Armed Forces Covenant

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Brazier]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement. He makes an important additional point.

This is not only about officers being posted around staff jobs. The centres of excellence where we train the next generation for the Army should get the cream of the senior NCOs from all over the Army. Brecon is shortly to have no Army units near it, but of course we have to post people in and out of there. The same goes for all the other phase 2 training schools. It is crucial that the best of the instructors go to RAF Valley, for example, but the nearby housing market is very thin.

The fourth reason is the question of cost, and that takes me on to the survey, about which I am sure the Minister will enlighten us. Let me provide some examples of how the wording of the questions and the issue of cost weigh against each other. The first is about housing quality.

The Australians operate a successful system whereby they lease properties in the local housing market. Their bases, unlike ours, are nearly all in major centres of population. They work on the basis that all the risk and all the maintenance is taken on by Defence Housing Australia. Such an arrangement is very expensive, and DHA funds it.

The reason that the majority of people gave for preferring the new system, as it was put to them, was that they thought they would get better houses. They were reminded in the survey—I have a copy if anyone wants to see it—that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with existing housing. The survey did not tell them that, in future, they will be responsible for all the risk and maintenance if they go away on exercises—as MPs, we all know how bad some private sector landlords are—unless they take on a huge extra cost.

Again, the survey says that we are going to reach out to unmarried families. I am in favour of that, and there is a serious case to be made for it, but how far do we go? If a soldier enters what might be a short-term relationship with a partner with three or four children from a previous relationship, are we really going to give them a gigantic allowance, perhaps twice as much as an RSM or a major with no children? There has to be a limit somewhere, but this is all dangled in the same survey.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some fantastic points, and forgive me for interrupting him because he is being crystal clear. I merely encourage him to observe one further thing, which is that the nature of military service means that people are frequently dragged away from their home base. That means that a spouse, perhaps from abroad or from a very different part of the country, is then responsible for dealing with a landlord or landlady who might not have their best interest at heart, to put it politely. The spouse will not then have the protection of the command structure above or of the Department, and they will not have civil servants to assist them; they will, quite literally, be on their own.

[Sir Julian Brazier]

My hon. and gallant Friend puts it in a nutshell, much better than I have.

I will finish in a moment, but I have one last point on the survey—you have been very tolerant, Madam Deputy Speaker. The survey refers to home ownership 11 times. People in the armed forces desperately want to own a home, and they worry about what will happen to them when they leave the service. Nowhere does the survey say that we are moving out of the many garrisons where home ownership is practical: Canterbury has closed; Chester is about to close; and Ripon is closing. We are focusing on areas where it is not practical to become a local owner-occupier.

What do I suggest? We need to come to terms with two basic points. First, within the defence budget to which we have committed ourselves, there has to be a degree of rebalancing. I—and, I suspect, most of the other people in this Chamber on a Thursday—believe that we should spend more money on defence, but if we cannot persuade our colleagues to spend more on defence, with all the threats out there in the world, the budget needs a degree of rebalancing. We either have to accept slightly smaller Regular forces or we have to buy less equipment. Rather that tearing up a model that works, we need to fund it properly.

Secondly, we have to find a vehicle for enabling a route to home ownership. The key to that for many people is buying to let, which means a special arrangement on last year’s Budget change that hugely disadvantaged service landlords, who are treated as if they are ordinary landlords, even though their property is the only one they have. They pay a higher rate of tax on the rent coming in than the relief they receive on their mortgage interest payments. There has been a bit of progress, but we also need to revisit the way in which the Forces Help to Buy scheme operates so that people do not have to apply to let the property, but can just let it when they get moved, with a guarantee that there will be no problems.

We need to find ways of reinforcing that model. We need to put a little more money into it, and we need to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that people in the armed forces at the bottom end of the financial scale should be prioritised on waiting lists. But—and this is a crucial but—it must be done in a way that is fair. This cannot just be where they are serving—my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) made a strong point about this—it must be in their place of origin, otherwise a few communities will carry the whole weight.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the House have been very tolerant with me this afternoon. I firmly believe that this Government are strongly committed to our armed forces and I have huge confidence in our Ministers, and I know that everybody who has stayed behind for this debate on a Thursday cares about our armed forces, but I believe that the new accommodation model is a serious threat to two of our armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I welcome the report, and I particularly welcome the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), who has done so much for the armed forces in just a year and a half. It is extraordinary to think how much she has already achieved in such a brief period.

We have heard much about the burden of service, and I think it might be helpful for us to remind ourselves of the joy of it. The reason I joined the armed forces—it is the reason many of us joined—was that it is the most extraordinary opportunity to serve one’s country in the most dynamic and demanding environments.

I cannot express to the House the joy that I experienced when conducting fighting patrols in Afghanistan and Iraq. It might sound absurd, but actually to spend days with men—in my case it was only men—who were like-minded, focused, determined in pursuit of a goal that they knew to be right in the service of a country that they knew to be honourable, and serving alongside men we knew to have integrity: what a rare experience that was. What an experience it was not to be clouded by mortgage fears or annoyed by the words of Whips, but simply to be free to do exactly what was right.

However, the experience was also hugely demanding. We were operating in very difficult circumstances, in heat and dust, sleeping little, often in danger—at risk of either improvised explosive devices or direct action—and also working alongside people from other nations. I speak not only of the Americans with whom, obviously, we worked very closely, the Australians with whom I had the great joy of serving, or the Estonians, Danes and Czechs, all of whom were impressive and quirky in their own ways, but of Afghans and Iraqis—men of huge courage and great integrity who literally put their lives on the line for us and many of whom, sadly, did not live to tell the tale.

That experience was almost like a drug it was so powerful. It is so electric to be challenged in everything you do—physically, mentally, morally—for such a period. It is so demanding. It is exhausting and exhilarating all at the same time. That is why the covenant matters. The challenge of coming back is much greater than the challenge of simply going from an institution to a free civilian life. It is almost like kicking a habit. Living in such an environment that is so all-consuming and so demanding, but also so rewarding, gives you a purpose that very few things can match—even some of the things that we are doing now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Jack Lopresti]

In the light of my hon. Friend’s military service and the operational tours that he has done, may I ask whether he is comfortable with the way in which we have treated our interpreters and other locally employed civilians?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I have only a few minutes to speak, so if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not talk much about locally employed civilians, except to say that I am hugely pleased that this country has given refuge to a wonderful man who served as my interpreter for a brief period when I was working for the governor of Helmand. That man went through several explosions with me—literally alongside me. We managed to escape with our lives from several relatively closer calls than I think my parents would have liked to know about.

I mention my parents for a specific reason. While I was experiencing the exhilaration of combat and the joy of camaraderie, my family and my then girlfriend—my wife should not hear about that too much!—were left behind. Of course, for many of the folk I was serving with, their families were waiting anxiously, hoping that they would not get a knock on the door. That, again, is where the covenant comes in, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) is talking about accommodation models, he is talking about not only the place where people live, but a community that supports them. We must not destroy the communities that support our armed forces who serve in battle—those around Aldershot, for example—where the families live together and understand the pressures everyone is under. Accommodation is not simply about a need for a house—a set of bricks—but about a need for a family of a different sort that reinforces those families who also serve as they sit and wait.

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way. On the question of support networks, does he agree that the Government and broader society need to be particularly aware of the pressures on people like him who were members of the reserve forces and do not have that automatic wraparound structure as a result of the diverse and dispersed nature of their particular circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. and gallant Friend speaks absolutely correctly. Of course, he will know this very well, having served himself and also being a reservist.

I want to skip quickly on to a second aspect of the covenant, which I am sorry to say was not mentioned in the report: the law. We have heard mention of the Northern Ireland cases and we have touched on the Iraq historical allegations cases. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) has done an enormous amount of very impressive work on this. Sadly, for family reasons, he cannot be here today, but I am afraid that his work has demonstrated that our Government are not doing enough. We need to do more to protect those who have done the most for us, because what the covenant should be about is ensuring that those who have served—who have risked all and given all—can come back safe in the knowledge that they are safe, and that they are not going to be pursued by charlatans and liars like Phil Shiner, who has been struck off today by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for his deceit, dishonesty and absolute treason to this country in pursuing fine, fine people. I am delighted that that has come to pass. If any man would wish to claim the faith that he does, he would do well to read his commandments: the eighth is:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

I urge the Government to look very hard at the changes they are making with regard not only to future derogations from the European convention on human rights for operations, but also a statute of limitations, because it is not enough simply to support those who are vulnerable at home or to make sure their kids have schools to go to—important though these things are—if for the years after their service they are constantly looking over their shoulder, fearful of a knock on the door, because somebody who had tried and failed to kill them in combat is now using our own courts against them. That would not only leave them weaker, but leave them exposed. It would also leave the country exposed, and that is unacceptable.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I shall begin with a number of expressions of gratitude: gratitude to the Chair for allowing me to contribute at all when, because of another Defence Committee commitment, I could not attend as much of the debate as I should have; gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) for her splendid work on the armed forces covenant—she is relatively new to the House of Commons, but has taken to this place like a duck takes to water; gratitude to the Minister, who carries out his responsibilities with a great deal of conscientiousness, informed not least by his own frontline military service, for which the country has reason to be grateful; and gratitude to all hon. Members who have seen active service and have spoken so movingly today.

In particular, I single out my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who has just spoken. He held the House in a vice-like grip and added an important piece of information that will affect my own remarks. I had not known that Mr Shiner, who I believe glories in the title of professor, had been struck off today. I was not going to say anything about him because I knew that he was facing ongoing proceedings, but I now feel it incumbent on me to say that if people like that had been around in the aftermath of the second world war, and if our troops in that war had known that they would have to face the duplicity, the manoeuvrings and the outrages perpetrated on subsequent generations of soldiers by such people, they could not possibly have fought with the valour that they showed in defeating Nazism and fascism.

This country will be failed by its Government if we do not find a method of preventing what is a much more lethal version of the practice that used to be known in industrial relations terms as the “work to rule” from being applied every time a soldier has to pull a trigger in a deadly conflict. That would make the carrying out of the profession of arms absolutely impractical and impossible. The words that we have heard today, time and again, are “statute of limitations”. The idea that anyone could come up with new and relevant evidence 40 or more years after crimes—if they were crimes—have been committed is frankly preposterous in the context of a military conflict. It is not going to happen. All that such a process will do is put people through a mental and emotional wringer for no purpose other than to demoralise the ability of the state to send troops into harm’s way, or indeed to recruit troops in the knowledge that they will be sent into harm’s way at the behest of the state. Not only will those troops have to face the violence of the enemy; they will also have to face the lies, distortions and blatant manipulations of a blind justice system after they have survived the dangers of combat. That is totally untenable and it has to stop.

A statute of limitations does not imply pardoning or guilt. It does not imply anything other than the realisation that if the settlement in Northern Ireland is to hold, it has to have fairness on all sides. We cannot have a situation in which one group of people are, if not amnestied, at least given a ceiling of a couple of years to any possible prison sentence, and are even enabled to hold positions of high authority in the political system, while the soldiers who were doing their job with integrity on behalf of the democratic Government are placed in harm’s way and pursued to the ends of time.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are other lawyers who might be included in the points he is making?

[Dr Lewis]

I would say that we have to find a system to ensure that what happened in Iraq is never allowed to happen again. At some stage, that might mean standing up to the provisions of international law, and if we were to do that, we would have to use the strongest possible case. What case could be stronger than the existence of a settlement in Northern Ireland in which one group of people were protected while the soldiers who represented the majority of the people were unprotected and left exposed indefinitely?

As I have only a few seconds left, I urge people to look at the website of the Defence Committee to see details of the hearing that we held on 17 January, at which the Minister was questioned on a whole raft of issues about the welfare of our service personnel. In particular, I should like to give a little comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) and to assure him that, in the light of the comments that he and others have made, and of the issues that were raised in that meeting with the Minister, it is, shall we say, more than a little probable that we will be looking into the question of service accommodation in the not too distant future.

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill (First sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Johnson]

If it is a foreign medal, it would not be. Trying to keep the list down to a manageable level is difficult enough with British medals. To try to include all medals from around the world as well would make it unworkable. It covers civilian awards such as the George Medal, the George Cross and the Queen’s Gallantry Medal. Quite often those awards are given to military personnel in any event.

The schedule does not cover awards from around the world. It was very tempting, when drafting the Bill, to include knighthoods and OBEs. The list goes on, frankly, and one has to decide where to draw the line. The line I have decided to draw is on awards for valour that have been sanctioned by Her Majesty the Queen.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point but the hon. Member for North Durham also raised an interesting one. The Sultanates of Oman and Brunei, I suspect, are the areas that he is particularly thinking of. At various points, the Sultans have awarded medals. They are not normally awarded on exactly the same grounds as they would be in the United Kingdom. For example, teachers in the Sultanate of Oman have sometimes qualified if they were teaching the Sultan’s military personnel.

We must remember the comments of Queen Elizabeth I on foreign awards:

“My dogs shall wear no collars but mine own.”

However, in this circumstance, it makes sense to focus, as my hon. Friend does, on awards for valour issued by the Defence Council.

[Gareth Johnson]

Yes, of course.

Trident: Test Firing

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Let me reassure the hon. Lady, who follows these matters extremely closely and is on the Defence Committee, that there is absolutely no doubt about the effectiveness of our deterrent. Again, had the Government any doubts about the continuing capability or effectiveness of the deterrent, we would not have brought the motion before the House last July.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend agree not only that the Prime Minister was absolutely right not to discuss this issue on national television but that a 98% success rate in testing for a weapons system is phenomenal? Once it has been tested, all boats that go out are fully operational and 100% capable, and that is something for which we should pay huge tribute to Her Majesty’s Royal Navy and the sailors who serve on those boats.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of these tests and to hint at the complexity of them and of the systems and sub-systems that are involved in maintaining the Trident deterrent. It is to the credit of the crew of HMS Vengeance that they were able to complete these tests last June, and they now take their place again in the operational cycle.

Yemen

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I have seen no evidence that the dropping of this particular munition has resulted in any civilian casualties. On the contrary, this was a munition that, from all accounts, had not in fact exploded—probably because of its obsolescence; it was a very old weapon. However, if the hon. Lady has evidence that any civilians have been killed or injured, we would very much like to see it.

As I have made clear, the investigation has taken a while. We have continued to press the Saudis on the fact that when something such as this is alleged, they need to be as transparent as possible, get on with the investigation and reassure their allies by simply publishing the findings, and, if something went wrong, then admitting it went wrong and putting it right. That is not what happens when we consider the Russian bombing of completely innocent civilians in Aleppo.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement to the House today. Will he say a few words on the regional situation that has led to this conflict? Clearly, the Iranian invasion in Yemen is causing many of the issues. While he is talking about the regional situation, will he join me in offering condolences to the family of Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, Ambassador Karlov, who was tragically murdered today? Does he agree that, just because we condemn Russian violence in Aleppo, that does not mean we support other violence against Russia in other parts of the world?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I am sure the House will join my hon. Friend and me in condemning the murder of the Russian ambassador to Turkey—a shocking act involving a diplomat, who should otherwise, of course, enjoy proper protection, and whose murder does not bring any conflict in the middle east closer to resolution. There are, however, too many states in the middle east that are acting beyond their borders—such as Iran, clearly involved behind the scenes in Yemen in prolonging a conflict that only perpetuates the suffering of the Yemeni people.

Veterans and Service Personnel

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I greatly respect the Minister and look forward to his response, but there is an anomaly here: there are those who are under the radar and slipping by. Whether it is because the regimental associations are not aware of them, or because those with the responsibility are not there, they are being forgotten about. We need to address the underbelly of those who are missed by the charities and others.

The MOD has responded, but has it responded hard enough? I say, with the utmost respect for the Minister, that I do not believe that it has done so fully. The hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham has perhaps highlighted that point in his intervention, as I have. It is my duty in the House to say that with all sincerity.

After bringing up this issue in my role on the Defence Select Committee—some Committee members are in the Chamber—it was determined that a sub-committee would be set up to collect evidence on the mental health of our troops. The Committee members have kindly asked me to chair that sub-committee, which will take place in April 2017.

What are we looking for in Northern Ireland? We are looking for a rehabilitation centre. I have sought a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who is a former soldier. He has agreed to meet us and representatives of Beyond the Battlefield in Newtownards to discuss these matters. We need to ensure better co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence and the health service, so that they work better and closer together. If they are to work in tandem, it has to be a family—a marriage—with two organisations working hand in hand to ensure that we look after all those people. We need to make sure, too, that the counsellors and those who work in the health service have an understanding of what it is like to have severe trauma, so that they are able to give them the advice they need.

When these people present themselves at the NHS, we need to remember that they have often been through the utmost, most severe and horrible trauma. They sometimes find themselves facing someone at the other end of the desk who will say, “Well, what’s wrong with you?” There has to be training so that people understand how these traumas work and what post-traumatic stress disorder means.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking very persuasively, as he always does, about this matter. Does he agree that there is a role for charities to support the NHS and that Combat Stress in particular offers an extremely impressive level of care that we cannot expect the NHS to match, because of the specialism required to deal with military personnel suffering from mental health issues?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. That is the sort of co-ordination that we need to have with the MOD, the NHS, charities and so forth. If we can all work together better, we can achieve a whole lot more and collectively address those issues.

I had the chance to meet some of these servicemen. At the age I am, when I see a young man who has served in uniform, I can sometimes remember him being born. That is a fact of life. I am thinking of one man who came back from Afghanistan with serious head injuries. He was one of those people from Northern Ireland who had suffered greatly. I shall not mention his name—it would not be fair to do so—but his marriage is over and he is only just about holding on to a job. He is severely ill. Anyone who met him would know right away that there was something wrong with him—he just gives the appearance of someone who is not well.

