Defence Reform

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The VCDS leads the reserves review and was a key member of the steering group, so there is no lack of continuity. The hon. Gentleman asked why these things were not done at the time. We had to complete the SDSR because the comprehensive spending review was running at the same time, and because we had to deal with the huge deficit left by the previous Government. I know that the Labour Benches remain populated by deficit-deniers, but that does not reduce the responsibility on the Government to deal with the problem.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As I understand it—perhaps I am wrong—service chiefs lost the right some time ago to go directly to the Prime Minister. What right does a service chief have when he or she feels strongly about something outside the normal chain of command?

[Dr Fox]

There is no change in the constitutional position under which chiefs of staff—or, indeed, the CDS or VCDS —have a direct right of access to the Prime Minister of the day.

Armed Forces Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hancock]

One is never too old to give service to one’s country.

I join the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in paying tribute to the two coroners who have dealt with military deaths up to now. I have assisted families who have been through that process, and they have always been very complimentary about the way the coroners have acted, the way they were treated by the court and the way the coroners—they believe rightly—tackled the very controversial issues that had resulted in the deaths of their loved ones. I have yet to meet or hear from anyone who is seriously dissatisfied with the behaviour of those coroners, both of whom rightly deserve to be congratulated and thanked on behalf of this House and all the families who have been through that process.

There are those Members who would like more written into the Bill than the three points in the covenant, but really the list is endless. The three issues identified were those that have been raised most consistently, but that is not to say that the others will be ignored. One benefit of having a yearly review and a report to this House is to give all players—those inside and outside the armed forces, whether former or serving members, and other groups representing them—the opportunity to put into play their points of view. Therefore, not writing things into the Bill is not as relevant as some would want to think. I happen to believe that Members from all parts of the House who have worked as Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have tried to put the armed forces at the forefront of their endeavours to be fair.

I also criticise those who do not believe that the covenant is a contract. It is a contract: a contract between the British people, through this House, and the armed forces. Those who have criticised the idea that the covenant is not a written contract are mistaken. At a time when the armed forces have never been held in greater esteem, the people of this country believe that we have a duty not only to honour the covenant, but to make it work for those inside or outside the forces. The idea in the Bill of giving greater independence when complaints are made and dealt with is to be welcomed. However, I am slightly dismayed that we have not done more to introduce a proper ID card for veterans, to give them the same status that veterans have in other countries. I am grateful that the Minister and the Secretary of State have at different times conceded that further consideration will be given to that matter. We need to be sure that we honour our pledge to provide these services through the covenant and through the Bill, wherever they are asked for around the country. It should be irrelevant where the person lives at the time.

The Bill has a number of attractions for people in the armed forces, but it does not really satisfy those who have an interest in the way in which reservists who go on active service are treated when they return. The Select Committee on Defence has taken evidence recently on the way in which returning reserve service personnel are treated—by the health service or by employers, for example. The situation is unsatisfactory in that there is still a sense of exclusion. Returning reservists are not given enough support, for example, when they have problems with their employers.

We need to build into the review of armed forces legislation over the next five years, and into the covenant itself, greater support for reservists who are having trouble. It is often difficult for someone returning to the United Kingdom after serving abroad for six months to deal with problems arising from their employment. Where do they get the help and support that they genuinely need? In some parts of the country, it is very difficult to get that sort of assistance, and we must look at that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What sort of help is available for a Territorial Army reservist when he has problems with his job? How can the Government help, given that a commercial arrangement is involved?

[Mr Hancock]

I think that the military legal services ought to be made available to them. The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record of service in the armed forces, and I believe that the same facilities that would have been offered to him, should he have encountered difficulties during his military career, such as medical or legal advice, should be forthcoming to others. I want those facilities to be offered to individual reservists on their return to the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will consider that matter seriously.

On behalf of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I should like to say how delighted I am that the coalition has been able to deliver on its promise to armed forces personnel and their families that the covenant would be written into legislation and therefore deemed to be part of the law of the land. People can now have great confidence that the armed forces, if not the national health service, are safe in the hands of the coalition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

In this, my first year as a Member of Parliament, it has been a revelation and a reassurance to know that so many colleagues throughout the House have served in our armed forces, and I am even more surprised and steeled by the number who continue to serve as reservists. Their front-line experience is priceless in these thorny and precarious times. I do not share their direct experience of the ways of modern warfare, but I certainly see the landscape from a different plane. I am the mother of a teenage son who is training to become a Royal Marine commando, and my constituency is home to 36 Engineer Regiment and the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers. The health and well-being of our armed forces is therefore very close to my heart.

I do not intend to make a long speech, but I want to say a little about clause 2, about the military covenant, and, in particular, about how the covenant can help our military families. Isolation is a significant issue for military families when their loved ones are away, and in my constituency some Army mums have set up a local support group called Troopers Mums. Those inspirational women support themselves as well as the servicemen and women of whom they are so proud. They say that one of the most important factors for families dealing with isolation and worry is the existence of a support network of like-minded, empathetic people who are undergoing the same fears and anxieties. Sometimes it can be as simple as knowing, just from a look, when someone needs a cup of tea and a chat. Those women rely on each other in moments of need, and in many cases a problem shared is truly a problem halved. Troopers Mums are not asking for help; they simply want to be able to help themselves.

I know from my own research that other good support groups exist, but their functioning seems to be fragmented, unconnected and sporadic. Perhaps we can explore how we might develop and support a more uniform and accessible network across the country. When I use the word “support” I do not refer to state finance, state interference or yet another layer of state bureaucracy, and I echo the sentiments of one of the mums who said that she would not want a single penny to be diverted from the front line, but I think that with Government endorsement and some sponsorship from the private sector, we could assist families in a real and tangible way by helping them to set up and operate networks of their own.

The second point that I want to make about the military covenant concerns our nation as a whole. The covenant is a commitment between the Government, our service personnel, families and the nation. What worries me is that even if we enshrine the Government’s part of the bargain in legislation, things can still go badly wrong if our nation does not buy in. In conversation with my Troopers Mums, I heard of many instances in which a little kindness and understanding could have gone a long way, especially in the workplace. One mum told me that she had not been allowed time off to attend her son’s medal ceremony because she had already been given time off to attend his graduation some years earlier. Another told me that when her son was severely injured while serving in Afghanistan, she began to struggle at work. The response from her superiors was that she should “pull herself together.”

Closer to home, here in Westminster, I recently attended an armed forces dinner. I sat next to a man who had served in Iraq and had been awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, which is one down from the Victoria Cross. He had also served in Afghanistan, where his gallantry had earned him the Military Cross. I asked him about his Army life, and we talked of many things. He mentioned his home on an Army base, where he lives with his wife, who will soon turn 50. They cannot close the windows properly in their house because the double glazing framework has blown out. Their kitchen is made up of badly fitting, ill-matching units which are dysfunctional and look a complete shambles. They are sometimes embarrassed to ask people to supper because of the state of their accommodation.

Warrant Officer Mick Flynn is one of Britain’s most highly decorated soldiers. He is one of our heroes. He has given his entire working life to his country, and he is justly proud of his career. He does not complain, and he asks for little. I think that, as we debate the military covenant, the House will agree that we should support the rhetoric with practical action, such as ensuring that someone goes round to Mr and Mrs Flynn’s house to sort out their windows, fix the kitchen, and restore a little dignity to their home.

[Bob Stewart]

They will now.

[Mrs Grant]

Good. That will give some tangible meaning to the term “military covenant”.

There is a positive side, however. I heard a story of a uniformed serviceman boarding a civil jet to return to the UK and the other passengers giving him a spontaneous round of applause as he took his seat. That is a great example of attitude, awareness and respect, and perhaps we should do much more of that kind of thing unreservedly. In order for the covenant to work, society must also modify.

I am very proud to support the Bill. I hope it will help to maintain public awareness of the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families every single day.

Armed Forces Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I am delighted to congratulate Wing Commander Milroy on that—it is a well-deserved honour for a lot of hard work in difficult circumstances.

I do not want to take up too much time this evening, so I shall seek to truncate my remarks. Let me explain one or two more amendments. I will not press the Committee to a Division, because I want to make my points and to return to them at another time.

New clause 3 specifies that back-up advice, in person and by telephone, should be made available for the first six months following discharge. Finally, tailored support should be made available for former armed services personnel in the criminal justice system. The issues surrounding veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system have been the subject of debates in this House and I shall not go into great detail about them now, but holistic support is required, I believe, for such veterans to ensure that they get the support they need.

New clause 4 would appoint a support officer for former armed services personnel in each prison and probation service in England and Wales. That might sound a bit airy-fairy and pie in the sky, but those people are out there. They are often people who are interested in the subject and who are ex-service personnel, but that turns on the question of whether we have the ex-services personnel in a prison, which is often the key to whether services are properly delivered for these people.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I just want to make one comment, which is that a heck of a lot of people leave the armed forces and go on to lead perfectly normal, decent lives. They do not need help and I am a little worried that we are giving the impression that everyone needs some sort of help. They do not; only a small percentage of people require that help.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely and I do not want to give the false impression that the majority of service leavers are in dire need of help. That has never been true and never will be. I fully take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board and I agree with what he says. He, of course, comes from a service background and knows this patch rather well—probably far better than I do.

[Hon. Members]

But he needs quite a lot of help!

[Bob Stewart]

Thank you very much!

[Mr Llwyd]

I will move to finish my remarks fairly quickly because we are subject to some rather strange remarks at the moment.

The role that support officers would play would be to ensure that relevant individuals who came into contact with the criminal justice system received support while they were held within the system. Only a small percentage end up in the criminal justice system, but it is entirely possible that a goodly number of those people would not be in the prison system if they had been assisted in other ways when they came out of the services. That is my point. As far as the numbers are concerned, I am not saying that the majority are affected, as that would be absolute nonsense.

Concurrent with the need for support officers is the need to improve the recording of the number of veterans held in prisons, on probation or on parole. At no time hitherto has an individual been asked, upon entry to the justice system, whether they have a service record, but that is now changing I am pleased to say. I shall not go into this topic at length, but I note that a survey conducted by the Home Office in 2001-02 recorded that roughly 6% of inmates were veterans, whereas a survey carried out by the MOD in 2007 estimated the percentage in one prison, Dartmoor, at 17.5%. I shall not get into bandying figures around, as we have had this debate before. These are MOD figures, not mine or NAPO’s. I remember that the last time we had such a debate everyone clubbed together to denigrate Harry Fletcher, but these are not his figures.

--- Later in debate ---

The office of the chief coroner was established with cross-party support by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It aimed to provide for some of the issues that arise out of military fatalities. The chief coroner’s office was intended to ensure that families and friends were sufficiently involved in the coroner’s investigation, to introduce quality controls and independent safeguards in relation to inquests, and to add consistency, leadership, independence and expertise to the coroners dealing with military inquests.

[Bob Stewart]

I am a bit worried about including inquests in the annual report. This is such a sensitive area and I feel that it should be taken separately. I am not fixed on that, but let us be cautious about bringing inquests into an annual report. That might appear trite or to be dealing with them too lightly, when they are such an important and sensitive matter for families. That is just a comment. Although I am not sure where exactly I stand on the issue, that is my initial feeling.

[Gemma Doyle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I certainly appreciate his concerns. There is great concern among the families who are involved in the issue. Based on their reflections, I believe that further attention needs to be given to the matter.

Nuclear Deterrent

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

What I am making clear today is that for the rest of this Parliament we will be going ahead with the replacement programme. We are setting out the budget, the areas of policy and the industrial implications for doing so. As I have said, it is part of the coalition agreement that the Liberal Democrats are able to look at these alternatives. Having looked, as Secretary of State since we came to office, at all the alternatives in great detail, including the costs and the implications for defence, I remain absolutely confident that the study is very likely to come to exactly the same conclusion as the 2006 White Paper, but we have given a commitment and we are carrying that out, through Cabinet Office officials, for our Liberal Democrat partners in the coalition. We made an agreement and we are going to honour it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent nuclear deterrent is being used all the time because it is, by definition, a deterrent to potential enemies? The firing of the weapon would be a disaster of course, but the point of its possession is to prevent that.

[Dr Fox]

I cannot fault my hon. Friend’s logic. He understands the whole basis of the concept of deterrence. Of course, the deterrent is designed to protect the United Kingdom from the threat of nuclear blackmail, but we still have to work hard to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world as a complementary, not an alternative, policy.

Armed Forces Covenant

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Again, I note the ingenuity of Members. The hon. Gentleman has raised two very good points.

There are clearly instances of best practice from which we can learn in relation to access to public housing. When it comes to access to the private housing sector, one of the problems is an inability to acquire a mortgage. That applies particularly to those who have served overseas and have been out of the country for some time. We are examining ways of dealing with the problem, and the Minister for Housing and Local Government is looking into it at the moment.

The issue of post-traumatic stress disorder is crucial. One reason why we have introduced routine mental health screening into the medical examinations of those about to leave the armed forces is to try to identify best those who may require additional follow-up. As scientific and medical evidence develops to help us with profiling, we may well be able to have programmes that allow follow-up for a longer time. We are working closely with the United States on building up a profiling picture. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that this may take some years to develop, at least in terms of the symptomatology, so we will need to look at ways of better predicting the effects, and identifying and following up individuals. We might have to identify them, because self-identification in mental illness is notoriously difficult.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I very much welcome the establishment of the military covenant in law. On 6 December, it will be 29 years since 33 soldiers in my company were wounded. We often tend to forget soldiers and servicemen and women who were wounded a long time ago. I hope that the military covenant in law will increase Government responsibility to care for those who were wounded, regardless of which war or conflict they served in.

[Dr Fox]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who, of course, has considerable experience in this area. First, I would echo the point made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) about mental health care being one aspect of long-term care. The Government have given a high priority to that, because the invisible wounds of war are just as damaging as those that we can see. I do not put the blame on any one particular Government, but as a society we have been too slow to recognise that. We are increasingly recognising it now, however. Secondly, medical care will improve in certain areas. Prosthetics, for instance, have come a long way. Individuals are having to be reassessed in the NHS, given the new capabilities that prosthetics may bring and the new lease of life that they may give to individuals, including those with long-term injuries relating to service in the armed forces.

Support for UK Armed Forces and Veterans

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donaldson]

Indeed; I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right to highlight the work of that association, which goes back a long time and is much valued.

Working with the charities, building on the concept of the big society, is important. I talked about the joined-up approach, and I want to mention an example that is not joined up at the moment. At the moment, the Treasury requires military bands to charge the full rate to charities that seek to raise money to help our armed forces personnel. I have a recent example of that happening in Northern Ireland. We have one military band in Northern Ireland—the Territorial Army band of the Royal Irish Regiment—and it is made up of reservists. That is the only option that we have available in Northern Ireland if we want to use the services of a military band.

A number of charitable events organised by the Royal British Legion and the Soldiers Charity in Northern Ireland have been cancelled recently, because they would be charged £3,000 for the use of the Royal Irish Regiment band. Those events are therefore no longer viable, so there is a loss of revenue and income to the very charities that we want to encourage to work with the Government to do more to help our service personnel and veterans. The Government could address that lack of a joined-up approach. I hope that we can revert to the situation where a reduced charge is made to use military bands for the purpose of raising money for charities that directly benefit our armed forces personnel and veterans. That was the position that prevailed before, and I hope that it will prevail again in the future.

Not only do charities need to be assisted to raise money by using military bands, but the Royal Irish band, which is popular in Northern Ireland, is an excellent recruitment tool and helps to promote the Army in the community. We have had difficulties in the past with community engagement because of the sensitivities in Northern Ireland, and the band is getting to places that it has not been able to get to before. What do we do when we are making that progress? We up the charge, and the number of events in which the band can participate is reduced. Its ability to assist military charities to raise much-needed funds is reduced. If the big society is to work, we need to address such issues.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As a previous band president, I absolutely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says. It would be good if the separate charges for bands were removed, so that we could get more money for charity events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to talk about what the military covenant really means. Obviously, it is a contract between the state and individuals who put on uniform in its service, but what does the state require of our servicemen and women? Let us be quite clear. When required, the state directs those who are in the armed forces to obey orders and advance against the enemy, even when there is a high chance of their being killed. They are not allowed to debate the matter, and they are under compulsion. If they refuse, they may be court-martialled—in the past, they may even have been shot or ended up on a gibbet.

May I remind hon. Members of my hero, Wing Commander Guy Gibson? On the night of 16 May 1943, 19 specially modified Lancasters from 617 Squadron, led by Guy Gibson, attacked the three dams in the Ruhr on Operation Chastise. They did so from 60 feet, at 220 mph, in darkness and against considerable Nazi opposition. Of those 19 Lancasters, eight were lost, and 56 RAF personnel were killed. Along with Gibson, who won the Victoria cross, 32 airmen received decorations.

Not one of those 56 men wanted to die, and I suspect that very few—if any—wanted to get into the aircraft that night in May 1943. Any man or woman who has been in combat would be the very last person to say that they were not frightened sick when it happened, but the state required Guy Gibson and his gallant men to overcome their natural instincts, move their feet, which must have felt like lead, and get into those aircraft and fly. They knew that their chances of survival were not great—42% of them lost their lives—but they did what was required by the state.

My old battalion, 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, which is now called 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, returned from Afghanistan last autumn. Its casualty rate was pretty horrific: 12 dead and nearly 100 wounded, and seven triple amputees now have two legs between them. In the front sections of an infantry battalion in Afghanistan, the chances of being killed or wounded are 25% to 30%—I am talking about the people who do the business of our military in Afghanistan at the front.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) might not be allowed technically to be my friend in this Chamber, but he is certainly my friend when we are outside. He reminded the House of the Ballykelly bomb on 6 December 1982, when I was a company commander, but may I remind the House that 35 soldiers under my command were wounded, as well as civilians? They too remain our responsibility—I feel that acutely.

[Dr Fox]

Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I am extremely impressed and moved by what my hon. Friend is saying. However, it is not the state alone—meaning the governors of the state—that required sacrifices either in the second world war or in Afghanistan; it is the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why the military covenant exists not only between the state and the armed forces, but between the whole nation and the armed forces.

[Bob Stewart]

I certainly accept my right hon. Friend’s endorsement. Our nation requires our armed forces to do things that they would not normally do as civilians.

Sometimes, our front-line soldiers in Afghanistan chuck up as they load their weapons. I understand that, having been semi-paralysed with fear myself on occasions, and most certainly on front lines in Bosnia. I suspect that that feeling of paralysis and hopelessness was also felt by the dambuster squadron as they climbed into their Lancasters. However, that is the nation’s requirement of our servicemen and servicewomen. To me, it is pretty stark—it is the ultimate uncompromising requirement—but what should our service personnel get back? The state has always had a clear duty to look after service personnel or personnel who are killed or wounded in its service. That duty may not have been fulfilled in the past, and sometimes, even if it was, it was not done very well, but the requirement has always existed.

Early formal recognition of that duty was the establishment by Charles II of the Royal hospital in Chelsea in 1681. Today, we think of Chelsea pensioners as magnificent old soldiers in red coats—the boys of the old brigade—but that hospital was established specifically to look after wounded soldiers regardless of their age. By March 1692, the 476 so-called in-pensioners were mainly the wounded, not necessarily the old. The state—or the nation, if the Secretary of State will forgive me—has recognised its side of the bargain for a long time, which obviously continues to this day.

The military covenant is now widely recognised as a term that refers to the mutual obligation between the people—I am being careful now—and its armed forces. It was possibly first officially coined in an MOD pamphlet entitled, “Soldiering: the Military Covenant”, which I first saw in April 2000.

The covenant covers a lot of ground, some of which we have debated today, but in essence it fundamentally means that service personnel should be treated fairly and properly. I want to concentrate on what happens if a serviceman or servicewoman is killed or hurt, rather than on the softer aspects of the covenant. I know I speak for the House when I say that we want nothing but the best for those personnel, but let me emphasise what I consider to be our nation’s duty to those who are killed or wounded in its service.

First, on those who make the ultimate sacrifice, the mortal remains of our service personnel who are killed must be treated with the greatest dignity and respect, which I think they are. Our system is now fully supportive of grieving relatives, which includes helping, if required, with funerals as sensitively as possible.

We are also getting better at looking after families when the funeral is over. Service widows and families must have proper financial provision and guidance for as long as they need it thereafter. That also extends to the children. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has emphasised the setting up of an educational scheme and the attempt to look carefully at how families are looked after, but we have to keep on top of this, because as time goes by we tend to forget.

Secondly, I want to talk about the wounded. The ratio of killed to wounded on service in Afghanistan—this is based on my old battalion—was about one dead to nearly 10 wounded. I am told that the Americans’ figure is higher. That is an incredible improvement since the days when I first put on the uniform in 1967. When I was at the Royal Military Academy, I was taught that when planning a military operation, we should expect about one person to be killed for every three wounded—survival rates were not great. That was the case right the way through the early years in Northern Ireland, but now we have a much better survival rate. The ratio of dead to wounded now is—let us not be exact—one in 10 or 11. The precise figure does not matter; what matters is that we are recovering people from near-death experiences and getting them off the battlefield properly.

Tremendous advances have been made in keeping our wounded alive. That was a great achievement of the previous Government, some of whose members who helped to engineer it are here. We can blame the previous Government for many things, but on the medical front I take my hat off to them. The way in which we deal with our casualties is terribly important. It is also important when they take their uniforms off. That is something else we have to keep an eye on—they have to be looked after for the rest of their lives.

I am especially interested in the long-term care of the disabled. I accept that the NHS has responsibility and does its best, but that system still requires attention and help. I understand and accept now—with some emotional reluctance, I have to say—that the days of exclusive service hospitals are over. Our war disabled require the very best care until the end of their days, and I, for one, will spend all my time in the House doing my best to improve the long-term care of our wounded.

I will stop there. I am very grateful to the House authorities and the Democratic Unionist party for continuing to bring the matter of the military covenant before the House. It is a matter very dear to my heart. However, looking around the Chamber, I can see that I am certainly not alone; I know that there is tremendous support for it on both sides. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I will be very brief. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who made a very emotional speech. I pay tribute to him for his service to his country, especially for his time in Northern Ireland. He has a great reputation, and we appreciate all his help. In commenting on my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), he said that technically he was not allowed to be our friend. May I enlighten the hon. Gentleman? Contrary to rumour, we have a lot of friends on both sides of the House. It might not seem like it at times, but we do have quite a number of friends. In any event, it is a privilege to follow him.

I believe that the United Kingdom’s armed forces are the best in the world. They have served this nation well at times of crisis and conflict, from the battlefields of Europe, Africa and the far east, including in the two world wars, the Falklands and the Balkans. From Iraq to Afghanistan, their bravery and sacrifice have been demonstrated daily. I can speak of the key role played by our armed services in defending the Province of Northern Ireland against terrorism. Some of us on this side of the House and on these Benches have lost family who served in the Crown forces in Northern Ireland during the serious times of the troubles. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members of the House will acknowledge that, when it comes to the donning of the uniform of the Crown forces, the young men and women of Northern Ireland have never been found wanting. They have served their country as members and a part of the United Kingdom, and many of them, like many here on the mainland, have made the supreme sacrifice.

[Bob Stewart]

I want to pay tribute to them. Someone told me that Irishmen have won more Victoria crosses than Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen put together.

[David Simpson]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. I think that the history books have outlined that fact very well. As members and a part of the United Kingdom, and as British citizens, many of our young people have made that sacrifice. There are young men and women from my constituency currently on duty in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, one brave Gurkha officer from my constituency, Mr Neal Turkington, lost his life in the middle of last year. We pay tribute to families who have lost loved ones. Our armed services have served this nation well. Although they have served us well, unfortunately they have not always been served well by Governments.

There are a number of issues that we need to tackle. Veterans need help when they return to civilian life. A number of the points I am going to make have already been mentioned, but they are important and I will be very brief in making them. As I have said, I believe that veterans and people who have served their country need help when they return to civilian life. On 16 February, the Secretary of State said:

“It takes time to turn a civilian into a soldier, so we should take time to turn a soldier into a civilian. Our resettlement programme helps service leavers to navigate civilian life; everything from finding a job, to benefits, education and retraining.”—[Official Report, 16 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1044.]

Those are fine intentions, but there are concerns that ought to be addressed. Hon. Members will be aware of the recent report in the Yorkshire Post dealing with domestic violence issues involving ex-military personnel who have left the service but have no prospect of employment. It is good that the Secretary of State announced today the 24-hour helpline. That is commendable. There is also the education scheme, and the British Legion in my constituency has invited me to Scotland to see some of the medical facilities and the care provided in that part of the United Kingdom. I am looking forward to that.

The report also says that the MOD’s full resettlement programme is not open to all personnel, so perhaps when the Minister responds he could give some more information on that. The report also points out that the type of work that people are trained in is often not the type of work available. We need to look at the assistance that can be given to veterans who have problems readjusting, or who find themselves out of work or in financial hardship. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made about housing is a case in point. It is a valid point that should be taken a lot further. The idea that people can put their lives on the line on our behalf only to find that there is no work to turn to when they are in trouble, is totally unacceptable.

However—we come now to the thorny issue—we also need the Prime Minister to follow through on the pledge to enshrine the military covenant in law. I know he did not make that pledge lightly, but he made it on the decks of HMS Ark Royal. He could not have chosen a more symbolic place. If ever there was a pledge that should be kept, it is that one. Regrettably, however, the perception is that there now seems to be a drawing back from the pledge given by the Prime Minister. We were promised that the covenant would be enshrined in law, but what we got was merely an annual report on it, so we need to be careful.

I have listened carefully to the debate thus far. As I have said, we owe a debt of gratitude to all members of our armed forces. We need to get this right. If there are issues to do with enshrining the covenant in law, or other issues that need to be addressed, we need an open discussion and we need to get it right, because there would be nothing worse than an argument in this House among all the parties about a pledge that had been given, or about what will or will not be in the covenant, when our men and women are dying on the streets of Afghanistan and other countries. It is soul destroying for them to listen to the Government or Opposition, or whoever, discussing this issue. We are dealing with men and women’s lives and their treatment when they come home.

Military Covenant

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Crausby]

I will get to that point.

We do not expect our forces to join a trade union or allow them to go on strike, so they are entitled to be treated differently. My dad lay in that French field for two days before he was found, but he was eventually flown back to the UK and put back together. When he recovered, he voted Labour, and he never missed the opportunity to vote Labour in every election until the day he died. I make that point simply because this is not a party political issue. Many of his comrades returned to vote Conservative, and Liberal, and other weird things, as was their entitlement, and some did not bother to vote at all. So it is shameful to turn the matter of the covenant into a point-scoring party political issue, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) did.

We all know that we are in difficult circumstances, but I do not know what my dad would say about cutting soldiers’ allowances at the same time as Barclays pay their investment bankers 20% more—not to mention making Afghan veterans redundant by e-mail, which is even worse than when John Major made Bosnian front-line veterans redundant by post. I suppose that the MOD has at least come up to date.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Crausby]

For the last time.

[Bob Stewart]

John Major did not do that. I told Bosnian soldiers that they were made redundant personally by waking them up in the morning and telling them as they woke up, and then I gave them the paper. That was rotten.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will be as quick as I can. I love the idea of a military covenant. Of course our armed forces are a special case. They are a martial profession: people who join them do not do so to join a nursery school; they know they are going to take risks and they know they may lose their lives. As we know, they are in a unique profession, so we have to deal with them uniquely. That is why we must look after them. I repeat: we must look after them.

The military covenant is a work in progress. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who is no longer in his place, and others who say that it is the idea of the covenant that counts rather than law. We feel strongly that the tri-service military covenant being looked at now, as work in progress, could get better. I feel that the military covenant comprises three crucial aspects, which I will quickly run through.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What the Defence Secretary said this afternoon, which was also said in recent proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill, is that a document called “the armed forces covenant” is being worked on now and will be produced later this spring. If that is the case, and the Prime Minister is clear that the covenant should be written into law, why is it not part of the Armed Forces Bill? When an amendment was proposed last week to enshrine the covenant in law, why did the hon. Gentleman’s party vote against it?

[Bob Stewart]

The answer is I do not know, but I will continue and I will be quick.

What is crucial to whatever we call the military covenant is how we respect our soldiers when they are killed. As a boy, I remember watching my father’s battalion come back. He was the only officer who had not been killed and I remember watching the bodies come off the back of an aircraft at RAF Khormaksar in Aden. We have come a long way since then, and we must respect people properly. Secondly, the families must be looked after properly. When someone dies in the service of our country, we have a duty as a Government to look after those families for the rest of their lives. And my third point is that we have a duty to look after those who are hurt badly for the rest of their lives, too.

I am happy that the military covenant is going to be part of the Armed Forces Bill. I like the idea of having a report every year. I commend the idea of the Queen’s regulations. When I was serving, they were my bible when it came to dealing with my soldiers and how I should behave. Perhaps the tri-service military covenant will in due course become part of the Queen’s regulations.

Members on both sides of the House must try to do whatever we can in these parlous economic times to look after our soldiers so that we will remember them.

Armed Forces Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I know that this issue was examined by the previous Government, as it has been by this Government. The view that has been taken is that because there are differences between the three services this approach is culturally the best way to go about things. If my hon. Friend has very strong views on this, I am sure that he will be willing to bring them to the House, perhaps in the form of an amendment, during the passage of the Bill. That would give us a chance to debate the merits and demerits of this approach further. There are undoubtedly arguments on both sides and the Government have just decided that, out of due respect for the differences between the services, this was the best way for us to continue to proceed.

Other provisions in the Bill introduce a new regime under which service personnel commit an offence if they exceed an alcohol limit while carrying out certain duties. The limits and duties will be prescribed in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. The Bill also contains provisions allowing commanding officers the flexibility to test on a case-by-case basis in two circumstances. One is where they have reasonable cause to believe that a service person’s ability to carry out a prescribed duty is impaired due to drugs or alcohol. The other is where they have reasonable cause to believe that such a person is in breach of a limit on alcohol specified in regulations in relation to particular duties.

The main reason behind those changes is to increase safety and to act as a deterrent, and I wish to explain to the House why that is. When Parliament approved the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and regulations were made under it, the provisions were not extended to the services because they were considered to be too restrictive, given that so many service personnel are engaged in potentially dangerous activities in the course of their employment. That exemption had wide cross-party support at the time. Against that background, the then Government gave an undertaking that a bespoke scheme would be created for the armed forces. Policy development was too immature for proposals to be included in the last Armed Forces Bill and progress had since stalled due to a lack of a legislative vehicle, so I am pleased that such a scheme is included in this Bill. The provisions in this group are important, because they are aimed at creating a safer environment when service personnel are carrying out safety-critical tasks in the course of their employment, both generally and when on operations. Rather than limiting commanding officers to acting after an incident has taken place, as happens at present, the changes in the Bill will allow commanding officers also to act earlier in the future. One of the concerns that I expressed during the passage of the previous Bill was that it might reduce the freedom and discretion of commanding officers. A number of changes in this Bill go to redress that in some way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As a past commanding officer, I think that it is an extremely good thing that more power be given back to commanding officers, including discretionary power. I think particularly of warrant officers who offend. It has been mandatory to reduce such officers to the ranks, but if they have done 20 years in the armed forces, that will have a deep effect on their pensions, for example. Therefore, this is a good change to the Armed Forces Act 2006 and I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing it.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The change that he refers to will not only give discretion but provide a sense of proportion and justice in dealing with such issues. The idea of a draconian, one-size-fits-all punishment is not in line with the traditions of this country or the armed forces. This is a sensible change that will command support on both sides of the House.

At present, the Director of Service Prosecutions is allowed under the Armed Forces Act to delegate his functions only to legally qualified service officers. As a result, the prosecuting staff at the Service Prosecuting Authority are all service lawyers. Given the small number of service lawyers and the competing pressure on them, the Director of Service Prosecutions has asked for a provision to be added to the Bill to allow civilian lawyers to be appointed to posts in the Service Prosecuting Authority.

The burden of the cases referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions and the complexity of those cases may continue to increase. The service police continue to investigate allegations of serious criminal offences, including sexual offences, fraud and computer-based crime; and allegations arising out of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decisions taken to prosecute or not to prosecute, especially those cases where there is an operational context, are often finely balanced and involve difficult prosecution decisions.

The change is being made as a reasonable precaution to allow the Director of Service Prosecutions the flexibility to appoint civilian prosecutors. That will be done only if it becomes necessary in order to ensure that the Service Prosecuting Authority continues to have access to an adequate number of prosecutors with the necessary professional skills. All those involved greatly value the benefits of Service Prosecuting Authority lawyers being current serving officers. There is no intention to move to a completely civilian authority.

The Director of Service Prosecutions acts independently of my Department and comes under the general superintendence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It would be for him to decide if such a change were needed. There has been an exchange between my Department and the Attorney-General setting out the circumstances in which the provision would be brought into force. As part of that, it is clear that there would be consultation between our two Departments before any action were taken.

I believe that our Armed Forces are among the best, if not the best, in the world. One of the reasons that they are so good is that they conduct themselves with great discipline. It is something for which our armed forces have a deserved reputation throughout the world. The Bill helps to underpin that discipline. It will ensure that our armed forces continue to have a fair and modern system of service justice that underpins the operational effectiveness of which we are all in the House rightly proud. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I particularly appreciate his remarks about clause 2 and health care. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government have accepted my report “Fighting Fit” on the mental health care of veterans. Part of it stated that we should indeed scrutinise people far more closely at the point when they depart from the services to ensure that we consider mental health. In my 18-year career as a medical officer in the Navy, we rarely did that. The matter was neglected, and I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted the report and that the armed forces will now assess people when they leave and before they become veterans so that we can take timely action when necessary.

I declare my interests, which are in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In addition, in connection with clause 27—an obscure provision, which I suspect is largely uncontroversial—I am a member of the naval medical compassionate fund. I call it a potential benefit because one has to be deceased for any benefit to be obtained from it. Although that is ultimately inevitable, I hope that it will not happen during my time in this place.

I pay tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have done so much for the military covenant and in raising its profile. Over the past 10 years or so, public support for our armed forces has increased. That is in large part because of the profile of the armed forces and, although it may not be fashionable to say so, I think we in this place ought to take a certain amount of credit for promoting the interests of the men and women of our armed forces. Members on both sides of the House do that, so this is not a partisan matter at all.

However, I welcome this Bill as the next step in the process of ensuring that the military covenant is a key part of the way in which we deal with our armed forces, and not just now. It is very easy to do that now, as every night we see images on our television screens highlighting the plight of the men and women of our armed forces, and the excellent job they are doing and the professional manner in which they are doing it. The problem arises 10 or 15 years down the line when, God willing, we are living in a time when the armed forces are less high profile. In those circumstances, it will be very welcome to have an opportunity to assess, on an annual basis, how we are dealing with our servicemen and women, and, of course, with our veterans and service families.

[Bob Stewart]

One of the problems in respect of Help for Heroes is that we must deal not only with the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have problems that go all the way back to the second world war, and we must put in place resources to look after the people who were involved then. Speaking personally, I had about 35 soldiers wounded on 6 December 1982. Those people require to be looked after, and two of them were paraplegics. I simply want to endorse my hon. Friend’s point that we must look after all our veterans who have been hurt, not just the people who are now in the public eye from Afghanistan and Iraq and, perhaps, Kosovo and Bosnia. The issue goes back well beyond that, and let us also remember all those people who were hurt in Northern Ireland over many years.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right, and I think the Government have recognised that need. One of my report’s recommendations was that we should be more proactive in addressing our veteran population, and I am pleased that it has been accepted. Ministers recognise that we need to do more for veterans.

Having just been nice to my Front-Bench colleagues, perhaps I might say that I disagree with them in one respect. Clause 2 is entitled “Armed forces covenant report” and I take exception to the term “armed forces” in that context. May I gently suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it would be more appropriate simply to use the term “military covenant”? I say that because I think that term has had a certain amount of purchase. It is now understood by the general public. It is in the public domain, and the media understand it, and I think they would be somewhat confused if we were now to make this rather semantic change of using the term “armed forces” instead. To argue against myself, the word “military” excludes naval of course, but I think that in the public’s mind “military” refers to the entirety of our armed forces. I do not want the value of the concept of the military covenant to be degraded in any way by a confusion over this title. That point might, perhaps, be considered in Committee, of which I hope very much my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) is successful in becoming a member—I wish him the best of luck in his endeavours in that respect. As he says, it will be fascinating to serve on the Committee, and I hope to talk a little more about that shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

At the outset, let me place on record my admiration for and appreciation of soldiers from the 16 Air Assault Brigade, approximately 3,000 of whom from the Colchester garrison are currently deployed in southern Afghanistan. I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their opening words and I also thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to Camp Bastion and his generous words of support there. I pay tribute to the families back in Colchester and around the country and to the rear party who do important work but are seldom mentioned. So, I thank the rear party and the men and women of our armed forces, including of 16 Air Assault Brigade, and I mention especially the regimental band of the Parachute Regiment who spent Christmas and the new year in southern Afghanistan.

The previous Government can be congratulated on many good things that they did, most notably for veterans, partly by giving them a profile that did not exist before. The introduction of Veterans day and the veterans badge have been well received right across the United Kingdom. We have already accepted the principle of the veterans badge, but there is one additional thing that I ask the coalition Government to take forward: the award of an armed forces medal. Not everybody who joins Her Majesty’s armed forces is deployed to a theatre where a medal will be awarded, and we should recognise that there are important members of Her Majesty’s armed forces who do not necessarily get a combat medal.

[Bob Stewart]

But that is the whole point of the medals: they are awarded for service in an operational theatre. We do not want to make this about having a Mickey Mouse parade on one’s chest. The reason why a medal is awarded is that someone has served a set time in an operational theatre. Let us not make us glorified toy soldiers.

[Bob Russell]

Putting aside the hon. Gentleman’s closing sentence, I am aware of the counter-argument, but there is a strong argument the other way, too. We respect all who serve in Her Majesty’s armed forces; that is what the veterans badge is about, but it is not quite the same. I do not qualify either way; I merely make the point on behalf of those who have raised the matter.

Looking around the Chamber, I think that I am the only Member present who served on the last Armed Forces Bill Committee, and I was present when that Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, too. It has served the country well, and it is right that we should now revise it. As to whether I will be on the new Bill Committee, we will have to wait and see.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the quality of housing for families, but the issue of single persons’ accommodation has not been raised. Colchester is blessed with the most modern barracks in the country, Merville barracks. I disagree fundamentally with the way in which the last Government used a private finance initiative to fund those barracks, because over time it will be far more expensive than using traditional methods of funding public assets. However, the barracks are the benchmark for all our military accommodation for single people.

There are many ways in which family accommodation around the country leaves a lot to be desired. I hope that the coalition Government, notwithstanding the financial legacy that the Labour Government bequeathed us, will realise that if we want the best from the best armed forces in the world, we have to provide them with accommodation, and particularly family accommodation, that is fit for purpose.

I ask the Minister to define what is meant by “education” in the Bill. Is it education of the serving man or woman, education of the children of military personnel, or education in the round? I genuinely do not know the answer. In the previous Parliament, the Defence Committee reported on service children’s education. The Armed Forces Bill Committee, when constituted, may want to look back and see what that report said, because the issue is not just the education of our serving military, though that is obviously important—increasingly important, sad to say—but the education of their children.

I mentioned war widows and the fact that they have to pay tax on their pension. I understand from one of the young war widows in my constituency that it is not described as a war widow’s pension. When she has need to mention the pension, the documents do not say that she is a war widow. That, to her, is very important, because her husband lost his life in Afghanistan nearly three years ago. I cannot remember what the description is, but it is not “a war widow’s pension.” It may be just a small tweaking of words that is needed, but it is important.

I pay tribute to the reservists, whom Members have mentioned. We need to see whether we can somehow inject that issue into the Armed Forces Bill. As has been said, reservists are increasingly an important, integral part of service. When I went to Iraq as a member of the previous Armed Forces Bill Committee, we certainly saw a lot of reservists, and I have also seen them in my visits to Afghanistan. They have a very important part to play.

Mention has been made of the cadets. Last year was the 150th anniversary of the Army cadets. Reference has been made to the fact that sea cadets are not funded on the same basis as the Army and air cadets. Perhaps we can look at that in Committee.

Just as a throwaway line, on the overseas territories and the Commonwealth—I asked a parliamentary question on this—please understand that nearly 10% of the British Army is not from the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth obviously accounts for most of that figure, but other nations around the world have citizens serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate.

I am a Member of Parliament for one of Britain’s principal naval ports and the issues raised in this Bill will resonate in one of the homes of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. In the course of the past 10 years, I have promised that I would say to Ministers that Plymouth is not Portsmouth—we are not 20 minutes away from Bristol, and we need to ensure that we are not ignored. One of the things that the Government could do, if they were so minded, is to consider making Plymouth the centre for the veterans weekend in 2012. I know very well that my right hon. Friends have heard that before, but it is worth repeating on a regular basis.

Going to war is not just about bombs and bullets; rather, it is about those people who put their lives at risk to defend British interests, and about protecting our freedoms and our way of life. If we expect our servicemen and women to fight for this cause, we have to make sure that they feel valued—that is incredibly important. This Bill, together with the military covenant, goes some way towards delivering that, and I hope that it will play very well down in Plymouth.

In just a few weeks’ time, 3 Commando Brigade, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) served a little while ago, and which is based in my constituency, will be deployed back in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick 14. War, of course, is not a means in itself—it is the final episode following our failure, as politicians, to get a diplomatic solution to the problems that face regions of the world. I have always been, and am, very supportive of the interventions that we have made in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but I am well aware that we failed to think through the exit strategy that would leave those countries with a stronger political leadership and able to deliver peace and a strengthened economy. The public were initially behind both conflicts, but as time moved on, the number of casualties rose and they looked increasingly like becoming stalemates, so public support waned.

