| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for raising and for introducing so clearly a subject of concern to many of us. My name was the first and only one on the list of speakers--along with that of the noble Baroness--four weeks ago, but this week the wide interest in the matter was demonstrated by the addition of so many other Members' names that we are all limited to three minutes each.
I spoke in the debate two-and-a-half years ago and have studied carefully the reply given then by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. Today in a brief speech I must limit myself to one point together with a strong recommendation.
I must declare interests. I am a war pensioner having been severely wounded 52 years ago and have been involved since in disability organisations which include many ex-service people. I also succeeded the late Lord Lovat in his position in the Normandy Veterans' Association.
Much misunderstanding arises from the description "war pensions". A large proportion are compensation payments for injuries during service with no connection with a war. In a Written Answer to me, the Government recently stated:
The term is also emotive, as it was on 5th December last in the episode started by the Guardian. That morning I received telephone calls from national newspapers seeking my comments; one asking me to contribute an article. In the event, I was able to brief them and so cool down uninformed reactions. Some of them thanked me for my briefing on the following Monday and for my explanations which had saved them from a wild goose chase. The Guardian was good enough to publish a letter from me only five days after its original report. Some of the letters that I then received from the public were from people who were in receipt of war pensions. They had served for short periods in peace time only and in Britain. They thanked me for pointing out in my letter that their pensions had rightly been awarded as compensation for injuries. They had suffered impaired hearing from firing their weapons on practice ranges. This damage was caused by our own friendly cordite propellant, not by high explosive or enemy action.
In 1942, half-way through World War II, as a battery commander I insisted that the relevant soldiers who manned my field guns wore ear plugs. After the war I was told that I was among the first, if the not the first, to do so. Later it became compulsory. That kind of ear injury is different from the serious damage that can be inflicted by high explosives. The blast from enemy shells bursting very close by sometimes broke or perforated ear drums. The effect was serious because it could also expose the brain to damage.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that he has been speaking for over four minutes. I am sorry but I must interrupt him.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Green Paper entitled Government Direct describes a vision of a one-stop shop for the delivery of government services. Can we press the Government tonight through that open door for a one-stop shop for veterans? Current policy which deals with veterans on the same basis as other members of the community fails to acknowledge the debt we owe to those who have taken up arms to fight and, if necessary, to sacrifice their lives. Government and the nation should never cease to treat servicemen and women in later life in a special and privileged way. We rely on volunteers to man the Armed Forces.
Recruiting and early retirement figures indicate that the forces no longer attract the same degree of support that they once did. This is a worrying and damaging trend. If it is allowed to develop further, there may come a day when the only way to find people to man the services will be to return to a form of compulsory service. We have a worrying example of this trend in the defence medical services. There was a time when the services took great pride in the commitment and calibre of their medical services. They may not have been as stretched in peace time as their equivalents in the NHS, but they were always there in emergency and war, giving marvellous care and attention to those who were wounded or traumatised in battle. In peace time they helped veterans and their families. What the services once had but have no longer was a form of private medicare which was responsive and directed to services' needs. The NHS with its wider community responsibility cannot match that. Servicemen, and the medical services themselves, recognise this departure from a standard and a lowering of clinical services. Other examples of less than special consideration for veterans and their dependants abound. For example, post-1973 war widows do not retain their Armed Forces family pensions for life if they remarry.
On its own, each step that further integrates servicemen and women, and their longer term interests as veterans, within the wider community may seem insignificant. But, like a straw on the camel's back, there comes a point when the collective impact is so clear and detrimental that it can be recognised by all. Then it is too late. We need a constant stream of able-bodied and committed volunteers. If we no longer give them and their forebears special recognition, they will not come
I hope that the Government will take heed of these warning signs. A willingness to treat veterans in a special way would be a welcome change to a worrying policy. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others who are unable to contribute to this limited debate, feel as I do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue.
7.36 p.m.
"The War Pensions Agency does not maintain a statistical breakdown of awards due to war and other service".--[Official Report, 13/1/97; col. WA 3.]
So, I can only guess the proportion. From my own knowledge and experience I suggest that it is now about half the total number being paid. The media and the public do not know that. I have tested them by asking many in recent weeks, and in reply they assume that all war pensioners were damaged by the enemy in a war. Misleading impressions have thus been given to the detriment of various categories of ex-service people. The term "war pension" is inaccurate and misleading in its present use. My recommendation is that it should be changed to "armed forces disability pension" with a similar change to what is now called the "War Pensions Agency".
7.43 p.m.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Dean on her fine speech. I am delighted to follow the noble and gallant Lord's speech. It has all been said by my noble friend Lady Dean and the Royal British Legion in its splendid briefing, which no doubt the Minister has read. I should like to make two short points. First, I believe that account must be taken of the changing nature of war. We are all aware of the injuries to soldiers in past wars that are exacerbated by age. We are now becoming aware of the injuries sustained in the recent Gulf War. Goodness knows what lies ahead given the changes in the method of war. We do not know what other kinds of injuries our forces will suffer in future. What we do know is that knowledge, expertise and understanding are required. Without that, we will not be able to deal with either the old injuries or the new ones.
Secondly, whenever in the past I have campaigned against the Ministry of Defence I have found it to be ambivalent. Sometimes it is wonderfully co-operative; at other times it is rigidly dogmatic. On too many occasions it opposes progress. On Tuesday we shall be discussing in this House at Question time the issue of war pensions and deafness. In reply to my request to the Minister a few weeks ago for a veterans' association the Minister said "No thank you". He said that it would create bureaucracy. That argument is bogus. I am sure that it will be raised this evening, as my noble friend Lady Dean has anticipated. In this debate, we do not seek bureaucracy but the very opposite. Bureaucracy arises when people do not understand and are not aware of the facts. If the institution that we ask for is set up it will be the opposite of bureaucracy.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this small and constructive suggestion. I remind him that the "bureaucracy" argument was used when it was suggested that there be a Minister for disabled people. It was then a false argument and it is an equally false argument today. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept our suggestion.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of the Earl Haig branch of the Royal British Legion and also as an ex-serviceman and recipient of a disability payment for noise-induced deafness. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for raising this question. I also compliment my noble friend the Minister upon his personal sympathetic and conscientious interest in the whole subject of the welfare of ex-servicemen and women.
I believe that a strong case can be made for setting up an ex-service affairs unit. It need be composed of only a small number of civil servants and can be situated in an existing department of the Government's choosing. As a focal point it would co-ordinate government policy and be a point of reference for ex-service people and organisations which represent them in relation to the more than 20 government departments and agencies and local authorities with whom they now have to deal. That will prevent them from being given what is often a very lengthy run-around.
As I understand it, the Legion seeks a partnership with Whitehall. This would entail access to an informed Minister with overall responsibility for ex-service matters. I believe that this would encourage an exchange of views and information on matters of concern to both sides. I also believe that it would be helpful to the Government in formulating measures and legislation. It would reassure the ex-service community, which, after all, forms about a quarter of the population, that its interests are being heeded. And, what is most important, it is likely that real savings in administrative costs could be made and a better service provided. In the light of that, I very much hope that my noble friend and his department will look at this matter again.
7.50 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this Unstarred Question. I declare an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army, although the matters in question do not affect me.
When talking to regular soldiers, one common concern is aired frequently; that is, what happens if they are killed, seriously injured or medically discharged as a result of an injury sustained during operations or training? It is important to remember that an awful lot of very nasty injuries are sustained during training as opposed to on operations. I became aware some time ago of an incident in which a serviceman and a civilian were both injured in the same preventable accident. The civilian was promptly compensated but the serviceman was not. Thankfully, recent changes have alleviated that problem.
I have never been involved in a military operation, but I have worked as a civilian aid worker in an operational zone. One is prepared to take risks but one wants to be confident that one will be looked after if one comes to grief. The noble and gallant Lord referred to the defence medical services, with which there is a bit of a problem. Confidence in assistance is vital if morale is to be maintained, whether one was wearing a green suit or a white one.
The duty of the MoD, however, is to defend the UK's interests. I am not convinced that it should be responsible for these welfare matters. What is important is that our ex-service personnel are looked after properly. Sadly, I expect that we shall never be completely satisfied with the provision of support, whatever the colour of the Government.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |