Service Complains Commissioner: Annual Report

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Commissioner’s annual report for 2014 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.

This is the first report to be published by Nicola Williams as the Service Complaints Commissioner, and covers the work of her office in 2014 under the leadership of her predecessor Dr Susan Atkins. I would like to take this opportunity to echo her praise for the work done by Dr Atkins during her time in post.

The report details those areas where further work is required to make improvements to the way complaints are handled, while also recognising the good work that the services have undertaken during 2014 and the changes that they have made to the way they manage complaints. The continuous improvement approach that the services have adopted since the complaints system was introduced in 2008 has, year on year, delivered significant changes to how complaints are managed by all those involved in the process. These changes, and those proposed by the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill will make the process shorter and quicker, while also strengthening oversight and accountability through the powers of the new Service Complaints Ombudsman.

The findings of the report and the recommendations made are now being considered in detail. A formal response to the Commissioner will follow when that work is complete.

[HCWS472]

Independent Medical Expert Group: Triennial Review

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Independent Medical Expert Group. Triennial reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that non-departmental public bodies continue to have regular independent challenge.

The review will examine whether there is a continuing need for the Independent Medical Expert Group’s function and its form, and whether it should continue to exist at arm’s length from Government. Should the review conclude there is a continuing need for the body, it will go on to examine whether the body’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance.

The House will be informed of the outcome of the review, which is expected to be completed in the summer.

[HCWS469]

Welfare and Duty of Care in Armed Forces Initial Training: Ofsted Report

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

Today Ofsted publish their eighth report on welfare and duty of care in armed forces initial training, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House. Following inspections of eight armed forces initial training establishments between September 2014 and January 2015, Ofsted report that recruits and trainees feel safe and that their welfare needs are being broadly met.



The report is, largely, a positive one and emphasises the improvement in many aspects of welfare and duty of care in the establishments inspected; indeed all the locations assessed by Ofsted were judged as “good” or better, and two, in particular, were rated as “outstanding”. In a change from previous years Ofsted conducted, for the first time, an ungraded monitoring visit to review the arrangements for welfare and duty of care of phase 1 reserve recruits. This reflects the growing importance of the reserves within the armed forces as a whole and paves the way for further Ofsted involvement with reserve forces training in future years.

In another development this year, Ofsted conducted visits to each of the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force training headquarters. These visits, which did not result in graded judgements, identified strengths in the provision of support and strategic direction for training, as well as identifying specific areas for development and improvement.

Ofsted make a number of recommendations for improvement, particularly in the areas of instructor selection and qualification, site infrastructure and information and data management and analysis.

The armed forces remain committed to ensuring that initial training is supportive of the needs of its recruits, cadets and trainees and this year’s Ofsted report provides assurance and recommendations to maintain our commitment to a culture of continuous improvement.

[HCWS463]

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees: Triennial Review

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

The Ministry of Defence is required to review their non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) at least once every three years to ensure that they have regular independent challenge. I am today announcing the review to examine whether there is a continuing need for the function provided by the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees



The review will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will examine the key functions of the VAPCs. If the outcome of this stage is that delivery should continue, the second stage of the review will ensure that the body is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance.

I will inform the House of the outcome of the review in the summer when it is completed.

[HCWS468]

Veterans’ Pensions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I thank you for the way in which you have chaired this extremely short but nevertheless important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate and on raising this important matter. It is only right and fair that I, too, begin by honouring the great debt that we all owe to all those who have served and, indeed, their families.

Through the covenant, the Government have set up a way of recognising the unique service made by all those who served in the past and those who continue to serve. Many of them would have been unable to serve without the support of their families, which we also recognise. In short, all those who serve are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their life on behalf of their country. It is right and fair that we have the covenant because it recognises the particular contribution, service and sacrifice made by all those who serve.

It is timely that I remind everyone of what the covenant actually confers in law. The covenant states that there should be “no disadvantage” for anyone who has served or is serving, which extends to their families—their fathers and mothers, their sons and daughters—by virtue of their service. The second part of the covenant states that, in certain circumstances, most notably for those who have been bereaved or who have been particularly seriously injured—there is the caveat that clinical need must always take precedence—the covenant may confer an advantage because of the sacrifice that that individual or his or her family have made and suffered accordingly.

As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) agrees, it is important to recognise the principle of non-retrospection. In short, departing from that principle would break the long-standing and essential principle of public service pensions policy, and it would lead to widespread, long-term and unmanageable consequences for both this Government and future Governments. As he said, retrospection would cause not only legal difficulties but enormous financial difficulties. The principle of non-retrospection means that no retrospective improvement can be made to pension benefits for those who are no longer active members of a pension scheme. That principle has been upheld by successive Governments, and I am confident he is saying that, should there be a Labour Government or a Labour-led Government after 7 May, the principle would remain intact and there would be no retrospection. For this particular group of people who have served, the principle has been repeatedly tested and supported by court decisions at all levels. It is a principle that we must defend, for three good, solid reasons.

First, breaking the principle would open the floodgates for a raft of unaffordable claims from across the public sector. As we know, before the Social Security Act 1973, there was no entitlement to a preserved pension for any public servant; members of the armed forces were treated exactly the same as anyone else in the public sector. If someone had not served the necessary length of time and reached the right age, whatever their job was and whether they were in the armed forces or not, they were not entitled to a pension. Thus, any change for the armed forces would be used as a precedent for other groups to benefit. Despite the great service of all those who have served and despite their willingness to lay down their lives for their country, the cry would go up, “If we do it for them, why not for everybody else?”

An interesting comment was made—I think Members on both sides of this House would agree—that it is astonishing to look back at how workers were treated. My own mother worked as a radiotherapist, although not in the armed forces. She worked in the NHS, and for part of her working life she was paid less than a man doing exactly the same job. At the time, eyebrows were not even raised. Now, of course, we find it astonishing that someone should receive less money for doing the same work, for no other reason than that they are a woman. Likewise, when we look back at the pension policies of the past, we all raise our eyebrows in shock that members of the armed forces had to serve 16 years as an officer or 22 years as a non-commissioned member before they could receive a pension. It was the same in other public sector jobs; people had to work long stretches before they got a penny piece.

[Katy Clark]

Does the Minister not accept that the position of the armed services is unique, and that their relationship with the state is unique? Does she not therefore think that if an injustice has been recognised, her Government should be doing what they can to recognise the contribution of the armed services in the way that I described when I presented the petition?

[Anna Soubry]

The difficulty is that although the hon. Lady takes the view that there has been an injustice, I do not think her party takes that view. I think that we all take the view that an unfortunate set of circumstances prevailed right across the public sector. In considering the “no disadvantage” principle in the covenant, we would have to consider whether that particular group of people have suffered a disadvantage by virtue of their service. I am afraid that the answer comes back that they have not suffered any disadvantage by virtue of their service relative to any other members of the public sector, because effectively the same set of rules worked across the sector. Of course, should her own party come into Government, it will not go behind the principle of no retrospection—it has not done so in the past—so it is not proposing anything special in the way of legislation for the armed forces over and above any other part of the public sector. It is important that that point is made clear.

I will come to the money, but although no cost estimate has been made, given the number of former public sector employees who would be affected—if it were done for one group, it would have to be done for all—it would run to tens of billions of pounds. It would cost an astonishing amount of money. Even if an objective argument could be made to limit provision to the armed forces, and I am not convinced that it could be, it would still cost defence several billion pounds, which we know we simply do not have. The second reason why we cannot do it is that breaking the principle would prevent future Governments from making any further meaningful improvements to existing pensions, because the prospect of extending those benefits to former as well as current employees would simply be untenable.

Thirdly and perhaps more prosaically, it is a question of practicality. On top of prohibitively large costs, breaking the principle would entail a raft of potentially insuperable practical, administrative and legal problems. For example, it would require creating precise service and pay records and calculating pension awards for people who served up to 50 years ago, or for their surviving dependants. Furthermore, creating a modernised but retrospective entitlement now would in all likelihood involve revisiting the pensions already awarded to those who met the criteria for getting a pension at the time.

Having spoken of the practical imperatives at play, I now turn to our moral and legal obligations under the covenant—

[Katy Clark]

The Minister says that she has addressed the practical issues, but she has presented responses to a range of scenarios that I did not put to her. I asked her to come forward with proposals for recognising this group, yet she seems to have failed to do so. Surely that is the practical proposal that she should be making. It is not as though the Government have not been asked previously. They have been asked in writing on many occasions.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I have not finished my speech. I am explaining why. She may take the view that it need not be done retrospectively; she may and does take the view—I think that it is the view of the Opposition—that there should be some special arrangement involving application to the LIBOR fund. I will come to that, but there are others who do not share her view, and who do not take the view that an individual should have to go cap in hand to a Government fund. Some argue that it should be done retrospectively, so it is only right and fair, given the terms of the debate, that I respond to their arguments as well as to the arguments quite properly advanced by the hon. Lady, as I shall do in due course.

I have dealt with the covenant and what it does. The two key principles are no disadvantage and, in some instances, an advantage. This is why I do not believe the covenant applies to that group of our former servicemen and women. Before the Social Security Act 1973, there was no entitlement to a preserved pension for any public servant. Officers in the armed forces who had not served for 16 years from the age of 21, and soldiers who had not served for 22 years from the age of 18, were not entitled to a pension.

As I said, it sounds astonishing, but those were the rules then. They are stringent terms compared with today’s status quo, but although it sounds perverse, they compared favourably with other public sector schemes at that time; they were not that onerous. A civil servant, for instance, had to serve for at least 10 years and be over 50 to be eligible for a pension. Furthermore, members of the armed forces had access to other benefits. Although it did not constitute a pension, officers leaving after nine years and other ranks leaving after 12 years qualified for a gratuity to ease their transition from service to civilian life. Additionally, veterans who suffered illness or injury as a result of their service were entitled to what was called a war pension, although I am not sure that “pension” was ever the right word. It matters not—the point is that they were rightly and properly entitled to a sum of money that they received for life, no matter how long they had served.

One common misunderstanding is that the veterans we are discussing today somehow paid for their pensions but never received them. That is not right. Armed forces pensions are non-contributory. That was true of the armed forces pension scheme 75 and remains so for our new scheme, which will be introduced later this year. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body takes the pension provision into account as one of a range of factors when considering broad pay comparability for the armed forces, but armed forces pay is not abated as a direct consequence.

Taking into account all of the above, I think that it is clear that in terms of preserved pensions, members of the armed forces who left before 1975 were not disadvantaged compared with other groups of the time. So there is no case to answer under the terms of the armed forces covenant.

That said, the hon. Lady can rest assured that where we find clear disadvantage, we act. Of course, a recent high-profile example of that was the issue of pensions for life for surviving spouses and civil partners of personnel—a subject that she, like Members from all parties, has shown considerable interest in and campaigned on for many years. In that case, given the unique nature of service life, the widow or widower would have been prevented from earning an occupational pension of their own, which would have put them at a distinct disadvantage when compared with the rest of society. It has to be said that we are talking primarily about women, especially with regard to that generation. Service life meant that they married not only the man, but whichever part of the armed forces he served in, and often followed them around the world. They went from place to place. It was just often the way that they did not have a job of their own, and therefore were not able to build up their own pension pot or contribute to any pension scheme. We rightly identified that as a clear distinction that put them at a clear disadvantage, compared with others.

Consequently, from 1 April this year, all war pension scheme and AFPS75 widows and widowers will be able to retain their partner’s pension for life, and rightly so. That is one of the great achievements of this Government.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I must declare an interest: I have a preserved pension, having served in the Royal Air Force as an officer.

I commend the Government for the work they have done on war widows’ pensions. However, on veterans’ pensions, the Minister talked about the billions of pounds that a change to the system could cost. Have actual costs been calculated, and are there any firm proposals about giving some kind of due acceptance and acknowledgement of the service that these veterans gave to our nation, at home and abroad, pre-1975?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that he will forgive me; I had not realised that he had served in the RAF, and under a scheme that means he receives no pension because of the rule that pertained at that time.

My officials will provide me with any details during this debate, but it is my understanding that no costings have been made for the proposed change. However, I said earlier that we believe that it would require an astonishing amount of money; some say that up to billions of pounds would have to be found if we were to set up any new scheme. [Interruption.] I am right that there is no firm figure, but it is thought that it would cost billions of pounds if we were to make good on this—if I can use that expression—in the way that my hon. Friend, and indeed the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, have suggested.

Let us now look at the idea that is being advanced of using LIBOR funding, so that people can apply directly. A lot of money has been recovered by way of LIBOR fines. We have been able to allocate £10 million each year, in perpetuity, to fund military charities and to continue the work to advance the armed forces covenant, but I stress that it is only £10 million each year, which, frankly, would be a drop in the ocean compared with the sums we have talked about today. I am also slightly confused as to whether or not the idea is that individuals would be able to apply to some fund that would be funded from the LIBOR funds, on an individual basis. I would be grateful for any assistance on that.

[Katy Clark]

I did not advance that argument; my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is our Front-Bench spokesperson, did. What I asked the Minister to do is come forward with proposals for how she would provide some kind of recognition of this group. I am still waiting to hear any proposals from her. All she says is that there is no serious work being done, and that there are no serious costings; nevertheless, she says it would cost a huge amount of money, and she advances the case that there would be all sorts of repercussions for other groups. I ask her to focus on the group that I have talked about, which is a unique group.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It always helps when one has some advance notice of exactly what will be put forward; that would have been helpful. I am more than happy to write to her if somebody can come up with suggestions, but I have to say that she is really whistling in the wind on this one. That is because any group of people who have served and who then find themselves in dire straits are always a concern to any Minister in the Ministry of Defence. However, the idea that we can suddenly rustle up some scheme that would enable people to apply on some ad hoc basis, and can find some magic pot of money, is very difficult. No doubt that is why her party, in its 13 years in power, did not do something similar to what she is proposing, because the argument was just as strong then; it is difficult to see how such a scheme could exist.

We have outstanding military charities that are always there to help and support those in particular need. There is the work of the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, and a whole raft of military charities, especially as that work relates to those who served some time ago, to help them as they move into the autumn and winter of their life, if I can put it that way. We should not underestimate the work those charities do, much of which is long-standing.

Also, we should not underestimate the resources that we have made available through LIBOR funding to help a number of those charities, including the Royal Hospital Chelsea. That is an outstanding example of the assistance and support provided to those who have served, often many years ago, and who are coming towards the end of their life. Such charities do great work and I am very proud of the fact that we have managed to make so much funding available. By way of example, veterans’ accommodation received somewhere in the region of £40 million last year. There were a series of projects to improve such accommodation. In some instances, there was brand new accommodation; in other instances, charities—such as the one just outside Brighton for servicemen and women who have lost their sight or had it damaged—were helped to improve the accommodation that they provide.

Again, a large amount of money has been provided, but it delivered huge benefit for all those who have served in the past, from the older veterans right through to those who have served in more recent times. I would say—with some passion, if I may—that this coalition Government should be extremely proud; I say that as I see that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) has appeared in Westminster Hall. This coalition Government have really made a significant improvement to the welfare of all those who have served, and their families, because of the way that the Chancellor has taken the LIBOR funding and put it to great use.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on her. I should explain that I have been on a Statutory Instrument Committee, and then I had to discuss road safety in the main Chamber. Even I cannot be in three places at the same time. Nevertheless, I certainly support the thrust of this debate, and I recognise what the Minister has said about this Government; they have contributed significantly, not least in taking forward the armed forces covenant. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that some of the pieces still need to be put into the jigsaw of military life for those who have served.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we are far from being in a perfect world, and there is a great deal more that can be done.

Let us turn our attention to mental health. We know that the rates of incidence of poor mental health among veterans are no greater than for the rest of society. Equally, however, we know that for each individual who has served, suffering in any way from mental health issues is an absolute tragedy, for them and their families. Too many slip through the net.

[Katy Clark]

On a point of order, Mr Davies. This debate is on veterans’ pensions, but the Minister does not seem willing to address the issues that have been put forward. Could you make a ruling?

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

As far as I am concerned, the Minister is within the scope of the debate. I confess that I have given her a bit of latitude to talk about accommodation and things like that, but given that we have had plenty of time on our hands I did not think that was too much. As far as I am concerned, the Minister’s comments have addressed the subject of the debate. Whether they have been to the taste of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is a different issue altogether. If the Minister goes out of order, the hon. Lady can be assured that I will bring her back to order.

[Anna Soubry]

I must say, Mr Davies, whether or not I was out of order, I thought that identifying certain matters might assist colleagues. In fact, I was saying that there is always more to be done. If I am not allowed to talk about mental health in relation to all those who have served, then so be it.

I conclude by saying that the Government take this matter seriously. Military charities do an outstanding job and we have made funds available. I am not convinced that a separate scheme should be set up. I think it would be fraught with complexities. Goodness knows on what basis people could make their applications. The bureaucracy that would be needed and that would be involved would be extensive. It would cost an enormous amount of money and, at the end of the day, the money has to come from somewhere. Although we have been successful in ensuring that the LIBOR funding is going where it should go, not even that funding would be able to satisfy a fund that is thought at the moment to be somewhere in the region of billions of pounds.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords]

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I pay tribute to the Defence Committee for its work, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for his sensible comments. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for her long-standing work, and thank her for her contribution today. I am afraid I cannot thank her for everything, because she came to see me last week and gave me part of her very filthy cold; but, as ever, she spoke with great force, and rightly made it clear—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—that Members would be watching the ombudsman’s progress very carefully.

While I am confident that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will be back here on 10 May, I do not necessarily have the same confidence in my own return. However, I can tell them that, should I be in such a fortunate position thanks to the support of the people of Broxtowe, I too will be keeping an eye on the progress of the ombudsman, regardless of the Bench on which I find myself sitting. Of course, in an ideal world the ombudsman would not have to do any work at all. Would it not be marvellous if she had no work to do? Unfortunately, however, she will have a great deal of work to do, because we have a system that, as we know, is not performing as it should be.

When I had the great pleasure of visiting Northern Ireland and meeting my hon. Friend—as I now consider him to be—the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we spoke about the Bill and about the complaints system. He reminded me earlier today of the genuine concern that he feels about delay. Under the existing system, we hear all too often from members of all three services that there is too much delay, and that there is no excuse for it.

There are sometimes good reasons for delay. It is in the nature of service life that it may not be possible to find a witness—or even a complainant—for some time, because members of the armed forces may be on operations for at least six months. Someone who is serving on a submarine will be literally out of contact for those six months, or longer. Delay may also be caused by the complexity of a case, especially if it relates to allowances or pensions. However, all too often it is clearly due to the attitude that is taken. Complainants may be told, “I am very busy. I have a lot of other things on my plate. We are putting together a group of people to build a hospital in Sierra Leone. It is a crisis. It is an emergency and it is not going to wait, but your complaint can wait.”

We must change that attitude. A good, expeditious system will deliver justice. I know many people fear that false complaints will be lodged, but an effective system will ensure that only right and just complaints are dealt with, and people will then begin to have confidence in the system.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for accepting what we said in Committee, and for responding to it so positively. We felt that the delays were untenable and unfair, and were creating problems. Does the Minister think that the new system will enable people to have confidence in it, and to believe that, at long last, the delays will be reduced and they will be helped to secure the satisfaction that they seek?

[Anna Soubry]

I believe that if the Bill passes through all its remaining stages, of which there are not too many, and if we extend the remit of Nicola Williams, in whom we all have confidence, to create the role of the ombudsman—following the passing of amendments in Committee that the Government did not oppose—the system will be hugely improved, and people will have more confidence in it. It also sends out a very clear message to our armed forces that they have got to sharpen up now and absolutely make sure that when somebody makes a complaint, whether it is a more serious and more appalling bullying and harassment complaint—which mercifully are rare; we know there is nothing peculiar about our armed forces that means we have more such complaints than other professions or fields of work—or complaints about allowances or pay or whatever, it is taken seriously and is acted upon not only fairly and justly, but with all due diligence and expeditiously, so we do not have these delays.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Does the hon. Lady agree that what we are talking about this evening is a continuation of the good work done by the last two Governments through their respective Armed Forces Bills—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I are, I think, the only two Members who served on both occasions?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, I do. Both the hon. Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border have said that we have seen a progression to where we are today, and we must understand and recognise that some think this is a step too far. They think we have gone too far and perceive some threat to the chain of command. I absolutely do not believe that, but things often take time to develop in the ways we want. I am absolutely confident that we have struck the right balance.

[Rory Stewart]

The question of whether this is a fundamental threat to the chain of command is a central point. Although people are very polite and do not put this about, I know a lot of colleagues and people in the armed forces are concerned that this is going too far. Will the Minister lay out more clearly why this is not a threat to the chain of command?

[Anna Soubry]

This Bill—it has now been amended and we have accepted the amendments—changes the ombudsman’s remit but not her powers. Somebody who brings a complaint to Nicola Williams can be absolutely confident that it will be thoroughly and properly dealt with, and that she will be in a position to make her recommendations. She has access to Ministers and to others in the chain of command, and can go to them at any time. That chain of command is not under threat because of her. Indeed, I am confident that the creation of the ombudsman will give the chain of command the understanding—the hon. Member for Bridgend or the hon. Member for North Durham made this point—that it has nothing to fear from the ombudsman, nor from a better system, because if complaints are dealt with properly and expeditiously, and fairly and justly, we will have a better team and group of people. This will only strengthen the chain of command’s ability to conduct its business.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Although we have heard a lot about complaints, may I put it on the record that the chain of command deals very properly with most of the problems in the units for which it has responsibility and that we are talking about only a relatively small percentage of people? I just wanted to make that point, because all we have heard is complaints, complaints, complaints. There are not many complaints from the vast number of people who are dealt with properly by the officers in charge of them.

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I thought I had made it, but there is no harm in his repeating and endorsing it. Of course the majority serve without any complaint, but sometimes, as my hon. Friend knows, in any organisation there are bad apples, and even in a modern world there are times when people are undoubtedly bullied, and are undoubtedly the subject of discrimination and harassment; there are times when we get it wrong. The hon. Member for Bridgend knows of a very good example of not bullying or harassment but what she called double jeopardy, where something has been done wrong. That may well be to the detriment of certain people, in which case they are right to raise that complaint and we need good, strong systems. No organisation gets things 100% right, and when they go wrong people must have confidence that their complaint will be dealt with fairly and justly, and that if it is not they can go somewhere else—to the ombudsman, in this instance. Now that we have agreed to the amendments tabled in Committee, it will not only be maladministration that can be taken into account. The merits of the case and the matter of delay will also be considered.

I know that we are not going to vote on the amendments, but I should like to tell the House why the Government resist them. Amendment 23 would require anyone appointed to decide on a complaint or on an appeal that related to harassment, discrimination or victimisation to have a proven understanding of such matters. We all acknowledge that these can be among the more complex complaints, as they involve relationships that have gone wrong in one way or another. However, no record is or could reasonably be kept of those who may have an understanding of such matters so that they could be called upon when required, as the amendment proposes. I understand the principle behind the amendment, and there is no doubt that it is entirely well intentioned, but I cannot agree to it—certainly at this stage—for the reasons I have just stated.

Amendments 24 to 26 would require there to be a gap of five years between a person ending their service in the regular or reserve forces and becoming eligible to be appointed to the post of service complaints ombudsman. The provision in the Bill simply requires that the individual to be appointed to the post should not currently be a member of the regular or reserve forces or of the civil service. Our people will rightly expect the ombudsman to carry out the role with impartiality and professionalism. That person should also of course be demonstrably independent of those whom they seek to hold to account for the way in which complaints have been handled. For that reason, the ombudsman will be outside the chain of command and will have access to Ministers and to all levels of the chain of command whenever he or she deems it necessary. I make no apology for repeating that the ombudsman will be able to approach the chain of command and Ministers at any time, at any level and on any issue, should they need to do so.

Being in offices that are outside the defence estate and recruiting their own staff in line with civil service recruitment guidelines will further reinforce the ombudsman’s independence from the services and from the Ministry of Defence. A further mark of the role’s independence and the security of the post holder’s tenure is the fact that the Bill provides that the post holder’s appointment will be subject to approval by Her Majesty the Queen. Yet another measure of their independence is that the House of Commons Defence Committee will conduct a pre-appointment hearing with the MOD’s preferred candidate.

Our aim is to attract high quality candidates and to get the best person for this important job. These amendments would restrict the field of possible candidates and exclude those who might have recent, relevant experience. We want therefore to retain the flexibility provided under the Bill’s current provisions, and I must stress that any previous armed forces experience can and will be scrutinised and fully assessed for any impact it might have on perceptions of the candidate’s independence. For those reasons, these proposals are resisted.

Amendment 27 would require the length of the ombudsman’s term in office, and a statement that it was non-renewable, to be set out in the legislation. It would require that the ombudsman not be appointed for fewer than five years or longer than seven, and that the term could not be renewed. The amendment’s aim is to ensure that the person appointed to be the ombudsman would not be influenced in their assessment of how the complaints system was operating or, in their investigation of maladministration claims, by concerns about whether they would be reappointed. It also aims to give the ombudsman, and those whom they serve, some certainty about the length of time they would be in post and to make that term of office a reasonable enough length for the post holder to get to grips with the role and to see through changes.

I fully acknowledge all those aims, but I do not accept that those provisions need to be set out on the face of the Bill in order for those matters to be enforced or to give certainty and confidence. The matters have been set out in the letter of appointment for the current commissioner, and we believe that to be the right approach. We want to retain the flexibility to amend those terms of appointment if experience suggests that that might be necessary. The amendment is therefore resisted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

Reform of System for Redress of individual Grievances

[Anna Soubry]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 6, line 28, after “may”, insert “, on an application to the Ombudsman by a person within subsection (1A),”

This amendment clarifies the provision made in new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (inserted by clause 2 of the Bill) about the making of applications to the Service Complaints Ombudsman. See also amendment 5.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 2 to 6

Amendment 22, page 6, line 37 at end insert—

“() for the purposes of subsection (1)(c)—

“Undue delay” should be considered any length of time longer than one calendar year, or a length of time that the Ombudsman determines constitutes an undue delay in relation to a given complaint.”

This amendment defines “undue delay” for the purposes of paragraph (c) of new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see Government amendment 4).

Government amendments 7 to 21

[Anna Soubry]

The amendments make the changes to the Bill agreed in Committee and ensure that they work correctly from a drafting point of view. I do not mean to insult or to criticise anyone, but we had to ensure that these amendments had the effect that the majority of the Committee wanted. I also want to make it clear that the Government accept the changes made in Committee and that nothing in these amendments seeks to row back on what the Committee agreed. I hope that hon. Members will accept that, because I have seen all the key players—I now see that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is sitting at the back. He might take offence at that, but I hope that he does not. We have done that quite deliberately so that everybody knows why the amendments have been proposed. They fill in significant gaps left by the amendments agreed in Committee and, in particular, ensure that the ombudsman can make recommendations following an investigation into a service complaint, giving her decisions the necessary teeth.

The amendments agreed in Committee reflect some of the recommendations made by the Defence Committee in its report on the Bill, which was published last October. I am grateful for the Defence Committee’s work on the Bill and it is clear that the changes agreed in Committee now have cross-party support, as they did in the Defence Committee. The Government have listened to the arguments made in Committee and by others on Second Reading and have accepted them. I therefore hope that the amendments will be supported across the House.

The Public Bill Committee agreed that the role of the ombudsman should be extended in three ways. The first was that the ombudsman should be allowed to look at the substance or merits of an individual complaint and not just whether it had been handled correctly by the services. In other words, she should be able to consider not just maladministration. The second was that the ombudsman should look for any maladministration that had occurred, not just that alleged by the complainant. If during the course of examining that complaint she comes across any other maladministration, she should be able to consider that.

Those are changes to the ombudsman’s remit, but it is important to emphasise a point that has sometimes been lost in our debates. The ombudsman will ordinarily become involved in individual complaints only once the consideration of them by the services has finished. It is important to reiterate that if an individual makes a complaint it should go through all the necessary stages and processes and if there is no finding in the complainant’s favour, meaning that he or she feels that the grievance has not been met—that they have not won, if you like—they can go to the ombudsman. If complaints are successfully dealt with by the services, there is no need for those complaints to go to the ombudsman. Most complaints are satisfactorily resolved, as one might imagine they would be in any complaints system.

It is important to make a point because the third change agreed in Committee is to allow the ombudsman to investigate allegations of undue delay, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) earlier, in three different respects: as part of a maladministration investigation, in relation to an ongoing “live” complaint, and pre-complaint. As I am sure you have worked out, Mr Speaker, I mean that when somebody has made a complaint that has got stuck and has not been got on with, even though it has not been completed, that person can go to the ombudsman. Even before a complaint has got into the system, if it is thought that there has been some prevarication or undue delay, the complainant can go to the ombudsman to unstick whatever is gluing things up.

It is in everyone’s interests to have a complaints process in which roles and powers are clear so that there is no confusion. It is also important that the wishes of the individual remain at the heart of the process, given that this is an individual’s grievance procedure. It is about that individual and his or her grievance. It remains the case that the services will in every case still be left to decide how to respond to any findings or recommendations made by the ombudsman, even in relation to the extended remit that the ombudsman will now have.

We have dealt with the amendments made in Committee with those points firmly in mind and the Government’s amendments today make the necessary additional changes to the rest of the Bill’s provisions, which were left untouched by the amendments in Committee, so that there can be no doubt about the precise scope of the ombudsman’s powers. That is why proposed new section 340H(1), as amended by our amendments, will set out in good strong terms that the ombudsman can investigate the following: a service complaint when that complaint has completed the internal system, making it clear that the ombudsman can look into the merits of a complaint; an allegation of a mishandling of service complaints, including undue delay, when that complaint has completed the internal system, which deals with maladministration; and allegations that a service complaint has been unduly delayed before the complaint has completed the internal system or, as I have explained, that there was undue delay before a service complaint was made.

[Bob Stewart]

Do I assume that if the Service Complaints Commissioner looks at a matter and says that there is no case to answer, it can finish there, rather than there being a long process? Can the commissioner say, “There is no case to answer; this matter is finished”?

[Anna Soubry]

If somebody says that there has been undue delay, but the commissioner finds that there has not, she can certainly say so, though at that stage, of course, she would not be looking at the merits of the case. If somebody makes a complaint and goes through the system, and there is no finding in their favour, and then says, “I will now go to the ombudsman on the question of the merits of the case”, it is absolutely the ombudsman’s role to look at whether there is any merit to the case. If she thinks that there is no merit to it, she will not flinch from saying so. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.

It is now possible to apply to the ombudsman alleging undue delay when a complaint in the internal system has not been concluded, or indeed when a complaint has not even been made, so it is important that the Bill sets out for the avoidance of doubt what is meant by the internal process having been completed. That is effected by putting the phrase “finally determined” in proposed new section 340H(1); an explanation of the term is provided in proposed new subsection (5). Several hon. Members raised that issue with me before the debate in private—I mean nothing untoward by that. I want to make it clear for the Hansard record that the phrase “finally determined” does not in any way preclude the ombudsman’s looking into the merits or maladministration of a complaint. It is simply there to make it clear that she can do that only once consideration of the complaint by the services through the internal system has been completed, and only when the applicant has asked the ombudsman to investigate in accordance with the requirements of the Bill. The phrase brings clarity.

It remains important for the ombudsman to have a reasonably clear idea of what the applicant wants them to look into, and for investigations to remain focused and proportionate. One of the amendments would insert a new subsection (4)(b) in section 340H, requiring the applicant to specify which type or types of investigation the complainant wants the ombudsman to carry out. This is not an onerous obligation, and it will help to focus the efforts of the ombudsman on what is most important to the applicant. That is connected with the amendment that would insert new subsection (1)(b) in new section 340I, giving the ombudsman the discretion to decide whether to investigate the whole service complaint or allegation, or just part of it.

New section 340H also reflects the change to the ombudsman’s ability to report on any maladministration identified during an investigation of a complainant’s allegation of maladministration. We want the ombudsman to be free to report on any other aspect of mishandling that she may come across, and have amended the Bill accordingly to make this clear throughout the relevant provisions. Our changes provide an essential clarification to the amendments agreed in Committee; those amendments would have required the ombudsman to look for any maladministration in every investigation, whether or not it had been alleged by the complainant. The amendment that we propose to new section 340H(6) clarifies the scope of this new aspect of the ombudsman’s investigative power.

It is equally important for everyone that it is clear what the ombudsman can do on completing an investigation. Her ability to produce a report with findings and recommendations is fundamental to the view that many will rightly have about whether this new role really does have teeth. The Government amendments will also fill a gap that was left when amendments were made in Committee. We would amend new section 340L to make it clear that the ombudsman must, after carrying out an investigation, prepare a report setting out her findings and recommendations. After an investigation of a service complaint, the ombudsman will need to issue findings stating whether the complaint was well founded, and will need to make any recommendations to ensure appropriate redress. The Defence Council retains responsibility for responding to those findings and recommendations, in accordance with new section 340M. The Government amendments also clarify that the ombudsman must set out any recommendations as a result of a finding of maladministration or undue delay.

This group of amendments is a relatively large one, but it is necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are clear. The amendments also ensure that the drafting is coherent and complete, while giving full effect to the amendments agreed to in Committee, which had cross-party support. In a couple of important respects, which I have outlined, they also improve the amendments which were agreed to in Committee.

We could have been, shall I say, a little bit naughty. When we saw what had been voted for, we could have left it there, knowing that it did not do the job that we knew the Committee wanted it to do. We accordingly went to our draftsmen and draftswomen and we have made sure that the spirit of the Committee is now being put into law.

[Rory Stewart]

Without being too pedantic or too pompous at this point, there is an important procedural point here when we discuss being naughty or otherwise. There is an important conceptual element in setting up an ombudsman, which is showing respect to Parliament, respect to the Committee system—respect to both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee. Rather than getting into the ins and outs of politics, I encourage the Minister to see this as a great success and a great model for the way such things can go forward in the future.

[Anna Soubry]

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. We could have played politics, but I absolutely was not going to do that. My officials would not dream of such a thing, of course, but we could have done that because the amendments were not clear. I took the firm view that it was clear what the Committee wanted and that we should do everything we could to put it into effect. There was a good argument for waiting until the next armed forces Bill, but I took the view that that would not be right. It was clear what the Defence Committee wanted and what the Public Bill Committee wanted. That is why the Government have tabled the amendments. We know that that is, in effect, the will of the legislature. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) nodding.

The amendments will give us a Bill and a process that will help our people understand when they can approach the ombudsman, on what matters and at what stage of the process, and they will give the ombudsman the teeth needed to hold the services and the MOD to account. I therefore commend amendments 1 to 21 to the House.

[Mrs Moon]

Amendment 22, which is in my name, seeks to define “undue delay”. I pay respect to the Minister, who has taken time to meet everyone involved with the Bill. We had considerable discussion on the issue of undue delay and how it could be defined, and we agreed that, although I would not press the amendment today, it was important that there was a dialogue about delay.

There are two things that one can say for certain about the current complaints system: delay is an endemic problem within the system, and everyone is aware of it. It came to the attention of the Committee many times that only 25% of cases are resolved within a 24-week target, and only 26% of complaints made in 2013 were closed during that year. The internal risk register looking at the implementation of the service ombudsman Bill within the MOD stated that there was a high risk that the system would lose further internal credibility if there was continuing media exposure of how powerless the ombudsman is. Rather than media exposure taking place, it is important that the system operates well so that there can be internal confidence.

There is a high risk that the system will continue to fail and that current delays will continue. There is a high risk that service personnel will be let down, damaging their mental health and leading to suicide attempts. None of us wants to see any of that, which is why the Defence Committee has worked as closely as possibly with the Minister to ensure that we move forward in a constructive and productive manner.

In January 2013, 325 complaints had a red flag. By December 2013 that figure had swelled by over 50% to 500. We have seen repeatedly how delay has been used to wear down complainants so that they go away. It is also used as a punishment for complaints being made in the first place.

Members have raised concerns about this being an attack on the chain of command. Let me say that, since the Bill Committee, I have taken time—I have spoken to the Minister about this—to talk to people in the chain of command and to ask them how they feel about the changes introduced by the Defence Committee. Every person I have spoken to has welcomed the changes and not felt threatened by them. They all felt that the changes were right and that they would focus people’s minds and attentions on complaints so that they are not put in a cupboard and regarded as an annoyance, but are seen as one of the parts of the job to be dealt with first, so that the unit operates efficiently and effectively. The bad pennies that exist would be dealt with quickly and a clear message would be sent that bullying and harassment, in particular, would not be tolerated anywhere in the chain of command.

Delay is caused in part by the labyrinthine system that was initially set up by the Ministry to process complaints. In his evidence to the Defence Committee, retired Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Field railed against the masses of paperwork involved. The abuse of process by those in the chain of command either to propel a dubious complaint or to hold up a legitimate but inconvenient one is also a worrisome cause of delay. Such abuses can have a devastating impact on individual complainants and on their mental health and well-being. When such cases come into the public domain, the system and confidence in it are undermined.

I raised the case of Tom Neathway on Second Reading and in Committee. Another concerning case that I would like to mention briefly is that of Sergeant Major Michael Booley, who was Prince Harry’s flying instructor. He accused the Army of gross mistreatment after a four-year dispute that ended his distinguished career. When reading about the case, it is very worrying to see that the service complaints panel found that Major Graham, who Sergeant Major Booley claimed had been acting deliberately and maliciously against him, was an unreliable witness and that his conduct not only wronged the complainant, but acted against the interests of his employers in the Army. I think that that is the big issue. Where there is bullying and harassment, it is against the interests of the Army, the RAF or the Navy. We must always keep that central to our thinking and our focus when looking at complaints. That is why the changes set out today are so important.

I think that it is important to have some sort of definition of undue delay, but I accept that it might not necessarily need to be in the Bill, or even in regulations. It can be something that the ombudsman sets out herself when setting out the definitions that will guide her judgments. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider and discuss with the ombudsman how we can move that forward.

--- Later in debate ---

We support the Government amendments, which give credence to the amendment made in Committee. The recommendations for redress are covered in amendments 16 to 21. Findings on maladministration and the ombudsman’s recommendations will be brought forward within a certain time, which will give some comfort to many members of the armed forces who deal with these issues. If the internal chain of command takes an undue time over what should be a simple inquiry, they will know that there is another avenue available. The ombudsman may well need to highlight some of the complaints to the chain of command to ensure that the logjam in such cases is dealt with more quickly. I support the amendments to ensure that we have a system that will not only address the issue of undue delays, but, as we have hoped for a number of years, provide an ombudsman whose remit is wider than just maladministration.

[Anna Soubry]

I must say that I thought I had been rather gracious in defeat, so it was a little churlish of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—[Interruption.] He shouts louder than I do from a sedentary position. I have to say that it is to the coalition’s credit that all we are doing in the Bill, with the creation of the ombudsman, has been done in just over four years, while the Labour party did not do it in 13 years.

I want to address amendment 22. I know it is an awful expression, but the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and I are absolutely on the same page. We know that undue delays are the absolute devil of any system. It is not a widespread problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has moved to a different place, has quite clearly and properly said, but when it happens, it is a real problem. The attitude is, “Oh, let’s prevaricate. Let’s put up some device. They’ll just go away, or they’ll give up in the end.” We must stop such an attitude, so I completely and totally understand what the hon. Lady is seeking to do. In that respect we are absolutely at one, but not on how we achieve it. I obviously accept the good intentions behind amendment 22, but I shall it because it is not the device to achieve what we both want.

The time taken in progressing a complaint can be affected by any number of events, such as illness, deployment, which I have mentioned, and training. Sometimes the complainant shows a lack of interest, even though the complaint is valued and should be pursued. A complainant might decide not to pursue it for a period but then come back to it, or they might not be going to pursue it and then realise that they should do so for reasons that we can imagine, but often because others have given them support. Of course, the need to find relevant information can also delay things.

It is important for all concerned that no strict definition is applied. If one were, it might deter worthy cases from being raised or constrain the ombudsman’s discretion as to what is in scope. I am one who looks for discretion as opposed to fixed, determined dates or targets. It should be for the ombudsman to set out guidance on what individuals might need to consider if they believe that they have suffered undue delay in progressing their complaint.

This is not a matter for legislation. Putting the advice in the ombudsman’s guidance will ensure that there is the necessary flexibility to adapt it to reflect real experiences. With some complaints, undue delay might be six or nine months. We need that flexibility. That is why it is right to leave it to the ombudsman to set out her—or, in time, his—guidance.

[Mrs Moon]

To use the horrible expression that the hon. Lady used, we are on the same page. As of 26 January 2015, 1,033 complaints that had been open since 2013 were still unresolved. We are on the same page in that neither of us wants to see that continue. Let us hope that the ombudsman finds a way to deal with such undue delays.

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely. I hope that the hon. Lady is comforted by the fact that we are looking at whether the complaints that are already in the system can be brought into the new system. I imagine that long delay is a matter that we will want to bring to the ombudsman’s attention. Again, it all depends on the nature of the complaint and what the circumstances are. The Second Sea Lord, Sir David Steel, made the point to me that he had seen some cases in the Navy that were huge because they were about complicated allowances and so on and so forth.

However, it struck me that the cases that the hon. Lady referred to were not particularly complicated. Those delays were absolutely unacceptable. It is often the person-to-person complaints or grievances that must be dealt with expeditiously. That is in everybody’s interests, not just the complainant’s. The person against whom the complaint is made also wants determination and justice. Not every complaint is well founded; there are cases in which false allegations are made. It is therefore in the interests of the person against whom the complaint is made that it is dealt with fairly, justly and with all due diligence and expedition.

For all the reasons that I have given, I resist amendment 22 and urge everyone to accept the other amendments.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, page 6, line 29, after “complaint”, insert

“, where the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint has been finally determined”.

This amendment makes a drafting change in consequence of amendment 9. It clarifies that the Service Complaints Ombudsman may not investigate a service complaint unless satisfied that the complaint has been finally determined.

Amendment 3, page 6, line 31, leave out from “complaint” to end of line 32 and insert

“(including an allegation of undue delay), where the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint has been finally determined;”.

This amendment makes minor drafting changes, including a change in consequence of amendment 9. It clarifies that the Service Complaints Ombudsman may not investigate an allegation of maladministration unless satisfied that the service complaint to which the allegation relates has been finally determined.

Amendment 4, page 6, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—

“(c) an allegation of undue delay in the handling of a service complaint which has not been finally determined;

(d) an allegation of undue delay in the handling of a relevant service matter.”

This amendment clarifies when the Service Complaints Ombudsman may investigate an allegation of undue delay in the handling of a service complaint or a relevant service matter (as to which, see amendment 6).

Amendment 5, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) The following persons are within this subsection—

(a) in a case relating to a service complaint, the complainant;

(b) in a case relating to a matter in respect of which a service complaint has not been made, the person who raised the matter,

and, in relation to a case mentioned in paragraph (b), references in the remainder of this Part to the complainant and to a service complaint are to be read respectively as references to the person and the matter mentioned in that paragraph.”

This amendment makes provision about who may make an application to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for an investigation under new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

Amendment 6, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“( ) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d)—

(a) “relevant service matter” means a matter of a kind about which a service complaint—

(i) may be made, whether or not at the time of the application to the Ombudsman such a complaint has been made, or

(ii) could have been made (but for provision made by virtue of section 340B(2)(c));

(b) the reference to the handling of a matter is to its handling before the making of a service complaint (if any) about the matter.”

This amendment defines “relevant service matter” for the purposes of paragraph (d) of new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see amendment 4) and makes provision about the reference to the handling of such a matter.

Amendment 7, page 6, line 39, after “writing,”, insert—

“() must specify the kind (or kinds) of investigation which the complainant wishes the Ombudsman to carry out (an investigation under a particular paragraph of subsection (1) being a “kind” of investigation for this purpose),”.

This amendment provides that an application to the Service Complaints Ombudsman must specify which type or types of investigation the applicant wants the Ombudsman to carry out.

Amendment 8, page 6, line 40, leave out “the” and insert “any other”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.

Amendment 9, page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to “a” in line 44 and insert—

“( ) For the purposes of this section, a service complaint has been finally determined where—

(a) ”.

This amendment converts new section 340H(3) for the Armed Forces Act 2006 into a general proposition about when a service complaint is to be treated for the purposes of new section 340H as having been finally determined.

Amendment 10, page 7, line 5, leave out “that”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 9.

Amendment 11, page 7, leave out lines 7 to 11 and insert—

“( ) The purpose of an investigation is—

(a) in the case of an investigation under subsection (1)(a), to decide whether the complaint is well-founded and, if so, to consider what redress (if any) would be appropriate;

(b) in the case of an investigation under subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d), to decide—

(i) whether the allegation is well-founded, and

(ii) if so, whether the maladministration or undue delay to which the allegation relates has or could have resulted in injustice being sustained by the complainant.”

This amendment clarifies the purpose of an investigation under each paragraph of new section 340H(1) for the Armed Forces Act 2006.

Amendment 12, page 7, line 11, at end insert—

“(4A) The power to carry out an investigation under subsection (1)(a) or (b) includes power to investigate any maladministration in the handling of the service complaint where it becomes apparent to the Ombudsman during the course of an investigation that any such maladministration may have occurred.”

This amendment provides for the circumstances in which the Service Complaints Ombudsman has power to investigate maladministration in the handling of a service complaint (other than any maladministration that the complainant has specifically alleged).

Amendment 13, page 7, line 12, after “application”, insert

“in respect of a service complaint that has been finally determined”.

This amendment is consequential on the amendments to new section 340H(1) for the Armed Forces Act 2006 (in particular amendments 2 to 4).

Amendment 14, page 7, line 25, leave out “investigated an application relating to” and insert

“carried out an investigation under subsection (1)(a) or (b) in relation to”.

This amendment confines new section 340H(8), which prevents the Service Complaints Ombudsman from investigating subsequent applications relating to a service complaint that the Ombudsman has already investigated, to cases where the Ombudsman has carried out an investigation under new section 340H(1)(a) or (b) in relation to the complaint.

Amendment 15, page 7, line 31, at end insert “;

(b) whether to investigate a service complaint, or an allegation, as a whole or only in particular respects.”

This amendment provides that the Service Complaints Ombudsman may investigate a service complaint, or an allegation, in whole or in part.

Amendment 16, page 7, line 44, after “investigation”, insert “under section 340H(1)(b)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments to new section 340H(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

Amendment 17, page 8, line 43, at end insert

“, and

(b) any recommendations referred to in subsection (2A).”

This amendment requires the Service Complaints Ombudsman to include, in a report under new section 340L, any recommendations required by subsection (2A) (see amendment 18).

Amendment 18, page 9, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—

“(2A) Those recommendations are—

(a) on an investigation under section 340H(1)(a) where the Ombudsman finds that the =-service complaint to which the investigation relates is well-founded, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) on what redress would be appropriate;

(b) on an investigation under section 340H(1)(b), (c) or (d) where the Ombudsman finds that the allegation to which the investigation relates is well-founded, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) as a result of that finding;

(c) where, by virtue of section 340H(4A), the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the handling of a service complaint, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) as a result of that finding.”

This amendment provides for the recommendations which the Service Complaints Ombudsman can make as a result of findings on an investigation under any paragraph of new section 340H(1) or by virtue of new section 340H(6).

Amendment 19, page 9, line 5, leave out “(2)” and insert “(2A)(b) or (c)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 18.

Amendment 20, page 9, line 8, after “maladministration”, insert

“or undue delay to which the finding relates”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 18.

Amendment 21, page 9, line 10, after “maladministration”, insert “or undue delay”. —(Anna Soubry.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 18.

Third Reading

[Anna Soubry]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank the members of the Public Bill Committee, who did an excellent job of ensuring that the issues covered by the Bill were thoroughly looked at. The service complaints system is not one of which many Members of this House have first-hand experience. It is therefore to the credit of the members of the Committee that they quickly grasped the key issues behind the Bill. I am very grateful for the contributions that were made from both sides.

In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for her involvement in these issues over a number of years. She played a key role in Committee and our debates this afternoon, and I know she feels strongly about the issues she raises. I commend her for her tenacity and for the passion with which she makes her case. I am delighted that she will continue to pursue all those matters and to scrutinise the Bill should it have the good fortune of reaching the statute book. She will not give up on her campaign to ensure that things are done properly by all those who serve in our armed forces, and the Bill is undoubtedly better because of her involvement.

I also thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). There is some rivalry between us, because we went to opposing schools—although not at the same time; he is much younger than I am. I like to think that that is the reason for some of our rivalry in our discourse in the House and Committee. He has approached these matters in a constructive and knowledgeable way. I wish to emphasise that, because he speaks on the basis of knowledge having served as a Defence Minister, and he therefore knows what he is talking about even if we do not always agree. He has done much to ensure that the Bill has been properly scrutinised, which is important in these proceedings.

I thank the Defence Committee and its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). He is no longer in his place, but I am sure he is about somewhere and hopefully he will read this debate. The Committee produced an excellent and detailed report on the Bill last year, which has done much to focus our debates on the most significant issues. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made it clear that his Committee will continue to do the job that it has been doing over a number of years, to ensure that we have a good, fair, robust complaints system in the way we have identified. In that respect we are absolutely in agreement.

The Bill does two important things: it improves the system for handling service complaints, and—we seem to have forgotten this because it is not contentious, although it is incredibly important—it ensures that we can provide funding anywhere in the world to organisations, notably our great military charities, that support our armed forces community. It is clear from debates on the Bill that there is general agreement about the need to reform the services complaints system, and we all agree on the importance of having a system that is fair, effective, swift when it has to be, and efficient.

Having a robust complaints system is a key part of maintaining morale and therefore ensuring operational effectiveness—a happy crew, ship, team or whatever will work better. That is pretty obvious; unfortunately, it is not always obvious to some, although I hope it will be from now on. It is not a “nice to have” but an essential part of the covenant between our society and those who are willing to lay down their lives to defend it.

As I said, clause 4 has attracted less interest because it is not contentious, although it is important. It will allow us to support organisations that help our armed forces community anywhere in the world, which we all agree is a good thing. The amendments will mean that the proposed service complaints ombudsman will have a wider role than first envisaged. He or she will be able to look at the substance of complaints and at any maladministration in the way it has been handled, not just that alleged by the complainant. The ombudsman will also be able to investigate allegations of undue delay at earlier stages in the process, whether or not a complaint has been made, and that is a good thing.

I will not pretend that this is what the Government initially wanted, but we have listened to arguments from all sides and we have accepted them. I emphasise that on balance I believe that the changes have left us with a stronger and more robust system of oversight with more protections for the individual. The Bill now delivers the right complaints system for our servicemen and women, and on that basis I commend it to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kevan Jones: Portland school, as opposed to Hartland school, but both rejoicing in their being in or close to Worksop.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

1. What progress he has made on strengthening the armed forces covenant.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am incredibly proud of the fact that it was this Government who enshrined the covenant in law. We should all be extremely proud of that, and of the work we have done.

I wrote to all the local authorities that signed the covenant. I have been overwhelmed by their response, and by the outstanding work that many are doing in delivering on their pledges. We must now ensure that that work continues throughout the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

I believe that the Minister’s justified pride is accompanied by a desire for a grouping.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Incidentally, I received a letter from Gedling, whose contents I may share with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

10. What progress he has made on strengthening the armed forces covenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The Veterans Contact Point armed forces centre, which is based in my constituency, does vital work to support veterans, many of whom have found the transition from the armed forces to civvy street extremely difficult. Will my hon. Friend visit the centre to see the excellent work that is being done by a vital charity that supports people throughout the Coventry and Warwickshire area?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, indeed. I look forward to visiting it on, I believe, 9 March. I have seen the website of that excellent charity, and I pay wholehearted tribute to the work that is being done by a wide variety of people. I note that the local council has reduced the charity’s rent in recognition of its commitment to the covenant. As I have said, we must now roll out that work throughout the United Kingdom.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Some people leave the armed forces suffering from mental health conditions. What action has been taken by the Government as a whole to help people who are suffering from those debilitating conditions?

[Anna Soubry]

We have invested an extra £7.4 million in precisely that sort of work. I pay tribute to Stockton-on-Tees borough council, which—along with other councils in the north-east—has been doing outstanding work, and whose chief executive has written to me. Councils are working across the piece, bringing together all the relevant bodies and people, and delivering good mental health services to veterans in particular.

[Jack Lopresti]

Is there a follow-up system to ensure that when people leave the armed forces they do not fall by the wayside when it comes to medical provision?

[Anna Soubry]

It is critical that we get that right. At present, such services are delivered only at a local level. Many councils are involved, including those in the Greater Manchester combined authority, which signed the covenant at the end of December. All those councils are doing outstanding work which they are determined to continue, on a completely cross-party basis. They are working with a number of parties, bringing in health authorities, hospital trusts and clinical commissioning groups. What is beginning to happen in councils must now be replicated throughout the United Kingdom.

[Mike Weatherley]

What progress has been made in regard to the commitment to an armed forces charter based on the covenant that was made by the United States and others during the NATO summit?

[Anna Soubry]

That is a good point. We need to proceed with that commitment. It was a great honour for me to go to the United States, meet other veterans Ministers, and share best practice. A number of countries are particularly interested in our work in delivering on the covenant, and, because other countries do things in different ways, we learn from each other. NATO has provided us with a very good device to enable us to share that best practice and, as I have said, to learn from each other.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister will welcome the fact that Flintshire county council, which is in my area, has signed the covenant, but what assessment has she made of the number of services charities that understand what it means in practice?

[Anna Soubry]

That, too, is a good question. The short answer is that it varies. It is clear from the website of the charity mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) that a huge number of charities have signed up and are delivering across the country. Progress is sporadic, because not everyone “gets it”, but others absolutely do “get it”, and some great work is being done out there.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

I am pleased to say that Telford & Wrekin council has signed the covenant on a cross-party basis. What has the Minister done internally, within the Government, to ensure that individual Departments are delivering on the covenant? The Ministry of Defence is doing a very good job, but it is important for other Departments to commit themselves as well.

[Anna Soubry]

I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman says we are doing a good job, because I think we are, and he is absolutely right. We now must make sure others do not just sign up, but actually start to deliver. On the work the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for example, has been doing with jobcentres, I recently went to my own jobcentre in Beeston—not for reasons connected with 7 May, I quickly add—and looked at the work it is doing with reserves and veterans. That is sporadic; not every jobcentre or Jobcentre Plus “gets it”, to put it in that way, but increasingly they do and that is invariably because of the good work of Members of Parliament and local councils.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am incredibly proud of the fact that Tameside was the first council in Greater Manchester to sign the armed forces covenant, followed very quickly by Stockport, and the Minister is absolutely right to commend the work of the Greater Manchester combined authority, the first whole city region in the country to bring together councils and public bodies across the area for the armed forces covenant, but what is she doing to make sure that in other parts of the country local authorities are committing time and resources and making sure the same services are available to our armed forces personnel so that we do not have a patchwork quilt?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have an excellent letter here from the leader of Wigan council, Lord Smith, extensively detailing all the great work being done. One of the tasks I want to do in the remaining weeks of this Government is to make sure the covenant team with the MOD brings all this work together and gives more advice to local authorities on sharing best practice, because it is stacked full of ideas. There is £30 million available to deliver on many of these projects, and I am pleased to say many are taking that up as well.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The armed forces covenant had, of course, the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition, but does the Minister accept that this is still very much a work in progress? Not all local authorities understand it. Only last week Essex county council refused to continue a support package for the needs of one military family moving with their child from another part of the country.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I have to say my own county council in Nottinghamshire did not understand the covenant when it came to a soldier constituent of mine coming down from Catterick who needed to have a place for his child. I reminded the county council of the covenant. That is the sort of work that local MPs can do when these cases come to us through our casework. It is about making sure we share best practice. There is masses more work to be done, and it would be nice to think I might be able to continue after 7 May, Mr Speaker, but that takes us into different territory.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister of State says that other people do not get it. I am not sure that she gets it, because why else would she be consulting on removing the principle of no disadvantage from the armed forces covenant? I refer of course to the consultation she has commissioned through her officials that Woodnewton Associates is carrying out. She looks confused; I am surprised if she does not know that her own officials are carrying out this consultation. Is that because the Government are still refusing to test their own policies against the principles of no disadvantage? A Labour Government will test our policies against the armed forces covenant, and we will not drop the principle of no disadvantage, which this Government are apparently thinking about doing.

[Anna Soubry]

Of course the hon. Lady forgets that she has got to win an election, and there is every chance she will not do so. Let me make it absolutely clear: as far as I and the rest of the team here are concerned, this is news to us and we are absolutely committed to the principle of no disadvantage. [Interruption.] It is in the covenant, and chuntering from the sidelines achieves nothing.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to promote service in the reserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

17. How many service personnel were dismissed from the Army, demoted or otherwise penalised as a result of having received a police caution between 2008 and 2011.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

Initially, in reply to the hon. Lady’s campaign, I said that the figure was 1,500, but we have made further inquiries because our aim is to contact everybody. We now think that the figure is nearer to 1,200—1,000 in the Army. As we make those inquiries, it is important to appreciate that not everybody who was penalised in some way had that happen as a result of their receiving a police caution—other matters may have been involved as well—so we are exploring all that.

[Mrs Moon]

The Minister will be aware that at least 58 of those personnel were discharged from the armed forces. On a rough calculation of losing, say, a £25,000 salary for just one year, compensation of over £1.25 million would be due. What assessment has she made of the cost to the defence budget of the military law-breaking and cover-up that was involved?

[Anna Soubry]

As I have explained, we are identifying all the individuals so that we can contact them and advise them accordingly. I have made it very clear that I want to see action by the three armed forces to anticipate what may come forward so that we do not suffer any more delay and there are no injustices.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Ministry of Defence police officers and their colleagues in the defence fire and rescue service are currently subject to the state pension age; yet their counterparts in the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government can retire up to seven years earlier. Does the Minister think that is fair?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

We are in the process of working with other colleagues in the Government to conclude that matter, and I very much hope that we can make an announcement very soon. I pay tribute to the fire service and the MDP, both of which do an outstanding job.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

T7. In addition to the training that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier, will he tell the House what equipment the British Government are providing to the Kurdish peshmerga, and whether they are providing any equipment on behalf of other countries to assist their fight against ISIL?

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Our armed forces risk their lives to safeguard our peace and prosperity, and their welfare must therefore be a priority for any Government. This Government have shown their determination to meet their obligations to our servicemen and women and their families by enshrining the armed forces covenant in law and taking real action to improve the support available to our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and women and, of course, marines.

We have given members of the armed forces priority in relation to health care, on the basis of clinical need, and we have supported their needs in relation to housing and school admissions. We have improved primary health care by integrating our single-service medical and dental centres. We have improved opportunities for service personnel to buy their own homes through our very successful Forces Help To Buy scheme. We have helped service children to find stability in schools by increasing funding for education to approximately £6 million a year, and we are helping service personnel to gain access to selected credit unions by providing payroll deduction.

We recognise, however, that the obligation to support our armed forces goes far beyond central Government, and I have been impressed by the willingness of others to play their part. Every local authority in Great Britain has now signed a community covenant pledging support for the armed forces communities in its area, and more than 360 companies—from big banks and supermarkets to small businesses—have signed the corporate covenant pledging their support. Together, they are providing employment assistance, guaranteed interview schemes, and backing for our reserves campaign.

Let me take this opportunity to thank all our local authorities. I wrote to each and every one, topping and tailing each letter. That seems to have paid off, because I have been inundated with responses from local authorities throughout Great Britain, of all political persuasions, describing in detail how seriously they take their commitment to the community covenant. I hope that all Members will now seize the opportunity to ensure that the covenant is delivered locally.

There is, however, no room for complacency. The Bill is intended to ensure that we continue to do the right thing by our armed forces personnel. It improves the system for the handling of complaints in the armed forces, and it ensures that we can provide funds for organisations that support the armed forces community, wherever they are based.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister will know that the people of Coventry and Warwickshire take particular pride in the welfare of their armed forces. Can she confirm the level of support she is getting from Coventry and Warwickshire?

[Anna Soubry]

I can. I cannot off the top of my head remember whether one of the many letters I received was from the two authorities, but I would not be surprised, if I can put it that way. I have genuinely been seriously impressed by the work that is happening in local authorities. I do not care what political party is running those authorities. I hope they sing this out, particularly if they are looking forward to elections.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister ensure that other Government Departments fully participate in enforcing the covenant? I have a case of a couple who have had to move twice recently to meet the husband’s requirements in the armed services. The wife is a nurse. She was on maternity leave. There was a delay in getting a job at a new hospital in the new place they were going to. The Government are now demanding all the maternity pay back because she was a few days out of time. That is not helpful and does not seem to be in the spirit of the covenant.

[Anna Soubry]

On the basis of what my right hon. Friend has just said, I would agree. I urge him, and any other hon. Member, to come to see me. I would have no difficulty in taking up whatever case it may be on behalf of a constituent or an hon. Member. I would be happy to do that. He makes a good point. It is imperative that we work across government. I am pleased that that includes working with local authorities.

Our armed forces do not have the same opportunities for redress on employment issues as civilians—they do not, for example, routinely have access to employment tribunals. We must therefore ensure that there is a robust system in place to deal with any complaints they may have in connection with their service. Such a system needs to be able to deal with grievances quickly and fairly. When it comes to speed, we know that there are some serious failings in the existing system.

That is not just right in principle but is essential for operational effectiveness. If a group of men and women are happy and content in their work, it goes without saying that they will work well, whatever the circumstances of their work may be. Having unresolved complaints breeds discontent, which can undermine morale and diminish our fighting capability.

I turn now to the specific proposals in the Bill. The existing complaints system was set up by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and covers all three services. Many complaints are dealt with promptly and successfully, but we accept that performance is still not good enough and that it can be significantly improved.

It is good to remind the House at this stage of some of the statistics. Fewer than 1% of our service personnel feel that they have any need to raise a grievance and use the complaints system. Of the complaints that are made, it is interesting to note that the majority are not about bullying, harassment and discrimination. It is fair and right to say that those are the most serious complaints, but I note that in the Navy, for example, 10%—I am not going to say only 10%, because 10% is too many —of complaints are about bullying, harassment and discrimination; the overwhelming majority relate to pay, conditions and allowances.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Has the Minister seen the briefing from the Equality and Human Rights Commission? It says that

“there are compelling legal and practical arguments for removing the requirement in section 121 of the Equality Act 2010 for a service complaint to be raised before a discrimination claim is made to the employment tribunal.”

Does she agree that members of the armed forces facing discrimination should have greater rights to go to an employment tribunal?

[Anna Soubry]

I do not think it is as simple and as straightforward as that. As evidence emerges, one of the things we are finding is that more members of the armed forces—notably women—rightly feel more able to make clear allegations, which doubtless are well founded, of bullying, harassment and so on, and that often such grievances are settled privately. What I mean by that is not that they are settled in some cosy way, in a corridor, but that people do not necessarily have formally to go through the grievance system. I am open to making sure we get the right result, and I certainly want to make sure nobody in our armed forces suffers from any form of discrimination, bullying or harassment, but the way in which we achieve that is perhaps the debate to be had—we are all agreed absolutely on the aim.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) will, I know, have noticed that 10% of Royal Navy cases were for bullying, harassment or discrimination, and that the figure is 43% for our Army and 38% for the RAF. The figures show that, as we know, we have considerably more to do to make sure that it does not matter what anyone’s sex or sexual orientation is, and that they should be free within our armed forces, and indeed anywhere else, from any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination. I wanted to put on record the fact that the majority of cases are about pay, pensions and allowances.

In her annual report, published on 27 March last year, former Service Complaints Commissioner Dr Susan Atkins could not provide an assurance that the current system was operating efficiently, effectively or fairly. That is of concern not only to everyone in this House but, I assure Members, to all Ministers in the MOD, and rightly so.

It is only right and fair that at this stage I pay tribute to the great work that Dr Susan Atkins did in her time as commissioner. I found it a great pleasure to work with her. I think she started her job in a different place from where she ended it, and I think she made huge strides. I have no doubt that she faced many difficulties in her appointment, but she seized them robustly, she took no prisoners, and she undoubtedly improved the system. I hope that the members of the House of Commons Defence Committee, who I know took a keen interest in her work, will agree with my assessment of the great work she did, and that we will sorely miss her.

I also think I speak on behalf of everybody—and if I do not, I will be intervened on, no doubt—when I say that we have an excellent replacement in Nicola Williams, who will be our first service complaints ombudsman. She, too, is an outstanding individual and, if I may say so, an outstanding woman.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As a member of the Committee when Nicola was interviewed, may I say that I was deeply impressed by the way she stood up, with good humour and resilience, to some tough questioning? Does my hon. Friend agree that what is particularly important about this Bill, given some people’s fears that the chain of command system could be subverted or clogged up, is that proposed new section 340I(1) to the Armed Forces Act 2006 states that the ombudsman has complete discretion

“to determine whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation”?

Does she agree that that is an important safeguard?

[Anna Soubry]

I absolutely do, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible, common-sense words. I join him in paying tribute—again—to Nicola Williams, and I think he will agree with me about Dr Atkins, too.

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I think—and hope—that there will be some debate and argument, and I was going to pay tribute to the Defence Committee for the great work it has done over a number of years in wanting to make huge changes to the role of the Service Complaints Commissioner.

I anticipate that we in this House will not necessarily agree on everything, although I would like to think we will be able to find a way of agreeing. The most important point, however, is that we agree on the principles of the Bill. We agree on what we are all seeking to achieve—apart from the thematic, which I know will separate us. We are all absolutely agreed in wanting to make sure we have an ombudsman who acts and works without fear or favour, who is rigorous in their investigation, and who puts the person—the individual—at the heart of all the work they do.

One of the great joys of the Bill is that it is not overly prescriptive, and that is very much right. We want our ombudsman to have free rein. I am told that Susan Atkins would visit units and, if she was concerned about incidents or that people felt they could not raise a grievance or a complaint, she did not hesitate in taking that up, not just with Ministers but with the chiefs of staff. She certainly had the sort of determination and brave, rigorous approach that we are all agreed on, and which we will see—I do not doubt—in Nicola Williams.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I am delighted by what the Government are doing in the Bill—it is excellent news. How can we be sure that the ombudsman will act swiftly? May I also agree with the Minister entirely on employment tribunals? Thank goodness the Government have not gone down that road. As a former soldier, I think that would be a disaster and would seriously undermine the discipline of a unit and the Army as a whole.

[Anna Soubry]

It is always difficult when, on one side of the argument, some people are not quite convinced by the Bill and, on the other side, other people are also not convinced by it. We are in the middle, and I am convinced that we have got the balance right. The chain of command need not think that they have anything to fear or that they will be undermined by the creation of the ombudsman and the new system. Equally, we have satisfied those who want a more rigorous approach to ensure that genuine grievances, which cannot be raised in the normal way by virtue of service, will be properly dealt with, and that if they are not—when maladministration is alleged—they will be properly investigated.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that the Bill is long overdue and most welcome. How wide is the remit of the ombudsman? Does it stick at maladministration, or can it go further? The Minister said she wanted people to have every opportunity to raise their concerns. How far is she prepared to see that go?

[Anna Soubry]

I could be rude to the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he read the Bill. It is clear that it provides for an ombudsman in the traditional sense of someone who investigates when a complaint of maladministration has made. The definition of maladministration is broad, but we are clear that we are putting in place a new complaints system. As a result, we now have an ombudsman. That is not another level of appeal: it means that someone whose grievance has been flawed through maladministration and not been dealt with properly can take their complaint to the ombudsman, who will see whether there has been maladministration. The ombudsman will have the breadth of remit to go into the detail of the allegation of administration, and then to report without fear or favour and with rigour. At any stage and at any time, the ombudsman can go to any of the chiefs of staff or any Minister—most importantly, of course, the Secretary of State—and has complete freedom, should he or she so wish, to go to any member of the press and say, “Something is happening here that I am not happy about”, or to the Chair of the Select Committee and say, “This is something that I have found out and I am concerned about.”

In many ways, those are the great freedoms, but it is clear in the Bill that the ombudsman is appointed to look at maladministration—never forgetting that it is the individual who has raised a grievance, sought redress, felt that they have not got it through the system and have exhausted their appeals who will go to the ombudsman on the basis of maladministration, like many of those who go to an ombudsman.

We have drafted regulations that deal with the new system of complaints. Hon. Members have rightly raised the criticism—Dr Susan Atkins also complained about it—that too often there is too much delay. That is wrong, and that is why it is imperative that we reform the system. When we have the ombudsman in place, he or she must be in a position to conclude that delay is part of maladministration. He or she will be able to look specifically at that and take their recommendations to the Defence Council if need be. I have confidence that action will be taken accordingly.

[Mr Redwood]

Given that so many complaints are about pay, allowances and other financial matters, is there more that Ministers can do to ensure that more armed service personnel can buy a property of their own before they leave the armed forces, so that they do not become homeless when they leave their contract?

[Anna Soubry]

We have set up the Help to Buy scheme. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot remember the exact figures, but I think that the scheme has now received nearly 3,000 successful applications. It has been hugely successful. In my limited experience, if members of our armed forces think that something is good, it will spread like wildfire, and that seems to be happening. The attitude that the Government take is that people should have a choice. Not everyone wants to buy their own home—it does not suit everybody—but we must give every opportunity to those who want to do so, because we believe in a property-owning democracy.

I have mentioned the House of Commons Defence Committee, and I want to pay tribute to its work over many years in advancing the cause of putting in place a proper complaints system and a service complaints ombudsman. I look forward to the ensuing debate with members of the Committee. I am sure that we will agree on many things, and that we can work together on them.

Clause 1 creates a new service complaints ombudsman to replace the existing Service Complaints Commissioner. Clause 2 replaces the existing service complaints system with a new and improved framework. I believe that it should be the armed forces that are responsible for dealing with any complaints from service personnel. That is the right way to do it. It is for the services to ensure that complaints are dealt with fairly and that the appropriate redress is given when complaints are upheld. When something has gone wrong, it is for the services to put it right. It is their responsibility and no one else’s.

The role of the ombudsman should therefore be to ensure that the systems are working effectively and that complaints are properly dealt with. The ombudsman’s oversight of the system will also put them in a unique position to identify lessons for further improvement, which will benefit individuals and the services more widely. The service chiefs are content that the proposals set out in the Bill strike the right balance between creating strong and independent oversight and maintaining the authority of the chain of command. The former Service Complaints Commissioner was also fully involved in developing the reforms.

A central feature of the new system is that the service complaints ombudsman, unlike the current commissioner, will have a power to consider whether a service complaint has been handled properly. If the ombudsman considers that there has been maladministration, and potentially injustice, in the handling of a complaint, he or she will make recommendations to the Defence Council to put things right. This could include, for example, reconsidering the complaint or rerunning a particular part of the process. The Defence Council will remain responsible for any decisions arising from the ombudsman’s recommendations, but it would need to give rational reasons for rejecting any recommendation.

The Bill also makes other changes. It gives service personnel the right to apply to the ombudsman if they believe that the handling of their complaint has been subject to maladministration. It will reduce the number of appeal levels, which will speed up the process while remaining fair. It includes a new process of assigning a complaint to someone who has the authority to deal with it and give appropriate redress. It gives the ombudsman a new role at an early stage of the complaints procedure. When the chain of command has decided not to allow a complaint to be considered within the service complaints system because, for example, it is out of time or excluded on other grounds, a service person could ask the ombudsman to determine whether that decision was correct. A decision by the ombudsman will be final. The ombudsman will have a similar role in respect of appeals decided as out of time. The ombudsman will also retain the vital role of offering an alternative route for a serviceman or woman who does not wish, or is unable, to approach the chain of command directly, to have their concerns fed into the system. That is an important safeguard, especially where there are allegations of bullying or harassment.

Finally, the requirement to report annually on the operation of the system will remain, ensuring that there is proper accountability to Parliament. I just wish to re-emphasise that the ombudsman has access to any Minister and any member of any Committee in this place and also has the freedom to go to the media, should he or she wish to do so. So, over and above the annual report, they have an unshackled freedom to report without fear or favour their findings in relation to any particular grievance.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does that mean that there is a provision for whistleblowers in the armed forces?

[Anna Soubry]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a completely different issue. As members of the armed forces do not have the same access and rights as other workers, this Bill ensures that they have a rigorous complaints system, so that when they have a grievance, whether it is about an allowance or because someone is bullying or harassing them, they can make a complaint, which will be taken seriously and dealt with in an efficient and fair manner. If it is found that that complaint is right and it is upheld, there will then be efficient redress. So this is about individuals and their grievances. Whistleblowing is a different matter and does not sit within the service’s complaints, and I do not think that anybody would want it to do so.

May I now deal with the remainder of the Bill, which is, I am happy to say, uncontentious? I am talking about the financial assistance to organisations that support our armed forces community. The voluntary and community sector has a long history of supporting our services personnel, veterans and their families. Many of those groups are small and locally based and run by dedicated volunteers and they have the greatest understanding of the sort of caring and focused support that is needed. The Government need to work in partnership with those organisations and that includes providing financial assistance where appropriate.

Over the past four years, the Government have given £105 million to such groups to help them deliver the commitments of the covenant. That money has been used to deliver everything from veterans’ accommodation to short breaks for families with disabled children. The groups range from huge organisations—some of our greatest and biggest charities—right down to very small local charities delivering right at a local level.

We are also looking at how the future armed forces covenant grant fund, set at £10 million a year in future—it is set in perpetuity—will be managed. If we are to make the most of that money, we must ensure that it goes to the right places. Organisations working with the armed forces community are based throughout the United Kingdom and beyond, and we want them to be able to benefit from this money wherever they are located.

Under existing legislation, we can fund charities and make payments to local authorities that benefit serving personnel in Great Britain but not to veterans in Scotland. We have navigated those constraints on a temporary basis, but clause 4 enables us to deal with them in the long term by allowing payments to organisations anywhere in the world.

The Bill has already gone through detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords where there was widespread support for its aims. There was a clear consensus on the need for reform of the complaints system although there were, of course, different views on the detail of those reforms. In particular, there was extensive debate on whether the ombudsman should be able to investigate wider issues beyond those covered by individual complaints. I am sure that this will be discussed further as the Bill proceeds through the House. No doubt we will be hearing from Members on this matter. I am happy for them to intervene on me now. It is an important matter and I know that people feel very strongly about it. I do not have any fear about engaging in that debate, although I will not intervene on any speeches from Back-Bench Members if they make the points that I anticipate.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trailing her coat in such an attractive way. Might I ask why she is so set against thematic reports to be produced by the ombudsman, which was recommended by the wonderful Dr Susan Atkins?

[Anna Soubry]

I disagree with my right hon. Friend’s interpretation of Dr Atkins’s views. Obviously, I have seen the Select Committee’s excellent report. I may be wrong—I am quite happy to be corrected if I am—but I do not think she said that we should go as far as thematic reviews.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

As a point of information, I spoke to Dr Susan Atkins this morning and she was very clear that she believes that thematic reviews should be conducted.

[Anna Soubry]

So that is her view now. With great respect to Dr Atkins, I do not agree with her and I will—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

Hang on—I’m going to make the argument before I get intervened on again. I have been very generous.

The ombudsman will look at service complaints and the Bill seeks to ensure that complaints by individuals with a grievance will be dealt with fairly and expeditiously and that justice will be done. In my view, the ombudsman should not look at any wider issues that may come up. I will give an example to support my argument.

Let us say that three people in a unit make a complaint about bullying and it is found that that complaint is justified. As a result, there is redress and the two individuals who have bullied them are punished by being removed from their posts or demoted. That is the end of the matter and it never gets to the ombudsman, who knows nothing about it because justice has been done.

What if, however, the three complainants feel that justice has not been done because their complaint has not been upheld and they believe that there has been maladministration in the way in which it has been handled? They would then go to the ombudsman, who would look at whether the complaint has been the subject of maladministration. The ombudsman might then say, “I have found that there has been maladministration and as a result of my findings I am making the following recommendations to the Defence Council.” If, at any stage of her investigation, she believes that there has been systemic, systematic bullying in that particular unit, she can go to the service chiefs, any Minister, media or Member of Parliament and say, “I think there’s a lot of bullying going on in this unit. This is outrageous and wrong and I want you to do something about it.”

It should not be the ombudsman’s job, however, to then conduct an inquiry into that bullying. That is the job of the armed forces or perhaps some other body. The ombudsman’s job is to make sure that we have a good, efficient and fair complaints system. With all due respect, that is what the ombudsman should be concentrating on where they should be using their resources. If they start to investigate a systemic or systematic form of bullying in a particular unit, it is my respectful submission that they would be way out of their remit and treading on to the territory of others. That does not mean that I am being by any means soft on the complaint, because the ombudsman is the person who will highlight it, but it is for others, not the service complaints ombudsman, to decide on a full inquiry and make sure that proper action is taken. That is my argument.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I accept that, but the hon. Lady is wrong. My understanding of Dr Atkins’s views is exactly the same as that of the Defence Committee Chair. Since her appointment she has pushed the boundaries. If the ombudsman is going to look just at maladministration, may I suggest that the Minister speaks to Lynn Farr from Daniel’s Trust and other families who have worked with Susan Atkins? The Minister might have great faith in the ability of some of the senior military to make major changes—cultural change and actual change—but that will not be done without an external body at least giving them a gentle push.

[Anna Soubry]

But the gentle push exactly is the service complaints ombudsman. If they find that there is bullying or harassment in a particular place—in a unit or whatever it may be—they have the ability to make sure everybody is aware of what is going on, but I do not believe it is then their job to investigate it. That would be a diminution of their work, which is to look at complaints, and make sure that individual grievances have full access to a system that works expeditiously and gets to the point of justice. She can raise these concerns—there is nothing to stop her—which is why I was such a great supporter of Nicola Williams, because she will absolutely be robust. However, such an investigation is not and should not be the ombudsman’s job, especially given the resources available to the ombudsman; their job is to look at the service complaints and deal with those individual grievances. I could be cheeky and say that if the hon. Gentleman thought this was such a great idea, why did he not do it in 13 years, but that might be a little underhand—

[Mr Jones]

I will tell you why I did not do it.

[Anna Soubry]

And I will hear the hon. Gentleman. But if such an investigation is what he wants, somebody else should do it. It should not be in this Bill and it is not for this ombudsman; this is about service complaints.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I was going to take the hon. Lady’s intervention, but if the two of them are going to fight, I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister asks why we did not do this in 13 years, but she just needs to look at my record, including my time on the last Defence Committee, and at the last Labour Government’s record, to know the answer. I argued for this, as did the Select Committee, back in 2004, but, as she knows, those in the chain of command do not like radical change. I see this as a process—we are getting to where we should have been 10 years ago—but I must say that the most vociferous arguments against bringing this in over 10 years ago came from the Conservative Front Benchers.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for the factual explanation that has been given.

[Mrs Moon]

The Minister has set out clearly that where complaints come to the commissioner and she begins to see thematic things happening, she can go to the chain of command. She can go the Secretary of State and she can highlight that, but during the entire time the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces has been in post, the Secretary of State, having had those reports, has had the power to ask for an investigation and has never done so. That is why we need the Secretary of State to pass those powers to the ombudsman, so that she can investigate.

[Anna Soubry]

I am struggling to have much sympathy with that argument, because it is certainly my experience that allegations are taken extremely seriously by the Secretary of State, and indeed by any other Minister in the Ministry of Defence. It is also my experience of the service chiefs, notably the new head of the Army—the new Chief of the General Staff—that on issues of bullying, harassment and the role of women and any discrimination against women, they are extremely rigorous. In every conversation and meeting I have ever had with the Chief of the General Staff, even when I might have wanted to talk about one or two matters as well as the role of women, he has insisted that we speak about that, such is his determination to eradicate harassment, bullying and sexual discrimination in the Army. We have seen a huge sea change, and it is to be welcomed, not criticised.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I am grateful for the thorough way in which this matter is being put to the House tonight, but one issue has always hung over the way in which the MOD handles things. If someone makes a complaint of bullying and then, in one way or another, dies, the complaint dies with them. Under this Bill, will it be possible for the next of kin to pursue that complaint, using the ombudsman’s powers to do so?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In the terrible circumstances in which someone dies when a complaint has started, there are many instances in which we would want that complaint to continue, most notably if it were about something that might affect somebody’s pension or allowances and would therefore be to the financial benefit of the family, or if there were a point of principle. The trouble is that when somebody makes a complaint about bullying, they make that complaint against somebody else and if that second person denies that they have bullied the first person, they are entitled to a fair hearing. In the terrible event that the first person has died, the second person cannot challenge the complaint and so the danger is that the person against whom the complaint is made is effectively denied a fair hearing because he or she cannot, in effect, query or challenge the complaint. I hope that that makes sense. It is a terribly important part of natural justice that if somebody makes a complaint against somebody else, the person being complained about should have the right to give their side of events so that whoever is determining the case can hear all the evidence on both sides and reach the right conclusion.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

What happens, though, in those circumstances, if the complainant is the one who dies but does so after they have given extensive interviews about their complaint?

[Anna Soubry]

I was talking about the fact that the person who is complained against should have the right to have their side heard, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point. When somebody dies suddenly—especially if they have taken their own life, which is what we are talking about here, and if it is thought that there is some link between their doing so and an allegation they have made—that is serious stuff. That is why it is right that, first, there would be a service inquiry and secondly, and arguably even more importantly, there would be a full coroner’s inquest.

I do not know whether many Members have had the opportunity of attending a coroner’s inquest, but when there is a great coroner—I saw one in my county of Nottinghamshire, working on an important case with which I will not trouble the House—one can see their power. The coroner does not necessarily say that a certain person is responsible for a death, but they investigate all matters leading up to the unexpected death and have extensive powers, including being able to take evidence from people on oath. I am content that in the terrible event that somebody who has made a complaint has taken their own life, and in which it is thought that there is a link, there already exists an excellent and rigorous system that ensures that justice is done, and that is the coronial system.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am glad that the Minister has so much confidence in the coroners system. I accept that where it works well, it works well, but she also knows that there are some absolutely appalling coroners in this country. May I suggest that she looks at Mr Justice Blake’s report on Deepcut? It shows what happened to the families and how the MOD acted, and we hope that things have changed, but I would certainly argue against the idea that there is somehow a universal standard for the coroners service across the country.

[Anna Soubry]

I am sure that there are perhaps one or two bad coroners, but overwhelmingly the vast majority are outstanding and excellent and do an exceptionally good job. I might be wrong, and I will be corrected if I am, but I think that in the case of Deepcut none of the young people who died had made a complaint. Therefore, they would not have come into this system because they had not made a complaint. Although there might be a good argument that in those cases the coroner had not done a thorough job—I do not know that—we must remember that the Bill is about the complaints system. It starts with an individual making a complaint or raising a grievance on which they seek redress. We are in grave danger of not understanding what the system is and the huge distinction between the other existing processes that can ensure that we get to the root of the problem, find out what happened and make sure that justice is done.

The Bill is small and tightly focused and makes important and much-needed changes. The Select Committee on Defence published its report on the Bill on 23 October and it makes a number of recommendations on how the Bill might be amended. I am open and always have been—my door is always open, and anybody within reason can come and see me. It may be that some of those recommendations can be adopted in Committee. They will certainly be debated. With one or two of those proposals, we have identified the problem we seek to solve, but the method by which we solve it is the difficulty. I do not want overly prescriptive legislation. In defence matters, if we legislate for things and want to change them, it is difficult to get another Bill in Parliament to do so.

We have a duty to ensure that our servicemen and women know that their grievances are taken seriously and dealt with quickly, and that no complaint will be dismissed out of hand. We have a duty to ensure that we can fund those organisations that support our armed forces and their families wherever they are based. The Bill delivers the changes our brave servicemen and women deserve, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

It is not just a coronial system because there are also service inquiries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those investigations are robust and thorough?

[Mr Jones]

They are. However, the important point about the ombudsman—this is what is great about the service complaints commissioner—is that it is outside the chain of command, independently looking inwards. That is not to say that it would always be critical. On some issues, Susan Atkins has not been critical and has supported changes that have taken place in our armed forces. I give credit to the service chiefs for bringing forward some of those changes. If, in a modern age, we want a system that is going to be robust and seen to be fair, it is very important to have that element of independence. That is especially true for bullying. We know that on occasion bullying is an isolated incident, but there have also been examples of where it is part of the chain of command and responsible for the culture that exists in some areas.

The Bill gives the ombudsman power to investigate where it sees fit, but we must understand what powers it would have and what it could do with what it finds. Yes, it can report to the Defence Council, but without any further powers or the ability to make changes, the onus in terms of the defence budget might be to ignore what the ombudsman says. We must clarify that point in the Bill.

As I have said, some recommendations can be made, but we need a method to ensure that reports and findings do not sit on a shelf, and that the Minister of the day, or the Defence Council, does not reject or simply note them. That would undermine not only the role of the service complaints ombudsman, but its independence. People who go to the ombudsman expect to get a fair hearing and to know that something will be done about their complaint.

It is vital that any new system works to the benefit of those who come to rely on it and that the Bill does not impose any unnecessary barriers on individuals and families making a complaint. The current Service Complaints Commissioner has been highly critical of the Army for the length of time it takes to deal with the complaints. Any system must obviously have robust time limits, but the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State will set time limits within which the individual must lodge a complaint. That time limit must not be less than six weeks after the date on which the individual receives their decision from their internal complaints system. In an ideal world that might be a simple system, but the nature of service life might lead to a situation where those time limits cannot be met. If that was the case, people would be time-bound when bringing forward a complaint. I think we need to consider that issue in Committee, and see whether we can allow some flexibility in the way that complaints are brought forward, so that someone does not miss taking a complaint forward because of the time limit.

The ombudsman service must be independent from the chain of command and the armed forces, and must be trusted by the people it is investigating. It must also be seen by servicemen and women lower down the chain of command as a process that is clearly independent.

This is a bit like déjà-vu, because I remember when the Service Complaints Commissioner was being appointed that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) was one of the—well, he could certainly be described as a dinosaur if not even worse—people who said that the end of the earth was going to come if the service ombudsman was not someone with a military background. It is clear that service personnel cannot hold that post, but I would also be reluctant to have anyone with a direct service background. Certainly the criticism levelled at Dr Atkins when she was first appointed was unfair and has—quite rightly—been proved wrong given the effective way that she got to know quickly how the armed forces work, and the way that she got the support and good will of people at all levels. It is important that the ombudsman is not seen as part of the old boys’ network—interestingly, the first two have been women.

On representation, occasionally those who lodge a complaint, or who speak of an injustice but never enter the complaints system, cannot see the complaint through—we have already heard about people who die before their complaint is heard. In these rare cases, it is sometimes important to family members that the complaint continues, and if someone makes a complaint against an individual, that individual will still have an opportunity to put forward a defence, albeit in the absence of the accuser. Also, many complaints relate to matters of service pay. In these cases, no one is required to make a defence, so it seems only fair that they be allowed to continue to conclusion. To stop such a case would be totally unfair. All cases should be pursued as a matter of due diligence to allow the ombudsman to oversee the entire system.

This touches on something else the Service Complaints Commissioner has done. A complaint might throw up inconsistencies in areas of policy that need addressing, and just because someone dies, it does not necessarily mean the wider implications do not need addressing either by the chain of command or more widely.

[Mr Jones]

That is a very important point. I was a member of the Defence Select Committee when it looked into Deepcut—as, too, was the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). We could not help but think that the way the families were dealt with was truly shocking, both in terms of basic human decency and because it meant that, unfortunately, the truth could never be arrived at. That was unfortunate for the families, obviously, and for members of the armed forces who were accused of things they clearly did not do.

We have made progress, however, thanks to the Service Complaints Commissioner and this new Bill. The important thing is independent oversight. Individuals are not going to continue with a course of action if they know it is leading to deaths in the armed forces. We know there will be tragedies in the armed forces, on the battlefield and in training, given the robust and difficult training regime, and when they happen, it is important, for the sake of the families, that we get all the information early on; that the matter be dealt with compassionately; and that things be put right early on, if mistakes were made.

I think there has been a change in this country—certainly in respect of local authorities and health boards, for example—and sometimes there is a culture of arguing why something should stay the same. However, if people say sorry early on and admit to mistakes, while it will always be difficult for families, at least they would know what happened. If so, lessons can be learned and measures put in place to militate against such things happening again, which will at least give some comfort to the families.

[Anna Soubry]

We do not disagree on what we want to achieve, and the hon. Gentleman has put it extremely well. I would not demur from anything he said about the need to ensure that the families feel that things have been properly looked at, lessons learned and so forth. Is that not a question of ensuring that we have rigorous investigations into deaths, which is different from the complaints system through which individuals’ grievances are rigorously looked at to get justice? I would suggest that the two are very different. Does he agree?

[Mr Jones]

No, I do not. I suggest the Minister go away and read Mr Justice Blake’s report. In these situations, the issues conflate. In the Deepcut case and that of Lynn Farr’s son, who died in a training exercise in Catterick, part of the problem was the individual instance and how the individuals died, but there were broader issues surrounding the duty of care in training. I am not saying that training should be downgraded—I know Mrs Farr was not for that—but if we look at Daniel Farr’s case and how he was dealt with, we see a needless death that could have been avoided. If issues about the training regime at Catterick had been raised earlier, we could have avoided certain deaths. The two aspects come together. I am all for rigorous investigations of deaths when they occur, but I also want to ensure that if it is possible to avoid getting to that stage in the first place, we actually achieve that.

Let me deal now with the armed forces charities, to which the Minister referred. The second part of the Bill relates to the financial assistance and benefits given to armed forces personnel. Let me put on record that we welcome this. As the Minister knows, I have worked with an array of armed forces charities over many years and they do a fantastic job on behalf of servicemen and women and their families and veterans. We must be sure that they are able to continue that work. The Bill covers two main points in this area, and it has been difficult to know how best to administer them. In fairness to the present Government, they have tried their best to get the funding out to those groups. Clause 4 attempts to put the provisions on some type of proper footing. Many charities, especially the smaller ones, rely on the grants and support they get from the Government.

We also want to ensure that there is robust scrutiny of how the money is spent. The Minister will have been exposed to the internal politics of the veteran community and doubtless has some of the scars from which I still suffer today. It is important to ensure that the system is transparent and fair and that we get not only good value for money, but effective value for money, so that the support goes to the right causes. Some of the smaller charities should be supported. The Minister knows as well as I do that there are some fantastic very small charities with very small capacities that nevertheless have a great effect in the support they provide to the armed forces.

In conclusion, we welcome the Bill. We will seek to improve it in Committee. The introduction of the Service Complaints Commissioner has, I think, seen a marked change in how the senior military and our armed services operate, and the system has protected those we ask to serve on our behalf. We will not oppose Second Reading, but, as I say, we will put forward amendments in Committee to try to improve and empower the role of the service complaints ombudsman. I see this as a journey. I have certainly dealt with this issue right through my parliamentary career. I thought I had escaped armed services legislation when I became a Minister, but lo and behold, it came back to bite me again. If we do this correctly, we can have a system of which we can be proud for not only protecting the individuals who serve in our armed forces, but upholding the highest levels of integrity and respect, which I know the service chiefs and the whole House would want to uphold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my friend the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who made a calm, measured contribution, and who showed amazing leadership as Chair of the Select Committee on Defence. As a new member of the Committee, I certainly found he set the tone for our many deliberations, and he had, I must admit, a calming effect on some of my more vociferous opinions. The House will miss him for his dedication, his belief in public service and his belief in the defence of the United Kingdom.

This Bill, and this day, have been a long time in coming. A whole decade has passed since the Deepcut review by Nicholas Blake QC and the Defence Committee’s “Duty of Care” report, both of which recommended the establishment of a service complaints ombudsman. In that report, the Committee found that the resolution of complaints was slow and may not always be perceived as accessible and fair.

Much has been said and done during the decade of piecemeal reform, but the underlying inadequacy of the system remains unaltered. In 2008 the newly established Service Complaints Commissioner, Dr Susan Atkins—I will not add to the praise heaped on her for her work, because enough has been said, but I totally endorse every word that has been said—said in her first annual report that while progress had been made, “performance is generally poor”. In 2009 she said the system was not working “efficiently, effectively or fairly.” She reported the same thing in 2010, 2011, 2012 and in 2013. In that report she said:

“Since the role of Service Complaints Commissioner was established in 2008, she has not been able to report to the Secretary of State that the Service complaints system operates efficiently, effectively or fairly. This has been because of a lack of confidence in the system, unreasonable delays in the resolution of complaints and a lack of accurate data on how complaints are handled.”

If this Bill does not tackle those complaints, we are wasting our time. Dr Atkins’s seventh and final report is due in the next few weeks, and I think it is relatively safe to assume that the pattern is not going to be broken. This Bill must change that pattern.

The commissioner has pinpointed three main problems. First, there is a

“lack of confidence in the system”

from the very people it is designed to help. In the latest report, the commissioner points out:

“Service personnel have a low level of confidence in the current system which does not offer all complainants the assurance of an independent person overseeing their complaint outside the chain of command in any effective way.”

This low and decreasing level of confidence that personnel have in the system can be seen in the armed forces continuous attitudes survey, which shows dissatisfaction increasing in relation to the time taken, being kept informed, and support from assisting officers. For example, the survey asked those who said they did believe they had been the subject of discrimination, harassment or bullying in the last 12 months why they had not made a formal complaint. The reasons given included,

“I did not believe anything would be done if I did complain”—

54%—

“I believed it might adversely affect my career or workplace”—

53%—

“I was worried that there would be recriminations from the perpetrators”

—30%—and

“I did not want to go through the complaints procedure”—

23%.

The commissioner also points to a “lack of accurate data”. In last year’s report the commissioner found that the data provided by the Army and the RAF contained a number of serious gaps and inconsistencies. Only the naval service was able to provide her with confidence in the accuracy of the data it was providing. That is fairly shocking in the days of electronic data. The inaccuracy of the data coming from the Army was particularly alarming, with the commissioner drawing attention to the Army’s failure accurately to record allegations of indirect discrimination. For an organisation as committed to ensuring diversity and inclusion as the Army, the loss of this crucial data is distressing. As the commissioner points out, these elementary recording failures not only undermine confidence in the efficiency of the system but hamper the shared aim to use

“Service complaint data, together with data on discipline and administrative action, plus information from Service Inquiries, to identify areas and units which have problems and which may affect operational performance.”

Thirdly—this is by far most important point—the commissioner highlights the chronic delays that riddle this system from beginning to end. Delay is by far the biggest and most corrosive problem. It exacerbates, and in part helps explain, the two previous problems.

The evidence on the extent of delay in the system is damning. In 2013, aware that they had this problem of chronic delay, the MOD and the services agreed to meet a time limit of 24 weeks to resolve at least 90% of their complaints, and any complaint not dealt with in 24 weeks would be “red flagged”. So there was a recognition that there was a problem, and a solution, thanks to the work of Dr Atkins, was put in place.

In 2013, however, only 25% of cases

“were resolved within the 24-week target”,

and:

“Only 26% of complaints made in 2013 were closed during the year.”

In January 2013, 325 complaints had a “red flag”. By December 2013 this had swelled by over 50% to 500 complaints.

One need only look at the case of Parachuter Lance Corporal Tom Neathway to see the harm delay can do, and not only to the lives of our armed forces personnel. His story also stands as a textbook example of the structural flaws that any future system must avoid.

In July 2008, Corporal Neathway, while serving in Helmand, lost both his legs and an arm when a booby-trapped sandbag exploded beneath him. Over the next three years—not 24 weeks, but three years—through sheer guts and determination and with the support of the armed forces, Corporal Neathway rebuilt his life and his career, and I pay tribute to that because the work the armed forces have done with seriously injured personnel is amazing. His story became a case study of how injured personnel can recover and overcome their injuries: he took part in the Olympic torch relay in 2012 and starred in the BBC series “Wounded”, showing the fantastic work done with our injured personnel. Sadly, however, in 2011, while at the parachute training support unit at RAF Brize Norton, where he had been based since returning to work in 2009, he was subjected to increasingly serious bullying by Regimental Sergeant Major Alistair Hutcheson, who at one point told the triple amputee:

“You’re not much of a paratrooper any more”.

Corporal Neathway did the right thing: he lodged a complaint to seek redress against an instance of bullying. That the complaints system failed him is an understatement. He had to endure a three-year ordeal in the search for justice from the British Army, facing a series of unacceptable delays that held him up every step of the way. When Corporal Neathway finally secured justice at the service complaints panel in October last year, the verdict was damning. The panel found definitively that the initial investigation by his commanding officer, Major John Chetty, constituted a professional failing. His questioning of witnesses was wholly inappropriate, and a review, by Brigadier Greville Bibby, which held up Corporal Neathway’s search for redress, was also discredited, with the Brigadier leaving the Army. As Corporal Neathway has said, the Army

“had to be dragged kicking and screaming to an oral hearing. They had told so many lies and finally it all unfolded”.

I am unfortunately someone who is often contacted by people when the system fails, so the Minister knows—we have discussed this many times—that I perhaps have a jaundiced view. I tend to hear from the people who are failed by the system. I do not dispute that the system works for some people, but I regularly hear from people who face similar failures to the one that Corporal Neathway experienced. To hold someone in a complaints system for three years is shameful—

[Anna Soubry]

indicated assent.

[Mrs Moon]

I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people in situations like Corporal Neathway’s who have not been so lucky—

[Anna Soubry]

I know that it is not normal for a Minister to intervene, but I wanted to say that we are as one on this. The case of Corporal Neathway was shameful and disgraceful. I hope that the hon. Lady will take my word that at no time did I ever say that he was not being wholly honest in his complaint. I wrote to him in October offering to meet him, and I hope that he will take up that offer.

The hon. Lady and I both look forward to a speedy inquiry—an overarching inquiry—into what was a shameful incident.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the Minister for her intervention. I know that she said earlier that she would not intervene on Back Benchers, but I have no objection to her intervening. We have had many a robust exchange in the time we have worked together and I have always enjoyed them. I have no objection to robust exchanges because at bottom we have the same conviction—that the best system for the armed forces must and will be put in place. We might disagree about how we get there, but we agree that we have total commitment to ensuring that the men and women of the armed forces will be protected from bullying, harassment and discrimination, and that those involved in such behaviour will be sought out and punished.

Corporal Neathway was in some ways fortunate in that he had the attention of the media and he had contacts, but service personnel noted that it took that to get justice. They too feel the impact of the incredible lethargy in extreme cases such as Corporal Neathway’s, which can stretch far beyond 24 weeks into hundreds of weeks. The Minister knows that I have received complaints from several people who had given up on their service complaints and left the armed forces, because the delay compounded their punishment. They felt that the delay was used as a way to force them out, to make them and their complaint disappear. That compounds their distress. They had given their lives to their country, but when they were the victims, they were told that they were the problem and to get out. That is unacceptable and the system cannot allow that to continue.

In the 2012 armed forces continuous attitude survey, 46% of respondents reported dissatisfaction with the time taken to process a complaint, with only 39% satisfied. In 2013, that had worsened to 66% dissatisfied. The Minister knows of another area in which I have taken an extreme interest. In January 2013, an article in The Times revealed that some 1,400 soldiers in the British Army had been illegally disciplined over three years, between November 2008 and September 2011. That happened because in November 2008 a change in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 meant that police cautions were from then on to be considered spent the second they were issued. The Army thought it had an exemption from the Act and continued to punish personnel who received cautions. It only caught up with the change in the law in 2011. It stopped the practice, but that left unresolved the question of what to do with the 1,400 personnel who, over the course of the two years, had received some form of administrative action following a caution. One policy brief revealed that at least 58 personnel had been dismissed from the services as a result of this double jeopardy. They should have received no punishment at all, but at least 58 had been dismissed from the services.

After much presumed handwringing and discussion, the MOD came to the conclusion that it would do nothing. A British Army policy briefing from November 2011 suggested:

“The longer we take no action the fewer the ‘in time’ complaints about other sanctions there will be. MOD policy may be not to accept out of time complaints on this issue.”

It is now February 2015—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Moon]

If the Minister will tell me that we have finally reached a decision about what we will do about the injustice to those 1,400 people, I will happily give way.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Lady makes, as ever, a good point. I have decided that the right thing to do is to write to all those affected—about 1,500 people—so that they are aware of the position. They will be reminded of the service complaints process which is available to them if they believe that they have been wronged in any way. Notices will also be placed in all the usual places, such as websites and some magazines. I can only apologise for the fact that it has taken us so long to get to where we are today. It has been complex, but we have got it right now and we are committed to making sure that we move forward as quickly as possible. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way.

[Mrs Moon]

I will give way as many times as the Minister wants if she brings me such good news every time. I am absolutely delighted that justice will finally be done.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment: he is very kind, as always.

I am delighted by that change of heart. I was especially concerned because there had actually been service complaints on this issue, but they had been stayed so that people could not proceed with them. The complainants were told that until the Department decided what it would do, their complaints could not proceed. A service complaints process in which complaints can be stayed for four years is unacceptable. That is why one of the amendments that the Defence Committee was eager to ensure was in place was that a person’s knowledge that they had suffered an injustice was not a reason for saying that a complaint was out of time. The Committee also wanted to ensure that delays, such as the staying of complaints, would not be acceptable and could be seen as maladministration even during the process of the investigation. I am delighted to hear the statement that the Minister has just made.

I shall turn now to the changes proposed in the Bill. The introduction of the ombudsman is a landmark reform and it is most welcome, as are the powers to overturn the rejection of complaints applications and appeal applications. The rationalisation of the complaints process, including placing a limit on the number of appeals, is a common-sense approach.

The Bill has many positive aspects, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I think it could go further. The ombudsman’s new powers to investigate allegations of maladministration are welcome. These are significant new powers which, if implemented properly, could allow the ombudsman to root out bad practice, inefficiencies and injustice in the complaints process, to everyone’s benefit. However, during the Defence Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, we revealed possible confusion surrounding the extent and nature of the power, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that in her closing remarks, if not now.

There seems to be disagreement between what the Minister understood and what the commissioner felt was a real step-change for service personnel. The commissioner told the Committee that proposed new section 340H did not match the policy that had been agreed with the Ministry, and that it risked undermining what the Minister hoped to achieve from the provision. Proposed new section 340H(4) states:

“The purpose of an investigation is to decide…whether the alleged maladministration has occurred”.

The commissioner and the Defence Select Committee are concerned that the wording, “whether the alleged maladministration has occurred”, is too restrictive.

The commissioner suggested, and the Committee agrees, that the Bill should be amended to make it explicit that the ombudsman could investigate and report on any maladministration in the handling of a service complaint, and we have suggested amendments to that end, listed in amendment group D in the annex of our report. In their response to the Committee report the Government dismissed this on the ground that it:

“would require the Ombudsman to look for any maladministration in every case”.

I thought that that was the whole point. The Minister is looking at me quizzically. Are we on the same ground here, or is there disagreement?

[Anna Soubry]

This is a classic example of us both wanting the same outcome, but there is a question of how we should achieve it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who chairs the Select Committee, because we have already discussed this matter with officials this afternoon. We believe that our changes to the regulations will achieve what we want—namely, that if the ombudsman feels that she has discovered further maladministration, she would nevertheless go back to the complainant to ensure that they were content for her to investigate it, rather than taking a blanket approach. The hon. Lady will understand that an individual might not want a particular matter to be pursued, for all manner of reasons. I am happy to discuss this with her after the debate, to see whether I can satisfy her. The point is that we want the same thing; there is just the question of whether we achieve it on the face of the Bill or in the regulations.

[Mrs Moon]

Again, we seem to have made progress and I hope that we can all agree on this point. I look forward to discussing it further with the Minister and getting clarification.

Anything that streamlines the process is to be welcomed, as is anything that opens up an opportunity for greater investigation of maladministration. The Minister and I agree that maladministration is unacceptable, no matter how or why it occurs. In cases of chronic delay, such as those of Corporal Neathway and of the four service personnel in the police cautions case mentioned earlier, the ombudsman must have the ability to intervene when the delay in handling the case has become egregious. For example, if a complaint has taken twice as long as the Ministry of Defence’s self-imposed time limit of 24 weeks, it seems reasonable that the ombudsman should be able to clarify why that delay is happening and intervene and declare it a case of maladministration.

This brings me to another amendment that the Defence Select Committee has proposed, to ensure that the powers of the ombudsman are sound, reasonable, and beneficial. Perhaps the Minister has already made some changes in this respect. The ombudsman should have the authority to undertake, at her own discretion, thematic reviews into the working of the complaints system. In our report, the Committee emphasised the positive benefit that this small but significant reform could bring, not only to individual complainants but to Ministers and the chain of command. Our report states:

“Rather than undermining it, the identification and resolution of these matters would increase confidence in the chain of command...and could contribute to identifying potential areas to be improved in the MOD’s and the chain of command’s responsibility of a duty of care towards Service personnel.”

That proposal has the backing of the Royal British Legion, with the Legion’s director general Dr Chris Simpkins powerfully pointing out:

“The problems at Deepcut could have been picked up much earlier if an Ombudsman had had the power to initiate their own inquiry. This is not an outlandish request, as the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman has long had the power to start thematic inquiries”.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission backs the idea, stating that it will

“support the Defence Committee’s view that the Bill should state expressly that the Ombudsman can undertake thematic reviews.”

Liberty also supports the amendment, as did Labour and Liberal Democrat peers during the Bill’s consideration in another place. The current complaints commissioner supports the principle, saying that there are benefits in the

“Ombudsmen using their broad view of the organisations that they oversee to do research and produce thematic reports so that lessons can be learned about the issues behind complaints within a particular area”.

The Government’s objections to the amendment, outlined by Lord Astor on Third Reading, seem to boil down to a concern that it could result in the ombudsman morphing into some kind of inspectorate or rapporteur for the armed forces, and that resources and time would be diverted from the ombudsman’s primary role. Affording the ombudsman the freedom to report to the Secretary of State on a matter of importance when the ombudsman considers it appropriate does not a revolution make. It is a common-sense, reasoned expansion of the powers with which the Ombudsman will be entrusted. The MOD’s fears that as a result of this minor power the ombudsman would become a vigilante investigator are simply unfounded, and stand in contrast to the amount of respect and responsibility with which the office has been entrusted in many other areas of the Bill.

Delay is the enemy. It is the root of the problems in the current system and it is a blight that needs to be eradicated. The amendments will help the ombudsman and the armed forces to build a better complaints system. Doing so will bolster confidence in the system and in the chain of command. It is hard to see why the Government, who are making so many pioneering reforms in the Bill, are unwilling to accept the Defence Committee’s major changes and recommendations.

The fight to establish a complaints system that is fit for purpose for our armed forces has been long and hard. We do not want to wait for a further crisis or tragedy before acting. To paraphrase Corporal Neathway, the Government and the chain of command have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards reform. The concerns of the heads of the armed forces are well known. The chain of command must remain pre-eminent and cannot be compromised, and their aversion to ceding too much control over the complaints process is obvious. However it is Parliament, the legislature, that manages and reforms the armed forces. It was Parliament that created the commissioner and is creating the ombudsman, and it is here in Parliament that those institutions should be held to account. The delays, the maladministration and the problems within the system must be resolved, and we must work together to ensure that the Bill does exactly that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I was going to label the hon. Gentleman a dinosaur, but he is obviously on the new progressive wing of the Conservative party.

[Anna Soubry]

You’re so tribal!

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I am—I wear that badge with honour.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is completely right. Without some external push, oversight or, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) said, light shone on the process, there will be no change. That is what the ombudsman will provide.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on an excellent report on the Bill. He raises a fair point: if there is disagreement, people should say so. The chain of command must say what, if anything, it objects to. It should not say it behind closed doors but should come out into the light.

I look forward to the Committee stage. We shall table amendments and I hope that we will get the ombudsman that not only this House needs but that the servicemen and women who serve our nation with pride and bravery need.

[Anna Soubry]

With the leave of the House, let me try to respond to some of the good points that have been made in this excellent debate. It would have been nice to have a bit more support for my arguments against the need for a thematic role for the ombudsman, but I have no doubt that we shall continue that debate in Committee and that it will go on and on. I have said why I think that it is not a good idea and I hope that Members on both sides of the House accept that I am not a Minister who stands at this Dispatch Box and says things that I do not believe in. I did not do that when I was on the Back Benches, either. I believe it would be wrong for the service complaints ombudsman to have an extra thematic role for the reasons I have given. I say that because I believe in it, not because I have been told to believe in it by anybody else.

I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). Sadly, I never served on the Defence Committee, which he chaired with huge integrity, great fairness and utter thoroughness. He will be hugely missed in this place. I congratulate him on his speech and I could not possibly comment on his comments about the funding and the next Government. All I can say is that it is generally accepted that I have gone somewhat native—he might be pleased to know that. He made the sort of sensible speech that we would expect and he showed great understanding and insight.

I also pay tribute to my friend—she is my friend today—the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I think our relationship started over polycystic kidneys. You do not need to know why, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we once had a debate on the subject. We agree on so much, but let me deal briefly with the stuff on which we do not agree. I would not be over-prescriptive on the question of the delay, because in some cases the nature of the case will mean that it takes more than six months to reach a conclusion. Six months is an eminently admirable goal, but I do not want to be over-prescriptive. Sometimes a witness might be on operations abroad, or things might get complicated because they involve a pension or an allowance. In principle, however, that should absolutely be the goal. There is no excuse for the appalling delays not just in Corporal Neathway’s case but in many other examples. I think that the hon. Lady was saying that unfortunately, in too many parts of our armed forces, the attitude is that there is not a problem. That is why we have delays and such lackadaisical attitudes.

Too many have the attitude that there is not a problem and that such cases are just about some whining woman or difficult male. There is a problem. People have grievances and complaints and we need a system that addresses that fact and ensures that they get justice. When they do not, we will have the ombudsman, and I think that that is where there is a bit of confusion. There is a profound difference between the service complaints ombudsman that the Government want and an armed forces ombudsman who might or might not consider the broader matters. That might not be a long way down the line, but it is not covered by this role.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) made a very good speech. I did not agree with all of it, but nevertheless his point was well made. Finally, let me say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who chairs the Select Committee. I am sorry that this has not happened before and I do not know why it has not, but let us start now. I am more than happy to consider the amendments from the Defence Committee. Some are flawed—I am sorry, but some of them are—but let us meet and go through them. If we can find a way of sorting things out so that we do not fall out and so that we reach compromises, fair enough. He knows why I take the view I do about over-prescription in the Bill, but I do not want to fall out with people. I want this to happen because it is the right thing to do. Notwithstanding the money provisions, it is the right thing to do by our servicemen and women who deserve and need a proper system. That is what this Bill will deliver.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12 February 2015.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen's recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of–

(a) any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21 July 2014 (Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

Gurkha Welfare

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

The Government would like to thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Gurkha Welfare for leading an inquiry into grievances held by members of the Gurkha veterans’ community. This inquiry has provided the Gurkha veterans’ community an independent forum within which their grievances have been listened to, considered and ultimately debated in Parliament. The Government would like to pay tribute to the manner in which the Gurkha community have participated in this unique inquiry and taken the opportunity to present evidence about the grievances which some hold.

In response to the inquiry’s findings the Government will implement a number of measures which will mean greater financial and social support for Gurkha veterans from both the Government and the charitable sector. These measures include the provision of £5 million of additional funding from LIBOR fines announced in the autumn statement. This money will be made available over the next five years to the Gurkha Welfare Trust, a charity which supports Gurkha veterans. This funding will be able to support the provision of additional care and support for Gurkha veterans in Nepal or the UK.

The Government will also set up a fund to compensate retired Gurkhas who left the brigade after marriage to a non-Nepalese. The Government recognise that the approach to mixed marriage was a matter of cultural importance to those within the Brigade of Gurkhas at the time. However they do not believe this policy reflects the values which the Armed Forces and the United Kingdom holds in the 21st century. They have therefore decided to set up a scheme to offer a payment to those directly affected by this policy. Details of the scheme and how Gurkhas can claim will be published in due course.

In addition to these measures in response to the APPG report, the Government have also awarded £960,000 to Gurkha Homes Limited. This money is from the £40 million Veterans Accommodation Fund launched in 2014 using money from LIBOR fines. This will see 32 new homes built in four locations across the UK for Gurkha veterans. This will enable up to 64 Gurkha veterans and their spouses or partners to live in high quality affordable accommodation while integrating into local communities.

These commitments are a clear demonstration that the Government are willing to address previous injustices and concerns held within the Gurkha community where it is appropriate to do so. It is also a statement of the enduring gratitude felt by the nation to the Gurkha community for their service. These measures will help to ensure that Gurkha veterans have the opportunity to live in retirement with the further support and gratitude of the British Government.

The Government’s full response has been placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS234]

War Pensions Scheme (Uprating)

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

The new rates of pensions and allowances payable under the war pensions scheme proposed from April 2015 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of awards and allowances for 2015 will take place from the week beginning 6 April. Rates for 2015 are increasing by 1.2% in line with the September 2014 consumer prices index.