Dr Andrew Murrison
MP for South West Wiltshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is good to hear that the Government plan to replenish the dwindling stocks of Patriot missiles in Ukraine, which I suspect it will need this winter. However, Patriot is low volume and high cost. What the Ukrainians need is high volume and low cost.”
“Currently, the Royal Navy has an offshore patrol vessel permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands, but given the threat that is being faced and our need to demonstrate resolve—the sort of thing that, sadly, we did not demonstrate in the early 1980s, which led to miscalculation—will the Minister consider speaking to her MOD colleagues…”
“Since the Foreign Secretary is not going to get the co-operation, fulsome or otherwise, of the Israeli state in differentiating goods and services made in the settlements from those that are assembled, repackaged, produced and grown in Israel itself, how is he going to distinguish the one from the other?”
“The Government insisted on applying the social time preference rate to the disastrous Chagos deal to make an appalling deal look slightly better.”
“Will the First Secretary of State’s exercise in delivering democracy and local accountability and empowering local people include a look at large organisations that cannot be described as governmental or as quangos but that nevertheless exist firmly within the public domain, are established by statute, serve the public and are big employe…”
“I congratulate the Government on the hiring of Alistair Burt—he is a good hire and will do great things for some of these most complex of cases—but does the Minister agree that many of these cases are extremely difficult and exceptionally traumatic, and that it is far better to prevent them happening in the first place?”
The complete record
Every one of 4,639 lines we hold for Dr Andrew Murrison, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 77 of 93.
“What he neglected to say, of course, was that there are not really any to deploy. Mental health is an area of service health care that requires, more than most disciplines, an in-depth understanding of the occupational situation in which patients exist and to which we hope that, ultimately, they will return, yet the DMS is short of 14 uniformed psychiatrists—at least it was in January. What impact does the Minister think that that has on the quality of health care provision and what is he doing to improve matters? The Priory Group’s extended contact expires this November. Can the Minister say when the result of the compulsory competitive tendering exercise to find a replacement will be known? Can he update us on the pilot schemes for veterans’ mental health being run by Combat Stress? The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr.”
“We should not overlook the niche capabilities—some of which are found in those institutions—that are not easily available in the NHS and which the armed forces must continue to provide from their own resources, such as hyperbaric medicine, aviation medicine in general, field and survival medicine, and medicine that deals with the health issues relating to human factors and the extreme physical and environmental circumstances encountered by the armed forces. The Select Committee report did not dwell on pinch points in the DMS other than to say that there is a problem with retention. Again, had there been time, there might have been some exploration of the impact of the shortage of uniformed psychiatrists. I was surprised that in his statement today, the Secretary of State spoke about deploying psychiatrists.”
“We should ensure that, as far as possible, people are not harmed by virtue of their service, and that such an approach extends well beyond post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic amputation. Had there been a little more time, the Committee might have considered the excellent research work done in the DMS, in particular by research institutions such as the Institute of Naval Medicine in Gosport and the Institute of Aviation Medicine. They do extremely important work to enhance clinical care and occupational health.”
“If I may express a few gentle words of surprise at the Select Committee’s report, I would have to say that it focused very much on secondary care, both in this country and on deployment. I am afraid that a constant failing of politicians is that we like to think of health care in terms of hospitals, surgeries and so on. We need to understand that in service medicine, as with practice in civilian life, most encounters take place in a non-secondary care setting. There might have been a little more recognition of the importance of public health and preventive medicine. It is important that we pay close attention to what one might call service-attributable illness and injury.”
“A more realistic definition would be that personnel have at least passed out of basic training, and I ask the Minister to give that suggestion some thought. I agree with the Government and disagree with the Committee over the flagging of veterans for the purposes of health care. We need to be careful to protect the confidentiality of servicemen and that extends to the Defence Medical Information Capability Programme. Can the Minister confirm that the same opt-outs that apply to civilians and the national programme for IT in the NHS will apply to servicemen and DMICP? DMICP was meant to be available in a deployable form from this year, but I have not seen it. Where is it, and how far behind schedule is the programme? Can we take it that the operational capability envisaged for 2010 will not now be achieved?”
