Veterans Issues
Veterans programme
Veterans programme
Veterans affairs secretariat
Veterans working arrangements
Veterans task force
Veterans forum
Veterans plenary
Minister's speeches
Veterans plenary
Meeting of Veterans Plenary - 23 March 2005
Open Forum
This transcript has been produced from an audio tape. Where differences exist from what was actually said this has arisen due to poor quality recording. Corrections have been made in an effort to make the question and answer more sensible.
Q1 Sir I'm Gerry Morris, I'm the Scientific Adviser for the Porton Down Veterans Support Group. The one thing we are above anything else is we're a very caring nation and we in fact regard I suppose justice as top of the pile. I therefore want to ask you this question sir when the research shows that the people that specifically suffered from things like sarin poisoning as a result of Porton Down experiments and whilst certain governments like America, Australia and most recently Canada, operate different laws to us, why is it that they have found it fit to settle and show compassion and how can I say a thanks to those who went into the gas chambers, whilst this government are reluctant to see changes are not willing to go the same way as other governments?
A1 Well sir firstly let me say this, I don't think it's absolutely true with regard to compensation to suggest that Australia, Canada and the United States have changed their policies, which are broadly similar to a British government policy, which I think I'm right in saying has also been consistent for over 30 years. What we have done though recently is two things: firstly in dealing with the specific case of Ronald Maddison, and you will be aware that once the Coroner had given his views and his rulings, the Department rightly, fully supported by myself, decided that we should make a formal apology to the Maddison family and that has happened. But the second thing we have to do is to look at the law and there are concerns about the role that the Coroner played in terms of his advice to the jury. Now there's a limit as to what I can say about this today but it is for those reasons that MOD is challenging the Coroner's ruling by way of judicial review. There are certain areas of that judicial review, which we've stated quite clearly in Parliament, and explained to parliamentarians why we feel it's necessary to take that action, and I'm afraid until that judicial review follows its natural course it will be wrong either for you or me, or certainly me, to speculate very much further. But I don't accept the basic criticism that there is any lack of compassion here because the compassion is centred around one particular family, I believe that we've dealt with them fairly and compassionately in order to try and bring closure for that family whilst maintaining a broader legal position.
Q2 Derek Heaps, Vice Chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has requested the Legal Services Commission to fund litigation which we will undertake against the MOD. Last year the LSC stated they would support the application and Lord Brennan QC said we had a good case. The LSC sent our solicitors a list of questions which we promptly answered within a few days. We waited - nothing. Then our solicitors asked again. The LSC sent the same list of questions with a few more added, these were answered within 3 days. Last week they sent a statement to the Tyne Tees Television stating that they are still awaiting the answers to their questions, which they have. We see this as time-wasting, in light of the government increasing the legal aid to illegal immigrants by 300% a few weeks ago, why do the LSC stumble over our application for ex-servicemen to obtain their legal rights?
A2 I think the premise at the end of your question is wrong sir, but I also have to say to you that I'm not responsible for the Legal Services Commission, I can ensure that you can go to the right department of government if you want to make that point but we at the Ministry of Defence have enough issues to deal with, without worrying about the Legal Services Commission, that's a matter for them.
Q3 Good afternoon Mr Caplin, Jacko, South Atlantic Medal Association.
I got a letter yesterday from my MP about the letter that I wrote to you on 8th February, that I wrote to yourself, the Minister responsible for disabled people, and some other Minister. I'm a little bit concerned about the reply that I got from the Department of Work and Pensions. As you know I work for Job Centre Plus in the Department of Work and Pensions and I'm fully aware of the policy. I also have a letter attached to the back to Ian Liddell-Granger who unfortunately is my Member of Parliament, from the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence took the letter that I sent to you and said: "This is nothing that we deal with; we're going to let the DWP deal with this". Now I've received a negative reply: I will be writing to you as a follow up to this letter because I do believe there should have been most definitely some form of cross departmental discussion or whatever before the DWP come to the decision that they gave me on the letter that I sent to you on 8th February.
A3 OK Jacko I can't recall your letter on 8th February, I'm sorry about that. I thought you were going to say how pleased you were about the progress we'd made in the last 12 months on the commemorations that we're planning for the 25th anniversary of the Falklands and then you produce a constituency piece of surgery work for me like that? But can we have a look at it afterwards OK?
Q4 Minister, ladies and gentlemen, fellow veterans and delegates, my name is Dennis Hatton, co-spokesman for the Combined Veterans Forum. You may remember my colleague Shirley Denson, the widow of Nuclear Veteran Squadron Leader Eric Denson spoke to this assembly last year. We work in support of veterans and the widows of servicemen, injured, disabled or killed by weapons of mass destruction. In the new Armed Forces Pension Act which is due to be enacted this year the government is tightening access to any positive duty of care for veterans and the widows of servicemen, injured, disabled or killed by chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This new act will be imposing a 5-year time limit on claims for pensions and compensation. This from a Ministry that after the nuclear tests, Porton Down and the Gulf war, is well aware that disabilities and deaths from these weapons of mass destruction very often do not manifest for 5, 10, 15 years or longer. This is yet another twist of the knife against our veterans and widows interests. It is yet another twist in the government's veteran's strategy on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which began in the Cold War era and still is in force today. It means ladies and gentlemen that today's sons and daughters enlisted in the Armed Forces are in a position where they will have absolutely no reasonable access of duty of care if injured by these weapons. In the House on 22 January last year the concerns of many MPs was expressed by Julian Brazier MP who said: "one of my sons is considering dedicating his life to the Service of this country, I will have to take him to one side and explain to him what it will mean for the rest of his life". In the House on 22 February this year when you were there and they were debating the Porton Down issue, MP Mr Atkinson from Bournemouth East in the debate said:
Could you come to your question sir?
Yes OK well the question is this, will the Minister consider this question and forward his answer to the Combined Veterans Forum. That since those injured by non-conventional weapons take 50 years or more to obtain justice and the new Armed Forces pensions and compensation act is attempting to bring in a 5-year time limit for claims, does that not amount to a policy of total exclusion from the governments obligation to provide a duty of care for all of these servicemen and their widows past, present and future? After 50 years of cover up, manipulation and lies Ministry of Defence lawyers are still attempting to overturn the inquest.
That since those injured by non-conventional weapons take 50 years or more to obtain justice and the new Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation Act is attempting to bring in a 5 year time limit for claims, does that not amount to a policy of total exclusion from the government’s obligation to provide a duty of care for all of these servicemen and the widows past, present and future. After 50 years of cover up, manipulation and lies, Ministry of Defence lawyers are still attempting to overturn the Inquest verdict into the death of 20 year old Ronald Maddison.
A4 Two things, sir. Firstly I’ve explained the Maddison issue and I have dealt with that earlier. Secondly. I, with all due respect, think you are confused. The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme which commences on the 6 April 2005 is a compensation scheme for injuries or illnesses attributable to service from that date. It applies to all service from the 6 April 2005 for everyone who is in our armed forces today. It does not affect any of the current payments or schemes that we have in place. Now two things within the new compensation scheme, as you’ve led me there, on wider issues which I’m sure veterans’ organisations will be pleased to know. Firstly, yes there are time limits and that’s right that there are but there are also exceptions within there to enable, if there is late onset of attributable illnesses or injuries, for the Scheme to actually deal with that. Secondly, and most importantly, you may have missed it in the chancellor’s budget statement last week, as you know currently, for a member of the armed forces to get a tax free settlement on compensation he or she actually has to leave the forces. We have been lobbying for 6 months to change the Treasury’s mind on that matter and I am delighted that they did change their minds and in fact I have just approved a written statement to the House of Commons which will be later today, formally announcing the tax-free status for compensation for those who stay in our armed forces when they are injured or ill through service. I think that is a huge step forward for veterans throughout the United Kingdom.
Q5 Morning Sir, Derek Bristow from the Federation of Merchant Mariners representing Merchant Navy Associations. Last year when we came here you gave me an assurance that the merchant seamen, veterans of the Merchant Navy, would be included in all respects in the scheme. We were delighted when I took that back to my members but you can imagine our hurt, sir, when we found that the badge issued for veterans was marked HM Forces. We support any accolade to Her Majesty’s Forces. I think we have shown that support, sir, from the Battle of the Atlantic down to San Carlos Bay. Now all we ask for is that our veterans be recognised in the 60th year. It’s not too late sir, you can reverse that for a badge for merchant seamen veterans would cost a pittance than what’s been spent this year. Do I have your assurance, sir, that can happen? I have asked other people and they say well the badge is available to you as well as members of the armed forces. We are delighted to share that with our colleagues but you know, if there was one produced for the Merchant Navy I don’t think our colleagues would be happy with that any more than I am now. I believe that our country needs recognition. I believe that colleagues in this hall would give me that support and recognition. I am asking for yours sir. Thank you.
A5 OK, well Derek let me say this. Firstly the badges are available to Merchant Navy as you know and secondly, one of the guarantees that I gave you last year is that we would fully include Merchant Navy Veterans in all the commemorative events for the 60th anniversary and as you’ve heard from David Pocock, you will as you know you are fully engaged in the big events in July. About a separate badge, I just want to preach a bit of caution here about too many separate badges to be honest but let me go away and have a think about that.
Q6 Julian Mineur, Blackpool Organiser Veterans Awareness Week. Can we look at Veterans Awareness Week being an annual event?
A6 Right, well, that is a very interesting question and we have already started discussing that. Our problem is really two-fold. We don’t know how this is going to be received by the wider public so it’s difficult to have a sort of ‘Lessons Learned’ of that week. I certainly think that during July we will want to reflect on the week. One decision we have made in conjunction with Ian Townsend of the Royal British Legion is, if we are to have an annual Veterans Awareness Week it will need to be in the summer, keeping Remembrance Sunday and the lead up to Remembrance Sunday free of any other interference. So we’ll have to see.
Q7 George Lakey, Korea Veterans. Good afternoon. A shorter question and a simpler question. A subject very close to veterans’ hearts regarding the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrues in Staffordshire. This was originally established as a charitable trust through the initiative of Commander David Childs who obtained financial support from ex Service Associations such as ourselves on the basis that plot holders would have and continue to have a major input into matters of mutual concern. Since the administration of the Memorial Arboretum has been taken over by the Royal British Legion and number of plot holders have become increasingly concerned that, firstly, their views are not being sought or considered and secondly that the RBL and/or the NMA management refused to listen to or consult with plot holders either as groups or as a whole. Matters of major concern at the moment are the new pricing structure, which is most important, charging for commemorative events, erection of flagpoles on site, the scattering of ashes and of course the lack of communication. The BKVA as a national ex-service organisation is concerned that plot holders should be working in concert with the RBL management and not being asked to negotiate individually over matters of common interest. I asked that this meeting endorses this approach and asked the minister if he can do something with the Royal British Legion to reconsider their position.
A7 Well, thank you for that short question. As you know I have been to the arboretum I think at least 3 or 4 times in the last 12 months and I think it is a spectacular setting. It is certainly growing into the national centre of memorials that I think many people hoped it would be. As for the specific nature of individual veterans and management by the British Legion I think we will take that off line if we may and have a conversation about it with the RBL but so far I have to say, from the MOD’s perspective, the grant in aid that we give each year for the arboretum we are very satisfied with the progress that is being made.
Q8 Debbie Bowles, Minister, War Widows’ Association. A number of cases have recently come to our attention where the widows of servicemen who have died in retirement without a disability pension, have not been advised of their right to seek to claim a War Widow’s Pension. Could you please give us your personal assurance that in future all notifications of deaths of service personnel in retirement received by the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, receive also appropriate information about their right to claim a War Widow’s Pension. Thank you.
A8 Right, well we’ll have to ask AFPAA about that Debbie but what I would say though is of course we have made some progress on some of the War Widows issues over the last few months, not least of which is the new enhancement that we made when we announced last week to war widows in terms of the pre-73 group, fulfilling the commitment that I made and discussed with the Forces Pensions Society to look at that particular group during the passage of the Bill.
Q9 Good afternoon Minister. Alan Tizzard of the National Service Veterans Alliance as you will remember, concerning HM Armed Forces Veterans Badge initiated by yourself as the Minister for Veterans Affairs 2004. Do you agree that the wording of the badge, HM Armed Forces Veterans relates to all former Service men and women and if so why does the Ministry of Defence discriminate against some veterans by dismissing their applications from them stating “I’m afraid you are currently not eligible for a Veterans Badge.” Clearly to exclude some veterans from their comrades is divisive and an unjustifiable discrimination. More so when as you said as a minister “The Veterans Badge is designed to promote a sense of identity among ex-Service community and to raise public awareness of the veterans’ issues.” This during the run-up to the 60th anniversary of the Second World War when 2.2 million conscripted men have, post May 8th 1943 until ‘63, not one of whom would have been conscripted had the Second World War never taken place.
A9 Simple answer really Alan. We started this, with 30,000 badges to see how it would go, linked to Heroes Return, so very much linked to those who were going to take advantage of the lottery, go back to battlefields of the past and as you know the first batch of badges were available at a Casino last May, having awarded the first badge to Lord Healy who was a Beach master at Anzio in 1944. What we have done since is to broaden the definition to include First World War veterans, those who are still alive, but also widows of Second World War veterans. Now that’s as far as we’ve gone today because you know we are not firstly a badge manufacturer of the MOD nor do we want to get bogged down with significant amount of administration for the badges. As far as other groups are concerned, particularly those national servicemen of the 50s, we will look at those in the fullness of time but it has to be a step by step approach and I’m glad that you and all the other veterans associations are so enthusiastic about the badge because that makes it a lot easier when we come to look at these issues again.
Can I add that actually 50,000 badges have already been distributed. So I mean there are a lot of people who are receiving and a lot more will do so.
Q10 Minister, good afternoon. David Owen from the Royal Logistical Association. We heard reference earlier to the possible destruction of medal record cards and I think these probably refer to the ones held by the National Archive but of greater concern is the destruction or possible destruction of historical records in particular within the Army because I understand that the RAF and the Navy have made provision for the security of their historical records. With the closure of Hayes and the recent closure of the Army Medal Office there is a huge amount of material which I understand the National Archive are not interested in that could be destroyed. Could I ask that the material be offered to regimental museums and associations rather than destroyed.
A10 Firstly also let me say this. I mean, firstly the closure of the Army Medal Office should not be seen as in any way reducing what we do about medal distribution. I was at Innsworth yesterday to open the new MOD Medal Office. It’s a great group of staff, they are highly motivated to get the job right and the new technology that we’ve put in there will enable us to deliver medals much quicker. That includes the Suez Medal and of course for serving soldiers today, includes the Iraq Medal, both of which suffer, as we speak, significant backlogs. All the records that have been kept by the Army Medal Office or by anyone else, we want to try and retain as far as we can. I know the issue about microfilm and the National Archive and the role they played in microfiching those records. We will be continuing to engage with them as long as we can and if its right and proper that regimental museums want this information then that will be a matter for the regimental museum and the MOD to discuss but its not our intention to destroy the records that take the British Army or any other part of the armed forces back over the past 200 years.
Maj Gen Mike Shellard. I think I am going to draw the questions to a close now. It is probably the last time that we are going to have the Minister on the stage here and I think we actually ought to offer him our thanks for all the work that he’s done on our behalf during the time that he has been Minister of Veterans.
Applause.
If, on the other hand of course Minister, the Prime Minister decides not to go to the country soon, we much look forward to seeing you again next year. Ladies and gentlemen that concludes the formal bit of the day.
