Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE
18 FEBRUARY 2008
Q120 Mr Mitchell: Which is not good
enough really. I have seen from the international comparators
that the United Kingdom congratulates itself rather smugly on
being at the forefront of providing tailored, professional help
to military personnel as they leave. If you look at what is provided,
the Americans and to a degree the Australians provide far more
help generally. The help provided by the Americans is quite fantastic.
They are entitled to receive weekly unemployment for a year. If
they want to resume education, they are entitled to grants to
do so. Additional funding to pay for returning up to two years
after discharge. Disability compensation. A range of services
for personnel who are disabled. This is far more than we provide
in this country. Why are the Americans so generous and we are
so mean?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: No two national
schemes are the same. We have not been congratulating ourselves
because of the focus of this session. We do not see it that way.
The fact remains that the NAO Report said that overall our arrangements
compared very favourably to those of other nations.
Q121 Mr Mitchell: It says that because
you are providing good advice and help. That is agreed, but there
is far more help in cash terms, scholarships and all the other
things for the Americans and for other nationalities than for
our lads.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: The US system
certainly, in terms of longer term payments, is I think more generous
than any other.
Air Commodore Miles: I think there
is also an issue with the Americans of course, that a lot of their
system is making good shortfalls in provision which are provided
through our normal social welfare system—for example, on
the health care side and so on—which veterans would not
have access to were it not being provided.
Mr Mitchell: I would imagine, as it gets
more arduous and you get more of a problem, you are going to have
to provide more help in line with the Americans.
Q122 Mr Bacon: I would like to take
up where Mr Mitchell left off, Mr Baker, on this question of housing
and in particular the question of purchasing versus not among
officers and ratings and officers and soldiers. If you turn to
page 23, the chart there in figure ten shows a very distinct difference
between the Royal Navy and the Marines on the one hand and the
Army and the Royal Air Force on the other. You can see it is all
higher for officers. Officers are 84% for the Navy and it is over
two thirds for both the Army and the Air Force but it is 70% for
ratings in the Navy, whereas other ranks in the Army are 30% and,
in the Air Force, 44%. That is a huge difference.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: Some of this
reflects the extent to which people move about. In the Navy it
is much more common for all ranks to base themselves and their
families close to one particular place.
Q123 Mr Bacon: It is cultural, is
it not, to a large extent?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: It is.
Q124 Mr Bacon: We have probably had
more concern expressed to us during the visit about housing than
any other issue and I think that is probably why you have had
so many questions about it. Given that it is more difficult in
many ways for the Army and, to an extent, the Air Force, that
obviously places an extra duty on you, if you want to be sure
that for example they are not going to become an extra burden
on the state later, to help them with housing. I am pleased to
hear that you have flexed the rules with the scheme referred to
in paragraph 3.7 about planning to occupy but I am wondering if
you are doing enough because it is quite clear from paragraph
3.18—this is the one on the homelessness duty—where
it says, "The Department makes it clear to Service Leavers
during its housing briefings that few are likely to be entitled
to the main homelessness duty." In many cases, they had better
do something else. Surely the time to tell them that is not when
they are Service Leavers; it is the moment that they arrive so
that you are helping them very early on in their military careers.
Obviously those who stay longer will get more help. One understands
that. By the time they come to leave more of them have done something
about it. More of them have become home owners because it will
help you as custodian of the public purse.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: I agree with
that. We touched on it a little earlier and, for that reason,
my own view is that quite the most important part of this agenda,
taking it forward as opposed to looking into the past, is the
part that is about improving the performance of the chain of command
within the individual services. We talked earlier about the Army.
Since this Report was published, the Army has embarked on quite
a significant programme of improvement which is partly about auditing.
It is partly about what in a different context would be called
line management.
Q125 Mr Bacon: We were told on some
occasions, "I had a commanding officer who told me"
and some did not, so that is basically what you are saying.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: Frankly, it
is about consistency in that respect. It is about all commanding
officers doing what they best do, as in any other walk of life.
I think you are absolutely right. It is only when we get to the
point where that discussion is going on and there are alert, well
briefed people close to the service man or woman who are able
to talk knowledgeably about the options and the prospects. That
is the point at which we will begin to address the issue that
you quite validly raise.
Q126 Mr Bacon: Do you think you could
extend the scheme further in a way that would enable military
personnel to save with the MoD as they went along? After all,
the government has just nationalised a mortgage bank so it is
an area you are getting into anyway.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: If you think
I am going to answer questions about that—
Q127 Mr Bacon: It was not an invitation.
It just came to me as I was asking this question. It does seem
to me you are either going to have to help them the other end
by applying more pressure to local authorities or you can do more
at the beginning. If you had a more pervasive saving scheme, if
you like, save to buy that was part of their induction when they
join the armed services, you would have a smaller problem at the
other end, would you not?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: It is a very
interesting thought. My colleagues may tell me we have already
looked at it but it is certainly something we should look at.
Q128 Mr Bacon: For those who are
approaching the state in one form or another, this was the bit
that worried me when you said that, after the guidance has been
issued, it is to be hoped that local authorities will take a different
attitude in future. It just struck me as a bit hand-wringing,
hopeful and slightly wet. Is it not better to lay down what ought
to happen and to make sure that local authorities have a statutory
duty? These are special people who have served the country. As
Geraldine Smith said, they should get points. Do they get any
kind of points through your scheme, your proposed changes to the
legislation? Is that a factor?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: Subject to correction
from my left, they do not get any different priority than they
would have under the homelessness legislation anyway.
Q129 Mr Bacon: Not a lot is going
to change.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: What they do
get is an assurance that they will not have their lack of local
connection held against them.
Q130 Mr Bacon: There is just one
thing that the local authority housing officer or the housing
association officer will no longer be able to throw at them, although
they probably will because it will take a while for the rules
to percolate down. Essentially, you are not saying to local authorities,
"You must treat these people as special", are you?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: As I said earlier,
the second bit of it is the bit about the authorities that are
to my mind not acting consistently with the existing guidance
on engaging with people, giving them advice and support before
they are evicted from service accommodation. On that we are talking
to DCLG colleagues. The intention is to tighten up that guidance
very significantly so that local authorities will not have any
excuse for doing other than the right thing. As I said a little
earlier, there is always the option of legislation if it is necessary.
Q131 Mr Bacon: I would like to move
on to the issue of mental health for people who have left the
services. The Defence Select Committee Chairman this morning praised
the treatment of battle field injuries but went on to say that
they had concerns about mental health. You described the approach
as one of enhanced support for GPs and enhanced support for those
who may need help later. How much do you spend on that?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: Without notice
I cannot say but we can certainly provide it, unless one of my
colleagues can say.[10]
Q132 Mr Bacon: How much do you spend
on radio advertising for veterans who may need your help?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: We had better
write to you.[11]
Q133 Mr Bacon: Do you know if you spend
any? I hear ads for people who are looking for a job, who have
been out of work for a long time, who need to reskill and maybe
have problems with literacy and numeracy. I hear ads for reporting
benefit cheats, so it is something the government does. I have
never heard a radio ad that says, "You have served this country.
You have done something that nobody else does and you have watched
your best friend die in front of you with his head blown off,
rolling across the ground near your feet". Something the
media are very bad at making clear is what really these people
go through. "You may need some help. We are here to help.
Phone this number." Has there ever been a radio ad like that
or something like that?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: I do not know
myself whether radio advertising features. There is definitely
a campaign to communicate the existence of—
Q134 Mr Bacon: Is there anybody here
who knows if there has ever been a radio ad?
Mr Baker: I am fairly certain
there has not been a radio ad, no.
Q135 Mr Bacon: I am afraid that speaks
volumes.
Mr Baker: We have advertised in
newspapers and our strategy here involves getting the service
charities on board as well.
Q136 Mr Bacon: The great thing about
a radio ad is that it percolates. People hear it and then they
tell their mate, do they not? This was an article in The Daily
Telegraph on 17 October last and it says, "Everyone loves
our smashing soldiers when on parade in their smart dress uniforms,
bully boots, sparkling off the cobbles as they march off to war.
It is only when they come back with bits broken off or hollowed
eyed at what they have seen that the relationship sours and the
love affair turns cold. It is only when they actually want something
from us that it seems to be decided at various levels that they
are irksome pests, malingerers or worse. Returning soldiers cannot
get adequately housed or properly cared for in hospital which
is an ongoing national disgrace. Neither do they get the respect
they deserve or a proper understanding of what they have been
through." Do you recognise that description? Do you think
it is to some degree fair?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: I recognise
the description, Mr Bacon. I think in the comment near the end
about healthcare for those returning from operations in particular,
yesterday's report, in fact, is warmer about the performance of
Selly Oak, in particular, and Hedley Court and, indeed, is full
of praise for the service in theatre. What I do recognise is an
issue that I think concerns all of us who are interested in defence
about public attitudes and the extent to which when servicemen
and women return from theatre they find a less supportive and
sympathetic response sometimes—not always—than they
might hope for.
Q137 Mr Bacon: Do you know what the
national suicide rate is?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: I do not know
offhand.
Q138 Mr Bacon: 700,000, which is
less than 0.01%, I suppose it is 0.007%. It is famously said that
more vets in Vietnam who came back committed suicide afterwards
than were killed in Vietnam and that the same is true of the Falklands.
It is widely understood that over 300 people who served in the
Falklands have committed suicide since their return out of about
28,000 who served. That is about 1%, over 100 times higher. Do
you not think there is an awful lot more that you should be doing
down the line for these people?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: It is an extraordinarily
important issue and it is one that preoccupies us in the Department
and it preoccupies my senior military colleagues. You may feel
that when you add it all up we do not do as much as we might,
but there is no lack of will and there is no lack of appreciation
of just how important this issue is.
Chairman: Thank you. Our last questioner
is Mr Alan Williams.
Q139 Mr Williams: Just a couple of
questions. In paragraph 2.16 it points out the Individual Resettlement
Training Costs grant is £534. It also says that it has been
at that figure since 1993 and in that time it has lost a third
of its value. Why?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: I cannot explain
why it has been left.
10 Ev 22 Back
11
Ev 22-23 Back
| 
