police may at any time be involved in investigating offences against civilians.

Who investigates what is unclear. Another question showed that a protocol exists between Ministry of Defence police, service police and civilian police, stating that

“while there may be concurrent jurisdiction, local civilian forces have primacy…There are no specific guidelines issued to the Service Police…on whether allegations of rape or sexual assault made by armed forces personnel should be referred to the civilian police for investigation.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 36W.]

We know that personnel have reported offences to their local civilian police forces and have then found themselves referred back to the service police. There appears to be no formal external inspection by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary of the three service police forces, and there is no independent oversight of the forces in the form of an independent police complaints commission.

Reliance on reports of rape and sexual assault is a problem. There is reticence to report also in the civilian world. A recent study estimated that 67,000 women were victims of rape last year and that only 15% of women report rape to the police, but only 4% of servicewomen ever make a complaint about anything. Why are they not complaining to their chain of command? The chain of command is fundamental to how our armed forces are organised, with complaints and reports of criminal acts being passed up the chain to the commanding officers, who have responsibility for discipline and welfare. The COs combine the roles of judge, jury, manager, social worker and enforcer of discipline, and they are in a position of considerable power and influence. The 2006 survey indicated that in 57% of cases the sexual harassment was perpetrated in the chain of command.

Where a case is to be prosecuted, it is taken via court martial and passed to the Service Prosecuting Authority—SPA—which decides whether to proceed. I know how seriously the authority takes its cases, but there are concerns about the continuity of case ownership and the quality of information that the authority is fed by the chain of command. A letter from the SPA to the Chief of the General Staff stated:

“We were not informed that the soldier referred had attempted suicide and had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. In another case it was only fortuitous that we discovered that the accused was the brother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan and had ‘gone off the rails’ on one occasion in an otherwise exemplary career. The list goes on. We would welcome more active engagement with COs when referring cases to us to better inform our judgment when considering the service interest. In appropriate cases we engage with the three services to consider their views on the service interest. While the ultimate decision is for the SPA we welcome representations.”

I have consulted widely about the changes we need to address the reputation, integrity and operation of one of the finest militaries in the world. The men and women who serve in our armed forces need to know that stamping out injustice is the priority of all personnel. They need to know that the person standing next to them values and respects them, and sees them as an equal.

In relation to complaints and criminality, we must have accurate data. It is unacceptable that the extent of the problem of rape and sexual assault is not clearly known and set out, or is being obscured, and I ask the Minister to address that problem. Responsibility for the investigation of rape and sexual assault should be clear and transparent. It should rest with either the service police or the civilian police, and accurate records should be maintained. I ask the Minister to address that, too.

Everyone I spoke to agreed that the most difficult problem is a cultural one. I was told “equality and diversity jobs are seen as something for softies who cannot operate on the front line.” Major-General Lorimer suggested:

“We will derive most benefit from the introduction of widespread, effective and professionalised equality and diversity training. Deepening our soldiers’ understanding of the issues and driving lasting, attitudinal changes to behaviour will, in my view, cement respect for others in the forefront of our normal daily routine, where it should be.”

I do not think that anyone would disagree with that, but to bring cultural change such training must come from civilian experts and not simply involve personnel listening to a law lecture. It needs to be external experts talking inside the closed system of the military. Will the Minister commit to that?

Senior oversight was seen as essential by everyone. I was told that until there is a very senior officer responsible for driving the change and reporting directly to the Chief of the General Staff and the chiefs of staff committee, little will happen. I was also told that change will be limited until there are women air marshals, admirals and major-generals, but I hope that that is wrong. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills recently said in relation to the financial services sector that frequent travel and working in remote areas of the world had been cited as barriers to appointing more women, but that successful, modern companies learn to adapt, and said that

“doing nothing is not an option anymore”

where senior positions are concerned. Will the Minister commit, please, to such senior-level posting?

The Service Complaints Commissioner—SCC—exists to provide service personnel with a vehicle by which to make complaints about non-criminal issues such as sexual harassment and bullying. Everyone has stressed the need for the commissioner to become an ombudsman. The 2011 Service Complaints Commissioner’s report states that

“for the fourth year running, I am unable to say the Service complaints system is working efficiently, effectively or fairly.”

[Bob Stewart]

Is not the Service Complaints Commissioner separate from the military justice system? It is a complaints system, not a justice system, and she—the current commissioner—is not in the justice system as such.

[Mrs Moon]

As the hon. Gentleman might have realised from my speech, I have tried to talk about the two parallel issues. The military justice system means someone being able to get access to justice for the complaints they are pursuing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that sexual harassment is a matter of justice, even though it is not necessarily a criminal offence. Sexual harassment cases dealt with by the Service Complaints Commissioner would be a form of complaint, hence I have included both issues in my speech.

The problem is the lack of capacity for the Service Complaints Commissioner to investigate complaints. The Deepcut inquiry recommended external oversight and an inquiry capability provided by an ombudsman. The chain of command rejected that because of a fear that it would undermine its authority. The 2011 Service Complaints Commissioner’s report states:

“The SCC is judged by Ministers and Service Chiefs to be playing an effective part in assuring the proper treatment of Service Personnel. The Government’s formal response to my Annual Report 2010 confirmed the value Ministers and the Service Chiefs placed on my work and my team. They commented that: ‘The independent oversight and scrutiny you provide of the process is fundamental to the continued improvements that are being made to the way in which we manage Service complaints.’”

Will the Minister commit to the creation of an ombudsman?

The military is a command and control organisation, whose members are used to being directed from above. It is an organisation capable of cultural change. Major-General Lorimer noted in his letter that

“racism is now regarded by the vast majority as being entirely unacceptable”.

The necessary changes must be implemented. We need accurate data. We need summary hearings brought into the 21st century, the criminal records issue addressed, external inspection and oversight of the military police, the Service Prosecuting Authority having continuity of prosecution teams, and an ombudsman, all well supported by the chain of command, so that men and women can serve with pride, security and equality.

We are sending our service personnel to protect, build and secure populations in countries threatened by terrorism, where people need to know that our military represent our society’s values of equality, transparent justice and integrity. I hope that we see that move forward today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I draw attention to my interest as a member of reserve forces.

I was the Member of Parliament who asked the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, to take evidence from the Service Complaints Commissioner on some of the issues touched on by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I asked because of some of my casework as Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I will raise various points, but it is important to put on record that these cases are not the norm. I say that not to belittle the issues that have been raised or to dispute the figures that she quoted. The one message that must go out from this Chamber today is that if someone in the armed forces has been the victim of such behaviour, they must report it. As a member of the Royal Naval Reserve, I would say it is their duty to do so. We must ensure that people do not lose confidence in their ability to report such matters.

I am glad the hon. Lady recognises that our armed forces are highly professional, and I testify that the training we receive and the protocols we are taught are extremely politically correct—in fact, they might be a little over the top for our own Speaker—but they are very good. The emphasis in training on leadership, responsibility and integrity is important. I disagree with her on the armed forces’ ability to address equality issues with their own people without relying on external trainers; I think they can address that in-house.

The hon. Lady might wish to seek out Captain Hancock, as she now is, who received her fourth band of gold on the day I passed out of Dartmouth. She has done an amazing amount of work on equality in the armed forces and is a real trailblazer. I think she was the first female club swinger for that service.

We must recognise that the cases we are discussing are not the norm, and we must also recognise the good work that has gone on. In her session before the Defence Committee, Dr Sue Atkins highlighted many examples of good practice, such as how the Royal Navy addressed the backlog of complaints that all the services were facing by being extremely pragmatic, by empowering people lower down the command chain to clear the general admin cases—issues about pay, terms and conditions, and so on—and by putting resources into the more serious issues that the hon. Lady has raised.

The bulk of the cases addressed by the Service Complaints Commissioner are on things such as pay and admin. I have raised with the Minister many times the importance of getting that right and the woes of joint personnel administration. It is important to learn from that and to note that the lessons and good practice that are going on in one service are being shared across the other services. There are many things in the Service Complaints Commissioner’s report that give us confidence for the future.

Unfortunately, things go wrong, particularly in a case I have dealt with: a nasty assault that I will not detail, although the Minister is aware. I will highlight a few learnings from that. First, it would be helpful if serious allegations are immediately picked up centrally. The chap I was dealing with, after he made his allegation, was placed back in the unit with the perpetrators of the assault. That is absolutely wrong, and if allegations were picked up centrally, that would not happen.

Secondly, there are clearly complexities in taking statements from individuals. Someone may be deployed between an incident happening and being reported, but it is important that we ensure such investigations take place swiftly.

Thirdly, there must be support for the individual. From my experience, I praise the work of the Royal Marines. The chap I was dealing with is from the Army. He had a placement on light duties with the Royal Marines, which was not only a way of parking him until things were resolved; there was proactive work to help him to get his confidence back. That was deeply impressive.

I also want to highlight support for families. People who have experienced a traumatic event often leave their unit and their service accommodation to stay with their parents, who are sometimes elderly. With the emotions they are going through, such people might be violent or kicking off a bit, and dealing and coping with that is particularly hard for older parents. In cases I have seen, the Service Complaints Commissioner and the Naval Families Federation were wonderful: they got in touch with the individual, and were able to provide him with a safe house to go to when things got a bit too much at home.

Finally, we must be aware of how we deliver sometimes bad news to victims of assaults. If an investigation has not gone their way, or if a panel has made a decision that might be difficult for them to hear, support for the commanding officer or the other ranks who may have to deliver that news is vital. On occasion that is done badly. In the case I was dealing with, for example, the parents were asked to be the messenger, which is not good.

We must ensure that people are properly supported. Such cases are not the norm, but they are evidence for why the Service Complaints Commissioner’s role is incredibly important. Her intervention in the cases I have dealt with has been extremely useful. She respects the chain of command, but she points out what is not acceptable. She gives practical help to the individuals and families involved, and, as an individual and an office, she can call on a great network of people across the services. Although this guy was from the Army, the Navy and the Marines provided assistance.

The Service Complaints Commissioner is frustrated in acting swiftly and having basic common sense taken up and acted upon. We must support her and the role. I agree with her call that she should be an ombudsman, which would make a difference in the small cases where we have difficult issues to address. She should be allowed to investigate and report on some of those issues. Given the myriad figures quoted by the hon. Lady, everyone would benefit from ensuring we have got the facts right.

Complaints are seen as an employer-employee dispute. If someone makes a complaint and then dies, whether it is in service or if they are hit by a bus when crossing the road, the complaint dies with them. That is deeply unsatisfactory not only for the family of the victim, but for the person against whom the accusation has been made. The Service Complaints Commissioner ought to be involved in the development of the military covenant, and certainly with its annual report.

Those are all sensible measures that would help to get better outcomes for victims and better support for commanding officers.

[Bob Stewart]

As I recall, Dr Atkins said that she is often overwhelmed by the cases and overfaced by many of the problems.

[Penny Mordaunt]

There is a resource issue. The bulk of the cases the Service Complaints Commissioner is addressing are technical. Although serious for the people making the complaints, the cases are about terms and conditions, pay and so on. We need to address her resources, but we must also consider how she may use them and who else she can call on.

The things we would like to see for the Service Complaints Commissioner are completely compatible with the chain of command. I thank the Minister for his support with the casework issues I have raised with him. When we deal with tough stuff such as this, and the general challenge of defence, it is reassuring that we have a ministerial team that, as well as talking the talk, has walked the walk. The Minister is a former Territorial Army officer for the Royal Anglian Regiment, and his colleagues have distinguished service careers, too. I think he appreciates what needs to happen for us to improve on the good work that has already gone on.

We all owe Dr Sue Atkins a tremendous debt of gratitude for her excellent work in moving this agenda on, day to day, whether speaking at a warrant officers’ conference or in the work she does on these complaints.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who is not here today, deserves a mention. The way that he dealt with the case of Sergeant Danny Nightingale, getting the balance right between justice and the debt and duty of care that we owe to those—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am not going to talk about specific cases. I want to talk about the system of military justice, just to put it on the record. Military justice is superimposed on civilian law. It is an addition to, not a subtraction from, the civil law of our land. Military law imposes additional responsibilities on people who are subject to it. Military justice has evolved recently. It has changed quite a lot—notably in 2006—and was amended in 2011.

Criminal cases in the Army are investigated by the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police, and I understand that there is an SIB element in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as well. The Special Investigation Branch of all three services deals only with criminal investigations. The SIB is independent of the military chain of command. Its investigators report directly to the Director of Service Prosecutions, who is currently Bruce Houlder, QC. He and not the military authorities decides whether a serious prosecution should go ahead. I accept the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) was talking about the interface with complaints, but I will talk specifically about the system—if it works, which it normally does.

The system itself is okay, but it does go wrong, normally because of human beings. In 2010 Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate reported that the Service Prosecuting Authority was one of the most successful areas that it had investigated throughout the land. The military justice system has of course changed—quite significantly—since I left the Army in the dark ages of 1996 but, in principle, it still consists of three levels. First, normally, a person charged under military law appears in front of his or her sub-unit commander—in the Army, for instance, usually a company commander, normally a major. Those charged have the right to have a friend or adviser present. They also have the right to opt for court martial should they so wish. If a sub-unit commander deals with a case of petty discipline such as insubordination, the accused has the right to appeal up to 14 days thereafter, against both the verdict and the punishment.

The next level is the commanding officer—normally, in the Army a lieutenant-colonel, in the Navy a commander and in the Royal Air Force at least a wing commander. Again, the accused has the right to have a friend or adviser present—they are clearly told about that right—or they can opt for trial by court martial, if they so wish.

[Martin Horwood]

My hon. Friend is speaking from great knowledge and experience, but one of the complications, as in the case of Mr Moore, my former constituent, is that a civilian is sometimes the alleged victim. The SIB process, therefore, which was involved in his case, is particularly untransparent to people who are not part of the military.

[Bob Stewart]

If a civilian is involved, as I understand it, civilian police and civilian court proceedings deal with the case. I do not know any specific instances and I am not going to go through it, but that is my understanding from when I was a commanding officer—a long time ago, as I said.

At commanding officer level, the accused has a right to have a friend or adviser present. Again, however, he or she can opt for trial by court martial. If convicted and sentenced, that person also has 14 days in which to appeal.

At the third level is the possibility of a court martial, which is obviously for serious cases. Again, accused personnel in such circumstances have the right to be represented properly—normally, in courts martial at which I have been present, by someone quite senior, such as a Queen’s counsel. The armed forces insist that things are done properly, and such people are brought out to wherever the court martial is taking place. Someone convicted by a court martial has the right to appeal to the court martial appeal court, which operates as part of the Court of Appeal and consists of civilian judges—nothing military. I am trying to point out that the system includes a largely civilian component.

In summary, there will always be cases in which military justice could have been improved. In general, however, the system itself is pretty good for all members of the armed forces, and indeed for civilians who work under military law. I note the time, so I will now sit down.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on securing this important debate.

I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) about respect for everyone in our armed forces, including those who seek to ensure that justice within them is true and fair. I have, however, been dismayed by constituents’ concerns about possible miscarriages of justice, denial of fundamental rights and, in certain cases, abuse. That is in addition to serious allegations, well documented in The Times newspaper, by service personnel who have bravely decided to speak out. It takes courage to serve in our armed forces, so we should not be surprised that such personnel have found the courage to speak out about what they see as the closing of ranks above them.

Those who have come forward have highlighted worrying cases, including maltreatment of personnel, service personnel with criminal convictions as a result of otherwise casual processes and people finding their charges against others dropped without notice or due process. Some who have spoken out or rightly sought redress have been targeted with unfair sanctions or informal social exclusion. Ultimately, the huge time delays involved in having appeals investigated result in disillusionment, anxiety and resentment. In some cases at least, something serious has gone wrong, and appropriate investigation and review are warranted.

I fully appreciate that in some respects the military operate outside, or as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) described it, supplement what we might normally consider the legal framework of civil society.

[Bob Stewart]

Superimposed, perhaps.

[Duncan Hames]

Much better—I defer to my hon. Friend’s choice of language.

The armed forces, I understand, are heavily reliant on a hierarchy that provides a rigid chain of command and that fosters and values highly the principles of loyalty and authority. Orders are given and orders must be obeyed. Such factors help us to understand the frame within which military justice operates, but can they ever be excuses for denying justice?

We have heard much about serious and criminal matters in the debate but, instead of repeating such points, it might be helpful if I drew attention to some issues to do with what one might think of as administrative justice and the operation of service complaints. Understanding the culture surrounding the issue is certainly relevant. I have received reports of hearings behind closed doors and of superior officers acting as both prosecution and, effectively, judge. Such matters, if allowed to happen, make access to a proper appeal process against those decisions all the more important. Furthermore, if the process is drawn out for as long as we read about in some cases, such appeals risk being rendered irrelevant on the ground by the time that they are concluded.

I hope that we all want to see values of independence and openness instilled into the proceedings, to restore the faith of service personnel in the system and to ensure that they receive justice. We have heard much reference to the better understanding of the situation that has come from the work of the Service Complaints Commissioner, Dr Susan Atkins. She has continually voiced complaints about the length of time appeals take to be heard and how, in some cases, appeals have not even been dealt with before people leave the armed forces.

When we ask for independent oversight of such processes, I have read that some people point to the role of Dr Atkins and say, “There you are, there is independent oversight.” What good is that independent oversight, however, if the Ministry of Defence does not act sufficiently to resolve the very criticisms that are aired by the Service Complaints Commissioner in her work?

I am anxious to leave time for the Minister to give a full response, and many of the concerns have been well aired. I add my support to the calls for a strengthened institution to provide independent oversight capability. Clearly one option is an independent ombudsman. I would like the Minister to address the parallels with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and to say whether there is a case for equivalent powers in the oversight of military justice. The confidence of service personnel in how the system operates is important. We ask an enormous amount of them, and they go out of their way to protect others, so it is of great concern when we hear reports of instances, such as have been well outlined in this debate, of our armed forces being unable to protect their own.

The principles of transparency and accountability are key in reaching what must ultimately be everyone’s objective for the justice system. With transparency and the accountability that that brings, everyone is removed from any conflict or any temptation away from what is at the heart of any justice system: that the conclusions reached and the sanctions imposed are ultimately understood to be fair.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Dobbin, to serve under your chairmanship today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on drawing attention to the important issues that we are debating. The vast majority of our armed forces do their job with the utmost professionalism and commitment, and nothing we say here today should take away from our gratitude for their service. However, we have a responsibility in this place to give an accurate reflection of the issues we discuss, and some people, not necessarily in this Chamber but outside, may want to suggest that there is no problem. A combination of the statistics and the stories shows that there is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.

Servicemen and women need to have confidence in their justice system. They need to know that if they are wronged against, they will get redress, and if they wrong someone else, they will be held accountable. The key principle of the armed forces covenant is that no one serving in the forces, their families, or veterans should be disadvantaged because of their service, and there is agreement that the covenant should cover all aspects of life in the service community. There is a paragraph in the 2012 covenant report abut the Service Complaints Commissioner, but the wider and more complex issue of military justice is not covered, and I hope that that will be on the agenda for the next report.

There is concern that the system is not properly serving the forces. When the same person in an organisation is responsible for discipline and justice, there is a real danger that the lines may become blurred. We must look properly at giving people access to justice outwith the chain of command. It is not difficult, even for those of us who have never been in the forces, to see how concerns about career prospects, promotion, redundancies and relationships with colleagues and senior officers might get in the way of ensuring that justice is done.

[Bob Stewart]

I am a little worried about where the hon. Lady is going in her remarks. Is she suggesting that commanding officers should be divorced from the system and that someone else should deal with military justice inside it? That is not the military way, and it would not help.

[Gemma Doyle]

With respect, the phrase, “It is not the military way”, is sometimes part of the problem. I am happy to repeat what I said: I think we must look at whether there is a need to give people access to justice outwith the chain of command. As I said, it is not difficult to see how the lines may become blurred, and we have heard many examples of that today.

The figures on sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape are extremely worrying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend outlined. Such actions should not be tolerated in any workplace. I appreciate that the armed forces are a unique working environment, but that must not be an excuse for any toleration of such behaviour. Even when complaints are made, there is concern that they are not treated or taken forward as they should be. The chain of command is integral to service life and it is right that there is a distinct service justice system that recognises the unique nature of service life, but that does not mean that we should not look at ways to ensure it works as well as possible and whether it could work better.

We have heard a little about the summary hearings process, which is used to deal with both discipline issues and minor criminal offences. A commanding officer handles the whole process from start to finish, receiving the initial complaint, investigating it, carrying out the hearing and finally issuing the judgment and punishment. The commanding officer acts as prosecutor, judge and jury all in one, and we must seriously consider whether external oversight is required.

Nacro, the crime reduction charity, recently published a report on military convictions and criminal records. It found inconsistencies in the way punishments are recorded in the hearings system. For example, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) outlined, if someone has committed a minor offence and is fined, that is added to their civilian criminal record. However, if someone has committed a more serious offence and been demoted in rank, that is not recorded on their criminal record because there is no way for it to be recorded on the police national computer. In some cases, it is only after the serving person has left the forces and is trying to get a job that they find out that that minor fine is preventing them from getting on with life in civvy street because they now have a criminal record. Nacro also found inconsistency in the rehabilitation period, and highlighted that the period for a fine was five years, the same as for service detention, which is a much more serious punishment, presumably for a much more serious offence.

I understand that there are concerns about the annex 40K form system, and that there are instances of them going missing, with the result that the information is not always recorded on the police national computer, which again highlights inconsistency.

Some serious issues have been raised today, including the level of sexual harassment experienced by women in the forces, some serious cases of assault and rape, concerns that individuals may not feel able to report incidents, and concerns about whether the system is as open and transparent as it should be when complaints are made.

I think that all parties agree that the Service Complaints Commissioner is doing an excellent job, but she and the British Armed Forces Federation have called for the creation of an ombudsman, and we agree with that proposal. We also believe that independent oversight of the military police, similar to the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, should be considered, and I hope the Minister will explain the Government’s thinking on that. When the Service Complaints Commissioner was originally set up, it was seen as controversial. At the time, it was quite a culture change, but it is now seen as crucial to the process, and we should not be scared about looking at whether further changes need to be made.

People have tragically lost their lives because they felt that the system let them down. It is not in any way about painting the armed forces, and the police within the military, in a bad light, but we let down those who take their responsibilities seriously if we allow wrongs to go unchallenged, and we run the risk of losing valuable people if justice is not available and people feel unable to continue in their jobs.

I am very pleased that we have had the opportunity to discuss matters today. I hope that this is the beginning of a discussion, because there are issues that need further exploration and consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Moon]

We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) in which she outlined the importance of not deploying individuals back to units where perhaps perpetrators of offences are still serving. I endorse that call, and I am sure that the Minister will have heard that request. The hon. Lady also made an excellent point in relation to the support for families of victims. I welcome also her call for an ombudsman.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) also called for an ombudsman. In addition, he called for recognition of the importance of support for victims. One of the things that I have heard repeatedly from people who felt that they had been victims was that there was no support in their units from their chain of command. If what had happened to them had happened in the civilian system, they would have received such support. I agree that the investigative process needs to be examined by an ombudsman, which he also called for.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke with great insight and personal experience of operating within the chain of command, but I feel that operating within it does not necessarily mean that he has heard some of the tragic stories that have come my way over the past few months and weeks. I welcome his endorsement of the Special Investigation Branch. It is an excellent branch of the military, but the problem for many of the victims has been that they never got that far: their attempts to bring forward their experience as a victim never reached either the military police or the Special Investigation Branch. They were squashed earlier in the chain of command by threats and intimidation and did not take their complaint and experience further.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) talked of the social isolation of those who speak out, delays in the process and hearings behind closed doors. He called for increased confidence in the system and faith in the justice system, which we all endorse. He, too, called for an ombudsman.

I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) mention the problems that the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders highlighted on openness and transparency, in particular the findings of summary hearings. Such hearings have left people with criminal records; a more serious offence often leads not to a criminal record but merely to a demotion, whereas a minor offence can lead to a criminal record. There needs to be greater understanding in the chain of command of the consequences of the findings of summary hearings.

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely endorse that point. Someone committing a minor misdemeanour should not get a criminal record. That has to be sorted out.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Finally, I welcome some of the commitments in the Minister’s response. I welcome the fact that the Service Complaints Commissioner will be given additional staff and that she will have access to commanding officers to assist the progress of any complaint that is being delayed. That is an excellent step. I also welcome his commitment on sexual offences. He said that they must be reported to the service police and the Special Investigation Branch. I hope that he will drive that message deep down into the armed forces, because the reputation of everyone in the forces is damaged by one perpetrator. We must drive it out.

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the provision of new data and the clarification of the data that are out there. Doing such things is absolutely essential to clarify what problems we have and to ensure that they can be indentified and dealt with. I also welcome all the individual initiatives that he outlined for the three forces. We need to ensure that they learn from one other to guarantee that best practice—

Deployment to Mali

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I did not refer to weapons. We have talked about troops in a training role. Our preference would be that that training is carried out in the countries that are providing the troops—Nigeria, Gambia, Sierra Leone and Ghana—and if not, that it is carried out in Bamako. It will not be in the forward regions where the fighting is taking place.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I support the deployment of a Sentinel R1, but may I urge my right hon. Friend to be slightly careful about the use of language? We have already deployed a C-17 to Bamako, and that C-17 has a section of the RAF Regiment within it—for force protection. Force protection personnel are combat troops. They may not be used in combat, but they are combat troops.

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I hear what my hon. Friend says. The C-17 is currently carrying out missions moving equipment and troops from France to Bamako and from Dakar in Senegal and other capitals in the region into Bamako, so its mission is into the country, rather than within the country.

Armed Forces Redundancies

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

The shadow Secretary of State asks a number of questions. I will do my best to take them in turn—I might not stick to the precise order, but I will try to get to them.

First, the right hon. Gentleman says that this should not be a subject for partisan argument—the whole House realises that this is an important matter. I will try to respect that spirit, but I cannot escape from pointing out that, although I hear what he says, the reason we are having to conduct a redundancy programme is, ultimately, the size of the defence deficit that this Government inherited. The scale of downsizing required in the Army is a consequence of that. Nothing he can say today can hide that.

That said, let me see whether I can take the right hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn—he asked quite a lot. He asked me to define the size of the pool in tranche 3. The pool is up to 5,300 personnel; it will be limited in tranche 3 to personnel drawn from the Army. It might not reach 5,300. That, in a sense, is the upper number.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we would make redundant people who did not want to be made redundant. We will do everything we can to maximise the number of applicants for redundancy. From memory, in tranche 1—when, effectively, exactly the same process and rules were applied—just over 60% of those made redundant were applicants for redundancy. Again from memory, in tranche 2, just over 70% were applicants for redundancy. We will do everything we practically can to maximise the number of applicants in tranche 3. I cannot, in all honesty, give him a guarantee at the Dispatch Box today that we will achieve 100%, but I hope he will understand that, in spirit, we will try to make that number as high as we can.

On exclusions, I set out my reply a few minutes ago. They are effectively the same as for tranches 1 and 2, and details are provided in the written ministerial statement. I have said that there will be a further tranche, tranche 4, at some point later next year. The exclusions that would apply on that date in 2014 should, in principle, be exactly the same exclusions that apply at the moment for this tranche.

On reserves, the right hon. Gentleman expressed scepticism on whether we would be able to meet the target. I believe that on the radio this morning he said:

“I think over time, reducing the size of the armed forces, as long as you put something in its place with a professional reservist force, then there’s a logic to it.”

I agree with him. The question is: can we get to that number? I hope I am in a position to give a reasonably authoritative comment on this, as I served in the reserve forces as an infantry officer in the 1980s. In those days, the Territorial Army, which, as he knows, may be renamed the Army Reserve, had a trained strength of 75,000 men. [Interruption.] He asked me a question; he must let me answer it. We are now aiming to get to 30,000 by 2018. I have to believe that if we got to 75,000 at that time, we can get to 30,000 now.

Our consultation on this matter closed last week. We have had more than 2,500 responses, many from reservists themselves, which is very encouraging. We will publish a White Paper announcing the way forward in spring. As I said in Defence questions last week, we will publish the White Paper, which in military terminology is our plan of attack. We will then cross the start line and get on with it. We are going to succeed.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I, sadly, had to make four officers on operations redundant. Two of them were volunteers, and two were not. It is very sad that we are now having to force people to take redundancy who might otherwise not be made redundant, because other people on operations cannot be made redundant. Will people who volunteer for redundancy, despite being on operations, be allowed to take it?

[Mr Francois]

In answering my hon. Friend’s question, I pay tribute to his considerable experience in these matters, as the whole House knows. The exclusions apply to people if they do not wish to apply for redundancy and would not be made redundant. If they wish to apply for redundancy voluntarily from within those fields, they are allowed to do so. In essence, they are excluded if they do not want to apply, but allowed to apply voluntarily should they wish to do so. I hope that answers his question.

Nuclear Deterrent

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey). I am glad that he did not repeat his assertion that the world would be a better place if my constituents were sacked and sent to the Bahamas with the money from the deterrent in their back pockets. It is also good to be back speaking here again for the first time since I banged my head. All will be fine, but if at any point, Mr Speaker, I look confused and ask what all these people are doing in my bedroom, please intervene and reassure me—no, I am not that bad.

The devastation of nuclear war would be an affront to nature itself, which is why I have said on many occasions that, if we could genuinely be confident that the UK disarming would make this horror less likely, that should come ahead of even the many thousands of jobs that the industry supports in my constituency and across the country. I am proud that the last Labour Government shifted Britain’s nuclear policy for the first time towards the aim of a global zero, but we should advance non-proliferation in a way that will maintain the security of the UK and, most of all, in a way that will make a nuclear catastrophe less likely, not more so.

That is one reason why I am wary of a party that up until now has been grossly irresponsible on the question of nuclear weapons and has suddenly be given access to the levers of power. It is one thing to be a fringe concern, making up positions that sound good on the doorstep. “When money is tight”, say the Liberal Democrats”, “Let’s have a mini-deterrent”—the nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on the Astute class submarines already being built in my constituency. “They would cost less”, they say, “providing more money for schools and hospitals, and they would be much less destructive than those awful Trident missiles to which the main parties are wedded. Vote for us!”

If that policy becomes a genuine possibility that could be enacted by a party of government, it will be put under scrutiny in the run-up to an election and its fundamental weaknesses exposed. The apparent savings evaporate when considered against the enormous cost of procuring new missiles—probably without a cost subsidy from the Americans this time—building new warheads from scratch, making considerable adaptations to the Astutes and writing off the £3 billion that will already have been spent on the successor by then. When the operational capacity of this “mini-deterrent” is scrutinised, we will come up against the points that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made so adeptly in opening this debate. All in all, this option is not a winner.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is really delightful to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. The problem with using cruise missiles is precisely that they are vulnerable. The whole point of deterrence is that there should be an invulnerable system. Cruise missiles are vulnerable, which destroys the concept.

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Most of all, such cruise missiles are indistinguishable on an enemy radar from conventional cruise missiles, raising the chilling prospect that in the confusion of battle, a conventional attack by the UK could trigger nuclear retaliation against British cities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall be as quick as I can.

I was a cold war warrior, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), and I spent many of my early years in Germany with tactical nuclear weapons. I also studied nuclear deterrence at university and I came to the conclusion that tactical nuclear weapons were too incredible for us ever to use. I was delighted when we got rid of them. That left strategic nuclear weapons.

I believe that the strategic nuclear deterrent does deter, and for that reason we must keep it. It can work only if it is invulnerable. As far as we can tell, the most invulnerable system involves a submarine. That submarine is currently being renewed. I support the renewal of an independent nuclear deterrent because we have no idea what will happen in the future of our world, and when there is great risk I prefer to have an insurance policy that maintains the status quo.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

First, I think it highly unlikely that the Argentines will invade the Falkland Islands, not least because I understand that there is a clause in Argentina’s constitution that specifically excludes invading the Falkland Islands or taking them by force. I have not had any discussions with the French on this matter and nor do I think has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Further to that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Argentine armed forces are pretty much incapable of invading the Falkland Islands? Their submarines have been underwater for only six hours each this year and most of their aircraft are grounded through lack of spares and lack of training.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, since the days of General Galtieri, there has been a definite separation between the civilian Government and the armed forces. Certainly, it does not appear—although one should not be complacent—that their armed forces are well equipped at the moment.