“Indeed, that is largely the direction the Americans have taken with their equivalent medical services. There are a few small points in the Government’s response that need to be picked up briefly. In paragraph 18, the definition of veteran is given as a person “who has served for at least one day in HM Armed Forces” or allied services. That may be expedient; I perfectly understand why the definition was chosen. However, I ask the Minister if it is, in fact, wise. We must value our veterans and in doing so we must protect the “brand”. It seems a little odd that a youngster who has turned up at Pirbright or HMS Raleigh, disliked what he saw and taken the next train back home should be given the privileges of a 30-year-old who has deployed half a dozen times and has a chestful of campaign medals.”
“Medical personnel have integrated with the command structure as never before, which is exactly as it should be, so I hope that establishing a stand-alone medical command, as it were, and a shift towards the west midlands and away from front-line fighting units will not signal a new era of isolation for the DMS. Such a situation would be very bad for the credibility of defence medicine and also for the health of the population it serves. Furthermore, it would be a bitter irony if, in their haste to merge with our NHS, our defence medicine personnel found themselves estranged from their patient base, the men and women of our armed forces. Such a development would call into question the whole purpose of the DMS and suggest that perhaps we might even go the whole hog and rely on an extension of sponsored reserves taken up from the NHS.”
“Of course, we should remember in that context that we continue to have the three single service “tribal chiefs”, as medical directors-general at two-star level. For a small medical service, that structure looks increasingly top-heavy. The Defence Committee heard that we will now have something called the Joint Medical Command, which is currently at Fort Blockhouse, and, eventually, another body called the Strategic Medical HQ. Of course, under current plans both those bodies will be housed at Whittington barracks, once their new offices have been built. While not wanting in any way to harm the career prospects of my old friends and colleagues in the DMS, I would counsel some caution.”
“Not only would its quarters be substandard but it would be left isolated from front-line units and, crucially, it would be seen as being out on a limb compared with the mainstream of the armed forces. Page 8 of the report deals briefly with the operation of DMS. It has been ruled latterly by a curious bipartite organisation that includes two three-star officers who sit side by side, a little like the Popes of Avignon and Rome. The deputy chief of staff (Health) is a line officer and the surgeon-general, of course, is a doctor. If we are honest, the post of DCOS (Health) was created because, in the past, doctors have proved to possess variable—should we say?—management skills. Sometimes they are truly excellent and sometimes that is not quite the case, so I ask the Minister to consider whether we continue to require both those people.”
“Over the past 25 years, medics have become increasingly integrated in the mainstream of our armed forces. Can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the importance to the men and women of the Defence Medical Services of being located as close as possible to front-line units? It would be useful if he could frame his remarks in the light of the inconvenient fact that Keogh barracks and Fort Blockhouse are about as close to the heart of the British Army, Navy and Royal Air Force as we are ever likely to achieve. One does not need to be Mystic Meg to foresee that, if the Whittington project has its funding pared down through harsh economic circumstances, the DMS would find itself in a very uncomfortable situation.”
“According to the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency, main gate was meant to be achieved at the end of last year. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us why there has been a hold-up. In the deteriorating climate, we have to be cautious about the project coming to fruition. I have to say, however, that it is a matter beyond even the Minister’s exalted pay grade. Can he reaffirm his predecessor’s commitment to Whittington barracks in the event that DMS does not, in the end, move there? In 2006, we learned from the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram): “If on the other hand, the transfer does not take place, Army training will continue on the Lichfield site.” I hope that the Minister is able to repeat that commitment today.”
“I know that the Minister talks to members of the DMS frequently and members of the Defence Committee have also talked to them. I talk to them too, although sometimes on slightly different terms and I must say that the views that are often expressed by the hierarchy, if I can put it that way, sometimes deviate from those expressed by those lower down the tree. That is only to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by the views expressed by people at the coal face, because those people are the future of Defence Medical Services and they are the people who, on a day-to-day basis, are providing the service, both in the UK and, of course, abroad, which is crucial at the moment. The Midlands Medical Accommodation project was at initial gate in August 2006.”
“At the time, the money did not materialise and the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine landed up in a somewhat undistinguished redbrick Victorian building, where it remains to this day. We really should take our hats off to the DMS for putting such a brave face on conditions that are far less inspiring than the service warrants, particularly in current operations. If the £200 million was pulled in 1998, I must ask the Minister what hope the DMS has of anything really good at Whittington barracks. The stakes are very high indeed, because if the job is poorly done it is likely to lead to further embarrassment for the Minister or his successors, as trained staff decide to leave the armed forces because they feel dispirited, demoralised and undervalued.”
“Underpinning the whole project, of course, is the need to allow an Army training regiment to relocate from Lichfield to Pirbright, and I will talk a little more about that issue in a moment. Before I do so, I think that it would be instructive to refresh our memories about the move to Selly Oak and to consider what lessons it might have for the future of the DMS at Whittington barracks. The closure of Haslar dates from Admiral Timothy Laurence’s committee of 1998, which considered that the MOD should not be in the business of running hospitals. Ministers readily agreed to that and a centre for defence medicine was proposed, to be based ultimately in Birmingham, which would cost £200 million.”
“However, I commend in particular the Government’s attitude towards service families and NHS waiting lists. Furthermore, after my brief reading of the report this afternoon, I also commend the statement that people who are being cared for at Headley Court will be cared for to the same standard in the NHS when they become veterans. The Minister and I have corresponded about that issue over the course of several months, so the statement on it is very welcome. The Defence Committee rightly asked the Government to be more explicit about the so-called Lichfield-Selly Oak dumb-bell, but the response from the Government at the time seemed to duck the issue. Since then, we have been told that Ministers have assessed the project and are now able to give it the green light.”
“I start by declaring my interest as a medical officer in the reserve forces. I pay tribute to the House of Commons Defence Committee for delivering its report on an issue of vital importance to our armed forces, and to the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), for the manner in which he delivered the report this afternoon. I also pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces and, of course, to those who look after them, both within the Defence Medical Services, the NHS and increasingly the charitable or third sector. Today has been quite a big day for the armed forces. We had the launch of the Command Paper. There are lots of very good points in it, a few of which, I must say to the Minister—if I may pull his leg—are eerily familiar.”
“I served at that hospital, which has provided first-rate medical care for many years, and I pay tribute to all those who have worked there. I very much hope that even at this late stage we can review the site to determine whether there is a military health care use for it that may be helpful to DMS or to some of the other organisations that have been mentioned today. After so many years, it would be a pity to lose it, particularly given the nature of the site, which, as my hon. Friend said, is extremely challenging. It is well set up for health care but may present problems for other usages.”
“I will defend any of my colleagues and, indeed, any constituency MP who highlights such matters in the Commons and calls Ministers to task on any area of responsibility at all. Anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring says is well researched and would not be subject to the kind of scrutiny that Mr. Oborne refers to in his report. Mr. Oborne deals very well with some of the more hysterical reports in the press, and the Opposition, who take a serious view of such things, certainly would not pander to them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. In concluding my remarks, it is important that I say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) in their defence of the work at Haslar.”
“The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways, though it is typical of the party that he represents to try to do so. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to put on record my party’s position, which is that, if elected, we would hold a review of the Haslar site and its future in defence health care. That is the position outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, (Mr. Cameron) and it remains our position. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to say precisely that, but I do not think that there were any doubts at all in the minds of anybody associated with Haslar.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I look forward very much to visiting Haslar again in the near future, when I will reiterate the same judicious words. I would have thought that the matter was simple and fairly straightforward. I look forward to an opportunity to hold the review in the next few months, and I believe that people in Gosport generally and those in defence medicine look forward to that day. Since defence cost study 15—DCS15—in 1994, the DMS has had a torrid time, yet it has stepped up to the plate time and again. To be honest, I see little prospect of better times ahead, certainly in the medium term, but we live in hope if not in expectation.”
“The Minister cited the J ournal of the Royal Army Medical Corps . Does he recall, as I certainly do, a paper that it printed about two years ago by a distinguished orthopaedic surgeon and member of the RAMC, which pointed out that there is a severe airlift shortage for combat evacuation in theatre? If he does, will he assure us that that has now been rectified?”
“Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the armed forces benefits calculator? If he has, he will have seen that a number of inflated claims are made for the notional value of training packages that people receive in the armed forces. Given what he has just said about their value in civilian life, would he perhaps like to comment on the claims made in the benefits calculator?”
“Finally, I note that the Government called the debate “Defence Procurement”, the implication being that they wanted to talk about tanks, ships, and aircraft, but let us be clear about the most important piece of kit in the Minister’s, or any future Minister’s, armoury. It can never be reduced to an acronym; it will never be the CVS, FRES or JSF. It has been the same since King Alfred repelled the Danes at Ethandune and Bloody Point. It is our sailors, soldiers and—though it pains me to say so and, sadly Alfred did not have the benefit of them in the 9th century—airmen. We must procure more of them, particularly for the infantry and pinch-point trades. We must reduce wastage of them, and we must ensure that their through-life capabilities are our first consideration.”
“If one talks to anybody in transit in a tracked or wheeled vehicle in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will say that they would rather be airborne. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed that out. Helicopters have to be the means to get from A to B in hostile terrain, and following the announcement on Monday of a reconfiguration of British forces in Afghanistan and better force protection, I hope that we can look forward to optimising our air assets. May we have an update on where we are with regard to making the extra Merlins that we bought from the Danes fit for purpose? Will they have an operational traffic alert and collision avoidance system?”
“Equipment provided quickly for war that would have been procured electively in any case is subject to both clawback and, of course, accelerated senility. However, we should give credit where it is due, and the UOR has meant that off-shelf equipment has been purchased, removing the risk of project delays and overspends and allowing truly smart procurement with limited scope for the MOD to mess up in acquiring kit, a capacity that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred to in a non-partisan sort of way. Helicopters are bound to come into such a debate. The big story is the cut in the budget of £1.4 billion in 2004, which I am sure the Minister will accept, with the benefit of hindsight, was a mistake.”
“We do not know how much exactly—or even approximately—has been spent on it since there is something of a disparity between what has been announced by the Minister and his Department’s outturn. Nevertheless, we know that it does not cover a raft of things that are consumed by war fighting and thus fall on a peacetime defence budget. That has been referred to in this debate. The UOR process anticipates operations of short duration. We are five years into Telic, and as we recalibrate our expectations for the length of our engagements in Afghanistan we need to think about what constitutes “urgent” and how it will be funded. If the military thought that the UOR was Father Christmas, they were mistaken. What the Treasury gives with one hand, it takes with the other.”
“We should be realistic about the price tag that we put on the notion of appropriate sovereignty beyond highly specialised requirements relating to the independent nuclear deterrent, cryptology and the perverse desire of some to deny technology transfer. Of course, I have in mind the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. Finally, but most importantly, we must not compromise on quality. Our troops are the best, but too often they have gamely put up with kit that frankly leaves a great deal to be desired. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the urgent operational requirement, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. It is generally accepted that the UOR has been a success.”
“The question is the extent to which we can or should endeavour to control the means to manufacture and service our own kit and to ensure that we control imported items of a sensitive nature. As equipment becomes more complex, that becomes increasingly difficult, but from SA80 A2 conversions to anything reliant on GPS we are hopelessly dependent on other countries. Even if bits of our kit were wholly organic, we could not possibly mount an effective fighting force on land, sea or air if, for whatever reason, defence manufacturers outwith the immediate control of the UK decided to stop playing with us or became obstructive.”
“There is a delicate balance to be struck between protectionism, which we have learned is in nobody’s long-term interests but which characterises the defence industries of our competitors, and the free market instincts towards which most of us, on this side of the House at least, would naturally incline. France, Germany and the US protect their defence industries using a bewildering array of direct and indirect offsets and old-style state ownership. It is against that backdrop that we have to consider the way that successive Governments have dealt with the purchase of equipment for the British armed forces and the support that we offer our defence industry. Underpinning the DIS is the doctrine of appropriate sovereignty. Many would say that that means very limited sovereignty or none at all.”
“Jones) made a linked point by saying that we cannot simply, in his words, turn skills on and off like a tap in relation to the defence industry. Of course, he is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) gave a robust defence of the defence sector. He talked about Lancashire, and I suspect that Ghandi would be smiling down at this debate because, of course, he made a rather similar observation in relation to homespun all those years ago. The hon. Gentleman’s point was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning). The defence industrial strategy recognises that the defence industry is a business like no other.”
