HC Deb 19 January 2000 vol 342 cc250-7WH

1 pm

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to raise the issue of the Pegasus symbol and airborne forces in this short debate. I am particularly grateful for the presence of the entire Conservative Front-Bench shadow defence team. Another Conservative Member who would very much have liked to be here is my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who has taken a close interest in this matter, but who is unavoidably on a Select Committee visit to the Netherlands. My hon. Friend has, however, left me a copy of a publication which is one of his prized possessions. It is a venerable, official history of British airborne divisions, entitled "By Air to Battle". Typically, because the Pegasus symbol is directly identified with anything to do with the airborne forces, that symbol adorns the front cover of the publication.

My hon. Friend particularly drew my attention to the part of the publication that refers to members of the airborne forces being honoured in December 1944 at a special investiture held in Buckingham palace. It says: Each officer and man of these … divisions wears upon his shoulder the badge of Pegasus, the winged horse and its rider, brandishing a lance. As an emblem it is singularly appropriate, and whenever the citizens of Britain catch sight of it, they may perhaps call to mind that other horse which, long ago, it is said, brought armed men into the city of Troy—the vanguard of a victorious army. To have an entire debate about insignia might seem to exaggerate the importance of such symbolism, but, when we consider it in contexts other than the military, we know that that is not the case. Only today, the papers are full of the argument about the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and no doubt part of that will be the question of what signs, badges and insignia will in future represent that police force.

When one looks at any publication dealing with events in the history of the airborne forces, such as the account of the battle of Arnhem in Martin Middlebrook's definitive version that I have here, it is always Pegasus that illustrates its cover because Pegasus is the brand name that is inextricably bound up in the public mind with the image, the record and the heroism of the airborne forces. It is astonishing that the symbol should have been scrapped when it is so well known.

I am concerned about that matter because I view it not in isolation, but as part of a continuum. I have been noting with dismay a succession of events that have been chipping away at service morale and the military ethos. As I customarily do in these debates, I have taken the trouble to tell the Minister in advance nearly all the points that I intend to make today.

The Minister knows of my concern that, all too often, senior serving military personnel are being pushed forward by politicians into debates, to take the flak and to justify and try to excuse controversial decisions made by politicians. That is not good for the forces; it is not good for the impartiality of serving personnel, and it is imposing too much on military chiefs who have to put on a brave face when confronted by unpalatable decisions.

Politicians have a habit of showing spite to those who embarrass them. That is as true of the military field as it is anywhere else. I am old enough to remember the case of Colonel Colin Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who was deployed in Aden in the 1960s, when Harold Wilson had announced that it was not possible or viable to continue to maintain British control there.

Colonel Mitchell, on his own initiative, showed by his successful activities in Crater and the Radfan mountains that it was entirely practicable to do so. I believed then, as I do now, that it was no coincidence that, within a very few years, a Labour Government were hell-bent on destroying his regiment, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

I shall touch briefly on other examples before I return to Pegasus itself. The first is the Berlin airlift, which was commemorated in a number of ways in this country. However, unlike in other countries, no commemorative stamps were issued here last year to mark the 50th anniversary of that successful key moment in the cold war. I have a particular interest because my constituent, Mrs. Jessamy Waite, is the widow of Air Commodore Rex Waite, the RAF officer who conceived the practicability of the Berlin airlift.

On 6 April 1998, in a parliamentary question, I asked: Will the Minister consider the representations of the British Berlin Airlift Association, which wants the Royal Mail to issue a commemorative stamp to mark that crucial turning point in the war? That suggestion has so far been given a idle brush-off. The Minister for the Armed Forces was then merely the Under-Secretary. He replied with his usual insouciance: I cannot accept that. I have had discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry, which as the sponsoring Department, is discussing this matter with the Post Office."—[Official Report, 6 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 13–14.] Sadly, those discussions were unavailing and no stamp appeared.

Subsequently, when I was in Germany, I saw the German postal 50-year anniversary cover of what they call the Luftbrücke, the aerial bridge. That followed the stamp that Germany had issued for the 40th anniversary, which followed a stamp to commemorate the 25th anniversary. It is sad that the Germans have a better appreciation of what the RAF did than does the British Post Office, whatever representations the Ministry of Defence managed to make to it.

The second example is the changing-over of the long-term volunteer reserve decorations, known as the RD and the TD. In March 1999, those gave way to a combined long service decoration for reserve forces, which is applicable to all ranks. As someone who never got above the lower deck in the Royal Naval Reserve, I welcome that change.

I do not, however, welcome the fact that, whereas previously officers had the incentive to stay on and work hard for 10 years to put the letters RD and TD after their name, that incentive has now disappeared. Instead of entitling officers and other ranks to have those letters after their name, the change ensures that nobody now has those letters after their name, except those who were awarded the decoration before the end of March 1999.

The next example is the royal tournament. Almost by stealth, and certainly without any major public debate, more than 100 years of history were scrapped virtually without notice. The first that most people knew about the loss of the tournament was that it was a fait accompli. When one looked at the royal tournament website, one read the following announcement: The Royal Tournament will run from 20th July to 2nd August 1999. It will be a show that will live on in your memory, make its mark in history and make you proud of our heritage. This is the year you must not miss. You will not see its like again. You can say that again.

What did the MOD have to say about that? Mr. George Robertson, who was then Secretary of State, issued a press release in which he said that it is timely for us to take a fresh look at this event … A number of alternatives are under consideration for this tri-service contribution to the year 2000"— he was referring to the tournament's successor. He continued: A study team is currently examining how to modernise the permanent annual tournament after this millennium spectacular has completed. That press release makes it quite obvious that the Government had no clear idea of what they wanted to put in place of the royal tournament; all they knew was that they wanted to get rid of an established and historic institution.

I revert now to the question of Pegasus and the airborne forces. In the early hours—at about a quarter past midnight—on the night of 5–6 June 1944, three gliders landed at the foot of a bridge over the Caen canal. In one of those gliders was a friend of mine, Mr. Bill Jolliffe, who was then a sergeant-major. He was a quiet, unassuming man, whom I met on what turned out to be his last trip to visit the grave in Normandy of his brother, who had been killed 10 days into the battle. Bill is not able to tell us what he thinks of the abolition of the Pegasus symbol, but one of my constituents, Mr. Bill Cornick, who is now 82, was in the second wave of gliders that landed during D-day itself. He has written to me, saying: How can those who have not served understand the morale-boosting effect the right to wear such insignia has upon soldiers? Arguably this is the driving force which makes men rise to efforts seemingly impossible, like all those things which go to make the individual think that his unit is the best. It's part of man management. That is the voice of a veteran, but what do ordinary serving soldiers think about the loss of the insignia? I offer a couple of quotations from the comments of serving soldiers that were published in a service magazine. I shall identify neither the soldiers nor the magazine, in case Alastair Campbell gets to work on them. One states: I think it is disgraceful. I would be upset if the REME"— the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, of which he is a member— got amalgamated, which is one of the worst things, but to have something your parents and grandparents earned taken away must be heartbreaking. People died for that badge. Another says: Each unit needs an identity so I feel they should keep it. It gives them a sense of the past and the endeavours of those who went before them. There are too many changes going on around the Army. A third says: I don't think they should scrap the Pegasus; perhaps the whole air mobile force should keep it as their emblem. I don't know if the Paras would like that, but it is one way to keep it. It would keep everyone happy, I think. He is absolutely right—that would be the sensible solution.

In August, I wrote to the Minister about the issue. The second paragraph of his reply of 1 September appeared to be contradicted by the fourth. The second paragraph states: The emblem of Bellerophon astride Pegasus was introduced in 1941 for all elements of the Airborne Forces"— I emphasise, all elements— which during World War II included the Parachute Regiment, the Glider Pilot Regiment"— we know that from my account of the glider attack on the bridge that later become known as Pegasus bridge— the SAS, and all within the WW II Army Air Corps. However, the fourth paragraph states: The reason why this emblem has not been incorporated into the new 16 Air Assault Brigade badge is that the parachute element of this new Brigade is only one of the two constituent parts—the other being the aviation or airmobile element". That argument is undermined by the second paragraph, which states that the symbol has, in the past, been used far more widely than just by the Parachute regiment.

The change in insignia, like the scrapping of the royal tournament before Ministers had any idea of what would be put in its place, is rooted in a word that we hear all too often from new Labour—modernisation. New Labour means Labour without socialism and modernisation in the armed forces means the armed forces without their history. The problem is that the Government have no sense of history, no sense of military morale and, apparently, no sense of the value of the Pegasus symbol as a brand synonymous in the public mind with the concept of airborne forces.

I conclude by referring to one of my frequent visits to Arnhem—I have friends who live close by—made in September of last year, the 55th anniversary of the battle. I have here three photographs taken during that visit. The first shows the sign erected over the road leading toward Oosterbeek cemetery: it says, in Dutch and in English, "Welcome veterans", and silhouetted against the sky line is Pegasus, selected from all the signs that might have been chosen. The second photograph is that of a veteran in a period Land Rover: he is wearing his red beret and his Parachute regiment badge—the Minister will, no doubt, assure us that those are not to disappear; yet his tie is covered with the symbol of Pegasus.

The final photograph is of two wreaths, side by side on the memorial in the Airborne cemetery in Oosterbeek. One represents the British Legion: the card reads, "Lest we forget". The other represents the airborne forces: at the heart of it is the Pegasus symbol. By their despicable action, the Government and the Ministry of Defence have ensured that it is far more likely that we shall forget what we owe to the airborne forces of the United Kingdom.

1.16 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for the opportunity to explain the Army's decision not to incorporate the Pegasus emblem in the new 16 Air Assault Brigade badge; and to explain the Government's position on that issue. I am also grateful to him for having previously told me about some of his broader concerns; I hope to deal with them as well. I believe that he is trying to construct an over-developed edifice on some pretty shaky foundations—it must have something to do with his experience of the Oxford school of philosophy.

It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House if I begin by correcting a widely held assumption, expressed by the hon. Gentleman during our lengthy correspondence, that the Bellerophon or Pegasus symbol is the badge of the Parachute Regiment. It is not, and never has been, specific to the Parachute Regiment. The only badge specific to the Parachute Regiment is the regimental cap badge, approved by the sovereign, which depicts a pair of outspread wings with an open parachute in the centre surmounted by the royal crest. That badge was designed to reflect the operational role of the Parachute regiment. It is not the same as the Bellerophon insignia, and it remains the cap badge of the Parachute regiment today.

The popular, and widely recognised, emblem of Bellerophon astride Pegasus was introduced in 1942 for all elements of the airborne forces. During the second world war, they included the Parachute Regiment, the Glider Pilot Regiment and the Special Air Service. Therefore, it was a specific to arm insignia, as the formation flash of the 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions; it was not a regimental badge. In the post-war period, the emblem was used as a formation insignia in airborne formations, including 6 Airborne Division, 16 Parachute Brigade and 44 Parachute Brigade (Volunteers). I reiterate that the Bellerophon design was not specific to the Parachute Regiment, but was used by the formation as a whole to reflect its inclusion of airborne elements.

The Bellerophon badge has, in recent years, been worn as the combat insignia of 5 Airborne Brigade. It was worn by all brigade members, including logistics staff, engineers, signallers and non-parachute-trained infantry battalions. Equally, it has not been worn by parachute battalions when employed outside the 5th Airborne Brigade. However, the Ministry of Defence and I appreciate fully the significant level of attachment that many feel towards the emblem. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the decision to discontinue use of the Bellerophon emblem was not taken lightly, or without full and careful consideration of all the facts.

I remind the House that 16 Air Assault Brigade also includes the units of the former 24 Air Mobile Brigade, whose winged emblem, called a heraldic pinion, is also being discontinued. That badge has an equally long and illustrious history, having been used originally as the insignia of 24 Guards Independent Infantry Brigade from 1940 to 1947. It is reputed that this was the personal crest of Brigadier "Boy" Browning, who gave it to the brigade when he was its commander. The emblem has been used variously by several infantry and aviation formations over the intervening years.

The newly formed 16 Air Assault Brigade is one of the most powerful brigade-sized formations in Europe, and the most powerful air-manoeuvrable fighting unit in Britain's history—a history of which we are all justly proud. It is made up of two discrete parts; one is the parachute element, deploying from the air, and the other is the aviation or airmobile element, which will engage in battle from the air. The brigade will comprise 16 different units. In addition to the infantry and Army Air Corps elements, there will be units from the Royal Artillery, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and Royal Logistic Corps, to name but a few.

This exciting new force, with its inherent versatility and flexibility, will dramatically change the way in which we respond to crises throughout the world. The introduction of the Apache helicopter during the year will further enhance the brigade's assault power.

The hon. Gentleman claimed that, somehow, the military was being asked to ratify decisions made by civilians and by Ministers. I stress that there was a recommendation to Ministers from the Army. It is their judgment, given the circumstances that I have described, that the new formation needed its own symbol to reflect its new and unique identity, with which all its members will be able to identify in future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the badge that has been decided upon for the new 16 Air Assault Brigade is a symbolic design of a striking eagle. However, in keeping with tradition, the new emblem incorporates both light blue for the aviation element and maroon for the airborne heritage.

I understand that many people will regard the passing of 5 Airborne and 24 Air Mobile Brigades, remembering, as well detailed by the hon. Gentleman, their achievements and rich traditions. We have not lost sight of the contribution that they have made to Britain's armed forces. However, the new brigade will reinforce the role that airborne forces play in carrying out our defence mission. I reassure the House that there is no question of the specific and unique identity of the Parachute Regiment or any other regiment being lost as a result of the formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, or the discontinuance of the Bellerophon emblem. The identity of the regiment will continue to be represented by its winged regimental badge, which is worn on its famous maroon berets. The regimental magazine of the regiment will maintain the link by retaining the Pegasus title.

In addition, the Pegasus trophy will continue to be awarded each year by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the unit that is deemed to have done the most to enhance the reputation of the airborne forces. The Pegasus symbol will be retained by a number of organisations, including the airborne forces charities, Friends of Airborne Forces, the airborne forces security fund, Airborne Brotherhood and the Airborne Forces museum.

The hon. Gentleman and the House, including the many Members who have written to the Government on this subject on behalf of their constituents, can be assured that the Pegasus symbol, and all the history and tradition that it represents, will continue to be an instantly recognisable symbol of the airborne forces, both past and present.

The hon. Gentleman raised other items in trying to construct the thesis of disregard for our history. I resent that, because we are alert to the issues and traditions of our armed forces and the important part that they play in maintaining the cohesion and operational effectiveness of our forces.

We made a significant contribution to the celebration of the courage of those who took part in the Berlin airlift and the success of a remarkable operation. The Royal Mail had responsibility for this. It considered the issuing of a commemorative stamp, but decided that it was unable to do so as it was focusing on a millennium theme in 1999. As the hon. Gentleman kindly pointed out, I made significant representations to the Royal Mail and to the Department of Trade and Industry on the matter. As they work on fairly lengthy time scales, the initiating process should probably have taken place under a previous Administration. However, the airlift was commemorated by the production of a commemorative label and a philatelic medallic cover.

Further, Royal Air Force bands participated in the traditional wreath-laying ceremony and at various concerts. The Queen's Colours Squadron and aircraft from squadrons associated with the airlift participated in events and ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the start of the airlift.

We had to face the real issue of the level of commitment of manpower by the services to the Royal Tournament and the reduction year on year of attendances, which led to a series of losses. The field-gun competition was the subject of some correspondence from hon. Members. Of the 30,000 man days that were taken up by the tournament, about 16,000 were taken up by the naval field-gun competition. The event had significant audience loyalty, and it continues to be held in special regard by those who participated in it. Frankly, however, it was no longer representative of the Royal Navy and its contemporary activities. In practical terms, it led to considerable pressure on other members of the Royal Navy, who were having to fill gaps created by those who were able to participate in the event.

Dr. Julian Lewis

That beggars belief. Of course the Royal Tournament took up a large proportion of the Navy's resources. However, the field-gun competition was synonymous with the Royal Tournament, just as Pegasus is synonymous with airborne forces. I find it incredible that the Labour party is suggesting that people cannot see the value of these symbolisms.

Mr. Spellar

The reality is that, within the Royal Navy, many individuals were having to be devoted to the event. That was putting pressure on other members of the service when, I reiterate, attendances at the tournament were declining, which led to the making of losses. The purposes of the tournament were to provide a shop window for the armed forces, to enable people to associate with them and to generate money for service charities.

We considered how the situation could be improved, We were mindful of the significant attachment to the tradition represented by the tournament. That is why the Royal military tattoo of 2000 will be the armed forces' flagship contribution to the nation's millennium celebrations, with a theme of defence of the realm past, present and future. It will take place against the spectacular and historic backdrop of Horse Guards in July, with a performance on six evenings. It will combine the most imaginative staging, state-of-the-art technology, pageantry, son et lumière, lasers, fireworks and the world's largest mobile video screen. It will provide a worthy showcase for the men and women who make up Britain's armed forces. [Interruption.] I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman finds that amusing.

We will not lose sight of the fact that the armed forces have played a significant and integral part in our history. They continue to play their part on the world stage, and will continue to do so in future. The military tattoo will demonstrate that to the country and to the wider world.

In parallel, an annual defence event will be held during the summer outside London—it is important that we get away from London in many instances—at different locations each year. This will be based, where possible, on a successful single service event to minimise the resource implications, and the services will take it in turn to lead on the event.

I am pleased to say that the first of these events will be held in Portsmouth in 2001, with the Royal Navy in the lead, and will be linked to the popular international festival of the sea. We intend that both the location and the content of these regional events will enable the armed forces to showcase their equipment and demonstrate their capability in an exciting and modern way, including hands-on public participation, which was not possible in the royal tournament.

Our armed forces are steeped in history and tradition, of which they are justifiably proud and which contribute to operational effectiveness and to our sense of identity as a nation. Our armed forces have never stood still, and that is one of their enduring strengths. These matters must continue to be judged on their merits and on the way in which they serve the country and the armed services.