| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Disgraceful.
Dr. Lewis: If they are honest with themselves, hon. Members in all parts of the House will, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, consider that disgraceful.
The charity does not have the money to carry out a roof replacement scheme, which means that its large swimming bath at the main establishment at Ovingdean cannot be used, even though it is both recreational and designed for hydrotherapy. It cannot be used for fear of masonry falling on the people using it. That is a desperate situation, and it is a no-fault situation. The building is simply suffering from the form of concrete cancer that has affected so many structures put up in the 1960s.
St. Dunstan's also needs specialist bathrooms. There was no chance of getting them without that money, but now the charity is to try again. There is reason for hope. The Charity Commissioners have all along been carefully monitoring the situation, to determine whether St. Dunstan's was too wealthy to go on raising money. They decided some years back that it was, but subsequently realised that the charity did need to go on raising money, once its reserves ran down.
The Charity Commissioners have just agreed that, from 2 March, St. Dunstan's can expand its activities to include those people who were in the services and have become seriously visually impaired, virtually to the point of blindness, even if that is not directly attributable to being in action. As a condition, the Charity Commissioners said that St. Dunstan's must ring-fence its existing resources so that only those formerly served by the charity will receive the interest from them. The National Lottery Charities Board therefore has an opportunity to do a U-turn and make amends belatedly for its previous insensitive and unacceptable refusal.
I want to refer briefly to one more event. On 1 June, the unveiling ceremony of a new national memorial to the 6,000 members of the Fleet Air Arm who laid down their lives in defence of this country will take place in Victoria embankment gardens. I know that the House is well aware of the importance of that good cause because I had the privilege of tabling an early-day motion before Armistice
day last year when I gathered 100 signatures from all parties in 48 hours. It was retabled as early-day motion 16 and it now has 137 signatures.We all pay routine obeisance to the memories of those who died, but I want to conclude by referring to one of the incidents that involved 13 of those 6,000 people who lost their lives. They are the 13 Swordfish aircrew who lost their lives on 12 February 1942 when 18 airmen in six Swordfish attacked the German battle-cruiser fleet that was sailing up the English channel from Brest to the safety of German waters.
The deed is well known but is diminishing in the public perception as time goes by. If pushed, most people could remember that Eugene Esmonde, the leader of the squadron, was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross. On the day before his last flight, he had been invested with the Distinguished Service Order for being the first man to torpedo the Bismarck.
When the aeroplanes went in, the crews knew that they had no chance. Their top speed was just 90 knots, the battle fleet was sailing away from them at 30 knots, and they were easy targets. I conclude with the account by Terence Robertson of what faced the last three aircraft. He writes:
- They crossed the outer screen, approached the inner, losing height. Struggling to fly, bodies in ribbons, wings like skeletons with the struts showing bare and crews who must not only be wounded but dead or dying, they crossed the line of destroyers and met the smoky spumes of water thrown up by the heavy ships' "water-spout" barrage . . . It is officially presumed that they dropped their torpedoes before the end. In this event it must also be assumed that they came out from that horrible cascade of cordite and water with the mask of death already set on their faces as they followed Eugene Esmonde into the Narrow Sea.
Neither the three Swordfish nor the nine youngsters who manned them were ever seen again.
6.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I apologise for not having been present throughout the debate, although I heard the opening speeches. One reason for my absence was my participation in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Hon. Members will understand the pressures under which we work.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak briefly about armed services personnel. I am especially pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who spoke extremely well, especially about the debt that we owe to others. That is too easily forgotten in modern society.
I shall not speak about the need to increase defence spending, although it exists. I shall not speak of overstretch or overcommitment. I shall not talk about undermanning. Instead, I shall concentrate on the reasons for the problem with recruitment and retention, and why people join and stay in the armed forces.
The Minister commented on how he is addressing the disincentives to service life. Although he made some useful points, he may have missed one or two. I shall elaborate. When I joined the Army in 1974, a fifth of my graduate course had been to Oxford university and some
had been to Cambridge or others. If one is allowed to say so in these politically correct, non-elitist times, there were people from good, established universities and people who had had other opportunities. I trust that good graduates from good universities still join the armed forces, but they are attracted elsewhere by enormous City bonuses and dot.com companies, which we probably do not understand. Of course money is an issue, but it was in 1974 when I joined and many people say that the disincentive is the status and perception of the armed forces in society.We know that the armed forces are still highly regarded--one has only to think of their work in Bosnia and Kosovo to know that--but I am always amazed when Members from other parties, particularly those on the left of the Labour party, say, "We should get the British Army in here. It would do the job so much better." I was particularly struck by that in Macedonia and Albania, where the Army did a good job. The forces are extremely good, but the issue is status and their treatment by society and the Government who employ them.
I have some brief points to make. I did two tours in Northern Ireland and saw friends killed out there. I went to too many funerals. Like the Royal Ulster Constabulary, many who served wonder whether it was worth it: British soldiers go to court charged with murder for doing what they believed to be their duty, whereas Adams and McGuinness get into government. We all know that they have been and probably still are on the IRA Council. I cannot speak for others, but I know that it hurts ordinary British soldiers to see people involved in terrorism admitted to government. Funnily enough, most service people would say, "All right, that is acceptable. It is a political decision and we will go that far for peace." However, that is but one problem. The second is the ethos of the armed forces.
The forces are different. They are fed up to the back teeth with political correctness and being told, "Gosh, you soldiers, sailors and airmen are marvellous, but you have to change because you do not live up to what we think society should be." I want to discuss the physical standards for women. I am delighted that they have joined, but if I or the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is about to make the wind-up speech, were stuck on a battlefield with a bullet wound in the leg, I would want a strong man to pick me up. He would agree, because very few women could do it. It is as simple as that.
I am not going to bang on about homosexuality. There have always been homosexuals in the armed forces, but if soldiers, sailors and airmen who are hot-bedding--perhaps sharing beds in submarines--do not want to share bunks with homosexuals, why must they be forced so to do? In my view, political correctness is undermining the armed forces, and they think so as well. I refer briefly to the European convention on human rights. There will be many court cases about people being told off by their commanding officer. They are already taking place, which is a great pity, and that is but part of what is undermining the ethos of the armed forces.
Hon. Members will be glad to know that I am on my final point as the wind-up speeches are about to start. The armed forces like to be valued and appreciated, which is normal. We all like to be appreciated--we know that as politicians.
Dr. Moonie: I appreciate you, Andrew.
Mr. Robathan: I thank the Minister for his sedentary intervention.
The issues are not only pay, allowances and the attack on the old-fashioned way in which members of the armed forces do things, but the way in which they are perceived by Ministers and their political masters. In October, three of the five Foot Guards battalions were on operations in Northern Ireland. The Irish Guards were still in Kosovo, where they were the first battalion into Pristina. At Christmas, while we were enjoying our turkey with our feet up, two battalions were still running around the streets of Northern Ireland, working on behalf of the Government and the people of this country. Yet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whom they were serving directly in a security role, did not thank them. He called them chinless wonders. Now the armed forces know how they are regarded at the dinner parties of the chattering classes in Hampstead and Islington. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) laugh. Let me tell her that that is what soldiers with whom I served say to me. They are very upset. Perhaps no one should be surprised when members of the armed forces do not wish to remain there.
I note in passing that another chinless wonder has just walked in.
I assure Labour Members that this is what the three of us on this side feel. No one should be surprised when armed forces personnel have a sense of being undervalued and under-appreciated. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to do what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not done, and apologise for the fact that a huge number of guardsmen have given their lives, are still serving, or have given a lifetime of service to this country. Guardsmen are still doing that in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the Minister will apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |