Military Covenant

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the significant and beneficial effects of recent days has been the issue he has just raised? Many people in the Irish Republic, who for several generations were afraid to recognise, or were unaware of, the contribution made by many people in the Irish Republic to the armed forces, both here in the United Kingdom and in the Republic, in the fight against fascist Germany, are now beginning to recognise, realise and appreciate that?

[Mr Donaldson]

I concur entirely with my hon. Friend. I recently had the great honour of being appointed to the advisory board that is preparing for 2014 to 2018 and the United Kingdom’s commemorations of the great war. I have been giving some thought to how we might commemorate that period in Northern Ireland. It is important that people in the Irish Republic, and the Government of the Irish Republic, recognise the massive contribution made by thousands of Irish men, from the counties that now form the Irish Republic, who served in the British Army. Many served with great distinction, winning Victoria Crosses and other meritorious awards for their courage and bravery. For example, one thinks of Captain Redmond—the brother of the then leader of the Irish Nationalist party in this House, John Redmond—who served with distinction and sadly lost his life in the service of the Crown. Today, there are others from the Republic of Ireland who step up to the mark and join the Royal Irish Regiment, the Irish Guards and other units in the Army, and the other elements of the armed forces. They make a contribution that we value. It is good to see attitudes changing in the Republic of Ireland towards those who have served and who continue to serve in our armed forces.

It would be remiss not to mention the name of Corporal Channing Day, to whom the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office referred in his closing remarks in the previous debate. She was a remarkable young woman, 25-years-old and serving with 3 Medical Regiment. The medics are often overlooked. Their courage and bravery in the face of extremely dangerous circumstances, seeking to save lives and rescue those who find themselves wounded as a result of combat, is often overlooked. I pay tribute to Corporal Day. I can do no better than repeat the comments of her sister Lauren at Channing’s funeral:

“Channing loved the Army. If there was one thing she knew growing up, it was that she wanted to be a soldier, proven by the way she would march around the living room and she never missed cadets. She loved what she did and we are so proud of her. Channing grew up into the bravest, beautiful, determined woman, she has done more in her 25 years than most women her age and we are so very proud of everything she has achieved.”

Today, we pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces across the United Kingdom who daily place themselves in the line of fire not only for this nation, but for others across the world who need their protection.

I want to also pay tribute not just to our regular armed forces, but to the reserve forces. In Northern Ireland, we are proud of the contribution that our reserve forces make to all elements of the armed forces in the United Kingdom. We are proud that despite the fact that Northern Ireland makes up approximately 3% of the UK population, we regularly provide more than 20% of the reserve forces on operational deployment. That is wonderful testimony to the men and women who step out of their day-to-day work, leave their families behind and serve the country overseas, often in very dangerous circumstances. In paying tribute to the reserve forces in Northern Ireland, I want to make particular mention of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, which is especially active in Northern Ireland. Throughout the years of the troubles, it ensured that recruitment to the reserves continued even in some areas that might surprise hon. Members. That persists to this day. Most, if not all, of the reserve units in Northern Ireland are extremely well recruited. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity—I know it is his intention—to visit some of those units in Northern Ireland. He will receive a very warm welcome.

What is the purpose of this debate? I want briefly to set out some context. A recent report published by the World Health Organisation on post-traumatic stress disorder found that Northern Ireland had a higher incidence of PTSD and trauma-related illnesses than any other conflict-related country in the world. That included places such as Lebanon and Israel. It was remarkable that the study found that nearly 40% of people in Northern Ireland had been involved in some kind of conflict-related traumatic incident. The survey estimated that violence had been a distinctive cause of mental health problems for about 18,000 people in Northern Ireland. Against that backdrop, the health and social care services in Northern Ireland seek to provide a service to members of our armed forces and veterans from Northern Ireland. There is already a huge demand on these services from across Northern Ireland as a result of trauma-related illnesses arising from the conflict.

Before I remark on the deficiencies in the service, I want to acknowledge that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, within the legislative constraints, has made efforts to ensure that a degree of priority is given to members of the armed forces and veterans in Northern Ireland when providing health and personal care. The Health Minister, Edwin Poots, is a constituency colleague and hails from Lagan Valley, and I do not wish to criticise him, because he is determined to ensure that our service personnel and veterans receive the level of support they require when they need it. His Department has established an armed forces liaison forum linked to the armed forces protocol, which has done valuable work in seeking to co-ordinate the health and social care response to the needs of service personnel and veterans living in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Department has worked with the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association and military charities to examine how services can be improved in line with the objectives of the military covenant.

I also want to mention the Department for Social Development, where another of my colleagues, Nelson McCausland, is Minister for Social Development. The housing needs of those leaving the armed forces are taken into account under the housing selection scheme in Northern Ireland. That is important.

I also want to praise the work of the aftercare service put in place specifically for those who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment. Northern Irish Members fought hard to get that service in the period leading up to the disbandment of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. We worked with the previous Government towards the establishment of the service, because we recognised that one of the legacies of the troubles were the many people who had served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland over a prolonged period as part of Operation Banner, the longest-running military operation in the history of the British Army. These men and women had served constantly. It was not a matter of spending six months on operational deployment in Northern Ireland and then maybe not coming back for another two years. Rather, the Royal Irish Regiment, and the Ulster Defence Regiment before it, served continuously on military operations in Northern Ireland for a very long time—from the early 1970s through to the disbandment of the home service battalions—and was recognised for its service with the award of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross by Her Majesty the Queen.

The aftercare service is important. We believe that, in time, it is a model that other parts of the United Kingdom might seek to implement. It takes a hands-on approach, not just responding to the needs of soldiers with medical issues or welfare problems, but proactively engaging with people to ensure that their needs are met.

Combat Troop Withdrawal (Afghanistan)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I do not necessarily agree with the train of thought, but I commend his integrity and the duration and durability of his campaign.

The hon. Gentleman is saying that although progress is being made, particularly on female education, it is not quite as much as the Government have outlined and that other physical measures would have helped. Does he not agree that the nature of the society in Helmand is such that whoever is trying to help there will be subject to attack? Does that not undermine his argument a little? Whether we have combat troops there or people engaged in achieving social betterment for the people of Helmand, they are all going to be subject to attack by the Taliban.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman has raised some fair, reasonable points. The problem is that there is a fixation among the great nations—the Soviet Union felt the same—that somehow, we are so powerful and rich that we can transform a 13th-century society into a modern state. That is beyond the powers of any nation. In 2001, a Member of the Russian Duma banged me on the back and said, “These British people are very clever. They have just captured Afghanistan. Wonderful! We Russians did that. We were there for 10 years. We spent billions of roubles. We killed 1 million Afghans. We lost 16,000 of our own troops. When we ran out there were 300,000 mujaheddin in the hills, and when the mujaheddin took over a couple of years later, they were the cruellest, worst Government in Afghanistan for a century.” We have committed ourselves to the same myth: that we can move in there, where traditions are deeply embedded.

The other myth, which was repeated last week by the Leader of the House and all the Ministers, is that we are in Afghanistan to protect Britain from terrorism by the Afghan Taliban. Again, that will go on and on, it will be repeated and repeated, but it is not true. I will call it a deception—I get in trouble if I call people liars. People are not being imbeciles when they say such things, but let someone justify the claims this morning. Where are the Taliban terrorists who threaten Britain? We have had terrorists from Bradford and Birmingham who have threatened Britain. We have terrorists who have huge tracts of the world in which they operate—in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan—where they are completely out of control, and we are not there. But we say that the terrorists we are protecting Britain from are in Afghanistan and that they are Taliban.

I asked a previous Secretary of State whether he had ever spoken to any Taliban and simply asked, “Why are you killing our soldiers?” Would the Taliban reply, “Oh well, our plan is, when we have killed all your soldiers, we will come over to London and Newport to blow up your streets.” Would they say that, or would they say, “We are killing your soldiers because they came here and occupied our country by the force of their arms, and it is our sacred, religious duty as Afghans to expel them from our country. This is what our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did.” Look at history: this is the fourth time that we have invaded Afghanistan, and each time we have withdrawn. What has happened in history is what will happen in the future. The Afghans combine when they have a foreign enemy in their land, and when the enemy goes they fight and war among themselves.

Ministry of Defence (Procurement)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lewis]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—I am tempted to say “my hon. Friend”—that the Liberal Democrats really differ from both of us, because he knows where he stands on nuclear weapons and I know where I stand, but the Liberal Democrats stand firmly with a foot in both camps. They know that they do not want Trident, but they do not want to put themselves in his camp by telling the truth, which is that the majority of their activists are one-sided nuclear disarmers and do not want a strategic nuclear deterrent at all. Therefore, they come up with this fiction that it is possible to have a viable strategic nuclear deterrent with an alternative system to Trident.

That ought to have made no headway at all when the coalition was formed. The reason for that was that I and all the other Conservative Members of Parliament, who were being addressed by the Prime Minister-to-be at a meeting in Committee Room 14, were told what the terms of the coalition agreement would be, or some of the basic outlines of the terms. We were told that we would have to accept certain things that the Liberal Democrats wanted that we did not want, such as a referendum on the alternative vote, but that the Liberals would have to accept things that we wanted that they did not want, such as the renewal of Trident—that was the very example chosen. I remember my friend and colleague the future Chancellor of the Exchequer looking up at that moment, catching my eye—because at the time I was still the party spokesman on the Royal Navy and the nuclear deterrent—and nodding vigorously in confirmation of what the leader of the party had said. You can imagine, Mr Hood, my surprise and dismay—

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the issue of discussions and debate, does the lesson of someone nodding vigorously in agreement with a position, only for that subsequently to be replaced by a cold, hard dose of reality, ring a bell in relation to other issues?

[Dr Lewis]

There is always the possibility that people will change their mind when they see different circumstances, but I genuinely feel that that has not applied in this case as a result of what I was about to explain and what hon. Members will remember. Out of the blue, even though the procurement of a replacement and successor system for Trident had specifically been excluded from the terms of the security and defence review, on the day when the statement was made, publishing the review and presenting it to Parliament, we were told that the main gate decision, the contracts for Trident would be put off until after the next election. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), there was no doubt at all that that had nothing to do with hard facts or realities creeping in, and everything to do with politics, as the letter subsequently sent out from the president of the Liberal Democrats, crowing in triumph at the delay of the Trident decision, made clear.

I must not wander too far from the procurement emphasis of this debate. Therefore, I would like to put a specific question to my hon. Friend the Defence Minister with responsibility for procurement issues. It relates to the study that is being done about alternative systems to Trident as a possible nuclear deterrent. That is being done as a gift, a present, a political offering to the Liberal Democrats in the coalition, and I believe that the study is being carried out by the Cabinet Office rather than the Ministry of Defence, although the Ministry of Defence is supplying the material to the Cabinet Office.

I have to say to the Minister that any halfway competent assessment team, facing the problem of examining the existing and the potential systems for carrying a nuclear deterrent in the future, could do a comprehensive study over a period of probably not more than two or three months and arguably over a few weeks, on the basis of the accumulated knowledge of half a century that we have in the business of strategic nuclear deterrence. I would therefore like to know what progress such a study is making or whether it will in fact be spun out until the next general election. The reality is that there is no alternative to Trident for the next generation of the strategic nuclear deterrent, and I suspect that my political opponents in the CND ranks would agree.

Armed Forces (Redundancies)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

It is a key point that we have those appropriate personnel. Indeed, in the review of the reserves, which has already been mentioned, I am particularly concerned to ensure that we retain full access to medical specialties. However, although we may be saturated in terms of secondary care, there is still scope to improve the primary care offered in the armed forces through the reserves.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

What assurances can the Secretary of State give senior military personnel who have expressed their opinion on this matter that, following the announcement of the decisions, we will have the capability to deal with the potential threat in the near future?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question—and as I have explained, that is why we have compulsory redundancies in the armed forces. We cannot simply accept the people who volunteer for redundancy, because we have a duty to maintain the rank structure and the appropriate skills. That is why we will allow people to volunteer for the scheme, but ultimately we may not be able to accept all who volunteer, and may have compulsory redundancies elsewhere instead. It is for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman raises—because we have to maintain the skills and structures involved—that we have a compulsory scheme in statute in this country.