The quid pro quo for those who fight for their country is that they should be valued. I hope that the Bill goes some way towards delivering on that contract. As an aside, I believe that we must spend more time and effort in looking at ways to avoid conflict. The old adage that prevention is better than cure rings true. For too long, we have seen defence just in terms of scenes from films such as “Saving Private Ryan”. Our priority should be to do more to prevent conflicts and to ensure that servicemen and women are valued when they make their sacrifices. Placing a warship in a port can make a real statement. When President Obama put a US aircraft carrier off Korea recently, it helped to calm down the potential for conflict in the far east.

Inevitably, war has produced dreadful legacies not only in the countries where conflicts have taken place, but for the lives of servicemen and women and their families. That is why I will certainly support the Bill in the Lobbies tonight, should there be a Division. It will make it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State for Defence to make an annual report to Parliament on the military covenant. I take on board the points of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). One thing that we can do is to ensure that we have a regular debate of this sort for a full day, just as we are doing today, so that such issues can be aired.

The Bill will enshrine the military covenant in law. If we are asking our service personnel to put their lives on the line, Parliament must not only give them the kit, pay and the health and social conditions to do the job; the military covenant says that the state should also maintain a long-term duty of care for them and their families.

[Bob Stewart]

When the names of the casualties are read out in this House, we always say, “We will remember them.” That places on us a requirement to remember them by looking after their wives, children and husbands for the rest of their lives. That is included in the military covenant, although it may not be written down. We have a responsibility to care deeply for people who have given their lives in the service of our country. We must not just say, “We will remember them,” because we do not remember them individually, but we should remember them by caring for the people whom they have left behind.

[Oliver Colvile]

My hon. Friend makes a fair and timely point. Shortly before Christmas, I attended a Christmas party for the families of serving personnel with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). Those families were apprehensive about the departure of their partners and family members to Afghanistan and prayed that they would come back without physical or mental injury.

That brings me to the crux of what I wanted to say: mental health among veterans is a growing problem. This weekend, I was told by Combat Stress that the King’s Centre for Military Health Research published a report recently that warned that almost a quarter of Iraq veterans admitted to suffering from mental ill health. Many have depression and turn to alcohol and drugs. In my city of Plymouth, we have to come to terms with that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am not certain that just chucking that in the Bill is the most important thing, but I hope very much that the Secretary of State will pick up on my hon. Friend’s comments, and also on the other issues mentioned, and that he will make sure that they are given a proper hearing and are properly understood. I hope he will make sure he puts them in his report.

We should enable the Secretary of State to have that kind of flexibility because other issues that our armed forces are very concerned about, and that will need to be addressed, will arise. The three issues I have mentioned are included in the Bill, but I hope that priority health care will be as well. It is important that when people who serve in our nation’s cause return home, they are properly looked after, because they are much more likely to have serious health issues, mental as well as physical. It is right that we as a country honour that covenant and ensure that they get priority treatment because of their service.

It is right that we should have had Professor Strachan’s report. I do not agree with the Opposition that it is just a damp squib that is a bit wishy-washy and not very interesting. It is important that there is the armed forces community covenant. It is important that the accommodation scheme, which is there to thank people who give their support through the armed forces, is in place, because it will engender a sense of direction and the message that it is right to be on the side of our boys and girls out in the field and that we should support our armed forces.

It is also right that the Government give further, and more detailed, consideration to the other measures that were in the report. That is why the Opposition are wrong to write off this report. It encourages greater help in respect of military housing and greater home ownership. It also proposes that there should be a champion for veterans and better training.

We have also discussed the issue of medals this evening. Some want to hand them out like confetti at a wedding, while others want to be more parsimonious. Whatever happens in that respect, it is important that the MOD makes the following change: the citations for medals should be public from the beginning. I have a constituency case involving a Mr Pile who has written to me saying that he wants to tell his children about his father’s heroic activities. What could be better than for someone to balance their kids on their knee and say, “Do you know what your grandfather did? He served heroically, he got a medal and here is the citation”? But he cannot get his own father’s citation, because he fell out with his stepmother and his father is dead, so the MOD has said, “Sorry, data protection! You can’t know the citation.” So he cannot tell his own children.

[Bob Stewart]

Actually, he can get his citation, if it is a gallantry award, because it will be in the London Gazette, unless there are special circumstances. If my hon. Friend is saying that there should be citations for campaign medals, that is extremely difficult, because everyone who serves for 28 days—or whatever the qualifying period is—gets the medal. The only way someone could get a citation for that is to understand what the campaign was about. Citations for gallantry medals are obtainable via the London Gazette.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend. This issue was raised with me, and the MOD wrote to me saying, “Data protection means that we cannot tell you.” The position is ludicrous. All medal citations should be automatically public and transparent.

Finally, the doubling of the operational allowance and the Government’s efforts to increase the rest and recuperation for military personal have been positive steps. However, there needs to be an improvement on kit and operational duties. That is vital. We have started to see that, which I welcome, and I also welcome the Bill and the military covenant finally being enshrined in law.

UK Veterans Administration

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Let me start, as is traditional, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) on securing this debate to discuss the important topic of how we look after former members of our armed forces. I am glad to hear that I, too, am expected to grasp nettles like the infant Hercules; I am not sure whether there is a mixed metaphor somewhere in there, but there probably is, although that is my fault, because I am not such an illustrious author. By the way, I am not a very distinguished soldier either—although it was very sweet of my hon. Friend to say that I was. Never mind, I take all flattery when it is given.

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) here today, and I have heard his submission for Armed Forces day 2012. I am sure that he will make it again, but I will note it and take it into account when decisions are made.

I confess that I was rather sorry to hear that the title of the debate had changed from “Care for UK Ex-Servicemen” to “UK Veterans Administration”. Although I am officially the Minister for veterans, I cannot help feeling that many of those who have served are more comfortable with a term that highlights exactly what they have done—that they have served their country in a way that is unique. My only qualification would be to add that today more and more ex-servicewomen swell the ranks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby raised several important points, and I shall respond at length on one or two. I do not want to take up too much time, and I may not have all the information to hand, but we will enter into correspondence about the issues. I do not agree with everything she said, as I shall explain, but what has come across clearly is that she and I, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, share two fundamental principles. The first is that the nation and the Government have a moral obligation to care for those who have made a commitment by joining the armed forces, and taking on the duties and sometimes the sacrifices that service requires. I will return to the question of the armed forces covenant later.

The second principle is that when we provide support, we must place the ex-serviceman or woman at the heart of what we do. Organisations and structures are only the means to an end, and what matters is how we can best help each individual, such as the person whom my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport met in a bus shelter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby highlighted the range of services that former service personnel may need to call on during their lives, and the variety of agencies that provide them. She argues that it would be more cost-effective to provide those services if they were brought together in a single administration. I do not agree, because when a service is already provided by one Department for the majority of the population, there needs to be a very strong case to set up a separate organisation to do the same thing for the remainder. Ex-service personnel live among us; they are not separate from the community that they have worked to protect. There are three ex-regular army officers in the Chamber and one former Territorial officer. We are here; we are not separate from the rest.

For the most part, veterans’ needs are the same as those of their fellow citizens, whether they involve health care, housing or benefits. Most of our ex-service personnel do not want that period in their lives, which may be quite brief, to be the dominant factor in deciding how they access services for the rest of their lives. A great friend of mine, General Sir Robert Fry, recently said that some of the reaction to the armed forces at the moment is somewhat mawkish, and that is true up to a point. I do not mean that the armed forces, the House or I myself do not relish the fact that people are now giving due respect where it is deserved—but we must be careful that we do not adopt a mawkish attitude to people who are just getting on with their lives in the service of this country.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Some people might not consider that to be mawkish. From my time in Northern Ireland, I know some soldiers who would benefit greatly from better veterans’ services. Our problem with mental casualties will increase hugely. On average, one person is killed for eight wounded, but in the Minister’s and my time that was one to three. The problem will get worse, and we must ensure that our services for those veterans are as good as possible.

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. and gallant Friend not only spent a longer time in the armed forces than the rest of us in the Chamber today, but came away much more covered in glory and honour than anyone else. I assure him that I and the Government appreciate, as did the previous Administration, the long-term problems that may arise from many of the casualties in Afghanistan. I will return to mental health shortly, because I want to raise several issues.

The US model is often held up for comparison, but the great difference between ourselves and our American friends is, of course, that in this country we have a national health service within a welfare state. It has the vocation to provide the very best care for everyone. Since 1948 the NHS has given excellent service day in, day out to millions of ex-servicemen and women and their families.

Ex-service personnel are entitled to priority in NHS treatment for conditions resulting from service. The main problem has been lack of awareness of that entitlement among ex-servicemen and women, and especially among practitioners, which is why we have supported recent steps to publicise it more effectively. At the new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, we see evidence every day of the superb level of care that the NHS provides to our people who are injured in Afghanistan. They are still serving, of course, but that shows the first-class co-operation that can and does exist between different parts of Government. We must ensure that that is everyone's experience.

We must also recognise that part of the support for ex-service personnel comes not from the Government but from the voluntary and community sector; my hon. Friend the Member for Corby mentioned that. Sometimes the service charities are described as substituting for what the Government should be doing. I believe that that does them a great disservice. I say philosophically that Government bureaucracy is not necessarily the best way to deliver some of the extra services and care that service charities deliver. The help that charitable and voluntary organisations and—dare I say it?—the big society have given to people returning from warfare goes back a long way. It is not for the state to do everything, and the state is not necessarily best placed to do that. We all have social responsibilities, and service charities are an excellent example of the big society in action. I pay tribute to their vital and irreplaceable role in our national life.

This week—it seems to have been quite a long week—I had an opportunity to visit the Royal British Legion on the south bank, and Combat Stress, two organisations that work as active and independent charities, but collaborate closely with the Government in the interests of ex-servicemen. Several formulae have been suggested over the years to strengthen the focus on ex-service issues in the UK. They range from the full-blown US-style Veterans Administration to more modest changes to Government machinery. Some give a greater role to the Ministry of Defence; others look to central Government to take on the responsibility. The creation of a Minister for veterans can be seen against that background, but my role, quite properly, has its limits. I can act as an advocate or as an interlocutor for ex-service personnel, but I do not want to tell the Department of Health and its devolved equivalents how best to deliver health care. Rather, I want to see ex-servicemen and women treated correctly across government, and not pigeonholed.

If we are to rely on our current range of providers to support former members of the armed forces, that will impose two requirements on us. The first is that the services that the nation provides should be attuned to the particular needs of veterans, where that is appropriate. Mental health has been mentioned, and it is an excellent example. It is generally acknowledged that ex-service personnel who are suffering problems as a direct result of their service—for example, those with post traumatic stress disorder— might respond better to an environment in which their particular experience is recognised and understood. I have heard this referred to as “cultural sensitivity”. Hence the importance of the six mental health pilots, designed to trial best practice in this area, which are going on now.

Getting our mental health services right, and tailoring them to the needs of the ex-service personnel who need them, is a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has considered fully in his recent report. We are now taking forward his recommendations. To illustrate the priority that we attach to this, when I visited Combat Stress headquarters earlier in the week and had a chance to learn more about its activities, I was joined not only by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire but by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). I hope that represents a true example of joined-up government. I heard exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said on these matters, but rather than going into them in great depth now, I want to discuss one or two of the issues with him later. Perhaps he could buy me a cup of tea.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I accept what my hon. Friend says and I listened with great admiration to his earlier comments. There is a lot of work to be done, as the Secretary of State has made plain, and I hope that my hon. Friend will play as valuable a part in it as he played before the election.

My greatest concern about defence is that the British, and perhaps the European, public believe that defence is a job done and that the end of the cold war meant the end of the need to spend serious amounts of money on defending our interests. They think we can rely on the Americans to protect us, but they are wrong: the Americans will protect us only for as long as it is in their interests to do so. Until our constituents demand that we spend more on defence, no Chancellor of the Exchequer will wish to do so, but that will not happen until the public are properly engaged in talking about defence or until they understand its importance and purpose. If one conducts a defence review behind closed doors, while everyone is away on holiday and at a pace that would startle Michael Schumacher, no such understanding will arise. Let us hope that the next one comes across better.

Given all my criticisms of the process, the result was far better than I expected. First, the Secretary of State for Defence did an absolutely valiant job of fighting his corner and I doubt that he alienated the Prime Minister or the Chancellor in the process—he was doing his job. Secondly, given that the Secretary of State started with a defence posture and budget that were both utterly incoherent and unsustainable there was a surprisingly strategic feel to the outcome, the thrust of which seems to be that we shall be gambling our security in the short term in exchange for its enhancement in the longer term. That is preferable to the reverse, provided that we always have at the front of our minds the need not to fail in Afghanistan.

Thirdly, despite the tightness of the settlement, there was a recognition of the changing and unpredictable nature of the threats we face. There was extra money for cyber-security and a recognition by the Secretary of State personally regarding the threat from electromagnetic pulses. I expect also that there will be extra money for space security. Those are some of the new threats.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I think that is superb. The real problem that having smaller armed forces will bring is an absolute requirement to get our intelligence tip-top. We have been utterly surprised so many times in history. We have to make our intelligence much better, so that we reduce the chance of being surprised again. For example, why do we have so many intelligence agencies? I would bet my bottom dollar that we will be surprised again, but we have to reduce the risks as much as we can. That is as much a part of the review as anything else; indeed, it is probably one of the most important factors.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I agree. My hon. Friend talks about the number of intelligence agencies we have, but he might like to look at the United States, which has such a plethora of intelligence agencies that it gives one a headache simply to look at a wiring diagram. Nevertheless, he is quite right: some of the threats we face are unpredictable. We are useless at predicting where threats will come from, or where we may need to be deployed, and for that reason we have to be adaptable.

My overall view of the review is that it is 80% common sense, pragmatic and broadly agreed upon, and 20% controversial, risky and able to generate headlines in the media. The success in pulling together the 80% that is agreed upon should not be overshadowed by discussion and argument over the 20% that is not, but that is what sells newspapers.

Let me give one example in relation to the French-UK treaties that were signed this week. I am in no doubt that they are a good thing, and that we are moving in the right direction. I have a reservation relating to the aircraft carriers, but I repeat that the treaties are a good thing. Actually, I believe that we should go further and give reality to the treaties, so that the warm words that they contain might be translated into tangible progress in training, doctrine, equipment-sharing, acquisition and research with our good friends and allies, the French. My reservation about the aircraft carriers, however, has been wrongly depicted as some great showdown between myself and the Secretary of State. I shall explain my reservation.

When the SDSR was announced last month, the Prime Minister said of the aircraft carriers:

“We will build both carriers, but hold one in extended readiness.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 801.]

And we all know that “extended readiness” in Ministry of Defence-speak means exactly the reverse. But, in the press conference after the signing of the treaties this week, my right hon. Friend referred to our “carrier”. As I understand it, we have not yet decided to sell one of the two carriers, and I hope that we do not. To talk of our “carrier” might be to build an expectation that we shall definitely mothball and almost certainly sell the other one. It is pre-empting a discussion that needs to take place much later, when we can see the economic circumstances of this country and, more importantly, the threats against us.

Two carriers would be a good idea, and no carriers would be a fairly good idea, but one carrier? Surely not. Every time it went into refit would we not prove to the Treasury that we were able to struggle on without it? Furthermore, are we really yet close enough to the French position that we can utterly rely on being allowed to use theirs? The answer is no, not yet. Our deployment to Iraq took place in the last decade. I do not say that we never will be close enough to the French, because I hope and expect that at some stage in the reasonably near future we shall, but it will come about only after a decent length of time operating alongside them, and after the treaties have been given detail, teeth and funding, none of which has yet happened.

How about another idea? How about deciding between the two of our countries that the French will contribute to the cost of the second carrier and, in return, have the right to use it when their carrier is in refit? That would mean that the two countries had three operational carriers between them, which should surely be acceptable. Having said all that, let me repeat that the French treaties are, in the words of “1066 and All That”, a “Good Thing”.

Of course, it is easy to mock the SDSR: “If only it had not been necessary to scrap the Ark Royal! If only we could have kept on the Harriers! Perhaps we could get by with some inflatable Harriers”—all that sort of jolly joking. However, the consequence of having to find money is that the alternative is to salami-slice all that is left and destroy the fundamental effectiveness of our armed forces in the process.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had the courage to take some very difficult decisions. My guess is that in the decision between the Tornadoes and the Harriers, the fact that the Tornadoes have an air-to-ground strike capability was what saved them; we might well need that capability sooner than the Typhoon can provide it, and there must be questions about why that has been delayed for so long. Why did we need to scrap one or the other, the Harrier or Tornado? The cost of the logistics of keeping another type in the air is huge—billions of pounds; a billion here and a billion there, and soon we are talking about real money.

The noble Lord West described the decision to scrap the Harrier as “bonkers”. That would be easier to accept if, when he was in a position to do something about the bonkers economics of the Ministry of Defence, he had tried to do something to put it right. Instead, he drove forward the carrier decision, which he must have known was unaffordable.

How did all this come about? First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) set out so convincingly and with such great knowledge in his speech, there is the awful system of perverse incentives inside the Ministry of Defence. I congratulate the noble Lord Hutton on commissioning the Bernard Gray report. Those perverse incentives did not begin under a Labour Government; they have been around for decades, and I must bear some part of the blame for them myself.

Secondly, there is the disgraceful command from No. 10 that before the election there was to be no more money, but also no bad news about base closures or programme cancellations. The former Secretary of State for Defence did his valiant best to try to take some real, hard decisions, but he was thwarted at every step of the way by the Prime Minister of the time and some of his Ministers. In the private words of one of his Ministers at the time, the problems were to be chucked over the fence, into the responsibility of the next Government. I have been Chief Whip, and I am not often shocked. But I was certainly shocked when that remark was reported to me.

I still have considerable concerns about the strategic and defence review. I am very concerned about the gap in vital capability if the Nimrod aircraft go. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, I am very concerned about the overall size of the fleet, which will be tiny in future; the unquantifiable influence exerted by the Royal Navy when a smart ship sails into a foreign port will be rarer and rarer. For the next 10 years, the strategic defence and security review will rely heavily on our enemies giving us advance warning of an impending attack. The enemy have a vote in all this; let us hope that they are polite enough to do that.

There will be other concerns. Service families watching this debate will fear redundancies, uncertainties and upheaval, having given themselves and made such sacrifice for their country. The same will apply to civil servants, who have also given outstanding service, and to the defence industry, which has done so much to support our defence efforts. All this will have substantial effects on whole communities—for example, in Scotland. We must do our best to mitigate those effects.

Whatever the concerns, one thing is absolutely clear. We have now had the defence review and we must now make it work. In my view, there is only a limited amount to be achieved by blaming the Labour party for the ghastly mess that it left us or the coalition for the hasty and secretive review that it has brought in to put it right. We now have a plan and we must scrutinise it, but we must leave defence on a stronger footing at the end of the process than it is on now. We must make it work for the good of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I welcome the opportunity to participate in today’s debate. Following the precedent set by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), I pay tribute to those who have paid the supreme sacrifice in our armed forces and who laid down their lives so that today we can have this debate and enjoy the relative degree of freedom that we do. In particular, I am thinking of the soldiers who served in Northern Ireland over a number of decades, and those who lost their lives protecting the community there.

We had a debate yesterday in the House on the Saville inquiry, and there was much criticism of the actions of the Army in Londonderry in 1972—but that must not become the mark of the Army’s contribution to Northern Ireland and to the relative degree of peace that we enjoy today. The Army did many valiant things in Northern Ireland, and many people are alive today because of its contribution. I would also say that the Army has learned much from its experience in Northern Ireland. I hope that, whether in Afghanistan or in the other parts of the globe, it can put that experience to good use.

It is a matter of concern that recently the head of MI5 warned that the threat from dissident terrorist groups in Northern Ireland is on the increase. We are discussing today a strategic review not only of defence but of security, and I want to highlight the continuing threat, because not only is it posed in the cities, towns and villages of Northern Ireland but it has the capacity to extend to other parts of the United Kingdom.

Yesterday in the Belfast Telegraph there was an interesting interview with some of the so-called leadership of a new dissident group that described itself as Oglaigh na hEireann, which is Irish for the army of Ireland. It is the latest version of the Irish Republican Army, and it draws together disaffected elements from the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. Significantly, among the new recruits are bomb makers who have developed a capacity to explode bombs in a way that is very dangerous. It concerns me that although, of course, our focus at times is on our role in Afghanistan and on the threat from al-Qaeda and other militant groups, there remains here at home in the United Kingdom a potent threat from such groups. It is estimated that the new group has about 600 members, some of them new but many of them with experience of involvement in terrorism over a number of years.

We should not underestimate that threat. I do not want to give the group a status that it does not deserve, but the reality is that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been reduced from 14,000 officers at its peak during the troubles to the current level of just 7,000, who alone have to deal with that terrorist threat, supported by the security services but without the support of the Army.

[Bob Stewart]

I am worried by the right hon. Gentleman’s comment that there might be 600 people in a new terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland. That is a significantly large terrorist group, particularly if substantial numbers are active. That worries me a great deal. Is he absolutely certain that it is anything like as large as that? If it is, that is a big worry.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for the contribution that he made while serving in the Army in Northern Ireland. I know that he experienced some terrible events that occurred during his time there. The figures that I quote come from the security services and from the Police Service of Northern Ireland; they are not something that politicians have dreamed up for the purposes of scaremongering. I do not share these remarks with the House to scaremonger, but merely to say that, in the context of our strategic review, we must keep an eye on a growing internal threat in the United Kingdom that may have consequences for the capacity of the PSNI to cope with it alone without the support at least of specialist assistance from our armed forces. We still have that capacity based in Northern Ireland, and it may be more needed than was envisaged when Operation Banner drew to an end just a few short years ago.

At the end of Operation Banner—as the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), will recall—commitments were given at a political level that a significant garrison would be retained in Northern Ireland. It therefore concerns me that there is talk of 19 Light Brigade, who are headquartered in Thiepval barracks in Lisburn in my constituency, being transferred back to the mainland. Similarly, there is talk of 2 Rifles, who are part of 19 Light Brigade and based at Ballykinler in County Down, and who recently served with distinction and great loss in Afghanistan, being transferred back to the mainland, with Ballykinler no longer being used as part of the garrison establishment in Northern Ireland, although its ranges and specialist training facilities would still be available to the Army.

This causes concern to us in Northern Ireland, as we very much value the presence of the Army in our part of the United Kingdom. Although we still have 38 (Irish) Brigade headquartered at Thiepval barracks, the presence of 19 Light Brigade has been important; they have done some valuable work with the local community. I would be worried if there were a move to transfer the brigade headquarters away from Lisburn back to the mainland. When the Prime Minister made his statement to the House on the SDSR, I sought an assurance from him that the cuts in troop numbers would not result in a reduction in the size of our front-line infantry units, and he gave that assurance. At the moment, 1 Royal Irish and the Irish Guards are deployed in Afghanistan, currently on operational duty in Helmand.

We in Northern Ireland are very proud of our long and historical tradition. It may not go back 800 years, but it certainly goes back over many hundreds of years. There is a tradition of Northern Irish men and women serving in our armed forces. Someone mentioned the Duke of Wellington, who is only one of many I could mention. Montgomery, and others of Northern Irish extraction, have made major contributions to our armed forces. We want to ensure that that tradition will continue and be respected. If I may be so bold as to speak for absent Members from Scotland and Wales, the regional contribution of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to our armed forces at all levels is to be valued. That is true not just of the units that originate from those regions but of members of all units at every level of our armed forces. They are members of the British Army and proud of the British tradition as well as of their regional identity. I hope that those identities will be respected as the SDSR is taken forward.

I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) about the review of the reserves. I hope that the thrust of that review will be to strengthen the role of the reserve forces within our armed forces. He made some valuable comments in support of that move, which would bring the UK into line with other countries where the reserve forces play a greater role.

For the record, some 24,000 reservists have been mobilised on or in support of military operations since 2003, which is quite a remarkable contribution. To make the greatest contribution to our armed forces, the reserves need to be properly structured for future conflicts. That will make the best use of their skills, experience and capabilities, while at the same time moving us towards a more efficient structure. I understand that as we are having this debate, some 929 reservist personnel are on current operational duties. We wish each of them well. Their contribution is valued, and we want it to be strengthened because they have skills and specialisms that can provide valuable input into what our armed forces are doing.

The concept of conflict prevention, which is mentioned in the national security documents that have been published, is important in the context of the SDSR. If we are to have a smaller military capacity in future, we want to ensure, with our international partners, that the prospect of conflict developing is diminished as best it can be. In recent years, in the light of our experience in Northern Ireland, I have had the honour of working with people in many parts of the globe who are facing conflict. We have sought to use the benefit of our experience to help them avoid conflict or resolve it where it occurs. Just two weeks ago I spent some time in Cyprus talking to people from the north and south of the island about the situation there and the need for a political settlement. We have worked with people from the Iraqi Parliament, from Moldova, from Kosovo, from the Basque region in Spain and so on.

The UK has an important role to play in conflict prevention. Despite all that has happened in the past, it is still very much respected, and in many respects we can give a lead to the international community by working with others to prevent conflict where possible. I received an invitation recently to attend an event here in Parliament on the situation that is developing in Burundi, and I have discussed other countries where there are early warning signs of the risk of conflict.