| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
POLICE AND JUSTICE BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
Proceedings in Standing Committee
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 28th March 2006.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
POLICE AND JUSTICE BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
6 Mar 2006 : Column 694
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police and Justice Bill, it is expedient to authorise-
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act;
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided;
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I propose to put together the Questions on motions 4, 5 and 6.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Community Order (Review by Specified Courts in Liverpool and Salford) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.
That the draft Renewables Obligation Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 7th March, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Ivan Lewis to take note of various European Union documents relating to financial management not later than three hours after their commencement; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
WELSH AFFAIRS
That Mrs Madeline Moon be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Albert Owen be added.—[Joan Ryan, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
6 Mar 2006 : Column 693
6 Mar 2006 : Column 695
Royal Tournament
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
9.9 pm
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the royal tournament, which was a feature of the national calendar until 1999. Each year for 119 years, it was a showcase event for the armed forces and a way for the public to gain appreciation of their work. It featured much pageantry, with mass bands, cavalry displays by the Royal Horse Artillery and other set-piece demonstrations of the skill and training of the armed forces. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary has entered into the spirit of that pageantry with his smart and elegant dress this evening. That pageantry was part of the royal tournament for 119 years and we have a little of that here tonight.
The royal tournament also highlighted the serious side of the work of the armed forces, with mock battles fought by Gurkhas, Royal Marines and other special units. There was the royal naval field gun competition—in many ways, the high point of the event—which showed the physical strength and prowess of those involved. I remember watching the royal tournament every year on the television as I was growing up, and the sense of spectacle that brought the work of the military service into focus. It gave an important sense of nationhood and country as well as offering the opportunity to appreciate the work of armed forces personnel past and present.
In 1998, the Ministry of Defence announced that the tournament would be scrapped, to be replaced by a more modern event. In a BBC press report, the then Defence Secretary, now Lord Robertson, said:
"The Royal Tournament has served us well for a great many years, but as we approach the millennium, it is timely for us to take a look at this traditional event. This is a new beginning, not an end of the tournament and my aim is to make it more relevant and modern whilst retaining an element of pageantry."
The event that was held at Earl's Court for many years had experienced some problems with attendance and it was probably the right time to hold some sort of review of it. Lord Robertson's comments when the announcement of disbanding the traditional royal tournament was made gave the impression that a review would be conducted and that something would continue.
A Ministry of Defence Press release, which was issued at the start of the final royal tournament in 1999, echoed those sentiments. Lord Robertson said:
"The Royal Tournament has served us well for a great many years but as we approach a new millennium it is necessary to take a fresh look at this event. The Royal Tournament has in recent years lost audiences, money and deepened overstretch in the forces. It is time to reinvent and reinvigorate the shop window of Britain's military mission. From 2001 onwards we will carry forward the spirit of the Royal Tournament by running a major showcase event in London. This will be a new Military Tattoo held each summer within the spectacular and historic setting of the Horse Guards' Parade, with ceremonial elements, massed bands and pageantry."
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con):
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on such an important subject. Does he share my view that the long-established and much-regarded royal
6 Mar 2006 : Column 696
tournament fell victim to the unfortunate and misguided principles of cool Britannia, which dominated the early years of the current Administration?
James Brokenshire: It is difficult to judge. The Under-Secretary may be the best person to respond to that point, but there was a sense at the time that more traditional things were out of fashion. It is possible that the royal tournament was caught in the attempt to go for a more modern approach. Indeed, the statements by the then Defence Secretary emphasised that sense of modernity, even though I have to say that there was a need to review the role and structure of the royal tournament to reflect changes within the armed forces and the more modern service that we now have. There was certainly a good opportunity for a review.
Although one can debate the merits of the argument, Lord Robertson certainly appreciated the need to retain a high-profile national event to showcase the tremendous work of our armed forces. On the basis of those comments, I wondered why I could not recall reading or hearing about what sounds like a significant high-profile event that was intended to follow on year after year. I therefore asked a written question on how many times the royal tournament had been replaced by a military tattoo at Horse Guards parade in London, as Lord Robertson's comments had suggested would be the case. The Minister replied:
"Following the last Royal Tournament in 1999 it has been replaced once by a military tattoo at Horse Guards Parade. The Department continues, however, to participate in a wide variety of smaller events such as Open Days, ships visits, County Shows and showcase events such as the Edinburgh Military Tattoo and the Fairford Royal International Air Tattoo".—[Official Report, 20 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 2763W.]
Despite Lord Robertson's initial statements that there would be a military tattoo in London each summer, the much-vaunted replacement was, in fact, only a one-off.
I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in his response what changed. Lord Robertson clearly recognised that the royal tournament was a significant and important event to showcase the work of our essential modern military forces. As we have heard, he described it as
With significant overseas commitments and increasing financial constraints on our armed forces, if it is now simply impossible to organise such a large-scale event on an annual basis, perhaps we could understand the decision-making process that has taken place. However, I am not aware—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that any such formal explanation has been given. If that is not the reason, why has Lord Robertson's commitment not been followed through?
Against that backdrop, it is hardly surprising that one of my constituents, Mr. Steve Thomas of Bruce avenue, Hornchurch, wrote to me in the following terms:
"Do you remember the Royal Tournament, which was held at Earls Court every year and which was chopped by the Government in 1999? You probably saw it as a kid. I went to it many times over the years from age 10. It was always a great night out and we all got to meet our armed forces in person. I believe it was also very effective in gaining future recruits to the service. It was a tragedy when it was so brutally ended after 119 years. Yes 119 years of history means nothing to this present government. At the time it was claimed that it was costing too much and that it was far too patriotic . . . what nonsense. It was a very popular show
- right up to the end. We need to restore some pride in our country and there's no better way than to have an annual display of 'skill of arms' held in London as it was for 119 years."
I am sure that that sentiment is shared by many people in the House and across the country. Perhaps those comments were compounded by the lack of a proper replacement for the royal tournament as was previously promised, a lack of clarity as to why circumstances had changed and about what was to follow and by the fact that we do not really have a national event to mark the service of our armed forces and to recognise their tremendous efforts for this country.
I note that the Minister has announced the formal establishment of a veterans' day on 27 June, which we are told will happen each year and act as an important opportunity to thank veterans for their contribution to our life in the UK today. In his letter to all hon. Members, he said:
"It will be a day to focus on veterans of all ages and to celebrate and raise public awareness of their achievements and the contribution they have made and continue to make to society. We will also seek to highlight the support and advice available to veterans from official and voluntary sources and the role of ex-Service organisations. Finally the day will offer opportunities to celebrate the service by those currently serving in the Armed Forces".
I welcome this event. It is important that we have a veterans' day to mark the service of all those who have made such a huge contribution to the life of this country. Obviously, we have Remembrance day each November, on which we remember those who have given their lives in the service of this country, and it is important that we continue to recognise their service year after year. I am proud that we have a significant Remembrance day event each year in Hornchurch; it is an important part of our calendar, and rightly so. I hope that veterans' day will sit alongside that, to recognise the veterans of the armed forces who have given service to this country, but who are still very much alive, even though they may have suffered injuries and other trauma as a consequence of that service.
I welcome the proposals for a veterans' day. I hope that it will be a successful event every year, that it will result in the individual events that the Minister hopes will take place up and down the country, and that it will become an important part of our national life. Before this debate, I was heartened to see that there was to be some recognition of armed forces personnel, and that the veterans' day was in part intended to recognise the service of current members of the armed forces.
I was also heartened to see that the inaugural event would involve a high-profile celebration in London. I wonder whether I may read into the Minister's announcement that that might be some kind of high-profile tattoo or replacement for the royal tournament, as was promised by Lord Robertson. However, the Minister's letter did not go on to say that the high-profile event in London would be an annual event. My concern, therefore, is that we could end up in a similar situation to the one that pertained before, namely, that we should be given the promise of an inaugural event to mark veterans' day, but that after that it would be spun off into smaller, more local or regional events—as the Minister's letter seems to suggest—important though those are.
6 Mar 2006 : Column 698
It is important to have a high-profile national event in London to attract the attention of the media and of the public to something as important as this. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify this matter because his proposals appear to be for a one-off event, rather than a commitment to an annual high-profile event in London that would act as a proper way to thank armed forces personnel, past and present.
We need a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities and sheer professionalism of our soldiers, sailors, air crew and support staff, and that was what the royal tournament did. It provided that focus. Yes, perhaps it needed reform, but it had the ability to garner support and to focus the attention of the television companies and the media generally on the tremendous work that our armed forces do in the service and defence of this country. Our armed forces do an outstanding job in defending this country and its interests overseas in increasingly difficult, dangerous and complicated situations. It is important that there is a significant national event in London, the capital, to recognise that work and show our appreciation for everything they do.
The royal tournament provided that opportunity for 119 years. For all the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country, I urge the Minister and his Department to have a rethink and provide a suitable replacement for the royal tournament so that we have a proper opportunity to pay tribute to our armed forces personnel and everything they do.
9.25 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |