Armed Forces Personnel

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I should like to begin by joining the Minister in his thoughts on the loss of the soldier in Afghanistan this week, and on Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham. They served their country in different ways, and with great distinction, and their sacrifice should be remembered not only today but over the coming years.

It is fitting that we meet today to debate armed forces personnel in the lead-up to this weekend’s remembrance of those who have lost their lives in the service of their country. We must remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as their families. We must also remember those who have suffered serious injuries as a result of their service, whether on active service or in training. We should also pay tribute to those who are serving their country—not just those on active service abroad but all those who, through their dedication and hard work, protect the freedoms that have been hard fought for over many generations. Their actions at home and abroad make the streets of Britain safer, and we all owe each of them an immense debt of gratitude.

Today’s announcement on the reorganisation of the Army footprint in the UK will have a major impact on the lives of many thousands of armed services personnel and their families. The announcement in this morning’s The Guardian and the subsequent press release from the Ministry of Defence about rebasing from Germany will equally have an effect on servicemen and women and their families. The fact that the Secretary of State chose to inform The Guardian yesterday and to put out a press release this morning rather than make a written ministerial statement to the House is not acceptable. The announcement on Germany was not included even in this morning’s written ministerial statement on the realignment of the Army footprint in the UK, which seems completely illogical to me.

The written ministerial statement on Army restructuring and the press release on Germany raise more questions than they answer. The press release states that the savings to the Ministry of Defence will be some £250 million a year, but no reference is made either to the investment needed to achieve that or to the year in which the £250 million will first be realised. Many will conclude that the cuts to Army numbers—both those announced in the strategic defence and security review and those announced in July by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—are paying to make these moves possible. I ask the Minister to confirm in his winding-up speech that these Army redundancies are subsidising this restructuring.

[Nick Harvey]

I think the hon. Gentleman conflates two things. A written ministerial statement has been issued today, which covers some big-picture decisions taken at a national level in the Ministry of Defence concerning the divisional and regional headquarters of the Army throughout the United Kingdom. The decisions have an impact on people throughout the UK and have been communicated to all relevant parties.

The hon. Gentleman also talks about tactical decisions to move certain units, which are made all the time and are never normally the subject of ministerial announcements. He portrays them as though they were all to do with moves back from Germany, whereas the reality is that three quarters of them are nothing of the kind. Two units are being moved back from Germany—one involves a total of 450 people, the other involves 120—but such things happen all the time and are not suitable for announcement in a ministerial statement.

[Mr Jones]

I am absolutely astonished. The Minister had 40 minutes in which to make an announcement, but did not choose to do so. I have to say that he is completely wrong. His written ministerial statement this morning rightly dealt with changes to Army headquarters in the UK—something that I was already on to when I was the Minister. He put out a press release—I have it here with me—that mentions the savings that could be made from the draw-down from Germany. Clearly, The Guardian was briefed last night on the major changes proposed regarding the withdrawal from that country. I am sorry, but I do not accept the Minister’s statement that these are minor movements around. These are major reorganisations that will affect many thousands of armed service personnel, civil servants and their families. The Minister said that some £250 million a year would be saved at the end, but the press release does not say exactly when that will be achieved.

As the Minister who used to be responsible for the defence estates, I know the figure I was given in relation to the rebasing from Germany. It was roughly £3 billion.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to the evidence given by James Murdoch to the Select Committee. He has admitted that members of the Committee were followed at the point when the Committee was undertaking an inquiry into the phone hacking activities of News International. This is obviously an extremely complex matter, but I wonder whether a breach of privilege might be involved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Anything going on in respect of evidence given to a Select Committee is a matter for that Committee to deal with. If the hon. Lady believes that a breach of privilege has been committed in any way, as an individual Member of this House she should write to Mr Speaker about it. It is not a matter that would be dealt with on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the consultants brought in by the MOD estimate that the figure would be more than £3 billion. I do not know whether pennies have suddenly dropped from heaven for this investment or whether since the departure of the former Secretary of State the Treasury has given the MOD an early Christmas present. It will be interesting to find out where this extra investment is coming from. We need a clear statement on that, particularly in respect of the converting of Cottesmore and Kinloss from RAF bases into Army bases.

In addition, the total footprint in Germany is 47,000 individuals if civil servants and dependants are included. What will be the cost on other Government Departments and local authorities of relocating these individuals to their new local communities? For the Minister and the MOD to have any credibility about these plans, we need the answers published and we need a detailed time scale for when people will return from Germany and how the moves will be funded. We need to know how the money will be spent and where exactly it is coming from. If we do not have that, there will be some incredulity about how the plans will be affordable and how they will affect the lives of many thousands of armed service personnel.

[Nick Harvey]

Let me clarify the moves for which the Army has preliminarily planned: 7 Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps will move from Bielefeld in Germany to Cottesmore, with some 450 service personnel moving by the summer 2013. This will allow a saving of £55 million a year from 2014-15. In the other move, 43 Close Support Squadron Royal Logistic Corps will move from Guterslohe to Abingdon in 2012. There are small capital costs involved, which the director general of the Defence Intelligence Organisation is perfectly content can be found from within his existing budget.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but I just do not accept that. It is all very well to say these are small matters. Why will he not publish the overall plan? He has set an ambitious target of bringing the Army back from Germany. Why will he not set out clearly what the investment will be and what the costs of withdrawing will be in compensation and reparation payments to the German Government? It is not good enough to say that these are preliminary announcements. Why stick out a press release this morning, stating that £250 million a year is going to be saved and that this will somehow boost the British economy by £650 million, when the Minister has just admitted that these are preliminary plans? It is not good enough for our armed forces to be treated in this way. [Interruption.] The new Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), chirps from a sedentary position to question whether this is the right tone. These are issues that will affect many thousands of individuals and their families, so we need to ensure that we have the answers. Without that, credibility will not stand much scrutiny.

As we debate the future of our armed forces personnel, it is important, as the Minister said, to focus on the military covenant and how it can be strengthened. I also think it important to take account of what we have achieved over the past 10 years. The Minister rightly referred to the service personnel Command Paper, which was published by the previous Government and which was the first piece of work to make the welfare of our personnel a mainstream commitment in Government Departments.

Like the Minister, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) for his championing of the policy, not just through the MOD but across Whitehall. I believe that it genuinely changed the way in which the armed services and their families, and veterans, are perceived in other Departments. It brought about, for instance, the armed forces compensation scheme, the doubling of welfare payments to those on operations, the advancement of education services for service leavers who have served for six years, increased access to the NHS—I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for continuing that work with the NHS—and improvements in accommodation, including accommodation in Colchester, as I saw when I visited the town with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). Most important, it brought about increases in pay.

The Army recovery capability was another key achievement, and I am pleased that the Government are following it up. It will not just change the way in which we look after injured service men and women while they are in service, but enable us to ensure that they receive care and support throughout their lives. I want to record my thanks to the service charities, with many of whom I worked closely while I was a Defence Minister. They not only look after our veterans, but increasingly support men and women who are currently serving in our armed forces. We need to uphold the principles of the covenant, but we also need to ensure the upholding of the basic principle of the Command Paper that no disadvantage should arise from service.

I know that welfare support for the men and women of our armed forces and their families is a priority for Members in all parts of the House, and it is important that, on occasion, we speak with one voice in support of our veterans and service men and women. However, Labour Members will also scrutinise the Government’s policies carefully, and will make it clear when we think that they have got it wrong, and I think that the way in which they have addressed a number of personnel issues needs to be examined more carefully.

I welcome the Government’s progress in regard to, in particular, the enshrinement of the military covenant in law. Unfortunately, however, that was not done by choice, but was forced on Ministers by the Royal British Legion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester is chuntering, but he voted against the enshrinement of the covenant in law when the Armed Forces Bill—which became the Armed Forces Act 2006—was in Committee. He should remember what he did then, when it was open to him not to support the Government.

[Bob Russell]

I am sorry that, having embraced the unity of the House on the subject of Her Majesty’s armed forces, the shadow Minister should nitpick on the armed forces covenant—he should use the correct description—when he knows full well that members of the Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill were united. The Committee argued only around the edges, and that is what we are talking about here. The hon. Gentleman should not be churlish.

[Mr Jones]

It is not churlish to remind the hon. Gentleman what he did at that time. When we tabled an amendment to enshrine the covenant in law, he voted against it. I know that he is a Liberal Democrat, and thus can pick and choose and place a certain interpretation on what he does, but he must be reminded of the fact that he voted against that amendment. It was only after the Royal British Legion’s campaign that the Government were forced to change their policy and the covenant became law.

[Mr Ellwood]

While preparing for the debate, I wondered whether the Opposition would raise the issue of the covenant. They had 13 years in which to introduce such legislation themselves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the personnel paper and I concede that it was a good step forward, but it was not legislation. The fact that, after 13 years of Labour government, the covenant is now enshrined in legislation is thanks to our Government, not his.

[Mr Jones]

No, actually, it is not. In July 2009, I produced a Green Paper on the covenant. I do not think the hon. Gentleman read it and I do not think many of the new Ministers did either, because they clearly fell for the civil service tricks that were tried on me. They were obviously told how hard it would be to implement such a measure, although they finally realised that it could be implemented.

Although not widely read in the House, my Green Paper was widely welcomed by the services community. It received a good deal of coverage and would have formed part of our programme had we been re-elected. It is not true that it was not on anyone’s radar screen when we were in government. I suggest that everyone should read the very well thought out Green Paper that I produced. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), the current veterans Minister, has admitted that it covered the main points.

One of the Government’s policies we are concerned about relates to armed forces and war widows’ pensions. The year-on-year change to uprate pensions using the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces community, who rely on their pensions at a younger age than almost anyone else. The impact will be felt not just by the present generation, including those who are fighting today in Afghanistan, but by those who landed on the beaches of Normandy.

The Forces Pension Society estimates that, as a result of the Government’s changes, a disabled double amputee of corporal rank aged 28 will lose some £587,000 by the age of 70, and that a war widow with children will receive a basic per annum pension that will be £94 less next year. The society has said:

“The extent of devaluation of Armed Forces pensions has become a matter of deep concern to Service people, past and present.”

The society’s chairman, Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, has said:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly'”.

Julie McCarthy of the Army Families Federation—I had the privilege of working closely with her when I was a Minister, and I pay tribute to her and to the representatives of the RAF and Naval Families Federations—has said:

“The demands of the service have not gone down... but”

personnel

“are seeing their pay frozen, the threat of redundancy and now allowance cuts.”

[Interruption.] In the light of that, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us why—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We really do not need a continuous commentary from Members who do not wish to intervene. A Member who wishes to intervene must stand up and make his or her point if the Member who has the Floor gives way. Otherwise, Members must not shout across the Chamber.

[Mr Jones]

As I was saying, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us why that change has been made permanent. It will extend even beyond the target date for the end of the deficit reduction period.

Another matter of concern to many Members involves the office of the chief coroner. As the military covenant states, no member of the service community, including dependants, should suffer disadvantage arising from service, and special provision should at times be made to reflect their sacrifices. That is why the post of chief coroner is so important. It can provide an independent, expert service for bereaved families, and scrapping it undermines the Government’s commitment to the covenant.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I have received letters from constituents who are worried about the effects of the abolition of the office of the chief coroner. Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision should be reversed as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I do indeed. It worries me that, not only the Royal British Legion and other service charities, but a range of organisations that deal with the bereaved cannot see the logic of the decision. It disturbs me that the cross-party support I saw when I served on the Armed Forces Bill Committee in the last Parliament seems to have been withdrawn.

[Dr Murrison]

On the subject of no disadvantage, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly regrettable that the Administration in which he served allowed the MOD to pay for expensive barristers to argue the Department’s corner in coroners’ courts, which are supposed to be non-adversarial situations? That has been represented as a genuine concern in the context of no disadvantage, whereas the office of chief coroner has not.

[Mr Jones]

I disagree. We put in place, with the Royal British Legion, support for bereaved families at military coroners proceedings. That was important, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East was very keen to do it. I simply do not accept that not having a chief coroner will help bereaved families to get the answers they want, and I cannot see why this Government have suddenly changed their position from the one they held when in opposition.

The RBL has said the change in policy is

“a betrayal of bereaved armed forces families”

and that it

“threatens the military covenant.”

The Government’s stated reason for the change in policy is deficit reduction, but the costs of the office are widely disputed and both the RBL and INQUEST are prepared to work with the Government to find a more cost-effective option. It is regrettable that Justice Ministers—not MOD Ministers, I accept—have not listened to the RBL’s well-founded concerns.

It is difficult to understand the Government’s deficit reduction measures, especially when we learn that a firm of consultants, AlixPartners, has been employed by the MOD on a £4,000 a day contract, meaning that it earns more in a week than a front-line soldier in Afghanistan earns in a year. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to listen to the RBL’s arguments about the chief coroner.

Substantial numbers of armed forces personnel have been made redundant in recent months. That is, of course, only the start of the service personnel cuts that are to be made over the next four years. When the strategic defence review was published in October 2010, we were told that 17,000 personnel across the three services would have to go. As of July 2011, however, as the Government prepared to issue their latest round of redundancies, we were told that the number had risen to 22,000. When outlining the further reductions, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset, failed to offer the armed forces any clarity on what the precise size of the armed forces would be by 2015. We are still waiting for confirmation of exactly how many redundancies there will be on top of those sketched out in the strategic defence and security review, and of whether the new Secretary of State agrees with the statement made by his predecessor. The new Defence Secretary has said that he “regrets” cuts to our armed forces, but it is not yet clear whether he has the courage of his convictions and intends to act on those regrets.

The redundancies issue is not just about numbers, though; it is also about the individuals and the skills that are being lost to all three services. When I hear that some of the individuals I once worked with when I was a Minister are now leaving the services, it makes me concerned about whether our armed forces and this country can afford to lose those capable and well-trained individuals. Greater clarity is the very least our armed forces deserve. If there are to be cuts, we should know where they will fall. Service personnel must be allowed the opportunity to plan for their futures and the futures of their families.

One of the most worrying aspects of the latest round of redundancies last month was that 800 members of the Royal Navy actually volunteered to leave. They were not asked to leave by the MOD, but instead felt that they would be better off outside the service. They made that decision at about the same time as we learned that morale in all three services is in decline. It is essential that today we ask why that is the case. We must ask why 800 members of the Royal Navy believed they had better opportunities elsewhere. It is vital that our forces are able to attract the best talent and retain it, and I am worried that we may be left with skills shortages as a result of the short-term budget changes currently being put in place.

The Conservatives did exactly the same thing when they were last in office in the 1990s, and in the following decade we had to deal with the problems that caused—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Devizes chunters from a sedentary position very often, but does she realise that as a Parliamentary Private Secretary she should be the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State, not his mouthpiece? A bit of quiet from the hon. Lady would be a better idea. She might want to take some lessons from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who sat in the Chamber quietly while serving very effectively as PPS. May I put on the record my appreciation of the good job he did in that role? I was very sad to see him replaced, especially given what we have experienced today. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is obviously not listening: it does not help Ministers if she sits behind them whingeing and making snide comments. She should seek advice from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who might be able to give her some tips on how to do the job properly.

When he winds up the debate, will the Minister of State say what the MOD is doing to ward against the decline in morale in all three services?

[Bob Russell]

In the context of morale, the shadow Minister has not yet mentioned the condition of armed forces housing. Although I acknowledge the situation the last Labour Government inherited, they had 13 years to sort it out and those were years of relative economic prosperity, so can the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government did not modernise all the Army family housing in my constituency and across the country?

[Mr Jones]

That question is a bit rich—although the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal, and we know we have to accept such things from them. I visited Colchester garrison with him, where we saw the investment that had been made not only in recreation and training facilities, but in housing. He knows as well as I do the problem we all grappled with and that the current Government are still grappling with. I understand, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at the Annington Homes issue, but to get to the bottom of that, we have to go all the way back to a decision made under the previous Conservative Government. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), is present, and his fingerprints are on that decision, which was not a good decision for the taxpayer and limited what we could do to improve armed forces housing. None the less, we made great strides in both married quarters and single-living accommodation in the Navy, the RAF and the Army, and it is now some of the best accommodation of its kind to be found.

Although the Minister hinted at possible future provisions, there is a question whether we should provide housing at all, or whether we should instead move to an allowance system, so that individuals have options in housing, rather than being wedded to a contract, which was also very bad news for the taxpayer.

[Mr Brazier]

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on how that proposal would work in places such as Catterick? It is the largest forces base and there is a huge concentration of soldiers out in the countryside with almost no civilian housing anywhere nearby.

[Mr Jones]

What has happened at Catterick and in other places is very interesting. People are speaking with their feet, as it were, by commuting large distances. At Catterick, many people stay in single-living accommodation during the week or commute to Tyneside or even further afield. We have to recognise that the way people organise their lives is changing. The hon. Gentleman talks about examining how we provide housing and allowances, and we need to do that. The piece of work that I kicked off—I do not know whether it is still going on—looks at the options, including paying allowances or working with, for example, housing associations to provide accommodation where people want it. In all three services, many people are choosing to buy or rent accommodation far from their workplace and travel at the weekend. That creates new challenges for the armed forces in providing single-living accommodation, and these are things that we need to examine.

We ask our armed forces to risk all on our behalf. In return, we must make sure that we give them the proper equipment, training and financial support that they deserve. The sacrifices that service personnel make for the country are such that they should not be treated as other public sector workers. They deserve special recognition. In that spirit of recognising the unique nature of military service, I look forward to hearing the contributions to today’s debate. The debate about our armed forces mainly concentrates on equipment, and that is important, but this is an opportunity to recognise the work that our armed forces do. We should not forget that without the input of the men and women of our armed forces, some of the fantastic, dangerous and, in some cases, unique things we ask them to do would not be possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), my colleague on the Defence Committee, and his comments about the poppy.

The debate today is about armed forces personnel, so I shall talk about them and not necessarily about Parliament. It is interesting to find out who the people who currently serve are. Over a number of years, through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have had the opportunity to engage with our forces in theatre and out of theatre. One finds that a fantastic variety of people make up our armed forces. They have a fantastic array of skills, some of which we bothered to give them and some of which they come along with in the first place.

I remember being in Kabul doing some canvassing for the presidential elections. I was masquerading as a soldier at the time and it was not for any particular candidate; it was about the process of presidential elections. I said, “Come on, boys. We had better go over here. We’ll go to the caff and have a word.” They said, “You’re good at this, aren’t you?” I said, “Well, one thing I ought to be reasonably good at is canvassing. You do the soldiering, I’ll do the canvassing.” We were walking up the street when all of a sudden the Fijian flanker I had been given to look after me started to chat to the locals. I said to him, “How come you speak the local language?” He said, “I’m Fijian. I went to school with people who speak Urdu, and I can get along with these people.” I asked, “You’re not an interpreter, then?” “No,” he said. “I just get on and do it.”

The Gurkhas seem to have some Babel fish in their ear. Wherever one goes with them, they are always in some way or another able to communicate with the local people. When I was in the Balkans, there were Chileans and people from the area with a Gurkha in the middle. For some reason or another, he was able to make those people understand one another in some fashion. In the Balkans, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will know, the Welsh also serve. Our communications fell down. The only reason we could speak to one another was that there were two Welsh boys with mobile phones and they could speak Welsh to one another, just like the wind talkers did for the Americans in south-east Asia.

There is a fantastic array of skills among our armed forces, but we have to equip them as well. They come with these skills by default and we use them, but we must not abuse them. One of the things that is missing from the debate is how we enable them to do the things we want them to do. I was in Iraq and the place was jumping, as it usually was when we went to Iraq. I was talking to an American, who said to me, “See, the difference is that we train warriors. They go forward—blitzkrieg—they can fight anything in front of them, but you train soldiers. Once the fighting is done, they take their helmet off, put the beret on and start to engage with people. They are multi-skilled, so it’s different. I don’t know what you do, but you train different people.”

That does not come about by accident. We must equip our armed forces and enable them. If, as the Minister said, we need to understand them, then we need to engage with them. I would recommend any Member to use the facilities of the armed forces parliamentary scheme to get under the wire and go and live in a tent or a ditch with those people for two or three days. Very often it will be, “And another thing—” so the Member will soon find out who they are.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I slept in a tent with my hon. Friend in Iraq when I served on the Defence Committee. Does he recognise that whenever we went anywhere, we always seemed to meet someone who was from Merthyr Tydfil?

[Mr Havard]

The “Taffia” is at work. That is true. At the local field hospital at Camp Bastion when we visited, Andy Morris, who is now Major Morris, was there as a paramedic. These are the people who jump in the back of helicopters and bring people out. He is a reservist, not a regular. There is a real debate to be had about what the balance of forces is going to be. The report by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is seminal. A decision will have to be made about the balance between regulars and reserves. We do not want to cheapen their capacity or their labour. We need to maintain and improve that quality. We must not make the mistake of using it as a way of cheapening the price, rather than improving the value.

The moral component is important. We heard reference earlier to war memorials. We all have the problem. I would like to find the bandit who nicked the bayonet off the Aberfan war memorial. We probably know who he is and where he lives, and we will get it back, but that is not the point. It is about respect. Tomorrow I will be in Rhymney comprehensive school, laying a wreath at the school at its memorial with the children. I will be visiting the cadets and the reserves at Maindy. We must engage with the people.

I do not have a big poppy. Perhaps the size of the poppy is important; I do not know. I have a 90th anniversary badge, given to me by the British Legion in Dowlais. There is a whole community involved. The social and economic impact that the Ministry of Defence has in all our communities is huge. We need to recognise that in deploying the resources that we have, because we also ask people to deploy.

Let me say a little about some of the things that we are discussing on the Defence Committee and the changes that are being made. Reference has been made to how it is possible to divide communities, as well as bringing them together. We can say that armed forces personnel have special interests, and therefore should have special services. By doing the right thing, we can inadvertently do something else and create divisions. Be careful that there is not a problem with consistency, rather than uniformity, in the application of these services across the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned that earlier, and the same applies to Wales. The National Assembly for Wales yesterday published a document about what it will do to improve services for veterans.

The organisation of the health service will be different, because it is very problematic, as is housing and the rest of it. There is a variable geography and the operational delivery of services varies between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, but the Ministry of Defence must understand that the covenant is a UK document that will apply to service personnel wherever they are in the UK. If it does not have some consistency of application, it will get it wrong. That is a real problem it needs to grapple with, and I hope that we can help.

