Defence Reform

Debate between Elfyn Llwyd and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Members may know of my concerns regarding the number of military personnel who end up in trouble after leaving the services, and sometimes end up on the street. The Welsh Affairs Committee is currently taking evidence on that, as well as on the regiments question.

Wales has traditionally provided more than our share of military personnel. It makes sense that returning Welsh veterans—and, indeed, returning English and Scottish veterans—should be treated as close to their families as possible and should have their fair share of resources from charities and the UK Government, to help them recover from their injuries. Having seen how the US treats its veterans, I am sure there are lessons we can still learn. Some of the earlier comments on the covenant are most welcome, however.

Certainly one lesson we can learn is the importance of ensuring that former members of the armed forces do not feel that they are left behind when they are discharged from the services. The cuts that have happened, and those that are currently taking place, must take into account the need for support networks to be in place for them.

In Wales, there is a great deal of concern about proposals to merge or disband Welsh regiments such as the 1st the Queen’s Dragoon Guards, also known as the Welsh cavalry, and The Royal Welsh, which includes battalions from the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Welsh Regiment—it was only recently put together, and one would have thought it would have stayed in place for a while.

The reduction in the number of Welsh regiments to three has already left a bitter taste, and further cuts will lead to a feeling that Welsh regiments are not being recognised and appreciated for their effort and dedication. Successive generations have joined the Queen’s Dragoon Guards and fought with pride, honour and determination. Some argue that this is due to the method of recruitment, with cultural ties and local knowledge being part of both recruitment and loyalty. New recruits should have the opportunity to choose an armoured regiment or infantry regiment in which they will feel comfortable and safe in the company of their peers while facing potentially dangerous circumstances. However, despite the Queen’s Dragoon Guards carrying out more operational tours in the past 20 years than any other armoured regiment, it is under threat of amalgamation. That is in spite of its being the only remaining Welsh armoured regiment. If these decisions are made, on the order of precedence under the Ironside/Levy rules, both the Queen’s Dragoon Guards and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards will be maintained.

There are six objective criteria to be met in this regard: recruitment strength, or the number and quality of those who wish to join; regional or national identity; proportionality to all parts of the UK—we are not looking for favours; the right geographical spread, as the Minister who opened the debate said; capabilities; and operational output. I believe that, on these criteria, the case has been made for maintaining these important and historically significant Welsh regiments.

On Trident, last week the Government announced £1.1 billion of investment in infrastructure that will make the next generation of Trident missiles. Although the main gate decision will not be made until after the next general election, by investing so heavily, they are, in effect, pushing us towards the decision, so that, as with the aircraft carriers, it becomes a fait accompli.

This has been done without a proper discussion or a debate on the Floor of the House. Opponents of Trident object for a variety of reasons: some because they are pacifists, others because they do not believe that it represents good value for money or a meaningful deterrent. Large numbers of young men and women are being made redundant from the conventional armed forces over the coming years, and regiments will be lost, but there is enough money for these weapons.

However, in Wales Labour First Minister Carwyn Jones apparently wants these nuclear weapons based near the major international trade port that deals with 30% of UK gas and 25% of UK oil and petrol. The oil refinery was the reason why Polaris was not sited at Milford Haven in 1963, and it is unclear why a busier location would be considered today. According to Chalmers and Walker in 2002,

“it remains the case that refineries would have to close if submarines were relocated there.”

Therefore, this man is arguing for Trident to come to Wales, for weapons of mass destruction to be sited on Welsh soil and for there to be a net loss of jobs for Wales—not, I think, a very good deal.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am introducing a four-minute limit. I call Neil Carmichael.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Elfyn Llwyd and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd]

I beg to move amendment 80, page 99, line 21, leave out ‘other than’ and insert ‘including’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 85, page 110, line 18, leave out ‘other than clinical negligence’.

Amendment 143, page 110, line 18, leave out ‘other than’ and insert ‘including’.

Amendment 86, page 110, leave out lines 28 to 30.

Amendment 142, page 110, line 32, at end insert—

19A (1) civil legal services provided in relation to Clinical Negligence.

(2) In this paragraph clinical negligence means breach of duty or care or trespass to the person committed in the course of the provision of clinical or medical services (including dental or nursing services)’.

Amendment 88, page 111, line 4, leave out ‘other than’ and insert ‘including’.

Amendment 132, page 118, line 27, after ‘negligence’, insert

‘with the exception of clinical negligence’.

[Mr Llwyd]

I will be brief, because other hon. Members wish to speak and, crucially, we need to get to the social justice provisions. The purpose of amendment 80 is to bring clinical negligence back within scope in cases involving abuse of a child or a vulnerable adult. Amendment 88 is designed to retain specific provision for tort and damages claims engaging European convention rights, and extending provision to cases involving clinical negligence. Amendments 85 and 86 are consequential, and cover the abuse of a position of power by a public authority. They would specifically provide for cases involving a particularly serious variety of public wrongdoing and would remove the exclusion of clinical negligence cases in such a context.

Taken together, the amendments reflect my concern, which I know is shared by many hon. Members, about the huge gaps in protection of the vulnerable that will come about as result of implementation of the exceptions to funding by legal aid. What is perhaps most concerning in such instances is that individuals will come up against the state during proceedings. People involved in cases of clinical negligence by a public authority are, by definition, at their most destitute. Frequently, parents or other family members will bring cases against public authorities resulting from traumatic injuries sustained by their children and their relatives.

As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) said in Committee:

“the inequality of arms is never more obvious than when an individual comes up against a decision made by the state”.––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2011; c. 327.]

That is because the state will always have access to full and expert legal advice, and will often have a team of lawyers at its ready disposal. That is even more ironic when we consider the stark fact that the state should have a responsibility to ensure that every individual has the means to hold it to account. I said that on Second Reading, and I do so again. In the reforms, the Government seem to have lost sight of that all-important state duty to support the vulnerable, as well as to protect them.

The Minister said in Committee that there is often a viable source of alternative funding for cases of clinical negligence through contingency fee arrangements. That sounds all right, but is not as simple as it sounds. What about the people who, on entering into such an arrangement with solicitors, would not be able to afford a policy to cover them for the initial necessary medical examinations? I know that some ground has been given on that, but I would be grateful to hear more. For many parents, for example, contingency fees cannot be the answer since they do not have the money up front to buy a policy to provide cover when making an arrangement with solicitors. Indeed, very few firms would take on a clinical negligence case on a no win, no fee basis because of the complexity and specialism involved in this area of civil law.