Whistleblowing

Debate between Bob Stewart and Stephen Kerr

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I completely understand, and am sympathetic to, that point. We need to work together to establish this independent office of the whistleblower. Sometimes whistleblowers pay such a heavy price in terms of the financial consequences that flow from their actions that perhaps there is a case for compensation, but I have not made up my mind. We have to hear more evidence and have a wider discussion in Parliament about these issues. It is absolutely clear, however, that whistleblowers need somewhere safe to go, and to be supported and have their cases properly advocated in the face of power, authority and bureaucracy.

I mentioned the problem of blacklisting. One person told us how he had been blacklisted for speaking up. He had reported criminal activity to the employer. Instead of dealing with the issue, the employer dealt with the person who had spoken up in the first place and coerced them to stay silent. It is bad enough to have something criminal going on within one’s business, but then to cover it up, and contrive to force those who are willing to speak up for the reputation of the organisation or business to leave, is clearly unacceptable, and then to seek to blacklist them so that they cannot work in a profession in which they have trained and acquired qualifications is truly shameful.

The complex legal framework surrounding whistle- blowing covers too few people. It is complex and legalistic. Many of the whistleblowers whom we met were not recognised as whistleblowers by the law. The tests that are necessary to stop people abusing whistleblowing are too stringent and do not recognise complexity. One employee brought up issues of racism at work and the flouting of HR rules. The employer, instead of recognising the whistleblowing, tried to diagnose a mental health issue, sending the employee on medical leave. The company-appointed psychologist then broke confidentiality to speak to the managers of the business. Although regulators confirmed that the employee had a point, they were dismissed and have received no justice.

Whistleblowers can be dragged through the courts, with mounting costs and unending hassles. For many, their cases have consumed their lives. It may be thought that the best advice such a person could be given would be “Move on and forget it”, but that is not justice; it is unjust. While it might be said to have been good and well-intentioned advice, is that really the way in which we in this place want the affairs of our country—economic, and relating to public service—to be dealt with? I really do not think so.

However, it is equally important not to limit the definition of whistleblowers to employees. As I said earlier, and as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, many categories of people should have the protection to which whistleblowers are legally entitled. We must ensure that, when they blow the whistle, they are given proper protection under the law—and the law is too vague in this regard.

When an individual faces the full force of a corporate or public sector legal department, it is a complete mismatch. Public corporations should be mandated to disclose legal costs to shareholders in such cases, and the same should be true of public authorities. They should have to make clear and transparent the costs of fighting whistleblowers that will be borne by the taxpayer. Some of the estimates of the costs that have been incurred by public services are absolutely mind-blowing and wholly disproportionate.

One brave whistleblower in Scotland had evidence of HR malpractice. It should have been a simple grievance dealt by the organisation, which should have been pleased to receive the feedback from that person. Instead, the person and their family, who also worked there, were victimised. They cannot afford legal representation, and will have to argue their own case at a tribunal against a public sector legal department with an expansive budget.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. It seems to me that the very best companies, corporations and organisations should include in their codes of ethics or conduct a requirement for employees, or people for whom they have responsibility, to report things that are wrong. In the first instance, that should happen within the organisation, but if people still feel that they have not obtained satisfaction, there should be a device within the organisation enabling them to report things, and they should not be victimised for that. They should be applauded, because if they do that, the company will get better.

[Stephen Kerr]

I completely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I cannot understand why any organisation would not embrace the feedback someone brings them when it has to do with the types of things whistleblowers raise: why on earth would any business or public sector organisation not want to know when things are not being done right—what is right in terms of the law, what is morally right, and what is right in terms of the values of the organisation? And there absolutely should be a no recriminations policy in any organisation worth its salt. I also absolutely believe that there needs to be a place where whistleblowers can go, a safe harbour where their case will be properly treated and respected and where they will get the necessary level of support, whatever that support might be, so their case can be properly heard.

I think I have made it clear that I strongly believe that no organisation of any repute should be operating in the ways we have heard discussed in this debate by various colleagues. Governments and companies should be confident enough to know when they are wrong, and they should be honest and brave enough to address that. The reaction to whistleblowing should be to say, “Thank you; thank you for speaking up”, and then when the whistleblower’s words and evidence are evaluated organisations should be more than happy; in fact, they should be recognising and themselves rewarding whistleblowers who speak up so that the changes that flow from that will mean they as businesses or public service organisations can become more efficient, effective and ethical in the way they operate.

