| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Burnham: My Lords, this is a good Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is to be much congratulated on promoting it to smooth out issues that were left unsettled in the 1995 legislation. On Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill received general approval, but with one exception—the issue of the Armed Forces and disabilities. My noble friend Lord Swinfen and other noble Lords have outlined the case why disabled people are not suitable for service in the Armed Forces. In one sentence, the case is that they may be expected at any time to serve on the front line.
Disability does not always prevent someone serving. The smartest soldier I have ever known, General John Swinton, lost his leg in the last month of the 1939-45 war. He went on to serve as a Major-General in the Scots Guards. His father had lost a leg in the last month of the First World War in the Scots Guards and went on to serve thereafter. In his case, the loss of a leg did not prevent him doing everything necessary as a soldier.
If the Bill were to be enacted in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, it would enable someone to address himself to the Ministry of Defence and insist that he serve—although the existing system whereby people already serving may continue to serve seems to work extremely well. It is a major problem. On Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who I am delighted to see in her place, said:
- "I hope that suitable employment can be found for people who wish to work in their chosen profession. But a realistic and safe framework should be found; they must never put fellow workers at risk because of their disability".—[Official Report, 23/1/02; col. 1549.]
This is a good Bill, but it has one misguided aspect. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I do not like blanket bans, but I better understand since we have had these debates what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has been saying: that a serviceman, whatever his employ in the Army, must be prepared to fight. As the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, this is a good Bill. I believe that the Government have no real objection to anything in the Bill apart from this proposal—perhaps the Minister will confirm with a nod—and that it is a question of timing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I have said on many occasions that the Government are staying neutral on the Bill. We do not agree to it and we do not accept the arguments behind certain of its propositions. We do not propose to engage with them at this time. It is the wrong Bill at the wrong time.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I did not mean to lure the Minister to her feet. I believe that it is a good Bill and that, by and large, this is the provision to which most people, including the Government, object. I hope that the Bill will go its full passage with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because it would then be more acceptable.
I hope that there will be more talks with the Armed Forces. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to a blanket right for disabled people. Whom are we talking about in referring to "disabled people"? Are we talking about people who are mildly dyslexic, or those with, say, two fingers missing? We do not
know. It is not a blanket right because there are the concepts of justifiable discrimination and reasonable accommodation. If those concepts were better understood, perhaps we could have more chats with the Armed Forces and see whether there is some middle ground. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in his wisdom will feel able to accept the amendment for now.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness that the view I take relates to the current situation whereby disabled persons with certain disabilities are enabled to serve, which is a very satisfactory method. However, I also said that it was not desirable for this to be recorded in legislation.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. I believe this to be an issue upon which people are learning. My noble kinswoman Lady Darcy de Knayth has just admitted that she has changed her views somewhat in this respect.
I have two points to make. There has probably never been a period in my lifetime when greater demands were made on Her Majesty's Armed Forces all around the world. Indeed, I am not sure whether we have ever had a Prime Minister who is as ready, willing, and sometimes, almost eager, to commit Her Majesty's forces to a whole variety of tasks around the world. One effect of that has been a constant worry about over-stretch, which is primarily a shortage of resources—financial resources.
There are many jobs in the Armed Forces that disabled people can do, but there are also jobs that they cannot undertake. As my noble friend Lord Vivian pointed out, operational effectiveness is of paramount importance. At this time in our history, there is no way in which the Parliament of this country should be responsible for passing legislation that would reduce the most effective possible use of the limited resources that the Government are able to make available for Her Majesty's forces in the context of the apparently almost limitless demands upon their activities around the world.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will realise that those of us who fully support the concept behind his Bill recognise the importance of disability being accommodated in every possible way. However, I trust that he will also acknowledge that the paramount requirement in this case is operational effectiveness, which means 100 per cent physical flexibility as regards the people who are recruited to serve in uniform.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I have an interest as a serving TA officer. I have DDA credentials, as I strongly supported Section 37 of the 1995 Act. I also strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will accept it.
I had not realised the effect of the noble Lord's Bill. Indeed, if I had, I should have contributed much earlier in the proceedings. I am still a serving TA officer, and was recently deployed on Exercise "Saif Sareera" in a headquarters situated in Oman. It was an
exercise, but also a deployment overseas. At one point I was involved with the management of an emergency situation; namely, a serious road traffic accident.All officers expect their subordinates to act in a pre-determined manner: they are trained to do so. I know what minimum levels of physical performance I can expect from all the soldiers. If I tell a soldier to run somewhere, I know that he will be able to do so; if I tell him to pick up a piece of kit and run with it, I know that he will be able to complete the task.
One of my previous officers commanding had miniature fingers—they were about half the length of normal fingers. But, obviously, he could complete all his physical tests; and, therefore, he was accepted for service. But the decision as to whether or not he should be accepted for service was purely a military decision and one that was made by a medical officer who understood the military requirements.
I have a great fear that we are constantly but slowly reducing our military effectiveness not by one significant change in policy or legislation but by a process of salami slicing, each thin slice bearable but the totality damaging to military ethos. It is also tempting to think that a lot of military employment opportunities could be away from combat areas and therefore suitable for persons with some disablement. That is quite true, but what about servicemen who become disabled as a result of their service? Surely those "soft" postings ought to be reserved for existing servicemen who are no longer able to carry out the full range of military duties. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, seriously to consider accepting the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it seems a great pity if a trained soldier who becomes disabled cannot be found a suitable job in, say, administration so that he does not have to be invalided out and leave his regiment. That would be a very expensive exercise. Nelson had one arm and one eye and still remained in the Navy. I still abide by my view that no one should be put in the position of endangering a colleague. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I feel strongly that there should be flexibility.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I was sorry to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was unable to attend the debate as he is unwell. I send my best wishes for his full recovery. I was also sorry to learn that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, was unable to attend the debate due to being delayed in Moscow. I looked forward very much to hearing the noble and gallant Lord speak. His comments would have added a great deal more weight to the weighty and marvellous debate we have had. Some absolutely brilliant speeches have been made.
Instead of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, we heard a contribution from an equally distinguished serviceman, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of
Radley. His contribution, like those of many others, was significant. Like all of the speeches in the debate it was constructive. I shall try to respond in kind.First, there seems to be some misunderstanding about what the Bill states. One noble Lord said that the Bill removes the exemption to join the Armed Services. However, it does no such thing. The Bill seeks to extend the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act to disabled service personnel. That is all. It does not seek to interfere with the arrangements for recruitment to the Armed Services or with any exemption.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, spoke with his usual felicity and fluency, as we have all come to expect. However, I am sorry to have to say that, although some of the speeches were absolutely splendid, I disagree with them. I want to explain why. But first I should say that there is a great deal of legitimate pride in the British Army, Navy and Air Force. Anyone proposing such a Bill, as I do, must not be seen to oppose that concept of fine services in any way. I too am an ex-soldier and I also believe that we have the finest Army, Navy and Air Force in the world and the most professional services in the world. That should and will be unquestioned despite the numerical superiority of other countries. We have brilliant Armed Forces of which we are proud.
One of my great pastimes is reading military history. I tell the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that I have just finished reading the diaries and biography of one of his distinguished predecessors; that is, Lord Alanbrooke, although he was in the Army, not the Air Force. I am fascinated by the great captains of industry—indeed, by captains down to privates. I have a very high regard for the services.
It is utterly wrong to try to expose any disabled serviceman to discrimination. The object of the clause is to protect them. Why should we leave our servicemen at the whim of anyone who decides to discriminate? My position is that I disagree with the amendment but I propose to agree to it. I should explain those two contradictory statements.
My first point relates to the argument that every single member of our service personnel should be available to fight in the front line. That is an outdated concept, which was relevant in the Boer War, in trench warfare and perhaps in the Second World War, but it is of absolutely no relevance in this modern age of sophisticated, computerised warfare. The armed services, despite the dogmatic statements of noble Lords, act as if they support my view in this regard.
I understand—this has been confirmed by noble Lords on all sides of the House—that the services retain some disabled personnel because they became disabled during their service. It is admirable that the services retain such people and I strongly support the practice. However, they would surely not retain those people if they expected every single one of them to fight in the so-called front line. Nor would they retain them if the operational effectiveness—that majestic phrase has been bandied about—of the services was affected. Would the Army, the Navy and the Air Force really
retain disabled personnel who were disabled in the services if that interfered with the operational effectiveness of the services? I do not believe for a moment that they would. Noble and gallant Lords who have been Chief of the General Staff could not possibly allow any interference with operational effectiveness. The Army, Navy and Air Force give the lie to the contentions that have been made about the damage that would be caused by the Bill. That is why the basic idea that lies behind the amendment is wrong.The object of the Disability Discrimination Act is simply to prevent any person or organisation from unreasonably discriminating against disabled people. The idea that disabled personnel who—properly and admirably—have been kept on in the services after they were disabled in service duties should be denied the protection of that Act is grossly unfair to those who have served their country, often heroically. It is a shoddy vote of thanks to those disabled service personnel for their dedication. In a sense, it is a two-fingered salute to their disabilities. That is why the amendment is wrong.
So much for the merits of the amendment. I turn to my reason for agreeing to it. In Army terms, the main strategic objective of the Bill is to secure the widest
protection for disabled people. That objective will be most readily achieved if the Government agree to the Bill. The Government are already on record as supporting most of its clauses. By removing a clause to which they object, I shall bring the day closer when they take on the Bill as one of their own.I am delighted that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Hollis, is listening with her usual rapt attention to our debate. I see her weighed down with those great briefs and I know that she has read all of them because she does her homework so very well. I know that she is a great realist and can recognise a good thing for her Government. I expect her to report to other Ministers the good news about the removal of this clause which so upsets them. Then we can all get together and make progress with Ministers. I accept the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall not make a long speech. There is no need to do so at this hour of the night. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for accepting the amendment. I am very grateful to him. I also want to thank all those who supported me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
- House adjourned at four minutes before ten o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |