Christmas Adjournment

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Russell

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Two hundred years ago Britain and the United States of America were at war, and had been for more than two years. Christmas Eve is the 200th anniversary of the signing of a peace treaty to end the north American war of 1812-14. Since then our two great countries have been friends and close allies, which has served us well through good as well as difficult times. However, as far as I can ascertain, the anniversary of the treaty of Ghent is not being commemorated either in the United Kingdom or in the United States.

Next year there will be huge commemorations to mark the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, at which Napoleon was finally defeated, and every year we have Trafalgar day to mark the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Two great battles that shaped European history are taught in our schools, so why has the north American war, which took place in the years between Trafalgar and Waterloo and which shaped British history and the history of north America, been airbrushed from the history that is taught to our children?

Had the United States won the 1812-14 war, there would not be a proud Commonwealth country called Canada today. Fortunately, our Canadian cousins recognise the huge importance of what was delivered by the treaty of Ghent, but successive British Governments and the education establishment—by omission—stand accused of dereliction of duty in ignoring it in the school history curriculum. It would be an insult to the memory of those who fought for Britain—British soldiers and sailors and the loyalist population living in British north America —if the British Parliament did not recognise the 200th anniversary, so in their honour I am doing what I can today to put on the official record that this important moment in our nation’s history has been raised in the House of Commons.

I can further report that on Monday evening this week, at my instigation, a commemorative dinner was held in the House of Lords hosted by Lord Clark of Windermere with two guest speakers from the US embassy, Brigadier General Dieter Bareihs, defence attaché of the US air force, and Elizabeth Dibble, deputy chief of mission. It was a modest event with just 20 people drawn from both Houses. We had toasts to Her Majesty the Queen and the President of the United States, and to UK-USA relations past, present and future. Thus the 200th anniversary was commemorated, with most admitting that they had not hitherto been aware of the war of 1812-14, and nor had I until last year when I stumbled across knowledge of it during a visit to Canada with the Colchester military wives choir, who sang at the Canadian international military tattoo, at which cameo scenes from battles of 1813 were staged between the main events.

This prompted me to hold an Adjournment debate on 25 June this year entitled “History Curriculum: North American War, 1812-14”. I have also pursued at education questions why this war does not feature in the history curriculum. I will not repeat today what I have put on the record previously, but instead I will concentrate on the signing of the peace treaty in what is today Belgium on Christmas eve 200 years ago. As ever, I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for its assistance, specifically Mr Paul Lester and Mr John Prince.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I intend to talk about this later, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of the excellent book by Andrew Lambert called “The Challenge”, which deals in particular with the naval element of the 1812-14 war, in which the Royal Navy sank the whole US navy?

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am not aware of that book, but I am aware of the equally wonderful book by the TV journalist Peter Snow about when British forces burnt down the White House and other aspects of the war of 1812-14.

Following the signing of the treaty of Ghent, it was ratified by the Government and signed by the King on 30 December—or perhaps by the Prince Regent; I have not been able to confirm which. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged in Washington on 17 February 1815. Hansard, volume 30, columns 209-218, headed “Treaty of Peace with America”, records that the treaty, when fully ratified and exchanged, was presented to Parliament by Lord Castlereagh on 16 March 1815.

It is fascinating to read the proceedings, and to observe that the treaty was printed in full, broken down into 11 separate articles, with a preamble commencing as follows:

“His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, desirous of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between the two countries, and of restoring, upon principles of perfect reciprocity, peace, friendship, and good understanding between them, have for that purpose”—[Official Report, 16 March 1815; Vol. 30, c. 209-10.]—

and which continues with a list of the representatives of the two countries delegated to reach an agreement to end the war which had been declared by the USA on Britain in June 1812. Among the five Americans was John Quincy Adams; 11 years later, he become President of the United States.

We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the first world war which started in August 1914. Some 100 years before, in August 1814, British forces, among them the East Essex Regiment, burnt down the White House. That was the last time that mainland USA had been invaded by a foreign power. We quite rightly commemorate the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 and the battle of Waterloo in 1815. Now, with the 200th anniversary of the peace treaty which brought to an end the north American war of 1812-14 between the United States of America and the United Kingdom, I urge the Government to prevail on those responsible for the history curriculum in our schools to include this war, which occurred in the same period as those two battles, and on the education establishment to give an explanation as to why it currently ignores it.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Russell

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

New clause 1 stands in my name and those of several colleagues. It is a pleasure, once again, Dr McCrea, to serve under your chairmanship. I very much enjoyed serving on the Finance Bill under your leadership, and I hope that you will keep me in order as we go through this evening’s proceedings.

New clause 1 should be relatively non-contentious. We have seen, in the last strategic defence and security review, an unprecedented attack on our defence of the realm capabilities: we have seen, as the Secretary of State himself admits, a Treasury and financially driven round of armed forces restructuring; we are seeing the British Army reduced significantly; we have already seen the closure of RAF Kinloss, as well as the loss of our Nimrod capability, which, as the First Sea Lord admitted to the Defence Committee, has placed our maritime surveillance capabilities at a severe disadvantage; and we are also bringing home the British Army from the Rhine.

Each Government, over the past 40 or 50 years, have reconfigured our armed forces structure to best suit the challenges as they have seen them, but never before have we seen one so radical and based not on the nation’s defence needs, but on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s needs. For that reason, there is great concern in communities up and down the country that decisions are being made not by the Ministry of Defence, but by the Treasury, and that therefore those decisions are not being made because they are the correct defence decisions but because they are the most expedient or financially convenient for the Treasury and in order to save money.

I have great respect for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and his ministerial colleagues, and I know that they are fighting valiantly to persuade the Chancellor that he is plain wrong, but we cannot assume—because we have not seen any letters yet from the Secretary of State to his counterparts—that he will be successful in persuading the Treasury to provide additional money. If the MOD team are unsuccessful, next month there will be some extremely bad news for a number of communities throughout the United Kingdom.

[Bob Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what a Labour Government would be doing differently, because I have heard nothing from Opposition Front Benchers to indicate that they would be doing anything different.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Bob Russell

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell]

I wonder whether I might help the hon. Gentleman by being devil’s advocate and pointing out that it was the previous Conservative Government who privatised the Ministry of Defence housing through Annington Homes. That is the root cause and this Government need to do more to put right what the last Labour Government failed to do.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as ever, shows his fancy footwork, blaming both his Government and the previous Conservative Government. I must agree that his Government are not doing enough to support housing.

Opposition Members are deeply concerned that although the Ministry of Defence is happy to place new onuses on local authorities and the NHS, the one group of people that should not have statutory responsibilities according to the MOD is, funnily enough, the MOD. By that rather large omission, clause 2, which covers the charter, is in effect toothless. The organisation that, more than any other, has responsibility for the welfare of our service personnel, their families and our veterans is, of course, the MOD. When he replies to the debate later this evening, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) will assure Labour Members that the MOD will re-examine that glaring omission.

The hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) and others often accuse Labour Members of not coming up with funding solutions to meet such commitments. I will indulge her by providing a simple example of where we can find more than £100 million, which could be put into accommodation for service personnel. According to the MOD, we spend—before she jumps to her feet, I accept that the previous Government did not do enough to tackle this issue—£110 million on private school fees for the children of service personnel. Almost half that money—some 40%—goes to officers in the top ranks of lieutenant-colonel and above, who are effectively the top brass, while only 10% goes to the ranks of staff sergeant and below. It is, in effect, a subsidy for public schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell]

That is a good question. I do not know the answer, but it is the sort of detail that we should discuss in Committee.

I am talking about a huge reduction in security for the Army families, which is not good. Fortunately, we are living in more peaceful times in the United Kingdom. At the time of the IRA troubles, like any other military town we needed all the security that was going.

[Thomas Docherty]

My understanding is that like the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the terms of operation and the rights of the MOD police are much more limited than those of the civilian police forces. Is that correct?

[Bob Russell]

No, that is incorrect. A Ministry of Defence police officer has marginally more powers than an ordinary police officer because he is a police officer plus. He has the military addition. We must not get confused with the red caps. In Colchester we now have a combined police station, with the Royal Military Police—the red caps—the Ministry of Defence police and the Essex constabulary all working out of one police station. MOD police officers—as Private Eye calls them, MOD Plod—are police officers plus, because they are also part of the garrison Army family.

Until the last general election, I was one of three parliamentary advisers to the Royal British Legion. As the Labour and Conservative Members who advised it stood down at the election, it decided to end that arrangement. It now has other ways of bringing matters before Parliament. I mention that because reference has been made to the military covenant. Early-day motion 1 in November 2007 was tabled by myself and was eventually signed by 203 Members throughout the House, 17 of whom are now Ministers—four are in the Cabinet, and three are Defence Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is on the Treasury Bench. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, also signed it, along with Mr Speaker, who was not the Speaker then.

Alongside the Royal British Legion, which does valiant work, we have the Army Benevolent Fund, or ABF The Soldiers Charity, as it likes to be called; Veterans Aid, one of the smaller specialist charities, if I may use that term, which does fantastic work for former military personnel who are at the bottom of the pile and is based down the road in Victoria; Combat Stress; and numerous military, regimental and other charities. We need to get their recommendations, advice and views when we consider welfare and so on. Help For Heroes has taken off. I am pleased to say that one of its first rehabilitation centres, if not the first, will be in Colchester.

I suggest to the Committee that it visit the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester, which takes people from all the services who have been given a custodial sentence and whom the Army, Navy and Air Force wish to have return to the service. The centre is almost like a finishing school. The vast majority of those who go there are Army, it must be said, and the vast majority of those who graduate from it return to their units as better soldiers, sailors or airmen as a consequence. The centre also deals with those who have been given a military sentence before they are discharged. I mention that not because I am advocating that our civilian prisons should become military—far from it; I was very much against a previous Government’s boot camp policy—but because I am sure the civilian Prison Service could benefit from the education and training provided by MCTC.

I conclude by commending the Bill. The debate has been constructive on both sides of the House. There will be differences, but I am sure of the unity of purpose in the Chamber for our armed forces. I hope the Bill will go forward and eventually become an Act.