The APPG will soon publish its findings and recommendations, and we will further consider and promote the case for an independent office for the whistleblower, giving protection to and advocating in the interests of whistleblowers. We shall also be asking for an end to the use of non-disclosure agreements to cover up wrongdoing, criminality and other morally dubious behaviour. That idea must be fully debated and explored, because there are currently far too many abuses of NDAs.

Parliament and Government have a responsibility to set the conditions and the standards; we have to create the culture in our country where people feel confident that they can and should speak up in the public interest. We want whistleblowing recognised as a positive and public-spirited thing to do, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply today, but this is the start of the debate on this issue, not an end, and we must recognise the courage and integrity of people who do the right things for the right reasons, because they are guided in what they are doing by conscience and the public interest.

RAF Centenary

Debate between Bob Stewart and Stephen Kerr

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I add my sentiments to those expressed by my hon. Friend about all those who contributed to the war effort, men and women, because the heroics of the few will never be forgotten; they saved our country and our freedom in the summer of 1940 and thereafter. Although there are few left of the few, our indebtedness to the air crews and ground crews of the wartime RAF is immense and in no way diminished by the passage of time.

I wish to pause at this point to express my appreciation of the modern-day RAF and particularly of those responsible for the quick reaction alert Typhoon aircraft stationed at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, who stand ready to defend our airspace 24 hours a day, every day of the year. They have been called upon to do so with increasing regularity in recent years, as the Russians become more audacious in their incursions.

It is important not to let such an important anniversary go by without taking the time to reflect on it. The RAF has served the people of these islands with great distinction. It is right that we, as a United Kingdom, should be proud of them. That brings me to two of the great pioneers in the field of aviation, who lived, worked and did great things in Stirling: Captain Frank Barnwell and his brother Harold Barnwell, who were the British equivalent of the Wright brothers. They established the Grampian Engineering and Motor Company works in Causewayhead in Stirling in 1907, at the foot of the Wallace monument, where they achieved the first powered flight in Scotland. It was very similar to the experience described by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). The brothers were in fact Londoners who became great Scottish pioneers—a fitting symbol of the great Union between Scotland and England.

Harold tragically lost his life while testing an aircraft during the first world war, and Frank served his country for many years, gaining the Air Force Cross in 1918. Frank’s three sons all served in the RAF during the second world war, and tragically all three were killed during the battle of Britain or shortly thereafter. I would like to mention their names for the record. They were: Pilot Officer David Usher Barnwell DFC, RAFVR, of 607 Squadron, who died aged 19 on 14 October 1941; Flight Lieutenant Richard Antony Barnwell, of 102 Squadron, who died aged 24 on 29 October 1940; and Pilot Officer John Sandes Barnwell, of 29 Squadron, who died aged 20 on 19 June 1940.

That capacity for service exemplifies so much about the Royal Air Force, and about how bravely those early aviators took to the skies in defence of their families, their communities and their country. That is the type of service that the Royal Air Force has given us as a nation, and we know that we can rely on its vigilance in the skies above us to protect and defend us.

Stirling has a proud connection with the Royal Air Force. The RAF had its Scottish headquarters in Stirling. In fact, the RAF command for Scotland based itself in the Station hotel for the first five years of its operation.

[Bob Stewart]

It had a good bar, probably.

[Stephen Kerr]

The record does not show which part of the hotel was occupied. The hotel was demolished many years ago and the site is now occupied by a branch of the Clydesdale bank and a McDonald’s.

There is a memorial to the establishment of the RAF in the field under Stirling castle, where the planes took off and landed in the early days. In fact, it was noted by RAF officers at the time that Stirling had much to commend itself as an airfield, if only the castle rock was not in the way. Given that the Army was already entrenched in Stirling with its headquarters, it is quite possible that some early rivalries were at play, but thankfully the castle and the rock upon which it sits were never removed—that would have been quite a feat, even for our armed forces.

Stirling maintains its connection with the Royal Air Force to this day. In 2005, 43 Fighter Squadron was give the freedom of Stirling and paraded through the city. The “fighting cocks,” as they are commonly known, were the first RAF squadron to be given such an honour by a British city. They were stood down in 2009.

The battle honours on the standard held in the church of the Holy Rude in Stirling are a testament to the sacrifice of 43 Squadron, which served on the western front, 1917-18; Ypres, 1917; the Somme, 1918; Dunkirk and the battle of Britain, 1940; north Africa, 1942-43; and Anzio, France and Germany, 1944.

We should be proud of our history, and in Stirling we are—we honour the Royal Air Force and our connection with it. The RAF must be resourced to continue to serve our United Kingdom well into the future. The term “futureproofed” was used earlier, and it is a good measure against which to judge the investment we make in our air and space defences.

Banking Sector Failures

Debate between Bob Stewart and Stephen Kerr

Thursday 12th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making this important debate possible.

I also thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) for his speech, which was powerful and insightful. The questions he asked deserve good answers. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on his work in producing that valuable report. As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, this issue will not go away. A cross-party coalition of Members of Parliament will continually bring it to the fore until there is justice for those who have been so obviously wronged.

I pay tribute to our nation’s entrepreneurs, in businesses that are small, medium and large. Those entrepreneurs should be celebrated, encouraged, nurtured and, occasionally, even lionised. They are people with aspiration, ambition, ideas and entrepreneurial energy and drive. They take the calculated risks that create something, which in turn creates wealth and prosperity. They create employment, they support families and they are the true engine of our economy. To care about the future prosperity of our country is to be passionate about entrepreneurs. We should foster the energy and ambitions of our businesses.

That is why this debate matters. The one thing that we have learned from the scandals at HBOS Reading and in RBS GRG is how frighteningly easy it is for businesses, small and large, to be parted from their assets—to be taken out of their business and erased from existence. Any small technical breach of a commercial loan contract can be seized on by a bank as an excuse to foreclose on a business, even if that breach has no impact on the business’s current performance or future success. The most common rationale for this extreme measure is the allegation that the value of the property that the loan is secured on has fallen. That means that the loan-to-value covenant is breached, which gives the bank the power to appoint a Law of Property Act receiver or to put the company into administration. There are many cases of businesses that have never missed a payment but the banks have still seen fit to move in and seize the company. At that point, the owners immediately lose control of their business and can only watch helplessly from the sidelines while it is asset-stripped and destroyed.

[Bob Stewart]

It is really upsetting to think that companies such as GRG have these robbers—they are people who are set up to try to find something that they can use to screw their customers out of their life’s work. It is so appalling that I cannot believe it can happen, but it seems to happen all the time.

[Stephen Kerr]

My hon. and gallant Friend not only says the right things but says them with the passion and angst that we all feel on our constituents’ behalf.

At the stroke of a pen, and often based on a valuation that was instructed by the bank in the first place, a director or an individual loses immediate control of their business and their assets. To that end, I would like to share with hon. Members the story of one of my constituents, to add to the many other stories that have been and no doubt will be told today. My constituent’s name is John Roseman. I can do no better than to describe him in his own words from his LinkedIn profile, which I know are accurate from having met him. He describes himself as an “entrepreneur” and he is absolutely that. He fits the bill. He has

“vast experience in International Business in the High Tech Arena of Microelectronics, Solar, Oil & Gas, Cleanroom Environments & High Purity Manufacturing.”

John had a business, Sematek UK, that he describes as a

“Clean manufacturing service company specializing in turnkey clean environments, high purity gas, chemical and water installations, Mechanical, control and electrical engineering.”

His business had a turnover of £10 million and was based in my constituency. There are not so many businesses in my constituency that turn over £10 million, but John’s business did. He had blue chip clients across the world on every continent. His business was making money—it was profitable and had good margins. He came to see me in a surgery that I held in Dunblane, with a whole set of management accounts as evidence.

The success John had made of the business that he founded in 1990 was clear and obvious. But that all changed. Suddenly, in 2011, without any notice, John had the rug pulled from under his feet. RBS said it would like security on his existing facility, but no covenant had been broken and nothing substantial had changed, except that John’s business was becoming more successful and making more money. One day, the bank appointed someone to call on his business. John thought that he had come to do an inspection on behalf of the bank. But no, this was an insolvency practitioner, whose first words to John were that his facility had been immediately withdrawn and his business put into administration by the bank. John Roseman had another company called Mov-Stor. That business was not liquidated, but RBS GRG took all its assets and sold them on. It gave him a fraction of the true worth of that business’s assets.

I spent some time with John and he gave me permission to talk about his case today. His story is just one illustration of the brutal approach of RBS GRG and other banks to small and medium-sized businesses such as John Roseman’s.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Stephen Kerr

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I do not intend to detain the House with a long speech, but I want to commend the Minister on the way in which he has guided the Bill to this point and to assure him of my support for the amendment that he has tabled. He has been, and is being, attentive and responsive to the concerns he has heard; he has listened and responded, and I believe that that is what makes for good legislation. I also wish to add to his compliments to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), whose positive contribution to the progress of this Bill has been greatly appreciated by us all.

To be clear, we need this Bill. Leaving the European Union creates the necessary, even if unwanted, step of leaving Euratom. The Government’s stated preference is for Euratom to continue to provide safeguarding functions in the UK. That is a laudable example of the pragmatic approach that the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, are taking to issues surrounding our departure from the European Union. I like to think that my conservatism is based not on ideology but on pragmatism, and it is pragmatism that is going to see us through the process by which we leave the European Union. This Bill is a vital contingency plan, because if it transpires that we cannot agree with Euratom to continue with the civil nuclear safeguarding, we will need to have the regulatory framework, the infrastructure and the capabilities in place to maintain our international obligations and responsibilities as an independent and responsible nuclear state.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was under the impression that we cannot remain in Euratom unless we are a member of the EU—we may want to, but we cannot, according to the rules.

Fatalities in Northern Ireland and British Military Personnel

Debate between Bob Stewart and Stephen Kerr

Thursday 25th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; he always gets me.

In my seven tours, I certainly witnessed bombings and fatality shootings involving military personnel. I want to centre on how we felt and how we approached it. Our approach started with our instructions, which were called, “Instructions for Opening Fire in Northern Ireland”—the so-called yellow card. I have mine here. This is the 1980 version. It is meant to fit into a pocket, so that soldiers have it with them the whole time. The problem is, when a soldier is in contact, they cannot get the card and think, “Oh, what can I do?” It has to be remembered. It has to be built into a soldier what he or she should do in a case where they might use firearms. It has to be instinctive.

So that people understood the rules, there were huge instructions on pre-operational tour training. The rules were clear and pretty precise as to what a soldier could and could not do. Let me read them, because they are on one piece of paper. This had to be in a soldier’s mind: we were to use minimum force in all situations, and open fire only as a last resort. No live rounds were to be carried in the breech, unless we were ordered otherwise or were about to fire. Challenges were always to be given before firing, unless to do so would increase the risk of death or grave injury to us or anyone we considered was being engaged by terrorists. Challenges were to be clear: “Army. Stop or I fire!” We were ordered to open fire only if someone was committing an act likely to endanger life and there was no other way to stop them.

There are examples on the yellow card of when a soldier can open fire:

“Someone firing or about to fire a weapon; someone planting, detonating or throwing an explosive device, including a petrol bomb”.

in the early 1970s, petrol bombs on William Street in Londonderry put a third of my platoon in hospital with burns before any firing took place. We did not fire; we did not even consider it. We did not even draw our batons.

The next example is

“Someone driving a car at a person, and there is no other way to stop him.”

Some hon. Members may be old enough to remember the case of Corporal Lee Clegg, who was convicted of murder in 1993. He fired at a car as it approached him, and as it passed by he turned around and shot through the window. The yellow card is precise: he was not in danger any more, so he should not have fired. I will return to that.

The examples continue:

“Only aimed shots were to be fired; no more rounds than necessary were to be fired; and be careful not to hit anyone who is innocent.”

Those rules were put into all of us. We practised them. We spent ages in a classroom learning them. We also practised scenarios in exercises, and were judged on whether we had done the right thing.

To decide whether to open fire was an enormous decision, and often—I saw it several times—indecision and worry about whether to open fire resulted in it not happening until it was too late. Fire could have been returned. We all knew that shooting incidents would be investigated, and we had to justify what we had done.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

My hon. and gallant Friend is giving moving first-hand testimony on soldiering in Northern Ireland and the issues surrounding that. He is describing a situation where something has happened. What impact does that have on the soldier concerned?

[Bob Stewart]

Soldiers were frightened sick of going to court. They would much prefer to be in the field than to face some sort of judicial procedure. In 1986 I was the lead Army witness in Belfast Crown Court for the Ballykelly bombing. I had a string of my men going into court behind me, and although they had not opened fire and they had not done anything wrong, they were absolutely petrified about going to court. Luckily, in the end, I gave evidence, we had lunch and the plea was changed. My men did not have to give evidence, but in answer to my hon. Friend’s question, they were petrified and loathed it, simply because it is so far out of their ken.

