Aircraft Carriers and UK Shipbuilding

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

What I have announced today will provide that sustainable long-term future for shipbuilding. We have answered the $64,000 question of how we would bridge the gap between completion of the aircraft carrier blocks and the commencement of the Type 26 build programme by commissioning three additional ocean-going patrol vessels which will be built on the Clyde. We have a sustainable naval shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom, as of today’s announcement.

Of course it is regrettable that jobs will be lost. That is a function of the surge in the size of the industry that is needed to deliver these very large carriers. We will work across Government with the unions, communities and other stakeholders who will be affected to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The end of shipbuilding in Portsmouth is devastating for a community with a record of more than 800 years of proud service to the Royal Navy. Does the Secretary of State know when we shall hear of plans to help to ease the pain of this decision—particularly in relation to the city deal—and does he know what conversations have taken place with Portsmouth city council about the timing of today’s announcement?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. As I acknowledged in my statement, the decision will be very hard for people in Portsmouth to accept. However, we should put this in context: 940 jobs will be lost, but 11,000 will remain in dockyards-related activity in Portsmouth, which will be the largest centre of surface maritime support in the United Kingdom—and that will continue into the future.

We are engaged in discussions with both Portsmouth and Southampton city councils about the city deal proposal, and I am advised that a statement is likely to be made very soon, as soon as those negotiations have concluded.

HMS Concord (Yangtze River Incident)

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am delighted to have secured this debate on what is an important topic to many people, and I hope that during the short time available we can provide some insight into the truth that the past 64 years have failed to reveal.

I would like to take right hon. and hon. Members back in time to 1949, to the Yangtze river of China during the Chinese civil war, and an historic event that has taken on the name “the Yangtze incident.” The event happened at a time when Great Britain was at peace, but it took us to the brink of a third world war. Much has been written about the incident, including a book that was made into a film, with Richard Todd in the starring role. Neither the book nor the film, however, comes anywhere near the truth of the story that is yet to be told.

This is not a story about one ship, the Royal Navy frigate HMS Amethyst, and her daring escape after three months’ incarceration by communist forces on the Yangtze river. It is the untold story of HMS Concord, a C-class destroyer that Commander-in-Chief, Far East Station, Admiral Sir E. J. Patrick Brind deployed into China’s Yangtze river as part of his endeavour to bring about the escape of HMS Amethyst.

I will first explain the position with regard to the civil war in China. Government policy at the time was governed by the Moscow declaration of December 1945, in which the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union declared a policy of non-intervention in China’s internal affairs. The known facts are that China was split into two warring parties, the Communist People’s Liberation Army, led by Mao Tse-tung, and the nationalist army, under the Kuomintang. As the Chinese civil war raged on, the communists began to make headway on the shores of the Yangtze river near the city of Nanking, and warned that any foreign ships in the river would be attacked. Right hon. and hon. Members might wonder what the importance of that is, and the answer is simple: it endorses the fact that the Yangtze river was a known war zone.

I said at the outset that I would like to take us back in time. The date was 20 April 1949. A British warship, HMS Concord, was stationed at Nanking, to act as guard ship to the British embassy and to evacuate staff and other British nationals if necessary. She had been there for some time, and her relief was long overdue and her stores depleted. The relief ship was His Majesty’s Australian Ship, Shoalhaven, which was at Shanghai and should have relieved HMS Concord on 16 April. The relief did not take place; the Shoalhaven was stood down.

HMS Amethyst, en route to Nanking up the river Yangtze to relieve the guard ship HMS Concord, came under heavy fire from the north bank. At nearby Rose island she ran aground, was severely damaged and suffered heavy casualties, with more than 50 members of the crew killed, dying or seriously injured. The captain was mortally wounded and the first lieutenant, though wounded, took command. The communists continued to fire at Amethyst and, to save further loss of life, about 60 lightly wounded and uninjured crew members were evacuated ashore, but further evacuation stopped when those in the water came under fire. Those put ashore eventually arrived in Shanghai and were treated in hospital.

At this juncture, it should also be remembered that before all of that two other ships, the frigate HMS Black Swan and the cruiser HMS London, were involved, along with HMS Concord, in an attempt to assist Amethyst’s escape. Due to the narrowness of the Yangtze river, none of the ships was able to manoeuvre and they were, in effect, sitting ducks for the communist field guns. All three ships suffered heavy damage and casualties in the attempts, and it was decided that to proceed further would be disastrous for them and their crews. The order was given to return to Shanghai.

On 21 April, HMS Amethyst was refloated, and on 22 April Lieutenant Commander Kerans arrived on board from Nanking, where he was assistant naval attaché, and took command. Amethyst remained incarcerated for 100 days, and the fact that HMS Concord entered the Yangtze to aid Amethyst in the aftermath of her escape has been denied. The involvement of HMS Concord was hidden or deleted from any public or official record.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. One of my constituents is a veteran sailor from HMS Concord, and his concern has always been that the Ministry of Defence denied that the ship was ever in the Yangtze. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sir John Holmes’s medal review, which acknowledges that the presence of HMS Concord is now no longer in doubt, goes some way towards proving that my constituent and other such gentlemen have, for many years, been right?

[Graeme Morrice]

Yes, indeed. I accept that point, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I know that she has a personal interest in the matter, particularly regarding the award of medals, and I will touch later on the Sir John Holmes review.

Concord’s logbook was removed, and without evidence to the contrary nothing could be proven, until now. Despite efforts to prevent the truth from emerging, personal accounts of HMS Concord’s part in the events, given by my constituent Mr William Leitch of Livingston and members of the HMS Concord Association, provide an overwhelming insight into the risks that Concord was subjected to when ordered into the Yangtze river. Mr Leitch has been in touch with me on the issue over the three years since I was elected to Parliament, and he is delighted that I am able to have this Adjournment debate. He will no doubt be watching live on the internet.

What follows has always been denied by the Government, the Foreign Office and the Admiralty. When it was obvious that negotiations for a safe passage downriver were leading nowhere, Lieutenant Commander Kerans informed Admiral Brind in a coded signal that he planned to break out that evening. Admiral Brind, without reference to the Admiralty or the Foreign Office, signalled to HMS Concord, which was patrolling in the South China sea, to proceed upriver to meet Amethyst and, should the Woosung forts open fire, Concord was to return fire in support of Amethyst. When Amethyst made her escape on the night of 30 July 1949, one other ship, the destroyer HMS Concord, entered the Chinese territorial waters of the Yangtze to escort and cover the ship past the massive guns of the Woosung forts, which were the last obstacle before reaching the open South China sea.

The duty quartermaster was ordered to go around the ship and tell everyone, by word of mouth—not piping it over the tannoy as the sound would carry over the water and could alert the enemy—that the ship would up anchor and proceed upriver. The Concord was challenged by a nationalist gunboat and ordered not to travel any further. Stopping until the nationalist ship had left the vicinity, the Concord then sailed past the heavily armed Woosung forts to meet Amethyst. At the forts, Concord, on sighting Amethyst, sent the signal, “Fancy meeting you here”, to which Amethyst replied,

“Never, repeat never, has a ship been more welcome.”

Lieutenant Commander Kerans then signalled Admiral Brind, with a copy to the Admiralty:

“South of Woosung… Have rejoined the fleet… No damage or casualties… God save the King.”

Having passed the Woosung forts without their opening fire, the Concord, still in the Yangtze river, transferred supplies and 147 tons of fuel to the Amethyst, which had only 7 tons left. Both ships made it into the neutral waters of the South China sea and set course for the British province of Hong Kong.

The Concord was soon met by HMS Cossack, whose captain boarded the ship, removed its log book and took with him any evidence of the Concord’s involvement. The move to expunge any mention of its involvement with Amethyst was in motion. Admiral Brind went public and informed the news media that he had decided to authorise and endeavour, despite the risk, to bring about HMS Amethyst’s escape from China’s Yangtze river.

