Mobile Phones

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Pamela Nash]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which company holds the largest contract to provide mobile telephony services to his Department; how much was paid under the contract in the last year for which figures are available; how many individual services are covered by the contract; when the contract was awarded; when the contract will next be renewed; and for how long.

[Official Report, 20 May 2013, Vol. 563, c. 499W.]

Letter of correction from Philip Dunne:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on 20 May 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Dunne]

[holding answer 16 May 2013]: The majority of mobile telephones supplied to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) are provided by Vodafone through an enabling arrangement through the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Service (DFTS) contract with British Telecom. The MOD paid a total of £5.3 million (including VAT) for mobile services in financial year 2012-13.

A variety of services are covered by the Vodafone contract but at the simplest level they can be divided in to voice accounts and data accounts. At the end of March 2013 there were 34,924 voice accounts and 8,517 data accounts.

The Vodafone element of the DFTS contract was renewed following competitive processes in 2011 and is due to expire in 2015. Renewal of this contract is currently an element of a wider re-procurement activity for Defence Core Network Services.

The correct answer should have been:

Scottish Referendum (Trident)

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on how after independence we will finally get rid of weapons of mass destruction from Scotland.

The location of nuclear weapons has long been a contentious issue in Scotland, going back at least to the establishment of the Polaris system on the Clyde. Indeed, it spawned a mini industry of protest songs, pointing out the absolute absurdity of the argument that we build prosperity by threatening nuclear annihilation. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will not attempt to sing any of them, but the older among us might remember the anthem of the time:

“Singin’ Ding Dong Dollar, everybody holler, Ye canny spend a dollar when ye’re deid”.

The argument has been a constant thread through the politics of Scotland ever since. The position of the Scottish National party has been consistent and clear. We do not want those weapons, and they should be gone at the first possible opportunity. Next year in the referendum, the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to make that happen by voting for independence.

I have to confess that I was somewhat cynical when I heard that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was undertaking a report on Trident; after all, its membership is unlikely to be sympathetic to the aims of the SNP. I was, however, absolutely delighted when the report very clearly stated:

“Nuclear weapons in Scotland could be disarmed within days and removed within months.”

That fantastic news will be warmly welcomed by people throughout Scotland. As the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, put it in her letter to the Committee:

“As a nation Scotland has consistently shown itself to be opposed to the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons—a position taken by a majority of Parliamentarians, churches, trade unions and many voluntary organisations, as well as articulated by the Scottish people in opinion polls.”

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the position of the SNP that it would remove nuclear weapons within days rather than decades if Scotland left the UK?

[Mr Weir]

I will come to that very point in a moment.

Many of those who give Trident as a reason not to vote for independence were not so long ago of the view that the UK should get rid of it. It appears that it is not a problem for the UK to get rid of the system, but it would somehow be a huge problem for an independent Scotland. Labour’s shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), only yesterday confirmed that Labour is now in favour of a like-for-like replacement for Trident, and that would cost at least £25 billion, probably much more. That is an obscene waste of money when all our services are under strain and threat due to budget cuts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I hope you enjoy your little session in what is always the friendly, convivial atmosphere of Scottish debates.

I welcome this debate, because everybody knows that Trident will be a huge, iconic issue in the 2014 independence referendum. It will probably shape a number of people’s impressions about independence, and it could have a major influence on how people choose to vote. We can be absolutely and abundantly clear—every Member in the Chamber understands this—that if there is a yes vote in the independence referendum, Scotland will be clear of the scourge of the immoral weapon of mass destruction that is the Trident system. The Scottish people and the Scottish nation will no longer host the UK’s arsenal of these appalling weapons; our nation, our society and our community will no longer host Trident weapons.

Trident will be removed as quickly and safely as possible—that is what we have said. If colleagues here want to agonise over what “quickly and safely” means, we will leave that up to them. We will co-operate, sit down, discuss, negotiate and be as helpful as possible, but our intention is to get rid of Trident weapons as quickly and safely as possible.

We would sit down with the Government today to start discussing how that will be achieved, but they have famously refused pre-negotiation. We have no intention of having pre-negotiations with the Government; we understand why they, quite rightly, would not want to pre-negotiate any aspect of independence, which would seem like they were conceding the result, but they should, for goodness’ sake, sit round a table and at least discuss the issue. Surely, we should try to work together in the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement and to find the best outcome, whether there is a yes vote or a no. It is surely in the Government’s interests to sit down with the Scottish Government to work out what would happen to their weapons system if the Scottish people decided to vote yes and wanted rid of the whole thing.

[Pamela Nash]

The UK Government asserted only quite recently that they would not conduct those negotiations. Did the Scottish Government request talks before that?

[Pete Wishart]

We have consistently told the Government—not just on Trident, but on a number of other issues—that we need to discuss round the table what will happen in the event of a yes vote for Scottish independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We want to do what was set out in the Edinburgh agreement, with both Governments planning for the outcome so that we achieve the best possible result for a yes or no vote. We will enter the negotiations with the best possible intent, and we will hope for the best possible outcome. All we are trying to do now is encourage the UK Government to approach the discussions on the same basis. So far, they have refused to do so.

It is nice to have the hon. Lady here, but where, for goodness’ sake, is the shadow Defence Secretary? He gave a rambling interview the other morning. When he was challenged about Labour policy on nuclear weapons, he said:

“We’re not a unilateralist party. I mean, that happened in the ’80s, that was a flirtation with surrealism. We’re not a unilateralist party and we’re not going to become a unilateralist party.”

He added:

“We’re in favour of the UK retaining a nuclear capability”.

The Labour party is totally committed to remaining a nuclear party; it will renew Trident, and it will probably replace it like for like—that is what we have with the Labour party.

I have no idea what the report is intended to achieve. The rather silly Scottish Affairs Committee set out to blow a hole in the yes campaign’s ambitions for Trident, but all it has done is to suggest how easy those ambitions are to achieve—thank you, Scottish Affairs Committee. To be clear, the Committee is one of those strange, dysfunctional Committees; it is a really bizarre concoction just now. It is composed exclusively of Unionists, and it produces reports for Unionist consumption.

[Pamela Nash]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I am a proud member of the Scottish Affairs Committee. There is an SNP member, but, unfortunately, she has not taken her seat for quite some time. Why is she still missing in action? If he is concerned that the Committee is made up only of members of Unionist parties, he might like to take her seat.

[Pete Wishart]

I think the hon. Lady knows exactly why we are not taking our place on the Committee. We will not take up that place as long as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) remains in the Chair. Given the way our female member of the Committee was treated, we will not take up that place. The place is available, and we will come back to it, but not as long as the hon. Gentleman is in the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) hoped that another member of the Scottish Affairs Committee would speak, because he had asked why our report made it clear that it would be possible to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland in only days. To be clear, the report stated that removing them was possible, but that it would be at the expense of the entire UK not having a nuclear deterrent and of damaging the NATO deterrent.

A lot of the issues in the report have been covered in the debate today, so I will restrict my comments in the little time we have left to the effect on our international relationships and in particular our membership of NATO. I am disappointed at the lack of clarity from the SNP Members present today about how Trident would be removed and the effect that that would have.

It almost goes without saying that the first responsibility of any Government is the defence of their nation. That, however, does not seem to be a priority for the SNP Government in Edinburgh, nor does the entire A4 page on defence policy published last year inspire any confidence that defence is a top priority among their aspirations for a separate Scotland. Their only priority seems to be to win a referendum in 2014. That is why they ditched a long-held opposition to NATO. The SNP held a view for 60 years, but dropped it at one meeting in a desperate attempt to fool public opinion, which has consistently shown popular support for Scotland’s membership of NATO.

The organisation was born at the end of the second world war and the start of the cold war, and many countries around the world are still queuing up for membership. The reason for the length of that queue is obvious: we are proud of being part of NATO, and membership is not only a hoop to be jumped through. NATO membership has allowed us, as a small country, to contribute to preventing the slaughter of Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, to protecting women and children in Afghanistan from the Taliban and to securing our safety in the UK. NATO has played a vital role in humanitarian relief, helping after the Pakistan earthquake and Hurricane Katrina.

It is vital for us to be part of NATO and to contribute adequately to the alliance. It is important to show that not only Scotland but Britain and Europe are part of NATO. It exists for a reason. Simply put, we might not be having this debate today were we not a member of NATO. The SNP wants to send Scotland’s nuclear deterrent a few hundred miles down the road so that it can say that it opposes nuclear weapons, because it believes that to be popular. The policy might help the SNP to win the vote in 2014. Clearly, the goal is never what is the best policy for Scotland but what will help win the referendum.

NATO is clear about its position on nuclear weapons. Its strategic concept states:

“As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.”

The SNP has been arguing the point. It wants to join the club but it has been arguing against the rules before even being granted membership. The SNP likes to have a grand, international, catch-all comparison in its desperate attempts to justify its assertions. None of us has yet forgotten the arc of prosperity, which has already been mentioned today. The SNP has quoted Norway as a country with an anti-nuclear stance that is still a member of NATO, but forgets that the country was a founding member of NATO. It also chooses to ignore the fact that Norway has mandatory military service. Denmark, too, is often quoted, but again the SNP ignores its historical relationship with NATO as a founding member and the fact that the country supports the holding of nuclear weapons through membership. I have not yet heard exactly how the SNP has come to the position of wanting the protection of nuclear weapons while not being willing to have them in its own backyard. There is no precedent for a country that has kicked out a nuclear deterrent to join NATO. Canada and Greece were mentioned, but they were opposed to US weapons on their soil, and the two positions are simply not comparable.

An SNP alternative for a separate Scotland might be to follow Belarus and Kazakhstan into the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, which includes countries that formerly had nuclear weapons on their soil. Frankly, a separate Scotland is more likely to be granted membership of the CSTO than of NATO. NATO would not let in a country that had removed nuclear weapons quickly, causing not only Scotland but the entire UK not to have a nuclear deterrent and reducing the nuclear deterrent capability of NATO as a whole. No countries in NATO have got rid of their nuclear weapons.

More importantly, on joining NATO a separate Scotland might be obliged to sign up to everything that NATO requires of its members, including allowing nuclear weapons in their waters, and article 5 of the treaty, which states that an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all members and will be acted on, and not only with UN sanctions as the SNP put forward in its defence document. It is not possible only to pursue a pick-and-mix approach, as the SNP regularly asserts. Regardless of that, I have seen no evidence that the SNP has discussed the options with NATO. Has the Minister had any discussions with NATO about the possibilities of a separate Scotland joining? What effect on Scotland and the UK’s membership would there be if an SNP Government in a separate Scotland disarmed the UK of its nuclear capability? Does the Minister have any evidence for the Scottish Government having asked NATO about the possibility of a separate Scotland joining?

When countries should be pulling together to face the new challenges of a fast-changing world, the SNP logic is to break up Britain and to gamble with Scotland and the UK’s security and their membership of NATO. We need the SNP to be open and honest about the defence of Scotland if it breaks away from the rest of the UK. The SNP needs to acknowledge the facts and choose evidence over ideology, as the Scottish people have the right to make an informed decision in 2014. They need to know that, while other countries are queuing up to join NATO, the only mainstream party in the UK that wants to risk losing membership of the alliance is the SNP. That would not be in the interests of the people of Scotland or of the United Kingdom.

May I just add, Mr Rosindell, that I hope you will forgive me for making a sharp exit, as I have the Adjournment debate in the main Chamber this evening? Missing one Adjournment debate in a year might be seen as an unfortunate error, but missing two would be seen as careless.

Military Covenant

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on our armed forces and the military covenant. Our servicemen and women sacrifice so much in defence of our country, as do their families, and they continue to serve across the world, most notably at present in Afghanistan, putting their lives on the line. Even in recent weeks, some have sadly paid the ultimate sacrifice, including Corporal Channing Day of 3 Medical Regiment, about whom we have already heard. Sadly, she died alongside Corporal David O’Connor of 40 Commando Royal Marines. I understand that Corporal Day was from Newtownards in County Down. She will be terribly missed by her family and by all who knew her. Her death reminds us that no corner of the UK is untouched by terrible sadness and tragedy when our forces pay the ultimate sacrifice.

It is just a matter of days since the nation paused together to remember the fallen. From the thousands of people lining Whitehall to the events in all of our communities, it would appear that the number of people who participate in acts of remembrance is, if anything, rising.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) for reminding us about the Irishmen who served in the first world war. My great- grandfather was one of those men—he was a Royal Dublin Fusilier—and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is extremely important for us to remember their service as part of the commemorations of the great war.

I welcome the new Minister to his post. I recognise his commitment to our forces, and I appreciate that, as a former reservist, he will have first-hand experience of some of the issues that we are discussing.

We must bear in mind that, at its heart, the armed forces covenant is first and foremost about people. Labour Members worked hard to strengthen the Bill that became the Armed Forces Act 2011. We supported the move to give legislative recognition to the covenant, and we will support the Government in seeking to enshrine it at all levels and in all departments of the public sector and, indeed, extend it further.

Today’s debate is timely, given the forthcoming publication of the Government’s first annual covenant report. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House read with interest the interim report that was published late last year. In my view, however, the Government have already done the easy bit, and the next steps will prove to be the real hard work. There is a small degree of scepticism in the services community about the enshrining of the covenant in legislation, and we must ensure that that is not just warm words, but is backed up by action.

