---

Armed Forces: Severely Wounded Personnel

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Burnett on securing this debate and, indeed, on his sensitive and comprehensive contribution. He is a former serving officer in the Royal Marines, so his words obviously carry considerable authority and weight. I very much support the thrust of my noble friend’s contribution, but obviously I do not intend to repeat all his arguments. Our Armed Forces are held in the highest esteem by the general public, by the media and at Westminster. Although we may have political disputes on particular conflicts or procurement programmes or, indeed, on the overall level of defence expenditure, our admiration, respect and appreciation of those who take up arms for our country transcend party politics and unite us all. Sadly, of course, many lay down their lives and make the supreme sacrifice, but many more are wounded or disabled. Lay people are often amazed by the desire of those who recover to operational fitness to return to conflict and fight alongside their comrades, as has been said. Thankfully, medical advances over the years make that increasingly possible. However, for those who, unfortunately, do not fully recover, it makes much sense to do everything possible to find them a worthwhile role back with their corps or regiment, perhaps in some form of supportive but not combative role. As my noble friend said, that obviously helps their rehabilitation, rebuilds their confidence and self-esteem and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, restores a sense of community and comradeship. We have to convince them of what is true, which is that they can continue to play a necessary part in their unit’s efficiency and success. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, we do not want to see our ex-service personnel being homeless, on the streets begging or, perhaps, in prison where so many, sadly, end up. Equally, it has to be to the advantage of their operational colleagues to know that they would be looked after with onward career opportunities were they to succumb to severe wounding or disability themselves. I have four questions for the Minister. First, is there a single booklet or similar that is made available to such personnel giving details of supportive career opportunities and where and how they can access the relevant training and the financial support to undertake it? Secondly, does the Ministry of Defence have any records of the number of personnel serving in the three services so redeployed after severe injury or disability, whether that be of a physical or mental nature? The noble Lord, Lord Patten, increasingly focused his remarks on the mental situation. Thirdly, how positively are commanding officers encouraged and, indeed, expected to provide career opportunities in the circumstances that we are discussing tonight, albeit acknowledging possible financial constraints and their prime responsibility of delivering an effective operating force? Fourthly, I refer to something that I read relatively recently. Professor Alexander McFarlane, the head of the Australian Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health, said that Australia and America were better at supporting their soldiers when they returned from conflict than we were. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could look into this fairly serious assertion.