---

Armed Forces: Wounded Personnel

This has been a relatively brief debate, but it has caused some strong feelings. There has been a division about what is appropriate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on obtaining this debate and putting his case in such a straightforward way. There are divisions of opinion on this, but we can all agree that we as a country are greatly indebted to those who serve in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere in the world. We should bear their professionalism and dedication in mind at all times. What relatively young men and women are able to do in service of their country is extremely impressive, and it is right that we should give due recognition to the service they give. I stress what one or two noble Lords have mentioned: medals are just one aspect of the recognition that we need to give to those who serve. I was glad to hear the welcome from noble Lords opposite for the Command Paper The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans¸ which was published today. The fact that we mention families and veterans should be borne in mind at all times. I am sure we will come back to the report and will have an opportunity to debate it because it has some significant elements that should be well known and welcomed, whether they relate to health, housing or the opportunities that we are increasingly going to be able to give to people once they have completed six years in the Armed Forces. All those things will make a difference and will make it clear that we appreciate and want to make a long-term investment in the people who put their lives on the line in the Armed Forces. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, the United Kingdom has a well established system for awarding medals. I was pleased that he thinks that the service provided has improved. I am sure that people in the Medal Office will appreciate those comments. Since September 2001, it has issued more than 54,000 Afghanistan medals and more than 115,000 Iraq medals. It has been busy, and I am glad that the noble Earl’s information is that it now deals with these issues more swiftly. That is important, and we should always bear that in mind. The military chiefs—the people who Ministers listen to on issues such as this—believe that their way of keeping this issue under constant review is the way forward and that decisions should be relevant to the circumstances in which our Armed Forces are operating. Everyone here will know that for every significant campaign or operation, a medal is struck when it is deemed that there has been sufficient risk and rigour for those involved. Service men and women deployed today in Afghanistan and Iraq will receive their appropriate medals once they have completed the qualifying criterion, which is generally 30 days of continuous service in theatre. This debate has focused on how we recognise those who not only serve but, sadly, are killed or injured in the line of duty. I am sure that everyone has heard of the difficulties and concerns of the families of those who have been killed or wounded. Those who are killed receive their medals quickly. We have a new procedure, which I think will be welcomed, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, by those who mounted the campaign in the Daily Mirror. It has helped to ensure that people focus on this issue. However, I stress that our service chiefs have always kept such issues under review and have been keen to ensure that they take the appropriate action. The changes that were made a short time ago—after my noble friend secured this debate, which I think is why he widened his approach—have been welcomed. It is right to do what has been done. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, it is extremely difficult to deal with some of the practical issues that arise. He mentioned several difficult situations in which a judgment had to be made about what was appropriate. My noble friend intervened to ask whether these judgments would also apply to those who had been injured. We have not yet been able to finalise all the details regarding the medals for those who were killed on operations because of the complexities involved. There are many others as well, to which the noble Earl referred. We should not regard this as a simple and straightforward issue. We should always take account of the views of those who are serving. My noble friend said that the opposition to this proposal was from senior servicemen—the top brass bedecked with medals who refuse to allow those who serve under them to get recognition. That was somewhat disparaging; many of the people referred to as the top brass have very distinguished records. We should listen to them and learn from their experience. It is not just the military chiefs who believe that we should move on this with caution. The overwhelming view among the Armed Forces is that the current medal system is fair and that what service personnel consider most important is that the injured should be properly cared for and supported, and receive the treatment they need. That is one reason why today’s Command Paper is so important—it brings home some of the things that have already been done to improve the situation of those who have been injured in service. It is very important to do that. Awarding medals is not the only way that we recognise the contribution of our service men and women. There have been lots of developments over recent years. The Armed Forces Memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire provides appropriate recognition for those who have been killed in action since the end of World War II. Families who have unfortunately lost someone in action find it of some comfort to see their name engraved on that memorial and think it appropriate that that kind of recognition should be made. We have to consider all these issues extremely carefully. Mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee, of wound stripes, which were introduced in the First World War and, to a certain extent, were in evidence in the Second World War, although I am told that they were not universally popular as a means of recognising people who had been injured. Therefore, these issues are complex and we must, as much as anything else, bear in mind the feelings of those who serve in our Armed Forces. It is true that it is the top brass who report back, but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the comments of the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup: "““I know that there has been considerable debate about recognition for those wounded on operations. The Service Chiefs and I have thought hard about this, having sounded opinion amongst our people. The overwhelming view is that the current medal system is fair and sufficient, recognising as it does both risk and rigour. What our people consider most important is that the injured be properly cared for and supported””." The two elements are there: they have consulted other people—they have not simply made this decision sitting in the MoD—and they think that what happens by way of care and support is the predominant concern. The Command Paper has been widely welcomed. Indeed, the Royal British Legion said today: "““The Covenant is being brought back into balance””," and it added: "““The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Government all deserve credit for listening to our concerns and recommendations””." Therefore, I think that we are moving a whole step forward in what we are doing for our servicemen, both while they are in the services and after they leave. This is a very positive and constructive way forward. I wish to say a final word about the dangers of allowing this decision to be made solely by Ministers. Ministers could very easily be tempted into giving medals or recognition on a whole range of issues because it would always lead to a degree of popularity for them. I think that the present system, in which we take Ministers out of the equation, is probably worth protecting. [The Sitting was suspended from 3.37 to 4 pm.]