| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 Apr 2009 : Column 7WH—continued
9.54 am
Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who has outlined many of the concerns that veterans have, and that hon. Members have on their behalf.
Last year, after the successful national veterans day celebrations in Blackpool, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and I set up the all-party group on veterans, so that there would be a
focus in this place for debating of veterans’ issues and for exploring how we can take forward such concerns as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire outlined in his speech.
I shall begin by being positive: we set up the all-party group because of the success of veterans day, when we had a focus for celebration of the role of veterans. Because Blackpool won the privilege of hosting the national event, we had not just one day but several weeks of celebrations, including a week of concentrated celebrations in which we involved young people. Schoolchildren as well as veterans got involved, as did people from across the community. We all respect the work that our armed forces personnel do on our behalf: they risk their lives. We must remind people—young and old and in all sections of the community—of that essential work and of society’s responsibility to ensure that individuals who leave the armed forces, for whatever reason, are properly looked after in the community.
The veterans day celebrations in Blackpool were a huge success, and were attended by the Duchess of Cornwall and the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), whom I congratulate on the work that he did as veterans Minister in raising the profile of veterans. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister who is present today is continuing that good work and is a champion of veterans.
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Lady on Blackpool’s national veterans day celebrations. In Castle Point more than 500 people attended the veterans day event, which was a great success. This year there will be a veterans day event on Canvey island, run by Canvey Island town council and me, which we expect will be attended by the Gurkhas, as well as Chelsea pensioners. Will the hon. Lady be mentioning residency rights for Gurkhas, and policy changes that the Government can make to help them?
Mrs. Humble: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the Gurkhas. It is a great pleasure, in Blackpool, to attend various events organised by veterans and local associations, not least of which is the Burma Star Association, which has held its annual event in Blackpool for the past several years. Sadly, last year’s event was the last one, because of the age of veterans. Each year they invited Gurkha representatives to the celebrations, so I have had the immense privilege each year of speaking to those men and their wives and children. They have concerns about their pension rights and their right to settle in this country, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. However, I know that the Government have made available rights for post-1999 Gurkhas, and we must acknowledge their good work on that.
I meet not only Burma Star veterans but representatives of other veterans groups in my constituency, including the King’s Own Royal Border Regiment. Retired members regularly contact me and they are a wonderful, lively bunch of people; their regiment has changed over the years and been amalgamated two or three times, but they still take an interest in what is happening to it now. A problem for the Minister is the one that was outlined by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire when he introduced the debate: how the Government keep track of veterans. There are organisations for retired members of certain regiments and organisations.
However, we should remember that not all veterans served in the second world war or—those few who are still alive—in the first world war. We have many younger veterans. The hon. Gentleman outlined some of the problems that they face when leaving the armed forces. They sometimes become involved in criminality, and they can suffer stress-related illnesses and have mental health problems. Indeed, a survey conducted by Manchester university, published last month, found that young men who had served in the armed forces were as much as three times more likely to take their own lives than their civilian counterparts. Clearly there are ongoing pressures on those who leave the armed forces. A balance is needed.
The House is constantly debating the surveillance society and how much the Government are keeping an eye on us—the big brother attitude. The Minister has a difficulty. He does not, I assume, want to be too overbearing in demanding to know where everybody is who has served in the armed forces, but if he wants to maintain a duty of care for those individuals he will need some sort of device to know where they are, or at least to know if they appear in prison or in hospital and then to deal with the problem.
Mr. Benyon: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. Does she agree that it is also our responsibility—or our locality’s responsibility—to take control of some of that data? We should encourage organisations such as community mental health teams, citizens advice bureaux, social services and local authorities to ask whether people are veterans or have served in the armed forces in recent years, as that may bring a different dimension to the problem, their time serving on military operations possibly being its root cause. Does she agree that much could be done locally in encouraging organisations in our constituencies to be conscious of the needs of veterans when recording information, as they make their initial approach to people who may be in a vulnerable state?
Mrs. Humble: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I see it as a way forward. The Government are introducing personalised health and social care; in the latter case, personalisation is about getting to know the individual for whom the care is provided, and discussing their needs and problems instead of saying, “We are going to provide X for you. You are going to fit into this round hole even though you would fit better in a square hole.”
Personalisation is the key. It involves social care staff, doctors, nurses and anyone within the health and social care continuum; they should find out much more about the individual and particularly whether the person is a veteran or a carer. People sometimes present a doctor with stress-related illnesses because they have caring responsibilities at home, but the doctor will not be able to cure the illness if he deals only with the immediate symptoms; he must look beyond the symptoms to the cause. That means asking the right questions. One of the questions should be, “Have you served in the armed forces? How does that affect you?” That could and should be a way forward.
