Proceeding contribution from Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 26 April 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Defence in the UK.
Defence in the UK
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. If anything, his scenario sounds worse than that in Essex. At some stage there was a consultation between the Ministry of Defence police, the Royal Military Police and the Essex constabulary, but I have never found out exactly when that took place. As the Minister knows, because I have asked parliamentary questions on the matter, there is now a joint police station out of which the three police forces operate. It could be said that that is a good idea. There has always been co-operation between the Royal Military Police, the Ministry of Defence police and the Essex constabulary. There is nothing new there, but sticking them in one building is almost a bit of bluff to give the impression that something new has happened. Yes, something new has happened, and it is to cover the fact that there has been a 40 per cent. cut in the Ministry of Defence police. That is not very sensible. I shall deal briefly with two further items. First, can the Minister comment on the issue of drug use among soldiers? I recognise that, in percentage terms, it is probably very low, but can he say whether it is true that the equivalent of a battalion or more a year are discharged because they have failed drug tests? Secondly, this year is the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war. Can the Minister advise the House in due course on what the precise commemorations or celebrations will be to mark that? Will he ask colleagues to look again at the position of those who served on RMS St. Helena and two other vessels. RMS St. Helena is the only means of communication to the island of St. Helena in the south Atlantic, which gave up its only means of communication to support the liberation of the Falkland Islands. It was not the fault of RMS St. Helena and its volunteer crew that they were outside the exclusion zone for as long as they were. They wished to play their part; they did play their part, but they were outside the zone for whatever the magical number of days the Ministry of Defence decided constituted justification for the award of a medal. It would cost nothing and put right a wrong if people who volunteered to serve to help liberate the Falkland Islands could have the medal that common sense says they should be awarded. That would cost nothing. Good will cannot have a price. On the defence of the UK, it was said earlier that few people now have direct knowledge of serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces. The reduction in the size of the armed forces and the closure of many garrison bases and Territorial Army bases mean that there is less of a military footprint. The Government need to revisit the issue to see whether there is any way that they can try to get a military footprint or at least a military presence so that more people see soldiers, sailors and airmen even if not on a daily basis—clearly, that can happen only in places such as Portsmouth and the super garrison towns. The country would benefit if the military footprint were bigger than it currently is.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 459 c1085-6
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Cost effectiveness Defence Army Air force Health services Finance Families Education Iraq Peacekeeping operations Staff Policy Navy Military bases Military aircraft Ministry of Defence Standards Training Afghanistan Territorial Army
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:34:39 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392897
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392897
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392897