Iraq Inquiry
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest to declare because I was a TA officer serving in Kuwait and Iraq in early 2003. I was serving as a G1/G4 ops watchkeeper in HQ DSG, part of 1 (UK) Armoured Division.
Before I was called up on 26 February 2003, I was the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for defence in your Lordships’ House. While I thought the “dodgy dossier” was appropriately named, I honestly had faith in the Prime Minister. I thought that perhaps the officials were telling him that he had to deal with Saddam Hussein then or he would never be able to deal with him. I believed it my duty to believe the Prime Minister on a matter of national security. During the run-up to the operation, Dr El Baradei had more or less told us that there was no nuclear threat from Saddam, and in the HQ and in the theatre we honestly believed that we faced a threat from imminent chemical attack and it was not just some conspiracy in No. 10.
My noble friend Lord King mentioned the Maxwellisation process. It seems to me that Maxwellisation is an invitation to witnesses to be as economical as possible with the quantity of evidence, safe in the knowledge that if the inquiry gets a bit too close they can give further details.
Mr Blair and I had privileged upbringings. We were both privately educated and many of our teachers would have served in the Second World War and had a terrible time. My teachers drummed into me time and again that war is to be avoided at all possible costs. Nevertheless, they also ensured that we knew how to defend our nation, particularly in respect of leadership, so I am not quite sure what went wrong.
There are some good aspects to this. The SDR 1998, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was a particularly good defence review. It recognised that we would be getting into expeditionary warfare. We practised it with Exercise Saif Sareea in Oman in 2001, and we learned a lot of lessons. Some tried to suggest that Labour Ministers deployed UK forces on Op Telic 1 ill trained and inadequately equipped for the military task that had been set for them. They did no such thing. The problems, as we know, were with the legality and the necessity of the operation and with post-conflict planning, but I have no issue at all with the way that Op Telic 1 was conducted. It was a brilliant operation, very rapidly executed.
Initially, up until December 2002, the plan was to deploy through Turkey with a British armoured brigade and two logistic brigades. Then, in December, the plan was changed to go in through the south of Iraq with an armoured brigade, a commando brigade and an air mobile brigade. This was a massive change in plan; nevertheless, we were ready to cross the start line in early March 2003. That was very fast indeed—it gave little time for our opponents to prepare and its speed minimised our casualties. Of course, once a force is deployed, you cannot leave it deployed very long. You have to recognise that your own forces will never be perfectly prepared and the longer you wait, the better prepared your opponents will be. It is not generally recognised that only the US, UK, France and Russia can deploy an armoured formation out of area, away from their own land mass. Other nations simply cannot do it; they lack both the physical and conceptual components to do so.
I want to dispel a few myths. Take the matter of body armour, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. When I mobilised I was issued with brand-new body armour at Chilwell, as were all the other people being mobilised. Yes, there was a shortage of body armour in theatre. Body armour is very heavy and I suspect that what happened was that some enterprising quartermaster put his unit’s body armour in an ISO container in order to allow the troops to carry more of their own gear into theatre, not realising how fast we were going to move. We ended up in the situation that we were short of about 600 sets of body armour in theatre and the logistical system is simply not geared up to deal with that sort of problem. Unfortunately, the fact that we did not have a system of tracking the ISO shipping containers was a problem, but that is not a reason for not deploying. I am very sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the reality is that body armour, no matter how good—unless you cannot pick it up—will not protect a soldier from a burst of fire from a general-purpose machine gun mounted on a vehicle. You simply do not have a snowflake’s chance in a blast furnace.
I can say, years later, that I am ashamed of some of the attacks made by my honourable friends on Labour Ministers. They should have known better. Parliamentarians have to understand that it is impossible to engage in war-fighting operations without taking numerous casualties. I have said before and I will say again that the attention we pay to each casualty is inversely proportionate to the number of casualties we take. Some outside the House think that the MoD, the staff and senior officers have a sort of “Blackadder” attitude to taking casualties. They do not. In every HQ, at every level, every casualty hurts like hell. I know; I have been there.
Now I will say a word about protective ability. In late May 2003 I was running around Basra province in a soft-skin Land Rover. I was heavily armed, with a Browning 9 millimetre pistol, my body armour was somewhere in the back of the Land Rover, and I hoped that my driver had remembered to bring his rifle. We did not need anything more: it was a benign environment. It was only later, when the post-conflict plan was unravelling and we lost the consent of the people, that it became a dangerous environment.
The report observes that MoD staff in the UK were preoccupied with the FRES programme—a new armoured vehicle programme. The danger with buying a large UOR fleet is that you end up with a wide range of flat platforms with different build standards, and no plan for sustaining the fleet in the future. I am sorry to say that that is exactly what we have now—as I am sure Mr Putin’s military advisers are well aware.
The shocking part of the report is not the intelligence failures but the late consideration of the legal issues, the total lack of Cabinet government, and the problem in involving Ministers, such as Defence Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers, at all levels. Finally, I would like to say that the blame does not all lie with Labour Ministers. My noble friend Lord Dobbs touched on the role of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I am not clear, and the report does not cover, what role Her Majesty’s Opposition took in asking the very difficult questions of Ministers. If they had done that, the outcome might have been different.
Armed Forces Deployment (Royal Prerogative) Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the way in which she explained the purpose of her Bill. She has much experience in international affairs and we benefit greatly from it. If I wanted to draft a Bill to have the same effect as that of the noble Baroness, it would have more or less the same provisions. I was not surprised when she told the House that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was heavily involved in the drafting. It is obvious that the noble Baroness has carefully researched this matter.
I must declare an interest as I think that I am still commissioned in the Army Reserve—but not for very long, because my 60th birthday is rushing up in October. However, I served in Iraq in the spring of 2003.
Some say that we should not effect major constitutional change by means of Private Members’ Bills. I disagree, the obvious recent precedent being the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which my party tried to get through as a Private Member’s Bill. The House decided in the end not to pass it. I believe that the noble Baroness is using the correct parliamentary tool to achieve her objective. She is not seeking merely to have the Government do or stop doing something; she is seeking to change the law and the constitution.
However, I am concerned about the number of Private Members’ Bills going through and being passed by your Lordships’ House that would be unlikely to find favour if your Lordships decided to vote on the matter. Some noble Lords think that it is a convention in this House not to kill a Private Member’s Bill, but it is a statistic not a convention. In other words, I have seen a few Private Members’ Bills that were so objectionable to noble Lords that they decided not to proceed with them past Second Reading.
If a noble Lord proposes a Private Member’s Bill that is on a small regulatory matter, be it deregulatory or putting a little regulation in, and the House acquiesces in it, I do not see that as a huge problem—we all know perfectly well that such a Bill might not find favour in the House of Commons, so we do not get too excited about it. However, if your Lordships pass a Bill of major constitutional and security significance, the general public may erroneously believe that it represents the considered view of your Lordships’ House when it does not.
I have serious objections to this Bill. If your Lordships did not have other, very pressing matters in hand, I would have tabled a fatal amendment to the Second Reading. The noble Baroness is held in very high regard in your Lordships’ House and I would not dream of taking such action without giving her at least seven to 10 days’ notice, so I just ran out of time to do it.
I do not support even the evolving convention that the House of Commons should vote on a military deployment, both for parliamentary and for practical reasons. Such decisions should be made by the whole Cabinet after detailed discussions and with relevant JIC reports in front of them as the well as the JIC. Most importantly, the leaking of any such discussions by Cabinet members should come under the Official Secrets Act, The Prime Minister should make it quite clear that if any Cabinet Minister leaks details of such a discussion he will charge the security services with finding out where the leak came from, using all necessary resources to find out. That is because it is deeply damaging to national security to have these leaks, which is why Mr Blair used sofa government; he could not trust other members of the Cabinet to have a detailed and frank discussion about the issues. I hope that if I had been sat at that Cabinet table—I obviously do not have the capability of doing that, but if I did—I would have said, “This 45-minute claim. Does it relate to battlefield weapons or strategic weapons? Is the source signals intelligence or human intelligence?” As a Cabinet Minister, I would expect to get the answers to those questions and, if I did not, I would have to consider my position.
Conversely, Parliament is unsuitable because it does not have all the intelligence available. It cannot get answers to the obvious questions. I remember when your Lordships debated whether we should invade Iraq. I remember noble friends saying, “Fine. I’m sure we’ve got the combat power to get the regime to collapse, but what happens afterwards?” We were told, “Oh don’t worry about that”, but actually that is why the campaign failed, as Operation Telic 1 was a brilliant operation—I will address it when we discuss Chilcot. I do not believe that it is right for parliamentarians to make such decisions without access to the information that they need, and they cannot have it for obvious reasons. Of course, I fully agree that, if we do go to war, it is a matter for the Commons to agree or acquiesce with that decision. We can express our view, but it is very much a matter for the elected House.
There are many problems with the noble Baroness’s Bill. First, an opponent may miscalculate the resolution of the UK by believing that the House of Commons will vote against the resolution or the Whips in the House of Commons will calculate that the Government would lose such a vote. That could have serious consequences for the diplomatic effort that should be taking place before you go kinetic. It might make conflict more likely rather than less likely. We only need to think of the Falklands conflict—I see the noble Lord, Lord West, is in his place—where it appeared that the Argentinians miscalculated our resolve.
I am not saying that there should be no parliamentary involvement or no check on the Executive. The noble Baroness suggested that the House of Commons had no role. The House of Commons has a very powerful tool indeed: it can have a vote of no confidence in the Government and the Government are in deep trouble if they lose that. In those circumstances, we used to have a general election straightaway. Unfortunately that has been slightly unwound by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Normally, the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition will have access to Privy Council briefings with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, so he or she should be much better briefed than ordinary Members of the House.
The Bill would not have the effect that the noble Baroness desires. I do not believe that it will have any utility. When the Commons voted to go to war in 2003, it was far too late in the process of transition to war. I was there. Our troops were just about to cross the start line and engage the enemy. We were certainly vulnerable to a pre-emptive attack by Iraqi forces, if they had had the capability. We were just about to engage them and legally they could have launched a pre-emptive attack on us and we would have sustained significant casualties. I know that the issue of casualties is very important to the noble Baroness and I can quite understand that. Very often we have our own forces in harm’s way long before the Commons makes a decision. I will not go any further along what I will call the Chilcot route because we will have a debate next week on that, but if in 2003 the Commons had voted no, it would have seriously damaged the relationship between the UK and the United States and, indirectly, seriously damaged NATO, although I accept that it was not a NATO operation.
From where I was, sat in Kuwait, the vote in the House of Commons was irrelevant. We were going to cross the start line. We were told that it was irrelevant and I suspect that our commanders knew perfectly well the arithmetic in the House of Commons. The Government of the day were confident that they would get a yes vote because of the support from Her Majesty’s Opposition. It was too late, but it would have been compliant with the noble Baroness’s Bill.
During Op Telic 1, there were some cases of servicepeople being unwilling to deploy to the operational theatre and claiming spurious legal reasons for doing so. In an operation such as Telic 1—a large-scale mission—it is not surprising that there are a few of those cases. It is disappointing, but there are disciplinary methods for dealing with it. But if a serviceperson refuses to put themselves in harm’s way because the House of Commons has not yet authorised it, we could be creating a legal problem that we never had before. That is yet another problem with the noble Baroness’s Bill.
I said that the Bill is not properly drafted to have the effect that the noble Baroness wants. Seriously, it excludes operations by Special Forces and Her Majesty’s Armed Forces supporting Special Forces. The noble Lord, Lord West, will know perfectly well that nuclear submarines are also involved in deploying Special Forces—so you can insert Special Forces using very significant military power. I am not well briefed on Special Forces operations, for obvious reasons, but I can safely surmise. It seems to me that successful Special Forces operations have strategic effect but also very often the opponent is completely unaware that the operation has taken place. However, if our Special Forces were detected, that could have a significant effect. You could get yourself in an awful lot of hot water and quite easily be the genesis of a conflict. In other words, use of our Special Forces could get us in a lot of trouble if it went wrong. Again, there is no authority by the House of Commons to deploy forces, including nuclear submarines with Special Forces, designed to have strategic effect—not just a little exercise.
If Parliament wanted to put controls on operations, especially medium and large-scale operations, it would have to do so much earlier in the process. For instance, controls would have to be put on outloading the ammunition from the base depot because that is a major indicator to one’s opponent. You want to put controls on armoured vehicles subject to the CFE treaty—again, a major combat indicator. As soon as you start making those sorts of movement, you are vulnerable to pre-emptive attack and could take casualties as a result. I would not advocate putting those controls on the Government because I firmly believe in trusting the Government of the day. When I deployed to Iraq, I believed that the Prime Minister of the day was doing the best job that he could in the interests of the nation.
In conclusion, I fully appreciate the issue that the noble Baroness seeks to address, but I just do not believe that the Bill will have the positive effect that she intends. At the same time, it will create several serious new problems. It is not the right solution. I look forward to further discussions on these matters when we debate the Chilcot report.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill brought forward in the name of my noble friend Lady Falkner. It comes at a very appropriate time. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I plan to support the Bill. I note that he said that, had things not been so busy in the last seven to 10 days, he would have tabled a fatal Motion. So for those of us who were rather keen that the UK should vote to remain in the European Union—I assume it was the referendum that deflected the noble Earl—there is at least, if not any sunlit upland, a little glimmer of light coming from the fact that no fatal Motion was tabled. For that we can be grateful.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if I had tabled a fatal Motion, a difficulty would have been that it might well have had to be debated in prime time. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, would have been thrilled to bits by that. She would probably not have been that worried about the end result and we would have had a much bigger debate—so I was actually being a bit cruel by not tabling a fatal Motion.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, this is actually a very serious Bill. Decisions to go to war and engage in military conflict always necessitate deep reflection, expert intelligence and other appropriate military advice. They must be taken responsibly and with due regard to not just the short-term military intervention but the medium and long-term consequences. We should never engage in military conflict without thinking through what the exit strategy might be. Leaving failed states behind is clearly not acceptable or morally right.
Of course, the decision to go to war is a prerogative power—but, as we have already heard, a convention has emerged in terms of consulting Parliament. Other states with written constitutions have rather more clarity in this regard. Finland, Spain, Ireland and Italy all require parliamentary votes before going into military conflict. Unless there is a direct attack on Germany, it has an even higher threshold of a two-thirds vote in Parliament before engaging in military conflict. Clearly, we do not have a codified constitution. It may be appropriate to have such a thing, but that is not something for a Private Member’s Bill. But surely clarity would be helpful.
I share some of the concerns outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Even Members of Parliament who are well informed and have been led to understand some of the military implications of a decision will not be the same as a Cabinet sitting round the table, fully briefed with all the relevant military intelligence. But the Bill of my noble friend Lady Falkner addresses some of these issues as it explicitly refers to emergency and security conditions. So if we are talking about issues that necessitate significant amounts of military intelligence that cannot be divulged to 650 Members of the House of Commons, that is presumably an area where the Prime Minister would be able to say that action would be taken under the existing prerogative.
Arguably, this leaves the Prime Minister with slightly more wiggle room than we as Liberal Democrats would want, because our party policy is very clearly that a decision should be taken by the House of Commons before going into military conflict, but I think that the balance is about right with the inclusion of the emergency condition and the security condition.
One key thing is that there should be clarity of thinking ahead of military decisions, but that does not always seem to have been the case. In the last few days, we have heard that the decision to intervene militarily in Iraq was taken without an adequate plan being in place and without adequate reference to intelligence, even if at the time it was thought to be there. Somebody has to take responsibility for decisions to go into military conflict. That could be left to the royal prerogative but, since we have a representative democracy and we have parliamentarians to take decisions for—
Lord Framlingham
I do not know as much about this subject as the noble Baroness; I am just concerned that in warfare the element of surprise is often very important. That comes into the kind of things that we are talking about.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that his problem is one for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to deal with—not me. But I completely accept the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, which were voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as well. But, ultimately, either we trust MPs to do a job and have access to the information or we do not.
The concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan—I am grateful to him; I know that he was a Minister for the Armed Forces and is therefore very knowledgeable and has huge experience in these matters—was that if the wrong decision was taken, parliamentary approval would not negate that. That is right; I completely agree with him. But the point that I am making is that although Parliament might not negate that, the country would not need to listen, as it did three days ago, to someone saying, “I take complete responsibility, but that is it, and I would not have changed anything that I did”. If the House of Commons was consulted, and if the country moved away from that decision, the country would have the ability to kick those people out at the next general election. In that sense, there is a direct line of accountability—the golden thread.
I am so grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for having spoken—I count her as a friend, as well as somebody for whose legal prowess I have huge admiration. She supports the Lords Constitution Committee but she does not like the current convention of Parliament being consulted. But the Lords Constitution Committee supports the status quo ante. It wants Parliament to be consulted along the current method; it just does not want codification in the Bill. But of course these are details that we can move to in Committee, should that come to pass. I do not intend to detain the House very much longer.
I express huge gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the Labour Party for their support. In public life, a lot of decisions are not straightforward and all of us, on all sides, sometimes take the wrong decisions. Sometimes we were culpable, sometimes the information was not accurate, and sometimes the imperative to move quickly took us to that potentially wrong decision. But what is really important, and what the country needs to hear from us now, is that we are learning from decisions that we have taken in the past. I think that the position of the Labour Party, which is so very welcome, is that there is an indication that things went wrong and that it has learned, as we all have. One of the things Mr Cameron said in the Chilcot debate was that he took responsibility for his own vote. I thought that was important.
The most important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, was that the reason the Labour Party supports this small, modest measure is that it recognises that this underpins the need for the Government to show that they draw their powers from the people. That is terribly important.
The Minister has been incredibly gracious and kind to me in having engaged in some discussion. We did not agree. We come from different positions. I come from a party that is internationalist in its outlook, trusts the people to the nth degree and takes its responsibilities as parliamentarians extremely seriously—which is not to suggest that other parties do not. Indeed, I mentioned Edmund Burke, and the Minister will know how important he was for Conservative Governments in historical times. The Minister raised some exceptions that are entirely valid, and I look forward to engaging with him privately, as he has invited me to come to talk to him, and as we move into Committee. But the point I do not understand is how this Bill ties the Government’s hands. The contrary criticism I am getting from NGOs—38 Degrees was mentioned, along with others—is that the Bill is too flexible and does not tie the Government’s hands enough. There are people who want to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and think that this Bill is too grown-up, too considered and too reflective to do that.
I do not wish to weary the House any more. We hope to move on. I beg to move.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Armed Forces Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, this Bill is on a much smaller scale than the one introduced five years ago, which dealt with the whole concept of the covenant and included very complicated and very necessary commitments. I am very pleased that even this week the Minister has pursued those issues by engaging with the House and making us aware of developments in that area. Frequently, pieces of legislation are rushed through and their implementation sometimes leaves much to be desired. So while the provisions in this Bill are not on the same scale as those of the previous Act, nevertheless they are significant.
As I understand it—perhaps the Minister can clarify this—as well as provision every five years in an Act of Parliament, the actual Armed Forces also need to be renewed on a regular basis. That seems rather a peculiarity because it is very difficult to envisage circumstances where we would not need them. I do not know whether a more permanent mechanism is required in a future Bill so that that provision does not have to be renewed.
I place on record my thanks to the Minister for the manner in which he engaged with noble Lords, dealt with our concerns and gave us an opportunity to participate fully and follow up our queries, some of which may have been better informed than others. Nevertheless, I am happy to see the Bill pass.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said something that worried me slightly. I think that annual renewal by order of the Armed Forces Act is an absolutely essential control on the operation of the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence.
Armed Forces Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I worked out before this evening that Amendments 1 and 2 were, in fact, Amendment 3 in Grand Committee on 1 March. Mindful of the guidance in the Companion, that arguments fully developed in Committee should not be repeated on Report, I took the trouble to read the report of the Grand Committee. At the time, I indicated that I was to some extent attracted to some of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I said:
“I am putting a burden on the Government, today and perhaps in subsequent meetings and in writing, to argue the case for why we should not move in the general direction of these amendments and make the whole process for the defendant more analogous to that of a civil court”.—[Official Report, 1/3/16; col. GC 48.]
I still cleave to that general direction. The Minister then made a spirited defence, stretching from col. 50 to col. 54, which I read and also found persuasive in the sense that making small changes is likely to have unforeseen consequences which might be difficult. I have heard nothing today to change my general direction of travel. The Government should consider examining in the Ministry of Defence, perhaps in concert with the Ministry of Justice, whether the decision-making process where the citizen is on trial—the member of the Armed Forces becomes a citizen at this point—should not be closer to the civil system.
Moving in that direction would create some significant change and there may well be some significant consequences. I am not convinced that today’s amendments would not have unforeseen deleterious effects. Accordingly, these Benches will not be able to support them. We ask the Government to think seriously about the arguments that have been brought forward in Committee and on Report, and to look at the extent to which there should be some movement towards the citizen when on trial having much closer rights and a similar process to the civilian courts.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am still a commissioned officer in the reserves, although I am not training. This is my 60th year of life, so I will not be doing it for much longer. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested that both the general public and those in the Armed Forces do not have confidence in the system of discipline in the Armed Forces. My experience is different. I have never had members of the Armed Forces come to me and say that they lack confidence in the system of military discipline. I have to admit that it is a robust system.
I have also never heard a member of the public—someone who is not in the Armed Forces—say that there is something seriously wrong with the system of military discipline, apart from when one reads articles in the Daily Mail, some of which are not very well researched.
One of the problems with what the noble Lord suggests is that we do not understand the dynamics of how the court martial panel works. In Committee, I suggested to the Minister that we need to do research, along the lines proposed by the Opposition Front Bench, to understand what the effect would be. We need to war game it before we start altering the system. I suggested to my noble friend that he keeps this under review and makes sure that we are going in the right direction.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I have been listening with great interest to this debate and been persuaded by what has been said on all sides of the Chamber, but one thing occurred to me when we were debating Amendment 2. The Minister said he was not really aware of a lack of confidence in the system but I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right. It is not just in the Daily Mail. Whenever you read about Deepcut or any of these scandals, the people whose families are affected do not have total confidence in the system. They think there are cover-ups. Only on the radio on the way here, I heard the families of people who were at Hillsborough saying they were let down and a chief constable has been sacked because there was a cover-up. It really is not good enough to say that the public have trust and the Minister is not aware of mistrust. I can assure noble Lords that there is mistrust among the general public, who feel that organisations that inspect themselves when there is a problem are deeply suspicious. I am not saying that the military does not often do things very well—or the police or any other organisation—but the general public are concerned about this issue.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, just mentioned Deepcut. I urge anyone who has the slightest worry about Deepcut to read the Blake report, which explains what happened.
I agree with the general thrust of these amendments, particularly the sensible approach from the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. In Committee, the Minister was sympathetic to our concerns but he has rather too much faith in the commanding officer. Yes, commanding officers are extremely experienced and they are specially trained to be commanding officers. There is a course for commanding officers-designate. My experience is that with every level you go up in terms of promotion, you get more information about what your responsibilities are and what the difficulties are.
Nevertheless, the power of the commanding officer can be delegated to more junior officers, so quite often—in terms of discipline, for instance—minor offences can be dealt with by a major or a lieutenant-commander. These cases are exceptionally difficult for the commanding officer to investigate. Clearly he will not be able to investigate them personally. He may even be out of the country when the allegation arises. The commanding officer or the acting or delegated commanding officer will have to appoint someone else in the unit to carry out the investigation, and that person will not be any better trained. Furthermore, the fact that someone else in the unit may have to be appointed to carry out the investigation may deter someone from making an allegation in the first place.
Amendment 5 covers only sexual assault; it does not cover inappropriate contact, by which I mean touching. However, this can also be a problem and it can be a precursor to more serious problems. As I said in Committee, my belief is that the service police should keep records of allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate contact. They would then know whether a person had made this type of complaint before and could ask whether they could be a serial complainant, and they would also have records of someone who had had a similar allegation made against them before and they might even know the MO, so they would understand whether the allegation was likely to be true or malicious. If the service police keep records, investigations can be facilitated, and it is better to achieve this through a policy change rather than through the amendment, which, as I said, has the defect of not covering inappropriate contact.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, referred to the culture in the Armed Forces as a reason for publishing the statistics. She will be aware that the Armed Forces carry out continuous attitude surveys that measure changes. She made the important point, from her own background and experience, about measuring changes. In Committee, the Minister explained what information is already released and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, told us how difficult it is to access it. However, my concern is that the media—particularly the print media—will use these statistics to produce an easy story. It is easy to quote a horrendous number of incidents without comparing them with the number of such incidents in civil society.
In conclusion, I feel very strongly about the need for record-keeping by service police to facilitate investigations. These are very difficult matters for officers and warrant officers in a unit to investigate. Frankly, I do not think they relish it; they would rather hand it over to the service police, who have the relevant experience.
I hope the Minister can say something helpful to us, but I am also happy to join noble Lords later in keeping up the pressure on my noble friend the Minister, because I know that he enjoys getting pressure from me.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006 lists the offences that a commanding officer is required to report to the service police for investigation. There is a long list of offences, including, in paragraph 12(at), any offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
“except one under section 3, 66, 67 or 71”.
Section 3 is a very important part of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It relates to sexual assault, which of course can vary from a very serious sexual assault to the sort of touching that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to a moment ago. That provision means that the commanding officer is not required to pass on for investigation to the service police a complaint of sexual assault. I imagine that he most certainly would pass on an allegation of serious sexual assault, but there is a great loophole there because commanding officers differ. Some may have one view on what a sexual assault is and another may have a completely different view, in effect telling the complainant to go away and not be silly. So there is a problem there. At the moment it is an unexploded bomb within the system.
Baroness Jolly
I support the amendments. As the noble Baroness has just said, what is there not to like?
Children joining the services at 16 and 17 come in all shapes and sizes: from those embarking on technical or engineering careers to those joining the infantry and, possibly, the Royal Marines. Their wish is to be physically rather than mentally active, and they are required. The first group, at the start of an apprenticeship, will continue their education and will require a high standard of literacy and numeracy. The second group will not require such high standards and will not be comfortable with reading formal documents. There needs to be awareness that currently, these recruits do not study the same GCSEs as the technical recruits, but another curriculum. There is an issue here, because young men and women who enlist under the age of 18 can leave the Army at any stage up to 18, but if they have dipped out of the standard curriculum and are not studying a GCSE curriculum, their life chances will be affected. We need to be aware of that.
If the Minister cannot answer this question perhaps he will write to me. When was the readability of the documents the amendment refers to last examined? If the required reading age is greater than 10, as is being suggested—bearing in mind that the average Sun reader has a reading age of between eight and 10, so it is nothing unusual—perhaps these documents should be revised.
Earl Attlee
I support the recruitment of people under the age of 18 into the Armed Forces. It provides a fabulous opportunity for them.
I have no problem with Amendment 7 but I do not expect my noble friend to accept it. It would be a seriously good news report. I would certainly like to write the section on evaluating the effects on young service people. I would be able to write lovely case studies about youngsters coming from disadvantaged circumstances with poor employment prospects. These people will obviously be young, fit, able to read and write, intelligent and have potential. They can join the Armed Forces and have a fabulous career, whereas for their contemporaries in certain areas of the country the prospects are not very good.
The education and training they will receive will, generally speaking, be far better than they get elsewhere. They may leave the Armed Forces fairly soon but, by that point, if they are not in a highly skilled trade, they will probably have a vocational driving licence. As to the financial effects, it is a win-win situation. These youngsters will have an income their contemporaries will not have, so that is a win for them. They will be on the pathway to a decent career. When they become 18, they will be fully trained members of the Armed Forces and deployable.
To be charitable, Amendment 8 is unnecessary. It suggests that a young person recruited into the Armed Forces is practically illiterate. The reality, as my noble friend will tell us, is that a guardian’s consent is needed. More importantly, a young person who is illiterate to the extent that they cannot read and understand the recruitment papers would not be able to pass the service entrance tests. Their potential would be so poor that they would be of no use to the Armed Forces and would not be able to get in on that route. Therefore Amendment 8, to be charitable, is unnecessary.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I have a certain sympathy for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Judd but I feel that allowing people to enter the services at 16 is a good thing. I tried to join when I was 14, which was slightly too young in my mother’s and the Navy’s opinion, but I joined at 17. As my noble friend said, a number of the people who join the services at that age come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and what the military does to those people is quite remarkable. If we were able to show that, everyone would see it, but there is no need to do so. It is right that we still take people into the services at 16. They gain a great deal and it is a useful and good thing for our society, in the same way as the cadet forces add a great deal to our society.
Lord Judd
My Lords, of course I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I listened to his admonishments about the things that he believes I have got wrong. I am afraid that I do not accept those admonishments and suggest that a report would give him the opportunity to set out in more detail for all to see the evidence behind what he keeps emphasising is the commitment to education. In saying that, I will again put on record how much I admire the dedication and work of many of those doing what is required of them. But even at this stage of the debate, and within all the constraints of practice, I wish to comment on the important points which the Minister has made before I close.
Functional skills provided by the Army are not the equivalent of GCSE grades D to G, as the Wolf Review of Vocational Education made clear. GCSE courses are longer and much more involved than functional skills courses, despite their notionally comparable educational level. They are an interim qualification only, designed to lead to GCSEs. In a House of Commons debate on 25 November 2013, it emerged that no more than 20 soldiers across the entire Army of all ages had gained a GCSE in English or maths in each of the past five years. I emphasise: 20 soldiers of all ages.
These are just some of the facts which do not altogether substantiate the fulsome position that the Minister likes to take. I hope that he will forgive my drawing this to his attention. A report would give him an opportunity to refute in detail, with evidence, the criticisms and to establish his case.
There is much I could say about complying with all relevant children’s legislation. However, I will just point out that the Armed Forces are exempt from most relevant legislation. As an employer, the forces, for example, are not required to ensure that all staff who work in direct contact with children have criminal record checks, despite living alongside recruits in training camps. No sixth form, public school or state school would be allowed to do that.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was a little concerned by what I said about the recruitment process. I wish that the reality of the experience bore out what he claimed. There is no obligation on recruiters to meet parents or guardians at any stage in the process. Minors can be enlisted without their parent or guardian having attended any meeting with Army staff or any selection event. A signed consent form is required at the very end of the process but the Armed Forces have no way of verifying that the signatures are genuine. Neither parent nor guardian—
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not intimately familiar with the recruiting process for minors but my recollection is that the Minister covered precisely the points that the noble Lord is raising.
Lord Judd
My Lords, my point is that the Minister supported his particular concern by stressing that it was impossible to think that anyone coming into the Army was so illiterate that they could not read the material. The facts and figures produced by the Army itself do not altogether substantiate this. That is why, again, it is so important that we have this report regularly, which would enable us to see how fully—and, we hope, how well or how much better—this provision is being made. I really cannot see why the armed services would resist this.
I just say, in response to my noble friend Lord West, that I joined the cadet force at 14 and thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I remember getting credits on some of my courses for doing things relatively well because I was enjoying them. But my point is not about all that. The point is about the vulnerability of some of the children who are coming in and our need to take double care that we are looking fully at what they are letting themselves in for—because they are letting themselves in for things. For example, the majority of these young recruits coming into these schemes do not have the ability to provide the technical services that are becoming an important characteristic of the modern Army. They therefore, inevitably, predominantly end up in infantry regiments, which, as we saw in Afghanistan, have seven times the death rate of the rest of the Army. These youngsters are taking big decisions with huge implications. I do not want to discourage them—I take much pride and excitement in reading about VCs to youngsters in the 1914-18 war and I take great pride in hearing about the other examples that the Minister keeps, rightly, citing, such as the youngster who ended up with the sword of honour. On all this I agree, but there are lots who do not.
Of the youngsters on these courses, 36% drop out. What do we do to follow up on that? The British Legion has done research that demonstrates that the unemployment rates and the difficulties faced by these youngsters are greater than those of their peers in the same age group. In discharging our responsibilities we must face these facts and, to be able to take these stats seriously, we need to have systematic reports and information available. I just cannot see why the Armed Forces are not prepared to do this. I hope that the Minister, whom I have come to respect over the years, will listen to the plea by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. In the hope that he will, I withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I do not have any strong views on the merits of Amendments 9 and 10. However, I am extremely concerned about how long we have been engaged in very difficult operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. We were engaged in operations there for year after year; thankfully, that level of engagement has ceased. Many service people were doing multiple six-month operational tours in their career and we simply do not know what the long-term effect of that will be.
If mental illness arises in a veteran, it will be extremely difficult to be certain as to what caused it. Amendment 9 refers to it being “caused by” military service, but I am sure that in many cases the clinicians will not know what caused it, even though they will be sure that the patient is mentally ill. My great fear is that, because of the amount of operational tours that we have undertaken—with people undertaking multiple tours, as I said—we could have a much worse problem in future years than we thought we were going to have. So, looking longer term, we need to be careful about carrying out military operations that last a very long time.
Earl Howe
My Lords, both these amendments seek to address provision for the care and support of members of the Armed Forces who suffer from mental health conditions caused by service. The health of our Armed Forces community is hugely important to us all and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position again.
Turning first to Amendment 9, as I said in Committee, the Armed Forces compensation scheme—AFCS—already makes awards for injuries and disorders predominantly caused by service, including mental health conditions. The scheme is tariff-based and aims to make full and final awards as early as possible, so that individuals can have financial security and focus on getting on with life and living. Claims can be made while in service or when the individual has left. In cases where a disorder is not in steady state, prognosis is uncertain or treatment is ongoing or not yet begun, legislation allows an interim award to be paid at the most likely level. This award is then reviewed and usually finalised within 24 months of notification. Where, exceptionally, matters remain uncertain at review, the interim award may continue for a maximum of 48 months. If the disorder has improved and a lower tariff now applies, no recovery of benefit takes place, while if a higher tariff award now applies, the difference between the interim award and the final award is paid.
The AFCS tariff has nine tables of categories of injury relevant to military service—and they include mental health disorders. While the scheme has time limits for claiming, there is also a provision for delayed-onset conditions, including mental health diagnoses. The Ministry of Defence recognises that, owing to stigma and perceived impact on career, people may delay seeking help. The practical effect of this is that if a person who has left the Armed Forces some time ago is diagnosed with a mental health problem as a result of his or her service and makes a claim under the AFCS, a compensation award will be paid as soon as the claim is accepted. As a result of the recommendations made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, in his review of the AFCS, the Ministry of Defence increased the maximum lump sum award for mental illness from £48,875 to £140,000. This was to better reflect the impact of the most serious mental health conditions.
Broadly, the same mental health disorders are found in military personnel and veterans as in the general community—an exception being a lower rate of the most severe and enduring conditions such as schizophrenia.
Evidence-based effective interventions are now available for the common disorders, including PTSD. The treatments apply to both civilian and military contexts, with a high expectation of improved function, including return to work—especially if people are seen early.
In addition to the AFCS lump sum, the most serious conditions with likely limitations on civilian employability receive a tax-free guaranteed income payment—GIP. While in service, regardless of medical employability grading or being on sick leave, personnel retain their military salary. The GIP is paid for life and comes into effect on discharge from the services or from the date on which the claim is accepted. A lump sum of £140,000 attracts a GIP based on 75% of military salary, with enhancements for service length, age, rank and lost promotions.
Also as a result of the recommendations of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, we established the Independent Medical Expert Group—the IMEG. The group—a non-departmental public body—includes senior consultants and academics and UK authorities on specialities relevant to military life, including mental health. It advises Ministers on the scientific and medical aspects of the scheme.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, also identified the need for further investigation into mental health. The IMEG therefore conducted a review that involved literature search and discussions with civilian and military experts and veterans’ organisations. The findings were published in its second report on 17 May 2013. The conclusions and recommendations on diagnosis, causation, assessment of disorder severity and the use of interim awards were accepted by Ministers and subsequently incorporated into the scheme.
The House will be interested to know that this year sees a further planned review of the AFCS, which began recently. The review is currently in the stakeholder engagement phase and has been approaching charities, claimants and other government departments. This quinquennial review will consider the scheme’s coverage and levels of awards, in particular for those most seriously injured, including those with mental health conditions. It is expected to report at the end of 2016.
The second amendment in this group would create a specific obligation on the Government to have particular regard, in their annual report on the covenant, to parity of esteem between mental and physical healthcare. The Government are absolutely committed to meeting the healthcare needs of the Armed Forces community. The Secretary of State has a statutory requirement to include in his annual Armed Forces covenant report to Parliament the effects of membership, or former membership, of the Armed Forces on service people in the field of healthcare under the covenant.
The healthcare we provide to our service personnel, both at home and deployed on operations, is truly world class. Last year, the principles of the covenant were enshrined in the NHS constitution for England. This gives a commitment to ensure that, as well as those serving in the Armed Forces, reservists, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged in accessing NHS health services in the area in which they reside.
Since 1953, priority access to NHS specialist services in Great Britain has been provided for service-attributable disorders, with no-fault compensation awards. In 2009, this was extended to include treatment for any disorder where a clinician recognises a causal link to service. Priority is decided by the clinician in charge, subject only to clinical need.
I should also mention further work on mental health. For mental health disorders, stigma and perceived discrimination in employment can act as barriers to access and engagement with care. This is not unique to the Armed Forces but common among men. In 2004, led by the Health and Social Care Advisory Service, the MoD, UK health departments, NHS and Combat Stress explored features of an effective veterans’ mental health service, piloting various service models in locations across the UK.
The evidence showed that while some veterans were not comfortable with clinicians who had no military experience, others were equally anxious to see only civilian health professionals. What seem to work best are multifaceted services, including healthcare, social support, benefits advice et cetera, delivered in an environment of cultural sensitivity and empathy. The pilots also confirmed that best-practice interventions work, with high rates of improved function and a return to a full life with contribution to family, community and work.
As a reflection of these findings, and of Dr Andrew Murrison’s Fighting Fit report, since 2010, a network of veterans’ mental health services has been established in England and Wales with special arrangements for veterans also established in Scotland. The Armed Forces covenant gives a commitment that veterans should be able to access mental health professionals who have an understanding of Armed Forces culture, and NHS England is currently completing an audit of veterans’ mental health services.
In service, there has also been increased focus on good mental health and well-being, with emphasis on prevention and protection through a chain of command lead. Mental health awareness is part of a through-life training strategy starting at basic training, with self-awareness and with annual refresher courses. There are then specific courses for those with leadership responsibilities. The courses cover: raising stress management; reduction of stigma; building resilience; early detection of problems in self and others; and specific pre-deployment, deployed and decompression measures. Trauma incident management teams and mental health nurses are now considered essential parts of a deployment package, and mental health first aid training to service personnel is being delivered by SSAFA in collaboration with Combat Stress, Mental Health First Aid England and the Royal British Legion.
I should add that there is no evidence of an epidemic of mental problems in military personnel—rather, levels of the common mental health problems in regulars and reservists are broadly similar to those of the matched general population, while levels of PTSD in some groups, and in relation to combat, are slightly but not markedly increased. Where service personnel become ill, help is available in primary care with, as required, referral and outpatient support from the 16 departments of community mental health across the UK. When, rarely, in-patient care is necessary, it is provided in eight dedicated psychiatric units, again located around the country.
I therefore assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to meeting the health needs of the service community. We will continue to report on the provision of healthcare in the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report, and our work to address mental health needs will be an integral part of that report.
The principles of the covenant are to ensure that the Armed Forces community is treated fairly in comparison to the civilian population. Parity of esteem is there to ensure that all health services treat mental health with the same importance as physical health, and it applies to everyone accessing NHS services, not just the Armed Forces community. For this reason, I remain firm in the belief that it does not need to be legislated for under the covenant.
I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on any of her specific questions that I have not addressed. However, given our clear commitment to support those who suffer from mental health conditions, and the tangible steps that we are taking, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Amendments 11 and 12 were Amendments 15 and 16 in Committee. I have reread the debate and do not note anything, other than Kenya, that has been added to them tonight. They go to the essence of the scope of military law. We were not persuaded to support them in Committee and we will not do so now.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am relaxed about these amendments but I expect that my noble friend the Minister will have something to say about them. Just to tease the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, slightly—
Earl Attlee
The Minister has not spoken yet. To tease the noble Lord slightly, with the benefit of hindsight, would he advise the junior marines who were defendants in the Blackman case to take their case to the Old Bailey? I do not think they would have got on very well.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to restate the Government’s position on the further changes to the service justice system that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, proposes. His intention with Amendment 11 is to extend the jurisdiction of civilian criminal courts in England and Wales by giving them jurisdiction to try members of the Armed Forces and civilians subject to service discipline for overseas acts that, were they committed here, would constitute sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, because I confess I am not clear what advantage the amendments would confer on the system as a whole. Noble Lords may be aware that service courts are already able to exercise jurisdiction in respect of acts committed overseas. Section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides that a member of the Armed Forces is guilty of an offence under service law if they commit an act outside the UK that would constitute an offence under the law of England and Wales were it done here. If it is necessary to have a further conversation with the noble Lord after Report to clarify any misunderstanding that I have, I will be happy to do that.
