 British casualty figures continue to rise in Afghanistan; Service Chiefs, just as they did in Iraq, continue to criticise the level of helicopter support and lack of sufficiently armoured vehicles; defence procurement in a recent official report has been condemned as incompetent.
The Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (AFPS) has been in existence for 21 years.
Its aim is laudable, to provide MPs with a thorough understanding of the Armed Forces, which includes, training, procurement of equipment and visiting combat operations overseas.
Selected MPs attend for up to 30 days in one year and may be further selected for subsequent attendance.
Some have spent as long as 10 years on the scheme.
Such participation should enable MPs to identify and speak out about the shortfalls in procurement and lack of resources that have beset our troops but few have done so.
One MP on the AFPS in 2007 visited Afghanistan, on return he criticised the lack of helicopters and was expelled from the scheme.
So what is the problem?
Freedom of Information requests submitted have identified that the AFPS is not run by the MOD or Parliament but by a private individual who acts as the un-elected Chairman together with a council of Defence Contractors who provide financial support.
Selection and de-selection appears to be in the gift of the self appointed Chairman who has also denied public access to the AFPS accounts.
MPs on the scheme wear AFPS uniforms and are promoted annually. Some now hold the AFPS rank of Air Commodore or Brigadier and wear strange badges of rank depicted by crowns and a parliamentary portcullis.
This small private ‘Army’ also award themselves medals for services to defence at special dinners in the Speaker’s dinning room in Parliament!
Freedom of Information requests have also identified that MPs have been exempt declaring benefits accrued from this privately sponsored scheme on the parliamentary register of interests.
There have also been overtures by the AFPS to the Electoral Commission seeking MPs be exempt from declaring benefits from the scheme. These requests have been turned down.
Providing MPs with a clear understanding of the armed forces is important, especially if they are to be encouraged to speak out when things are not right.
However it is inappropriate for the AFPS to be privately controlled or funded especially by defence contractors if, at the very least, a perception of a conflict of interest is to be avoided.
I have written to the Prime Minister and the Leaders of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties requesting immediate action to remove the AFPS from private ownership and create greater transparency and accountability of the scheme if it is to continue.
I have also requested the charade of AFPS ranks and medals be dispensed with, as it is an affront to the brave servicemen and women who have earned their rank and medals in the defence of our country.
Indeed, a large number of service personnel still wait to have their many years of service appropriately recognised by the striking of a National Defence medal.
| 
