Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am sure the noble Lord has been listening carefully to the argument that I have been advancing, but I have been trying to distinguish between identified, critical core services—in this case housing, education and health, which the Armed Forces community said mattered most to them—and how we address the delivery of these services. In the main, these services are not delivered by central government but by a range of other agencies, and may be the responsibility of devolved Administrations, in turn delivering them through their agencies. The point I am making is that adding an obligation to central government does not seem in any way to address the need that we have identified that has to be addressed: the current disparity in the delivery of services across the United Kingdom. That, quite simply, is what the Bill is seeking to rectify. That is why trying to attach a covenant obligation to central government is something of a red herring—I do not actually see what it is going to deliver.

Before the noble Lord interrupted me, I was simply explaining, by way of illustration, the point I have just been making: exactly what it has been possible for the Government to do without attaching any statutory obligation on them, and I am not even halfway through my list. At the risk of being tedious with your Lordships, I was also going to mention, finally, a new holistic transition policy that co-ordinates and manages the transition from military to civilian life for service personnel and their families when they leave the Armed Forces. The Defence Transition Services also supports those in that position. We have the Career Transition Partnership, and a range of initiatives and support packages covering a wide range of activity, all of which benefit our Armed Forces personnel. I merely adduce that list to illustrate how alternative processes allow areas of concern to be brought to light more readily and addressed more quickly through other means, if necessary, including action to be taken by central government departments and devolved Administrations, where appropriate.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who specifically raised the evaluation process. This would feed into our existing commitment to review the overall performance of the covenant duty as part of our post-legislation scrutiny. That review will be submitted to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and will also be covered in the covenant annual report. This is in addition to regular parliamentary scrutiny, such as Parliamentary Questions and regular reviews by the Select Committee, or whatever form of inquiry Members of the other place and of this House may wish to undertake. The detail of the evaluation process is still being worked on with our stakeholders, but I hope that this background and the outline of the process provides reassurance that it represents a better way forward and that we are committed to continuing our work to mitigate the impact of service life on the Armed Forces community, wherever it may occur.

Listening to some of the contributions, it occurred to me that there may be a misunderstanding of the role of the Armed Forces covenant. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern recalled an interesting and arguably disturbing situation, in which it is possible that Armed Forces personnel suffered harm. I undertake to look at that instance in detail; he provided a reference for where I can find more information.

However, I say to my noble and learned friend that central government, and the MoD in particular, are directly responsible for the Armed Forces, and the MoD has always looked after the welfare of service personnel. During the Bill’s passage through this House, we have heard how the support provided has improved, expanded and developed over time, particularly in relation to issues such as mental health. Central government and the MoD answer to Ministers, are held to account in Parliament, and may be held to account by the courts of this land. But the covenant is a separate concept: it is a promise by the nation as a whole to the Armed Forces community that they will not be disadvantaged because of their service. It brings in other organisations, such as health providers and local authorities, who are not directly responsible for the Armed Forces community but whose decisions undoubtedly affect them. It is this new duty that will ensure that these organisations consistently apply the principles of the covenant and can be confident of the legal basis for doing so. Based on this fairly lengthy explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will not press his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 17, also tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I know that he is motivated by the best and most honourable of intentions, but I am somewhat unclear about its purpose. The new definition contained in the amendment adds nothing to the duties already set out in the Bill. Indeed, perhaps disquietingly, it seems to decrease the scope of that duty, which I know is not my noble and learned friend’s intention.

We are clear that the Armed Forces covenant is a promise by the nation to support our Armed Forces community. The amendment characterises the scope and character of that promise as an agreement between the Secretary of State and servicepeople. But, with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend, in doing so, it fails to capture its essence: it is a much broader and more widely embracing concept.

The covenant was framed during a time of great pressure on the Armed Forces community. As I have described at some length, it has been delivered highly successfully in the succeeding decade because it captures the spirit of appreciation and voluntary support for that community from people of every walk of life across the United Kingdom. This voluntary spirit is why it is called a covenant and framed as something far greater than the more transactional approach that this amendment could engender. To express the covenant in the way proposed by this amendment goes against the spirit of the covenant and the many successful initiatives that it has produced, built on the widespread admiration and support to which I have referred.

The Armed Forces covenant is described on the government website for the Armed Forces, and on the front of the annual report, as

“an Enduring Covenant Between the People of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government—and—All those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and their Families.”

