| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken, all of whom, except for the very brief and somewhat perplexing contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and possibly that of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, supported this amendment. The noble Earl said that he feared that this amendment might produce an unduly onerous situation for club officials. He would have preferred to see a part of the pistol kept at the club and the weapon kept at home. No doubt that is something that one could consider. But I put it to the noble Earl that the inconvenience of enforcing the kind of security arrangements which the clubs are facing when forced to look after a whole arsenal of arms would be very much more onerous than the situation which this amendment provides. There would also be the inconvenience of having to close the clubs down because they simply could not afford the security arrangements which appear to be required.
I believe that I was encouraged to hear my noble friend Lady Blatch say that she would go away and read what has been said. I need to press her a little further on that. Will she go away and read what has been said with a view, possibly before Report stage--which I believe is to be on 4th February--to meeting me and others in the meantime to move some way towards accepting this very sensible amendment? For instance, will she have the Warlow versus Greenwood correspondence referred to the Firearms Consultative Committee in the meantime, which I understand is the independent advisory body to the Home Secretary?
If my noble friend cannot move some way in the direction that I have mentioned, in view of the unanimous support which I have received from Members of the Committee, for which I am extremely grateful, I can only say to her that this amendment is far cheaper, far safer and allows thousands of people to go on shooting. Will she reply to the points that I have made?
Baroness Blatch: I have to say to my noble friend that I cannot go as far as he wishes. I will do all that I have promised between this and the next stage of the Bill. I will meet anyone who wishes to discuss matters with me, as I have always done on Bills. I shall do all this without prejudice to the next stage of the Bill. That is all I can promise.
Noble Lords: That is fair enough.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: A number of noble Lords have said "That's fair" and I very much hope that it is. I shall certainly return to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee meets again at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Ex-servicemen's Welfare
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the case for establishing a special unit within the Ministry of Defence, with a designated Minister, responsible for the care and welfare of ex-servicemen and women and their dependants.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords taking part in the debate may wonder why I, with my trade union background, and certainly a non-service one, feel so strongly that I have put this Question down on the Order Paper this evening. I declare an interest. Until a few years ago I knew very little about the Armed Forces. But I was appointed to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, a position that I held with some pride and increasing interest for just over two years. I experienced an increasing respect for the service personnel that I came to meet in my work as a member of that body.
There was a debate in this Chamber on the issue in May 1994 initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Haig. Noble Lords who spoke in that debate have put their names down again this evening. I am indebted to them and to the new speakers in this debate.
This is an issue whose time has come. It is the right time for the Government to review their position and to accept this proposal which has now been discussed quite widely, not just in this Chamber, for some time. It is not a party political issue but one which unites noble Lords across the parties. It is also one which united Members of another place, some 280 of them, in signing an early-day Motion.
I regret that the Government have continually stonewalled the claim for a single unit, a focal point within the Ministry of Defence, with a Minister responsible for our ex-service personnel and their families. I do not know why they have stonewalled. I can only believe that they have some belief in the view that they put forward that the present procedures are quite sufficient. I reject that view, if indeed the Government hold it. I do not believe that the right way to treat our ex-service personnel is to give them the run-around around Whitehall on the problems that they face.
Having a central focal point would be in the Government's interests also. Indeed, it is not a unique or new idea. There are single focal points in Whitehall for other area of public policy and, by and large, they work. For nearly 18 years the Royal British Legion and
other bodies representing veterans and service personnel have tried to press home the need for a single focal point. Other countries have similar departments. There is a special government department in the United States. However, I stress that that is not what we are pressing for. Particular factors in the United States relating to healthcare and its funding have called for other arrangements. But Canada, Australia and New Zealand have such departments, and veterans in France, Holland and Germany enjoy a better co-ordination of services than happens in this country, with special sections or subsections in their defence ministries.The Government here, however, have repeatedly fobbed off veterans with regard to this proposal. They have sometimes implied that to establish such a unit would be to confer a special privilege. I totally and utterly reject that argument. Special privilege indeed! But yes, we do have a special responsibility. The nation has such a special responsibility and it is up to the Government to take the nation's responsibility on board and ensure the future of those within our community who, at the core of their service, knowingly put their lives at risk. As part of their commitment to this country, our ex-service personnel were knowingly prepared to pay the ultimate price that anyone could pay.
Survivors of the Second World War and the Korean War spent years away from their families. Many of them spent many years in hospital and, when their service commitment was over, were often unable to return to a full and active life as a result of the damage that had been done to their health. How many families and how many lives have been torn apart in that way? The Government, however, have consistently argued that a single focal point is not necessary. Our argument is not based on emotion. Our case is supported by arguments of efficiency and because we have a duty and a responsibility as a nation to treat our ex-service personnel honourably. That responsibility must be honoured.
Some say that we are talking about a diminishing group of people. I question that and ask whether the issues have gone away. Looking back over the past three or four years, I would say that the issues have become more complex. Who could have imagined the long-term fall-out of the Gulf War in terms of the health problems which, it is contended, have been caused to our service personnel who took part in it? That issue was long denied by the Government, including in this House, leading to a government apology being issued both in this House and in another place--but too late, in my view. In fact, the apology was dragged out of the Government line by line by Members of both another place and this House. Notable among them has been the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her unstinting work. For how long did the Government assert that there was no such thing as what had become known as "Gulf War syndrome"?
What about the veterans of Northern Ireland? I have been there as part of my work on the pay review body. I have spoken to those veterans and to their families, who feel isolated from the mainstream of British life. I am talking about an area that is close to these shores
and yet one can think of few more inhospitable places in which to do one's duty, with the possibility of a bullet or a bomb around the next corner to end one's life. That is not emotive; it is a fact.Another argument that is used against establishing a special unit is that it would create bureaucracy. I do not accept that. In fact, I suggest that such a unit would help government by bringing together those involved.
I suggest that events since our last debate on this subject have undermined the confidence which many ex-service personnel, their families and organisations have long had in the ability of the centre, Whitehall, to look after their affairs. The pensions issue is but one such example--the allegations in the media derived from the so-called Red Book and the Budget. There are reported to be planned savings of £15 million in pension payments to ex-service personnel. I do not know whether that is a fact. I know what I have read, however, and I know what our ex-service personnel feel about it. They no longer have confidence that the Government will meet their responsibilities in this area.
We have read that ex-service personnel will no longer be issued with reminders to claim their benefits. We have read allegations that those who appeal will no longer be referred to the Royal British Legion. That is perhaps because the legion has been so successful in helping people to claim benefits. I hope that in his reply the Minister will categorically deny that there will be any reduction in pensions funding and that he will deny those two allegations. I hope that he will say that people will continue to be referred to the Royal British Legion and that they will continue to receive the reminders that they have received in previous years.
As I have said, I am grateful to noble Lords who are to participate in this debate. Perhaps I may say in conclusion that we all know--this has often been demonstrated--that the Government do not always know best. This is one such occasion. In refusing to establish a single focal point, I suggest that they are standing on an island by themselves. The case is supported by Members of this House, by a record number of Members of another place and by representatives and organisations of ex-service personnel--all of whom base their support on their practical knowledge and experience and as a result of having spoken to the many thousands of ex-service personnel who all feel strongly that the best way to deal with their case is to establish a single focal point, with a Minister to oversee the issues affecting them. That does not mean that the issues will not be discussed across Whitehall. Of course that will happen, as is the case with other special units such as those for the regions or issues affecting women.
Ex-service personnel need a single focal point to which they and their representatives can go. I think that establishing such a unit is a small price to pay for the fact that, while in the services, those personnel faced a reduction in the democratic rights that we all take for granted. I am proud to have tabled this Unstarred Question.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |