MORE THAN A MATTER OF ANNIVERSARIES

The one hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War took place on Tuesday, with the anniversary of Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia (28^th July 1914) it largely passing unnoticed, here at least. The anniversaries of the staggered start of the war will obviously have a much higher profile over the next week. While the focus understandably will be on the events surrounding the start of the war there will also be a focus on the almost inexplicable (at least from the hindsight of our twenty first century perspective) enthusiasm with which the states and many of the peoples of Europe are perceived to have eagerly rushed to war. 

Royal Fusiliers in Mons 22nd August 1914 

The selective remembrance of anniversaries is complex business: June 28th this year marked the anniversary of the assassination in Sarajevo that started the European slide into war. August 1^st 1914 saw Germany declare war on Russia and Serbia with France mobilized on the evening of August 2nd, when Germany invaded Belgium and attacked French troops. On August 3rd, Germany declared war on France. August 4^th is a more significant date this side of the channel being the date that Britain declared war on Germany, nominally because of the invasion of Belgium. 

Even when it comes to selecting which battles to commemorate the choice will be a complex one as Mons (23^rd – 24^th August 1914) and La Cateau (26^th August 1914) were both relatively small but  largely British battles. They were followed in rapid succession by First Marne (5^th and 12^th September 1914), First Aisne (13^th September (1914-09-13) – 28^th September 1914), La Bassée (10th October – 2^nd November 1914) and First Ypres (19^th October – 22^nd November 1914) Aside for Mons, La Cateau and First Aisne much of the fighting of 1914 (on the Western Front) until Ypres involved mostly French and Belgian troops attempting to hold off the German Armies.

Britain's involvement (aside from at sea) was initially limited to its small regular army and the Territorial Army. The larger British army’s of popular memory never emerged until 1915 and 1916 (conscription came after two years of war). One result of the brutal and sustained fighting of the autumn and early winter of 1914 was that the precision instrument that was the regular army almost ceased to exist. The grim battles of Flanders halted the German advance short of the Channel Ports and Picardy and established the trench line that became the Western Front, which existed from the winter of 1914/1915 until the spring of 1918. 

Then (as now) when a war is underway then understandably (and rightly) our service personnel, their families (and subsequently our veterans) are very much in the public eye. During the last decade successive Westminster governments have worked hard to ensure that our service personnel have had a much higher profile, making use of various important anniversaries of previous conflicts, sporting occasions and regularly promoting armed forces day. As we slowly approach the one hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War, and another cycle of poignant anniversaries we may expect more of the same.

Yet as the direct involvement of UK service personnel in the cycle of Blair’s wars begins to wind down we should remember how Westminster (with the honourable exception of the 1945 Labour Government) has treated our war veterans after previous war’s ended and faded into memory. We all need to work to ensure that never again does a Westminster Government makes the decision that dead heroes are cheaper and less trouble to maintain than live ones.

IN REMEMBRANCE

In Flanders fields...

Tomorrow will be Remembrance Sunday (the 10^th November), when people pause briefly to publically remember the veterans and survivors of historic and more recent conflicts and those who never came back. My family like far too many others in Wales (and elsewhere) had relatives who served and survived and also relatives who lost their lives in the First and Second World Wars and other conflicts. One of my maternal grandmother’s lost two brothers in the First World War and its aftermath, her elder brother was a regular soldier, who wrote home and told them not to allow his younger brother to join up and to come out to France. It was too late the younger brother had joined up was killed in action in 1918 and buried near Amiens. I have absolutely no problem remembering those who lost their lives and the courage, comradeship and their endurance of those who served in the First World War and other conflicts (and not necessarily in the armed forces); but I have little time for rose tinted nostalgic flag waving foot tapping pap. As has been said elsewhere, soldiers don’t die for the politicians, for patriotism or even us but for their friends and comrades with whom they serve. Far too many lie in corners of foreign fields, are names on a war memorial, faded photographs, faded memories or literally have no grave at all. US President Abraham Lincoln rightly noted at Gettysburg the fallen have given their last full measure of devotion. It may be more true today that the world will little note the current crop of political leader’s lyrical offerings on conflict, nor long remember them. What we should never forget what the former soldiers and veterans did and what they went through and we should not just cherish their memory but ensure that after their military service they are fully honoured as is the military covenant.

HONOURING THE MILITARY COVENANT

Homes fit for Heroes! Post war house building

Sadly it won't come as much of a surprise to even the most impartial observers that UK Government's have a tendency to treat former (and serving) service personnel badly. On occasion you may well be driven to wonder if anything has changed since 1918; once again our service personnel are serving in a distant land and their families live quietly at home in sub-standard accommodation.

Back in 1918 the solders that served through the First World War (some of my relatives amongst them) were promised 'Homes fit for heroes'. Oddly enough the last but one Conservative / Liberal Coalition found that honouring promises to live heroes cost too much (what price the sacrifice made at the front?) once the war was over it turned out that dead heroes were cheaper to honour than live ones - thus fell the Geddes Axe.

In the last one hundred years the only honourable exception to this roll of shame was the 1945 Labour Government which made significant efforts to help the veterans with access to education, jobs and decent housing, The other post war governments have quietly and consistently betrayed the military covenant and any promises to our service personnel (and former service personnel) have not been honoured.

Last week we observed another Remembrance Sunday, this one some 94 years after 1918 and we have a UK Westminster Government that is not honouring the military covenant. In 2012 we still find ourselves in a situation where soldiers families are living in sub-standard accommodation and our veterans get shoddy treatment for services rendered after completion of their service.

Last week Plaid Cymru MP Elfyn Llwyd used a Parliamentary debate to stress the importance of the Military Covenant, expressing concern that it is not being enforced as robustly as possible in all areas. He warned that many veterans face isolation and suffering as a result.

Mr Llwyd, who has campaigned extensively for veterans' rights and chairs the Veterans in the Criminal Justice System Parliamentary Group fears that a postcode lottery is at work in which some veterans requiring post-service support are discriminated against purely as a result of where they live or how long ago they served.

He added that, although the majority of armed forces personnel adjust to civilian life normally after discharge, it is vital that those who do require care receive the utmost support in accordance with the Military Covenant, highlighting its importance as something which must be put into practice rather than merely exist in principle.

Speaking after the debate, Mr Llwyd said:

"While it is hugely encouraging that the Covenant has now been enshrined in law, it is vital that it forms the basis of robust action, rather than merely empty words.

"If this is not achieved - as I fear is happening in some cases at present - there is a real danger that some veterans face discrimination as a result of where they live or how long ago they served. This postcode lottery is wholly unacceptable and does a great disservice to those who have sacrificed so much for their countries.

"While the majority of armed forces personnel adjust to civilian life after discharge, unless the Covenant is practiced properly then those veterans who do need help face a whole range of problems such as isolation, lack of welfare support, mental health issues and in some cases, alcohol problems.

"The mere fact that a debate was held on this topic today clearly indicates that concerns exist over the Military Covenant's shortcomings.

"What we need is more resources to deal with mental health problems, greater recognition of the welfare needs of veterans, and urgent action to address the dependency on alcohol and other substances which many armed forces personnel develop.
  "These individuals have shown great commitment and sacrifice throughout their time in service and while recent years have seen positive developments in the field of veteran care, much more must be done in order to prevent more men and women falling into a downward spiral of suffering."

VETERANS INQUIRY

News that MPs are going to look at the services and support provided for our veterans and service personnel returning from active service duty is to be welcomed. Around 250,000 armed forces veterans live in Wales and their treatment will be looked at by the Commons' Welsh Affairs Committee. The inquiry will look at the support offered to former personnel and will ask whether government departments co-ordinate their activities. Medical and mental-health services will be considered by the MP’s. Evidence will be taken on the support services received by veterans and their families, including provision to help former military personnel resettle after completion of their service. Military housing for service personnel and their families still leaves a great deal to be desired. Our current and former service personnel and their families deserve better than they have got from previous Government. Will things get better? The precedents are not good, its worth remembering that sadly the bottom line is that live heroes, as ironically a predecessor Conservative - Liberal Coalition Government found out cost far more than dead ones.

ACTION THIS DAY

David Cameron's public commitment to enshrining the military covenant in law is welcome, but, based upon the past record of various Conservative and New Labour Governments towards treating our service personnel and their families, before, during and after their service, I and no doubt more than a few others will believe his party's commitment when I actually see it happen and the bill becomes law.

Let's not forget that successive Conservative and Labour governments have treated our servicemen and their families with contempt, no wonder some people believe that it no longer matters which of the two larger party's is in government, as our servicemen will be treated with contempt. in recent years our service personnel have literally been forced to buy their own kit and treated to a total lack of interest.

Elfyn Llwyd MP

Yet time and time again it is our servicemen that will be called on to step in to pull the fat from the fire whether it is dealing with the consequences of strikes, disasters, the saving lives at sea, foot and mouth and almost everything else as an when necessary. Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader Elfyn Llwyd MP has repeatedly challenged the UK Government over its commitment to the military covenant, arguing that veterans have been completely left off the Armed Forces Bill currently passing through the Commons.

It's worth remembering that it was a Conservative Government that chose to privatise military housing. This crazy decision was a combination of ideological driven idiocy and exceptionally poor financial management /judgement as a result of dodgy decisions made during the dying days of John Major's Conservative Government came back to haunt Gordon Brown's New Labour Government during its dying days.

New Labour Ministers were blamed for allowing thousands of soldiers' homes to fall into ruin and disrepair after they were sold to the private sector in a £1.6 billion deal. Some 57,600 homes from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were sold to City Financiers and then rent them back to troops for a profit.

The terms of the deal, made in 1996 meant that the MoD remained responsible for the properties' upkeep and claimed that the extra cash from the deal would provide badly needed funds to help refurbish them. However, the truth was a tad different, as it emerged that the Westminster Government diverted most of the money elsewhere.

The deal resulted in the payment of a tidy £1.67 billion to the Treasury for the homes, a profit share of £156m on the sale of surplus properties, yet many are dilapidated and unfit to live in. New figures reveal that the MoD has spent as little as £4.4m a year on maintenance and refurbishment. The Sunday Times revealed details of just how little the government has spent on the properties in 2010 reporting that General Sir David Richards, the head of the army, was concerned that many troops felt undervalued because of cuts to housing and shortages in other areas.

By the mid-1990s, military housing around the country was in need of tens of millions of pounds worth of repairs. John Major's Conservative administration agreed to sell off the Military housing stock to the highest bidder, partly to raise funds for a refurbishment programme. The deal was put together in November 1996 with the government being paid for the homes, which would then be rented to troops and their families at below market rates.

Surplus properties would be sold off with a percentage of the profits going to the Treasury. The consortium that acquired the military housing stock made more than £479m in profits from its investment vehicle (Annington Homes) and became one of the UK's largest owners of private residential property.Now this was all fine in theory, as the soldiers and their families should have benefited from the deal with hundreds of millions of pounds pouring into the Treasury.

The Sunday Times revealed that New Labour ministers ensured that only a fraction of that sums raised be spent on the housing stock that had generated the windfall. Annual expenditure revealed in a parliamentary answer) on maintenance and upgrade was revealed to have ranged from £4.4m to £13.9m between 2003 and 2008. New Labour Ministers got very defensive and insisted that they will produce extra funds to help improve the quality of the homes and pointed out that more than £27m was spent in the financial year 09/10.

So what we ended up with was an unholy mess which was a direct result of decisions made by the previous Conservative Government and by successive New Labour Governments that resulted in army families living in substandard military accommodation while some of whose loved ones served overseas - so much for the military covenant. The poor maintenance record pre-dated privatisation of the military housing stock was a reality well prior to 1996.

The Conservative Government in 1996/97 effectively washed its hands of a long standing problem, by selling off the military housing stock to the highest bidder in what can best be described a questionable deal which shifted responsibility onto someone else so that ministers who could not be held accountable and subsequent New Labour Governments failed miserably, to ensure that repair, updates and maintenance was being carried out.

A bad situation was then made worse by successive New Labour government's which failed to carry out basic repair and maintenance, they slashed the defence budget from which money for the maintenance of MOD property is provided. One wonders on what the £1.67 billion received was spent on and whether the then Chancellor Gordon Brown was ever aware of what was going on?

The current Con Dem government has spent most of the last year since it's emergence burying its head in the sand and perhaps hoping that the problem will go away - well it won't and it needs fixing, so get it done and no more weasel words.

A THOUGHT ON MOD REDUNDANCIES

News that the Con Dem Government plans to make service personnel redundant at a time when the level of overseas commitments are increasing is something that could make you wonder about the competence and the judgement of the UK Government let alone wonder whether or not the left hand knows what the right hand is actually doing. Any of our servicemen and women who are going to be made redundant need to be able to fully access timely advice on a wide spectrum of issues including: welfare benefits, employment advice, budgetary and life skills, debt management, alcohol and drug treatment, and relationship skills, in order to tackle the feeling of isolation experienced by many on leaving the forces.

Some of our Servicemen and women found out on Monday (4th April) about the terms of redundancy for 560 soldiers and 1,600 sailors. All in all some twenty-five thousand civil servants and 17,000 armed personnel in the army, navy and RAF will lose their jobs by 2015 due to budget cuts. The UK Government has a duty to honour the military covenant, which is enshrined in law so the UK government must do all it can to make training for service people leaving the forces mandatory. Anything less would be a blatant betrayal of our armed forces personnel and the often hazardous work they do.

Now a week is a long time on politics, on Friday (8th April) we learned that the Prime Minister is “actively engaged” in a reassessment of Britain's military capabilities and planned reductions in equipment and manpower. The Daily Telegraph said that the rethink has raised hopes that some of the cuts to military aircraft and ships in the Strategic Defence and Security Review could be postponed or even reversed. Insiders said it was not too late for a change of mind on the decision to cut the number of RAF Tornado's and scrap surveillance planes. Some Royal Navy frigates could also be spared, or have their retirement delayed.

In what may well be the first sign of compromise (or a not so carefully camouflaged U-Turn) on defence cuts, Cameron has now ordered the Treasury to give the Ministry of Defence a reprieve on its overspent 2011-12 budget. This £800 million climbdown will spare the Armed Forces further cuts this year. Senior government figures admitted that the Libyan conflict has raised questions about the wisdom of cuts that will leave Britain facing a “dip” in its military capabilities for several years.

The BBC notes that some analysts suggest that the MoD budget will come under renewed strain next year, with some of the pain simply deferred unless deeper cuts are made in 2012 or extra money is found for defence. A U-turn on a deeply unpopular cut or not, that's open to question - but one thing is true it is unacceptable to treat our service men and women in such an irresponsible and high handed and cavalier manner.

COSTLY HEROES

News that the MOD has apologised after sacking 38 senior NCOs (some of whom were on front-line service in Afghanistan at the time) by email will provide scant comfort to those involved. No doubt the fantastic Dr Fox was incandescent with righteous indignation at the shoddy treatment of 22 warrant officers, all of whom had completed 22 years of service. having completed 22 years of service, senior personnel go onto what is known as VEngLC (or Versatile Engagement Long Career), which means that they go onto what's called the Long Service List (which is basically a rolling contract). This disgraceful incident is sadly not unique, I can remember the MOD getting into trouble a few years ago by harassing younger soldiers who had signed on for the 22 year enlistment. Basically the MOD has a problem with service personnel who sign on for long service - they cost money, build up years of service and pension commitments - so rather than honouring these service personnel, who pass on their skills and experience to younger soldiers and junior officers, the MOD pushes them out of the door. Military housing for service personnel and their families still leaves a great deal to be desired. The bottom line is that live heroes, as a predecessor Conservative - Liberal Coalition Government found out cost far more than dead ones.

THE MILITARY COVENANT

Elfyn Llwyd MP

Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader Elfyn Llwyd MP has challenged the UK Government over its commitment to the military covenant, arguing that veterans have been completely left off the Armed Forces Bill currently passing through the Commons.

Mr Llwyd has also slammed the UK Government for excluding him from the key Standing Committee Stage of the Bill in which amendments are argued and considered.

This is the first Bill this Parliament that a member of the minority parties has been excluded from such a crucial point. This was done by cutting the size of the Bill Committee to 14 members. At all other times, Bill Committees have ranged from 16 plus one minority member to 21 and one minority member.

Mr Llwyd will be tabling a series of amendments to the Armed Forces Bill, to ensure the military covenant is implemented, and to place a legal duty on the Secretary of State to act to provide progress - and not simply place a report before Parliament which would not enforce a duty on the Secretary to do anything.

The foremost campaigner on veterans’ affairs in the UK Parliament, Mr Llwyd is Chair of the Justice Unions’ Parliamentary Group and a member of the Howard League for Penal Reform’s inquiry into Veterans in Prison. The inquiry team recently travelled to the States to learn more about their groundbreaking work in veterans’ aftercare.

In December 2010, Mr Llwyd also scooped the Welsh Campaigner of the Year award for his work on veterans’ welfare.

Mr Llwyd said: “There is a mandatory duty on the government to implement the military covenant. The last Labour government failed pitifully in this respect and we are still seeing increasing numbers of veterans in prison – maybe as high as at one in nine of the prison population.

“This was an opportunity to put veterans’ welfare at the heart of the Bill – one that has been badly missed. Last year, figures showed there were twice as many veterans in prison than British troops are in Afghanistan.

“I fear that this government is about to continue in this failure to our troops.

“It is disgusting that I have been excluded from the Committee stage of the Bill. It is evident in Westminster that I have a long standing interested in the field of veterans and this smacks of ‘stitch-up’ – in the same way as this toothless Clause is stitching up veterans.

“The amendments that I will be proposing already have cross party support.

“I will be ensuring that veterans are put at the heart of the Bill – and through voting with or against these, the UK Government will have to show whether they are serious about implementing the military covenant.

“I recently travelled to the States to learn about their experiences of veterans support and I believe they are already streets ahead of us in this field. The inquiry will be reporting back on its overall findings in the coming months and I dearly hope the UK Government takes them on board.

“Although I was against the military incursion into Iraq and Afghanistan and voted against them it is politicians who place these brave troops in harm's way. We owe them a duty to ensure their wellbeing upon their return home.

“Anything else is a breach of the military covenant.”