That definition is not in statue, but the principles of the covenant appear in the Armed Forces Act 2006. That is why this Bill has been taking forward greater detail, to try to assist the delivery of vital services for our Armed Forces community.

The description I have just given of the covenant far better captures its nature, which provides the framework through which support for our Armed Forces community can thrive and grow. I thank your Lordships for indulging me with patience and courtesy, as these were important points which had to be addressed at length. In view of the explanation I have given, I hope my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed answer to my amendment. It was clear to me, from the beginning of this provision titled “Armed Forces Covenant Report” in the 2011 Act, that all that had been done to make any references to the Armed Forces covenant in this was to delete the word “report”. But it seemed to me that, in the ordinary course of statutory interpretation, you need to know what you are talking about, and I was surprised—I thought I must have missed something, though the Minister now confirms that I did not—that there was nothing in statute to define the Armed Forces of the Crown covenant. A covenant is a contract, and it is obvious that the people of the United Kingdom are represented in this agreement by the Secretary of State. Therefore, it seems to me odd that the Secretary of State is not prepared to have regard to the principles given at the opening of this provision. Of course, the term “Secretary of State” includes the Secretary of State for Defence and other Secretaries of State as well, if that is relevant to the provision in question. I find it hard to have the Government of the United Kingdom say that they are not prepared to be bound to have regard to the principles of the covenant.

If I should by any chance be successful, this will go back to the House of Commons, and the Commons will have to ask themselves whether it is reasonable that the Government of this country should refuse to be bound to have regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant. I do not think the Government intend that, but that is the effect of leaving this out. Having this on a website is not equivalent, as yet, to having it in law—the statute book is still distinct from a website. It rather comforts me that the definition on the website includes the Government. I think that something of this kind is necessary, and I had rather hoped that the Minister might think of Third Reading as a time to put in a definition, but there is no offer of that kind, and I understand why she is not a position to do that.

I thank all who have supported me, as I think all who have spoken apart from the Minister have, which is a very good situation so far as I am concerned. I am not concerned about anything except that the Armed Forces covenant should be as effective as possible in law in our country. I do not subscribe to the other extensions that were being suggested in amendments because I can see that there is power to do that and, as and when resources are available, it would be right to bring that in by regulation.

In the meantime, I very much regret to tell my noble friend that in all conscience I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment. It is a matter that has to be faced by those who are responsible for this if they are not prepared to subscribe to having regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, again this has been a fascinating debate and I arise with trepidation when one of the contributors is my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. A number of significant points have been made and I will try to address them as best I can.

Amendment 9, as has been discussed, centres on the desire to make central government departments subject to the duty of due regard. Again, to provide some context, we designed the new duty to initially focus on the three core functions of healthcare, education and housing because, as I indicated in debating a previous amendment, these are prominent among the concerns of both Armed Forces personnel in service and veterans. They not only reflect issues that are already in statute, but also address the most commonly raised issues affecting the day-to-day lives of our Armed Forces community.

As our Armed Forces are a very mobile population, frequently moving from local authority to local authority, it is often the variation of service delivery across local areas that can inadvertently cause disadvantage. Consequently, it is vital that those delivering these key public services are sufficiently aware of the challenges faced by the Armed Forces community when accessing these services. It is right that we look at this area first.

We also took into account that central Government are responsible for the overall strategic direction for national policy and for delivering on the manifesto on which they were elected. However, the responsibility for the delivery of these functions and their impact rests at more local level. I would argue that Governments are answerable, ultimately, to an electorate when a general election comes round and, before that point, they are most certainly accountable to Parliament, and that is an accountability no Government would ever take lightly.

Senior engagement regularly takes place between the MoD, the Cabinet Office, other government departments and the devolved Administrations to drive an increase in covenant awareness across national healthcare, and housing and education policy to improve the lives of the Armed Forces community. Additionally, the Government’s delivery of the covenant is, as we all know, subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the existing annual legal obligation to report progress delivering the covenant across the UK to Parliament. This is in addition to regular parliamentary scrutiny through other channels, such as Parliamentary Questions, reviews by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and debates called by Members with a particular interest in certain aspects of defence.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern raised in support of his argument the certainly interesting event that occurred during the first Gulf War. As he explained, in anticipation that troops might be exposed to gas issues and had to be protected against that, protective equipment was handed out. As he indicated, people then suffered from a neurological type of disease on their return and tried to identify where it had come from. As my noble and learned friend said, they had not actually been exposed to any toxic gas, so the suspicion was that it was from the protective equipment. He adduced this instance in support of his argument that central government should be brought in.

I have two observations on that analogy. The emphasis on what the Government are doing in this Bill and what we have endeavoured to make possible is, first, to give the covenant a statutory impact, which is innovatory and very important; and secondly, to try to make it much clearer across the United Kingdom, for the whole panoply of services being delivered in respect of housing, education and health, how there needs to be greater awareness and understanding, and a much more universal approach to delivering these services to personnel who may be in service in the Armed Forces or veterans. That is about ensuring that, when they need services, they can access them.

The question that my noble and learned friend poses about the instance that he describes, with the reference to the first Gulf War and the particular situation that developed there, is a legitimate illustration to give the Committee. I accept that that was a serious situation, but the question running through my mind as he spoke was that surely the important thing there was remedy. This is not about people needing something, not being able to get it, and making sure that the providers of that service are much more alert to providing it; it is about a situation where, under orders of government, Armed Forces were sent abroad and then apparently—I do not know the facts myself—experienced neurological disorders when they returned, and considered that was attributable to protective equipment that was defective, with which they had been issued.

That is not a complete analogy with what the Bill is trying to do. If you ask what solution was needed, the answer, quite simply, is that those people who suffered in that way needed to be given advice and helped, and needed to find a legal solution, if that was what was available to them. I do not know what happened to that particular group of people, but I imagine that the first thing they needed was medical support, which I hope that they got. I imagine that, within the Armed Forces, there would be a concern about the manifestation of that situation and a desire to support, but the bottom line is that, if the culpable body were the Government and the MoD, if these individuals sought and obtained good legal advice the MoD would find itself, quite properly, the subject of litigation. That is how the solution would be sought. If the court was satisfied that the negligence alleged by those who had suffered was proved, remedies would follow.

I say with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay that I absolutely understand what he is driving at, but I still do not see a complete dovetail analogy with what we seek to deliver through the Bill. The situation that my noble and learned friend outlines is serious. It may very well happen in future, but the MoD is very vigilant and conscious that if it falls down on its duty to its own people it will expect to be sued—and it is. Not only is it sued and expected to provide redress but support is given to people who find themselves in that grouping. Including central government in the Bill is unnecessary. The Government are already subject to a legal obligation to report on the delivery of the covenant, and there are many and sufficient levels of public scrutiny.

Let us bear in mind that the Bill is about trying to improve the levels of awareness across the United Kingdom and a better and more universal provision of essential services for those members of our Armed Forces and veterans who need them. My problem with the amendment is that, were it accepted, we would create an obligation on central government. We cannot impose a comparable obligation on devolved Governments because that would be incompetent and not within the scope of the Bill. We would then once again create disparity rather than universality across the United Kingdom. We would have central government bound in one way but not devolved Administrations. That is not a desirable outcome.

I am not at all immune to the importance of the arguments advanced by my noble and learned friend. He makes an important point. The situation to which he refers was grave. I suggest that that can be addressed by existing means. It does not need the inclusion of central government in the covenant, which, indeed, would not necessarily have prevented the problem. The question is: how do we provide a remedy to people who have been affected by such an unfortunate development? My response would be: by providing support. Advice is available—legal advice if that is required—for people to follow through the remedies they seek. It is not necessary to bring central government into the legislation. It is much more important that we focus on what we are trying to do as a first step, make sure we get that working properly and then, as we have been discussing, consider whether there is a need to expand that provision of duty.

I am unable to agree that this amendment is either necessary or would help the situation; it could create a difficulty where one does not currently exist. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I never mentioned negligence. I am not suggesting for a minute that there was necessarily any negligence. The Armed Forces put in requirements for the people who were taking part for protection against what they thought might come. That was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Some of them took the treatment. The question was: what was the result of that? That was a question for the Secretary of State. It was him who had to look into that; it was a national question. It had nothing whatever to do with negligence or some other basis of claim. The claim was because the Government had approved a covenant, which I said should protect them in respect of their work in the Armed Forces and after they had left. That is what this was—nothing more, nothing less.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I have to make it clear that there is no suggestion in my argument that there was any negligence or any sort of enforcement available at the time. This is a new remedy, and it should be given.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Committee: 8th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