I am conscious of where we are. The facts are stark and heart-breaking. One of our servicemen or women commits suicide almost every two weeks, and nearly 400 members of our troops killed themselves between 1995 and 2014. Those most likely to take their lives are male single soldiers aged 20 to 24, who comprise a quarter of deaths. Almost half hanged themselves, while 21% died of gunshot or explosive injuries. Others killed themselves by poisoning, suffocation, throwing themselves off buildings or from stabbing and cutting. In 2012, it emerged that the number of British soldiers and veterans committing suicide had outstripped the number that had died fighting in battle. What awful statistics they are to have to report in this House. That year, 21 soldiers killed themselves and 29 veterans committed suicide. That compared with 44 troops who died in Afghanistan, 40 of them in action. Today, veterans of Afghanistan, Iraq and the Falklands or even further back have their memories and their nightmares to deal with every day.

In the past 12 months, more than 100 British Gulf war heroes have asked for help from the charity Combat Stress, which the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) referred to in his intervention. Some 25 years after the end of the conflict, they are still fighting the wars. In a further possible indication that the true scale of the mental trauma caused by Afghanistan and Iraq is only starting to emerge, the number of claims rose by 35% in the last year, from 429 to 580.

The armed forces covenant is one that we are most concerned about. In responding to me in Parliament yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) said that the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland has achieved some 93% of its commitment. Let me say this gently to the Minister—we have a role to play in Northern Ireland, and I want to be quite clear about that. The 93% figure means a shortfall of 7%, and we need to address that 7% shortfall. It was 93% in the last Session of Parliament, so we have not advanced at all. More effort is needed.

We know how important it is for soldiers to obtain suitable housing when they leave the Army. That can happen through the selection scheme and the points system, both here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, which is good news, but we need to do more.

Healthcare is also important, particularly care for those with mental health issues. Has there ever been such a strong effort in this regard? Northern Ireland contains the largest number of veterans suffering from mental ill health. Is that due to the 30-year conflict that we experienced? It probably is, partly, but it is also due to the constant stress experienced by those who serve in uniform. Thank the Lord that, in partnership with the Government, we have moved to a better place, which, although not ideal, has enabled the democratic process to secure the delivery of peace, and funds on the back of that. Perhaps the Minister will say something about LIBOR funding for mental health services. A fair amount of money has been set aside, but I should like to see a wee bit more of it coming to Northern Ireland, so that we have a chance to play a greater part.

The Government, and the Ministry of Defence in particular, are doing many good things, including the armed forces compensation scheme and the armed forces pension scheme. Support can be drawn from the Government and go directly to the people who need it. The Northern Ireland regional disablement service specialises in the rehabilitation of patients, including veterans, who have experienced the amputation of a limb or limbs. We must ensure that we address issues relating to both mental and physical health. I thank the Government for what they have done, but I think that the regional disablement service could do more to address the issues affecting those who have fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq, including amputees and people with brain injuries.

Money has been set aside in Northern Ireland and, I believe, on the UK mainland to upgrade memorials throughout the land. That is a good thing, because it means that many people will be able to attend services at 11 am this Sunday with memorials that are clean and have been upgraded. The War Graves Commission does fantastic work in my constituency, involving both the forgotten graves of those who gave their lives in the first world war and whose families have passed on, and those who lie in far-off lands and whose families cannot visit their graves. We should never forget the families. We have been referring directly to the soldiers, but we should also remember the mums and dads, the wives and husbands, and the children.

There are indications that the true scale of the mental trauma caused by Afghanistan and Iraq is larger than we think. Where do we go from here? We must ensure that help is not simply out there if people search for it, but is there before they ask. We must ensure that every veteran has a place to go where they are able to talk—or not; whichever it is that they need. They may want to chat, or they may not. Sometimes they will just need someone to be close to them.

I have been a major supporter of the Beyond the Battlefield project in Newtownards, as well as other charities such as SSAFA and Help for Heroes. Our commitment should not end when the plane comes in and brings our men safely home; our commitment to our troops must equal their commitment to us. It must be more than a vision statement; it must be a reality. The new generation of veterans are no less deserving than others of complete support and help. When we say that we will remember them, that must be a promise and not simply a phrase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing this important debate. It is notable that, although it has been sparsely attended, we have had contributions from every part of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke for England; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke for Northern Ireland; the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth spoke for Wales; and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) spoke on behalf of Scotland. I have deliberately not mentioned the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) because frankly we have still not accepted that we have lost you for good.

As we have heard so many times this afternoon, our veterans are an asset to our society and they deserve our sincerest thanks, our fullest support and our deepest respect. With Remembrance Sunday fast approaching, it is right to take this opportunity to consider today’s veterans and serving personnel as well as to remember those who have gone before them. It is right that today veterans are so highly regarded by their fellow citizens and that Governments of all the nations of the United Kingdom continually seek to improve the care on offer to those who have served their country and those who have suffered terribly as a consequence.

It is also right that we work tirelessly to ensure that our veterans are cared for properly, but let us be honest: we still have a long way to go before we get it absolutely right for those who have served in our armed forces. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made an important point about the funding of veterans care. I am reminded of the slogan “Justice before Charity”, which was coined at the end of the first world war by the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers. The federation, which was among the founders of the Royal British Legion, was a veterans campaign group which even founded a short-lived political party, the Silver Badge party, named after the small silver lapel pin that was given to each of those who served in the great war and on which were engraved the words “For Services Rendered”.

The Silver Badge party, under the banner “Every man once before any man twice”, fielded candidates in the 1918 general election on a platform of representing the political interests of former service personnel. Although it is no longer a campaigning political party, what it stood for—“Every man once before any man twice” and particularly “Justice before Charity”—remains just as true and as relevant to the debate today about our veterans as it was 100 years ago.

As I said previously, although we have come a long way, we are not there yet and I hope that the sometimes complex needs of those who have served are never seen as a burden on our resources, but rather viewed as a responsibility that we willingly accept in return for the sacrifice that they have made. We must never relegate that responsibility for veterans care entirely to the charitable sector, which, although it raises hundreds of millions of pounds and does wonderful work, cannot become the primary source of assistance.

We are all too well aware of the statistics and we have heard many of them this afternoon—40% of veterans report having health or welfare issues, with a growing emphasis on the need for long-term care. According to research by King’s College London, an estimated 60,000 of our veterans who served between 1991 and 2014 will need support for mental health issues. Although mental health and other health issues are critical, the range of concerns facing our veterans extends to financial, employment, social and housing issues, and the need for relationship support. Worryingly, the research showed that a number of our veterans, when interviewed, called into question the commitment of the armed forces to supporting their transition and that of their families back to civilian life.

It is fitting that on this occasion, when we pause to commemorate service personnel, particularly those who have fallen in the past 100 years, we commit ourselves to honouring them by looking after today’s service men and women in the manner that they deserve. I have no doubt that every Member across this House wishes to provide the very best care for our veterans and their families, and I am sure we would be willing to learn from the example of others. Without going into too much detail, I point to the Danish model of veteran care, which provides continuous and comprehensive support for veterans and their families. That support is viewed as the responsibility not just of one Department, but of all Departments, and its success is examined and is evaluated every two years.

When creating the document “Our Commitments” in 2012, the Scottish Government looked to the Danish model and the comprehensive strategy that supports service personnel during and after their service. That document sets out the Scottish Government’s approach to our armed forces. Much of what it contained is already enshrined in the armed forces covenant.

Scotland has a large and vibrant armed forces community, encompassing both regular and reserve personnel and their families. In 2014, Poppy Scotland estimated the size of the community to be 530,000—in excess of half a million—including dependants. That is almost 10% of the Scottish population. Many were born in Scotland and, having enjoyed a fulfilling military career, have returned home, but more and more people who grew up elsewhere are choosing to make Scotland their home in retirement. I am delighted that many decide to settle in my constituency of Argyll and Bute, where they are very welcome indeed.

Approximately 1,800 men and women end their service career each year in Scotland. Most find the transition to civilian life straightforward and take it in their stride, but some find it a far greater challenge. To ease that transition, in 2014 Scotland’s First Minister—my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—appointed Mr Eric Fraser to serve as the first Scottish Veterans Commissioner. In establishing that unique role, Scotland has blazed a trail for the rest of the UK to follow. The commissioner, who is a Royal Navy veteran with 37 years’ experience, has operational independence, dedicated funding and a wide remit to improve outcomes for veterans. He has published a strategy and a work plan and already submitted two detailed reports, on transition arrangements and housing. He has extensive and regular engagement with the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government have also introduced an armed forces advocate and created a comprehensive network of armed forces and veterans champions who are represented in the Scottish Government, local authorities, NHS boards and Police Scotland, among many other bodies, thereby embedding support for the armed forces community throughout the whole Scottish public sector.

The vast majority of people leaving the services settle into civilian life in Scotland with little effort. However, a small number experience difficulty accessing services and therefore require additional support tailored to their specific needs. The overriding principle of the Scottish Government’s approach to caring for our veterans is that no one should suffer any disadvantage as a result of military service.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I very much welcome the Scottish Government’s efforts on behalf of veterans, many of whom are English, Welsh and Irish, and many of whom retire to his constituency, as he has said. Does he not recognise, however, that this is not just a Government role; many charities and individuals have a role to play? For example, Mrs Pam Bates and Mr Carl Lewis in my constituency do an awful lot for local veterans in Kent. That individual effort is just as important as the Government effort of which he speaks.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Indeed, I have met one of his constituents—one of Britain’s finest—who is doing fabulous work. I commend the work that those people do. The point I was making is that the state must not abdicate its responsibility. I fully support the wonderful work that charities do, but we have to recognise that the care of our veterans is first and foremost the responsibility of the state.

The Scottish Government have fully embraced the responsibility to assist serving and former personnel and their families, both in the Scottish national health service, where a financial commitment has been made, and in housing, education and employment needs. We recognise that military service fosters leadership, organisational skills, resilience and specialist skills such as medical training and technical expertise. Veterans and their families are a great asset for the private sector, and a growing number of employers are actively targeting veterans and their families to fill the skills gap.

Earlier this year, the Scottish Government published an updated version of the document called “Renewing Our Commitments” in which they reaffirmed what they had said in 2012: making good jobs, affordable homes and excellent public services a priority for our veteran community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling said, Scotland’s ambition is to be the destination of choice for those leaving military employment and seeking a fulfilling life, while wanting to make an important contribution to society. Scotland values our armed forces community as a true asset, and we renew our commitment to support them and pledge to make our country the most attractive destination for those leaving the armed forces.

As we approach Remembrance Day, it is absolutely right that we stop and pay tribute to those who have served and remember those who have fallen. But let us also look to the future. In doing so, let us be guided by the words of 100 years ago from the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers, whose demand of politicians back then would be echoed by veterans today: it wanted justice before charity. As a nation, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to support veterans and their families. Yes, charity has an important role to play, but the primary responsibility for caring for our veterans must lie with the state—and we should never forget it.

Charities: Veterans Care Sector

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

Yes, it comes back to what I said about these groups, which, often out of a sense of duty, or as a result of identifying a gap in their local area, just step up and do it, for no other reason than to deliver care to our servicemen and women. We are very lucky to have that as a country.

Over the years, matched by this gratitude in many of us, there grew an increasing bewilderment at the MOD’s reticence to genuinely commit to the care of our men and women when they return home. I say “genuinely commit” carefully. Efforts have been made—of that there can be no doubt, but the truth is that we must measure the success of those efforts not simply by what we have put into them, but by the experience of those going through the system, readjusting to life after service, or finding a suitable quality of care for complex injuries suffered on the battlefield.

Now is the time to do this. In 2014, the UK ended combat operations in Afghanistan. That ended over a decade of two very intense and very public conflicts, which inspired the great British public to donate. Those days are now gone and we will not see them return anytime soon, such is the global political appetite for large-scale interventions of that type. This end of public operations and subsequent awareness of it, is conversely matched by a huge increase in demand for veterans services across the United Kingdom. In just the past year, referrals to Combat Stress went up 28%. The hidden wounds programme run by Help for Heroes has seen 500 referrals from a standing start a year ago. Regrettably, there is little evidence of a Government Department attempting to gauge the true scale of the needs of the veteran, serving and military family community as a whole. Nor is there evidence that the Government are trying to track progress against that need. How do we, as a nation, know, year on year, whether we are doing a good job or a bad one in this area? There were no universal measures of lives rebuilt or lives yet to be rebuilt that accommodate the good work that is already being done by the Ministry of Defence, the NHS, the Department for Work and Pensions, charities, British businesses and volunteers. Without strategic and structured measures implemented in a timely manner, therefore, a lack of action now will ultimately cost the nation more in the future in terms of the healthcare we offer to our veterans and their families and the finance required to maintain a fundamentally unsustainable model.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting an important national resource that may be going to waste. Today in this House we said goodbye to Principal Doorkeeper Milburn Talbot, who served in the Royal Navy and served this House with great distinction. There are many, many other veterans who transition very capably. For those who need a little extra help, is this not an investment in the whole country, not just in veterans?

[Johnny Mercer]

Absolutely. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I shall not stray from the lane of this debate, but across the public service we have a special asset in individuals who commit themselves to public service and sacrifice their family life for the nation. If we do not look after them properly, that will eventually go. We need to make sure we get that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I could not agree more that local and national Government should be involved in delivering that. We need to be careful about the involvement of local elected officials in veterans care. There is nothing political about veterans. It is a national issue and one that I wrestle with in Plymouth. We need to make sure that we stay in the lane of delivering a service for veterans, and the local professional side of the council is well placed to do that.

To sum up, the individuals who are suffering most from the changing tides in the debate are the blokes. Too many are falling short. Too many struggle to access care. Every weekend another case is reported in the Sunday papers. While the national debate moves on to Europe, national security, the deficit and other important issues, those soldiers’ lives stand still, awaiting an intervention by somebody who cares. They are the lucky ones: their stories got in the paper, and they inevitably get helped by that knight in shining armour—the Great British public. However, for every one of them, there are many who do not get helped.

What is it really like for someone to be two or three years out of the Army—holding down a civilian job and providing for their family—when they start hitting rougher waters, and the thoughts just will not leave them alone? Where do they go? To whom do they turn? Do they self-refer to a charity and hope for the best? How do they know that it provides care that works? How do they know that it is professional? What happens if the course of treatment it provides does not work? Who will help them through the process? Who really cares?

The pre-Christmas report by the Ministry of Defence on the armed forces covenant made wide reference to what is going into the arena of military support, and that is to be commended. However, the report fails to provide any meaningful statistical reference to the single most important measure of success: what our military community got out of that support. The single biggest shift in mindset that must be achieved is about reconfiguring services around users.

There are problems: waiting times are simply too long; there are distinct regional variations in the services available; there is a huge challenge to veterans navigating a complex set of unclear treatment pathways; and there is a lack of regulation of the quality and efficacy of the treatments being provided by some, with some of the more unscrupulous outfits still receiving Government finance. The truth is that our veterans today use an array of treatments, which vary wildly in effectiveness, professionalism, access points and delivery, and that is especially so with mental healthcare.

I hope I have outlined why this debate is so important and so timely, and why it is tough for those of us who have been through these wars to let go of this issue, for which I am afraid I make no apology. I therefore want to add to the debate—to offer a solution to the Government so that we can get this issue right. I want the Prime Minister, who has always understood this issue, to accept that getting it right in this Parliament is part of his legacy, and I know that he does accept that. Chiefly, however, I want the MOD to really understand the challenge we face in getting this issue right now, and I make that appeal to the MOD today. There will always be better times to reform; there will always be opportunities to duck difficult issues because of the lack of a 100% solution; and there will always be those who have lost focus on who is at the centre of these services—the men and women to whom we owe so much.

How do we fix this? Users should be able to choose the service they wish, but they should be provided with unbiased assistance and helped to navigate their way through a highly complex array of services. We must be realistic in our reform. Currently, many of these services are not evidence-based, and some appear, unhelpfully, to compete for business, while a few are even unsafe or unethical in their approach.

If we are to produce the first-class service that the military service community and, indeed, the nation—having committed so much of its own money—deserve, wide-reaching but fair reform will be needed. That reform must be focused exclusively on the key principles of the following four streams: evidence-based treatment; a cultural shift, with the aim of creating not good veterans, but good citizens who have served; a service configured singularly around the service user, which will include service families; and clear and accessible care pathways.

It is worth noting at this stage that a sustainable model of future veterans care and support in this country cannot simply be modelled on how other nations have done this. We face a similar but subtler challenge in the UK, given our cultural and societal perceptions of serving and retired military service personnel and their families. Let me repeat that key point: veterans care must be singularly and exclusively configured around the needs of the user, with ease of access and dedicated casework management, rather than just signposting, at its core.

What do those four points look like in a little more detail? The future actually looks very similar to the present, but with key organisational, control and attitude changes. We are not looking at a huge demand or fiscal commitment to get this right. The Government must step up and take command of the national veterans challenge. Ultimately, it is the nation’s responsibility to care for our servicemen and women, and that must be realised.

The Government’s role in all this would be clear. They would provide access to service records. They would ensure there was a uniform access process across all providers, taking responsibility for a single point of contact. They would need independently to control the impartial case management of individuals, which would be focused entirely around individuals and their specific needs, which must be met. The Government must commit to providing interoperable case-management software and access to, or information about, NHS and other care providers’ data. Chiefly, however, they must accept some sort of legal responsibility for ensuring that there is that care pathway. The actual delivery of services would remain with the current providers across the charitable and NHS sectors.

What sort of reform is needed in the service charity sector? With our young men and women potentially at vulnerable stages in their lives, approaching almost anyone who can claim to provide a service, there can be no doubt that we need some sort of regulation—with a small “r”—of our service providers, which is something only the Government can do. It is not good enough to ask the veteran to shop around and bounce from charity to charity without resolving his issues. Too much has already gone into the system: too much time has been invested and too many cases have been exposed to allow that to continue.

I and everyone else in the sector are clear: nobody can tell a charity what to do—that is not what these reforms are about—but it would be naive to suggest that the entire sector is optimised at present to deliver care for veterans, which is a nation’s responsibility. With more than 2,500 military charities and funds, it is not realistic to suggest that there is no duplication, waste, bad practice or financial misdemeanours.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is, rightly, speaking passionately about military charities. I know I can speak today without fear of opposition about the fact that many charities have tried to come together at various points. Indeed, when I served in the Ministry of Defence and worked under General Richards, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, efforts were made to bring them together. There is, however, opposition to streamlining in many areas when so many different charities seek to fulfil a role in our society.

[Johnny Mercer]

Absolutely. This is the nub of the challenge when it comes to military charities and funds: how do we go about getting everyone to pull in the same direction? Some service providers need to consider whether they are exclusively configured around the user for whom they were originally set up to serve. Only a robust, dedicated and strong leadership team is capable of having that conversation, but I hold out hope that, with a vision of single-minded delivery in an increasingly challenging environment, charities can come together to identify their individual but equally special roles in the veterans care pathway and work together better as part of a greater machine and a greater cause than just their own. That requires leadership, including from the Government, but that will not happen unless we make a conscious move to provide it.

In my view, all groups that wish to provide a veterans’ service of any kind and raise money for anything related to veterans care, be it palliative or holistic, should be required by law to be part of an approved group, perhaps along the lines of Cobseo—the Confederation of Service Charities—but with teeth. In order to gain access to that group, service providers should adhere to a basic set of agreed standards on their suitability. Those standards could include showing a clear practice of evidence-based treatment, outcomes, a complaints system, independent financial oversight by a board of trustees, and refusal to accept individual cases that do not come through a single and agreed point of contact.

I am going to start wrapping up, because I want to give the Minister time to reply. I hope the House forgives me for going on for longer than I wanted to, but I wanted to take as many interventions as possible.

In summary, now is the time to get this right. The truth is that other allies are treating their veterans better than we are, and that cannot be right. We have this ever-closing window of opportunity. We owe it to this current warrior generation, who, like so many before us, gave the best years of our lives willingly in service of the nation, hoping that we would not be disadvantaged for doing so. The Conservative Government can deliver that, but current structures need to be reconfigured. A department for veterans affairs would be a huge step forward, but it must be given the cost-departmental authority required to deliver those changes. Veterans care is a multi-agency operation within Government. At the very least, the veterans Minister must have that cross-departmental authority.

Finally, I pay tribute to the veterans Minister, with whom I have worked closely on this area. He has achieved much already and I am sure that he will continue to do so throughout this Parliament, but the truth is that he has no cross-departmental mandate or resource to empower him, or a clearly identified budget. In the United States, the Veterans Administration budget for 2015 was more than £160 billion.

This Government have done more in this cause than any previous Government. That is unarguable. We have made real progress, but there is some way to go—there really is. This Prime Minister presents us with an opportunity to get this right for my generation. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to bring this issue before the House.

Iraq Historic Allegations Team

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) securing today’s debate. It is crucial that we not only support our service personnel but uphold human rights and have the UK show leadership in promoting international human rights.

Our armed forces carry out a vital role on our behalf, often in harsh and dangerous conditions. Their courage and professionalism are to their immense credit. As part of that professionalism, our armed forces should and must be able to justify their decisions and actions against clearly defined standards of conduct. When allegations are made that conduct has not met the high standards expected by both society and the armed forces, they must be taken seriously. When there is a case to answer, the case must be investigated fully and fairly.

Since the inception of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, a number of issues have arisen that require consideration, as many speakers have touched on today. They include the scope of the investigations, the considerable volume of the case load, the amount of time that has passed in some of the incidents involved and concerns about the credibility and veracity of the allegations. Each of those issues presents challenges to IHAT and to us, who oversee it, in the dispensing of justice.

The latest figures that I have seen indicate that 1,514 allegations have been reported to IHAT, making up 1,329 cases. Of those, 43 have been closed and 57 dropped, with 280 UK veterans under investigation. It is only fitting and fair that we are concerned about the number of allegations and the speed of the investigations, and it is no surprise that many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), have raised that issue.

I understand that IHAT has about 150 staff, so in my view, it is reasonable to question the speed at which cases are being dealt with. Indeed, if I were a member of a committee scrutinising the issue, I would have serious questions for witnesses and would be pressing them on the apparently slow rate of progress and for a comparison with other legal jurisdictions.

I fully understand that we are talking about a unique situation in many respects, given the challenges in investigating allegations. However, the rate of progress is an issue. The hon. Member for Newbury raised the issue of trails going cold on some of the investigations. We need to address that and face the reality that in some—indeed, many—cases, it might not be possible to get the evidence we need to establish whether an allegation is true. That might simply mean that the case cannot proceed, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

Turning to the credibility and motives of those bringing complaints, which many Members have raised, I have concerns that there may well be instances in which the current system is being abused, and that spurious allegations are being brought against military personnel and service veterans. The answer lies in ensuring that we have a system in place that allows the prompt dismissal of cases that are brought on flimsy evidence or are not evidence-based. In cases where evidence is found to have been falsified or deliberately distorted, I would want to see penalties imposed for what I consider to be akin to the criminal charges of perverting the course of justice or, at the very least, wasting police time, or its equivalent in Scottish law.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) said, our legal system in this area must uphold the values of the European convention on human rights, as well as other international human rights treaties. We have to work with other nations to set an example of our values on human rights. Some Members have expressed the desire to derogate from the convention, but that is not the right way forward. The European convention on human rights was born out of the horrific events of world war two, which rightly made the international community think very carefully.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, but the problem with regard to derogation is that it was specifically intended by the authors to allow for operations outside the territory. The danger of the argument he is making is that the Scottish National party is turning soldiers from cannon fodder into courtroom fodder.

[Steven Paterson]

I will resist getting into party politics. This is a serious case and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made his point very well there—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for securing this debate. He is a doughty champion of our armed forces and a former member of their number. I also thank, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) who have spoken today and have been a great help to me in the work I have undertaken since May last year.

I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken in support of our armed forces today. We send them into harm’s way, dressed in body armour, to defend our freedom and national interest. It is not just their courage and capability that makes them the best; it is their values and the high standards we hold them to—values of self-discipline and self-sacrifice. Much of what they do in both war and peace is to uphold the rule of law, including international humanitarian law such as the well-known and well-understood Geneva conventions.

As a nation, we have chosen to invest in preserving and promoting those vital rules in armed conflict, ensuring they are reflected in all we do, and using our considerable reach to instil them in armed forces around the world. It is right that we meet the obligations on us to investigate credible allegations of human rights breaches, serious criminality and war crimes. How ironic then that those brave men and women, who do so much to protect and promote human rights and the laws that enshrine them, stand accused of wishing to exempt themselves from such obligations.

I will set out some of the shocking practices of those accusers, mainly two law firms, that concern us and what we are doing to meet our manifesto commitment. I will contrast that with the work of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and provide an insight into its remit, its methods and some of the cases it has been dealing with which, if I do them justice, will reassure Members of the House and the armed forces.

I want to explain why protecting our armed forces from litigation motivated by malice and money is compatible with upholding human rights and the pursuit of justice, and that human rights and justice depend upon it. It is not about holding our armed forces above the law, as Leigh Day has suggested, but rather that we wish to uphold the primacy of international humanitarian law that helps to keep our armed forces safe, gives them the freedom to act in accordance with those laws, and protects human rights.

The ability to take prisoners, for example, is a well-understood good, and not being able to do so would have very grave consequences for both sides of a conflict. Any action that undermines or deviates from such rules is detrimental to our operational ability and to the safety of our own armed forces. We should make no apology for investigating and holding our armed forces to account for such actions. It is in our national interest to do so, as well as in that of the people who serve in our armed forces.

The steady creep of extending the reach of European human rights legislation, which was not written for conflict situations, is eroding international humanitarian law. The behaviour of parasitic law firms churning out spurious claims against our armed forces on an industrial scale is the enemy of justice and humanity, not our armed forces or the Ministry of Defence.

[Tom Tugendhat]

When I was interviewing various witnesses for the “Clearing the Fog of Law” report, the former Member, Jack Straw, was very specific about the reason for not derogating in advance of the Iraq conflict, which was that it was never thought that the European convention had extraterritorial jurisdiction. What other Members have called for—I particularly highlight my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis)—is very reasonable in the light of that experience.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is right, and he knows what he is talking about.

When the courts entertain claims against our armed forces of the likes of an insurgent bomb-maker suing us for not shooting him in a fire fight, but instead taking him prisoner and holding him until we could guarantee he would not face mistreatment in the local justice system, it is not just our armed forces who suffer the strain on them and the corrupting effect on their behaviour in the field; the cause of human rights suffers too. Today, when faced with the likes of Leigh Day and PIL, we need to wrap our service personnel in more than just body armour when we send them out to defend freedom.

Shortly the National Security Council will meet to decide on a number of options to address all the concerns that hon. Members have expressed this afternoon. Over the last eight months, extensive work has been going on in the MOD and the MOJ on these issues. Hon Members have mentioned some of the options that may be brought forward, and there are others.

Specifically with regard to spurious litigation being brought against our service personnel and the conduct of legal firms, the Prime Minister has announced that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and I will chair a working group to tackle every aspect of that, including conditional fee arrangements, legal aid rules and disciplinary sanctions against lawyers who are abusing the system or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Against that backdrop, I understand that the work of IHAT has been tarred with the same brush. Hon. Members have spoken about why it was set up. It was to ensure that we have a domestic process as opposed to an international one. I want to give an insight into some of the cases, because they are illuminating.

In case No. 377, it was alleged that a passenger in a car was shot by an

“hysterical British soldier in a tank.”

That IHAT investigation ascertained that PIL had submitted the allegation in October 2014, despite Danish armed forces accepting liability for the incident and paying compensation in 2003.

In case No. 123, it was alleged that a 13-year-old girl had been killed when she picked up part of a UK cluster bomb that had failed to detonate. The IHAT investigation established that a 13-year-old boy had been killed, but was unable to ascertain whether Iraqi or UK munitions were responsible. PIL challenged the MOD’s decision not to refer it to the IFI—Iraq fatality investigations. The MOD defended the challenge on the basis of that information. Shortly before the hearing, PIL disclosed a witness statement by the boy’s father, made before the IHAT investigation, in which he said that the boy had been killed while in the vicinity of an Iraqi mobile missile launcher preparing to fire missiles into Kuwait that was destroyed by a coalition helicopter. There are many other cases that I could mention. It was concluded, after thorough investigation, that UK service personnel had acted in self-defence, in the defence of others, and lawfully.

IHAT enables us to meet our obligations to investigate serious wrongdoing, and its work is exonerating those wrongly accused and rejecting bogus allegations. I would add that the sniper case that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury mentioned is not an IHAT case. Its investigators—a mix of service personnel, police officers and legal experts—are doing a public service, and I pay tribute to them. They feel their responsibilities keenly. Those investigators did not set up IHAT; we did. That was done not by anyone in this Chamber today, but by a previous Government, and for sound legal and policy reasons—there should be a domestic system of accountability, because without that there would be an international one. I hope that I have set the record straight on that. However, some questions remain for us, the politicians.

Does the existence of IHAT invite such claims? Were we not funding it, would fewer cases be brought? Why are so many cases brought and why are they so poorly researched, lengthening the investigation process? How can we speed that up? What support is given to our armed forces during the process? The work of IHAT is independent of the MOD, and we would not interfere with its investigations or work, but those are genuine questions to look at. It is right that we look at further ways of speeding up the process without compromising the quality of its output or its independence.

I can reassure hon. Members that we do all we can to support our armed forces through such investigations, and that support is also embedded in the practices of IHAT. It does give notice of investigations, and hon. Members must flag it up if they have heard of instances in which that has not been the case. Support that the MOD routinely provides to service personnel includes the funding of legal costs and, where appropriate, the funding of judicial reviews, as well as pastoral support. We fund medical assessments and applications to excuse from giving evidence veterans and serving personnel who are not medically fit to do so. Indeed, some in the judiciary have criticised the MOD for providing the level of support that we do provide. Those obligations remain, whatever the theatre in which the actions took place, whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland or elsewhere, but we recognise the cost of all this to our servicemen and women and to the public purse.

The al-Sweady case, in which our armed forces were exonerated and which resulted in Leigh Day being referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, cost the MOD and the British taxpayer £31 million to stage—£31 million, I would argue, that would be better spent on equipment and support for our armed forces. The status quo is financially unsustainable and morally unjustifiable. To put this right falls to us in this place, and we must all be resolved to do so. This issue and the solutions that we will bring forward are complex, but the objective is simple: we must protect human rights and we must protect those who defend them—our armed forces.

Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hanson. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) for his kind words on my paper, “The Fog of Law”, which was published a couple of years ago. That paper is only more relevant, sadly, given that various trials—we warned of them several years ago—are coming to fruition. Young men who took decisions on our behalf are being unfairly pressured into answering for actions that were fundamentally of the Government and therefore of this House, rather than their own. When considering the covenant, it is important that we consider the individuals—they are carrying out requests not on their behalf, but on ours.

I should immediately declare an interest, as I am still serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces as a reserve officer. I have many friends who continue to serve in uniform, and I am proud to say that they do. The points I was going to make on the military covenant have already been made, so I will limit my comments a little more than others may have needed to.

The fundamental point of the covenant is that it is not just something that we give to those in the armed forces: the possibly 1 to 4 million people that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire referred to; it is actually how we ensure our own future. All relationships and human interactions are fundamentally reciprocal. In the give and take of the armed forces covenant is the extension of the commitment we make to our troops. It is the extension of buying a proper uniform, of making sure the troops are properly armed, trained, paid and motivated. Part of that is the covenant. If we get that wrong, we not only fail to look after those who served us with great honour and courage, but we weaken ourselves, because we discourage the best and the brightest of every generation who have served with great fortitude in our armed forces. Indeed, everyone from the grandson of the monarch to the grandson of anybody else has served in our armed forces.

We discourage people from serving, and in doing so we weaken ourselves. I therefore argue that the military covenant is not an act of generosity or normalisation, but of self-defence. We must look at it very clearly as such, because self-interest in this area is sometimes the way to get the best result out of the Exchequer. The Chancellor has already been generous, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) identified, but it is important that we do not see the stories, which we occasionally see, about servicemen having to sell homes to fund the purchase of prosthetic limbs, and it is important that other veterans are not forced out of the family home in search of medical help. We need to make sure that such duties are taken on by society, not only because it is the right, moral and honourable thing to do, but because it is the best, safest and most sensible thing to do.

I look forward very much to our covenant coming to fruition and the reports building one upon another, so that we get to a state where what we are really arguing about is tweaks and turns and not substance, because, as we build up that covenant, we build up our own defence. That covenant is not only about the individuals, but about the families. When I speak to serving members of the armed forces today, I know that part of that covenant is also about the way in which we treat the serving families. I am particularly struck time and again when people—my friends in the armed forces—talk to me about things such as continuity of education. Some people have seen it as a luxury; some have said it is a way to support various families to continue a form of education that has long gone from most people in society. It is not. It is a way of ensuring that families who move around—men and women who serve overseas at the drop of a hat, who leave home and family and go away—can continue to ensure that their children are properly cared for; that they enjoy the opportunities that they rightly deserve; and that, where the family is staying at home in one location, they enjoy it.

How do I know that? If we look at any large employer or any of the large multinationals that regularly move people and take staff and say, “You were a director of X in London; you are now a director of Y in Paris, New York or Nigeria,” one of the essential parts of the package of employment is always education. No father or mother will accept to impoverish their children’s future. It is wrong that we should ask serving members of today’s armed forces to do that, which is why I strongly support the continuity of education allowance. It is essential not only in terms of recruiting and maintaining the quality of personnel—officers and other ranks; many apply for it—but to guarantee the commitment to maintain that we have the best and the brightest for the future.

I want to talk a little about the law. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has spoken extremely eloquently about it. The law can be used in both ways. It can be used quite rightly to support the actions of our armed forces and to defend them. That is exactly what the Geneva convention is for: to control and regulate the conduct of operations in battle. However, it is also right that we use the appropriate law. Sadly, in recent years a legal doctrine has grown up in which we have started to use inappropriate legislation, and we have started to treat soldiers as policemen. Once again, this is not just a nicety and choosing which element we like or do not like; this is fundamentally about the security of the state and the liberty of the individual. If we start to view people who are not policemen but soldiers and treat them like civilians, various operations become impossible.

It would be wrong to ask the police to storm a building knowing that they would take casualties of 5% or 10%, and yet we asked young men to do that on the beaches of Normandy. It would be wrong to ask the police to go into a riot situation knowing that five or 10 of them would probably be killed, but that is exactly what we did at Mount Tumbledown in the Falkland Islands. We do it again and again, because what we ask servicemen to do is not the job of a civilian. It is not the job of a policeman, a doctor or a fireman; it is something more than that. We literally ask them to put their lives on the line.

The deal is up to death, and that deal makes the covenant different, but it also means that the legal protection that is required to enable soldiers to act and to operate is also different. They must have the right to act. They must have the ability to act in a sensible and reasonable way. This does not mean that they must have the right to break the law; they do not and should not. This does not mean that the Geneva convention is irrelevant; it is not and it should not be. This does not mean that they should be allowed to commit murder, rape, looting or anything else. They are not and should not.

What it does mean is this: soldiers take split-second decisions—hard decisions—that young men and women were taking every day when I was in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 18 and 21-year-olds—junior commanders; sometimes more senior—were taking split-second decisions and then, 10 years later, in the cool of the courtroom, were being asked to justify to people who had never walked on to a beach without getting into a sweat how they could have made such a decision, evaluated the situation they saw before them, and taken a call. What was actually happening was that the serviceman or woman in question was being asked to justify the decisions of this House that sent them there, and that is wrong. That is why it is right that the appropriate law, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire put it, is the law that should apply, and not the European Court of Human Rights. In this case I have argued against various articles, in the paper “The Fog of Law”.

There is another point I want to make about the covenant: it must apply as widely as we can make it. Many have served our armed forces with huge honour and distinction around the world, and I include the enormously courageous interpreters I served with in Afghanistan. I include the Iraqis who sadly lost their lives serving next to us, but in the Queen’s uniform—they were dressed as we were—as interpreters. We owe them a duty of care, too. This covenant does not cover them—I understand that—but the generosity of Her Majesty’s armed forces and Her Majesty’s Government must include them. Only by doing so will we ensure that we get the best people to serve alongside us in our time of need. Those interpreters were not extras. They were not a luxury. They were not an add-on to our fighting capability; they were integral to it. Only by getting that right will we maintain the fundamental combat power that the British armed forces deploy on operations. It is absolutely right that we extend the covenant rights, as much as is possible and is reasonable, to those who have served alongside us.

[Mr Gray]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the interpreters, and we are making some steps in the right direction there, but there are of course large numbers of other contractors of one sort or another, who in many cases serve right up at the frontline. To a greater or lesser degree they, too, should be covered by the terms of the military covenant.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I agree entirely with what he just said.

I want to bring in one other aspect: the fact that many, many young men and women from various other countries have served in Her Majesty’s uniform. Our recruitment system is blessed in having young men and women from all over the world who want to come and serve in our armed forces. My information may be out of date, but when I joined the armed forces, more men and women from the Republic of Ireland were serving in the British Army than were in the Republic’s army. Those young men and women, who serve in the Queen’s uniform, deserve as much protection as we can give them. Ireland is an independent state, and quite rightly so, but it is absolutely right that Her Majesty’s Government should recognise their service and, where appropriate, offer the same support through the covenant that British servicemen would enjoy anywhere else. The same is true of Nigeria, Nepal or South Africa. Young men and women have come from those countries, sometimes in great numbers, and served alongside us. I urge the Minister to look very closely at how, through the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, Her Majesty’s Government can support communities that have sent young men and women to fight alongside ours.

Finally, I should say that the covenant is not always essential, because some of us have benefited disproportionately from our armed service. I have benefited massively from the camaraderie. I have benefited hugely from the education and the training. I have benefited completely from the moral ethos and the integrity that has, quite rightly, been rammed into us all. Military service is not a disadvantage. It is not a handicap. It is in no way something that should hold one back. It does not. In the vast majority of cases, military service empowers, enables and liberates people. It takes young men and women, often those who have been failed by the civilian services in our society, and gives them the leg up that they always needed, and a sense of discipline and purpose. The covenant is not a negative. It is not always about correcting a fault. It is about recognising where we can do that little bit more.

Trident

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not accept for a moment her definition of incoherence. If that was incoherent, the actions of Germany, Spain and many other members of NATO are equally incoherent. I would point—

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

Please, let me finish the answer. I point out to the hon. Lady that the last two Secretaries-General of NATO have been Danish and Norwegian—countries that have exactly the same position that we advocate.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

On that point, though.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Brendan O'Hara]

No, I will make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

This is not a question of what my opinion is; it is a matter of simple fact that NATO is a nuclear alliance. Membership of NATO, which the SNP supports, requires allies to be members of the NATO nuclear alliance and to sit on the appropriate committees. So the fact is: an independent Scotland that was part of NATO would be covered by the nuclear umbrella. To be frank, I suspect that it is precisely because it would be covered in that way, with all the strength and security that that would offer, that it wants to be a member of NATO. That would give assurance to its own members. This is not a question of my opinion; it is a simple statement of fact.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Toby Perkins]

No, I am going to finish in a moment.

On the back of yesterday’s strategic defence and security review, the Government must clarify a number of the urgent issues that have been touched on already today. First, will they give us a breakdown of the new cost estimates for the Successor fleet that they have provided? Specifically, what are the latest figures for warhead and infrastructure refurbishment? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury is to take the lead on the procurement of the Vanguard Successor class? If so, will he explain why? In setting out the mechanics of that arrangement, can he explain what it says about the level of confidence the Chancellor has in the Ministry of Defence? What input will Defence procurement experts have into the Treasury’s work on this? Was the decision made with the support of the Secretary of State for Defence, and if so, why did he think the matter would be better handled outside his own Department? Thirdly, will the Government clarify the timescales of the Successor programme? What criteria did they use to decide to further extend the life of the existing fleet? What is the strategy underpinning that decision? And, most importantly, can the Department resolutely guarantee that the decision will not adversely impact on the maintenance of our continuous at-sea deterrent posture?

I hope that the Minister for Defence Procurement will have an opportunity to respond to my questions. They are questions that he might reasonably have expected from the Members who called the debate, as they have had much longer to scrutinise the Government on this matter, but of course they are only interested in highlighting the difficulties that they perceive in the Labour party.

In summary, the Labour party’s review, under the stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, will consider any new evidence. It will examine the views of people from across the spectrum of opinions. It will allow people across the party, in the trade union movement and in communities right across the land to engage in the debate. It will learn about the facts and debunk the myths, as part of a national conversation. We will not shrink from the debates; we will relish them. This is an issue on which we believe there needs to be more light and less heat. We will not play political games with an issue as important as this, but the House can be assured that when that review has been concluded, the Labour party will have a position that has been the subject of the widest public debate in the history of military decision making. People will be able to have real confidence that the position we reach is one that the party—and, indeed, the country—can support with confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

This is an extremely important debate. Already this afternoon, we have heard some errant wrongs in the nature of our NATO alliance. I hope that Members will forgive me for taking a moment to correct them. NATO is a nuclear pact. NATO demands nuclear capability. NATO requires states to allow deployable nuclear weapons. It is simply incorrect to say that any member state can be a NATO member without tolerating, allowing, encouraging and even permitting the deployment of nuclear weapons from its states.

Germany has nuclear-capable artillery. Belgium has nuclear-capable aircraft. Denmark has runways for such aircraft and has subs basing for it in Danish waters. Every NATO state is nuclear-capable and allows the deployment and the firing of nuclear weapons from its territory. That is part of the 1949 alliance. If countries do not like it, they should not sign it; that is very, very clear.

NATO countries sign that alliance for a very good reason. It is because nuclear weapons work. Since 1949, no two nuclear states have fought each other or gone to war in any way. Why? Because nuclear weapons are appalling; they are utterly awful.

[James Cartlidge]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the many venerable academics who believe that, had it not been for nuclear weapons, it is almost certain that in the cold war period we would have had a third conventional world war, which would have been far more bloody and brutal than the first or even the second?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention. The appalling nature of nuclear weapons is exactly what keeps us safe. The very fact that they are an existential threat to so many regimes and to so many dreadful leaders around the world is exactly what puts them off. Few bunkers and no society could survive a nuclear attack, and that is exactly why nuclear weapons work: nobody wishes to face them.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is giving a very powerful speech. Does he agree that NATO is about making a conventional or a nuclear attack on its members absolutely futile? In short, in the nuclear age, the enemy is war itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, in highlighting the fact that war is the real enemy, we need look only at the loss of life that we have seen from war this century. In the first and second world wars, we saw terrible destruction from conventional weapons. Ironically, those weapons were stopped by the two attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Though those attacks were utterly awful, and I will not in any way say that they were not, it is quite clear that what they did was prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives—not just American lives, but Japanese lives too. Many prisoners of war, many of our relatives, survived the second world war—I am talking about the relatives of Members not just on the Government Benches but on the Opposition Benches too—because the horror of those two attacks brought an early end to that war, and thank God they did, because hundreds of thousands of lives were saved.

However, nuclear weapons do not work alone. They work as part of the spectrum of defence. They are part of everything from the infantry soldier with his bayonet right the way through to the Trident nuclear submarine. They work across the entire spectrum, because it is only the range that allows Her Majesty’s armed forces to intervene at an appropriate level on each occasion. In exactly the same way as a diplomat requires the military for his words to have credibility, so too the soldier requires the submarine to know that he will not be undermined by an attack from one of the other states that may sympathise with the enemy.

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful contribution. In his considerable experience working in the Ministry of Defence, has he ever seen a viable reorientation of defence expenditure away from the nuclear deterrent which would give us the same level of assurance around our defence?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Some work has been done on that, but only at a very basic level. The truth is that, when people rightly talk about the cost of defence and the cost of the nuclear deterrent, what they rarely consider is how much the conventional alternative costs. If we truly wish to deter and to persuade an enemy that we will not be steamrollered by their wish or blackmailed by their desires, we need to have a deterrent that allows us not to strike first, but to strike back. No conventional force offers the same pound-for-pound capability as the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. Members may not like it, but that is why the nuclear deterrent is the cheapest alternative.

[Carol Monaghan]

The deterrent is not working when Russian submarines in our waters are being spotted not by maritime patrol aircraft or vessels, but by fishing boats. We are now in the ridiculous situation where our deterrent is either to nuke them or to chase them away with bayonets.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady makes an entertaining but factually unsound point. Our capabilities are to chase them away with our hunter-killer submarines and the Royal Navy’s patrol vessels, and that is exactly what they are doing. Most important, when we see those Russian submarines coming towards us, we do not immediately think, “Let’s bow to Mr Putin’s latest desires and hobble ourselves to the Kremlin’s wishes.” Instead, we think, “They won’t dare, because they know we can.” That is what grants us the independence of action and guarantees us the independence of movement that we require as an active supporter of human rights and of the dignity of humanity in this world.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the ultimate proof that they are a deterrent is that although submarines may be circling the United Kingdom, they are not firing missiles?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Looking around the world, we might think that the real threat today is militant jihadism or a dirty bomb. That is, of course, true in the immediate sense, but I wonder how many Members on either side of the House would have looked around the world 20 years ago and said, “We’ve got to be worried about ISIS.”

[Danny Kinahan]

rose—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me, but I must make some progress. How many of us would have thought that, rather than being one our allies, as we very much hoped she would be in the 1990s, Russia would be resurgent after the cold war, changing the borders of a European country for the first time since 1945 and sponsoring militias in Ukraine that intend to bring death not only to the peacekeepers we send, but to civilian aircraft flying overhead? Who would have predicted that? I would wager that no one would have predicted it. Because of that inability to predict, it is essential that we in the United Kingdom guarantee the ultimate security for us and our children. It is not enough to wish for peace—we must work for it and fight for it, and the nuclear deterrent is the ultimate proof that we will both work and fight for our own security.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I should start by declaring an interest as a member of the Scottish CND.

Like the other members of the Public Accounts Committee, I have an advantage in approaching this debate, because we took evidence from the permanent under-secretary to the Ministry of Defence.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Deidre Brock]

Please let me make a little progress.

We heard for ourselves the MOD’s misgivings about Trident and how it is unaffordable and threatens spending on other equipment.

The Prime Minister’s war drums are beating. He wants to open up another war front in Syria, to add to the current commitments of service personnel around the globe, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we have troops engaged abroad, the MOD was telling us that the inventory of support matériel for the armed forces has been cut by a quarter in the past four years, and that the funding is about to be slashed from £30 billion to less than £10 billion by keeping what was described as

“the minimum amount of kit”.

Spending on Trident, however, is to be protected and enhanced.

We were told that a huge gap of some £8.5 billion exists between what the generals, admirals and air chief marshals say the armed forces need and what Whitehall is prepared to provide. In the words of the permanent under-secretary,

“a process of going through what people want and saying, ‘I know you like that fantastic new thing. Actually, what you need is this’, will lower the bill.”

Whitehall bean-counters will be telling the armed forces what they really need, but spending on Trident will be sacrosanct. There will be no back-up body armour for troops on the battlefield, but there will be plenty of cash for Trident. Provision of troop transport options will be a matter for Whitehall, but the transport of weapons of mass destruction cannot be questioned.

We were told that the nuclear enterprise is what keeps the MOD’s senior civil servants awake at night. The permanent under-secretary said that the current annual running cost of Trident is

“in excess of £3.5 billion”,

but that if it is renewed the figure will rise to more than £5 billion a year. He said that he could drive savings in other areas,

“but that project is a monster and it is an incredibly complicated area in which to try to estimate future costs.”

Therefore, while Trident—an unusable and abhorrent abuse of scientific discovery and human imagination—can name its price and pick the pockets of any other budget in the MOD, other parts of the service are resourced or starved on a Whitehall whim.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady was in Australia at the time, acting in various episodes of “Home and Away”, but is she aware that during the 1970s the CND was largely funded by the KGB, as the Mitrokhin archive proves? Some of these arguments therefore sound a little hollow when they are made with the cash of our enemies.

[Deidre Brock]

That is a very amusing intervention, given that I am quoting the MOD’s so-called chief executive. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are not worthy of this place.

The air crews that the Prime Minister wants in the Syrian skies cannot be sure of a reliable supply of spare parts for their planes, but Trident will always have whatever it needs.

There is another insult in the midst of that mess, as the MOD outsources logistics and supply for armed forces to Leidos, an American firm that started out providing advice to the American defence nuclear industry. Those of us who campaigned in the independence referendum will recall being told that no vital pieces of defence infrastructure are provided by companies from outwith our borders. How things change and yet stay so much the same.

We might also want to take note of the legal position. My constituent Ronald King Murray—Lord Murray—who is a former Lord Advocate for Scotland and a respected legal thinker, has offered the opinion that nuclear weapons are illegal under international law. Given what the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I point out that Lord Murray was a serving soldier preparing to attack Japanese positions when the first atomic bomb was dropped in Hiroshima 70 years ago, and he thinks it may well have saved his life. However, he formed the opinion then, in spite of the preservation of his own life, that the weapon is probably illegal, and his opinion has not changed in the seven decades since.

Lord Murray suggests that the International Court of Justice might use the occasion of the case being brought by the Marshall Islands to update and enhance its 1996 ruling, which is that the use, or threatened use, of nuclear weapons was illegal. It may well decide now to rule that the possession of such weapons is illegal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

This is a matter of profound national importance. It is a debate on the security of our nation, but it is also about our standing as a nation among our allies and in the eyes of our adversaries. The history of our position as a nuclear power stems from our desire to protect ourselves and not to shy away from our responsibilities to our allies.

We must acknowledge the historically critical role that the Labour party has played in developing the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent. It is important to recognise too the Secretary of State’s call today for consensus on this matter, which I warmly welcome. It was the then Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, who in 1945 began the preliminary work and feasibility studies that paved the way for the independent nuclear deterrent. Following the end of nuclear co-operation with the United States in the shape of the McMahon Act in Congress, in October 1946 the Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, pushed ahead with plans for Britain to develop our own system.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to join him in praising Mr Attlee, indeed Major Attlee, who fought with enormous courage in the first world war? Does he not think that his former leader would have looked at the nuclear alliance and thought, as the Romans did, “Si vis pacem, para bellum.”—“If you seek peace, prepare for war”?

[Mr Reed]

I absolutely agree: Attlee invented the nuclear deterrent, so of course he would have agreed with that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to today’s debate, which I welcomed.

One reason the debate is so important to me is that my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Barrow and Furness have always been at the heart of our independent deterrent, and that is a source of immense pride in Cumbria. Not only that, but I was elected, as were my colleagues, on a clear manifesto commitment that reads:

“Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent”.

A number of colleagues have mentioned NATO. The principle of maintaining an independent deterrent is clearly demonstrated through our commitment to our NATO allies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Mr Reed]

Forgive me if I do not take any more interventions. I need to make progress.

The strategic concept continues:

“The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance”,

including, crucially, the UK. Although that clearly demonstrates the treaty obligations that we must maintain with regard to our allies in NATO and our NATO membership, it espouses the single most fundamental principle underpinning the argument for maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent: while other nations have nuclear weapons, so should we. This is not about bravado, international one-upmanship or, as has bizarrely been said, a virility test. It is a clear demonstration of strength and capability which provides deterrence. Although the threat from other nation states has reduced over the past few decades, only the most naive would say that it has fully diminished. While there are nuclear weapons in the world, the only effective deterrent is maintaining our own independent nuclear weapons. Unilateralism will never work. Believe me, this party has tested that theory to destruction. Only a multinational approach can rid the world of nuclear missiles.

Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the call for inaction, in the face of such evil as is being seen on the streets of Raqqa and other areas of northern Syria today, is to opt out of protecting our friends and allies? Having served alongside Jordanians, Lebanese and Iraqis in recent conflicts, may I urge him to redouble his efforts to support our friends and allies who require such assistance at times like this?

[Michael Fallon]

This is an allied effort, and we are certainly encouraging the other Gulf countries to do more, but we too face an enemy in ISIL and we too need to do more. That is why we are stepping up our training effort and taking on a huge burden in the intelligence and surveillance missions. It is also why, so far, we have conducted a very large number of strikes.