Armed Forces Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I certainly do agree with that. This work is ongoing and is not yet done. We will continue to try to make progress. As the hon. Lady knows, we have implemented a number of reviews, not least Lord Ashcroft’s review of the mental health services that are available to veterans.

I assure the House that our commitment to the covenant remains unshakeable. Today, we are launching a credit union for armed forces personnel. By paying a regular amount of their salary directly into the credit union, they will be able to avoid the struggle for credit approval and the siren call of the payday lenders.

Thirdly and finally, the Bill gives us the opportunity to ensure that the 2006 Act remains fit for purpose for the next five years. The first clause keeps the 2006 Act in force beyond the end of 2016; provides for the continuation of the 2006 Act for a year from the date on which this Bill receives Royal Assent; and provides for renewal thereafter by Order in Council, for up to a year at a time, until the end of 2021. That will give Parliament a regular opportunity to debate the systems of the armed forces for command, discipline and justice.

Clauses 2 to 6 modernise and strengthen the service justice system by making sensible and proportionate changes to the existing provisions. I will take each of those clauses, very briefly, in turn.

Clause 2, on post-accident testing for alcohol and drugs, deals with the situation whereby a commanding officer may require a member of the armed forces or a civilian who is subject to service discipline to co-operate in a preliminary test for alcohol or drugs only when he or she suspects that an offence has been committed. The clause extends those circumstances by providing for post-accident preliminary testing without the need for suspicion that the person being tested has committed an offence. The new powers to require co-operation with tests will apply only after accidents involving aircraft or ships or other serious accidents. They are derived from, although not identical to, those in the railway and transport safety legislation under which civilians are required to co-operate with tests for alcohol and drugs.

Clauses 3 to 5 simplify the process of investigation and charging of criminal and disciplinary offences under the 2006 Act. The commanding officer rightly deals with 90% of cases in the service justice system, and that will not change. The remaining 10% of cases are those that the commanding officer does not have the power to hear, which involve offences such as perverting the course of justice and sexual assault. Some cases that cannot be dealt with by the commanding officer have to be referred by the investigating service police to the commanding officer and then by the commanding officer to the director of service prosecutions for a decision. That is an unnecessarily complex process.

Clause 3 provides for the service police to refer straight to the director of service prosecutions in any case where there is sufficient evidence to charge for an offence that the commanding officer cannot deal with on his own. That brings the service justice system into line with the civilian system.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does that mean that the commanding officer is taken out of the loop entirely in cases concerning soldiers, sailors or airmen who are his or her responsibility?

[Michael Fallon]

No, because the commanding officer will be kept informed about the investigation and the stage it has got to. They are not being removed from the process; we are merely simplifying the procedure and shortening it so that the matter does not have to be referred automatically to the commanding officer and then back to the director of service prosecutions.

Clause 3 also deals with linked cases such as separate offences that occur during the same incident. Some cases may need to be sent to a commanding officer, even though they are connected to a case that has been sent to the director of service prosecutions, and that can result in separate decisions on whether to prosecute, and separate trials. Clause 3 allows the service police to refer a case to the director of service prosecutions if, after consultation, they consider it appropriate to do so because of a connection with another case that has also been referred to that director.

Clause 4 clarifies the procedure for the referral of those linked cases from the commanding officer to the director of service prosecutions, and clause 5 allows the director to bring charges. Currently, when the director of service prosecutions decides that a charge must be brought, they must direct the suspect’s commanding officer to bring that charge. Clause 5 allows the director to bring that charge, just as the Crown Prosecution Service brings charges in the civilian criminal justice system.

Clause 6 increases the range of sentencing options available to the court martial. Civilian courts are currently able to suspend sentences of imprisonment for up to 24 months, but service courts can suspend them for only 12 months. We would like courts martial to be given greater flexibility to vary the deterrent effect of service detention. In some cases it is right for suspended sentences to allow continued service alongside rehabilitation activities. The clause simply corrects the anomaly by giving courts martial the ability to suspend sentences of service detention for up to 24 months.

Clauses 7 and 8 give the director of service prosecutions power to give offenders immunity from prosecution, or an undertaking that the information they provide will not be used against them, in return for assistance that the offender may give to an investigator or prosecutor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces Bill. This is my first opportunity to fulfil my new role in the House as shadow Secretary of State for Defence and I would like to begin by thanking the Secretary of State for the courtesy he has shown me so far in arranging appropriate briefing for me from his Department. I am grateful.

Let me start by offering my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Alan Scott of 33 Squadron RAF and Flight Lieutenant Geraint Roberts of 230 Squadron RAF, who died in Afghanistan on Sunday. From the tributes I have read, both men were highly experienced, respected and valued members of the RAF family. Their deaths serve as a reminder of the commitment and dedication of our armed forces personnel, and of the sacrifices they make. The continuing work of our service personnel in Afghanistan makes a positive contribution to the safety and stability of that nation and beyond. I would also like to express my deepest sympathy and extend my condolences to the family of Megan Park, a young Army recruit who died last month while undertaking training in Pirbright. By undertaking her training, she showed her willingness to put herself in harm’s way for her country. My thoughts are with her family and friends.

The Bill renews the legal basis for retaining our armed forces in peacetime for another five years, while we are fulfilling Parliament’s hard-won right to give consent to the Government for so doing. As parliamentarians, we are fulfilling a key function when we consider whether to consent to this measure. That is one reason why the Bill is important. While our armed forces comprise some of our finest and most dedicated public servants, their actions are not protected or circumscribed by contracts of employment. They owe a duty of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, which requires them to obey lawful orders. It is the system of service discipline and justice, therefore, that enables commanding officers to enforce that obligation when necessary. We certainly have an interest in ensuring that the system of military discipline and justice is fit for purpose, up to date and works well. That is the second reason the Bill is so important.

The Secretary of State has set out the main provisions in the Bill. It seems to me that they are largely non-contentious, technical and simplifying provisions, all of which we will seek to probe in Committee to ensure they work as intended and to satisfy ourselves that they are fit for purpose. I welcome the provisions extending the circumstances in which commanding officers can require service personnel and civilians subject to service law to be tested for drugs and alcohol after accidents. We will want to be satisfied that the rationale for extending the provisions to cover the three new situations set out in the Bill is sound and to have a fuller explanation for the differences between the powers being taken and those upon which they are based in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. We will also want to be clear that the new provisions are sufficiently comprehensive to encompass all likely circumstances.

We welcome the intention of the Bill in setting out to simplify how people are charged with offences within the service justice system. No one benefits from unnecessary delay or bureaucracy in the administration of justice, in whatever system such potential problems might arise. On the face of it, it seems entirely sensible to remove the delay that might be caused by the requirement to refer a case to the commanding officer when he is not in practice able to try it. If he must simply refer it to the director of service prosecutions, it seems sensible for that to happen without the reference from the commanding officer, but he must of course know what is going on with the men under his control. It also seems entirely sensible to refer to the DSP cases that are connected. We will want to probe further in Committee how much of the existing caseload is likely to be affected—I think the Secretary of State referred to some figures in his opening remarks—and where any disadvantages are perceived in the provisions as drafted. Similarly, provisions relating to enabling the DSP to charge directly instead of directing a commanding officer to do so seem sensible, but we will wish to have full assurances in Committee.

We will also want to be satisfied on the necessity of applying equivalent provisions to those in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 relating to immunity from prosecution, undertakings not to use information as evidence and sentence reductions for offenders who co-operate with investigations and prosecutions. We will start from the assumption, however, that if they are useful in the civilian justice system, they might well be useful in the service justice system as well.

The Bill does not cover how UK disciplinary procedures apply to foreign troops trained by British service personnel on British soil. Following the serious and regrettable incidents last year involving recruits from the Libyan general purpose force undertaking training at Bassingbourn camp, the Government published a summary of a report that looked at the Libyan training programme—the full report has now also been published. In January, following the publication of the summary, the Secretary of State said he had asked officials to consider applying UK service discipline to training foreign troops in the UK. In a recent Adjournment debate, the Minister for the Armed Forces said:

“The report asked whether we could apply UK service discipline to troops training in the UK. This would involve bringing foreign troops into the British military chain of command and require significant amendments to the Armed Forces Act 2006. My Department has assessed the challenges and downsides of making those changes and decided that they would currently outweigh any benefits, particularly as we are keen to provide training in-country. I have therefore not instructed my Department to instigate such changes now, but I will keep the matter under review.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 651.]

It is important that lessons are learned from that very serious incident and that foreign troops who come to the UK to train with our military adhere to the same code of conduct as British troops. It is equally important that disciplinary procedures can be put into effect swiftly in cases where criminal offences are committed. The Minister appears to be saying it is too difficult to do this at present, but I hope she will consider fully whether that is an adequate response. As the House will recall, these matters included very serious crimes of sexual assault and rape. Sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape are among the most serious of criminal offences in both civilian and military spheres, and the service justice system must take such crimes as seriously as does the ordinary criminal law.

From meetings I understand have taken place at ministerial and official level, the Minister will know about the military justice campaign being run by Liberty. It has raised serious issues about the collection of statistics on sexual assault and rape and how the service justice system deals with allegations of these serious offences. We will want to probe in Committee what the current state of play is in respect of ensuring that such offences are treated as seriously within the service justice system as they are outside it.

[Bob Stewart]

On the argument about people visiting this country being subject to our military law, a big worry would be that we do not want other nations to apply their military law to our servicemen when they allegedly do something wrong in those countries. We want our military law to extend to our servicemen, wherever they are in the world.

[Maria Eagle]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman has a lot of knowledge of these matters, and I appreciate that such issues, as the Minister must have found, are very complex and difficult. Given the seriousness of the incidents and the fact that the Government undertook to look at the matter, it is important to have a full discussion about why they have come to the conclusion they have. I have not said that I disagree with the conclusion, but I think the House needs to probe fully why the decision, which she undertook to keep under review, was made. We will seek to probe that further during the Bill’s passage. I say no more than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

On a rather sad note, may I pass on my condolences to the families of Flight Lieutenant Scott and Flight Lieutenant Roberts? At the same time, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the young men and women who passed out of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst this summer alongside my son. I know that they will serve their country with pride, and possibly with their lives, just as Flight Lieutenant Scott and Flight Lieutenant Roberts did. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), I know how that must feel. I am sure that the whole House, including the Leader of the Opposition, will ensure that they receive all the necessary support—be it political, moral or financial—to ensure that they have the finest equipment and leadership, including the justice system which we are discussing today, to enable them to fight the battles that we will put them through.

Parliament takes the opportunity, by passing an Armed Forces Bill during each Parliament, to reaffirm its support for the armed forces and for the brave, selfless people who serve in them. It is an honour to represent Portsmouth, alongside the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). It is the home of the Royal Navy and of its people, whose families are on the front line in every struggle this country faces. It is important that our forces should be properly equipped and that their laws should be clear and comprehensive. The UK has the chance, through the strategic defence and security review process and the renewal of this legislation, to review recent history and examine any mistakes, as well as to plan for the future.

People at home and our allies abroad will welcome our commitment to maintain our defence spending at 2% of GDP. In the long term, we might need to restore the defence budget to a higher level than that. Our capabilities have to match our commitments. I welcome the equipment plan for the coming decades, but we should also give more thought to the personnel operating that equipment. In my first few months as a Member of Parliament, I have already seen a number of serving and ex-service personnel facing a variety of problems, from family law to healthcare and housing, resulting from their time spent in the forces. Some of them wonder what the armed forces covenant actually stands for, when they find themselves banging their heads against the doors of officialdom.