The trouble is, decisions to open fire had to be made in seconds. That is against the background of a poor soldier, sometimes only 18 years old, having to think all the time, “Am I making the right decision? Is this right? I don’t want to kill someone.” We are human beings. Soldiers are not brutes. If they are, they should be out of the Army.

Those questioning soldiers’ decisions to open fire always have the luxury of ample time to examine what has happened, normally from a warm, comfortable room rather than an operational situation. So often, soldiers who open fire are frightened sick and having to make a decision very quickly. Of course, they are often in real danger of losing their own life.

In all fatality shootings that I was involved in, the soldiers had to prove that they acted within the law—often in court. The Army, and the special investigation branch in particular, were not nice to them. There was no cosying up. The interrogations—that is what they were— were not cosy. In 1978, I remember telling two soldiers that they were to be investigated and possibly charged with manslaughter. They had just saved their own lives by using their pistols to extricate themselves from a deadly situation, and they were shaking from the experience. They accused me, their officer, of abandoning them, and they used pretty ripe language about me. I felt rotten, as I totally understood how they felt. I explained that they had to be investigated to prove that they had acted legally and that the matter would then be over forever.

I believed then that that was right, but in recent years I have become increasingly worried in case I was wrong. In that case, I let my men down badly by what I said at the time. As politicians, we have a duty to ensure that soldiers such as my two men in 1978 are protected from retrospective investigation, especially into events that we believe were fully investigated at the time and are long in the past.

Refugees and Human Rights

Debate between Bob Stewart and Stephen Kerr

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On 29 October 1992, I was the British United Nations commander in Bosnia. Outside my camp, I saw an increasing flow of people passing. The sentries counted 10,000 before I told them stop. There were women, children, old men, people in suits, people in carts, people in overloaded cars—I even saw a woman pulling a goat along. That sight gave me the main reason why we were in Bosnia: to save lives. I reckon that is a pretty good mission for the Department for International Development.

In the time available, I will mention my escort driver, so that his name is remembered. On 13 January 1993, I gave him instructions to take four women to hospital through the front lines. As he did so, he was shot and killed. The women made it to hospital and were saved. They were refugees. I remind the House of his name because he died doing perhaps the noblest thing anyone can do: saving people’s lives.

The refugees we helped in Bosnia normally stayed in the region, and that is important for refugees, because the chances of their getting home again are in inverse proportion to the distance they travel away from it. That is the reason for having the camps.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell us the name of his escort driver?

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My escort driver’s name was Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards. Forgive me, I was emotional enough to forget to mention it. When Wayne died, I was there. We tried to save him. I thought he was alive, but he was not. He is commemorated in Bosnia by a bridge called the Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards bridge, and I was lucky enough to be there to open it with his family. I have lost my place, thanks to that intervention!

I shall finish now, because I know that many people want to speak. I have dealt with refugees and displaced persons, and I believe that we have a duty to care about those people and to ensure that they are protected. We have a duty to ensure that they get food, clothing and shelter. I commend the Department for International Development and our Government for ensuring that they also get education in the camps in the middle east, because that is crucial for the young people’s future when, as we hope, they go home. It is crucial that we do our very best to look after people. I commend the Government for trying to keep them near their homes, but if we get refugees here, we have an equal duty to look after them.

Passchendaele

Debate between Bob Stewart and Stephen Kerr

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point of information. I will follow up on his invitation.

I was deeply moved by the account of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), which I hope others who were not in the Chamber will have the opportunity to view and read. It was uplifting, and I thank him very much.

My constituency of Stirling has a long-standing connection with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who fought on the front line at Passchendaele. These things are all well documented, and the many war memorials throughout my constituency are filled with the names of local men who went off to fight, bravely answering their country’s call. Behind each of the names engraved on those memorials there is a family left behind and broken-hearted.

It is also important to note in this debate that the men who fought at Passchendaele and throughout the great war were gathered from across the British empire. The cemeteries of the western front are full of gravestones for Australians; New Zealanders, whose worst casualty figures came from Passchendaele; South Africans—Hindus and Muslims alike; Canadians; and Newfoundlanders. Men from all over the imperial territory, from every walk of life, from every race, and from every faith, background and culture came to fight for the mother country in its hour of need. In doing so, they came together in a common cause.

In later years, it has become a fashionable narrative that the men who went to fight for the British empire were victims whose blood was spent wastefully by British officers who had no concern for the men of the colonies. My dear friend Dr Iain Banks, who is a senior lecturer in history at the University of Glasgow and the executive director of the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology, refutes and counters this idea. He calls it

“a false idea, because the men coming from the colonies were not unwilling victims, pressganged conscripts being sent to die. Certainly, the men of the AIF”—

the Australian Imperial Force—

“who had arrived on the Western Front in 1915 were not sacrificial lambs; according to research carried out by the historical unit of the Australian Army, these men were confident and eager for the fight, and they had come to sort out the mess that the old country had made.”

The Scottish memorial in Flanders stands as a permanent reminder of the contribution that Scotland made to the British action at Ypres. This memorial is the only one on the western front dedicated to all Scots and all those of Scottish descent who fought in France and Flanders during the 1914-18 war. Scottish soldiers made a major contribution to the efforts of the British Army during the battle at Passchendaele, and it is worth pointing out that their sacrifice was proportionately greater—one might say, more disproportionate.

Between 31 July and 10 November 1917, all three Scottish divisions were on the western front. They were included in the 9th and 15th Divisions and the 51st Highland Division. These men came from all over Scotland, representing famous Scottish regiments: the Black Watch, the Seaforth Highlanders, the Gordon Highlanders, the Cameron Highlanders, the Royal Scots, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the King’s Own Scottish Borderers, the Cameronians and the Highland Light Infantry. The famous local regiment from my constituency, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, was in the thick of the fighting, with representatives in all three divisions, and it took casualties in every significant phase of the action.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my very good hon. Friend for giving way. May I just remind the House that a lot of Scottish soldiers in reinforcement units were diverted to English, Welsh and Irish regiments? It is therefore absolutely apposite that there is a Scottish memorial to all Scottish soldiers, whichever regiment they served in. After all, some of us go abroad and command English regiments.

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank my very good hon. Friend for his intervention. It is also a tribute to the fighting qualities of Scottish soldiers that they can be reassigned and deployed as he suggested.

However, there were not only Scots involved. The Canadians, the Newfoundlanders and the New Zealanders, in particular, included a lot of Scottish immigrants and sons of immigrants, who were committed to the battle. The Scottish memorial project reports that of the nine Canadian Victoria Crosses awarded in the last week of October and the first week of November alone, the majority were awarded to Scottish-born immigrants or the sons of Scots immigrants.

Those who came back lived with the legacy of what they experienced. We have heard some very apposite comments about that legacy in this debate. Those who did not return—we will remember them. We must not make the mistake of thinking that these soldiers were passive victims of a war they did not understand or support. That is a view that is often expressed in certain quarters, especially when people say that we have not learned the lessons of past wars. Whether or not they understood the war in the way that we might want them to understand it, they fought because they wanted to do their bit; because they had been conscripted and it was their duty to go; because they were with men who had become their mates and they were not going to let them down. We do our fallen no justice when we strip them of the dignity that comes with the recognition of their agency. They joined up, they answered their nation’s call, and they reported to the conscription hall. We can argue about the conduct of the war, but never let us downplay the sacrifice of the men who went to war and laid down their lives.

Whether a person loses their life in the service of their country in a vast battle in a global war such as the one we are talking about, or whether one person loses their life individually, without record or attention paid, such sacrifice is most worthy of remembrance. This is partly the inspiration behind the Unknown Warrior, who rests, anonymously, in the place of highest honour in our nation. While the war memorials, the remembrance services, the cenotaphs, the cemeteries and debates like these are a vital—indeed, essential—reminder of that sacrifice, the true honour and respect we must give to their memory is the kind of country and the kind of world we are building. The approach we take towards one another, and the way we work together as a country, within our borders and across borders, must always honour their sacrifice.

Those who died would no doubt have held a wide variety of opinions and views, as we do. They would have had the same broad diversity of opinion that the population of the country had at that time. Socialists, Liberals and Conservatives all fought and died together. They would have had their differences and disagreements, just as we do, as I said earlier, but demonstrating courtesy and respect to those whose opinions and beliefs differ from our own is one vital aspect of the way we honour the sacrifice of the fallen, as is enlisting ourselves in the pursuit of peace and justice for all, and the advancement of the civil society and democracy that I believe we all believe in. These aims are indeed a fit and proper memorial worthy to the memory of the sacrifice of so many souls.