I have tried to make it clear that we are not attempting to equate delegated legislation with primary legislation. I have been trying to clarify when the Government consider primary legislation is appropriate and should be used—for policy change, for example. However, we are in an extraordinary situation, as all noble Lords acknowledge. It is beyond argument that the Government are having to contemplate the transfer of a body of law of huge volume and massive complexity. We owe it to the people and businesses that rely on that law to make a good fist of getting it transferred from A to B by the critical point of exit day.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which is one of the very few examples of where statutory instruments made under an Act can be amended by Parliament. The emergency regulations made under that Act are very unusual instruments. The nature of the situation with which they are intended to deal is self-explanatory. It is in a state of emergency and is such that Parliament cannot scrutinise these instruments before they are made. None of the normal scrutiny procedures of this House applies. That is intrinsic to the very unusual approach under that Act, drafted for unusual and extraordinary circumstances. Noble Lords may be interested to note that in the history of the Civil Contingencies Act no Government have ever made any emergency regulations.

We are not proposing in this Bill anything of the sort of action envisaged by the Civil Contingencies Act. I cannot think that allowing amendable SIs is the solution to the concerns expressed by my noble friends. Nor, I repeat, is reform of the legislative process the role of this Bill. It is merely intended to provide continuity and certainty in our statute book.

The amendments would not only fundamentally alter the nature of secondary legislation but imperil the Government’s programme of secondary legislation and Parliament’s opportunity to scrutinise it. If this legislation is subject to continued movement back and forth, we run the risk that crucial provisions are not in place in time to allow businesses and individuals to prepare for exit, and that so many SIs would become bunched at the end of the process that they would not be properly scrutinised. I have endeavoured to deal—I hope—fully with the very important points raised by colleagues in the Chamber, and I hope that my explanation reassures noble Lords and the noble Baroness. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I was wondering whether my noble friend had any special comment on proposed new sub-paragraph (4) in Amendment 248, which seems to have nothing much to do with the amendments and seems in conflict with what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was saying earlier.

[Baroness Goldie]

At this time of night my reading qualities are not at their most alert. May I look at that in more detail and revert to my noble and learned friend?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. Clause 56 and Schedule 5 as drafted will ensure that the Office for Students and the Secretary of State have the powers needed to investigate effectively if there are grounds to suspect serious breaches of funding or registration conditions at higher education providers. The amendment recognises that these powers are necessary where there are suspicions of fraud, or serious or wilful mismanagement of public funds.

As the noble Baroness indicated, we would expect the majority of cases where these powers would be used to fall into this category, but limiting the powers to this category would risk compromising our ability to investigate effectively certain other cases where value for public money, quality, or the student interest is at risk.

The OfS may, at the time of an institution’s registration or later, impose a “specific registration” condition. This is a key part of our risk-based regulatory framework. For example, an institution with high drop-out and low qualification rates could have a student number control imposed by the OfS if it considered that this poor level of performance was related to recruiting more students than the institution could properly cater for.

A breach of such a condition may not constitute fraud, or serious or wilful mismanagement of public money, as students will still be eligible to access student support. But there is a very real risk that students, quality, and value for public money will all suffer. If the OfS has reason to believe that despite, for example, the imposition of a condition that limits the numbers of students a provider can recruit the provider is nevertheless undertaking an aggressive student enrolment campaign, it will be important that evidence can be swiftly secured to confirm this. If the proposed amendment were made, a warrant to enter and search may not be granted in such cases. That would be an unfortunate and perhaps unintended deficiency in these important powers. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 364.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Before my noble friend sits down, I was wondering whether the justice of the peace who is to decide such a matter has to give a certificate that he has been satisfied on all the matters required in the schedule at this point in order to grant the warrant, because it sets out conditions about which he must be satisfied. I think it would be quite a reasonable requirement that before the warrant was granted, he should certify that he—or she, I should of course have said—is satisfied on each one of all those rather important conditions.

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank my noble and very learned friend for his contribution. I cannot comment on the specifics of the operation of magistrates’ warrants in England, but I certainly can undertake to write to him with clarification as to how—a very large piece of paper has just been handed to me, entitled, “What will the magistrate take into account when considering whether to issue a search warrant?” If your Lordships, like me, are agog to know this riveting information, here we go.

The magistrate would need to be satisfied on the basis of the written evidence and the questions answered on oath that reasonable grounds existed for suspecting a serious breach of a condition of funding or registration, and that entry to the premises was necessary to determine whether the breach was taking place. Further to this, the magistrate would also need to be satisfied that entry to the premises was likely to be refused or that the purpose of entry would be frustrated or seriously prejudiced. These criteria will ensure the exercise of the power is narrowly limited.

Well, as FE Smith once famously said to a judge, I may not be any wiser, but I am much better informed.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I am grateful for that, but of course it does not deal with the question that I am asking. It is very useful information—or rather, I think I am right in saying that, at least so far as I followed it, it is a repetition of what is already in the Bill. The question, however, is whether the magistrate needs to be aware that these are the conditions. When applications for warrants are dealt with, the degree of speed required sometimes slightly derogates from the detail in which they are considered. This is an important matter: if a higher education institution has a search warrant on its premises that is a pretty damaging thing, especially if it happens to come out in the press that a highly regarded senior institution is being subjected to a search of its premises, which may be quite large, when it comes to it.

It would be useful to have a requirement that the magistrate should certify that he or she is satisfied on these matters and grants the warrant accordingly, or something like that.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I totally defer to my noble and learned friend on these matters. I do not have the technical information that he seeks, but I undertake to write to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I fully accept that the express text may not have intended that—but we have to look at what the consequences of this new independent committee would be, and infer from that what effect it might have on the broader sector.

At the moment we have a university sector that needs to do more to support its students and the wider economy: it has built up over time to serve only parts of the country; it is not providing employers with enough of the right type of graduate, especially STEM graduates; it can do more to offer more flexible study options to meet students’ diverse needs; and it can to do more to support social mobility. It is not enough simply to ensure that all young people with the potential to benefit have a theoretical opportunity to go to university and secure a good job when they graduate.

Alternative providers are already supporting greater diversity in the sector: 56% of students at alternative providers are aged 25 or over, compared with 23% of students at publicly funded institutions. They also have more BME students: 59% of undergraduate students at alternative providers are from BME groups, compared with 21% at HEIs.

The Government are determined to build a country that works for everyone. That is why we have announced a number of opportunity areas that will focus their energy, ideas and resources on allowing children and young people to fulfil their potential. That, in conjunction with what the Act sets out to achieve—the broad vision that I think universities accept as positive for the sector—holds out hope that we are proceeding on a journey in which we can have a lot of optimism and confidence.

I note the references to skills and would stress that we are carrying out reform programmes in higher education and in technical and vocational education at the same time. This gives us the opportunity to ensure that these programmes of reform are complementary. The Government’s recently published Green Paper on an industrial strategy outlines further our vision for skills and a system that can drive increases in productivity and improvements in social mobility. We are committed to reforms that will improve basic skills, create a proper system of technical education, address regional skills imbalances and shortages in STEM skills, and make it easier for adults to retrain and upskill in later life.

One of the 10 pillars of the industrial strategy is that we will create the right structures and institutions to support specific places and sectors. In some cases, this will mean strengthening existing educational institutions or creating new ones. We recognise the need for accurate information to identify and address current and future skills shortages, and we will work towards a single authoritative source of this information. To ensure a joined-up approach, the OfS’s ability to co-operate with a range of other bodies, including the Skills Funding Agency and the Institute for Apprenticeships, will be important. Clause 58 enables that.

The important issue of part-time education was raised. The Government agree that part-time education, distance learning and adult education bring enormous benefits to individuals, the economy and employers. Our reforms to part-time learning, advanced learner loans and degree apprenticeships are opening significant opportunities for mature students to learn. The OfS must—it is not a question of should, or if it feels like it—have regard to the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students, and to the need to encourage competition between providers where that competition is in the interests of students and employers. That is alongside the other practical support that the Government are already giving for part-time students, including providing tuition fee loans where previously they were not available. We have also recently completed a consultation on providing, for the first time ever, part-time maintenance loans. We are now considering options. The Bill already provides for the mechanisms to enable the kind of information referenced here to be gathered effectively. I hope my remarks have reassured the noble Baroness, and I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Would it be worth considering inserting the phrase from this amendment,

“emerging needs for new providers within the higher education sector”, into the general duties of the OfS in Clause 2? It might well be a mechanism for this being studied.

[Baroness Goldie]

As ever, my noble and learned friend makes a significant suggestion. I undertake that we shall reflect on that.