First World War Commemoration

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

It is rare for me to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with him on that point. I note that the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has been at the centre of all this through providing a great deal of the underpinning finance, has recognised that and been making grants accordingly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman approves of that.

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

I concur with the sentiments expressed about the Irish Government. Is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is working closely with the Irish Government to erect headstones in the Republic and that it has been involved in the re-siting of the wall of remembrance at Glasnevin cemetery?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I have been to Glasnevin recently. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point, because it is a special place in the history of the Republic of Ireland. None of us should underestimate the enormity of the totemic things that are happening around this in Dublin right now. I see that as part of the improvement in relationships that is happening independently of the centenary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a Commonwealth war graves commissioner, will see these events as part of that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and of course I join him in paying tribute to Warrant Officer Ian Fisher from 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who tragically lost his life in Afghanistan. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that his sacrifice is never forgotten.

It is an honour to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and it is heartening to know that there is such widespread interest across the House in the 100th anniversary commemoration of world war one. I look forward to what I know will be a good debate and to the eloquent and no doubt poignant contributions from Members of all parties. It is fitting that we will hear from Members representing every corner of the United Kingdom, expressing their interest in plans for the centenary commemorations and illustrating the huge impact that world war one had on the whole of Britain. Our commemorations here will also be part of what will be a truly global event, which will include contributions from our friends in the Commonwealth and events that are taking place around the world.

Let me take the opportunity at the outset to pay tribute to the Minister for the calm, measured and dedicated way in which he has prepared for the centenary commemorations. We look forward to continuing to work closely with him, with the Government and with all in this House to ensure that world war one is commemorated in a fitting manner.

The Minister has outlined some of the Government’s plans to commemorate the centenary anniversary next year. Aside from the multitude of events that will take place up and down the country, the Government have pledged over £50 million, which will be put towards the centenary anniversary commemorations. The plans include a refurbishment of the world war one galleries at the Imperial War museum; a nationwide scheme that will allow school students from across the country to visit world war one battlefields; community projects funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and designed to educate young people to conserve, explore and share local heritage of world war one; and a grant from the national heritage memorial fund to support HMS Caroline in Belfast—the last surviving warship from the world war one fleet. We support those plans and will work with the Government to ensure their smooth delivery.

Additionally, a huge number of other organisations are planning their contributions to the commemoration. There are too many to mention by name, but I would like briefly to mention, of course, the First World War Centenary Partnership, led by the Imperial War museum, which will present a programme of cultural events and activities to commemorate the centenary. Also as part of the commemorations, the BBC has commissioned over 1,000 programmes across various platforms, helping to inform and educate the public about the events and the impact of world war one. The Woodland Trust will launch a project in May 2014 to commemorate British and Commonwealth great war heroes through the simple, yet poignant act of planting a tree. I look forward to hearing from Members about how the commemoration will be marked in their constituencies.

As we commemorate the centenary of world war one, there will be those who say we should seek to understand the fundamental question of why Britain went to war in the first instance. A recent poll for British Future asked how much people knew about the war. Its polling showed that 66% of people knew that world war one began in 1914, that 47% knew that the war was in part sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and that 9% knew that Herbert Asquith was the British Prime Minister at the start of the war.

What polling will not capture, however, is the extent to which the public understand the original motivations for the war. A student of history might conclude that, aside from the strategic rationale, Britain’s motives for entering world war one demonstrated a conscientious effort to uphold international law and a desire to defend smaller, more vulnerable nations. There will be those who will seek to have this informed debate, but there should be no doubt about the profound impact of this war.

Many people may know that between 1914 and 1918, 1.2 million volunteers came from around the globe to serve alongside the allies, answering the call of “Your Empire Needs You”. Many people appreciate the scale of the loss of life that was to follow, and many people know something of the 750,000 British soldiers who died or the 1.5 million soldiers who returned home injured. They may have heard something of the 20,000 British soldiers who were killed on the first day of the Somme or they may recall Wilfred Owen’s imagery of choking soldiers drowning in a sea of chlorine gas. They will also understand that sacrifice on this scale must always be remembered—it must always be commemorated.

It is important to remember world war one for more than just the industrialisation of death that it brought with it. The war paved the way for numerous world events, including, of course, the outbreak of the second world war—events that have ultimately shaped the world we live in today. The war had a profound impact on Britain too, and many countries in the Commonwealth sought independence after it ended. Britain lost its place as the world’s largest investor, and the role of women changed for ever. By 1931, 50% of women remained single, and 35% never married while of childbearing age.

The other great social change that came from world war one involved voting. Before the war, neither working men nor women had votes. The sacrifice of men from all classes, combined with the fact that women were taking on jobs that had previously been seen as a male preserve and with the campaigning of the suffragists and suffragettes, compelled politicians to change the position.

In the light of that, Labour Members consider it essential for us to ensure that the right tone is struck when we are remembering world war one. I believe that we are all clear about the fact that this is not a celebration, but a commemoration. War should never be celebrated; instead, it should be remembered, and we should learn from it. Getting the tone right is therefore imperative. We agree with the Government that there should be no flag-waving, that there should be an absolute right to remember those whose opinions differed, and that there should be no rigid Government narrative. It is right for us to give people the facts, and then to let them conduct their own analyses and form their own judgments.

However, it is important that, as a country, we do not shy away from addressing some of the war’s complications. There is a strong public perception of what it was like, formed partly by war poets and reinforced by the 1960s production of “Oh! What a Lovely War” and television programmes such as “Blackadder Goes Forth”. Those cultural representations stand as powerful and eloquent testimonies to the savagery of world war one, but if they are all that we know of the war, they are poor history.

Those who have been schooled in stories of the “lost generation” may be surprised to learn that the fatality rate in the British forces overall was 12%. That is a terrible figure—and some communities were affected much worse than others—but the figure is not as high as people tend to imagine. Nor are public impressions of daily life during the war always accurate. Blackadder lived for years in a dugout, but in reality infantry battalions spent an average of about one week of every month in the trenches. There were notable exceptions, but they do not disprove the generality of soldiers’ experiences.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned “Blackadder”, which, although obviously very amusing, constitutes something of a misrepresentation of events during world war one. One example is the idea that senior officers were not part of the action. In fact, nearly 70 generals and major-generals died in action on the western front and in other conflicts.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. Let me be clear: I think that “Blackadder” is an excellent programme. It is very funny, and Members in all parts of the House will remember the very moving scene at the end of the series in which Blackadder and others advance into no man’s land. That certainly serves as a powerful testimony to the savagery of world war one. However, my hon. Friend is right to point out that it is not a strictly historical account. I think that the commemorations that will begin next year will give us an opportunity to revisit some of the history, to look carefully at the detail, and, perhaps, to promote a better factual understanding of it.

We believe that, in order to ensure that world war one is remembered and commemorated appropriately and its complications are addressed, those involved in the centenary events should be mindful that—as the Minister rightly pointed out—there will be debates about the history. Some will say that we should go further than the western front. Some of the bloodiest battles may have been fought in western Europe, but battles fought in other parts of the world are also important in the overall context of the war, and it is therefore right for us to recognise the huge contribution of British Empire forces from around the globe.

Some will say that we should address the gap between the “pointless futility” narrative and what soldiers actually believed that they were fighting for, both during and after the war. Today our forces in Afghanistan rightly take pride in the job that they do and the bonds of service that they form, and the same applied to those who fought in world war one. During those years, soldiers fought for much. They fought because of a belief that their country was threatened, but ultimately, when it came down to it, they fought for their regiments, and for the man standing next to them in the trench. If we want to pay proper tribute to the war dead—as I know that we do—and also to those who came through the war, we should seek to remember that.

Some will say—and, as the Minister said, there are clearly sensitivities in this respect—that we should recognise that the British military, along with their allies, defeated Germany militarily in the war, with the final period marking one of the most effective in the history of the British Army. For many decades, historians have pointed to military tactics developing and improving between 1914 and 1918, which eventually enabled the allies to break out from the stalemate of the trenches. Although that is little consolation to those who lost ancestors in the war’s early years, it does explain why there was so much public grief at Haig’s funeral in 1928 from the veterans who had served under his command, surprising though that is to us now. It is important that we get this right and we will work with the Government to ensure that we do so.

Around the country, I have been privileged to meet scores of people and I have seen at first hand the coming together of people and communities. I have seen the passion and the interest that the commemoration has already invoked. In my constituency of Barnsley Central I have been struck by the amount of enthusiasm for the commemorations, led by individuals such as Aubrey Martin-Wells and Goff Griffiths from the central branch of the Royal British Legion. I am sure other Members will echo similar sentiments from their constituencies. I urge Members from across the House and from around the country to continue to encourage and spark debate in their own constituencies, to ensure that their communities come together to commemorate the war.

In my constituency, it is the bravery of the Barnsley Pals who formed the 13th and 14th Battalions of the York and Lancaster Regiment that will be remembered. Both Barnsley Pals battalions were part of the attack on Serre on the first day of the Somme campaign. On that one day, 1 July 1916, the 1st Barnsley Pals lost 275 men, while the 2nd lost 270. It is in such events that the true impact of world war one can be understood—when we think of the countless husbands, fathers, brothers and sons who never came home, and the unassuageable loss suffered by those families and their communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I think that we all agree that the first world war was a truly terrible conflict. There can be no doubting the bravery of the millions who fought for their country, many of whom lost their lives—nearly 1 million soldiers from the British Army and over 700,000 from the British isles. But I believe that we should also acknowledge the conscientious objectors to the war. They, too, were people of courage who stood up for what they believed in and experienced enormous public opprobrium as a result. They also experienced huge personal hardship and discrimination after the war ended.

Caerphilly has a two-fold distinction in that respect. First, two of its MPs, Morgan Jones and Ness Edwards, were conscientious objectors. Ness was the Member of Parliament from 1939 until 1968 and served as Postmaster General in the 1951 Labour Government. He was preceded by Morgan Jones, who served as an Education Minister in the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929. Secondly, Morgan Jones was the first conscientious objector to be elected to the House of Commons—he was elected in a by-election in August 1921—and it is about him that I would like to say a few words this afternoon.

Morgan Jones was born in May 1895 in Gelligaer in the Rhymney valley. He came from a modest background, his father being a coal miner. He left the valley to receive an education at Reading university but returned to become a local councillor. He was elected as a socialist and a member of the Independent Labour party. He was a man of principle, courage and conviction. He did what he thought was right and held firmly to his principles throughout his life.

From the moment Britain entered the great war in August 1914, Morgan Jones was a vocal opponent of the war. Like many in the ILP, he believed that the war was unjustified and unnecessary, a nationalist conflict that set worker against worker. He therefore opposed the war as a socialist and as an internationalist. But he also adopted a Christian pacifist position and declared his opposition to all forms of warfare, believing that the destruction of human life should not be a means of solving international disputes. His unequivocal views led him quickly to join the No Conscription Fellowship, and he was appointed to its national committee in 1914.

In the early part of the war, until 1916, the British Army consisted entirely of volunteers, and south Wales was a particularly important recruiting ground. However, it soon became clear that relying on volunteers was not enough, so the Government introduced the Military Service Act 1916 and conscription. Under the Act, local tribunals were established to determine cases of exemption for men who could best contribute to the war by continuing in their civil roles. One of the effects of the Act was to create two kinds of conscientious objector. The absolutists were those who adopted a maximalist position of being opposed to the war but also refusing to accept any kind of alternative work. The other type of conscientious objector was the alternativist. These individuals were wholly opposed to the war but prepared nevertheless to accept some form of alternative employment, mostly in transport or mining. Morgan Jones was one of those conscientious objectors, and he eventually came to accept membership of this voluntary scheme.

Early in 1916, Morgan Jones received his call-up papers. At about the same time, Gelligaer urban district council, of which he was a member, was informed—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech that shows how we are going to look at all aspects of the first world war in the coming years. Is he aware that some 7,000 conscientious objectors went to the front and some were killed as a result of doing stretcher-bearing and ambulance work?

[Wayne David]

Yes indeed. Those who became stretcher-bearers were probably at the greatest risk of all those in the armed forces, and the casualties among them were particularly high.

Morgan Jones was a member of Gelligaer urban district council. His own council, at a full meeting in February 1916, voted by 10 votes to eight to empower the chairman and the clerk to convene a special meeting wherever necessary to take appropriate action to consider the cases of those who were making conscientious objections. Such a meeting was convened in his case, but it was inquorate, and it seems very likely that the Labour members absented themselves to make it so. Nevertheless, the local tribunal was eventually convened and Morgan Jones appeared before it to put his case.

Interestingly enough—I have done some research on this matter—the minutes of Gelligaer urban district council have mysteriously disappeared from the Glamorgan record office, as have the minutes of the local tribunal, and nobody seems to know why. However, we know from the local press that when the tribunal was convened, Morgan Jones put a robust case, declaring himself a socialist and someone who was

“resolutely opposed to all warfare”.

He argued that the war was the result of wrongheaded diplomacy. Predictably, however, the local tribunal concluded that he would not be excluded from military service. He therefore appealed to the tribunal in Cardiff, but his appeal fell. At the same time, action was being taken against the No Conscription Fellowship, and he was found guilty in that regard as well.

In essence, after all was said and done, Morgan Jones went to trial and went to prison, and, as a consequence, suffered a great deal of physical and mental hardship. However, at the end of the war, when he was eventually released, an opportunity arose for him to stand for election to this Parliament in 1921. He was successfully elected and, as a result, made his true imprint on history by being the first conscientious objector to be elected to this House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

First, may I declare an interest, in that I am a commissioner on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, along with my friend the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson)? I consider that to be a great privilege, as I know he does. The CWGC commemorates the 1.7 million people who died in the two wars. I wish to record my thanks to Alan Pateman-Jones, its director general, and his staff for the work they do in more than 153 different countries. I also thank the Governments of New Zealand, India, Australia, Canada and South Africa for their contributions, all of whom will be joining in the commemorations of the 1914 to 1918 war.

I wish to mention a fact that not many people recognise. We all see the iconic sites in France, but we also have 170,000 graves in this country, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) mentioned. Every community will have CWGC graves in their local churchyard or municipal cemetery, and I am pleased that the CWGC, along with the all-party group on war heritage, has broken these down by constituency. One thing that I have been working closely on with the CWGC is raising awareness in communities of those graves. One initiative has been to erect Commonwealth war grave signs and, in some cases, information boards, so that local people know that the graves are there and are aware of why they are there.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the good work that the CWGC does. He will know that many graves of Victoria Cross holders across the country are neglected and that only those soldiers who died in battle have their graves covered by the CWGC. May I commend to him the work of the Victoria Cross Trust, a charity, of which I am a patron, that does such good work in restoring the graves of VC heroes across the country?

[Mr Jones]

I commend that body. The CWGC’s remit is defined by its charter, but the important point is that the CWGC does look after all those graves in the UK that come under its charter. We are talking about either the traditional stones that people will recognise or private memorials. I pay tribute to councillors in the north-east of England, all of whose areas have now erected these green signs. I ask hon. Members of any party who wish to have them erected in their local cemeteries to contact me or the hon. Member for Broadland, as we will be only too willing to help. We have had a bit of a glitch with the Church of England—I am sorry that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) is not here for this—which seemed to offer a protracted and bureaucratic reason for why we could not put these signs up. I am glad to say that some progress has been made, including in Durham, where the Archbishop of Canterbury, the former Bishop of Durham, seemed to cut through the red tape of the Church of England. It would be nice to see those tasteful signs on all churchyards, just to raise awareness, so that local people know that the graves are there.

Let me now deal with the issues raised by the Minister. I congratulate him on the work he has done on them, because I think he has got this right. There was a real danger that this could go wrong. As he said, it is right that there will be national and international commemorations, but the real focus has to come from below—I totally agree with him on that; local communities have to get involved. I pay tribute to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is providing grants for local communities, a few of them in my constituency, including Park View school, which has just received a grant for doing a world war one project. I know that there are many others. Pelton Fell memorial park is applying for a grant and a number of other villages want to hold events. Sacriston, for example, wants to hold a village at war event.

I am passionate about ensuring that those who lost their lives are remembered, but another important aspect is what happened in local communities. In the north-east and County Durham, for example, the role of coal mining in the first world war was important, as were the roles of women in munitions factories and the munitions industry in Tyneside.

I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned conscientious objectors, because the war was divisive. In the early parts of the conflict, members of the Independent Labour party were very much against the involvement of Britain in the war. There were some notable exceptions and some people broke away, including Clem Attlee, who fought bravely at Gallipoli. One of my predecessors, Jack Lawson, the Member for Chester-le-Street—who, by coincidence, was a member of the Imperial War Graves Commission in the 1920s—fought on the western front, even though he was an ILP member.

There are opportunities for communities not only to remember the first world war but to do some good things about their own history and to ensure that people remember the contribution that everyone made to the war effort. When I was the veterans Minister, I had the privilege of meeting Harry Patch, Bill Stone and Henry Allingham. Sadly, I also attended their funerals. As the Minister said, they were the last living link to the first world war, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, has now passed into history. This is a great opportunity to ensure that future generations not only do not forget but know of the important role that their local communities played in that important part of our great nation’s history.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend suggests, the reason a two-boat solution was not considered in the review is that it did not meet the hurdle test of providing a credible deterrent. I am actually rather more interested in the views of official Opposition Front Benchers on this matter than the views of our coalition partners. I welcome the fact—[Interruption.] Hang on a minute. I welcome the fact that the first visit in office by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was to Barrow-in-Furness, the home of Britain’s submarine fleet.

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

On the alternatives review, at Defence questions on 2 September the Secretary of State told my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who had asked about costs:

“If he submits a written question to me, I will ask the Department to produce the best estimate”.—[Official Report, 2 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 5.]

I have now tabled a number of parliamentary questions, but the Government seem to be refusing to produce a figure. May I gently ask the Secretary of State when he will produce the answer to my questions?

[Mr Hammond]

I am rather glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question. Let me tell him that the Cabinet Office has the lead on this matter because it was a Cabinet Office review. Any question that is phrased in general terms will be answered by the Cabinet Office; were a question to be phrased in very specific terms as to Ministry of Defence resources, then it would fall to me to answer it.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Anna Soubry]

That is what I am told. If my hon. Friend is saying that it is not true, we will get it sorted out and we will find out. My information is that there have been two payments. He misses the point about the American system, which is that it is means-tested, while ours is not. I have made my point about Canada, where the scheme applied to 900 personnel involved in a clean-up after a radiation leak. I would therefore suggest that there is no comparison to be made in relation to nuclear test veterans.

On the science, my hon. Friend relies on one report, and I have made my comments about it. I rely on three reports, which have been done over many years, and I know of no one who challenges their findings.

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

I apologise for not being here earlier, but I was in another meeting. Does the Minister agree that the issue with the Rowland study, which I have read on several occasions, is that although it found radiation could, in some cases, cause chromosome abnormality, it did not—this is the important next step—show that those chromosomal changes led to cancer?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing that information. That is another compelling argument in relation to the science.

I want to make it absolutely clear that it gives no one any pleasure to stand up and to have to talk about these things, because it sounds as if no one cares. On the contrary, those of us who do not agree with my hon. Friend and the £25 million fund that he advances do so not because we do not care, but because we know what the science says and because—I certainly take this view—we have to set this issue in the context of all our veterans, so that we do justice by everyone. We must always be careful not to be seen in any way to single out one group and put it above another.

I really take issue with the idea that we are somehow being shameful, or that we are in any way wrong, in our attitude to our nuclear test veterans. That is not the case. The existing scheme is good, fair and, arguably, generous, and it is one we should be proud of. Of course one could always argue that anyone in receipt of any form of compensation or benefit should have more, but what we have at the moment is fair and generous.

Let me come on to our scheme, because it is important to put on the record that any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation. We therefore have a no-fault compensation scheme under the war pensions scheme. Where there is reliable evidence that disablement is due to service, a war pension is awarded, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Nuclear test veterans are no different, and war pensions are paid to claimants for disorders accepted in principle as being caused by radiation, where the evidence raises a reasonable doubt of service-related radiation exposure. In addition, awards are made automatically to nuclear test veterans who developed certain leukaemias within 25 years of participating in the tests. For some, therefore, there is an automatic entitlement, which is absolutely right. Again, that begins to move us up that so-called league table, if, as some would argue, such a table exists.

It should be noted, however, that in May this year the first-tier tribunal, the war pensions and armed forces compensation chamber, delivered a decision in a group action of 14 nuclear test veterans’ war pension appeals. The majority of the appeals were rejected. The tribunal found material exposure where appellants undertook work in forward areas or otherwise came into contact with radiation, but not in relation to the majority of the bystander appellants. The decisions of the tribunal support the MOD’s current policy relating to claims for a war pension made by nuclear test veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I do not think that that is the strongest of cases. We know what the science tells us. If the view is advanced that the group of veterans in question—and I pay tribute to their service—should have the money just because they did that work on the country’s behalf, I can hear that being advanced by all manner of other veterans groups with equal force.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When I was a Minister, I authorised a settlement proposal, because in my opinion large amounts of public money should not be wasted on lawyers when the case could be settled without the question of liability. Unfortunately, the settlement that I authorised was rejected by the lawyers involved. I am sorry, but I think that it was the individual veterans’ best chance of getting a large amount of compensation. The figure stretched to several million pounds.

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend—there is no harm in my calling him that—who raises an important point, which has already been explored, quite properly. I was shocked by it. I do not know the details, but I have experience as a criminal barrister and know that every lawyer is under a duty to consult the client first. No lawyer ever makes the decision—although, apparently, in the case in question, very unusually, that was what happened. The client provides the instructions and makes the decision. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should talk about those events after the debate. I should like to know more.

I was talking about a case that went to the Court of Appeal, where the general merits of the claims were found to be extremely weak. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in March 2012, on a majority decision, in favour of the MOD. Significantly, all the justices, even those dissenting, recognised that the veterans would face extreme difficulties proving causation. That brings us back to the science.

The MOD continues to recognise the concerns of nuclear test veterans—I am always prepared to listen and like to think that I have an open mind, although I have spoken frankly this afternoon. However, there is no medical or legal evidence to support calls for compensation of the veterans as a group—and I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay says about seeking a benevolent fund, not a compensation fund. Any veteran who believes that service has had an impact on their health can submit a war pension claim. Where the evidence supports their claim, we will provide financial compensation. However, recent legal cases have shown that the incidence of that is far lower than many veterans organisations claim.

The argument for a £25 million benevolent fund to compensate veterans and family members affected by ionising radiation is flawed. The UK’s existing health, social and welfare support for its citizens and the specific support for all veterans make it unnecessary. Indeed, when we consider the public investment in the NHS and in the social and welfare fields, it can be argued that the financial value of that support far exceeds the monetary value of any compensation payment that the Government would pay.

Defence Reforms

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the original plan, which was to allow the build-up of the reserves before we axed regular battalions because it was deemed that deployability was terribly important. Exchanges took place on the Floor of the House in 2011 between the then Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), which clearly confirm that the plan was to get the balance right—to build up the reservists before winding down the regulars.

My first questions, then, to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, who is replying to the debate, are: why and when did the plan change? To make this debate as productive as possible, I would be delighted to take interventions from my right hon. Friend if he wishes to answer the questions we pose as the debate proceeds. I think that the questions why and when the plan changed are wholly legitimate ones, because the plan has changed and the House should be in no doubt whatever about that. Just two years ago, the plan was to say, “We will not wind down the regular troops until we know that the reservists are up to strength”. That plan has changed.

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the plan also changed in respect of the original strategic defence and security review. It initially planned for a reduction of 7,000 troops, but it suddenly increased to 13,000 and if recent press reports are to be believed, it might be even higher.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A number of changes to the plan have occurred, but to my knowledge, at no time have we had any explanation from the Dispatch Box of why the plans have changed, of the cost implications or indeed of when they changed.

The entire Army reforms depend on the successful recruitment of reserves. Let us examine that for a moment, and let us remember that without such recruitment up to 30,000, the Army reform plans fall apart. What do we know about recruitment so far? We know that TA numbers have been falling, not rising, since 2009 and are now at their lowest ebb since 2007. We know today that new reservist recruitment targets are being missed. The front page of The Daily Telegraph, under the heading “Reforms have left the Army in chaos” refers to documents clearly showing that reservist recruitment targets both for this and next year are being missed—and not just by a small margin, but by a massive margin—thus bringing the whole plan into doubt. Various reasons are put forward, including criticism of the Ministry of Defence for closing down local recruitment offices, and there is talk about privatisation and Capita, but I think that is somewhat overplayed. What we know is that there has been a lack of communication in the IT systems in the MOD as between Capita and Atlas. There are all sorts of reasons, but the bottom line is that key reserve recruitment targets are being missed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Nuttall]

Certainly.

[Mr Jones]

May I, from the Opposition Benches, welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I see that you are getting clear guidance from your fellow Deputy Speaker. From my experience of the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), I would not listen too closely to him on every occasion, as he has a mischievous sense of humour.

[Mr Nuttall]

My constituents in Bury are concerned that not enough reservists will be recruited to fill the massive hole that will be left by the disbandment of the 2nd Battalion. The original plan was to keep the Regular Army battalions in place until it was clear that the plan to replace them with reservists was viable. It surely makes sense to be absolutely certain that the reservists recruitment plans are on track before the regular units are disbanded. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay that the plan to recruit more reservists is behind schedule, but we should not have to rely on leaks published in The Daily Telegraph. What are the facts? Exactly how many reservists should have been recruited by now? Exactly how many have been recruited? They are not a cheap option. We need to know the facts. I urge the House to vote for the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

May I wholeheartedly join in the warm welcome that has been extended to you today, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is delightful to see you in the Chair.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). I echo what she and other speakers have said about the size of the task that is facing Ministers with the £35 billion black hole they inherited, the need to put our armed forces on a sound financial and strategic footing—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clappison]

I have only just started, but of course I will.

[Mr Jones]

I think we have had black holes of £38 billion and £36 billion, and now we have £35 billion. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that, because the Government are clearly reluctant to do so?

[Mr Clappison]

The figure comes from someone who knows more about this than me; it is contained in the National Audit Office report of 2010. I have only six minutes to speak. I will happily debate the black hole in the accounts and the whole of the debt that the previous Government left to this Government, but that is not really why I want to take part in the debate. I wanted to do so to pay tribute to our Ministers. We have an excellent Minister who has served in the armed forces and we are lucky to have him serving in this Department.

The longer this debate has gone on, the more it has become clear to me that something is going wrong with the implementation of the Government’s plan. I speak on these matters as a layman. I do not have any gallant service of my own, but as a Conservative I take an interest in our armed forces and the strength of our defence. I am not remotely qualified to judge the merits of the plan, nor the size of the Army, although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said about the size of our armed forces. Least of all am I qualified to judge the relative capabilities and costs of reservists as against regular soldiers. However, there is clearly common ground emerging that something is going wrong with the recruitment of reservists. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who has played a distinguished role in this regard, described it as “uneven”. Perhaps the Minister can put me right, but it seems that initial reports are not uniformly optimistic about the recruitment of reserves to take the place of our regular forces.

Let me put to the Minister the case that has already been put in a very distinguished way by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). If there is a problem with the recruitment of reservists, and those reservists are needed to make up for the capability lost through the loss of the five regular battalions, surely the Government should look again at the question of disbanding those battalions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate, which has been excellent. There have been 16 speakers. I have done a quick tally and I think we have had 10 blue on blue attacks and two yellow on blue attacks so far. It has been good to recognise the importance of our armed forces and the unique role that reservists play. I have seen our reservists in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think everyone in the House would like to thank them for their contribution to the defence of our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the hon. Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) raised the issue of the fusiliers. The Minister needs to answer why the Government have decided to axe the fusiliers in spite of the their good recruitment record.

The current situation needs to be put into context and I know that some hon. Members have short memories. It is important to recognise that, at the time of the strategic defence and security review, the Prime Minister said:

“Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large, well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—7,000 fewer than today.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 799.]

We all know the reduction was increased to 13,000 and that compulsory redundancies have taken place. There is concern among many that the increase in the reserve is not for operational purposes, but to fill the gap.

We have heard that the reason for the gap is the previous Labour Government’s black hole in the finances—the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) tried to support that notion. We have heard about a £35 billion black hole, a £36 billion black hole and a £38 billion black hole. The fact is that a 2006 National Audit Office report said that the gap in the defence budget, if it continued in line with inflation, would be £6 billion and would only go up to £36 billion if there were flat growth over a 10-year period. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), will learn to listen in time. The Government have used that to hide behind their reason for making cuts to defence spending.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not give way. Unfortunately, I do not have much time.

It is time for the Government to be honest with our servicemen and servicewomen and say why they are making these cuts. The real reason is that in the SDSR, the Government reduced the defence budget by 9% and have made some silly mistakes since.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East spoke eloquently about the need for the carriers, but he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Defence Secretary who not only recommended changing the “cats and traps”, which wasted £74 million, but wanted to mothball one of those carriers.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. It seems often to be forgotten by those who advocate an alternative that we must make a choice about whether to sustain a submarine building industry in the United Kingdom. I, for one, believe that it is essential to the UK’s strategic interest for us to maintain a submarine-building capability, and that further points to the use of a submarine-based continuous-at-sea deterrent.

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

The Government’s Trident alternatives review covered a large number of options and was described in this House by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as the “most comprehensive study” of our nuclear deterrent policy. Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to why the alternative being put forward now by the Liberal Democrats of two boats conducting irregular unarmed patrols was not considered as part of that comprehensive review?

[Mr Hammond]

The review considered a three-boat alternative and a four-boat alternative; it did not consider a two-boat position, as that was not considered a credible deterrent.

Defence Reform Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Not even half-baked.

[Alison Seabeck]

Yes, perhaps not even half-baked.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham made some valuable points about the GoCo, its complexity and the treatment of reservists, and he dallied tantalisingly with European legislation—very dangerous territory in this place.

We also heard from the gallant tail-end Charlie, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who was frankly lucky not to be shot down by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). The hon. Gentleman had a very selective memory of the projects he discussed, which distracted from his important opening point about flagging up some of the problems that the Gray review and this Bill seek to correct.

Armed Forces

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

First, I thank the 13 Members for their contributions to a good debate that has highlighted the respect that Members of the House have for our armed forces and the importance that they give to their role.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) talked about the contribution of Sheffield and her constituents to the armed forces. She described how the local community covenant was not just a piece of paper and discussed the work that was happening practically on the ground with local people and businesses. I know that Sheffield has a proud history, because when I was Veterans Minister, I had the privilege of meeting 300 women of steel. These 300 women helped to keep the Sheffield steel industry going during the second world war and they are held in high esteem in that city.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) —a very old friend of mine from our days on the Defence Committee—talked about the contribution of his constituency to the British Army. May I join in his comments about the tremendous contribution that Aldershot makes to the British armed forces? He also highlights the important role of defence industries across the UK. We could not equip our armed forces and carry out the operations we ask them to do without the support of those industries. He also congratulated the previous Labour Government on Veterans day and the formation of Armed Forces day. I am not sure that he will agree that he will also want to thank Lord Davies of Stamford, who was the architect of Veterans day in his report. The hon. Gentleman will also wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), who was also instrumental in developing Armed Forces day.

The hon. Gentleman said that, as a Conservative, he did not get elected to cut members of the armed forces and then digressed into what we usually hear by blaming the previous Labour Government for the deficit. We must recall that he was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and they supported our spending commitments right up to 2008. May I gently remind him that he was also calling for a larger Army, a larger Air Force and a larger Navy?

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) rightly raised the case of his constituent Alison, and I pay tribute to him for how tenaciously he has championed her interests. She finds herself in a terrible situation, where she proudly has two sons in the armed forces but is losing out because of the Government’s bedroom tax. I know that the Minister has sympathy with this case and I share his frustration that the decisions of other Departments sometimes have an unintended impact on the members of the armed forces. However, this situation does need urgent clarity, because Alison and many others will rightly feel let down by the fact that she thought the Government had done a U-turn on this but they clearly have not. This should be pursued as a matter of urgency. When I challenged the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) on it, he was not sympathetic at all, but I am sure that the Minister in this debate will raise these issues with him.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) reminded us, as if we needed any reminding, that 16 Air Assault Brigade is based in Colchester and gave us the first reference to the military wives choir. He also referred to Army bands. As the Minister for the Armed Forces rightly pointed out, the person who was arguing for fewer military horses was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is a Liberal Democrat. Then again, the hon. Member for Colchester is one of those individuals who, as Liberal Democrats quite easily can, protests against the cuts in the size of the Army when he is part of the Government who are making them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman grudgingly agreed at the end of his speech that the previous Labour Government did a lot to improve housing in his constituency. I tried to unpick the shambles of the Annington Homes contract, but it was not possible, and he is right that it was a very bad deal for the taxpayer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) mentioned the contribution his constituency makes to the armed forces, as well as the RMLY and the fantastic job it is doing to recruit reservists to the reserve forces. I congratulate the 47 individuals who have joined.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) helped me out for the next pub quiz I attend by giving the meaning and background of the phrase “up the creek without a paddle”—I am sure that many Defence Ministers must think on occasion that they are. That information will obviously be of great use. She also made an important point about family life. We sometimes forget that families are important through the support they give to members of the armed forces.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for the work she does on the RAF for the all-party group. She is a great advocate for the RAF in this House. I also congratulate her for organising tonight’s Bomber Command dinner, which I will be attending. I looking forward to meeting many of the veterans she spoke about. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) mentioned the armed forces ombudsman. I, too, pay tribute to Susan Atkins, the service complaints commissioner for the armed forces. I remember when the post was brought in following a good report from the Defence Committee on the tragic events at Deepcut, and the resistance from service chiefs, who thought that it would be the end of the world if we had a service complaints commissioner. It clearly has not been. The hon. Lady said that the armed forces had “nothing to fear” from an ombudsman. I reiterate that and totally agree with her points. I hope that the Government will take that on board.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned the Army’s links to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the proud history of his constituency’s links with the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and the Fusiliers. He rightly did not forget the casualties that have taken place in Afghanistan and other conflicts and raised questions about the strategy the Government are pursuing on the Afghan draw-down.

The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who has a great deal of experience in the reserve forces, raised the legitimate concerns of many people, even in the reserves, about the Government’s gamble in reducing the regular Army before putting the detailed plans in place to recruit reservists. It is a little like putting the cart before the horse and I agree with him that that is a high-risk strategy. Recruitment levels will be difficult to achieve and without proper protection in the workplace, many people will not be willing to volunteer for the armed forces. We will see how the plans are rolled out, but it would have been useful to see the White Paper before the Government embarked on the strategy, rather than halfway through the process.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the contribution of the people of Northern Ireland to the armed forces. I pay tribute to them. When I was a Minister I visited Northern Ireland on a number of occasions and witnessed the tremendous dedication of veterans, their proud history and the contribution that members from both communities in Northern Ireland are making today to our armed forces.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) mentioned the Veterans Contact Point in his constituency. He made the important point that many of these people are volunteers. I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks and those of the House to the army of volunteers who work tirelessly within all charities throughout the country to support our veterans and members of the armed forces.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) raised the proud history of Gloucestershire and the joint rapid reaction force. I am glad that it is bedded in. It was set up on my watch in the MOD and it was a complex move, but I think it was a successful one. He also rightly paid tribute to the defence companies, both large and small. There are many large defence companies in the UK, but we should not forget the SMEs and small companies, which make a huge contribution.

I thank all for their contributions today. Let us hope that the events of this weekend will not only reinforce the public’s support for members of our armed forces but give us an opportunity to remember those who have lost their lives in recent conflicts and those who have been wounded both physically and mentally in the service of their country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

An unclassified summary of the Trident alternative review will be prepared by the Cabinet Office and published as a Government document.

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

In January, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told The Guardian newspaper that the coalition review of Trident would compile a “compelling” list of alternatives. It was suggested in the Financial Times recently that the review will come down on the side of a submarine-based ballistic missile system. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State tell the House when the review will be published, and if it comes down on the side of a submarine-based system, will the Government consider bringing forward the main gate decision into this Parliament?

[Mr Hammond]

I cannot comment on the findings of the review, which is not yet concluded and has not yet reported to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no need to bring forward the 2016 main gate decision point. That decision will be made in 2016, in order to deliver the new submarines into service from 2028, when they are required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and disappointed that the sole representative of Scottish separatism in the Chamber today had disappeared before we reached this point in proceedings. I have indeed seen the recommendations of the House of Lords report. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government’s position is clear: Scotland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom benefits from having Scotland in it. We are confident that the Scottish people will agree. However, in the event that they voted to leave the United Kingdom, the referendum, rather than being the point at which Scotland would leave the Union, would mark the beginning of a lengthy and extremely complex set of negotiations between the Scottish and UK Governments on the terms of independence. If an independent Scotland wanted to change the arrangements for the UK’s nuclear deterrent, the considerable costs, complexity and time scale involved in delivering alternative arrangements would inevitably be a major feature of the negotiations. It is therefore incorrect to suggest the need for an immediately deliverable contingency plan for the deterrent. However, the House will be aware that the MOD plans for a huge range of contingencies. For reasons of national security, we do not comment publicly on plans relating to the nuclear deterrent.

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

The MOD underspent its budget by £3 billion last year: a total of £1.6 billion is being carried forward, and there is now a shortfall of £1.4 billion up to 2015. Further to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), can the Secretary of State tell the House why the MOD is not using some of that money to backdate the pay increase from May to April announced in the Budget?

[Mr Hammond]

A significant proportion of the underspend in 2012-13 is, in fact, the result of delayed spending on equipment programmes and will be needed to be spent in 2013-14 and 2014-15. As the hon. Gentleman will also know, part of the underspend is being used to meet the additional reductions in the budget announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement and the Budget, which is why we are able to meet those requirements without cutting into the delivery of our core outputs in 2013-14 and 2014-15. To amplify the point about the pay settlement that is effective from 1 May, I will say this: the practical reality is that the MOD’s pay system is quite fragile, and the possibility of making a retrospective change was considered significantly high-risk. It would introduce a significant risk of a catastrophic breakdown in the pay system. We therefore—

Army Basing Plan

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I hope the document that has been distributed will answer some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, particularly about providing the certainty that personnel and their families will want in terms of where they are going and when they are going to go there. I note that his references at the beginning of his remarks about multi-role brigades and the subsequent evolution of the Army force to match the resources available made no reference whatever to the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government, which has been one of the key drivers in our efforts to deal with the challenges ahead.

Let me try to deal with some of the right hon. Gentleman’s perfectly legitimate questions. He asked me about the £1.8 billion capital spend. Essentially, he sought assurance that this money had not been found at the expense of the budget for employing our forces. It is, of course, a capital budget quite separate from the resource departmental expenditure limit budgets of the Department and it is largely a budget that was in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s capital spend programme, supplemented by some of the capital underspend from last year, which we have been allowed to carry forward.

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

It will be taken away from Army housing.