Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament

139 Private Gary Barlow
20 JUNE 2011
Private Gary Barlow
140
[Mr Andrew Robathan]
at all levels whose task it was to reward the most
deserving as they judged at the time. This system has
been developed over many years, and is designed to
ensure that the process by which awards are made is fair
and consistent, and it has stood the test of time. Neither
the present Government nor any previous Administration
have departed from the strict rule that British gallantry
awards are not granted retrospectively.
Recommendations for gallantry awards are
generated by commanders in the field and scrutinised at
a number of levels by military committees, the last of
which is the Armed Forces Operational Awards
Committee, which comprises five senior officers representing
all three services, and which ultimately recommends to
Her Majesty the Queen who should receive awards. This
process is completely independent of political influence,
and it would not be possible—nor would it be right—for
me to seek to influence this process. On a personal note,
however, I would like to take this opportunity to pass
on my condolences to Mrs Barlow for the loss of her
son, and to express my deep gratitude for his service to
this country and her dignity in grief. I would also like to
take this opportunity to put it on the record that we are
fortunate to have individuals such as Gary Barlow, both
then and now, who are willing to demonstrate their
bravery by serving with our armed forces. In the words
of his commanding officer while expressing his and his
regiment’s sadness and horror at Private Barlow’s death:
“He was a fine boy and a good and brave soldier”.
I am told—the hon. Lady mentioned this too—that
the family were subjected to intense and often unwelcome
media and public scrutiny, and to threats. I am sincerely
sorry for the additional distress that this must have
caused them. In the 1970s, when Private Barlow was
killed, very little support was offered to bereaved families
by the military, so I would also like to take this opportunity
to reassure his family and the House that measures now
exist to prevent other families from suffering the same
experience.
Each death of a member of our armed forces is a
tragedy—for their comrades and the country, but most
especially for their family, such as Private Barlow’s
family. As the years have progressed, I believe that we
have got better at learning the lessons from each death,
both in the field and in how we help and support the
families left behind. Gone now are the days when the
first that a family heard about the death of their loved
one was a tersely worded official telegram. Despite the
challenges of 24-hour media, we are largely successful
at ensuring that families hear from us before impromptu
and unofficial sources when a tragedy occurs. Sadly,
with the increasing operational tempo since 9/11, we
have learned a lot about loss and grief, and so have
steadily improved the support and help available to
families who lose a loved one. Every effort is made to
ensure that the next of kin are informed as soon as
possible by those who are appropriately trained, and a
period of grace is given before the official announcement
is made. It grieves me to say that this is going on even
this week, as we know.
Since 2005 we have appointed and trained both casualty
notification officers and visiting officers, so that the
support that we offer families is not provided by those
associated with the delivery of the worst news. Our
dedicated visiting officers are able to guide, support and
assist families through the difficult times of the repatriation
ceremony, funeral arrangements and the return of their
loved one’s effects. The hon. Lady was quite right to
draw attention to the way in which this could sometimes
be done in an arbitrary manner, with the arrival of
some boxes containing a loved one’s effects. Visiting
officers can be assigned to a bereaved family for six to
nine months, but support remains available through the
Army’s inquiries and aftercare support cell, right up to
an inquest and beyond, unlike in 1973.
All families show different reactions to the loss of a
loved one. Our visiting officers are trained to understand
the differences and react accordingly, so that the level of
support received is determined by the need of the
family. The support is therefore enduring in nature and
co-ordinated in provision. In addition to giving emotional
support, the visiting officer can act as a conduit to
practical support regarding pensions, counselling and
financial matters. This includes access to public funds
that are available to help families attend the significant
events associated with their bereavement, helping with
funeral expenses, travel to the repatriation, funeral and
inquest, and accommodation. Public funds are also
available to help families after their initial period of
grief and mourning to move on with their lives, through
the continuity of education allowance, the maintenance
of the living overseas allowance, the ability to remain in
service accommodation for up to two years and the
transfer of the resettlement allowance. These are changes
that have happened since 1973.
I referred earlier to the lessons that are now learned
in the field. The Army keeps all its procedures under
continuous review to ensure the safety of its personnel.
Additionally, systems exist at various levels to identify
lessons from incidents and make recommendations to
take action to prevent similar circumstances from arising
in future, including, where necessary, a statutory service
inquiry and, when there is a death during operations, a
service police investigation. We are not complacent.
Despite the strides that have been made in recent years,
we recognise that more can always be done. The armed
forces covenant, which was published on 16 May, sets
out what service personnel and their families can expect
from the Government and the nation in recognition of
what we ask them to do to keep us safe. The Government
are determined to remove disadvantages encountered as
a result of service, as well as ensuring that the armed
forces community receives the recognition to which it is
entitled. By publishing the covenant we have a clear
sense of what we are trying to achieve and have established
the right direction of travel that we will allow us to so.
As a nation, we have an obligation to our servicemen
and women who, like Gary Barlow, commit themselves
to the service of this country and risk paying the
ultimate price to keep us safe, as well as to the families
who support their loved ones in the armed forces through
good times and bad. Our commitment to them should
be just as enduring, and with the publication of the
covenant, we believe that we have established a way of
ensuring that this commitment does not waver. The
nation will hold us to account.
I reiterate what I said to the hon. Lady earlier. This
was an awful tragedy. As it happens, I also joined the
Army in 1970, and to think of a young man of 19 being
killed in that way in Northern Ireland must bring us all