The Defence Committee—perhaps I am giving away secrets—plans to produce a report on housing in the same way as we produced reports on veterans and casualties. As my friend the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire said, the Committee’s work is to bring those matters to Parliament, because it is a servant of the House and our work should be debated here. Frankly, it is a disgrace that the House has not had a proper debate on the matter in more than 12 months. However well meaning Front Benchers have been in today’s debate, they have their political knockabout and absorb the time and the way the debate is conducted is not in the hands of Back Benchers. I know that the Backbench Business Committee has become some sort of petitions committee by default, but I appeal to it to provide time for the House to debate the work the Committee has been doing and allow Back Benchers to say what they want to say beyond the direct control of the Executive, rather than by any other process.

I would like to say one more thing about understanding people. We deploy the armed forces, so we need to protect them. One of the current debates about respect relates to people’s respect for how they are deployed and what we send them to do. The armed forces are sometimes uncertain about their legal and moral status, and if we are not careful, that will cause difficulties for the operational capacity to do things on the ground. It is known in the trade to those of us who discuss these things as the “lawfare-warfare” debate; is it legal, but is it also morally defensible? If we want respect and legitimisation, we must not only enable and provide for those people, but give them and the community on whose behalf they work some certainty that they are being properly deployed to do things that they feel comfortable being deployed to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The wonderful thing about defence debates in this Chamber is that they are so well informed. When we stand to speak, we feel that we are really speaking to people who have expertise—people who served in the forces; people who are partners of people in the forces; people who serve on the Select Committee on Defence.

I cannot start a speech in a defence debate without congratulating the Royal British Legion. Yesterday, attending Prime Minister’s questions, regardless of whether I agreed with what the Prime Minister said, I could not help but notice the sea of red poppies on both sides of the House. The Royal British Legion truly deserves to be congratulated on the success of its campaign and on making the poppy a fixture every November. As an aside, I pay tribute to its “Time to do your bit” campaign. On Sunday, I did my bit by running seven miles along Cwmcarn scenic drive, which, as anyone who knows it will agree, is very hilly. I think I speak on behalf of my parliamentary researcher Dave when I say that, rather than just doing our bit, we were both in bits by the end, but there we go.

Since I became a Member of Parliament, the most amazing thing—a great honour, too—is that I am invited to so many remembrance parades. This weekend I will join people in Oakdale, Pontllanfraith and Meas-y-cwmer as they come together to remember the war dead. However, when we think of remembering people, we should be aware that there is a group of people in this country, only 1,011 in number, who have a case to be remembered that is rarely heard in the House of Commons. They are, of course, the nuclear test veterans—those who suffered illnesses related to the nuclear bomb tests in the Indian ocean in the 1950s and 1960s.

We are proud in Islwyn that we have the only commemorative stone to mark the commitment of those veterans to our forces; it sits in the memorial garden in Risca. I cannot mention it without paying tribute to a local councillor, Stan Jenkins, who is responsible for the stone. When he was the mayor of the old Islwyn borough council, he met with a nuclear test veteran and was so moved by his plight that every October he organised a march through Risca, with the whole community coming together to show its support for those boys, and this year is the last year it will be held. Their standard has been placed in St Mary’s church in Risca, and until it turns to dust over time, the cause endures and the fight goes on.

We as politicians are rarely faced with serious decisions, but in years to come, when children go to the memorial garden in Risca with their parents or grandparents and read what it says on that stone—a simple sentence: “Justice is all we ask”—and when they ask their parents or grandparents, “Did those soldiers have justice?”, what will we say? Will we say, “No. The Government stood behind judges and law courts and they kept frustrating them, so that they died without being compensated”?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When I was the Minister for veterans, I made an offer to settle those cases. It was the lawyers representing the nuclear test veterans who rejected that settlement proposal. I feel—I know the current Minister feels this too—that the injustice in this case is not helped by the lawyers representing those veterans.

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Coming from a mining area, he knows as well as I do how much the lawyers frustrated justice for our miners too. I say this to the lawyers: if the Government have made an offer that is fair and acceptable to the veterans, they should accept it.