---

Armed Forces Personnel

I am conscious that that might send out a negative signal. As I have said, we must carefully consider all such issues. However, we are making changes across the board and any one of them—such as one involving the Royal Navy, for example—could be construed as negative. Our overall aim is to improve the quality of delivery in its totality. That is why I am explaining our plans at length. It is interesting that no Member has intervened to congratulate us on any of the good news that I have announced. However, I do not wish to disregard the negative comments that have been made. I will keep a close watch on what happens in respect of the TA. We have restructured it following an extensive consultation process, to try to make the TA more properly integrated into the one Army concept. Over time, that will play out greatly to our advantage. The advice that I have received does not suggest that this will negatively affect recruitment. If it does, however, that will have to be attended to—although it must be said that other factors might also be responsible for any decrease in recruitment. I am sensitive to the comments that have been made, and this decision was not easy to take. Operational medical care is first class. We have recently opened a new field hospital at Basra, and another at Bastion will follow in July. Their facilities would not be out of place in any modern district hospital in the UK. The dedication and commitment of the people in the Defence Medical Services is outstanding. The priority for our wounded personnel is that they get the best possible treatment. That is why the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, based at the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, is the main receiving unit for casualties evacuated from operational theatres. In the Birmingham area, they can benefit from a concentration of five specialist hospitals, including Selly Oak, which is at the leading edge in the care of polytrauma, one of the most common types of injuries that our casualties sustain. Those who criticise the care given to military patients without recognising the excellent treatment that the vast majority of them receive do a huge discredit to the armed forces and NHS medical personnel. They directly affect their morale, and they would do well to think more carefully about the ramifications of their unbalanced reporting and commentary. I wish to emphasise that point because it is serious: such criticism impacts on those who provide outstanding service at a very difficult point of delivery. I want specifically to address the recent criticism of the treatment that our personnel receive in theatre. It has been said that the standard of care in theatre is worse than it was 40 years ago. That is not true. The standard of today’s medical support is vastly higher than what was provided in the Falklands war—let alone in the Vietnam war. It has been alleged that wounded British troops are being evacuated from the battlefield more slowly than 40 years ago; that is a false allegation. It is not a fair comparison. No country, including the United States, can match the Vietnam time scales in Afghanistan because the distances are far greater. But it is not a simple question of flight time. We have adapted our procedures in Afghanistan to send advanced medical care to the casualty, rather than wait for the casualty to be brought to the field hospital. In no other conflict, and as far as I am aware in no other Army, is a consultant-led medical team routinely deployed to the casualty scene so that advanced care can be delivered at the casualty site and during evacuation. Combined with huge advances in medical technology and treatment, it means that casualties are now surviving injuries that would certainly have killed them 40 years ago.