Proceeding contribution from Bob Ainsworth (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16 October 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Defence Policy.
Defence Policy
Let us stick to the issue that has been raised tonight. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have tried, in my inadequate way, to respond to the debate. I am talking about things that were said in this Chamber about the worrying state of the medical facilities supplied to our injured personnel in the Selly Oak hospital—that was the allegation that was made. That is not something that is thrown at Ministers; it is thrown at the caring staff, be they doctors, nurses or anyone else. If the hon. Gentleman wants to defend that, let him do so—but it is deplorable, and he and the hon. Member for Woodspring, both of whom have expertise in this area, ought to think about the allegations that they have made. It is up to them. I am not going to take this any further than that, because I do not have the expertise to do so. In those facilities, dedicated people spend day and night trying to provide care and attention for our injured armed forces personnel, and they resent the allegations made in the media, and those being stoked up by people in this House, too. The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) threw around the same allegations about medical services and talked about the compensation issue in deliberately emotive terms. I do not know whether he was listening when the Secretary of State spoke, but he was present. We are not talking about a compensation package that is an actuarial calculation to cover the loss and injury to be suffered by an individual for the rest of their lives. That is the first point to make. As my right hon. Friend said, like for like—apples for apples—is not being compared. The other point that the hon. Gentleman and everyone else needs to recognise is that until recently there was no compensation package at all. This is a supplement to the lifelong payment that exists, and existed before the introduction of the up-front payment. It recognises the huge problems that injured personnel have when they are trying to rebuild their lives. It is not a substitute for their ongoing pension entitlement, and it is despicable for the Conservatives to try to suggest that it is. Tonight’s debate has shown us that there is a degree of expertise in the House that keeps the MOD and its policies under scrutiny, with the help of the Select Committee and the other instruments that we have in Parliament to do that. Our policies and priorities are clear. In the first analysis, they are to support our people and our current operations. Thereafter, they are to look to the future to ensure that we are planning adequately and properly for all the various risks that our nation may face. Those are the priorities that we ought to have. We must do our best to see to it that we meet them.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 464 c798-9
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Defence Deployment Defence equipment Iraq Recruitment Peacekeeping operations Ministry of Defence Afghanistan NATO
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:52:47 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417510
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417510
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417510