Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Bob Ainsworth (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 10 January 2008. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Armed Forces Personnel.


Armed Forces Personnel

At the end of that we have to remind ourselves that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) started his contribution by telling us how our society had become less polite. I am replying to a shortened debate with a shortened contribution. I am sorry that I will not be able to respond to all the points that have been raised, but I thought that it was more important that the hon. Gentleman and I should both agree to shorten our contributions to enable those who have made the effort to turn up to speak. There is a degree of expertise in the House that is recognised on both sides. I will do my best in the time remaining to respond to the many points that have been made and will write to hon. Members afterwards if I do not manage to cover the issues that they raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked me about super- garrisons and our continued commitment to them. We are indeed still committed to the creation of super-garrisons. He is right that they will offer opportunities for improved individual development and have the potential to give stability to Army families. I know that he is anxious that we should do something in Stafford—he is relentless in his representations on behalf of his constituency—but such issues are complicated and are tied up with the issue of bringing home troops from Germany, as he said. We are looking to travel in the direction that he would want us to travel in, but not necessarily at the speed at which he would want things done. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) welcomed the Command Paper and raised a couple of important points that are worth addressing. First, he asked about the appropriate role for charities and for the Government? We have a long-established principle in this country that charities should play a role. Is there any hon. Member in any political party who wants to see that diminished, who does not want it continued, who does not acknowledge the fantastic work that many military charities do and have done over many years? It is not for the Government to do everything, but of course the Government have responsibilities and must discharge them. There is no way that we want to disincentivise the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the Royal British Legion and all the other organisations that support our military. Secondly, my hon. Friend, along with other Members, raised the issue of inquests. We are making progress on inquests, as we have given additional resources to both the Oxford and the Wiltshire coroners to enable them to do more. As part of the Command Paper, we are looking into whether we should do more to support service families in their bereavement. I accept my hon. Friend's point that changing this may not necessarily be my top priority, but I ask other hon. Members who call for a change to think very seriously about what they want us to do with the coroner service. The Ministry of Defence is represented by lawyers at only a minority—a small minority—of coroners' inquests. If we want to give families legal aid in order for them to be represented at such inquests, we are effectively saying that lawyers should have a role in them, which fundamentally changes the nature of coroners' courts. I do not know whether Members really want that fundamental change and I am not at all sure that that is the best use of the money we have to support families, particularly bereaved families. There is a lot more that we could and should do, so we are looking into that as part of the Command Paper. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) felt that other Government Departments were falling down and not necessarily doing the business, leaving the military to hold the baby, as it were, in areas of operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when the Prime Minister announced the ““next steps”” for Afghanistan, recognising the need for a comprehensive approach. We acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that the military can do only so much and that other organisations—not just our own Government organisations—have a role to play. The politics of Iraq underpins some of these issues and it is the politicians of Iraq who can and should pick them up and take them forward. They have the ability, the wherewithal and the finances to do so. Our military cannot be blamed if everything has not been put in place at the appropriate time, when they have done a good job in providing the stability that has allowed progress to be made in the first place.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
470 c623-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Related items
Deposited Paper DEP2008-0204
Monday, 21 January 2008
Deposited papers
House of Commons
Deposited Paper DEP2008-0207
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Deposited papers
House of Commons
Deposited Paper DEP2008-0208
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Deposited papers
House of Commons
Deposited Paper DEP2008-0209
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Deposited papers
House of Commons
Show all related items (6)
Deposited Paper DEP2008-0205
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Deposited papers
House of Commons
Deposited Paper DEP2008-0206
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Deposited papers
House of Commons
Subjects
Armed forces Casualties Housing Education Iraq Pay Recruitment Staff Social security benefits Training Afghanistan Blood transfusions
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk