The 27th June 2009 marked an important date as Armed Forces Day, serving to honour our servicemen and women and veterans who have made and continue to make huge sacrifices for their country. The first of its kind in the UK, the Armed Forces Day main event was staged at the historic Dockyard Chatham, Kent, where there were military and veterans parades, and military bands and displays; hundreds of other events were held in towns and cities throughout the UK.

Events like the Armed Forces Day are incredibly important and serve to remind the British people of the dedication and bravery of our armed forces and their achievements from World War I to more recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Armed Forces Day gives us an opportunity to show our appreciation to our servicemen and women for their sacrifices and achievements. And yet, despite our armed forces upholding their half of the military covenant commendably, the Government routinely fails to provide our servicemen and veterans with adequate welfare and equipment provisions. Our troops are overstretched - they do not have the helicopters and armoured vehicles urgently required, and replacements for the insufficiently armoured Snatch Land Rovers have been slow. Housing for servicemen and their families is woefully inadequate, and Government provisions to support the physical and mental wellbeing of our servicemen are greatly overstretched and in need of pressing attention.

Not only is the Government failing to provide our troops with adequate support in terms of health and equipment, our forces are denied the strategic direction they so desperately need both in Afghanistan and also more broadly. A Strategic Defence Review urgently needs to be commissioned in order that our troops have the right support and equipment and that this support is in sufficient supply.

But what does the public think?

• Are they satisfied with the celebrations for Armed Forces Day 2009?
• Do they think the Government adequately support our troops?
• What is the most pressing concern for our armed forces today?

Given the importance of protecting our troops and ensuring they are given the right equipment for their welfare and safety, the Government needs to move more swiftly to address concerns regarding the amount of protection Snatch Land Rovers provide servicemen. Snatch Land Rovers have come under criticism for being lightly armed and insufficient in protecting soldiers from mines or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) relative to their US counterparts who have been using vehicles such as the RG-31.

Sadly it is our servicemen and women who are paying the price of the Government’s slow response to this problem. It came as little surprise, then, that the families of four servicemen killed in Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq in Afghanistan, are now suing the Ministry of Defence, as they believe their deaths came as a result of the lack of protection they received in the Snatch vehicles, and thus their deaths were preventable if they had been in a more heavily armored vehicle.

The Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Drayson, claims there is a tradeoff between protection and mobility, but is this a tradeoff worth taking? Surely our troops deserve to be given the equipment and support they need in order to be adequately protected?

Following a recent High Court ruling allowing ex-servicemen who took part in nuclear tests in the 1950s to sue the Government for damages, it is expected that the Government will soon be faced with a large class action suit. Despite other countries that exposed their ex-servicemen to nuclear testing having long since compensated those who became ill, the MoD continues to drag its feet and is now arguing that claims have come too long after the event. Benjamin Browne QC, representing 1000 ex-servicemen, has argued that:

“Time and again, representatives of the government have said that the veterans must wait for compensation since science does not establish a link.

“Yet, when that science does finally become available, the MoD now says that all these claims are far too late.

“This is to be contrasted not only with the UK government’s previous attitude where lateness has never been raised, but also with the attitude of many governments around the world who have set up schemes to compensate and are still compensating their veterans as the veterans fall ill.”

So what do the public think?

• Do nuclear test veterans have a right to compensation for illnesses and diseases occurring in later life?
• Has the High Court ruling come too late, given that the cause of nuclear test veteran’s illnesses goes back to the 1950s?
• Is the Government’s response to claims justifiable given how much debt the country is in, or do we not have a moral duty to uphold our responsibilities under our ‘duty of care’ to our armed forces regardless of the cost?

Responding to the criticisms of the Government from Lance Corporal Johnson Beharry over mental health treatment for ex-servicemen, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey, said:

“This has been a live political issue for some time, so it is very helpful for Lance Corporal Beharry to have raised it in such stark terms.

“The Government is slowly waking up to the problem, but this testimony shows how far they have to go before we get close to dealing with this very serious issue.

“Specialist care suitable to the military experience must be available in every area of the country so that returning service personnel have ready access to it.”

Following reports of a collision between British and French nuclear submarines armed with warheads, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey said:

“While the British nuclear fleet has a good safety record, if there were ever to be a bang it would be a mighty big one.

“The public entrust this equipment to the Government confident that all possible precautions are being taken. Read more »

Commenting on today’s statement by John Hutton on Defence Planning Assumptions, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey said:

“The MoD’s Defence Planning Assumptions have been operating in a parallel universe for many years now.

“This latest review is just an attempt to put a veneer of credibility on the appalling overstretch our armed forces are operating under. Read more »