Hon. Members may wonder why there was so much concern to hide the fact that Concord had dashed up the Yangtze to assist Amethyst. The answer is simple: to prevent an international incident when cold war tensions were high. Had the Communists been aware that Concord had gone to the aid of Amethyst and entered Chinese territorial waters, the political consequences might have been catastrophic. Admiral Brind going public on what amounted to a covert mission that he had authorised would obviously upset the diplomatic apple cart.

After Concord and Amethyst had cleared the Yangtze river into the open sea, Sir Ralph Stevenson, the British ambassador in Nanking, sent a telegram to the Foreign Office, with copies to the commander-in-chief Far East station and the Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Canton embassies. He stated:

“No repeat no publicity should be given to the fact that H. M. Ship Concord entered Chinese territorial waters… It might help to lessen the possible repercussions upon British communities in Communist occupied territory if public statements could stress that the escape of H. M. Ship Amethyst was due to the initiative of the officer in command in accordance with the best traditions of a sailor responsible for the safety of his ship and the welfare of the ship’s company and that his intention to do so was not revealed to any of us out here.”

In other words, “If the balloon goes up and politically everything goes pear-shaped, we blame Lieutenant Commander Kerans and hang him out to dry.”

That telegram removed any official mention of the Concord’s involvement in the Yangtze incident. The move to expunge any mention of Concord’s involvement with Amethyst was going full speed ahead. Although Admiral Brind had ordered Concord to enter the Yangtze and escort Amethyst past the Woosung forts, he had no alternative but to comply with Ambassador Stevenson’s instructions. Consequently, a press release was issued and this report appeared in the Evening News on Saturday 6 August 1949:

“A Navy spokesman stated that the destroyer Concord had been waiting at the mouth of the Yangtze and was prepared to go up river to the aid of the Amethyst if needed”.

It is clear from the evidence that on the date and at the time that Admiral Brind gave the order, he committed HMS Concord and the ship’s company to a situation in which the risk to life and limb exerted by enemy forces was significantly above what UK armed services personnel might routinely be expected to tolerate. In recognition of the action, the officers and ship’s company of HMS Amethyst, together with those who served on three other Royal Navy ships that took part in the early stages of the incident, were awarded the Yangtze 1949 clasp to the Naval General Service Medal 1915.

I am concerned that that aspect of the incident is being sidelined. The committee responsible for compiling the 1949 Yangtze campaign awards scheme—the Sir John Holmes review—was not invited to look into HMS Concord’s role in the incident covering the dates from 28 to 31 July 1949. In other words, officially Concord was not there. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate how frustrating that is. The Minister should understand the strength of feeling behind the Concord veterans’ claim that they should be eligible for the NGSM Yangtze 1949 clasp.

The unrecognised heroes of the Yangtze incident—victims of Government skulduggery—are not claiming heroism or bravery; they simply believe that some official recognition should be instituted. Today, a large question mark hangs over the Yangtze incident. I fear that it appears to have been a cover-up that may be ongoing to this day. Indeed, this debate may already have some people cringing in high office within the Government and the Admiralty.

To sum up, for 64 years the true story of HMS Amethyst’s dramatic escape from China’s Yangtze river has been suppressed. The House may now wish to have a full account of the circumstances in which His Majesty’s ships were fired on in the Yangtze river with grievous casualties and damage. I urge the Government to abandon diplomatic caution and investigate the circumstances in the process of awarding medals to those involved in the Yangtze campaign and, in particular, investigate whether the process was corrupted by the exclusion of relevant and important documents relating to the role of HMS Concord in the Yangtze campaign on 30 and 31 July 1949.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to offer and, perhaps more importantly, to whether he can confirm that the Government will conduct a review with due diligence and propriety. The House deserves to be told the truth and given an accurate account of HMS Concord’s role in the 1949 Yangtze incident.

Armed Forces

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I, too, welcome this debate and this opportunity to celebrate our armed forces.

Very few communities are more shaped by their relationship with our armed forces than my constituency of Gosport. One need only look at the scale of our community engagement in events such as the Remembrance Sunday parade, where thousands of people turn out to watch representatives from all our military establishments parade through the town. Last year saw the parade for the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war, when veterans from around the UK came to the town of Gosport. Indeed, two of my favourite Doorkeepers from the House of Commons were among those who took the time to parade through Gosport. The Falklands Veterans Foundation is based in Gosport, offering invaluable support to our brave veterans.

Everywhere you look in my constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are historic buildings that tell the story of our armed forces through the ages. You may not be aware that it has even crept into our daily language. The expression “Up the creek without a paddle”, or more colourful variations thereof, originated from Haslar creek, where back in Nelson’s day wounded sailors were taken up to the Royal Navy Hospital Haslar to recover, or otherwise. Of course, in those days they were not necessarily as keen to be part of the Royal Navy as people might be these days. They were held prisoner so that they did not desert while being treated, and some tried to escape by going through the sewers to the creek. I hope that these days people are much more inclined to remain part of our armed forces.

It is estimated that the armed forces community in Gosport comprises about 5,500 people. We have a very proud military wives choir—Portsmouth and Gosport military wives choir—and I went to hear them record tracks for their album. Fortunately they did not make me sing, which would have been a disaster for all concerned.

Gosport also has a high proportion of people who are in receipt of armed forces pensions. At one in 16, it is the highest proportion in Hampshire and the second highest in England.

The armed forces community covenant was signed by Hampshire county council in June 2011. Last November, on Remembrance Sunday, the Gosport armed forces community covenant was established to formally acknowledge Gosport’s long affiliation with the armed forces. Those covenants are voluntary statements of mutual support between the civilian community and serving and former members of the armed forces and their families. Above all, they are about respect underlined with action.

The demands imposed on the armed forces in the course of their duties are unique and set them apart from others who serve and protect our society. However, there is the potential for disadvantage if national and local government policies, as well as local communities, do not tackle the problems that military families encounter.

One of those issues is the opportunity to balance military and family life. That is a particular problem in the Royal Navy, which has the most unfavourable harmony arrangements of the three main services. That is why it is so important that shore-based military training is delivered as close as is possible to the big military communities. In Gosport, the marine engineering training at HMS Sultan, which is rated outstanding by Ofsted, gives Navy families a rare opportunity to live as a normal family, with husbands and wives coming home every evening.

Another big challenge is service mobility, which risks disadvantaging personnel and their dependants with regard to access to local public services, such as doctors surgeries, schools and social housing. The rate of home ownership is lower among service personnel than in the nation as a whole. Accessing school places has always been a challenge. The pupil premium that forces families now receive is hugely welcome. However, accessing school places continues to be a challenge. In big military communities, it is difficult for schools to maintain places for forces families. One of my constituents has five children at four different schools, which causes enormous difficulty.

The final problem relates to ongoing treatment and support. Serving in the armed forces comes with the inherent risk of serious physical and mental injury, which can result in the need for ongoing treatment and welfare support for service people and their families. I have talked about the legacy of the military buildings in Gosport, but there is a legacy in the people too. Many of my constituents have served in the armed forces. Many have given up the best years of their life and their good health for our country. Tragically, this country has not always given enough back. I have been troubled on countless occasions by the stories of ex-service personnel who have not received the help that they need to make the difficult transition from the front line to civvy street.

Many community organisations in my constituency help service personnel who have not made that transition very well. The veteran mentors scheme that is run by the Hampshire probation trust helps former service people who find themselves on the wrong side of the law by giving them mentors who have also been in the armed forces. As we all know, the armed forces, and the Royal Navy in particular, have their own language. I often receive e-mails that say “BZ” at the end. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that means “well done”. I hope that those people feel the same way after I have finished making this speech. It is important that military personnel are mentored by people who share that common language.