“If we are not going to get the JSF, we need to think very carefully about what we are going to do with our carriers. It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He spent some time saying that he hoped the debate would not be partisan, and indeed up to that point it mostly had not been. He made an important point, and the debate has been fairly on the level today. We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). He was absolutely right—the procurement of training is every bit as important as the procurement of bits of kit and hardware. I shall come on to that in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) underlined the same point. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr.”
“That was probably what the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) meant when he talked about salami-slicing. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) expressed her understandable concerns about the T45 programme. She also asked about these old workhorses, the T42s. I remember them well, and they are now old ladies. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that, in the light of his announcement today, their service should be extended. The hon. Lady also rightly asked for reassurances about the Astute programme. While we are on the subject of the senior service, I should say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) about the need for some progress on the decision on the technology transfer that will underpin our decision on the future of the JSF.”
“I add my tribute to those that have been paid so warmly today to the fallen. It is a sad day today for British defence procurement, because the Minister has announced—sotto voce, if I may say so—the reduction in the number of T45s from the 1998 assumption of 12 to six. That is to be regretted. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) wants to increase defence spending. I certainly hope that there will be no more reductions in our capability. My plea to the Minister, if he is tempted to make any further cuts, is not to do it on a tribal basis. In the past, the temptation has been to divvy up any cuts on an Army, Navy and Air Force basis, and that will not do. That approach underpinned “Delivering Security in a Changing World” only a few years ago, but it does not serve the British defence capability overall.”
“Over the centuries they have often been vilified, but nevertheless they are part of that scene. In Wiltshire, they are a well accepted part of it, and they are most welcome. We need to realise that the travelling lifestyle is quite costly. In 2006-07, the Department for Communities and Local Government made £56 million available and, in its report of December 2007, the Department said that it was apparently on course to yield 450 additional pitches. If you are generous and round that up to 500 pitches, it comes out at £112,000 a pitch—a large sum, particularly in the context of the debate in my constituency about the provision of low-cost housing for rent. Given that we are talking about large sums per unit, we need to be certain that the needs assessment has been done correctly.”
“It will be interesting to hear from the Minister about those meetings and what definitions were forthcoming as a result. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, I have met Romany Gypsies in my constituency and spoken with them. They are indeed concerned, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, about being lumped in with other Travellers, particularly what I might call the new-age type of traveller and those who could be described as urban drop-outs. Romanies rightly maintain that they are a distinct ethnic group, and they are recognised as such. They have distinctive family traditions, and they maintain a nomadic way of life. In Wiltshire and elsewhere, they are a settled part of the rural scene.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on introducing the debate. It is an emotive subject, and he discussed it in a balanced and thoughtful way. It seems to me that the debate revolves around planning law and the importance of an even playing field and proper assessment of need. Before debating any of that, however, we need to discuss definitions. My hon. Friend did so very well. The Government clearly feel the same way because their Task Group on Site Provision and Enforcement reported in December last year, saying that “Ministers should meet Gypsies and Travellers to discuss their concerns about the different definitions of Gypsies and Travellers used for planning and housing purposes.” That is absolutely right.”
“It is absolutely right that we should do so. However, the law is the law. The frustration that many of our constituents feel, particularly about planning law, is caused by the fact that there appears to be an uneven playing field. That is clearly wrong. We need to ensure that the law applies equally to all. The representations that I have received from my constituents on the matter suggest that there is a perception that undue favours are being given to the Traveller population and that illegal encampments can sometimes perversely be rewarded, perhaps implicitly, by the type of provisions that we are discussing today—provisions that may or may not adequately reflect the needs of the Traveller population.”
“We should also debate the difference between needs and aspirations, which is important for the reasons so graphically illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. We need to consider people’s wishes about who they might want to be living next door in a settled way. It is important that we consider that point. Travellers as a group have a reputation for being somewhat uncomfortable and uneasy neighbours. They are characterised as being likely to leave in their wake some degree of mayhem and squalor—frankly, they are seen as a burden. They are often attended by a reputation for criminality, but as we heard today that is unfair and misleading. It is a tribute to the easy-going and generally permissive nature of our settled population that we accommodate that sometimes somewhat challenging way of life.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but my information came from a Library note on the subject. We could debate the matter further, but as he says, it is a significant sum. The point that I am trying to make, rather than debating absolute sums and comparing them with the cost of providing low-cost housing for rent, is that even thought it is a substantial amount, we need to ensure that needs are properly met. We have the testimony of members of the Gypsy or Traveller community. One Wiltshire Traveller is on record as saying that “The whole point of being travellers is to have freedom over where we stay and this is something the council don’t seem to understand.” That, of course, underlines the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes. It seems that the need is not necessarily being addressed.”
“I am sure that the Minister is correct—of course we all exist in the same legal environment. Nevertheless, he is surely not suggesting that the public perceive that there is a level playing field. If he is, he is wrong. What is he going to do to change that perception?”
“Our armed forces would be stretched beyond breaking point had it not been for the dedicated and courageous service of non-UK nationals. A decade ago, there were just 600 non-UK non-Nepalese soldiers in the British Army. Today, there are around 7,000 and rising. Will the Minister be sorting out his manning difficulties by making a career in the Army more attractive to young people or will he continue to buck the UK labour market in favour of overseas recruitment?”
“Last week the Leader of the House indicated, but understandably could not confirm, that there would be no rule change that would have the effect of allowing the disposal of defence estates to accrue to devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. Since then we have had last night’s important vote and the rumours surrounding it. Will the right hon. and learned Lady arrange for the Chancellor to rule out categorically any Treasury rule change that, whatever the merits of increased spending in Northern Ireland, would have the effect of a defence cut?”
“Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to clarify reports that sales of defence estates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will in future accrue to devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, rather than to the Ministry of Defence estate? She will understand that such a change would represent a significant defence cut and would be of grave concern to us all, especially in the current climate.”
“It was not as if the Great Western ambulance service did not know about the renewal. Does my hon. Friend not think it remarkable that Great Western has taken this long to crack on with its review? The review is its problem; it should not become the police’s.”
“On Friday I made the journey from Warminster to Chippenham. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that his Conservative opponent made a similar journey from Frome to Chippenham. Both journeys took well over an hour on a good day, and that does not allow for people who come from places outside the main towns in our area.”
“As the hon. Gentleman will know, Chippenham is not exactly easy terrain for those who do not know the lie of the land. He is right to say that the driving test is taken on the basis that the person involved does not necessarily have any familiarity with the stretch of road used, but people who are familiar with Chippenham are clearly at a distinct advantage in comparison with my constituents and those of the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that if the change goes ahead, people in, for example, Frome and Warminster will feel obliged to have at least one or two—extra trips and they are probably four—hour round trips to Chippenham?”
“Speaker, on how Defence Ministers can be persuaded not to use our armed forces, and abuse this House, in a way that I fear is becoming routine.”
“On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today’s Order Paper gives notice of a written statement entitled “New investment in Headley Court”. We warmly welcome the news, but we question why it was given to the weekend press in advance of the statement. Defence Ministers are becoming serial offenders when it comes to manipulating politically sensitive material that should first appear before this House. The media had advance knowledge of the answers to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 March and to my question of 12 March on the number of medically unfit servicemen. I appreciate that a beleaguered Government must media-manage as best they can, but I would welcome your guidance, Mr.”
“In the light of the welcome comments by Commander in Chief, Land, over the weekend, the Minister might like to express his regrets for the inadequacies of the 2005 armed forces compensation scheme that General Richards has found so wanting, and as the current review implies. Meanwhile, the Adjutant General continues to push private insurance schemes such as Pax that cost the private soldier a month’s pay to cover risks run on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. Why does this month’s gimmick—the armed forces benefits calculator, designed to convince service men that they have never had it so good—completely ignore the disbenefit of having to take out personal insurance to cover occupational risk?”
“The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) cited the NAO and the NHS Confederation report, and he quoted selectively. Does my hon. Friend recall the NAO pointing out that the GP contract was overspent to the tune of £1.76 billion? Who does the NAO think might be to blame for that?”