| Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
|
|
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): If I may welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, on my behalf and the Minister's—[Interruption.] I also welcome the members of the Committee who have timed their arrival very finely indeed. Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): Perfect timing. Mr. Howarth: Fine, I would say, rather than perfect, but no doubt the Whip will be able to elaborate on the distinction between those two. We had a useful debate earlier today on the compensation provisions of the Bill and I want to pick up on some of the Minister's points. I start on a note of agreement by saying that the Minister is right to draw attention to one of the pluses in the new scheme, which is that compensation will be payable to those who continue to serve. That is to be encouraged. I also sympathise with the Minister as he tries to deal with the burgeoning cost of compensation claims. I referred earlier to the compensation culture that is alive and well, and flourishing in some quarters. To give some idea of it, I remind members of the Committee who might have forgotten—I know that they knew originally—that the compensation paid by the Ministry of Defence in 1997–98 was £70 million, whereas in 2002–03 the amount was £104 million. That is a huge figure. I understand from that excellent magazine Soldier, which I am sure all hon. Members read— Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): God's own newspaper. Mr. Howarth: So says my hon. and gallant Friend, and, as Soldier is published in Aldershot, I am perfectly prepared to accept that description. I am sure that the Minister has seen the article in this month's edition, in which the Ministry's chief claims officer Jef Mitchell says:
Column Number: 111 when one adds the on-costs—the costs of repairing broken equipment, recruiting and training new staff, and so on. We are talking about a figure of roughly £600 million. Those of us who have an interest in the successful operation of the armed forces are concerned that when £600 million is spent on compensation and associated costs, it will not be available, for example, to order another couple of Eurofighters, or Typhoons, as we now call them. The article is interesting, because it illustrates the extent to which compensation is now claimed and is now payable. It says:
That indicates the range of the injuries that we are discussing. According to the article, the Ministry has been
[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) like to intervene? Does she have examples to which I have not alluded? My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has helpfully pointed to another detail in Soldier magazine—perhaps I should have a word with the editor, because he has provided us with some very interesting facts and not a little entertainment. Apparently, a
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman want to provide another example, perhaps involving a dead parrot falling off its perch? The Chairman: Order. We cannot talk about compensation for animals and birds under this clause. We are talking about compensation for military personnel. Mr. Howarth: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Keetch: I was not going to talk about compensation for animals and birds, but there is a serious point. Low-flying aircraft occasionally cause livestock real distress, and the MOD has been very careful to prevent that at certain times of year, particularly during lambing. I represent an agricultural constituency, and my constituents are aware of the issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that these are serious matters, not something to joke about. Mr. Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Like the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I admire the work of Soldier magazine, although I note your strictures on Column Number: 112 mentioning parrots, Mr. O'Brien. I should point out, however, that the £104 million represents the compensation paid by the whole Ministry in one year. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) rightly said, we have a system of paying compensation to home owners and farmers who are affected by low flying and many other issues, but we are talking about only a small part of that system, which relates to serving military personnel.Mr. Howarth: The Minister makes an entirely fair point. However, he only emphasises the fact that the Ministry must pay out substantial sums. In a sense, that money is going down the drain, because it is not buying a single musket or a single pair of desert boots. Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman want to bring back the musket? Mr. Howarth: You never know—chaps who did not have the correct kit might have welcomed a musket or two. However, I shall leave that issue to one side because I do not want to disturb the good-natured atmosphere in the Committee. I raise these issues because it is important to recognise the responsibility that rests on the Minister's shoulders in seeking to meet our demands, those of the Royal British Legion and, indeed, those that he sets himself. In that respect, I know that he is an honourable man and that he wants to do the best he can by those who have suffered as a result of injuries sustained while training or serving. At the same time, however, we must get the balance right by ensuring that we do not simply pay out to undeserving people. That is the difficulty. People who have suffered an injury that has impaired them for life are receiving pay-outs of millions of pounds from the courts so that they can live a reasonable life and pay for the care that they need. None of us would want to be niggardly about that, because those who join up and are injured deserve the best. Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): My hon. Friend is making his points in his usual courteous fashion. The paradox that we face is surely that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent in his very able Second Reading speech. He noted that we would have fewer court cases if the Ministry's internal systems, as the first port of call, were properly organised and seen to be fair. I suspect that, in the long term, the proposals will result not only in a lot more grief for those with genuine cases but in a higher bill for the MOD, as angry service people take their cases to the courts. Mr. Howarth: That intervention is not only apposite but timely. I agree with my hon. Friend. The risk that the Government run, in the tariff system and in changing the burden of proof, is that those who feel aggrieved will be driven into the courts. I have a case of a fellow called Richard Holmes—no relation to the author—who is a constituent of mine. He had an on-going dispute with the Ministry of Defence that he wanted to settle through the usual channels in the Department, but the process was so Column Number: 113 slow that he was advised that, unless he served notice that he wanted to go to court, he risked running out of time in the courts. Therefore, he was in a Catch-22 position. He wanted to continue to negotiate with the Ministry of Defence, but it was incredibly slow and awkward. Had he gone on and placed his faith in the system, and the system had failed to deliver, he would then have had no recourse to the courts. Not having much confidence in the system, he served notice that he intended to have recourse to the courts. The result was that the MOD shutters came down, bang: it will not talk to him; that is it.I had a one-to-one meeting on this case—I seldom trouble Ministers with such matters—with the Minister's predecessor. He was sympathetic to the case, but felt unable to do anything about it. Therefore, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said and urge the Minister to consider the matter seriously, not only because the difficulty could arise that my hon. Friend mentioned, but because it is a continuing problem. As he said, the new arrangements will not click in for some time, so the current scheme will be operated for a while. If I urge the Minister to get a grip, that is not to suggest that there is widespread incompetence in the Department. I said earlier that, in his relatively short term in post, the Minister has gripped the question of the review. I see certain smiles around the Committee Room, but I am not at liberty to divulge the source of those smiles. However, there is a recognition that the Minister has gripped that issue. I suggest that it is in his interests to grip this one as well, because it is not satisfactory that people should be driven to the courts. I ask him to consider the point made by my hon. Friend well in advance of Third Reading, to see whether this issue can be addressed on that occasion. Mr. Brazier: There is another parallel point, which relates to the time limits. In the old days the typical serviceman or woman, who developed what appeared to be a minor condition and was not greedy, would be disinclined to chase it through the war pensions arrangements. Now, given that there are time limits, and word will get round that there are time limits, people will often rush to pursue the matter to ensure that they are not time barred. The irony is that those who will lose most are those who are least greedy, because they may get caught by the time limit, which encourages people to rush in at the earliest possible moment.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary Copyright 2004 | Prepared 10 February 2004 |