In many cases, however, personnel have had recourse to the excellent charitable organisations, including Combat Stress, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines charities, SSAFA, the Royal British Legion and the Royal Navy Benevolent Trust. Some of them provide a central resource for those seeking help in Portsmouth at Castaway House; some have also received LIBOR money. I hope that the military covenant can be strengthened so that nobody leaves that place feeling as though they have been cast away.

After the election, it was an early priority of mine to meet those organisations to understand the challenges that they and the people they represent face. We know, not least from the debate last night, that Combat Stress has seen a 28% increase in referrals in the last financial year. I pay tribute to the work of the Department of Health, which makes a strong contribution to supporting veterans, but it is too often felt that we take a reactive approach to the challenges of service life and health outcomes, rather than a proactive one. At present, Combat Stress’s contract with the NHS in England and Scotland is due to be terminated in 2017. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the great work that it does will be carried on in the future.

[Bob Stewart]

To emphasise my hon. Friend’s point, post-traumatic stress disorder can occur 14, 15 or 16 years after a man or woman has finished their service. That is why Combat Stress is so important.

[Mrs Drummond]

And that is why the military covenant should continue throughout the whole life of a veteran.

I welcome the further reform to the armed forces justice system that the Bill introduces. The services operate very differently from civilian life, and a specific system is necessary to cover them, but that does not mean that the rights of those in the forces should be any weaker. It is important that service personnel should enjoy the same protections of due process and the rule of law as those in civilian life. The reform of the operational period in clause 6 brings service practice closer to the operation in the civilian courts. I also welcome clauses 7 to 12, which extend the scope for granting immunity from prosecution in service cases. Sometimes that is necessary to uncover a greater evil and bring it to an end.

However, I believe that the legislation should do more to clarify and support whistleblowing in the services. It is a tragedy for the families of those involved that they are still looking for answers to what happened at Deepcut barracks almost 20 years ago. I welcome the new code of conduct for the Army on bullying. The Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, which was passed at the end of the last Parliament, introduced an ombudsman process to allow personnel to raise issues and to allow the ombudsman to investigate the substance of those cases. I look forward to that process starting shortly.

The Government recognise the importance of bringing the same protections to service personnel that civilians enjoy. Since the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the armed forces justice system has been brought a long way forward from the unsatisfactory state it had been in. But a justice system is there to protect people as well as to prosecute them, and there is still room for improvement, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, in key areas such as bullying and the prevention of sexual harassment. I am sure that we shall continue to improve the armed forces justice system and keep it under review, either through this Bill or through the armed forces legislation that I have mentioned, which I hope will be incorporated into it. We will be reviewing that legislation in every Parliament as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It is up to the Prime Minister of the day to write whatever advice he or she wants in the letter to the commanders. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall said that our policy had changed, but it has not. It is very clear. End of story.

Labour Members past and present have contributed to the armed forces and I know that my constituency and those of many other Members make a tremendous contribution through their sons, daughters and others who work not only for the regular forces but for the reserve forces. I am proud to represent a constituency with a long history of connection with the forces, and long may it continue. I reassure everyone that I will ensure that I champion their interests and ensure that their welfare, which is important in terms of this Bill, is taken care of.

The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—I am not sure whether he is in his place—made an important point. The Bill refers to drug testing, but, as we all know, one of the biggest issues that needs addressing, which was an issue when I was a Minister, is alcohol. The question is how we address that, not in a nanny state way but by ensuring that people’s health is not affected by the drinking culture not only while they are in the armed forces but after they leave. Perhaps we could consider the question of alcohol and the armed services in Committee.

The hon. Member for Strangford talked about the contribution made by his part of the world to the armed forces as well as the idea of ensuring that people’s voices and complaints are heard. I, too, welcome the Government’s commitment to the service complaints commissioner.

We then heard three contributions from the Scottish nationalist party. I do not want to reiterate the issues about some of their points, but the Scottish nationalists cannot have it all ways. They cannot argue that they are committed to and want more defence resources for Scotland and then argue that an independent Scotland could produce even a fraction of what Scotland gets now.

I get a little disturbed when I hear the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife use the phrase “the distribution of spoils in the UK” to refer to the armed forces, as though the defence of this country is somehow about moving resources around the country in such a crude way. It is actually about ensuring that the country is defended and has the capability to defend itself. He talked about warships never being based in Scotland, but conveniently forgot to tell the House that our submarine base and defence are in Scotland and that that would be put at risk if we followed the proposals to abandon the nuclear deterrent that he and his party want us to follow. The Scottish nationalist party should be honest in this debate and say that what is being proposed for an independent Scotland would not have anything near the footprint or the proud history that is there at the moment. He referred fleetingly to the idea of regiments, and the idea that the SNP would reinstate all those regiments in an independent Scotland is complete nonsense.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) mentioned the White Paper on independence. I read it in detail, and not only its costings but its military strategy were complete and abject nonsense.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my friend for allowing me to intervene. The Scottish nationalist party would have six battalions of infantry, which is twice the number pro rata that my constituents have in England. Pro rata, Scotland has twice the number of infantry battalions that English men and women have.

[Mr Jones]

I agree, which is why the White Paper was complete nonsense. Not only did the sums not add up, but there were no practical proposals to generate those forces from an independent Scotland. Scotland would have information, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance capabilities and other assets but would have no capacity, because of the numbers involved, to analyse what was collected or what its purpose was. For example, it would need fast jets and other things. It was just bizarre, to be honest.

Sgt Alexander Blackman (Marine A)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the case of Sgt Alexander Blackman (Marine A).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mr Pritchard. Before I start, I welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for Wells (James Heappey), and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), along with our colleague, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank them for coming to this debate. I also welcome Sergeant Blackman’s family, friends and relations, and the four members of the Royal Marines who are also here to listen.

We shall be debating an incident that took place thousands of miles away in one of the most hostile environments on earth; in fact, it is so hostile that 454 of our finest servicemen and woman have been killed there, and thousands more wounded. Lance Corporal Cassidy Little is one of those wounded men. He served with Sergeant Blackman during the fateful tour and is present today to support the debate. On behalf of us all, I thank him and his colleagues for their bravery, courage and devotion.

In Afghanistan, the enemy were clever, motivated, difficult to identify, ruthless and cruel. Torture and death faced those who fell into their hands. It was into this hellhole that Alexander Blackman and his fellow Royal Marines from 42 Commando were pitched in 2011. Sergeant Blackman was a 15-year veteran of six operational tours: one in Northern Ireland and three in Iraq, and he was on his second in Afghanistan. There is nothing that this former Royal Marine has not seen. In each tour he had served his country and his corps with great distinction and courage. He was that most valued member of the Royal Marines, the elite’s elite—a senior non-commissioned officer—and he had been recommended for promotion, but then came his last tour in Helmand province, the toughest of his military career.

Sergeant Blackman was posted to the remote command post Omar, with 15 younger Royal Marines under his command. They lived for more than six months in a small mud enclosure, in appalling conditions of physical discomfort. Daily, they patrolled on foot for up to 10 hours in a large hostile area where the Taliban were most active. IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, the roadside landmines favoured by the Taliban, were a constant threat, to the extent that the squad seldom used their vulnerable Jackal vehicle, preferring to patrol on foot instead. They were aware that hundreds of their comrades had already been killed or maimed by IEDs. The psychological impact was devastating. Firefights with the Taliban were common. So, too, were deaths and life-threatening injuries. Overall, 42 Commando lost seven men, and a further 45 were injured, many of them very seriously indeed.

On 28 May 2011, several Marines from Sergeant Blackman’s troop were tasked with establishing a new base in an area known as the badlands. During the operation, Corporal Little was caught in the same blast that killed Sergeant Blackman’s troop commander, Lieutenant Ollie Augustin, and Marine Sam Alexander, who had won a Military Cross on a previous tour. The blast also badly wounded Lance Corporal JJ Chalmers. Later that day, the Royal Marines discovered body parts hanging mockingly in a tree. We can all imagine the effect of such an incident on hard-pressed, very young troops.

While holding it together in such atrocious conditions, Sergeant Blackman’s frequent complaints to headquarters about the impossibility of performing his assigned tasks with such a small number of men for a period far longer than the recommended tour of duty went unanswered. He had one sole visit from his commanding officer, which shows how stretched 42 Commando was. For month after month, the huge weight of responsibility bore down on him as he tried to maintain morale, but a combination of factors were taking their toll.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When my hon. Friend says six months, does that mean Sergeant Blackman had no R and R?

[Richard Drax]

I welcome my gallant colleague to the debate. He did have two weeks for R and R.

Those factors taking their toll included: the inadequacy of the accommodation, equipment and supplies; Sergeant Blackman’s inability to sleep; the almost total lack of supervision; the general isolation; the recent death of his father; the ever-present fear of death or injury; exhaustion; and the strain of keeping the young men under his command alive, in itself an awesome responsibility.

On 15 September 2011, towards the end of their fraught tour, Sergeant Blackman and his patrol were directed to an insurgent who had been fatally wounded by gunfire from an Apache helicopter. Horribly exposed in a known hotspot for enemy activity, they knew that other insurgents were in the area. They dragged the fatally wounded man to cover. That Sergeant Blackman then shot him is beyond doubt: the incident was filmed by a head camera worn by one of the Marines on patrol. I have seen all the footage. What he did was unequivocal. He appeared calm and matter of fact—points made by Judge Advocate General Blackett in sentencing. However, no camera on earth can capture all the circumstances leading to that one momentary loss of control, or what was going on in Sergeant Blackman’s mind at the time.

Except for Corporal Little and his colleagues, none of us here has endured anything remotely approaching what those Royal Marines experienced, and, God willing, we never will. Although both the court martial and the Court of Appeal said that they took into account mitigating circumstances with regard to the sentence, Jonathan Goldberg, QC, who now heads the defence team and is here today, believes that a number of significant mistakes were made. The court was never given the chance to consider the lesser verdict of manslaughter by reason of loss of control owing to the appalling stresses to which Sergeant Blackman was subjected for months on end.

Mr Goldberg advises that, by law, the judge advocate general had a duty to direct the jury on all verdicts reasonably open to them, regardless of whether the prosecution or defence chose to raise them. The verdicts included the ability for a jury to return a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Possible routes to such a manslaughter verdict included: temporary loss of control after months of cumulative stress; diminished responsibility owing to battlefield fatigue and post-traumatic stress disorder; and finally, by reason of an unlawful act, in that Sergeant Blackman admitted desecrating a dead body.

Inexplicably, none of the above possible lesser verdicts were ever raised, either at the court martial or on appeal. The judge advocate general failed to direct the jury panel on those available lesser alternatives, instead imposing the mandatory life sentence for murder, resulting in a good man serving a minimum of eight years in jail without being allowed to seek parole.

On the other hand, a manslaughter verdict on these extraordinary facts could reasonably have resulted in three years in prison at worst and a suspended sentence at best. Sergeant Blackman insists that he was never advised by his then defence team that a manslaughter verdict was even a possibility. Indeed, he knew nothing of the manslaughter option until recently, when his new defence took over. Almost unbelievably in a murder case of such complexity, Sergeant Blackman was never offered a psychiatric assessment prior to his conviction. Moreover, it is bizarre that the Judge Advocate General’s said this in his sentencing remarks after conviction:

“We accept that you were affected by the constant pressure, ever present danger and fear of death or serious injury. This was enhanced by the reduction of available men in your command post so that you had to undertake more patrols yourself and place yourself and your men in danger more often. We also accept the psychiatric evidence presented today that when you killed the insurgent it was likely that you were suffering to some degree from combat stress disorder.”

The psychiatric report he referring to was presented before sentencing and not conviction. In other words, the panel did not know about the report when they found Sergeant Blackman guilty. Why not? What was the defence team up to?

Further evidence that was never heard at Sergeant Blackman’s court martial comes in the form of a 50-odd page document—the Telemeter report. Written by Brigadier Huntley, a few pages of the executive summary were released only this morning, despite frequent requests for the whole report to be published. Apart from criticising Sergeant Blackman, it confirms that there were concerns that the culture within 42 Commando

“was perceived by many…to be overly aggressive.”

The report also states:

“A number of those involved in this incident both directly and indirectly, felt that the Chain of Command had failed to provide them with adequate support before, during and after the court martial.”

[Bob Stewart]

As a former commanding officer, I find it extraordinary that this group of Royal Marines was left in the same position, obviously one of huge danger, for the whole six months. Was the rotation of the men in that position not considered?

[Richard Drax]

That is a good question, and one that my hon. Friend can perhaps ask afterwards of the Royal Marines who were on that tour. As I understand it, they were covering a vast area of land, they were under-resourced and undermanned, and rotation was not possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

Why not?

[Richard Drax]

I do not know. It is perhaps something that the report—the 50 or so pages that we have not seen—may hint at. We call for the report to be published now, so that the new defence team can use it to build up its case. Ultimately, we will have to wait until, as we hope, the Criminal Cases Review Commission takes up the case and demands the release of the report, or the bits of it that we have not seen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I cannot expand on that too much now, but we are aware that Colonel Oliver Lee, Royal Marines, had written a report identifying seven criteria that commanding officers should look out for. I also believe that, as far as Colonel Lee was concerned, Sergeant Blackman ticked every box.

From reading what we have of the executive summary of the Telemeter report—what we have got of it—there is strong reason to believe that the full report is critical of the overall command structure, including the lack of supervision over Sergeant Blackman and his men, which would certainly support Sergeant Blackman’s claims. A sergeant in the Royal Marines is probably—I will get myself into trouble here—superior to, shall we say, a line regiment sergeant, in the sense that they are trained to be far more independent. That was one explanation given to me as to why, in this instance, Sergeant Blackman was left out there for as long as he was—because he was a sergeant and highly respected, and so on.

However, what happened in this instance struck me, too, as extremely odd—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) hinted at this earlier on, and I agree with him. We are both former soldiers, and it was our duty as officers to visit our men and make quite certain that they were safe and well and doing the job that they should be doing, because that was our task. If we did not do that, things began to unravel. Maybe that was one of the reasons why things unravelled in this particular instance.

Going back to the report—50 pages of which, as I have said, still remain unseen—it is no surprise that the Daily Mail and Frederick Forsyth thunder about a cover-up and attempts to make Sergeant Blackman a scapegoat for a much wider failure of high command. Would the full report have given Sergeant Blackman a better chance in court had it been written and published openly shortly after the events, rather than long after his conviction? Vice-Admiral Jones has reportedly asked both serving and former officers not to comment if the press start asking questions.

Also of great concern is the resignation of Colonel Lee. As I understand it, he was a high-flier who resigned his commission in disgust over how Sergeant Blackman was treated and the refusal to call him in evidence at the court martial. Colonel Lee became Sergeant Blackman’s commanding officer just six days before the incident, although they never met.

[Bob Stewart]

How come the defence counsel did not call the commanding officer to give evidence?

[Richard Drax]

Again, I am regrettably not a trained QC or lawyer—I wish I were. All I understand is that he was not, which can be further explored by the QC, who is actually in the room here today.

When he resigned, Colonel Lee wrote the following, which is one of the most damning indictments that I have found in the 10 or 11 months that I have been involved in this sad case:

“Sgt Blackman’s investigation, court martial and sentencing authority remain unaware to this day of the wider context within which he was being commanded when he acted as he did.”

He went on:

“My attempts to bring proper transparency to this process were denied by the chain of command. Sgt Blackman was therefore sentenced by an authority blind to facts that offered serious mitigation…The cause of this is a failure of moral courage by the chain of command.”

That is a devastating criticism and hardly a ringing endorsement of military justice. Colonel Lee’s evidence will be important if the case is referred to the appeal court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which we trust it will be. It must be.

Sergeant Blackman’s conviction in 2013 left a deep impression on me as a former soldier. I visited him in Lincoln prison in December 2014—had I not, I would have gone to my grave with this nagging whatever you like to call it on my conscience and preying on my mind. There I met an intelligent, proud and professional soldier, alongside whom I would have been proud to serve. Several prison guards told me as I left that Sergeant Blackman’s incarceration was hard to comprehend. “He shouldn’t be here”, they said.

As for Sergeant Blackman, understandably he feels betrayed—a scapegoat, hung out to dry by the military and political establishments. He was fighting a war at our behest and on our behalf. He believes that his small patrol was given an impossible mission with little support or command structure. They were undermanned and overstretched, the impossible was demanded and a decent man was pushed beyond endurance. In his words, it was a

“lack of self-control, momentary lapse in…judgement.”

The aim of today’s debate is to highlight a miscarriage of justice. The debate will send an important message to those charged with administering justice to Sergeant Blackman and it mirrors the public outcry. Sergeant Blackman is the first British serviceman to be tried for murder by a court martial since the second world war, and I hope he is the last. War is a dirty, filthy, horrible, frightening business and every man— even the very best —has his breaking point.

I am indebted to the highly respected author Frederick Forsyth for his immense help and his interest in the case; to Jonathan Goldberg QC and his team, who are now representing Sergeant Blackman and are in the Public Gallery today, as I said; to the Daily Mail—which I do not often praise—for running such a well-researched campaign and for going to such incredible lengths to support Sergeant Blackman and his case; to Sir Tim Rice and Major General Johnny Holmes, both highly distinguished in their own fields, who have volunteered as directors of a fund-raising effort; and of course to the public for their support and their donations, which have now reached about £120,000 in five days. In addition, there have been thousands of letters; the Daily Mail is having to employ a team to open them.

I conclude with two observations: one concerns the court-martial panel and the other is entirely my own. When Sergeant Blackman was sentenced for murder—murder—dismissed from the Royal Marines and ordered to march out of the court, he gave his final salute in uniform. The panel, to a man, returned his salute—an act that is, as far as I know, unprecedented, especially given that they had just condemned him for murder. To me, that act speaks eloquently of their deep feelings of ambiguity.

I end finally with my own thoughts, having been involved with the case for nearly a year. Sergeant Blackman was and is no cold-blooded killer. He was just a man pushed to the very edge and sent to do a filthy job with his hands tied behind his back, and he is now no threat at all to anyone. He is paying a terrible price for a lapse of judgment. He is a man who deserves another hearing and should be allowed to go home to his wife.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

My congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing the debate and on all the work he has done on this important issue. I speak as a former soldier, but also as the Member of Parliament for Sergeant Blackman’s parents-in-law, who sought my support when I was a candidate in the election and who continue to seek it.

The first thing I want to put on record is an apology for not speaking publicly on this matter before. In offering that apology, and in explaining why I feel ashamed at not having spoken out properly, I hope to shed some light on why so many in the military—those currently serving and those recently retired, particularly those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan—will feel so reluctant to speak out on this case.

We all go through the same pre-deployment training; we all get taught the rules of engagement. We all know how strong we would want to be when we face danger day in, day out over a six-month tour. We would all like to believe that we have in ourselves the self-control and restraint to remember every letter of that pre-deployment training when we face horrendous, extraordinary situations.

The reason so many of us have come home having acted like that is that we were surrounded by a chain of command and a regiment, whose members were watching our backs on the battlefield—continuing to fire as we moved forward, and continuing to fire as we replaced the magazine on our rifle. They were also watching our backs mentally and psychologically so that, when we got back from a patrol—after an explosion or after a firefight—we were talking to one another, with each of us understanding the pressures the other was under.

The reality is that there is a loneliness in command. From everything I have read, I have no doubt Sergeant Blackman was an extraordinary junior commander who had the welfare of his troops completely at heart. I know from the fact that some of his men are here today—standing up for him silently—that they would have followed him to the ends of the earth.

[Bob Stewart]

Again, I am speaking as an ex-commanding officer, albeit not in the Royal Marine commandos, or the Guards, but if this incident had not happened, this sergeant, in command of a small group—15 men—in such a situation for such a long period, would definitely be on the list for a Conspicuous Gallantry Cross.

[James Heappey]

I thank my hon. Friend.

The reality is that when someone is in a junior command position in an isolated patrol base, there is a responsibility on them to be unbreakable. They do not stint; they do not even take half a step backwards. They walk forwards because that is the only thing their men will follow.

To give junior commanders confidence and strength, and to watch out for their welfare, it is incumbent on those in the chain of command to get around, to visit, to watch, to take people to one side to see how they are and, if they do need a few days out of the line, to invent a reason to get them back down to Camp Bastion so that they can recuperate and get back to the line rejuvenated and with the moral strength they need to lead.

In Sangin, in 2009, my battlegroup was on the very front line—we were taking the highest casualties that had been taken in Afghanistan up until that point. However, I remember only too well that, when there was an incident in an isolated patrol base, the commanding officer and the regimental sergeant-major would be on the first available helicopter up there; if they could not get a helicopter, they would be on the back of the first available patrol. They had a responsibility to get to those patrol bases, not because they wanted to be seen by the riflemen, but because they knew that if the platoon commander and the platoon sergeant were doing everything they had been trained to do, they would be looking out for their soldiers, but nobody in that patrol base would be looking out for them.

And it went on. When an event shook our entire battlegroup, the brigade commander appeared on the first available helicopter from Lashkar Gah. The reason we were able to come back knowing that we had done right and that we had not once crossed the line was that there were people all the way up the chain of the command watching out for us to make sure that we remained strong and resupplied, but also that we were being looked after.

There is a lack of understanding and empathy about what we ask our troops to do, and there are people in this room who have experienced that in the raw. The reality is that operations in Afghanistan over the last five, six or seven years have not been about conventional firefights between two uniformed enemies who stand and shoot at each until one side gives up. This is about a callous, cowardly enemy who uses the cover of night to lay improvised explosive devices with no metal content whatever so that our metal detectors cannot find them. We then ask young men—18-year-olds—and their junior commanders, such as Sergeant Blackman, to step out into the dark of the Helmand night and to walk until somebody has their legs blown off.

That situation is truly extraordinary, yet when this man’s will was broken, when he had taken too much and when his chain of command had let him down, leaving him in the line to continue leading patrols when he had clearly seen too much, we allow him to come home, and we judge those extraordinary circumstances—the extraordinary danger he faced in that extraordinary place—in an ordinary court, with ordinary law, where people are intent on viewing what happened in an entirely ordinary way.

Helmand was a murderous place—a place where the enemy never had the courage to be seen. It was down to the Apaches, with their thermal imaging, to take out those IED crews overnight, because infantry soldiers would never see them by day. They were happy to sit in their compounds and to wait for the explosion, taking satisfaction from another life ruined. They would lay IEDs about 3 feet from the one they thought would get the first casualty. Why would they do that? Because they would then get the front two people on the stretcher party taking the first casualty to the helicopter landing site to get him away to Bastion. This is an enemy who did not play by the rules. This is an enemy that tried your physical and mental strength every single day.

Sergeant Blackman snapped—I believe that is what happened—because he was not looked after by his chain of command. When we brought him home, we tried him in an ordinary court, and we failed to recognise that that extraordinary man deserved the benefit of having those extraordinary circumstances taken into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Heappey]

I had concluded, but it is quite right that I put on record that I was referring to an ordinary court martial.

[Bob Stewart]

A general court martial.

[James Heappey]

But, none the less, an ordinary process. I just think that there is a lack of awareness of the extraordinary pressures this man was under. If the case goes to the Court of Appeal, or if, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) suggested, it is allowed to be judged by 12 members of the public, an entirely different conclusion will be reached. The problem is that Sergeant Blackman has already been in prison. We have already let him down, and that is unforgiveable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, Mr Pritchard, and I commend the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this important debate and the passion with which he spoke about Sergeant Blackman.

The case raises issues of serious concern and it should be carefully considered by the Government, Parliament and parliamentarians. I want to consider some of those issues because I have great sympathy for many of the points being raised across the Chamber, although I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that it is not for parliamentarians to interfere in an individual court case. Therefore I will speak generally, if I can, about some matters that come out of this.

At the heart of the matter for me is the question of culpability. We train our servicemen and women to an extremely high standard, including on how to operate with integrity on the battlefield. Yesterday, in preparing for this debate, I spoke to a friend of mine who used to teach that course to recruits in the Royal Marines. Based on that conversation, my question is: can that training ever be foolproof? Can it ever see every contingency, given the conditions that we expect these troops to operate in and the action they get into with enemy combatants? If not, where does the appropriate level of culpability lie?

When soldiers are ordered to go out on patrol in highly dangerous areas or to risk their lives defending positions, the stress and psychological toll must be draining. Over a sustained period, those factors must surely affect performance and judgement. The psychological toll must be ever greater on those with responsibility for others—those in command on the ground.

To what extent did the pressures on the sergeant have an adverse effect on his mental state when he made the mistake that he made? I am no expert, and I am not privy to every detail of the case—I have not seen the full coverage, as the hon. Gentleman has—but I would like to know that that was taken fully into account by the court martial; there are questions about whether it was.

I hope that the Minister can indicate how we monitor the psychological toll being taken on our servicemen when they are put in these positions. His comments would be welcome; if we are to have confidence in military justice and that our servicemen are treated fairly, it is important that that is taken into account. As has been said by a number of hon. Members, there are questions about the issue.

How do we determine that a serviceman or woman is psychologically fit to be on the battlefield in the first place, and where does responsibility lie when things go wrong? I also have concerns over the accountability of command for incidents such as the one involving the sergeant, particularly in light of the comments, alluded to by others, of Colonel Oliver Lee, which have been widely reported. Although a couple of hon. Members have mentioned them, I will repeat Colonel Lee’s comments because they are important:

“Sgt Blackman was therefore sentenced by an authority blind to facts that offered serious mitigation on his behalf. The cause of this is a failure of moral courage by the chain of command, the burden of which is carried by the man under command.”

For me, that is extremely concerning. I would like to hear a bit more about that, and it needs to be looked into.

I have a further concern about transparency. It seems to me that transparency is essential in any legal framework but that it does not seem to exist here. Without transparency, how can parliamentarians or the public have confidence that the system of military justice is effective and fair? Given the age in which we live, where information is exchanged and shared like at no other time in human history, we must have a transparent military legal system that we can all have confidence in. What are the facts of this case? Do we know them all—if not, why not? What matters did the court martial consider? Crucially, which ones did they not consider in this case and others?

It has been widely reported that the evidence about the context in which our soldiers were serving was not presented at the trial—the lack of equipment, troop numbers and the job being asked of them, for example. We really need to make sure that that is taken into account. It is also my understanding—this point was mentioned earlier by the hon. Gentleman—that this case is being reviewed, but that there is a reluctance to release the report to the public. In the interests of transparency, I hope that that can be done. I hope that there are no redactions so that we can judge for ourselves on the basis of full information. It is not for me to say whether such evidence would have changed the verdict in the particular case; that is a matter for others. However, I think clarification should be provided on what was considered by the court martial and what was not.

As I said at the beginning, I think there is a case for reviewing the law as regards the prosecution of such crimes. We have to look into that, and I think we have an opportunity to next year. In particular, there is the degree to which culpability rests with individual servicemen and women who are expected to act under orders in extremely difficult and dangerous theatres and under restrictions through rules of engagement.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me, but I think the law is clear. Servicemen and women have a duty and a right to kill the enemy, until that enemy comes under their control—de facto, a prisoner. Once the enemy is under control, they have a responsibility to care for that person. In this case, clearly, Marine A did wrong by killing, or assuming he was killing, someone. That is against the law of armed conflict and the Geneva convention. It is quite clear.

What seems to be wrong, having listened very carefully to my hon. Friends and colleagues explain, is that the defence did not defend properly and the judge advocate general in a court martial did not give options to the board. They gave one option: murder—sorry, Mr Pritchard, I do not mean to be making a speech. Murder was one option; manslaughter was another, and at the very least should be considered by the military authorities to sort this out. That should be done with a new legal team, which has a responsibility to go straight back to the military authorities and say, “This is wrong. Sort it, please.”

[Steven Paterson]

I do not necessarily disagree with that, but I did say at the beginning that I was going to try to speak generally, rather than on an individual case, if and when I could, to make my points.

In conclusion, very important points come out of this case. I have a great deal of sympathy with regard to the individual case, but I think Parliament should be considering how we deal with incidents such as this when we put our troops in harm’s way.

Légion d’Honneur (UK Normandy Veterans)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the administration of the award of the Légion d’Honneur to UK Normandy veterans.

It is a great pleasure to bring this subject before the House. It did not come as a complete surprise to me that this admirable scheme, in which the French Government have offered to award surviving veterans—not only from D-day, but from the subsequent campaigns to free France from Nazi occupation—has run into a little administrative difficulty. I hope that the Minister will give us a hopeful sign that the glitches and delays that have temporarily marred a brilliant scheme and a wonderfully generous gesture by the French Government can soon be overcome.

It was some years ago that some Normandy veterans had the opportunity to be awarded the Légion d’Honneur. I have in mind a remarkable gentleman, Bill Price, who will be 101 this Friday. He joined the Territorial Army in 1938 and served throughout world war two. On D-day, he was manning an anti-aircraft gun aboard a ship at Sword beach. He was given his award under a different scheme a few years ago, but it was in 2014, on the 70th anniversary of the D-day landings, that the Government of France made it clear that all surviving veterans of the landings, and of the subsequent campaigns to give France back her freedom, would be honoured in this way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does that apply to people in the Office of Strategic Services and to American forces? Does it apply to Canadian forces?

[Dr Lewis]

My understanding is that it does indeed apply to nationals of other countries, too. I suspect that there has been a bit of underestimation on the part of the French authorities, bearing in mind that most of the people involved would be in their 90s—the authorities probably underestimated the strength and resilience of the sort of people who stormed ashore on D-day and battled their way through France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. The fact that we are dealing with some particularly formidable individuals means that there may be rather more nonagenarians left to claim the award than had originally been anticipated.

To its credit, when the Ministry of Defence prepared the application form for these awards, it did so in a straightforward, simple way: it is a single sheet of paper that asks for certain basic details and for a short paragraph justifying the reason for the award. However, some 3,000 applications have been submitted from the United Kingdom alone, and that is where problems have arisen.

The indication that all might not be well came in a letter from the Defence Minister in the upper House, Lord Astor of Hever, who stated in The Times on 19 November 2014:

“The MoD is undertaking administrative work on each application before forwarding it to the French embassy. Extra staff have been allocated in order to process most applications by the end of the year. We would have preferred to have completed this work more quickly but we must respect the terms under which the French confer this award.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I definitely think that it is up to the individual to make the application, wherever they may now be residing. The Normandy Veterans Association, which was recently formally wound up, had membership lists, where records existed. However, there is no way of getting a comprehensive list because tens of thousands of people would qualify if they were still with us today. What has happened, therefore, is that the authorities—particularly the Ministry of Defence—have been doing a very good job of making the application process perfectly straightforward and the scheme well known, so that people know how to apply. There are no complaints about that.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my very good friend for giving way. There is a problem with the special forces, with which I have quite a lot of dealings. It is that the Jedburgh teams of the Special Operations Executive, and 1 SAS, in particular—I have met a couple of them—are quite under the cover and remain under the cover. I have been encouraging them to come forward and get their names in, but there are still problems and people are still coming out of the woodwork. The Jedburgh teams, the SOE, 1 SAS and other special forces must be encouraged as well.

[Dr Lewis]

These people, who went behind the lines in advance of everyone else, are the bravest of the brave. They also take their obligations of confidentiality most seriously.

[Bob Stewart]

Very seriously.

[Dr Lewis]

I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend agrees. Those special forces members should really put this aside now; they are in their 90s, after all. We can say to them, “It’s okay, fellas! Come forward and get the public acclamation that you deserve.” Of course, I am sure that privately they know how much their brilliant, courageous activities are appreciated.

A spate of reports over the intervening months has suggested that there have been hold-ups and delays. A report in The Times in November 2014 stated:

“The MoD and French Embassy in London said there had been ceremonies held in London for the award. Both said the level of interest had been higher than anticipated.”

The same report quoted Margaret Dickinson, a lady of 92:

“I was all ready to go to London…Then I got a letter saying that the weather was too bad. They said they thought it would be too bad for a lot of people. I was taken aback. The weather was not that bad.”

All I can say is that it is just as well that the people organising that ceremony, who were put off by a minor inconvenience such as a rainy day, were not in charge of organising the Normandy landings. Before anyone intervenes, I should say that I know that the invasion was postponed by 24 hours because of bad weather, but I do not think the problem in London was quite on the same scale—and it did not justify postponing that ceremony.

I know that colleagues wish to contribute, so in the time remaining I shall mention a few individuals, to give the House a sense of the people we are dealing with and why it is so important that the French authorities, having made this wonderful gesture with the support of the British authorities, do not now turn a good news story into a catalogue of disappointment.

From my family’s own circle of friends, I know of Sergeant Peter Carne, Royal Engineers, who landed on Juno beach on 8 June 1944. He was primarily tasked with constructing Bailey bridges to enable vehicles to break out of the beachhead. Peter will be 93 in two days’ time. As it happens, he is in very good health; indeed, he often gives talks about the landings and would relish coming to London or even going to France for an investiture. He sent his form electronically to the MOD on 9 February this year. So far, he has had no receipt and the MOD apparently cannot confirm whether it has passed the form on to the French.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on securing this debate and, of course, on his election as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. As we have heard this morning, he and other hon. Members are rightly passionate about this subject, as indeed are veterans and their families. Those who fought so valiantly to help free France from the grip of fascist tyranny, those who put their life on the line, deserve to be honoured, and this morning I hope to be able to offer them the reassurance that they seek.

It is fair to start by acknowledging President Hollande’s decision last year, 70 years on from the great D-day battles on the beaches of Normandy, to award the Légion d’Honneur to all living veterans of the campaign to liberate France, which began on 6 June 1944. The Légion d’Honneur is the highest state honour that France can bestow, and it remains an extremely generous gesture. Since then, as we have heard, there has been a series of regrettable delays. My intention this morning is not to apportion blame, but simply to try to ensure that we move forward positively and constructively so that these awards can be presented as soon as possible. There are two principal reasons for the delays, and it is right that I should explain them because veterans will want to know why.

The first reason is unexpected demand. Based on the numbers who expressed an interest in attending the anniversary events in Normandy, it was estimated that only a few hundred people would apply. A single MOD official was therefore assigned to deal with the applications. In the event, as we have heard, more than 3,000 applications were received, and more are coming in all the time. I am truly delighted that such large numbers of UK D-day veterans have come forward to accept this prestigious honour, yet the response was far greater than anyone on either side of the channel predicted. In the autumn of 2014, we increased the number of people working on the scheme, which meant that, by the end of 2014, more than 2,500 applications had been processed and sent to the French authorities for a final decision on the award, but those UK applications alone accounted for a larger total than the French authorities would expect to deal with for all categories of the Légion in any single year under normal circumstances. We must also keep in mind that those are just the UK applications. To answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) directly, the United States, Canada and other allied nations have also been applying. It is easy to see how such an overwhelming volume of work seriously stretched the resources of the French authorities.

The second reason for the delays is sheer complexity. After all, not everyone who served in world war two is entitled to a Légion d’Honneur. The award is not comparable to a campaign medal, which can be handed out relatively quickly; it is an honour, and our nearest comparison is the OBE. There is a defined legal process to be followed, and each individual case must be cleared in accordance with the appropriate procedures laid down in French law.

[Bob Stewart]

My intervention will be very short. Does Her Majesty the Queen recognise that the Légion d’Honneur is one of the medals that can follow on from presumably British campaign medals and be worn on the chest with pride?

[Mark Lancaster]

Absolutely, and of course the regulations for wearing the Légion d’Honneur without Her Majesty’s permission apply only to serving soldiers, so no permission will be required for these veterans.

Once received, the French rightly and legally have a duty to ensure that each nomination receives an appropriate level of scrutiny. I am most grateful to the French authorities for the sensitive way in which they have ensured that the most pressing cases are handled first, such as those of veterans who are about to become centenarians or who are seriously ill—more of that in a moment. None the less, the process takes time. There is an additional complicating factor because, sadly, some veterans passed away after applying. In that regard, the French approach to honours parallels that of the UK. Awards are not made posthumously, hence the urgency, unless the recipient dies between the approval of their individual award and the date of its presentation.

Delays might be understandable for the reasons I have outlined, but I make it clear that that does not make them acceptable, especially not to the families and veterans concerned. One can entirely understand the hurt and upset caused to those still awaiting an outcome, but we are determined to remedy the situation. Our defence and diplomatic staff in London and Paris, alongside their French counterparts, have improved the assurance process for checking bona fides, thereby speeding up applications. To assist the Légion authorities further, we are resubmitting all cases in which awards have not already been made at an agreed rate of 100 a week to avoid over-taxing the system. We hope that those cases will be approved within about three weeks. We fully expect that process to result in a regular flow of awards. Although it will take some time to clear the backlog, we hope to reassure all applicants that the majority of veterans should receive honours this year.

Having spoken to veterans and read the large volume of correspondence received by my Department on this issue, I am under no illusion about the stress and frustration caused by the delays, but we are trying to put right what was wrong.

Avro Vulcan XH558

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the end of service of the Avro Vulcan XH558.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Gray. Oh no, you’re about to leave!

[Sir David Amess in the Chair]

I welcome you, Sir David, to the Chair. I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister. [Interruption.] It is only a matter of time before he is elevated to the Privy Council. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I shared some experiences at the weekend of which I will speak later, and his most excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).

I am grateful for the opportunity to place on record in the House the story of one of the most remarkable heritage projects of recent years. In doing so, I am extremely proud to declare my interest as a trustee of the Vulcan to the Sky trust and president of the British Air Display Association, which represents the interests of those who organise and participate in air shows across the country. Essentially, Vulcan bomber “X-ray Hotel five five eight”, as it is pronounced in the phonetic alphabet, which I shall use throughout the debate, last saw service in 1992, and 15 years later she was restored to flight by a band of highly professional volunteers. Since then she has dominated the air show circuit, drawing massive crowds everywhere she appears. Incredibly sadly, this display season looks like being her last, but of that, more later.

The Vulcan was the brainchild of aero-engineer Roy Chadwick, designer of the famous Lancaster bomber, immortalised through its role in “The Dam Busters”. Only 11 years separate the first flights of the Lancaster, in 1941, and the Vulcan, which was then led by Stuart Davies following Chadwick’s death in 1952. What an extraordinary testament to British aeronautical ingenuity. Designed as a high-level bomber to deliver Britain’s nuclear deterrent through the tense years of the cold war, before the deterrent became submarine-based in 1969, the Vulcan, of which 134 were delivered to the RAF, was only deployed once in anger. That was during the Falklands campaign when it, too, became immortalised in that amazing operation—Operation Black Buck—to bomb the runway at Port Stanley. It involved a 6,800 nautical mile round trip, lasting nearly 16 hours, with 18 air-to-air refuelling operations. Although the Army tend to be rather dismissive of the one bomb that landed in the middle of the runway—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Objection!

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Objection not taken. I hope my hon. Friend is not seeking to intervene.

That bomb put the runway out of action. More importantly, it sent a clear message to Argentina that if we could pinpoint the runway in Port Stanley, we could rearrange Buenos Aires in a big way.

It is hardly surprising that with that pedigree, the public lamented the scrapping of the Vulcan fleet when, in 1992, XH558 made her last display flight in RAF service. A petition signed by more than 250,000 people calling on the Government to save her sparked a campaign that led to today’s feast of aeronautical brilliance. Sold for £25,000 in 1993, the aircraft was bought by C. Walton Ltd at Bruntingthorpe in Leicestershire. However, one man decided that the public should not be denied the chance to see XH558 take to the skies again. Step forward a nuclear physicist and IT company director, Dr Robert Pleming. In 1997, he and David Walton agreed to determine the feasibility of returning the aircraft to flight, based on sound management practice and a professional approach. Robert’s credibility won over the aircraft’s design authority, British Aerospace—now BAE Systems—which, in 1998, identified that Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group of Cambridge had the skills, capabilities, quality control and experience in one-off aircraft projects to satisfy the Civil Aviation Authority that the work required on XH558 would be done properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)]

Sir David, I am sure you will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on securing this debate and on paying such a moving tribute to this magnificent aircraft, which, as we can all tell from the tone of his remarks, he holds in very high regard indeed.

My hon. Friend also told us how he originally became a trustee of the Vulcan to the Sky Trust; I suspect that on the back of that public explanation, he may be invited to become a trustee of several other aviation charities in the future. He has been a doughty advocate for the trust. I share his respect and admiration for the dedicated enthusiasts, many of whom he named, whose tireless efforts returned this iconic aircraft to flying condition so that another generation might witness it in the skies over the UK. I met several of those volunteers at the royal international air tattoo last year, and was impressed by their dedication and commitment to this remarkable aircraft, which I enjoyed seeing again, albeit static, at RIAT this year.

The Avro Vulcan was introduced into service with the RAF in 1957. As we heard, 134 were produced for the Royal Air Force by Avro at its Woodford aerodrome site near Macclesfield between 1956 and 1965. It was designed as a long-range bomber capable of reaching targets far into the then Soviet Union. On its introduction, it represented the cutting edge of aviation and was a step change in technology from its wartime predecessors. It was a clear, iconic demonstration of the quality and vision of British engineering. The last operational Vulcan squadron disbanded in 1984, but the Vulcan continued with the RAF in a display role until it finally left service in 1993.

The Vulcan bomber was a stalwart of the so-called V-force, which comprised Vulcan, Victor and Valiant aircraft. The V-force provided Britain’s strategic nuclear deterrent during the dark days of the early cold war. The RAF’s Vulcan fleet was held in a state of continuous readiness to respond to any nuclear threat from potential aggressors. It required continuous training and dedication to maintain aircraft and aircrew at a constant state of peak readiness.

[Bob Stewart]

I want to challenge my very good friend the Member for Aldershot slightly on one point. My hon. Friend stated that there was only one operational attack by a Vulcan on the Falklands; as the Minister just outlined, the Vulcan fleet was operational from about 1957 to ’69, flying in the cold war on operations, defending our freedom and our right to exist. I should like to point that out. I slightly disagree on that small point.

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the role played by Vulcan crews during the cold war, but of course my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot is also correct in saying that the aircraft was only ever used once in a strike capacity, during the Falklands war. I will mention that in a moment.

The state of high readiness continued for many years, until the nuclear role of Vulcan bombers was replaced in 1969 by the Royal Navy’s fleet of Polaris and later Trident submarines. It is precisely because of the deterrent capability that it provided to our country that the Vulcan was never called on to use its nuclear capability in anger against the Warsaw pact. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot agrees that that is precisely why the Government remain committed to the provision of a continuous at-sea deterrent today.

As we have just discussed, Vulcans did see action during the 1982 Falklands conflict. At that time, the Vulcan was already a 25-year veteran, approaching the end of its service life. There was no expectation that it would shortly be thrust into a critical role in the Falklands war. In the Black Buck raids, RAF Vulcan aircraft flying from Ascension Island carried out what were then the longest-distance bombing raids in history, covering a return distance of some 7,700 nautical miles. A total of five successful raids were made by Vulcan aircraft against the airfield and Argentinean radar installations at Port Stanley. A Vulcan bomber cratered the runway at Port Stanley and denied Argentinean fast jets a base from which to attack the taskforce. It also sent a clear strategic message to Argentina that Britain would take any necessary steps to defend its sovereign territory and protect the islanders’ right to determine who governed them—a policy that this Government still hold dear today. The House will be interested to know that Vulcan XM607, which completed the first of the Black Buck raids, is preserved at RAF Waddington, is much prized and can be seen by members of the public from the Waddington aircraft viewing enclosure.

The Black Buck raids were a testament to the courage of the men who flew all the aircraft involved and to those who supported them. I know that my hon. Friend will share my admiration for the Handley Page Victor tanker crews that assisted with the raids: a remarkable relay of some 12 tanker aircraft that ensured that the Vulcan was refuelled in mid-air five times per mission. That is a remarkable example of improvisation, professionalism, airmanship and military logistics.

Vulcan XH558 made its maiden flight in May 1960 and has flown more hours than any other Vulcan. It first served with 230 Operational Conversion Unit, providing training for pilots new to the Vulcan type, before transferring to front-line service with the Waddington wing. In 1973 it transferred to the maritime radar reconnaissance role and in 1982 was converted for use as a refuelling tanker. It finished its RAF career with the Vulcan display flight before making its final RAF flight in 1993.

Retiring from the RAF after many years of sterling service, the Vulcan was taken into private ownership, as we heard, thanks to the work of the Vulcan to the Sky Trust. It was returned to flying condition in 2007, since when it has been seen at many air shows across the UK. Although the preservation of the aircraft is not a core defence requirement, the RAF has in the past assisted where it could with this project to restore and maintain Vulcan XH558. It seconded a number of skilled RAF engineers to the restoration project and provided hangar space, notably at RAF Lyneham.

As I said, I saw the aircraft on the ground at RAF Fairford on Friday. Although it was static, it was the air platform subject to the greatest intensity of interest at the show. I saw the video of it flying in formation with the Red Arrows on Sunday, which must have been an utterly thrilling sight for the thousands of spectators present. I cannot think of a more fitting way for the RAF to mark its affection for this fine aircraft, with two icons of British aviation flying side by side. Even more appropriately, the Vulcan was once based at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire, now home to the Red Arrows—evidence, if any was needed, of the great heritage of the RAF and the comforting ebb and flow of the past giving way to the future.

The MOD takes its commitment to the aviation heritage of this nation very seriously and is proud to do so. It is RAF heritage strategy, where possible, to preserve one of every aircraft type in the national collection at the RAF Museum. In the financial year that ended in April ’14, the MOD donated just over £9 million pounds in grant in aid to the RAF Museum, which preserves many of the nation’s finest military aircraft, including two Avro Vulcans, which can be viewed by all who visit the RAF Museum sites at Hendon or at Cosford, just outside my constituency in Shropshire—a good visit for all. The Imperial War Museum, which received a £21 million grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport last year, also has a Vulcan aircraft at its site at Duxford.