None of us particularly wants to be in opposition, because we cannot do all the things that we would like to do, but being in opposition does not mean that we cannot do anything. I was delighted when, earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) launched the veterans interview programme, which involves a range of companies guaranteeing interviews to veterans with the skills that they seek. As Members will know, a number of different charities and organisations operate veterans employment schemes, and that variety is welcome, because we have not yet got it right.

A large number of service people will be “transitioning” in the coming years, and they will have skills and experience that we should use in business, in public service, in innovation, in problem-solving, in leadership, and in getting the job done. We need a better framework for their transition to civvy street, and we need better routes to work. Unemployment is higher among veterans than in the general population, and that should not be the case.

Earlier this month the Government announced the introduction of a kitemark for companies that support their reservist employees, and I think that it could be extended. That possibility was discussed at a recent event organised by Recruit for Spouses and sponsored by the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). A kitemark could be awarded to companies that adopt a positive attitude to the employment of veterans, reservists and forces, spouses. If there is to be such a kitemark, it should be a badge of honour, and we should consider how to reward employers who have it. I urge the Government to consider again whether the kitemark could be taken into account in procurement decisions, because we do not agree with them that EU procurement rules would prevent that.

Some veterans, however, must deal with more pressing, urgent issues before they can even think of employment. Some of our veterans are living with extremely serious injuries. When we speak of veterans we tend to think of them as older people, but many are not very old at all, and they want to live their lives. We should ensure that if we can remove a hurdle, a worry or a barrier, we do so.

I welcome the guarantees on prosthetics that arose from the review conducted by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Now that he is a Minister in the MOD, he will be well placed to ensure that those guarantees are delivered. However, I urge Ministers to consider whether such guarantees could be extended to cover other types of health care provision and treatment. I should welcome any details about progress in relation to mental health services and IVF provision.

The whole point of the armed forces covenant is that no one who has served should be disadvantaged by that service, but I hope that we can also use the umbrella of the covenant to highlight examples of excellence in the way in which the forces community are treated, to raise the bar, and to end the postcode lottery method of decision making. Time and again, I hear about people leaving the forces being sent to the back of the queue for local authority housing. Someone who is leaving the forces—and many are not doing so through choice at the moment—and has been in service accommodation will need to find a new home for his or her family. It should not be the case that no local authority will take responsibility for them, or that they can only apply as homeless, or that they do not have a choice about where they can relocate.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will be as happy as I am that most of Scotland is now served by local authorities that are signed up to the community covenant. However, in Scotland that has been hindered by the Scottish Government cuts, which have been handed down to local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Government, as well as the UK Government, have a responsibility for supporting local authorities to enact the community covenant and protect our servicemen and women and their families?

[Gemma Doyle]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, we are continuing to see a patchwork of provision across the UK, and it is to be hoped that we can address that problem through the community covenants.

Over the last couple of months a number of cases have been highlighted in Scotland by the Daily Record. Calum Grant served in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Highlanders. He has been told he is likely to be offered a house in about nine years. Scots Guard Jason Eadie also served in Afghanistan and his son has cerebral palsy. He has been told he will wait for about 15 years for a house.

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government are sitting on their hands. They say they have issued guidance to local authorities and it is now up to them to sort it out. The Scottish Government housing Minister is also the veterans Minister, however, so he can no doubt arrange a meeting with himself to sort out a solution. He has said that

“the housing needs of those who have served in the forces should be considered sympathetically by local authorities. It is the responsibility of”

councils to ensure that families

“have all their options explained.”

However, knowing what their options are and being listened to sympathetically does not get families a house. It is not good enough to pass the buck to local authorities.

I read the evidence the Defence Minister gave to the Welsh Affairs Committee recently and I am concerned that he may share the Scotland veterans Minister’s view, because he said he wanted veterans to be given “the maximum possible consideration” by local authorities in respect of housing priority. Again, however, consideration does not necessarily get people a house. I say to him and the Scottish housing Minister that we need a framework that all local authorities and housing associations can sign up to. It has to be a framework that is stronger than just giving consideration to, or listening sympathetically to, veterans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I would not agree with my hon. Friend on that. What I would say is that groups such as the British Veterans National Defence Medal Campaign are being consulted on the medal review. What that campaign proposes would mean that some 4.5 million to 5 million people would qualify for a national defence medal, and we have to take into account all representations before determining whether that is the right thing to do.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

T3. On 24 June, The Daily Telegraph reported that a £10 billion black hole in the defence budget will lead to cuts having to be increased beyond the current 8%. Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny that report?

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

I am delighted that the Labour party now studies The Daily Telegraph in great detail, as it may be able to learn something from that side of the press. There is no doubt that the size of the budget deficit we inherited—about £38 billion of unfunded liability, on the assumption of flat real growth between now and 2020—had to be tackled. We have taken a huge amount out of that already and we will work, not only through this strategic defence and security review, but into the next one, to ensure that as we progress towards the end of the decade we eliminate that horrific inheritance from the Labour party.

Military Covenant

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who more than lived up to her own billing. She spoke with great passion and great insight. I was also amused to hear the account from the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) of what his father had done on D-day. If anyone had asked my father what he had done in the war, he would have said, “Actually, I was a D-day dodger.” My father was wounded three times in Italy, but the events there never got the coverage that the troops in France did. The hon. Gentleman’s contribution was a fascinating one. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) gave us his insight into his own service, albeit as a reservist, and being called up to the front line. That was extremely interesting.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is preparing a document on the military covenant, and I have recently been asked what the covenant means to me. I was brought up to believe that the military covenant was the link between soldiers and officers, and between the nation and those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and their officers. Even more importantly, it is the link between the nation and the families, to whom the nation owes so much. I would like to pick up on a point that the hon. Member for Bridgend made, which is that the military covenant stands way above party politics. Yesterday’s urgent question showed the House of Commons at its absolute best. It was about looking after the little people who do so much to defend this nation. I will expand on that in a moment.

In 1996, I led Nottinghamshire’s own regiment, the Sherwood Foresters, through what was to be my constituency of Newark. We were essentially a peacetime army: we had come back from Northern Ireland and from Bosnia, but we were essentially a peacetime army. The burghers of Newark were polite, courteous and enthusiastic. The town was glad to see us.

Two years ago, the successor to that battalion, now sadly called 2 Mercian, paraded after its last tour in Afghanistan, where it had picked up a record number of conspicuous gallantry crosses—more than any other battalion in the British Army. The town was mobbed. There was standing room only. Women and children were out on the streets. Union flags were being waved; regimental flags were being waved. The boys were overwhelmed by what they saw, and I was overwhelmed as well. I could not believe it. This was the military covenant put into practice.

What we must understand is that we are mere representatives of those people who were either marching or waving their flags. We must not make the mistake of believing that those kids off the streets of Newark, be they serving in Afghanistan or clapping from the pavements, understand or care about the semantics, the language and the legalities which we use so much and find so precious. What this is about is making sure that we honour our men, our women, our fighters and their families. Whether it be in law or whether it be simply talked about, as we are talking about it today, that is the important thing.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I do not think that anyone in the House disagrees with what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that legislating for a military covenant would allow military families to trust the Government to provide everything that he mentions?

[Patrick Mercer]

I do not know and I do not care. What I do know is that when it works, it works superbly. I hope to say more about that shortly, but first let me explain how we have let our troops down and how the military covenant has been compromised.

Let me point out to all Members who were serving here at the time that this week in 2006, on 14 February, we had a debate which my friends and colleagues on the Opposition Benches will particularly remember. Troops were being committed to the Helmand valley in Afghanistan, an area where, in 1880, a British brigade lost 1,000 men in four hours, and where a Russian regimental unit lost 700 men over three days. We committed troops to that area without enough guns, without enough helicopters, without enough ammunition, and without enough bayonet power to do the job. That was the worst sort of compromise of the military covenant, and it was not done by Ministers wittingly. Most of it was done by career officers who did not understand that the military covenant involves the people who will do the fighting, not the talking and the theorising. That is what we must get right.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned the notice given to troops who were made redundant after Bosnia. I do not remember that, but I do know that in battalions such as the Cheshire Regiment, whose reputation stands high, the news of that measure was given by the commanding officer personally, because leadership was exercised. That is the point. The military covenant is about the exercise of leadership by officers and Ministers, and by the families whom both represent.

Yesterday, we heard about the most awful nonsense that had occurred some time earlier. A major had given news by e-mail of the sacking of a number of warrant officers who were serving all over the world. I appreciate that that was difficult to administer, but is notable that an urgent question was asked, that the Speaker allowed it to be dealt with in the Chamber, and that Members on both sides of the House stood up for those warrant officers against the leviathan that the Army can be. That was the Chamber at its best, and the military covenant at its best, because we were looking after the people whom we have a sacred duty to look after. I do not care whether that is written into law; the point is that we must get it right. We must honour these men, we must honour these women, and we must honour their families. That is a military covenant.