New Ministers
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Ministers
At least they have military/aviation connections:
Gerald Howarth and Andrew Robathan confirmed as Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State for the MOD
A Defence Policy and Business news article
14 May 10
Conservative MPs Gerald Howarth and Andrew Robathan have been confirmed as the new Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State for the Ministry of Defence.
Gerald Howarth (left) and Andrew Robathan
[Pictures: via MOD]
Gerald Howarth
Mr Howarth was born in September 1947. He was educated at Haileybury and ISC Junior School, Windsor, and Bloxham School, Banbury (scholar). He read English at the University of Southampton (BA Hons) where he served with the University Air Squadron and was commissioned into the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in 1968.
Mr Howarth is the Conservative MP for Aldershot and is President of the Air Display Association. In 2006 he became a trustee of the 'Vulcan to the Sky' project which is restoring to flying condition a Vulcan bomber.
Mr Howarth has been married to Elizabeth since 1973 and they have three children. In his spare time he enjoys flying (he has held a pilot's licence since 1965), photography and fishing, and is a church warden at the Royal Garrison Church in Aldershot. He also does the occasional DIY.
Since 2002 he has served as a Shadow Defence Minister with responsibility for defence procurement and the Royal Air Force.
Andrew Robathan
Mr Robathan is the Conservative MP for South Leicestershire. He was born in 1951 and educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood, and Oriel College, Oxford.
He served in the Coldstream Guards from 1974 to 1989 before leaving to pursue a career in politics. He served throughout the world and attended the Army Staff College, Camberley. Mr Robathan volunteered to rejoin the Army, January - April 1991, and served as Chief of Staff of the Prisoner of War Guard Force in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.
Mr Robathan and his wife Rachael have one son and one daughter
Gerald Howarth and Andrew Robathan confirmed as Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State for the MOD
A Defence Policy and Business news article
14 May 10
Conservative MPs Gerald Howarth and Andrew Robathan have been confirmed as the new Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State for the Ministry of Defence.
 and Andrew Robathan)
Gerald Howarth (left) and Andrew Robathan [Pictures: via MOD]
Gerald Howarth
Mr Howarth was born in September 1947. He was educated at Haileybury and ISC Junior School, Windsor, and Bloxham School, Banbury (scholar). He read English at the University of Southampton (BA Hons) where he served with the University Air Squadron and was commissioned into the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in 1968.
Mr Howarth is the Conservative MP for Aldershot and is President of the Air Display Association. In 2006 he became a trustee of the 'Vulcan to the Sky' project which is restoring to flying condition a Vulcan bomber.
Mr Howarth has been married to Elizabeth since 1973 and they have three children. In his spare time he enjoys flying (he has held a pilot's licence since 1965), photography and fishing, and is a church warden at the Royal Garrison Church in Aldershot. He also does the occasional DIY.
Since 2002 he has served as a Shadow Defence Minister with responsibility for defence procurement and the Royal Air Force.
Andrew Robathan
Mr Robathan is the Conservative MP for South Leicestershire. He was born in 1951 and educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood, and Oriel College, Oxford.
He served in the Coldstream Guards from 1974 to 1989 before leaving to pursue a career in politics. He served throughout the world and attended the Army Staff College, Camberley. Mr Robathan volunteered to rejoin the Army, January - April 1991, and served as Chief of Staff of the Prisoner of War Guard Force in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.
Mr Robathan and his wife Rachael have one son and one daughter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: warm
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please feel free to correct me but RAF (VRT) are Air Training Corps Officers and does a 1 week course at cranditz. Not really front line serving officer experience. On the plus side, with his experience with the Vulcan to the sky team he will understand the complexity of keeping some of our older fleet in the air. Good luck to both of them as the civil servants in the treasury will hobble there hopes and aspirations soon enough.
From Hansard 11 Jan 2010:
Not long to wait now.......
Chinook Crash (Mull of Kintyre)
6. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): If he will meet representatives of the families of personnel killed in the Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash to discuss identified computer software failings. [309570]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell): First, may I offer my sincere condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash? I will meet representatives of the families of those who were tragically killed in 1994, to explain why there is no new evidence to lead the Ministry of Defence to revisit the board of inquiry's findings.
Mr. Bellingham: As the Minister knows, I represent the family of one of the deceased pilots, Flight Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper. Obviously, the family are still very distressed indeed about the finding of gross professional
negligence against their brave son. Will the Minister confirm that, since the crash, there has been a change in the rules governing the attribution of blame, so that deceased pilots cannot now be found guilty of gross negligence? Surely it is only fair and just that the two Chinook pilots who were killed-Flight Lieutenants Cook and Tapper-should benefit from that change of rule.
Bill Rammell: I reiterate that I am willing to meet representatives of the family. The change in the rules governing inquiries was brought about by this Government in July 1997, but it was made abundantly clear at that stage that that would not be retrospective and that it would not affect previous rulings.
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): As both pilots were found grossly negligent, how does the Minister know with absolutely no doubt whatever that both pilots agreed with the route and the course of action being taken?
Bill Rammell: Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken a detailed interest in this matter, that in all the publicity surrounding this case-and certainly that produced by the BBC in recent weeks-there has never been any evidence of technical failure. The clear reality of the situation, demonstrated by a clear and diligent analysis, was that the pilots flew their aircraft at low level and high speed towards rising ground and in poor weather, which was contrary to the flight safety instructions. It is for that reason that the board of inquiry reached the conclusion it did.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Surely the fact that the board of inquiry itself did not entirely rule out the possibility of some kind of technical failure, together with public unease at the verdict of gross negligence on pilots and the number of calls for a review from all sides of the House, militates in favour of having such a review. If this Government will not hold such a review, let me tell the Minister that an incoming Conservative Government will.
Bill Rammell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous Conservative Government who accepted the board of inquiry's findings in the first instance. This is a very sensitive issue and I fully understand the concerns of all the families that have lost their loved ones, but I do not think that we should play politics with this issue. The substance of the case is that absolutely no evidence of a technical failure has been produced that would lead to a different conclusion from that of the board of inquiry.
6. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): If he will meet representatives of the families of personnel killed in the Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash to discuss identified computer software failings. [309570]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell): First, may I offer my sincere condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the Mull of Kintyre Chinook helicopter crash? I will meet representatives of the families of those who were tragically killed in 1994, to explain why there is no new evidence to lead the Ministry of Defence to revisit the board of inquiry's findings.
Mr. Bellingham: As the Minister knows, I represent the family of one of the deceased pilots, Flight Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper. Obviously, the family are still very distressed indeed about the finding of gross professional
negligence against their brave son. Will the Minister confirm that, since the crash, there has been a change in the rules governing the attribution of blame, so that deceased pilots cannot now be found guilty of gross negligence? Surely it is only fair and just that the two Chinook pilots who were killed-Flight Lieutenants Cook and Tapper-should benefit from that change of rule.
Bill Rammell: I reiterate that I am willing to meet representatives of the family. The change in the rules governing inquiries was brought about by this Government in July 1997, but it was made abundantly clear at that stage that that would not be retrospective and that it would not affect previous rulings.
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): As both pilots were found grossly negligent, how does the Minister know with absolutely no doubt whatever that both pilots agreed with the route and the course of action being taken?
Bill Rammell: Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken a detailed interest in this matter, that in all the publicity surrounding this case-and certainly that produced by the BBC in recent weeks-there has never been any evidence of technical failure. The clear reality of the situation, demonstrated by a clear and diligent analysis, was that the pilots flew their aircraft at low level and high speed towards rising ground and in poor weather, which was contrary to the flight safety instructions. It is for that reason that the board of inquiry reached the conclusion it did.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Surely the fact that the board of inquiry itself did not entirely rule out the possibility of some kind of technical failure, together with public unease at the verdict of gross negligence on pilots and the number of calls for a review from all sides of the House, militates in favour of having such a review. If this Government will not hold such a review, let me tell the Minister that an incoming Conservative Government will.
Bill Rammell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous Conservative Government who accepted the board of inquiry's findings in the first instance. This is a very sensitive issue and I fully understand the concerns of all the families that have lost their loved ones, but I do not think that we should play politics with this issue. The substance of the case is that absolutely no evidence of a technical failure has been produced that would lead to a different conclusion from that of the board of inquiry.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this Government will not hold such a review, let me tell the Minister that an incoming Conservative Government will.
Given that Nick Clegg signed the original EDM, the fact that the UK now has a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is hardly germane.
but I do not think that we should play politics with this issue.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a shame they can't find anyone a little younger. These 2 are approaching (beyond) retirement age.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least the RAF will be safe with Howarth in the procurement seat - there is not a thickness of tissue paper between him and the light blue top of the shop. I seem to recall him saying that Typhoon was a wonderful procurement and the RAF should have as many as possible. He does not understand proper expeditionary ops nor the need for aircraft carriers (or much of the Navy for that matter). He also believes that all things that fly should be light blue.
Interesting times ahead with not the brightest card in the pack!
Interesting times ahead with not the brightest card in the pack!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm impressed Blacksheep! I can only match one of your achievements. I won't say which but there's nothing wrong with my mind. Too much quaffing your namesake. Oh well, I have my memories!
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He does not understand proper expeditionary ops
The counter-argument is that, as an island nation we need a navy equipped to defend our shores and an air force equipped to defend our airspace so as to repel any possibility of foreign invasion. For home defence we need a small standing army and a large volunteer reserve militia. What we don't need is to be pursuing military adventures in foreign lands that we withdrew from years ago once we realised that our much vaunted (and often mourned) Empire cost more to maintain than it generated in income.
Participation in the two world wars drained Britain of its wealth. Take a look at Switzerland if you doubt the efficacy of neutrality in maintaining national prosperity.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
Maybe the fact that 95% of our trade and resources come by sea, much of it from E of Suez and through some pretty risky choke-points and beligerent nations. Are you prepared to leave the protection of such sea-lanes to people who have little interest in our survival as a nation?
And expeditionary ops are of what benefit for the defence of the United Kingdom in the modern world?
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats why I suggest a navy equipped to defend our shores. Aircraft carriers with their protective screens, for expeditionary work in foreign places, don't protect our shipping lanes, they consume resources better used elsewhere. Like anti-piracy patrolling, anti-submarine warfare, anti-smuggling etc. Oh, and lots of our own submarines for attacking other naval vessels that might interfere with our interests.
The Falklands have a perfectly serviceable airfield for fighters and maritime patrol aircraft and the submarine was a most effective weapon for keeping the Argentinian Navy in port. An aircraft carrier is, on the other hand, as fine a target as anything that sailed the seven seas - as any submariner or Super Etendard pilot will tell you.
The Falklands have a perfectly serviceable airfield for fighters and maritime patrol aircraft and the submarine was a most effective weapon for keeping the Argentinian Navy in port. An aircraft carrier is, on the other hand, as fine a target as anything that sailed the seven seas - as any submariner or Super Etendard pilot will tell you.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So am I and I still have an active and effective mind, awaken with an erection
Pensioners and old folk may "awaken with an erection" but the youngsters don't call it that any more....