Many will share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that the Vulcan will not continue to fly and that we will not be able to spot it in the skies of the nation that it served and protected so diligently. But as we have also heard, it is encouraging to learn that the Vulcan will continue to play a pivotal role in the future, just it has in our past, albeit in a heritage capacity.

I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend mention the plans for the XH558 to be a living centrepiece for a Vulcan Aviation Academy and Heritage Centre at Robin Hood airport, near Doncaster, providing inspirational opportunities for the next generation to learn about aviation and help prepare them for future jobs in the aviation world. I am sure the House will welcome this admirable initiative, and I wish the project the very best.

I congratulate my good friend the Member for Aldershot on his fine championship of the Vulcan through his work on the trust. I also congratulate him on securing this debate and on giving us this opportunity to highlight the role that the Royal Air Force has played in serving this nation so well, using various aircraft types for close to 100 years.

Question put and agreed to.

Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

That was last autumn, but I will write and give the hon. Gentleman the exact date.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I understand the political requirement to restrict Royal Air Force operations only to Iraq, but it is military and strategic nonsense and I totally support any move that removes that artificial restriction. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the overall strategy against Daesh, which may well include our having to beef up help on the ground, is continually under review?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes it is. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed with Prime Minister Abadi at their most recent meeting that we would step up our effort, particularly in the niche training that we are offering in measures to counter IEDs. We are also working in the Ministries to help to advise the Iraqi Government and Iraqi army security effort, and we stand ready to consider further requests for help.

Britain and International Security

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who anticipates the very next point I was going to make. If we use the term Daesh, eventually, with luck, the BBC will be the only organisation left not doing so. At that point, even the BBC might see sense.

I wish to paint a brief picture of the sort of problems we face that lead to the strange paradox that I alluded to when I intervened briefly on the Secretary of State. As I said, two years ago we were proposing to intervene on behalf of one side in a civil war and against the other. Now, it is being proposed that we do exactly the opposite. There are people in the House who are far more expert in these matters than I—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I seem to recall that the vote was actually not to intervene, but to keep the option of intervention on the menu in negotiations. It was not an option for us to intervene.

[Dr Lewis]

I am afraid I have to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend. If the vote had been carried, intervention would have taken place the very next weekend. The vote was defeated in this House and the Americans, as a result of that defeat, wisely followed suit, and we did not go down that dangerous road.

As I was starting to say, my interpretation of the situation we face in the world—it may be over-simple, but here it is for what it is worth—is that the western world is being caught up in a terrible recrudescence of the age-old battle between the Shi’as and the Sunnis, a point made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in an earlier intervention. The complexity is that the Shi’a and the Sunni militants have a selection of powerful allies. On the Shi’a side, the Syrian Government two years ago posed the threat of chemical weapons, and the Iranian regime has the potential to acquire nuclear weapons. As part of that particular little gang, we also see our old friend President Putin, who has been flexing his muscles, in a way that we all strongly condemn, by taking unilateral action in Ukraine.

On the Sunni side, we see al-Qaeda and the Daesh militants. Behind them, we see strong elements at least of ideological support in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Qatar, who are supposed to be our friends and allies. The problem we face is that there are no good outcomes to be had, whatever course of action we take. What we therefore have to do is to choose between, at any one time, and adopt a policy that is the lesser of two evils. What we have to decide at any one time is: which is the greater danger posed by one element or another in those two unlovely collections of hostile regimes and terrorist organisations?

I wish today simply to sow the seed of the idea that, where we cannot get a wonderfully satisfactory outcome, and we know the only outcome we will get is to try to minimise the damage and that that will have to be done over an extended period, we should adopt a policy that stood us in good stead for half a century in relation to Soviet Communist Russia and its empire: the policy of containment. We cannot force countries that are not ready yet for democracy to become democracies at the point of a gun barrel, unless one goes to the same extent as at the end of the second world war when there was the total defeat and occupation of countries at the cost of millions of lives.

The idea of containment is not passive; it is an active containment. I spoke earlier today with Lord West, whom I greatly respect. He combines much knowledge with a great deal of practical common sense, and I consulted him two years ago before going ahead and deciding to vote against the proposed intervention then. I said to him today that I was minded to think that if we intervened on this occasion, we would be intervening in a very different way from the one that was proposed two years ago. We would not be intervening to bring down another dreadful Arab dictator and replace him with another failed state run by Islamist extremist terrorists. His response was interesting. He said it is a policy of deciding, at any one time, which of the crocodiles is swimming nearest to the boat. Of course, there is no way of permanently taking the crocodiles out of the scene and sailing blissfully out of danger. When dangerous organisations and deadly regimes wield their weapons in ways that are most threatening to us, we must constantly, over a period of time, try to contain the threat by active measures.

What we are seeing with Daesh and its activity is new. It requires containment, but it requires active containment. Daesh is seizing large areas of territory. By doing so, it is giving up the one great advantage that insurgencies and terrorist groups generally have: the advantage of invisibility. A policy of active containment will, from time to time, certainly require the step of military intervention to prevent the enemy on that particular side of the two-sided threat that I have been trying to describe from becoming over-dominant.

We must not fool ourselves into believing that any steps we take will result in a decisive solution. As the Secretary of State said, we are in this for the long haul. At any given time, we will have to intervene to keep whichever particular set of enemies is becoming too dominant, under control. In a way, that is nothing different from what was traditionally the role of the balance of power, when Britain looked after its national interests by ensuring that no one potential enemy power became overwhelmingly strong on the continent.

That leads me, very briefly, to the question of NATO and European defence. We have seen the concept of article 5—the guarantee whereby NATO ensures that none of its members is attacked without the potential aggressor knowing in advance that, if it does that, it will immediately be at war with all other NATO members—stretched to its limit. We have a long and honourable tradition of supporting the independence of the Baltic states. It goes back at least to the time of our intervention in the Russian civil war in 1919-20. I must say to the House, however, that the decision NATO took to extend its protection to the Baltic states is, realistically, as far as we can go. It is simply not fair to countries further east to hold out the false hope of NATO membership, which, if granted, would be totally incredible. If a potential enemy believes that it is not credible that all NATO members would, in fact, declare war upon the aggressor if there were an attack on one of these eastern states, we will have destroyed the whole foundation and the whole reason for having NATO in the first place. That does not do anyone any favours. It just takes us back to the scenarios of the 1930s, when an aggressor thought that it could pick off one state after another without larger states coming to their rescue.

Finally, I want to say this. The Government keep saying that defence is the first duty of Government. I agree: it is the first duty of Government. It is more important than any other duty of Government. If that is the case, there can be no coherent or rational case for safeguarding and ring-fencing the budgets of other Government Departments, thus increasing the pressure on the unprotected Departments, which include Defence. Something has gone awry with the Government’s sense of defence as the top national priority. We constantly hear talk about Britain punching above its weight, but in reality, the weight of the punch depends on the resources allocated to the armed forces. The stronger the armed forces in peacetime, the more likely it is that we will not have to engage in warfare, because anyone who is likely to attack us will be forced to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be bang on time.

Nobody should underestimate the seriousness of the current international situation. In particular, the security threats we now face have changed massively and fast over the last few years. Five years ago the so-called Arab spring had yet to happen, but boy, when it did, the ripples had an impact on the whole of the middle east, especially on Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. At the same time, there has been a massive resurgence of Russian military power, and it is on this, rather than on the consequences of the Arab spring, that I wish to concentrate.

Russia has rapidly increased its defence budget. In 2013, it spent more on armaments than the United States. Its defence spending increased by 4.8%. Moscow plans to allocate more than $700 billion to replace 70% of the country’s military equipment by 2020, and 45% of its naval ships are new. This represents a massive change in Russia’s military posture.

At the same time, we in western Europe much prefer spending on social rather than military security. The inconvenient truth is that defence too often takes a back seat, well behind not just social security priorities but other worthy concerns such as education. Are we sleep-walking? The west won the cold war, but maybe it is starting to simmer again. Burying our heads in the sand to avoid the obvious military facts of life will not diminish the problem. In defence, a wishbone is never a substitute for a backbone.

I dislike having to pin my colours to an exact figure of 2% of gross national income to be spent on defence. For me, such a number is simply a symbol to help people to understand our minimum defence requirements.

[Nusrat Ghani]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Stewart]

I will give way, but I am not a right hon. Friend.

[Nusrat Ghani]

The maintenance of international security depends to a great extent on countries working together to ensure that extremists and terrorist organisations are unable to use the internet to spread their propaganda and conflict, particularly if we want to prevent British citizens from joining the death cult, Daesh. Does my hon. Friend agree that internet security and cyber-defence must be at the heart of the strategic defence and security review?

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my very hon. Friend for her intervention, and I entirely agree with everything she says. Those matters are now considered very seriously in the SDSR.

Of course I support the military being given what it requires to defend our country properly. I remind the House that, at the height of the cold war, we were normally spending as much as 4.6% of our national income on defence. Although I understand and support the need for targeted overseas aid, I am none the less absolutely shocked that we spend the equivalent of a third of the defence budget on it each year. And I am afraid I do not subscribe to the argument that providing international aid can be a proper substitute for sufficient military power. Defence is too serious a matter to be fiddled.

[John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me, but I am really up against the time and I want others to have time to speak. Because of you!

Defence is too serious a matter to be fiddled, yet NATO members, particularly in Europe, do so year in and year out. They most certainly do not pay their NATO club dues and we must give them no excuse not to do so. Surely what is happening in Ukraine is a wake-up call. The situation there is a total disaster. Militarily, the Foreign Secretary has already ruled out armed action by our Army, Navy or Air Force, but surely there are some measures we could take to help Ukraine, in addition to the military training we are already providing. Perhaps we could gift-aid non-lethal equipment such as night vision devices and range-finders, which would greatly help Ukraine’s military to see at night. Right now, Ukraine’s armed forces are almost blind after dark. At the same time I cannot see why we should not give Ukraine some of our vast reserve pool of military transport trucks and Land Rovers.

[John Nicolson]

rose—

[Bob Stewart]

I will give way, as the hon. Gentleman is a very old friend of mine.

[John Nicolson]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. We have identified cybercrime and terrorism as two of the things that threaten us today. Does he therefore agree that it is an absurdity to spend £100 billion on our nuclear so-called deterrent? It is a cold war defence system that is utterly unsuited to dealing with today’s problems.

[Bob Stewart]

He was my very old friend. [Laughter.] Of course I disagree with him. The point is that, when we are talking about nuclear weapons, deterrence works, whether in a cold war or a hot war.

I know that we provide aircraft to the Baltic patrols, but should we not also position British ground troops permanently in rotation in eastern Latvia, Estonia or Poland? Since 2010, Russian troop numbers around the Baltic have increased from 9,000 to around 100,000 today. Is it too late, colleagues, to stop the redeployment, back to the United Kingdom, of our last armoured brigade in Germany? It may even be cheaper to leave it there anyway—the Germans will be very happy with that. If we reversed that decision, surely it would send a strong signal to the Kremlin that its actions do have consequences. Many of us here will recall the wrong message that we sent to Argentina in 1982 when we withdrew HMS Endurance just before the Falklands war. Keeping an armoured brigade in Germany might be the right message to send today.

Russia would denounce such a move, but so what? Mr Putin and his cohorts have hardly paid any attention to our protests about what he has been doing in eastern Ukraine, the Crimea, or the Baltic. President Putin might protest long and hard, but at least it would prove that NATO still has teeth. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am finished in time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Absolutely. This five-yearly review gives us the opportunity to look again at our defence industry to see how it is competing with our major defence competitors and whether enough is being done to advance those exports in certain markets, and to ensure that our smaller and medium-sized companies also enjoy the benefit. The defence industry is a major employer and this will be a key part of the review.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In 2010, the SDSR largely neglected the threat from Russia. That situation has now changed. It was also not able to address the upheavals in the middle east, because they had not happened, but we now face a serious threat emanating from the middle east. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that those two factors will be clearly placed as assumptions in the next SDSR?

[Michael Fallon]

I can reassure my hon. Friend on that. We are building on the foundations of the 2010 review, much of whose analysis holds good, but, as he has told the House, it did not predict the sudden rise of ISIL in the middle east or the return of Russian aggression, with the attempt to change international borders by force in Europe. Let me assure him that both those threats will be a key part of this review.

Falkland Islands Defence Review

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I have read the same reports as the hon. Lady. I do not think it would be right for me to speculate further on the nature of any particular arrangement between the Governments of Russia and the Argentine. Our job is to make sure that the islands are properly defended and to continue to respect the right of the islanders to determine their own future, and that is what we will do.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If an Argentine Government were foolish enough to give instructions to a military officer to invade the Falklands—they had better get the message that that would be very foolish— Mount Pleasant airfield and Mare harbour would be vital ground. May I suggest—I am not asking a question, but making a statement with which I hope the Defence Secretary will agree—that the Falkland Islands Government and the Governor are also vital ground, and should be protected as well?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that counts as a question. The hon. Gentleman is being too hard on himself.

Defence Spending

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I would guess that many hon. Members will make contributions about the symbolism of the 2% target and its relationship with foreign policy and so on. I will try to restrict my remarks to its utility: the purpose for it, the benefits of having the process, and some predictions—guesses may be a better word—and advice on what we might do.

The 2% of GDP NATO target can be defined in all sorts of ways, and there have been many discussions on that recently. It is largely, but not totally arbitrary. It is largely the basis on which we currently spend our money, and so it informs our current decisions. I do not want to discuss what we have done in the past, however. I want to discuss what we are going to do in the future, and why it is important as a mechanism for the future. It should not necessarily be driven by NATO or US ambitions. It should be a matter of deliberate choice for particular strategic reasons, and there should be merit to it.

That is why I want to talk about this. We need certainty with which to plan against the uncertainty, and, in my opinion, the 2% mechanism would help and perhaps provide some structure and context. The truth is that we need a threat-based assessment. No doubt, there will be a new national security strategy, but we can no longer say, “We’ll have a long war over here, and then we’ll have a short war over there. Can you lot hold on until Christmas, and then we’ll come and fight you, because we haven’t quite finished this one yet?” That world is dead. We now have a series of threats and concurrent difficulties to deal with, and they will continue to be concurrent. The way we plan against that uncertainty has changed. Our methodologies are different—there was a great example in the Ebola statement earlier. We need an integrated process, not just within the military, but across the other Departments, if we are to deploy and do this properly. That is the big discussion. I have said to boys from my constituency in the military, “I’ll tell you two things, right—buy a thermal vest and a pair of shorts, because you’ll be in Estonia in the winter and no doubt somewhere warm a bit later. You’re going to be around the place, because there are going to be concurrent reasons to be deployed in different places at different times.”

I want to set out the benefits of the 2% mechanism. We now have five procurers in the MOD: we have the three chiefs—Army, Navy and Air Force; we now have this joint command; and we still have large projects done centrally. So there are five procurement organisations. I have been involved in the many discussions about how we buy equipment, but the real question is: how do we decide what to buy in the first place? We know where the inefficiencies have been, so the managerial structures have changed and we have a different set of relationships. We have chief executives now who are chiefs of services. These are the people who are going to buy this stuff. They told the Defence Committee, “Well, we have redone the structures in the original plans you gave us”, and I said to General Nick Carter when he redid the Army one, “Well done, Nick—you’ve provided a structure that protects you from me.” What do I mean by that? I mean we have this structure—adaptive and reactive forces—and it has some utility and it could be made to work, but it will work well only if we make the right decisions about how to fund and resource it and allow it to operate properly. Currently, the chiefs are telling us, “Unless we get 1% uplift on procurement and flat real, we cannot make those resources work. If you change that, we will have to change your plans or come back with advice on how you will change them.”

There are also questions about how we build this capability. The industrial agenda is really important, but it is not as well described as it could be. It needs to be better described. The defence growth partnership is a great thing, but it concerns applied research, not the whole business of how we deal with industry. Industry needs to plan. All the contractors—whether their function is to go to war or to provide support so that we can release other people to go to war—have to be factored in and they have to plan. This mechanism could produce some rigour, some tools, a language, an understanding and some certainty with which to plan. It might then allow us to plan strategically and even come together and find this magical thing—integration—that will give us the collaboration we need and which we talk about here and on the National Security Council.

The mechanism would test all sorts of things. It would test individual capabilities too. It could go up and down—because GDP increases and decreases—so some people might say, “Well, Trident—difficult question. It’s been set aside really—it’s a given; and therefore we’re arguing about the rest of it.” The mechanism would have to test itself against all others, and the military would have to decide its continued capability and utility. Everything would be in a process of iterative, continual assessment. In the future, these processes have to be iterative; they cannot be linear, they are not binary and they will not be spasmodic.

If we do that, this is what I think will happen: we will spend 2%, we have spent 2% and we will continue to spend more than 2%. But will we do it well? Will we do it in a strategic and planned fashion? Or will we do it just because we are responding to events? The “dogs of war”, as I call them, are a clear example—all these vehicles we now have: the Jackals, the Bulldogs, the Foxhounds. They are all individually important and useful, but they all came out of what? Urgent operational requirements—that is where they came from; they did not come from any proper strategic planning process. We now have to reintegrate this legacy equipment and fit it into the discussion about future planning. You could have avoided being in that position, if you had done some things differently—not you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not blaming you personally. We could all have been in a better position if we had done those things.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On urgent operational requirements, the key is in the wording. We do not necessarily have any idea of the threats or requirements in advance. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen will suddenly be in a situation where we have to find a piece of kit to protect them better. That is the key—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Again, the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak later. Please keep something back. Do not use it all at once.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Twenty five years ago, we spent more than 4% of our gross national product on defence. There were some 306,000 regular personnel and 340,000 reservists. The Army had 153,000 regular soldiers who manned three armoured and one infantry division. We had 1,330 main battle tanks. The Royal Navy had 50 frigates and destroyers, two aircraft carriers, 28 attack submarines, three Harrier squadrons and a Royal Marine Commando brigade. For its part, the Royal Air Force had 26 fast jet squadrons, two squadrons of maritime patrol aircraft and specific aeroplanes tasked with suppressing potential air defences.

In the next Parliament, however, the Army will be reduced to 82,000 regular soldiers and 400 tanks. The Navy will have 19 frigates or destroyers, seven attack submarines and only about 24,000 sailors. It may be that by 2020 we will see the first of two new aircraft carriers, but as yet not one aircraft has been ordered to put on them. The RAF will have seven, or maybe only six, fast jet squadrons, and no means to suppress enemy air defences. Nobody knows whether by then we might again have some maritime patrol aircraft. That remains the worst gap in our current military capability.

Some argue that there are few votes in defence—we have heard that repeated all afternoon—but that is certainly not what I hear in Beckenham. People there are increasingly fearful of what is happening in the world.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I back the minimum 2% spend of GDP on defence. He knows how important that is to the Ribble Valley. Does he welcome the announcement today by the Prime Minister and BAE Systems that a new training academy will open at BAE Systems Samlesbury, not only to train the new apprentices but to tune up the great skills we already have at BAE Systems?

[Bob Stewart]

I was born close to Samlesbury, so I know it well. I certainly applaud that news.

Leaders on both sides of the House consistently maintain, quite rightly, that defence is the first responsibility of Government. If that is so, whether there are votes in defence hardly matters. It is the duty of our political leaders to ensure our defences are sound, whether there are votes in defence or not. The defence of our country is the paramount requirement of our Government. If we had been beaten by Hitler in 1945, there would not even have been a national health service. Health, education, pensions and overseas aid budgets are largely ring-fenced and apparently untouchable. Obviously, that is not so for the defence budget. If defence is vital, its budget should be protected too.

Some hon. Members have touched on our long-standing and close defence partnership with the United States, which is being increasingly questioned there. Both the American President and, more recently, the United States army chief of staff have signalled their alarm at what is happening to our MOD budget. We have favoured status so far, but yet more cuts to our defence budget are likely to have an irreversible impact on our special defence relationship with the United States. If we, as America’s most steadfast ally, are not prepared to put at least 2% of GDP into defence, why should United States citizens, who currently pay more than double per head than us, continue to fund more than 70% of NATO’s budget?

Others argue that the dominating factors of mass and firepower in conflict are no longer as important as they were, and of course they have a point. It is true that cyber, data fusion, information, robotics and the like spawn a different form of war fighting—truly they are important developments, and they might even influence how we go to war—but I dispute that they are war-winning factors. It is unlikely that they will be able to dislodge the Daesh from Syria and Iraq. They might help, but they alone will not do it. In military terms, the job might well require good old-fashioned kinetic energy—soldiers closing with the enemy on the ground and destroying them in face-to-face fighting—although I hope this time it is done mainly by soldiers from our friends in the middle east, rather than our own armed forces.

Some say that the cold war is dead. Others suggest that the day of the tank is over. The Russians obviously disagree. Perhaps we are not really seeing T-64 and T-72 tanks cruising around eastern Ukraine. Russia has once more formally declared NATO to be its enemy and stated plainly that external conflicts can justify its use of nuclear weapons. The MOD is a unique Department of State because it provides us with both the insurance and endowment policies necessary to deal with the unexpected. Threats to our national security tend to explode suddenly and with very little warning. Of course, we all want a strong economy, but defence is too important to depend just on that. We only have to look at the lack of political resolve in the 1930s, which translated into our armed forces stagnating, giving clear signals to Hitler that we were not prepared to arrest his ambitions. Such stupidity cost us dear.

In truth, a strong economy needs a safe security environment. Defence must be affordable. The international situation is as bad as I have ever seen it in my lifetime. Welfare, education, pensions and overseas aid will count for nought if defence goes wrong, so, particularly now, the defence of our country is far too important a matter for it to become a party political football. It is a bipartisan matter for serious political parties. Looking around the Chamber, I think that all the parties present are serious. I call on all the parties present, including the Democratic Unionist party—I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his fantastic speech today—to commit wholeheartedly to ensuring that we spend 2% of GDP on defence.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords]

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

This Bill—it has now been amended and we have accepted the amendments—changes the ombudsman’s remit but not her powers. Somebody who brings a complaint to Nicola Williams can be absolutely confident that it will be thoroughly and properly dealt with, and that she will be in a position to make her recommendations. She has access to Ministers and to others in the chain of command, and can go to them at any time. That chain of command is not under threat because of her. Indeed, I am confident that the creation of the ombudsman will give the chain of command the understanding—the hon. Member for Bridgend or the hon. Member for North Durham made this point—that it has nothing to fear from the ombudsman, nor from a better system, because if complaints are dealt with properly and expeditiously, and fairly and justly, we will have a better team and group of people. This will only strengthen the chain of command’s ability to conduct its business.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Although we have heard a lot about complaints, may I put it on the record that the chain of command deals very properly with most of the problems in the units for which it has responsibility and that we are talking about only a relatively small percentage of people? I just wanted to make that point, because all we have heard is complaints, complaints, complaints. There are not many complaints from the vast number of people who are dealt with properly by the officers in charge of them.

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I thought I had made it, but there is no harm in his repeating and endorsing it. Of course the majority serve without any complaint, but sometimes, as my hon. Friend knows, in any organisation there are bad apples, and even in a modern world there are times when people are undoubtedly bullied, and are undoubtedly the subject of discrimination and harassment; there are times when we get it wrong. The hon. Member for Bridgend knows of a very good example of not bullying or harassment but what she called double jeopardy, where something has been done wrong. That may well be to the detriment of certain people, in which case they are right to raise that complaint and we need good, strong systems. No organisation gets things 100% right, and when they go wrong people must have confidence that their complaint will be dealt with fairly and justly, and that if it is not they can go somewhere else—to the ombudsman, in this instance. Now that we have agreed to the amendments tabled in Committee, it will not only be maladministration that can be taken into account. The merits of the case and the matter of delay will also be considered.

I know that we are not going to vote on the amendments, but I should like to tell the House why the Government resist them. Amendment 23 would require anyone appointed to decide on a complaint or on an appeal that related to harassment, discrimination or victimisation to have a proven understanding of such matters. We all acknowledge that these can be among the more complex complaints, as they involve relationships that have gone wrong in one way or another. However, no record is or could reasonably be kept of those who may have an understanding of such matters so that they could be called upon when required, as the amendment proposes. I understand the principle behind the amendment, and there is no doubt that it is entirely well intentioned, but I cannot agree to it—certainly at this stage—for the reasons I have just stated.

Amendments 24 to 26 would require there to be a gap of five years between a person ending their service in the regular or reserve forces and becoming eligible to be appointed to the post of service complaints ombudsman. The provision in the Bill simply requires that the individual to be appointed to the post should not currently be a member of the regular or reserve forces or of the civil service. Our people will rightly expect the ombudsman to carry out the role with impartiality and professionalism. That person should also of course be demonstrably independent of those whom they seek to hold to account for the way in which complaints have been handled. For that reason, the ombudsman will be outside the chain of command and will have access to Ministers and to all levels of the chain of command whenever he or she deems it necessary. I make no apology for repeating that the ombudsman will be able to approach the chain of command and Ministers at any time, at any level and on any issue, should they need to do so.

Being in offices that are outside the defence estate and recruiting their own staff in line with civil service recruitment guidelines will further reinforce the ombudsman’s independence from the services and from the Ministry of Defence. A further mark of the role’s independence and the security of the post holder’s tenure is the fact that the Bill provides that the post holder’s appointment will be subject to approval by Her Majesty the Queen. Yet another measure of their independence is that the House of Commons Defence Committee will conduct a pre-appointment hearing with the MOD’s preferred candidate.

Our aim is to attract high quality candidates and to get the best person for this important job. These amendments would restrict the field of possible candidates and exclude those who might have recent, relevant experience. We want therefore to retain the flexibility provided under the Bill’s current provisions, and I must stress that any previous armed forces experience can and will be scrutinised and fully assessed for any impact it might have on perceptions of the candidate’s independence. For those reasons, these proposals are resisted.

Amendment 27 would require the length of the ombudsman’s term in office, and a statement that it was non-renewable, to be set out in the legislation. It would require that the ombudsman not be appointed for fewer than five years or longer than seven, and that the term could not be renewed. The amendment’s aim is to ensure that the person appointed to be the ombudsman would not be influenced in their assessment of how the complaints system was operating or, in their investigation of maladministration claims, by concerns about whether they would be reappointed. It also aims to give the ombudsman, and those whom they serve, some certainty about the length of time they would be in post and to make that term of office a reasonable enough length for the post holder to get to grips with the role and to see through changes.

I fully acknowledge all those aims, but I do not accept that those provisions need to be set out on the face of the Bill in order for those matters to be enforced or to give certainty and confidence. The matters have been set out in the letter of appointment for the current commissioner, and we believe that to be the right approach. We want to retain the flexibility to amend those terms of appointment if experience suggests that that might be necessary. The amendment is therefore resisted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The amendments make the changes to the Bill agreed in Committee and ensure that they work correctly from a drafting point of view. I do not mean to insult or to criticise anyone, but we had to ensure that these amendments had the effect that the majority of the Committee wanted. I also want to make it clear that the Government accept the changes made in Committee and that nothing in these amendments seeks to row back on what the Committee agreed. I hope that hon. Members will accept that, because I have seen all the key players—I now see that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is sitting at the back. He might take offence at that, but I hope that he does not. We have done that quite deliberately so that everybody knows why the amendments have been proposed. They fill in significant gaps left by the amendments agreed in Committee and, in particular, ensure that the ombudsman can make recommendations following an investigation into a service complaint, giving her decisions the necessary teeth.

The amendments agreed in Committee reflect some of the recommendations made by the Defence Committee in its report on the Bill, which was published last October. I am grateful for the Defence Committee’s work on the Bill and it is clear that the changes agreed in Committee now have cross-party support, as they did in the Defence Committee. The Government have listened to the arguments made in Committee and by others on Second Reading and have accepted them. I therefore hope that the amendments will be supported across the House.

The Public Bill Committee agreed that the role of the ombudsman should be extended in three ways. The first was that the ombudsman should be allowed to look at the substance or merits of an individual complaint and not just whether it had been handled correctly by the services. In other words, she should be able to consider not just maladministration. The second was that the ombudsman should look for any maladministration that had occurred, not just that alleged by the complainant. If during the course of examining that complaint she comes across any other maladministration, she should be able to consider that.

Those are changes to the ombudsman’s remit, but it is important to emphasise a point that has sometimes been lost in our debates. The ombudsman will ordinarily become involved in individual complaints only once the consideration of them by the services has finished. It is important to reiterate that if an individual makes a complaint it should go through all the necessary stages and processes and if there is no finding in the complainant’s favour, meaning that he or she feels that the grievance has not been met—that they have not won, if you like—they can go to the ombudsman. If complaints are successfully dealt with by the services, there is no need for those complaints to go to the ombudsman. Most complaints are satisfactorily resolved, as one might imagine they would be in any complaints system.

It is important to make a point because the third change agreed in Committee is to allow the ombudsman to investigate allegations of undue delay, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) earlier, in three different respects: as part of a maladministration investigation, in relation to an ongoing “live” complaint, and pre-complaint. As I am sure you have worked out, Mr Speaker, I mean that when somebody has made a complaint that has got stuck and has not been got on with, even though it has not been completed, that person can go to the ombudsman. Even before a complaint has got into the system, if it is thought that there has been some prevarication or undue delay, the complainant can go to the ombudsman to unstick whatever is gluing things up.

It is in everyone’s interests to have a complaints process in which roles and powers are clear so that there is no confusion. It is also important that the wishes of the individual remain at the heart of the process, given that this is an individual’s grievance procedure. It is about that individual and his or her grievance. It remains the case that the services will in every case still be left to decide how to respond to any findings or recommendations made by the ombudsman, even in relation to the extended remit that the ombudsman will now have.

We have dealt with the amendments made in Committee with those points firmly in mind and the Government’s amendments today make the necessary additional changes to the rest of the Bill’s provisions, which were left untouched by the amendments in Committee, so that there can be no doubt about the precise scope of the ombudsman’s powers. That is why proposed new section 340H(1), as amended by our amendments, will set out in good strong terms that the ombudsman can investigate the following: a service complaint when that complaint has completed the internal system, making it clear that the ombudsman can look into the merits of a complaint; an allegation of a mishandling of service complaints, including undue delay, when that complaint has completed the internal system, which deals with maladministration; and allegations that a service complaint has been unduly delayed before the complaint has completed the internal system or, as I have explained, that there was undue delay before a service complaint was made.

[Bob Stewart]

Do I assume that if the Service Complaints Commissioner looks at a matter and says that there is no case to answer, it can finish there, rather than there being a long process? Can the commissioner say, “There is no case to answer; this matter is finished”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

We at Portland were always better at snowball fighting than Hartland, Mr Speaker.

This is a very important day. The Bill brings into being an armed forces ombudsman, something that is long overdue. I have been involved in this issue since I came to Parliament, both as a member of the Defence Committee and as a Defence Minister in the previous Government. This day will be pleasing to those who have campaigned over many years for a system of oversight and redress for our armed forces. I am thinking of the families of those involved in Deepcut and the recommendations of Mr Justice Blake’s report. People have campaigned over many years to get to this point today.

The Minister asked why the previous Government did not introduce this measure during our 13 years in office. We did: we set up the Armed Forces Service Complaints Commissioner. Did some of us at the time want to go further? Yes, we did. I argued for that very strongly, along with other members of the Defence Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) who was on the Opposition Whip’s Bench a moment ago. He made very strong representations to try to get to this point in 2006. I have to say that the people who argued against it were the conservative elements of the chain of command and the Conservative Front-Bench team of the time, who said that it would be the end of the world if we even had a Service Complaints Commissioner.

Those same voices thought that this next step would be a step too far, which is possibly why the Government were initially resistant in Committee to the changes. I said in Committee and I say it again now: I do not think there is anything in the Bill that senior members of the chain of command in our armed forces should be fearful of. If we look back to when we introduced the Service Complaints Commissioner, there was an argument that people would be interfering with the chain of command. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, what has happened is that senior military personnel now see that the way in which Susan Atkins has carried out the function of Service Complaints Commissioner has added not only to the process of accountability and transparency, but with the recommendations that she has brought forward. I put on record my thanks to her for how she has carried out the job. She saw the limitations that she was acting under right from the start, but like any good regulator she pushed where she could and brought about change within the system.

[Bob Stewart]

Just to back up what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it is the way Dr Atkins has carried out her duties that has encouraged everyone—even dinosaurs like me—to think that this is a seriously good thing and a step forward. I am delighted to say that the people who, like myself, were against the idea to start with, have been totally converted by the work of Susan Atkins.

[Mr Jones]

That is the change. I am glad to see dinosaurs still alive and kicking on the Conservative Back Benches, and long may they live.

I wish Nicola Williams all the best in the job she has before her. The Bill sets out a new era, but I think it will be very rewarding for her to ensure that the issues we have raised during the passage of the Bill are addressed.

One of the issues to be addressed, and which the armed forces have to wake up to, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon): the delay in dealing with complaints. Most organisations, whether companies, local councils or even central Government these days, would not put up with the delay in dealing with complaints. The armed forces need a performance mechanism to enable complaints to be dealt with simply, quickly and effectively, and the nearer to the source of the complaint the better. Even if they do not like the outcome, at least early resolution avoids the added injustice of people thinking they are being messed around by the system. I just hope that the armed forces, particularly the Army, will take that on board and that we can ensure the speedy resolution of some complaints.

Of course, the perfect position would be if the ombudsman did not have anything to do, but that is not going to happen—there is already a backlog. Over time, however, not only will she be able to suggest improvements to the system, but I hope that slowly we can educate people in the chain of command that a more effective way of dealing with complaints and disciplinary action in general would be a better way forward.

I thank the Defence Committee for its work on the Bill. As I said, it is a good example of a Select Committee—the current Committee and its predecessors over several years—taking a keen interest in a subject, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and not letting go of an issue. It has kept on pressing for this type of redress system. I also think that the changes made in the Bill Committee have improved the Bill—the Government were wise to accept the amendments, because had we not done that now, we would have had to return to the issue in four or five years’ time—and I wish the Bill Godspeed through its remaining stages. We must support our armed forces not only with our words in the House, but with an effective system that supports armed forces personnel on the rare occasions—as the Minister said, they are rare—when things go wrong and which gives them the justice and support they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed, with amendments.