Category: Defence

The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 22 April 2021.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the special committee review into the historical actions of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, when it was the Imperial War Graves Commission and subsequently.

I start by placing on the record my thanks and gratitude to the committee that compiled this comprehensive report, especially its chair, Sir Tim Hitchens, and contributing academics Dr George Hay, Dr John Burke and Professor Michèle Barrett. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) who, alongside the makers of the Channel 4 documentary on this subject, provided the impetus for the establishment of the independent committee.

Today the committee’s findings are published. They make for sober reading. The first world war was a horrendous loss of life. People of all class and race from all nations suffered a great tragedy, which we rightly remember every year on Remembrance Sunday. Just over 100 years ago, what emerged from that atrocity was a belief by the survivors that all those who lost their lives deserved to be commemorated.

When the Imperial War Graves Commission was established, its founding principle was the equality of treatment in death. Whatever an individual’s rank in social or military life and whatever their religion, they would be commemorated identically. Unfortunately, the work of this report shows that it fell short in delivering on that principle. The IWGC relied on others to seek out the bodies of the dead, and where it could not find them, it worked with the offices of state to produce lists of those who did not return and remained unaccounted for.

Given the pressures and confusion spun by such a war, in many ways it is hardly surprising that mistakes were made at both stages. What is surprising and disappointing, however, is the number of mistakes—the number of casualties commemorated unequally, the number commemorated without names, and the number otherwise entirely unaccounted for. That is not excusable. In some circumstances, there was little the IWGC could do. With neither bodies nor names, general memorials were the only way in which some groups might be commemorated at the time.

None the less, there are examples where the organisation also deliberately overlooked the evidence that might have allowed it to find those names. In others, commission officials in the 1920s were happy to work with local administrations on projects across the empire that ran contrary to the principles of equality in death. Elsewhere, it is clear that commission officials pursued agendas and sought evidence or support locally to endorse 67 courses of action that jeopardised those same principles. In the small number of cases where commission officials had greater say in the recovery and marking of graves, overarching imperial ideology connected to racial and religious differences was used to divide the dead and treat them unequally in ways that were impossible in Europe.

The report concludes that post World War One, in parts of Africa, the Middle East and India, the commission often compromised its principles and failed to commemorate the war dead equally. Unlike their European counterparts, the graves of up to 54,000 mostly Indian, east African, west African, Egyptian and Somali casualties were not marked by individual headstones. Some were remembered through inscriptions on memorials. The names of others were only recorded in registers, rather than memorialised in stone. A further 116,000 personnel, mostly east African and Egyptian, were not named or possibly not commemorated at all.

There can be no doubt that prejudice played a part in some of the commission’s decisions. In some cases, the IWGC assumed that the communities of forgotten personnel would not recognise or value individual forms of commemoration. In other cases, it was simply not provided with the names or burial locations.

On behalf of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Government of the time and today, I want to apologise for the failures to live up to the founding principles all those years ago and express deep regret that it has taken so long to rectify the situation. While we cannot change the past, we can make amends and take action.

As part of that, the commission has accepted all the recommendations of the special committee. In the interests of time I will group these into three themes. First, the commission will geographically and chronologically extend the search in the historical record for inequalities in commemoration and act on what is found. Secondly, the commission will renew its commitment to equality in commemoration through the building of physical or digital commemorative structures. Finally, the commission will use its own online presence and wider education activities to reach out to all the communities of the former British empire touched by the two world wars to make sure that their hidden history is brought to life. Over the coming six months, the commission will be assembling a global and diverse community of external experts who can help make that happen.

There is also more the Government specifically can do. The Ministry of Defence I lead will be determinedly proactive in standing for the values of equality, supporting diversity and investing in all our people. There is always more to be done, and that is why I welcome the Wigston review into inappropriate behaviours and recently took the rare decision to let service personnel give evidence as part of the inquiry into women in the armed forces led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) through the Defence Committee.

Furthermore, to honour the contribution to our armed forces by our friends from the Commonwealth and Nepal, the Home Secretary and I will shortly be launching a public consultation on proposals to remove the visa settlement fees for non-UK service personnel who choose to settle in the UK.

The historical failings identified in the report must be acknowledged and acted upon, and they will be. However, recognising the mistakes of the past should not diminish the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s groundbreaking achievements today. The recommendations of the special committee should be welcomed by us all. They are not just an opportunity for the commission to complete its task and right historical wrongs; they point out what an amazing thing it is to serve our country and our allies.

The amazing thing I know from being a soldier is the relationships that are forged on operations. True soldiers are agnostic to class, race and gender, because the bond that holds us together is a bond forged in war. When on operations, we share the risk, share the sorrow and rely on each other to get through the toughest of times. The friendships I made in my service are still strong.

It was those common bonds that lay behind the Imperial War Graves Commission’s principles, and it is truly sad that on the occasions identified by the report those principles were not followed. I feel it is my duty as a former soldier to do right by those who gave their lives in the First World War across the Commonwealth and to take what necessary steps we can to rectify the situation. The publication of this report is the beginning, not the end, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across the House to ensure that the CWGC receives the support and resources it needs to take forward this important piece of work.

The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 13 April 2021.

The Overseas Operations Bill was introduced to provide greater legal protections to armed forces personnel and veterans serving on military operations overseas. The Bill will provide a better legal framework for dealing with allegations arising from any future overseas operations, recognising the unique burden and pressures placed on our personnel.

As part of the debate on this Bill, there has rightly been a focus on the support which MOD provides to those personnel who may find themselves subject to investigations and prosecutions. We are grateful to right hon. and hon Members of both Houses for the interest they have taken in this issue and their commitment to ensuring service personnel and veterans who are impacted by historical allegations are properly supported.

As a matter of MOD policy, service personnel are entitled to legal guidance at public expense where they face criminal allegations that relate to actions taken during their service, and where they were performing their duties. This principle is at the heart of the MOD’s approach to supporting our people and is enshrined in the relevant defence instruction notices. It is a responsibility that MOD takes extremely seriously, and we keep our policies under review to ensure that they are appropriate and tailored.

Since the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan, the armed forces have learned lessons on better resourcing and professionalising support to those involved in inquiries or investigations arising from operations, and the mechanisms for providing this support have been transformed in recent years. The way in which this is delivered and by whom will depend on the specific circumstances of the case, the point which has been reached in the proceedings and, most importantly, the needs of the individual concerned.

Any individual who is investigated by the service police is entitled to legal representation as well as the support of an assisting officer who can offer advice on the process and procedure and signpost welfare resources. The individual’s commanding officer and chain of command have overall responsibility for the person’s welfare and for ensuring access to the requisite support.

Individuals who are interviewed as suspects under caution will be entitled to free and independent legal advice for this stage of the investigation. Subsequently, legal funding for service personnel and veterans facing criminal allegations can either be provided through the Armed Forces Legal Aid Scheme (AFLAS) or through the chain of command.

Where the chain of command accepts funding responsibility this is means-test exempt and therefore no personal contribution will be required. The Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority (AFCLAA) will act as a conduit for the provision of publicly funded legal representation on behalf of the chain of command, including all aspects of financial and case management. However, if available evidence suggests the individual was doing something clearly outside the scope of their duty, then it would not be appropriate for that person to receive this chain of command funding.

All other serving personnel and veterans facing criminal proceedings prosecuted through the service justice system, and who are not covered by the chain of command funding, may apply for legal aid through AFCLAA and may be required to make a personal contribution, determined by means testing, if funded through the Armed Forces Legal Aid Scheme. This is in line with the civilian legal aid scheme.

There is an important exemption from the means-testing requirement, which has been waived in criminal cases arising from Iraq or Afghanistan operations heard in the Service Court. Separately, legal advice and support is also available whenever people are required to give evidence at inquests and inquiries and in litigation and this is coordinated by MOD.

We also recognise that for service personnel and veterans who are involved in these processes, legal guidance by itself is not enough. This is why we have developed a comprehensive package of welfare support to ensure we deliver on our commitment to offer ongoing support to veterans.

As part of delivering on this commitment, the Army Operational Legacy Branch (AOLB) was established in 2020 in order to co-ordinate the Army’s support to those involved in legacy cases. Fundamental to this is ensuring that welfare and legal support is provided to all service personnel and veterans involved in operational legacy processes. The AOLB provides a central point of contact and optimises the welfare network already in place through the Arms and Service Directorates and the network of regimental headquarters and regimental associations. Veterans UK are also closely engaged in providing support to veterans and, where required, the Veterans Welfare Service will allocate a welfare manager to support individual veterans. Although the AOLB has been established to provide an Army focus to legacy issues, the support it provides is extended to the other services.

This is provided in addition to the range of welfare and mental health support that is routinely offered to all our people. The potential impact of operations on a service person’s mental health is well recognised and there are policy and procedures in place to help manage and mitigate these impacts as far as possible. The MOD recognises that any operational deployment can result in the development of a medical or psychiatric condition and that service personnel may require help before, during and after deployment. All armed forces personnel are supported by dedicated and comprehensive mental health resources. Defence mental health services are configured to provide community-based mental health care in line with national best practice.

In terms of support for those who have left the forces, veterans are able to access all NHS provided mental health services wherever they live in the country. As health is devolved and services have been developed according to local populations needs, service specification varies. This can mean bespoke veteran pathways or ensuring an awareness of veterans’ needs. All veterans will be seen on clinical need. What is important is that best practice is shared between the home nations and there are several forums in place to provide this.

The Office for Veterans’ Affairs works closely with the MOD and Departments across Government, the devolved Administrations, charities and academia to ensure the needs of veterans are met.

The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 14 April 2021.

The people of Afghanistan deserve a peaceful and stable future.

As we drawdown, the security of our people currently serving in Afghanistan remains our priority and we have been clear that attacks on Allied troops will be met with a forceful response.

The British public and our Armed Forces community, both serving and veterans, will have lasting memories of our time in Afghanistan. Most importantly we must remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice, who will never be forgotten.

The comments made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 1 April 2021.

In the face of new and emerging threats, it is vital we collaborate with our international allies to tackle our shared security challenges and our long-standing relationship with Qatar exemplifies this.

By working together we continue to share skills and expertise whilst promoting global security and driving prosperity at home.

I’m delighted RAF Leeming has been chosen to base the historic second UK-Qatari joint squadron, which recognises the globally-held high regard of RAF flying training.

The speech made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 16 March 2021.

It’s a privilege to speak to so many maritime professionals this morning.

As an island nation, Britain’s trade has always depended on the tide.

And at the turn of the century, the UK built an astonishing 60 per cent of the world’s ships.

We might no longer be the workshop of the world.

But your industry remains global leaders in Design and Innovation.

You still bring in billions to our economy and spread wealth right across the country.

And you still directly provide for the livelihoods of some 44,000 people from Appledore to the Clyde and many more in the supply chain.

But, as Shipbuilding Tsar, you know I want our ambition to be greater still.

And, as chair of the Maritime Working Group, I’ve been pushing my colleagues right across government to create the conditions to help you be successful.

We know we must up our productivity because our international counterparts are getting ahead.

Our UK shipyards currently lag behind our European rivals, as does our cost base, and this needs to be improved.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s led-study into UK productivity provided us with a foundation to build on.

It gave us a better understanding of the challenges you face as an industry and a better understanding of how Government can work with industry to increase productivity.

The “rich picture” of the industry developed by the Maritime Enterprise Working Group has further strengthened our understanding, identifying areas which require improvement, investment and consolidation.

We also know we need to do more to develop the skills of the future.

That’s where the Department for Education’s work comes in.

They’ve been speaking to employers across England to understand the skills requirements throughout the enterprise.

We’re in the midst of analysing their work. These findings will help industry gain the skills they need for the future.

We need to be more innovative too.

How can we develop hydrogen powered ships? How can we make better use of autonomy? How can we build a digital backbone into this industry?

Another of my Working Group colleagues, Minister Courts, will be speaking to you later about our exciting plans in this area.

And we need to be more competitive.

I want to see us out there exporting. And DIT’s work on export credits will help you by making sure no viable UK export fails through lack of finance or insurance.

But the key to our future success is a sense of certainty.

Certainty breeds confidence.

The good news is this Prime Minister is determined to give you that certainty.

That’s why, when he announced an extra £24bn for Defence, he talked about spurring a renaissance in British shipbuilding across the UK.

It’s why we’re building a pipeline of future projects.

It’s why we’re developing a maritime enterprise export plan to deliver state-of-the art British ships to our global allies.

And it’s why, I can announce today, that we will be refreshing our National Shipbuilding Strategy.

Why will it be different?

First, our strategy is going to be much more wide-ranging. It will no longer be primarily about hulls but about looking right across the shipbuilding enterprise, from naval and commercial shipbuilding to systems and sub-systems.

Secondly, we’re going to be sending you a much clearer demand signal about what we’re trying to achieve with our procurement programmes – for the first time releasing a 30-year pipeline of all Government vessel procurements over 150 tons.

This will encompass not just military vessels but all ships including those procured by Home Office, DFT, Defra, BEIS and the Scottish government.

The strategy will also deliver for all parts of the UK, building on the proud traditions of shipbuilding in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We’re going to be letting you know our policy and technology priorities for shipbuilding. What green capabilities we’re after to achieve our net zero commitments. And how we will take account of the social value of shipbuilding when making appraisals.

In return for the certainty we instil, I expect you to up your productivity, invest in your people and develop the advanced manufacturing skills necessary to compete on the global stage

Finally, we’re going to be working more seamlessly with central, local government and devolved governments as well as industry and academia, to realise our aspirations. The Maritime Working Group has already shown the benefits of this approach

But we’re going further. I have just approved a cross sector study to identify the challenges, priorities and ambitions that the Royal Navy shares with the wider Maritime Enterprise in Scotland. I want to see how we can do more together to boost skills, innovation, and green projects.

More broadly, I want us to create local hubs of expertise. So that the ships that leave these shores aren’t simply famed for bearing a stamp saying “made in Britain” but for the stamp that says Belfast or Birkenhead.

And I want to make sure that, once you’ve built those era-defining ships, we do more to trumpet your achievements.

My vision is for a supercharged, successful and sustainable UK shipbuilding enterprise.

By 2030, I want our industry to be at the forefront of the technological and environmental revolutions driving our sector.

But Government cannot reinvigorate the enterprise alone. We can only make this happen by working together.

Fittingly, this year we will see HMS Queen Elizabeth embark on her first operational deployment I can’t think of a more impressive floating showcase of the talents you all possess.

Nor a stronger signal to the world that the renaissance in British shipbuilding is now firmly underway.