I hope that the Minister, as a champion of the veteran, will consider that matter. People leaving the armed forces should be advised of the many organisations
that are there to help, a point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). We heard earlier about the Royal British Legion, which is an excellent organisation, but there are many others, especially the new ones that are there to help the younger men and women now leaving the armed forces. Those people need to be aware of the support and help that are available when they leave the forces, and we must ensure that that is followed up.
Before speaking about the military covenant, I turn to the local Royal British Legion. The Blackpool and the Thornton Cleveleys branches do amazingly good work for veterans, supporting them and offering advice on war pensions and benefits in general, and raising money each year in the poppy appeal. My hon. Friend the Minister may not be aware of the fact, but the Blackpool branch holds a poppython, a day of events in which individuals performing in the many shows in Blackpool are invited to put on free performances; they are always packed and they raise tens of thousands of pounds for the poppy appeal. A lot of really good work is taking place in towns throughout the country.
The Royal British Legion has made some comments on the military covenant. I shall not repeat the concerns already expressed about health, housing and social care. We are well aware of them, and improvements are being made, although more needs to be done. I pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire about bereaved families. We must remember not only those who die when serving in our armed forces, but the families who have lost their loved ones. They, too, need to be in our thoughts. They, too, need our support.
Many members of our armed forces lose their lives in peacetime. It does not happen only in active conflict. They can lose their lives in road traffic accidents or in barracks, sometimes by committing suicide, but sometimes in more murky circumstances. I have met the families of the four young trainees who lost their lives at Deepcut barracks; those families still want answers about what happened to their loved ones and how they could have died in such circumstances.
We should ensure that boards of inquiry are thorough in their investigations. Coroners inquests should give the families the answers that they so desperately need. If the families are not legally represented at such hearings, they may feel that the Ministry of Defence will outweigh them in the argument. We all know that inquests are inquisitorial, not adversarial. Nevertheless, it would help the coroner if the families had legal representation; it would mean that the right questions were asked, and that the families got the answers they deserved. The military covenant addresses the question of how to deal with bereaved families. I have said this to the Minister on many occasions, and I am sure that he will think of a reply, but it is a serious question.
Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Lady aware that, during our recent consideration of the Coroners and Justice Bill, although the Government did not accept amendments to introduce automatic support for families at inquests, they said that it was an interesting idea and gave tacit encouragement to the other place to consider enabling the coroner to allow barristers for the families as well as for the Government on an automatic or possibly discretionary basis?
Mrs. Humble: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. He and I both raised the issue of funding for bereaved families on the Second Reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill. I know that the Ministry of Justice was well aware of that. The Bill also introduced a charter for bereaved families, a welcome development. In some instances, bereaved families of service personnel can get legal aid and representation, but it is extremely difficult because of the usual financial tests. In exceptional circumstances, families can get legal aid and representation, but sadly too few manage it. We must not forget bereaved families when debating veterans and the military covenant, and I am pleased that many such families take part in Remembrance day processions. They come together so that local communities can see that they still care, even though their family members can no longer march in the processions themselves.
Finally, on a point that I have raised with the Minister before, the names of some individuals who died in non-combat circumstances are included in the roll of honour and national memorial, but others are not. The memorial is not managed directly by the Government, but nevertheless I hope that he will take into account the concerns of the families of some of the individuals whose names are not included.
Once more, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire on securing this debate and raising many important issues. We have taken steps forward, but sometimes the process seems achingly slow. However, we are moving in the right direction, and it is important that we, as Members of Parliament representing our constituents, continue to press the Government to keep moving forward.
10.11 am
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I apologise, Mr. Gale, to you and the Chamber, for arriving slightly after the beginning of this extremely important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) on securing it, and the hon. Member for Blackpool, South—
Mr. Gray: I beg her pardon. I meant the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Blackpool is such a wonderful place throughout, and I differentiate not between the two parts. However, she made some very good points.
Wiltshire is home to half the British Army, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) will speak on behalf of the Conservative party. His constituency is home to a large part of the infantry, whereas North Wiltshire tends to have the RAF, logistics corps and a large number of retired officers and other ranks. We speak, therefore, with much local knowledge. I also speak as chairman of the all-party group on the Army and as a patron of Mutual Support, which is the multiple sclerosis support group for military veterans.
I hope that the Chamber will forgive me if I make two or three rather disparate points, some of them a little more technical than others. If the Minister cannot answer them today, perhaps he will kindly do so later. This debate gives us an opportunity to thank, celebrate
and salute our armed services and veterans. The latter of course include those who have left only very recently and who have served in theatres of war. However, it also gives us the chance to consider welfare issues that have been raised very well already. The debate consists of those two halves. I hope that the Chamber will forgive me for congratulating in particular my own constituency and the good people of Wootton Bassett, who turn out in vast numbers—most recently, 5,000 of them—to pay tribute to the returning bodies brought back through RAF Lyneham. That little token of support has been taken up elsewhere and is a beacon for the rest of the nation.
On one small detail, however, a number of people have asked whether the high street in Wootton Bassett should be renamed. The awful title, “Highway for Heroes”, has been suggested. The people of Wootton Bassett, and members of the armed services to whom I have spoken, are totally and utterly opposed to any such tokenism. They turn up, from their homes and workplaces, to pay their respects to the bodies and then slip away again, and they simply do not want such tokenistic support for, or recognition of, what they do. The people of Wootton Basset, and, as I said, all the armed services, as far as I am aware, are wholly opposed to that suggestion. The editor of The Sun, who is campaigning for the change, might take note of the fact that it would not be the right thing to do.
There is talk of returning the magnificent and beautiful war memorial at Camp Bastion to the UK when the camp finally closes. The memorial is a stone picked up in the desert, topped with a cross made of spent cartridges from machine guns. It is a superb war memorial, and there has been some discussion about where it might go in the UK. Given that it carries the names of those whose bodies have been carried through Wootton Bassett, the high street might be a suitable location, in the long term. That might be a way of recognising the town’s mark of respect.
The all-party Army group has welcomed back brigades from Iraq, up till now, and Afghanistan from now onwards. That very visible thank you to our armed services does wonders for our veterans. Sometimes, I think that they sit at home wondering whether anyone recognises what they have done. The fact that Parliament is saying publicly that we thank and welcome back our troops from theatres of war sends an important message to veterans. All those things are extremely useful.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood used the expression “champion for veterans”. I do not know whether the Minister, who will be speaking in a few moments, is that champion, but I hope so, because we need one. We must praise and thank those who have given so much of their lives to the defence of the nation.
I shall deal with the two or three detailed matters. The first touches on the very good point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). The Territorial Army tends to draw people from around the nation into one TA centre, so when they come back from deployment and become veterans, they no longer have a tight-knit regimental family—they might have such a family with a regiment located in their geographical area. I hope that the announcement due later today on the review of the reserve forces will consider how TA veterans are looked after and how we can make good use of the TA.
Gurkhas have been mentioned. I have many Gurkhas in my constituency and I have some sympathy with those who have called for all Gurkhas who have served anywhere, any time, to be given rights of residence in the UK. However, I also have some doubts, because pre-1997, most Gurkhas were deployed in Hong Kong and so have no possible connection with the UK. I am not certain that it is right that any Gurkha who has ever served in the British Army should be allowed to come to the UK. A very good friend of mine, Mitra Pariyar, is researching at Oxford university—the first Dalit, or “untouchable”, from Nepal to study at Oxford—how Gurkha veterans survive in the UK. Veteran private soldiers’ pay does not go all that far in the UK, but it does go a very long way in Nepal. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) and I observed during a recent visit to Nepal that to a significant degree those who run the country and its economy are ex-Gurkhas. I am not certain, therefore, that we want all Gurkhas who served in the British Army to come and live for all time here in the UK. I look forward to the outcome of the current research in Oxford.
Mr. Lancaster: I think that I am the only Member to have served in the Brigade of Gurkhas—I did so twice in fact—and my concerns run even deeper than those of my hon. Friend. He is right that there should be a degree of equality for service personnel, but I am more concerned about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas. We face decisions about, for example, whether to cut the local regiment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), and we will probably face cuts to the TA later today. I fear that the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas has been damaged by some recent decisions.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about the future of the Gurkhas. We need to be very careful about that.
I shall continue my slightly disparate list of things on which I would like the Government to do more. I recently became involved with the excellent Wiltshire branch of the Royal British Legion, which was campaigning very hard, standing outside supermarkets in my constituency collecting funds to enable D-day veterans to return to the beaches for the 65th anniversary. It was a sad sight in many ways, although in others quite an inspiring one: to see these great old boys standing outside Sainsbury’s saying, “We don’t care if the Government aren’t going to pay for our return on D-day. We will raise the money ourselves.” I salute them for doing so. I am glad that the Government—or at least the lottery—have listened to reason and are now funding the 65th anniversary of the D-day landings and paying for veterans to return to the site of one of their greatest triumphs, but it is disappointing that it took enormous television and media pressure before the Government gave in. Surely to goodness, if we are to respect and care for our veterans, one of the most basic fundamentals is to pay for them to return to the scenes of their triumph. I hope that the Government will listen more sympathetically to similar requests in the future.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |