Chris Evans
MP for Caerphilly · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“To provide treatment for alcohol and drug dependency, charities such as Change Grow Live need to use the NHS electronic prescription service, which has been unavailable to them until recently. The Government have agreed to allow access, but have provided no timetable. Will the Minister provide one today?”
“Absolutely. We need more funding and we need more police on the beat. It is vital that we treat these cases seriously. There is a serious underlying threat of violence if would-be shoplifters are approached.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need a co-ordinated response, including across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. At the end of the day, this abuse does not stop at the border.”
“At a station, a transport worker and a retail worker can be working in close proximity; nevertheless, if both are assaulted, they will be eligible for different levels of legal protection. That disparity is unacceptable.”
“What criteria will her Department use to evaluate the policy and determine whether it adequately protects retail workers? I am also keen to hear how the Minister interprets the BRC’s latest findings, which record a 20% decline in incidents of retail violence and abuse in the past year.”
“Those found guilty of the new offence can be sent to prison for up to six months, receive an unlimited fine and be barred from entering certain shops. Alongside that measure, the Government are rolling out facial recognition technology in public spaces and using tags to carefully track the movements of serial offenders.”
The complete record
Every one of 606 lines we hold for Chris Evans, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“In the order of the names I have given, the petitions are to “Require universities to reimburse students’ tuition fees during strike action”, to “Reimburse all students of this year’s fees due to strikes and COVID-19”, to “Refund university students for 3rd Semester Tuition 2020”, to “Require universities to partially refund tuition fees for 20/21 due to Covid-19” and to “Lower university tuition fees for students until online teaching ends”. Each petition differs slightly from the others, but a common thread runs through them, and that is the fact that hundreds of thousands of students are aggrieved because they have not received adequate value for money from the universities. I want to make it clear that, as the Committee has heard in evidence, university staff have gone to extraordinary lengths to provide teaching during the pandemic.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petitions 300528, 302855, 306494, 324762, and 552911, relating to university tuition fees. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir David. I want to thank Miriam Helmers, Sophie Quinn, Wiktoria Seroczynska, Maya Ostrowska and Georgia Henderson for creating the petitions, which have more than 980,000 signatures, collectively—a very significant number.”
“Finally, I thank you, Sir David, for your measured and fair chairmanship of the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petitions 300528, 302855, 306494, 324762, and 552911, relating to university tuition fees.”
“When people sign up for university, they are making a massive financial commitment, and the Government should step up to that as well. Members made many other points tonight, but I will focus on the point that my friend the right hon. Member for Tatton made about the Open University. The way things are, if people are just going to enrol and end up doing only online courses, they might as well stay with the Open University. That will be a real challenge for universities in the coming years. It will cause a fall in revenue and the Government will have to revisit some of the issues that we have raised today. I will end by thanking everybody who has taken part in what has been a fantastic, measured and, at times, impassioned debate. I thank you all on behalf of the Petitions Committee.”
“As I said in my speech, if complaints to the OIA go up by just 1%, that would be a tenfold increase. That would be a real problem, so I hope that the Government will understand it and develop policies to address it. Ultimately, however, the problem we have is that universities have marketed themselves over the years with an idealistic view of student life. Because of covid-19, which is nobody’s fault, such an idealistic view can no longer be achieved. If people hope for the type of student experiences that I enjoyed, and that I think everybody in this room enjoyed, that is not going to happen. However, what people do expect and should receive is the top-quality education that this country is renowned for throughout the world. There should be no excuse about that.”
“Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). We had a fantastic summing-up speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), as well as the response from the Minister. The wonderful thing about petitions debates is that we know we are debating something of central importance to people. The various petitions we have discussed today received nearly 1 million signatures, which proves how deeply parents, staff and, most crucially, students are concerned about these various issues. Personally, although I heard what the Minister said, I am still concerned about the number of complaints that have come through, and I am really worried that the system will positively groan under the weight of the number of complaints that are bound to come.”
“Sir David, you have chaired many debates over the years, including many I have spoken in, so you will know that my constituency has been referred to as “Iswine” and “Islin”. Indeed, in a debate on diabetes that you chaired—it was a number of years ago, so I do not know whether you remember it—I was referred to as the hon. Member for insulin. [ Laughter. ] I make that point just to apologise to some of the petitioners, because I tripped over their names and hope they will forgive me. They were making really important points. This has been a very passionate debate. We have heard contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the right hon.”
“There are many veterans who make a huge contribution to their community in business and industry, and for that they should be celebrated by the entire House. This year, let us remember not only the armed forces personnel of the past but those of the present. Let us strive to support them so that they can continue to protect peace, our wellbeing and our society. Let us be there for them, as they have always been there for us.”
“Finally, I hope the Minister can will on charity funding in his response. He recently called on the Treasury to find funding for visas for Commonwealth veterans, which we welcome. Would he put in a word with Treasury Ministers to increase funding for veterans and military charities? As we have heard today, there are concerns across the House about the drops in fundraising for these vital charities. We would all appreciate some information about how we will fill these gaps so that all those to whom we have paid tribute today can access the support that they need. In debates of this nature there can be a tendency to focus on the problems that some veterans face, and it is right that we do so. However, we should never forget that, for most people, the forces experience is only positive.”
“I should be grateful if the Minister touched on what the Government are doing in his response. Covid has required the mobilisation of many of our reservists, as many Members have said. People have stepped in, in many different areas, proving how vital they are. They have helped, as we have heard, to transport PPE and to set up Nightingale hospitals. They have helped local authorities to set up and run Test and Trace centres. Three thousand reservists were called up in March, and the work that they do is vital. It is important that we remember them. We have many reasons to be proud of our reserve forces. I hope that the Minister can update the House on how many reservists have provided help during the pandemic and what is being done to help them move seamlessly from civilian life to service at such short notice.”
“It is estimated that one in 10 armed forces charities will be forced to close in the next 12 months. That comes at a time of increasing reliance on charitable aid. It is vital that we ensure that the forces charities are supported and that their loss of income is not felt by those who need their help. We are remembering the past, but the armed forces can also be relied on to assist with modern issues. There is no better example than the covid test pilot in Liverpool. Some 2,000 troops have been sent to Liverpool to aid our civilian authorities there. Given the size of our armed forces, I echo calls for a promise from the Government that the covid deployment of our forces will not impact training, standing commitments or the forces’ capabilities to respond to threats. If our forces are strained, more support must be given.”
“As many Members have said, large remembrance services and the usual gatherings at war memorials up and down the country have either been cancelled or been subject to social distancing. Covid has not only affected the events that normally take place across the nation; there have been other visible and physical differences. The common sight of the Royal British Legion’s volunteers collecting donations for poppies at supermarkets and train stations and on high streets has been far less visible this year. The poppy appeal is the largest fundraising campaign of the year for the Royal British Legion. Although it has adapted and raised more than a quarter of a million pounds through contactless donations, it has been difficult to fundraise during covid. This year, the Royal British Legion expects to see a fall in revenue. It will not be alone.”
“I would like to mention briefly the petition to enshrine the military covenant in law, which has gathered more than 67,000 signatures. The petition asks for a statutory requirement for the provision of services such as housing and mental health support for veterans. That shows an engagement with our armed forces and is a testament to how much our society values our service personnel. In 2010, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised to enshrine the covenant in law. Unfortunately, that decision was reversed in 2011. I believe that was a real missed opportunity to protect the rights of our service personnel, and I hope it will be revisited, as I know the Minister cares deeply about our veterans. Remembrance, like so many other things, has been different this year.”
“I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned the merchant navy and its contribution. My father-in-law, Roy Ockenden, left a note for his mother at the age of 15 to say he was going to sea to join the merchant navy. I know he is missed every day. Remembrance is also an opportunity for people to show their appreciation for the work of our forces. However, to truly pay tribute to our forces men and women and the sacrifices they have made and continue to make, we must demonstrate, in our words and our deeds, that we value them and their families. That includes our reserves, our cadets, their families and employers, as well as our veterans, their widows and their families. We must make a commitment today to do everything in our power to demonstrate that.”
“Remembrance Day, along with the anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day that we have seen this year, is a time when people are more aware of the presence of the armed forces in this country. However, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said, fewer and fewer people have any idea what it is like to serve in the armed forces, because fewer people know someone who is serving or has had military experience. That makes people less aware of our forces—their needs, their challenges—but every family, in its past, will have a connection with the forces in some way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) set out. I remember the picture of the Royal Scots on my grandparents’ wall as I grew up. It was the regiment that my grandfather, a Welshman, served in during world war two.”
“The text inscribed on the tomb reads: “They buried him among the kings because he had done good toward God and toward his house”. Since that day, wreaths of poppies, the symbol of remembrance and hope for a peaceful future, have been laid at the foot of the Cenotaph. Even though we have lost the first world war generation and those who fought in the second world war are fewer in number with each passing year, still they come to pay tribute to their fallen comrades. The scene is repeated in countless ceremonies in villages, towns and cities, where people of all ages put their differences aside for two minutes to remember our war dead. Without them, we would not be the free and fair democracy we are. Indeed, we might not even be debating in this Chamber this afternoon. For that alone, they deserve our eternal gratitude.”
“Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) reminded us about clearing mines on the beaches of the Falkland Islands so that families can now play where once there were bullets and mines. Let us therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked, all come together tonight at 7 pm, look to the stars and remember our fallen. On this day 100 years ago, the second anniversary of the armistice that ended world war one, the body of the unknown warrior was drawn in a procession to the Cenotaph. A new war memorial on Whitehall was then unveiled by King George V. At 11 o’clock, there was a two-minute silence, and the body was then taken to Westminster Abbey, where it was buried at the west end of the nave.”
“Today has seen the House at its very best. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the House has almost shone. Those who have served and continue to serve can rest assured that they have a powerful voice in this place. That voice was heard in the Minister’s poignant opening speech and in the moving speech by my friend, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), when he bravely talked about his personal experiences of the horrors of war. It was there in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who reminded us of the innocent victims of war. It was there in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has made it his mission since he came to this place to speak up for our troops. There was also hope in many of the contributions. My hon.”
“I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Armed Forces Act 2006, particularly the part where the Labour Government pardoned those who had been shot at dawn during world war one. For shell shock to emerge and be accepted took some 60 to 70 years. The Bill was an example of a Government saying that they had got something wrong and were willing to backdate it to ensure that justice was meted out to the families so that they would not think that their grandparents or ancestors were cowards, as they were deemed at the time. If we can do that in that situation, we can surely do it in this as well, as we learn more about the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and of alcohol and drug abuse as well.”
“A quick question for the Minister: last week, in The Sun on Sunday , he said he would make it his personal mission to help to ensure that cases that might fall out after six years are brought within six years. Will he clarify how he would do that in action?”
“The Government are in danger of destroying our reputation as a country that upholds and defends international law. They should at the very least let Parliament act as a check on the worst urges that may come out this legislation. The Bill would use article 15 of the European convention on human rights, the derogation clause. A guide from the Council of Europe says of article 15: “It affords to Contracting States, in exceptional circumstances, the possibility of derogating, in a limited and supervised manner, from their obligations to secure certain rights and freedoms under the Convention.” The words that stick out to me are “exceptional” and “limited”. If these cases are exceptional, there should be no problem with the Defence Minister seeking parliamentary approval on the very rare occasions when they deem derogation necessary.”
“This amendment is crucial to improving the Bill and safeguarding our reputation at home and abroad, and it can easily be implemented. The amendment is simple. It asks that the Government seek approval from both Houses of Parliament before the Secretary of State for Defence approves any derogations from the European convention on human rights. I spoke in the last sitting about parliamentary scrutiny of the role that the Bill gives to the Attorney General, and I must once again raise the absolute importance of scrutiny. I remind the Government that the UK is not a presidential system—given what we see from the United States at the moment, amen to that. The Government draw their power from this House. This House must be consulted on matters as serious as derogating from our key international obligations.”
“I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 12, page 8, line 20, at end insert— “(1A) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under section 14 following consideration under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”. This amendment would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the European Convention on Human Rights to be approved by Parliament before being made. Good afternoon, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairmanship as we head into the final straight of this Bill Committee. I rise to speak in support of amendment 57. I have concerns about multiple aspects of the Bill.”
“How are service people supposed to carry out missions overseas with the integrity that the British forces have if they know that they might not always be held to international standards by their own Government? If the Government insist on writing derogations from the European convention on human rights into the Bill, the legislation must be scrutinised at the highest level. It is that important. The Government cannot simply ignore international conventions without getting approval for doing so from both Houses, and ensuring that derogations are considered case by case and are deemed exceptional actions. That would signal to other countries that we still valued international conventions on human rights.”
“David Greene, the vice-president of the Law Society, has added to the voices warning of our loss of international standing, saying that while “Our armed forces are rightly known across the world for their courage and discipline”, the provisions allowing for a derogation from human rights conventions and breaking international law “would undermine this well-deserved reputation”. Multiple people and organisations say that the Bill will damage our international standing. After all, how can we call on other countries to respect international treaties on human rights, or to honour international obligations, when we are setting a precedent in our legislation for derogating from them?”
“This clause, unamended, will determine our international reputation, and therefore the reputation of the brave men and women who serve in our forces. Amnesty has said that, as it stands, the Bill “will do irreparable damage to the reputation of the armed forces of this country, undermine basic principles of access to justice and send a bad message internationally.” The former director of service prosecutions, Bruce Houlder, has called the Bill an “international embarrassment”.”
“Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who said on Second Reading: “At a time when we are witnessing an erosion of human rights…it is more important than ever before that we uphold our values and standards and not undermine them.” —[ Official Report , 23 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1109.] In a similar vein, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission warned: “At a time when the UK Government’s adherence to international law” and the relationship with Northern Ireland “is under increased scrutiny, it is imperative that the UK is seen to show the highest regard for the international legal order.” To write in a system of derogating from European conventions regarding human rights would severely undermine us.”
“Martha Spurrier, the director of Liberty, said in one of the evidence sessions: “The concern, of course, is when you take a wider view and look at this Bill as a whole, which very much signals the desire to water down the human rights arrangements”. –– [ Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 76, Q149.] Surely the Government want to do everything in their power to counter those views and assure the global community that this country still regards human rights as of the utmost importance. I echo the words of my hon.”
“It would send a signal that these international conventions and treaties are not taken seriously by our nation, and would have the knock-on effect of harming the integrity of our troops. In its briefing on the Bill, Redress said: “the Bill risks undermining the UK’s influence on human rights in the global context”. Derogating from the international conventions on human rights will clearly diminish our integrity on these matters. The Government should be keen to mitigate that in any possible way. The Opposition believe that this amendment is a good start if the option to derogate must be written into the Bill at all.”
“If we are going to derogate from international obligations, consent must come from Parliament. The Equality and Human Rights Commission said in written evidence: “At the very least, we recommend support for amendment 57, which would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the ECHR to be approved by Parliament before being made.” As it points out, the amendment is the very least that we should be doing to ensure that the UK upholds its very proud record of human rights across the world. To set a legal norm for derogation from the European convention on human rights would seriously damage Britain’s international standing.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Human rights are a political football that is being kicked around by everybody. If hon. Members want to see the importance of the Human Rights Act, they would do well to look at the debate that I introduced last week about the Uyghur Muslims in China, and at what they are going through. We have had human rights problems with China. On the issue that my right hon. Friend raises, of course human rights are vital when claims are brought against the Ministry of Defence, and that should be considered. We should not attack anybody’s right to defend their human rights in court, and we should not view human rights as something bad. They are fundamental rights that we all have as humans. Parliament can then decide whether a derogation is limited.”
“Whatever side of the argument people are on—whether they supported Brexit or wanted to remain in the EU—they should realise that the European convention on human rights has nothing to do with the EU. This is fundamentally about human rights.”
“Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He gets to the nub of the issues that we are facing nationally. In the press, and even in some quarters of the House, it seems that putting the word “European” on anything makes it something to do with the European Union, and then we open up a can of worms about Brexit. As he says, the European convention on human rights has a proud history, involving such luminaries as Sir Winston Churchill, who was responsible for setting it up. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have to be careful about confusion. When the word “Europe” or “European” is slapped on something, people think it is all about Brussels and its rules on bendy bananas, or whatever else people want to throw at us. This is a really important point.”
“What we are asked to agree to today would make us an anomaly right across the continent of Europe and beyond. It is therefore clear that intense scrutiny of derogations would be highly sensible.”
“I echo my right hon. Friend’s comments about the work of the Council for Europe; I know how important it is. If we want to talk about human rights more widely, look at what happened in Nigeria yesterday, and what has happened in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. We are the guardians of the rule of law. This whole country is formed on the rule of law, but we have always had an international and Atlanticist outlook whereby we defend human rights to the hilt. There is a fundamental belief, which I think is shared across the House, that if one person loses their human rights, we all do. That is something we should be guided by. No member state of the Council of Europe has previously derogated from the European convention on human rights in the manner proposed in the Bill. That is how unusual its provisions are.”
“It comes back to the point that my right hon. Friend has so eloquently made over the last few sittings. I tell the Minister this: I have enjoyed my right hon. Friend’s contributions, though they may have been difficult.”
“It ought to be required when the UK decides to derogate from conventions; otherwise, we will be setting a dangerous precedent. This country has a unique role in global history. We have set the standard for so many countries to follow.”
“Sometimes I am not sure. I was not au fait with the case of the Snatch Land Rovers before I came here. The point my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has been making is that one day, in the near future—a nearer future for some than for others—we will not be here, and others will come in, but the legislation will stay. We have to get it right. He knows as well as anyone else, given his experience, that the Ministry of Defence will hide behind its lawyers. In this case, they would have used the Human Rights Act. That is why it is important that we have scrutiny at the highest level. It is important that the provisions are not left open for lawyers to use at will. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. To me, it is clear that intense scrutiny is highly sensible.”
“Amendment 57 will make it clear that our country still sees international obligations and human rights conventions as vital. It states that the Government will not derogate from human rights conventions without real and significant cause. It shows a commitment to transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.”
“As I said, other countries look to us for the standards that we have set in the past. We should be setting the highest standards in the future. Other organisations have also raised their concerns about the Bill and giving the Government the ability to ignore international law. Justice stated: “the Bill would damage the standing of the armed forces by acting contrary to established legal norms—both domestic and international…The Bill risks both contravening the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights…and other international legal instruments, many of which the UK helped to create.” Our country has a proud history of upholding international conventions on human rights across the globe, but the Bill threatens to undo our international standing as the rightful champion of human rights.”
“I absolutely agree. We do not know who will lead our combined forces in the future. If we have a piece of legislation that allows us to derogate from the European convention on human rights, that puts us at a disadvantage. This year we celebrated the anniversary of VE and VJ Day. Of course, during the famous D-day landings, we were led by an American, General Eisenhower. We might be putting our forces at risk if we are allowed to derogate from the European convention on human rights. Given the UK’s standing and influence, there is a risk that if this provision remains in the Bill as it is, and is acted on without parliamentary scrutiny or consent, it would set a dangerous precedent to other countries in future conflicts. Having carte blanche to derogate from international conventions is not a precedent that the UK should set.”
“I agree with my right hon. Friend. We have to be careful; we are in the here and now, but we have to attempt to future-proof the legislation we pass. That is true of anybody. It will be difficult, but if, God forbid, there was an extreme Government in future, they could do whatever they liked, using this anomaly in the Bill, and would be acting within the confines of the law. That is why it is extremely important to remember that the legislation will remain long after each and every one of us has gone.”
“As Justice and other human rights groups have publicly stated, the Bill signals that the Government are willing to break international conventions. It signals a worrying disregard of the European convention on human rights and the Geneva convention. That cannot be allowed to pass unchecked. That is extremely important. Particularly as we leave the European Union, we should be aiming to highlight our commitment to international conventions such as those on human rights. Any derogation from the European convention on human rights must be checked by Parliament, decided on democratically, and subject to the highest level of scrutiny, as any derogation should be.”
“This is on our doorstep. Look at the annexation in Ukraine. Hungary is running over human rights like a tank. If we leave these anomalies in the legislation and do not tighten it up, people can do whatever they like in future. It is extremely important that we have certainty; that is the most important element of law. Judicial precedent and statutory interpretation are important, too, but we need certainty, and that is unfortunately not in the Bill. It would be lovely if the Government supported the amendment—it would be the first Opposition amendment that they agree to in the Committee—because it would ensure certainty. If we cannot give certainty, because we do not know when we will use the provision, we can at least ensure parliamentary scrutiny of derogations.”
“Absolutely. Our troops must be defended, and they must have the right protection in law. I point out, Mr Derogation—please forgive me, Mr Mundell; that was my first mistake in a number of sittings. I point out, Mr Mundell, that derogation from treaties is extremely rare. To derogate frequently from a treaty would be to undermine it. [ Interruption. ] I see that I am shaping up to be the most unpopular Member present, because I keep speaking and eating into lunchtime, so I will come back later this afternoon. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—( Leo Docherty . )”
“Article 15 of the European convention on human rights allows derogation in times of war. The last time this country asked for a derogation was in the wake of 9/11 and the rise of al-Qaeda; there was another time in the ’70s during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that derogation is so important? Even when it was granted in the wake of 9/11, this country had still had to argue the reasons for derogation.”
“I think my right hon. Friend is referring to the case of Lawless v. Ireland, where the European Court of Human Rights said that for it to be a state of emergency the entire population needs to be under threat for it to be possible to derogate from the convention on human rights. That underlines how significant it is to even ask for a derogation from the European Court of Human Rights.”
“When a Government ask for derogation under article 15, the key words are “exceptional circumstances.” If, and only if, it is granted it is then limited and the Government have to justify that. That is the crux of the problem with the Bill and why we have introduced the amendment. The Bill seems to be going against the spirit of that article. Does my right hon. Friend agree?”
“Does anyone else want to intervene now? I feel like a post box at the moment. With the amount of whys coming over my left shoulder, it was just like my four-year-old son asking me why all the time—I do not mean to offend my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I hope this matter is revisited on Report. I believe the derogation is very important and, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, article 15 is so important. It is usually in states of emergency that derogation is asked for. That means it needs to be scrutinised in both Houses. I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I hope that we will revisit the issue on Report, when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“When I was a young parliamentary researcher, a rather young hon. Member for North Durham raised this issue in a Westminster Hall debate in, I think, 2006—it might have been 2007. At the time, he was on the Back Benches and was yet to be appointed Minister for Veterans. What was stopping some form of staff association emerging? He argued for such an association in the Westminster Hall debate, but what sorts of obstacles did he encounter from military brass when he was in the Ministry of Defence?”