I am proud of some of the things that the Government have achieved. Taking the armed forces covenant seriously has been a great achievement. I am proud that they are finally addressing the inequality with regard to medals for Arctic convoy and Bomber Command veterans. As a country, we are right to be proud of our military past. We can now be proud of the future that we are securing for our service people and veterans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

The decision to sign a community covenant is a matter for individual local authorities, but we obviously encourage all local authorities across the country to sign up to a community covenant to show their support for the armed forces family—the wider armed forces community. I hope that will apply to the local authorities in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

I make that about 23 seconds.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Gosport borough council, which adopted its version of the military covenant at the tail end of last year? Will he update the House on the progress that has been made in the take-up of community covenants?

[Mr Francois]

As I said, more than half the local authorities in Great Britain have signed the community covenant, and I am pleased to say that they are coming in all the time. I am really encouraged by the number of local authorities at all tiers of local government that have been signing community covenants to demonstrate their support for the armed forces community, and I am very pleased to hear that that spirit is alive and well in Gosport.

Katrice Lee

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate and thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for giving me time to speak. I pay tribute to his consistently effective and diligent support of Mr Lee and the family in this terrible and tragic case.

The hon. Gentleman has more than adequately summed up our shared concerns about the failures of the initial investigation and the subsequent handling of the case, so I will not go into that any further. However, I want to speak briefly on behalf of my constituents, Katrice’s mum, Sharon Lee, and sister, Natasha. Like Katrice’s father, they have endured three decades of suffering, not knowing what happened to this much-loved little girl on that awful day in 1981. It is vital that their voices are now heard after decades of frustration, that appropriate empathy is shown after years of disregard, and that action is taken to show that we care equally about the life of every missing child and every grief stricken parent.

Katrice’s mum, Sharon, first contacted me over a year ago as we approached the 30th anniversary of her daughter’s disappearance. She spoke of the anguish she felt when she realised that Katrice was no longer in sight in that busy NAAFI supermarket in Germany. It is a feeling of rising panic and horror which nearly every parent will be familiar with and, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool pointed out, will have experienced in a shop or public space at some point. Sharon and Mr Lee have lived with that feeling for more than 30 years.

As a mother, I can only begin to imagine the horror of losing a child, let alone never discovering what happened to them. The tragedy of this case, however, was cruelly compounded by the incompetence and insensitivity of the Royal Military Police. In an investigation seemingly plagued by failings, sources were overlooked and potential leads neglected, while the family were left without adequate support. The Royal Military Police, and the Army, let down a British soldier and his family when they were most in need of help and support. I hope that the Minister will offer his firm assurances that lessons were learnt from that inglorious time, and that service personnel and their families today would never face such an insensitive instance of neglect.

Let me turn our attention to the future. Despite the heartbreak that both Sharon and Natasha have endured, I have been struck by their quiet determination to carry on fighting to discover what happened to Katrice. That shows courage and strength that I am sure we all greatly admire. Although I welcome the resources and manpower that have recently been committed to the renewed investigation, may I respectfully ask the Minister why it took 30 years for an appropriate level of gravity to be attached to this case, and call on him to confirm that that effort will be maintained regardless of whether the case remains in the media spotlight?

Will the Minister give the family a clear indication about the time frame of the investigation, as I am sure he will agree that they have waited long enough for that to be concluded? When the current investigation is complete, I urge the MOD to release the initial case files to the family. At a time when we are thankfully starting to accept that past mistakes cannot be brushed under the carpet, there can be no attempt to cover up the failings of the original investigation.

Finally, the Minister knows that I respect him enormously, and to my mind there is no one better to be trusted with a responsibility as vital as the welfare of defence personnel. Will he reflect on how this family have been treated over the years at the hands of the Royal Military Police, the Army and the Government? In truth, I was disappointed that the Prime Minister declined to meet the family when I raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions earlier this year. Surely it is not right to cherry-pick which desperate, grief-stricken family of a lost child is more worthy than others of face time with the Prime Minister.

With that in mind, I plead with the Minister to commit to meet the family, so that he may better understand how to take this case forward to personally address their concerns and ensure that the cruel mistakes of the past are never repeated.

Future Reserves 2020

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I specifically said that that was where the procurement is not exempt from European Union procurement rules. Not all defence procurement is exempt; only the procurement of warlike supplies is exempt. Some of the strongest and most effective corporate supporters of the reserve service are the big defence contractors. I therefore think the hon. Gentleman is looking to pursue a contractual solution to a problem that does not exist, because they are already among the best in this regard.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, and in particular the comments about additional engagement with employers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to get greater backing from employers is to give them greater certainty over the level of reservists’ deployment so that they can plan ahead?

[Mr Hammond]

That is one of the important steps we are taking. Making mobilisation liability, duration and frequency predictable is one of the tools for making reservist employees more attractive to employers.

Nuclear-powered Submarines

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with my hon. Friend; this is a classic example of a coincidence of interest between the strong and resolute defence of the United Kingdom and the support of a high-technology manufacturing base.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement, which is clearly great news for world-class British engineers, skills and jobs. However, does the Secretary of State agree that this is also an economically sensible decision to avoid the costly skills gap we saw in the run-up to the Astute-class boat programme?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two ways of sustaining these skills. We either provide orders to the companies that employ them so that they do something useful and make things, or we simply pay them to stand idle and allow their skills to decline. We have chosen the former, which is the right way to go.

Afghanistan (Troop Levels)

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I should first say that members of all the armed forces will be involved in the Afghan national officer training academy, so there will definitely be a tri-service presence in Afghanistan after 2014 in that capacity. Beyond that, we have made no decisions about the nature or scale of any continuing support that we may provide. As I said earlier, the conversation about that will begin in Chicago, but I do not expect it to be concluded quickly.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that no UK forces will be required to backfill any areas that are left as US forces withdraw from Helmand?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I can give that assurance. The UK’s area of operations—the three districts of Nad Ali, Lashkar Gah and Nahri Sarraj in central Helmand—will remain the focus of UK operations. We do not intend to extend our area of operations, and US forces drawing down elsewhere in regional command south-west will be replaced by Afghan national security forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

That is a rather widely targeted question. I believe the Scottish Government have recently engaged with us on the safety of nuclear materials moving by road, but I do not recall any other engagement in the past couple of months.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I represent a constituency with a proud heritage of support for the Royal Navy. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that any decision on the future of the carriers will be based on considerations of long-term costs and long-term interoperability, not of short-term savings?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is our intention and it is what the previous Government signally failed to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, the statements that some Governments have been induced to make about access to their ports for Falkland Islands-flagged vessels are most unwelcome, but we judge that they will have no material impact on our ability to defend the islands or reinforce the islands, should that be necessary. I hope my hon. Friend and the House do not mind, but it would not be in the interests of the UK’s national security or of the Falkland Islands to explore in public which regional nations might be friendly to us if there were a need for military action at any time in the future.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

13. What recent progress has been made by the independent review into granting a medal to the Arctic convoy veterans; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The Government have agreed that there should be a fresh review of the rules governing the award of military medals. It will be conducted by an independent reviewer with full consultation with interested parties. The terms of reference and further details will be released shortly.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but I am not entirely happy with it. The veterans endured the most unimaginable hardships to protect this country during the second world war. Given that many of them are now in their late 80s and early 90s, does the Minister agree that it is imperative to be quick? We need to know when the review will be concluded.

[Mr Robathan]

We all owe a huge debt to those of our fathers’ and grandfathers’ generation who gave up their youth in the service of this country to keep it and the world free from fascism. In the context of my hon. Friend’s question, that particularly applies to those who endured astonishingly awful conditions in the Arctic, and I pay tribute to them for their courage and resilience.

Medals are not awarded by me, and it is quite right that there is to be an independent review that will not be led by the Ministry of Defence. I share my hon. Friend’s concern, but I can assure her that I am told that it will be a swift review and will take place shortly.