Compensation for Injured Troops

On Sunday 02 August Stephanie Flanders interviewed General Sir Mike Jackson, former Chief of the General Staff

Please note 'The Andrew Marr Show' must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

Former army head ...current system is "deficient"; review into compensation must be independent.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

General Sir Mike Jackson, former Chief of the General Staff

Well defence, as we've been hearing in the papers, is one of the most controversial areas of government at the moment, with arguments over helicopters in Afghanistan, defence spending and levels of compensation for wounded soldiers.

Now of course it's the recent offensive in Helmand, with its heavy toll on British troops, which has brought all these issues into focus - reminding everyone that decisions made at desks in Whitehall have direct consequences for the people on the front line.

Today a committee of MPs says the mission has been undermined by poor planning and a lack of clear direction.

Well the former Head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, knows this theatre of conflict very well, and he's with me now. Welcome General Jackson.

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

Thank you. Good morning.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

I think we should just go to that select committee report first. They talk about Mission Creep in Helmand, a lack of focus, not explaining the mission to the public. Are those your fears?

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

Well I have considerable sympathy, I think, with the way the report lays out its conclusions. I think we ought to start by saying it doesn't doubt the reason overall that we are in Afghanistan in the way that we are to achieve a degree of stability in that country, which will prevent terrorism being generated from it as it was under the Taliban regime.

And I see the article there in the Sunday Telegraph, a very moving interview with the widow of Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, who before he died was very strongly making the point that it was a mission very well worth doing. But what the committee is saying, I think, is that the way in which the job is being done needs some improvement. It's a complex task and it involves far more than just the military. You've got to bring it all together and integrate it - not only Britain but internationally as well.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

But this is, I mean this report is quite damning. It's poor planning, unrealistic expectations, insufficient resources. I mean you were Head of the Army when the troops went into Helmand in 2006 …

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

In the beginning, yes.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

Do you agree with any of that? Unrealistic expectations?

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

We were still heavily involved in Iraq. I mean I think to go back to 2006, as a comparison, we were still heavily involved in Iraq then and it was quite a burden to produce even the relatively small force we did in 2006. But we are now free of Iraq and therefore … (mobile phone rings) I'm terribly sorry.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

That's breaking the rules, having a phone. But I mean I think if you mention the fact that they were too focused on Iraq, isn't that part of the problem - that we seem to have … As far as the public's concerned, we sort of on the side did this thing in Afghanistan which is now taking so many lives - 23 just in July?

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

Yes.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

I mean isn't that the problem - that the public wasn't prepared for this?

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

I think it could have been more clearly, more strongly explained as to what the purpose was. And I think what has been happening over the last few weeks with this major operation to secure quite a large part of the Helmand River Valley, it has inevitably caused more casualties than perhaps we have been used to, and that has brought it more sharply into the public …

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

(over) And people weren't prepared for that, it's been widely said.

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

No they weren't, and I think the scale of that operation only became clear once it had begun. Now there may have been perfectly good operational security reasons for playing it that way. I don't think I should comment on that. (mobile phone rings)

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

But do you think … I mean one of the things that the government … You'll have to turn that phone off. But one of the things that the ministers have sort of struggled with is the idea that this has been a success. It's costing all of these lives and yet it's not actually … we're taking villages that we had control over a couple of years ago. Almost it feels like you know the word 'quagmire' - does … starts to feel like that.

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

Well I hope that's not the case, and certainly my own impression from what commanders on the ground are saying is that that isn't the case. But it is I think the complexity of the challenge which people are only starting really now to think about because sadly the casualty rate has brought this more sharply into the public domain.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

Just on this question of compensation. You were a bit critical certainly of the timing last week of the decision to take on these compensation decisions on the same day that four bodies were coming back from Afghanistan. Are you happy with where they've ended up - with a review of the compensation arrangements?

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

Well I note the review as being brought forward very sharply. It was due to be taking place I think in about nine months time, something of that order, and I think for very clear reasons it's been brought forward.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

It's going to be a review within the MoD. Do you think it should be independent?

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

I believe it should be independent. The difficulty with the MoD is that on the one hand you have, dare I say it, the civil side of the MoD perhaps with cost as their first concern. You have the military side of the MoD with the welfare of the soldiers as their first concern. And these two things are not always in harmony. But to get to the position frankly whereby a case was being attempted to be made that complications, medical complications subsequent to the original injury seem to have nothing to do with the original injury and therefore do not come into the compensation regime, seems to me to be incredible.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

Do you think that the regime itself needs to be more generous? I mean of course they have this long list …

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

(over) It's a so-called tariff, a so-called tariff under this relatively new scheme which has been here for about four years and in many ways is better than the old scheme. But again the pressure of current operations is showing that it has some deficiencies and I think a review is a very good thing. I would much prefer to see it as an independent review.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

One thing I did want to ask you. I mean when you were Head of the Army, you were famously … Some people said, they were critical of you for being too reticent about your criticisms of the government position on things like resources. Your successor has not been so reticent, has talked very clearly about the need for more helicopters, things like that. Do you think he crossed a line, or do you think you were wrong to stay quiet?

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

I don't think it would be proper in any way for me to comment on General Richard Dannatt who has had a, quite a burden in his three years. What has happened, I think, is that circumstances have changed, demands on the military have increased, and I think you make your own judgements within …

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

(over) Do you wish you'd been more …

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

… quite a fine constitutional line.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

Do you wish you'd been more sort of upfront about things when you were Head of the Army - going on the Today programme and … ?

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

I think I made the case for the army in the right way at that time.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

I tell you … I mean one thing just very finally, we haven't got any more time, but I would say you know some people would say, looking at it cynically - all the debates we've just had with Vince Cable about cutting, borrowing - we know there's going to be very tight times for public spending in the next few years, and some would say all of this debate has put the Ministry of Defence in a very strong position going into that debate. People now say they can't cut defence because of this.

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

Well I listened to …

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

(over) There are risks that people would have that sceptical view.

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

… I listened to a little of what Vince Cable was saying and he lays it out, as ever, with great clarity. But there are some real choices here. We spend … The government spends £700 billion a year or very close to it, of which 35 odd go in defence. To talk about this or that being "unaffordable" is meaningless. It's a question of political choice. And it seems to me that the nation is becoming clearer that defence ought to be an issue at the election and the spending that goes with it.

STEPHANIE FLANDERS:

General Jackson, thank you very much for joining us and for despatching your mobile phone eventually.

GENERAL SIR MIKE JACKSON:

Sorry.

INTERVIEW ENDS

Please note "The Andrew Marr Show" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

NB: This transcript was typed from a recording and not copied from an original script.

Because of the possibility of mis-hearing and the difficulty, in some cases, of identifying individual speakers, the BBC cannot vouch for its accuracy

Your comments

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version