Amendment 12 would give members of the Armed Forces accused of committing certain crimes overseas the right to elect to be tried by a civilian criminal court in the UK instead of a court martial. The crimes in question are those that the civilian criminal courts may try even if the event in question took place overseas. Those offences include murder, and would also include sexual offences if Amendment 11 were accepted as well. I note that Amendment 12 does not appear to propose that a member of the Armed Forces should have a right to elect civilian criminal trial in a case concerning conduct in the UK, where both the civilian courts and a court martial would have jurisdiction to try the case. I confess it is not immediately apparent to me why such cases should be treated differently.
Taken together, the effect of Amendments 11 and 12 would appear to be that while a service person who committed a sexual offence overseas could choose to be tried at a Crown Court rather than a court martial, a service person who committed the same offence in the UK would have no such choice. It is not clear why the amendment makes provision for electing civilian court trial only for conduct outside the UK, not in the UK.
The noble Lord may again not be too surprised to hear that we do not support these amendments. I said in Grand Committee in response to two very similar amendments tabled by the noble Lord that making the changes proposed would appear to imply that there may be reason to doubt the ability of the court martial to deal with sexual offences. I would make the same point about Amendments 11 and 12. Yet, as I said in Grand Committee, the service justice system has been scrutinised by the UK courts and by Strasbourg and it is now well recognised that the court martial system in the UK ensures a trial that is fair and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, both for investigations and prosecutions in respect of acts in the UK and for investigations and prosecutions in respect of overseas acts where the civilian police may not have jurisdiction. The Government believe that the service justice system, including the service police, the Service Prosecuting Authority and service courts, is capable of dealing with the most serious of offences and should be able to continue to do so.
The amendments would significantly undermine existing arrangements designed to ensure that cases are dealt with in the most appropriate court jurisdiction. In the case of offences which both the civilian criminal courts and service courts have jurisdiction to try, it is recognised that it is necessary to consider in each case whether the offence is more appropriately tried in the civilian criminal courts or in a service court. This applies not only to those offences committed overseas in respect of which the civilian criminal courts have jurisdiction, but also to offences committed in the United Kingdom which both the civilian criminal courts and service courts have jurisdiction to try. However, a decision on appropriate jurisdiction is rightly a matter for service and civilian prosecutors rather than the accused person.
There is a protocol between service and civilian prosecutors which recognises that some cases are more appropriately dealt with in the service system and others are more appropriately dealt with in the civilian system, particularly those with civilian victims. The principles of this protocol have the approval of the Attorney-General for England and Wales, and the Ministry of Justice. The protocol recognises that any criminal offence can be dealt with by the service authorities. The main factor in decisions on whether an offence is more appropriately dealt with in the civilian criminal justice system or the service justice system is whether the offence has any civilian context, especially a civilian victim. The protocol therefore provides for cases with a civilian context to be dealt with by the civilian criminal justice system. Where a case has a service context, it is important that the service justice system, which is specifically constructed to deal with that unique service dimension, is able to deal with the case.
Creating a right to elect of the kind contained in this amendment would override the existing protocol and could seriously undermine the service justice system. Many offences which involve conduct outside the UK will have a service context such that both service and civilian prosecutors would consider that they would be more appropriately dealt with in the service system. However, the proposed right of election could mean that a person accused of such an offence could make an election that led to their case being dealt with instead by the civilian criminal courts. We do not think this would be right. This is significant because the court martial is part of an overall system of justice and discipline, and the existing statutory provisions in the Armed Forces Act 2006 governing sentencing in the court martial reflect this. They are closely based on the civilian sentencing principles but include in addition, as I mentioned earlier, the “maintenance of discipline” and the “reduction of service offences”, which reflect special aspects related to the service justice system. In my response to Amendment 2, I touched on a number of these special aspects.
Allowing a case with a purely service context to be dealt with in the civilian system on the election of an accused therefore risks undermining the system of justice and discipline in the Armed Forces which the Armed Forces Act 2006 was carefully constructed to underpin. Where the prosecutor’s protocol indicated that a case should be dealt with in the civilian system—for example, a case in which the victim is a civilian—would the accused service person be able to override that and instead elect trial by court martial? We do not think that would be right. Furthermore, a right to choose which court should hear the case would open up the possibility of any co-accused making different elections, resulting in split trials in different systems with obvious implications for the efficient administration of justice.
There is another aspect to this, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, identified in Grand Committee and which it may be helpful for me to repeat here. The amendments are concerned with conduct overseas which is likely to be criminal under the local law as well as under service law. However, the authorities in states visited by our Armed Forces are commonly prepared to allow service courts to exercise jurisdiction rather than assert their right to try a case before their own civilian courts. A good example is Germany, where there is a very active and much-respected criminal justice system, but under the arrangements we have in place the German authorities are prepared to allow our service courts to exercise jurisdiction over cases with a service context.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in Grand Committee I welcomed a probing amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which referred to a duty to report on civilian casualties. At that point I raised certain questions. In particular, the noble Lord’s amendment sought working definitions of “civilians” and “combatants” every three months. It almost suggested that there would be rolling definitions.
At that time, the Minister undertook to write to me to explain the Government’s working definitions of “civilians” and “combatants” in the context of wars in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. I am not sure whether the letter got lost in the post—there are rather a lot of Smiths in your Lordships’ House—but I certainly have not received a letter of that sort. Therefore, I should again like to ask the Government to explain how they define “combatant” and “civilian”. It may appear that they are definitions that can be produced from a dictionary, but the point is that some of our partners—particularly the United States—may have a rather looser definition of a combatant than one might expect in ordinary civilian life, and that it might include young men who are adjacent to conflicts but who may be seen as combatants. Therefore, I would very much welcome an explanation of how Her Majesty’s Government understand the term “combatant”, particularly as there appears to be a marked discrepancy in the figures. Eleven of the 12 partner countries have said that they have not caused any civilian deaths. The United States has acknowledged 41 deaths, yet Airwars has said that there have been 1,118 civilian casualties in the war against Daesh. Therefore, there is some disparity there and I wonder whether it is due to a difference in the definitions.
I do not intend to test the patience of the House by testing its will or by detaining your Lordships for very long, but one point to bear in mind is that the Armed Forces Minister in the other place, Penny Mordaunt, committed in defence Questions on 29 February to review any reports of civilian casualties, and she is apparently looking for ways in which this can best be done.
The purpose behind Amendment 13 is again to suggest a type of reporting system. But, given the difficulties with definition, we could tighten the wording slightly and suggest that there should be reports on civilian non-combatant casualties, which is belt-and-braces wording. Clearly, this is not something we are expecting to take to a vote, but we believe that it is very important that the people of the United Kingdom and our coalition partners in the fight against Daesh have certainty on what we believe to be civilian casualties, and that the belief that we have not caused any civilian casualties is actually correct, on an ordinary definition of “civilian”.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, with these issues, it is always difficult to measure casualties. That is not necessarily an argument against the amendment from the noble Baroness. Just to be really helpful to the Minister, of course, there are lawful combatants and there are unlawful combatants. So that is another issue.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, kindly said, I tabled a similar, rather less focused, amendment in Committee on 3 March and we had a useful debate then. I was grateful for my noble friend’s response, and we explored a number of the challenging aspects of this difficult matter. Now we have this more focused and more pointed amendment, redrafted in the light of those discussions and of the subsequent information that has been made available. Unsurprisingly, I am therefore inclined to support it.
In his reply to the debate, my noble friend’s argument for being unwilling to consider the amendment rested, I think, on two major planks: on the one hand, the inflexibility resulting from enshrining this sort of requirement in primary legislation; and, on the other, operational confidentiality. These two arguments were backed by a statement of general good intent on transparency. My noble friend will appreciate that I absolutely accept his sincerity on these matters, but operational confidentiality could become an elastic concept, capable of being interpreted to cover a pretty wide range of situations. When backed only by a statement of intent without any statutory teeth, this elasticity could be increased still further.
My concern about civilian casualties arises from two points. The first is the long-term fabric of the society. If women and children are traumatised by violence, it may take a generation to rebuild a stable society and it must be in this country’s interests to establish and maintain stable societies wherever possible. Secondly, and no less importantly, civilian casualties must be one of the best recruiting sergeants for extremists. If I see my village wrecked and my family and community blown apart, I am unlikely to be sympathetic to the people who have caused my world to be turned upside down.
At the core of my concern are the figures given by the noble Baroness about the discrepancy between what Airwars has said about coalition casualties, excluding the Russian casualties, of which I think there are a great deal more—some 3,000 or more. This leads me to believe that somewhere something must be going wrong. Airwars has got its figures wrong, or the coalition members are looking the other way, or the procedures for identifying and recording civilian casualties are faulty. This country, which has now carried out some 600 air strikes in Iraq and Syria and flown more than 2,000 combat missions against Daesh, should surely have a keen interest in ensuring that the truth is established and publicised. Our international reputation demands no less. This amendment, if accepted, would help in that process.
I conclude by saying that I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I gently chide his department. As a result of the issues raised in that earlier debate in Grand Committee, which I referred to, which are also the raw material of our discussion this evening, I wrote to him raising a series of specific questions. My letter was dated 15 March, and I am afraid that I have yet to receive a reply. Will he be prepared to act as the man from Dyno-Rod? If so, I would be extraordinarily grateful.
Earl Attlee
Before the Minister sits down, he said that we have not caused any civilian casualties in Iraq. I take it that he is referring to current operations and not Operation Telic.
Armed Forces Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I was not able to speak at Second Reading, and I would like to briefly reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that the Liberal Democrats have no intention whatever of trying to sabotage this Bill in any vainglorious or other way. We are committed to the Bill, and, like other Members of your Lordships’ Committee, to ensuring that the Bill becomes as good as it can be.
We do not wish to civilianise the Armed Forces, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said on Tuesday: we certainly have no intention of doing that. However, there are some concerns about this amendment. Although I accept that it is a probing amendment, we share the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that there is a danger in either a blanket limitation or looking at things that are any sort of military operation. There may be cases that clearly should not be dealt with after 20 years; there may be other cases that need to be looked at. In cases of murder, rape or the sort of crimes that we were talking about in previous amendments, it would seem extremely strange to service men and women and their families if we somehow said, “If this happened in civilian life, you might get closure, but if it happens while your son or daughter is overseas engaged in military operations, there is a 20-year cut-off, and the rule of law no longer holds”. I ask the Minister whether it would be possible to find a way of dealing with the genuine concerns that have been put forward in the amendment that would ensure that service men and women and their families felt reassured that they were not going to lose the rule of law as would normally be expected.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I am particularly concerned about putting retired servicemen in the frame again after there has been a judicial inquiry. It might be that a subsequent judicial inquiry comes to a different conclusion, but once you have had a judicial inquiry and no prosecutions have arisen, servicemen ought to be able to carry on with their duties, retire and not worry about further legal action; they should not be worrying about further legal action for the rest of their natural lives. I very much support the general thrust of his amendment, therefore, but perhaps it needs some more tests—in particular, in relation to the case we are obviously talking about but not mentioning, that there has been a judicial inquiry.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise that there is an issue in this area, but, according to my understanding of the law, this is not the way to address it. As I understand the application of the law to service personnel, they come under both the military law—the 2006 Act—and the general law of the land. This is not generally a problem, as, by arrangement between the two authorities, a decision will be taken about which law someone is prosecuted under.
I understand—I may not be right—that there are statute of limitation provisions in service law but no significant statute of limitations in English criminal law. There is a considerable statute of limitations in civil claims—a great big schedule—but the application of a statute of limitations in criminal law is limited to summary offences only. In practice, from my brief research this morning, that generally seems to mean motoring offences in magistrates’ courts. To introduce a limitation of this magnitude into the normal body of English law, which is what we would be doing, would be a radical change, and I do not believe the Bill is the right vehicle to introduce such a radical change for one narrow purpose.
Many would argue that we should rethink the whole issue and that the prosecution of historical cases is not sound. The only time I have been in court as a witness, my evidence was useless, because it referred to things that had happened at a meeting—one of about 400 I would have had that year—six years before. I was asked for precise details, and my standard, and absolutely honest, answer was, “I cannot recall”. I have trouble remembering most of the details of last week, never mind 10 years ago. So there is a real evidential case for looking at that issue.
Nevertheless, public opinion is, in many ways, the very opposite at the moment. In many ways, public opinion, particularly in the sexual cases coming before the courts at the moment, is in favour of pursuing historical cases—in one case related to this House, even after the death of the supposed perpetrator. There is a real tension between public opinion and the whole “old evidence” issue, which I think has some validity and which I suspect wider society will need to debate in the years to come.
In our view, a change as radical as this—as I understand it—for such a narrow purpose should not be in the Bill and should not go forward without wide public discussion and analysis and a recognition that it would have to flow right through criminal law. It cannot realistically be related to this single, narrow area.
Earl Attlee
“Operation of “pay as you dine” system
(1) Within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament on the operation of the “pay as you dine” system of catering for members of the armed forces.(2) The report shall cover—(a) estimated numbers of service personnel who are in “single living accommodation” but are acquiring and preparing their food locally rather than using “pay as you dine” facilities;(b) any social impact, especially on military camaraderie, of service personnel either eating on their own or in small groups;(c) an assessment of the economics for service personnel; (d) comparisons between different services and different locations;(e) the effect of “pay as you dine” on a balanced diet; and(f) any other matter the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in the past, servicepeople living in barracks or the equivalent were charged for their food whether they ate in or whether they ate out. It could be the case that they were taking most of their food outside the barracks. This caused some resentment and a new system of pay as you dine was introduced several years ago. I shall not weary the Committee much further, as I do not oppose the policy, but I am concerned to ensure that it has not had undesirable or unintended effects. It may well be that there are differences between different locations and contractors; there could be the good and the not so good—and I am hoping that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who has experienced pay as you dine more recently than me, may give us some of her experiences.
I am a little worried about balanced diets, about the pettiness in some locations of being charged for every extra portion of vegetables, and about any adverse effect on military cohesion. What I used to experience in what I would call the cookhouse, because I am so old-fashioned, was that you would sit down and have a meal with people with whom you might not normally sit down because they were in a different platoon or organisation. That is extremely beneficial and important to the unit, and I am a little worried about that. Furthermore, at one point, I found that the food in the cookhouse was better than the food in the officers’ mess, because in the cookhouse you got a wider variety.
I hope that when my noble friend replies he can give us an update on how the policy is working. It may well be that a review study has already been carried out. Perhaps the Minister could let the Committee have a copy. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I have had some experience recently in several officers’ messes of the Royal Navy, which all operate on a pay-as-you-dine basis. They are all outsourced, so they all operate on different principles. In one you might get all your vegetables including potato, while in others you might pay piecemeal—so there is no particular pattern. Were the department to do an analysis of the type suggested by the noble Earl, it might be worth looking at the issue of outsourcing. Is the same sort of thing happening across the other services? They say that an army marches on its stomach. This also highlights the issue of the quality of the food and the balance of the diet.
During recess, I was in the Arctic Circle; I am a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I was taken to task by some marines who were talking to us about the quality of the ration packs that they take with them. I tried a chicken tikka masala, which had been dehydrated, and it was sort of identifiable. The serious point that they were making is that on an exercise such as that a marine should consume between 6,000 and 8,000 calories a day to be operational. There were several elements of the packs that were fairly good in terms of quality and being part of a balanced diet, giving them the nutrition that they needed, but they really resented that the calorie number was added to by putting in chocolate bars. They maintained that this was something on which they got a sugar high and then a sugar low straightaway, and that if we were really serious about them we should look again at the ration packs. Whether any dietitian has looked at them I know not, but the Minister might at some stage care to ask somebody who might know the answer to that question.
Another issue that has come up is with the Navy in particular. Clearly, ships need to carry chefs. With outsourcing, so that all bases at home are run by outside catering organisations, when a chef’s time for leave or a shore-based job comes up, there is nowhere for them to work because none of those opportunities is available. I know that the Navy is looking at that.
Those are short reflections for a very interesting topic, but perhaps not for legislation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, before the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench reply, the noble Baroness made a very important point about the ration packs, which was slightly outside the scope of my amendment, but I have spoken slightly outside the scope of other noble Lords’ amendments. One of the challenges of manufacturing the ration packs is the exact point that the noble Baroness made about packing enough calories into them. It makes it very difficult to find suppliers that can pack that many calories into the packs.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this, but I will say a couple of words—not that I try to eat my 6,000 to 8,000 calories a day. That is a real issue, but we are not on operations. I will speak on the concern that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, expressed about cohesion. There is something in that. In the Navy we are all right. We are on ships and it is not pay as you dine—the food is there and we all eat together. When they are ashore and living in a barracks or a mess, compared with the old system where people went to the mess hall and all ate together, they now, instead of having barrack rooms, have individual cabins, which are much nicer, of course. There is a real danger of a lack of social cohesion. To be quite honest, I do not think there is anything that can be done about it. We have to move down this route, but it is right to be raised as an issue. Certainly, very junior ratings living independently in single cabins have to have particular care taken of them by their divisional officers, because they do not have that factor of living with other chaps and other people to help to support them. That needs very close looking at.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I welcome the initiative of my noble friend in reminding us that the health and well-being of our Armed Forces are especially important. Pay as you dine was adopted by the Armed Forces in 2005, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, mentioned. It replaced the deduction of food costs taken directly from pay at source, regardless of whether meals were taken or not.
At the moment, catering is provided for under the catering, retail and leisure contracts. Our industry partners are required to provide a core meal at each meal service of the day. Food is charged at cost, and contractors do not make a profit on the food they provide. Core meals served at breakfast, lunch and dinner provide a nutritious and balanced menu cycle. Throughout the day, when taken at each meal service, core meals provide 3,300 calories per day at a daily price of £4.79. A range of alternative meal choices is also available outside the core meal price.
We believe it is important to give service personnel the choice about how and where they spend their money with regard to food. We fully recognise that sometimes service personnel like to take their meals in a different environment, to visit their local shops to choose what they want to eat and even to cook their own meal. We have no reason to believe that this has a detrimental effect on unit cohesion, although I would not seek to belittle that as an important issue.
However, we recognise that some service personnel are not good at choosing a healthy diet, whether they are living in single living accommodation or not. This is, of course, not a problem that affects just the Armed Forces—it is a reflection of wider society and there is much concern about unhealthy lifestyles generally—but we aspire to bring about change and we acknowledge the need for members of the Armed Forces to be better informed.
We are therefore working in partnership with Public Health England to produce some lifestyle guidance for service personnel. In parallel, the services are developing a new programme to educate personnel in healthy lifestyle choices, including diet and nutrition, and encourage a change in their behaviours. Dieticians, general practitioners, physical development experts and public health consultants are among those who have contributed to this work. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on ration packs.
I thank my noble friend for his interest in the pay as you dine system, but I do not believe his amendment is necessary. However, there is no sense of complacency here. Various assurance activities related to the system take place, including contract monitoring, site visits, reviews, customer engagement and assurance by single-service catering subject-matter experts to evaluate and improve the service provided. I hope that, with that measure of reassurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, but naturally, if he feels that there is any more information I can provide him with, I shall be happy to do so.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. The thing that slightly worries me is that the Minister did not offer to give us any information from any reviews. He said that reviews had taken place, and presumably those review reports could be obtained under FoI, so there does not seem to be any good reason why we should not see a copy of the relevant review, just to see how it is going. Maybe the Minister would like to reflect on that to see whether there is something.
Earl Attlee
I thank the Minister for that undertaking. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, tempted me to table a suitable amendment relating to the Armed Forces covenant and the requirement to produce reports. My ration of unhelpful amendments is strictly limited, so I do not think I will be doing that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, in 2006 I moved an amendment in these terms to the 2006 Bill with the support of my noble friend the late Lord Garden. At that time, inquests involving the services were very much a controversial area. There were long delays and lots of families were very concerned about the fact that these inquests took such a long time and seemed to be so unsatisfactory. At the same time, coroners were making some very trenchant criticisms. Lord Garden and I thought it would be right to have a statutory duty making it quite clear that the coroner should have jurisdiction in this area and that cases should be reported to him by commanding officers, in the terms of the amendment that I put forward.
That amendment was not accepted, but after that the Army itself became concerned and set up Project Ajax, and in 2008 the Defence Inquests Unit was formed. It is interesting to note that Mr Mike Venables, the head of that unit, said that,
“the MOD was struggling with how we handled inquests because there was no focus … The families were dissatisfied by the service they were getting and by the way that inquests were working. Many didn’t understand why we were having them or what they were for”.
The unit went to work. It seemed to have a number of aims. On the first aim, Mr Venables said:
“Our role is to support bereaved families”.
Its next role was to train coroners and explain the particular circumstances in which a death had taken place, to identify and locate military witnesses, to furnish reports and information to the coroners and to organise a familiarisation event—annually, as it turned out—so that coroners would know what vehicles and kit were used on operations and what mine clearance drills were, and could experience the weight of packs that troops carried, and so on.
Case officers under the unit read through the Royal Military Police reports, Special Investigations Branch reports and witness statements before handing them to the coroner. Colonel Newell, who was in charge, said:
“We read through everything first and redact them for security—which is something that they do worry about so we explain that … We point them”—
the coroners—
“to what we see as the salient information and suggest who we see as the key witnesses who should be called to the inquest. We provide them with a Rolls-Royce service”.
The next function was to provide support to witnesses. Mr Venables said:
“It can be a hugely difficult experience for some witnesses … we don’t…coach them. All we say is, ‘you’ve got nothing to fear from this, all you have to do is tell the truth’”.
So the unit seems to have various conflicting aims.
The purpose of my tabling this probing amendment today—in identical terms to the one we tabled in 2006—was to inquire into how the system is working and whether it is satisfactory. Case officers under the unit appear at inquests for the Ministry of Defence, so not only are they training and advising coroners, and redacting witnesses’ reports; they are actually appearing for the Ministry of Defence at inquests. That must cause concern to families who wonder whether their purpose is to protect the Ministry of Defence from the sort of trenchant criticisms that, as I indicated, were very much abroad in 2006 when we first approached this problem.
I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I may not have expressed quite clearly the full scope of my intention in tabling this amendment—I apologise for that—but I commend it to the Committee.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for raising the issue of inquests. He has raised some important issues.
For many years, I have not been able to give my counsel on this matter because sadly we were taking many casualties on operation and, therefore, the timing was completely wrong. I must stress that I have no intention of pressing any of my own amendments relating to this issue at a later stage—I am merely giving my counsel—but I intend to compete with noble Lords who are lawyers in terms of the amount of detail that I will give. I accept that matters have improved with these inquests, but I am still not convinced that holding detailed inquests into fatalities incurred on operations overseas is likely to reduce casualties or be a good use of resources. I hope the Committee will allow me to explain why before calling for the silken rope.
All members of our Armed Forces should be highly motivated. Most of them will have a secret dream of being able to have strategic effect, even if it involves a significant risk to themselves. By “strategic”, I mean an action they take that significantly alters the outcome of the campaign. That is why many servicemen with particularly good qualities seek selection for Special Forces. Their incentive is that they are very likely to be able to have strategic effect at some point. One can also have strategic effect by denying the enemy’s strategic effect. That is what the off-duty serviceman did in France in that train attack, and it is an issue to which I will return at a later stage.
I understand that, prior to the mid-1980s, it was not necessary to have an inquest into an overseas operational fatality. The law changed, but it did not matter, because there were very few hot operations. If we had ever engaged in conflict with the Warsaw Pact, we would not have been worrying about inquests. I am very sorry, but I think that these inquests into operational fatalities have limited utility. If we think that we need inquests to learn from what went wrong, we are deluding ourselves. As I touched upon in the human rights amendment on the first day of Committee, quite often the deceased, or someone closely involved, made a misjudgment or a mistake. That is the nature of military operations. As I said then, this makes it extremely difficult for the MoD or the chain of command to explain these facts, because we would be shocked if those on the ground at the time were blamed. According to Wikipedia, in Sergeant Roberts’s case, very unfortunately, the soldier who fired the coaxial machine gun on the Challenger tank did not know, or he forgot, that there was a parallax effect in short range. Does anyone seriously think that that error would not have been immediately reported back to the Armour Centre in Bovington and compared with the existing training plans? Of course not.
One inquest that I read about centred on electronic countermeasures. The feedback cycle in this area is extremely fast: days, if not hours. It must be extremely demoralising for the experts—sometimes, I think the term “boffin” is rather more complimentary—at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, to read these unfair criticisms in the press. The reality is that we have a fabulous capability in this area and we should be very grateful. Think how demoralising it must be for the Taliban to take the very real risk of planting an IED, only for the initiation system to fail for some mysterious reason at the crucial moment.
Some argue that we need the coronial system to identify any defects in training and procurement. I touched on this during the first day of Committee and remind your Lordships of my inverse law: the attention and scrutiny applied to a fatality on operations is inversely proportional to the number of fatalities taken. That is why I believe that inquests into operational fatalities have limited utility. I also remind the Committee that they soak up considerable amounts of staff effort that could be better spent on prosecuting the campaign. I fear, however, that this is nothing compared to the negative effect.
In order for the enemy’s leaders to motivate their own side to make a very risky or even suicidal attack on coalition forces, it would be an enormous help to them if they could show that the attack would have strategic effect. We cannot avoid the MoD making the formal announcements of casualties or fatalities: we know perfectly well that it would be deeply damaging to mislead the nation regarding the level of casualties that we are taking on an operation.
What we actually do is have an exercise to publicly blame Ministers and then the chain of command for things that have or are alleged to have gone wrong when, for reasons I explained, they cannot effectively defend themselves without acting improperly and damaging morale. It should also be remembered that service personnel in theatre read newspaper reports and have access to the internet. It must be quite easy to damage confidence, especially that of more junior personnel. Reports of discord can also be shown by the enemy’s leaders to their subordinates to motivate them to make an attack which they can, frankly rightly, claim will have strategic effect.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, there were specific provisions in the Coroners Act 2009 relating to investigations in Scotland. Sections 12 and 13 provided that the Secretary of State would notify the Lord Advocate if,
“the Chief Coroner thinks that it may be appropriate for the circumstances of the death to be investigated”,
and there would be an inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976. I think that is the position.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about training fatalities. My view is that all training fatalities, wherever they arise, should be subject to an inquest. I think there is a far bigger problem with training accidents than with operational fatalities. Those occur where the enemy has a better position on you and sadly some servicemen are unlucky, but with a training accident, it is quite likely that something has gone wrong.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has said. Indeed, I think that the coronial system, certainly when it was first being used for these sorts of events, was giving some very unfortunate results. There is no doubt whatever that one or two of the coroners were going way beyond what was required, and it put the whole thing into dubious territory and people began to think, “Why on earth should we do this at all?” because it was so damaging.
In terms of telling people what has happened, we talk of the next of kin’s need to know, which is absolutely right, but of course we have an established system whereby as a commanding officer you write a letter—I have written many of those letters—to the next of kin, explaining what happened and talking about their son, husband or father. Indeed, on the subject of fathers, I used to write another letter to all the children, to be opened when they were 18, explaining what had happened. I also let it to be known to all the families that they could come and talk to me about it if it happened. I am sure most COs do similar things. Indeed, a number of the next of kin took that up and I was able to sit down and talk it through with them.
I think the coronial system has got better but I still have concerns that there is the risk of this becoming a blame game. That is not what was intended at all and I was very nervous about that. I am not sure about this amendment but I think some of those wider issues that have been talked about are important and I am pleased we have had this opportunity to have this debate.
Earl Attlee
I am grateful for the partial support from the noble Lord. I have read the Army’s casualty procedure and looked at the advice to the commanding officer, and when I last looked at the document—I doubt it has changed that much—it said as little as possible. It certainly went nowhere near the detail that I propose. I am proposing that the next of kin would be able to talk about the circumstances with great knowledge, so that when someone suggested that something was wrong with the equipment, they would be able to say, “No, you have to understand that this was the difficulty”. Also, if perhaps the serviceman was the author of his own demise, they would understand why it was so easy to have an unfortunate outcome.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendment. I have a wicked question to ask him, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord West, about what happens if we start taking large numbers of casualties, especially if the circumstances of each casualty are different. Suppose in 100 days of an operation we take 10 fatalities per day. We are in for 1,000 inquests, and the circumstances of each one are different. Presumably at some point as a conflict escalated from peacekeeping to warfighting and, to put it bluntly, it was not going very well, we would have to suspend the system of inquests. It would be ridiculous—God forbid we could have 5,000 outstanding inquests! We would get to a point where we would have to stop the inquest system. That proves my perverse law that the scrutiny of each casualty is inversely proportionate to the number of casualties we take.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right that that is a question from left field because I do not think I can answer him substantively today. Clearly, in the circumstances that he outlines the coronial system would be overwhelmed and one would have to consider the best way of arriving at the end point that we would all wish to see, which is that for all those deaths, no matter how many, an explanation is provided to families of how those people died and what lessons were to be learned from that. I do not think I can usefully speculate in these surroundings about what might happen in particular circumstances, but I will reflect on my noble friend’s question, and if I can give him a better reply in the letter that I have undertaken to send to him, I will be happy to do so.
Earl Attlee
I do not really expect the Minister to give me a precise figure, but I am very grateful to him for saying that he will reflect on what I have suggested. I do not expect him to get particularly far, but I am grateful for his attitude to my speech.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, those of us who were around in 2009 will recall the great controversy in the Coroners and Justice Bill about whether we should have a chief coroner. Eventually the argument prevailed that we should have a chief coroner. We have a highly competent, able and experienced person in the shape of Peter Thornton. I am sure he will deal with many problems unless and until the system is overwhelmed, as the noble Earl suggested. I am very reassured, and I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response which brings me up to date on where we stand with the inquest system. I will reflect on what he said to see whether there is any necessity for me to take this issue further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“Guidance on definition of “on duty” for reservists
The Defence Council shall promulgate an instruction or notice giving clear guidance as to when a reservist is on duty and when he or she is not, and any such guidance must cover, but need not be limited to—(a) all hours of a day when it is intended that the reservist is to be paid,(b) the period after dismissal parade but when the reservist is still on Ministry of Defence premises.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 19 and 20. This group of amendments explores when a reservist and, in some cases, a regular is or is not on duty, is subject to military law and can be expected to be supported by the MoD. When the Minister has replied, I hope the Committee will have a much clearer understanding of the position.
For most of my active years in the TA—now the Army Reserve—my understanding, and certainly my ethos, was that I was subject to service discipline for the full 24-hour period for which I was to be paid. This applied to both my commissioned and my non-commissioned service. On a Saturday morning, I might be in bed until 0600 hours; I might not be on parade until 0800 hours; work on military activities might finish at 1800 hours; and we might be engaged in social activities, on or off defence premises, at 2200 hours. I am absolutely certain that our ethos was that we were subject to service law all the time and that the chain of command was effective. This state of affairs did not seem to deter anyone from joining the TA, even if they were aware, nor did it encourage anyone to leave. Indeed, a reserve unit is a safe place precisely because there is an effective chain of command, with someone in charge all the time.
Nowadays there seems to be some doubt or uncertainty. Now it is being suggested that reservists are not subject to service law after dismissal parade, even though they are still on defence premises. It seems most odd that one would want to collapse the system of command, control, good order and military discipline at some artificial and very uncertain point in the day, which may also have to be moved back at a later point for some good reason.
There is also uncertainty for reservists when travelling to and from their place of duty. It now appears that they are not under service law at that point, but what happens if some reservists are acting in a way that would tend to bring their service into disrepute, but not so badly as to interest the civil police? If an officer, senior NCO or service policeman chanced upon the incident, they could not take any action because the reservist would not be under service law. In this case of any insubordination to a regular or reserve officer, nothing could be done. One of my amendments calls for a defence instruction and notice—a DIN—on the issue, but the Minister can start by explaining the situation to the Committee and telling us exactly when a reservist is or is not on duty. I am sure that is his intention.
My other amendments deal with the related issue about duty, which is about self-tasking in a range of emergencies. The first point for the Committee to understand is that ordinary service personnel never have the powers of a police constable or a firefighter. There is no need and that is not the role of the Armed Forces, but I and a very large proportion of the Armed Forces, both regular and reserve, are hard-wired to intervene in any form of emergency. The most obvious example is any form of transport accident. We would not fail to prevent an emergency situation deteriorating until the emergency services arrive, and we would do all we can to preserve life and limb, and to promote recovery. However, we are trained to assess risk and not become casualties ourselves. Officers and senior NCOs can exercise a fair amount of command and control just through leadership and personality. More junior personnel will find that they can often be far more effective and willing if they are in uniform.
None of this will be a surprise to the Committee, but what happens if there is not a happy outcome arising from the resolute actions of the serviceperson, whether he is a reservist off duty or a regular serviceperson off duty? I will not weary the Committee with a scenario, but perhaps there is some legal issue despite the serviceperson being compliant with the terms of my amendment. My understanding is that if the serviceperson is not on duty, they are on their own. Of course, various press offices in the MoD will lap up any easy and good news stories, so can my noble friend the Minister confirm to the Committee that, in a civil emergency, a self-tasking, off-duty serviceperson is on his own and there will be no “big firm” back-up from the MoD?
My next amendment is closely related to being on duty. The Committee will recall the failed terrorist attack on a train in France near Arras last summer. The attacker was heavily armed with automatic weapons, but there were no fatalities thanks to the very courageous actions of two off-duty US servicemen who disarmed him. It is important to understand that they could have been killed. They did what we expected them to; they certainly did not wait for any orders or rules of engagement. This type of attack is not a hostage situation, where the tactics would be to drag out the situation and try to make friends with the hostage-taker if at all possible. In this case, it is necessary to destroy or defeat the attacker in the shortest possible time to minimise the overall number of civilian casualties. Such an incident is likely to be particularly messy. The amendment is designed to ensure that a serviceperson who is self-tasked in such a situation is on duty, and in the aftermath will be supported by the MoD and HMG in the same way as if they were on a conventional operation.
It would also ensure that he or she knows that the law recognises in this particular situation that there may be collateral damage. I am not suggesting that the proportionality test of the law of armed conflict can be ignored; it certainly cannot.
The counter to my amendment is that it is not necessary because the law already allows for it. That may be the case but why should a serviceperson who has acted courageously and skilfully be put through all the worry? If the worst happens and they are killed, will the pension arrangements and death-in-service benefits be any different from if they were on duty in the normal way? In such a situation, would it not be better for the serviceperson, self-tasking in such a matter, to be considering military matters, such as estimating the number of rounds fired by the attacker rather than worrying about his or her legal position? I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, on Amendment 18, which seeks clarity, we have nothing to add and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Amendments 19 and 20 seem to want to create an individual who is, in terms of rights and indemnities, somewhere between a citizen and a constable, or perhaps a firefighter. That would be a significant new piece of law. It would have to be accompanied by a significant portfolio of training in the management of risk to self and collateral damage. It seems to me that we would end up with the implication that the MoD had some sort of duty of care to make sure that the individual was equipped to behave in some way differently from a citizen, and we would end up in some area of certification whereby individuals would have to be seen to be competent not only in their straightforward military duties but in this self-tasking. There could be almost a proliferation of miniature armies among the citizenry.
I find it difficult to believe—I may be persuaded otherwise—that the complexities and costs of such a concept would justify the benefits. If the Government were to come forward with such a proposal, that would be a different matter. I would expect to see a body of research that looked into the various scenarios in which it might apply. I would expect that research to include an analysis of unintended consequences and how the appropriate ancillary rules would support those consequences, and I would expect extensive consultation. If such a concept were to come forward from the Government, accompanied by that level of analysis and consultation, of course we would have an open mind and treat it on its merits. Introducing such a powerful, new legal concept through an amendment to the Bill is not something we feel we can support.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for setting out the rationale for his Amendment 18. However—without, I hope, disappointing him too much—I am not convinced it is necessary to set out in the Armed Forces Bill a statutory requirement for the Defence Council to issue guidance on when a member of the Reserve Forces is on or off duty.
We ask a great deal of our reservists, who, in many cases, attend training and fulfil military duties alongside their full-time civilian employment, as well as committing to deploy on operations when they are required to do so. It is self-evident that in return for this dedication, the MoD needs to make it clear how members of the Reserve Forces will be treated and supported when they are on mobilised service or training, or travelling to and from their reserve centre. Principally, we set this out because reserve service is not risk-free and we need to be able to give reassurance that we will support people properly if they suffer an injury or illness during service.
When is a service man or woman subject to service law? Section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 sets this out:
“Every member of the regular forces is subject to service law at all times”.
The position for reservists is different. Reservists are subject to service law in the following circumstances only: when they are mobilised—called out; when they are in full-time reserve service; when they are undertaking any training or duty; and when they are serving on the permanent staff of a reserve force.
Single service regulations, which are made under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 for each of the reserve forces, already define the circumstances in which a reservist is to be regarded as on duty. As might be expected, this includes during Armed Forces training but it also includes time while they are on MoD premises for the purpose of training, or time spent travelling to and from training or duty for which they are entitled to claim payment. Travel to a mobilisation centre in answer to a call-out order is also regarded as duty. The regulations are principally intended to define the MoD’s liabilities in the event that a reservist sustains an injury at any of these times.
Of course, the actions of a reservist at a time when they are not on duty may none the less be relevant to their service; for example, reserves regulations stipulate that officers may at any time have their commission terminated, be called upon to retire, or be called upon to resign their commission because of misconduct, whether or not that misconduct took place during training or other duties. It is also fully understood by reservists who are present on service premises at times when they are not on duty—for example, those making use of unit gymnasium facilities in their own spare time—that they are to conduct themselves at such times in the same manner as they would were they on duty.
It is worth clarifying that the practice of payment of members of the Reserve Forces for training or other duties in increments of a day’s pay, half a day’s pay or a quarter of a day’s pay is not directly linked to the issue of when during that day the reservist is on duty. Thus a reservist who works an eight-hour day will receive a full day’s pay for it—the same payment as he or she would receive for working for all 24 of the hours in that day. However, that does not mean that the reservist who works an eight-hour day is on duty for all 24 of the hours in that day. It might be considered odd to suggest that they would be. It would be surprising to suggest that a reservist who left their reserve unit at 1600 on a Saturday after completing an eight-hour day and returned to their civilian life—and perhaps their civilian employment—would still be on duty until midnight.
For the reasons I have set out, and given that existing regulations already contain provision for when members of the Reserve Forces are on duty, I hope my noble friend will be reassured and will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to the amendments which would make provision with respect to members of the Armed Forces who encounter civil emergencies or terrorist attacks. Amendment 19 makes provision with respect to members of the Armed Forces who take it upon themselves as individuals to intervene to help in civil emergencies where they have received no orders to do so. I am sure this is intended to encourage them to intervene in such circumstances. In the case of members of the Reserve Forces, this would include interventions when they were not otherwise on duty. However, it would apply only to reservists who were in uniform and were either on duty, were intending to be on duty that day or had been on duty that day.
I read subsection (3) as intending to allow provision to be made to place service personnel under an obligation to intervene in certain circumstances. Subsection (4) would offer those who intervene indemnities from legal action. Amendment 20 makes similar provision with respect to intervention of members of the Armed Forces during terrorist attacks. This new clause would apply to reservists and members of the regular forces whether or not they were in uniform at the time.
The first point to make is that the criminal law provides protections for members of the public who use force for the purposes of self-defence, defence of another, defence of property, prevention of crime and lawful arrest, although the force used must be reasonable in the circumstances. Thus a member of the Armed Forces, whether in uniform or on duty or not, who intervenes during a civil emergency or a terrorist attack and uses reasonable force for any of the purposes to which I have just referred has a defence to charges under the criminal law.
However, Amendments 19 and 20 suggest that my noble friend is concerned that a person who intervenes in an emergency situation to prevent loss of life, serious injury or serious damage to property may be at risk of being sued in the civil courts. We think it highly unlikely that a person who did what they honestly believed was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, during a civil emergency or a terrorist attack, to prevent loss of life, serious injury or serious damage to property could be successfully sued in respect of injury or damage caused by them in doing so.
It is not immediately apparent why an off-duty member of the Armed Forces who decides to intervene to help in a civil emergency or a terrorist attack should be in any different position in law from any member of the public who does so. No doubt contrary to my noble friend’s intention, the amendment might in fact make a claim in respect of the actions of a member of the Armed Forces more likely, because those actions would not simply be those of a member of the public in their private capacity but would instead be those of the Armed Forces.
Another concern that I have with these new clauses is whether, if a member of the Armed Forces intervened in a situation and was then deemed to be on duty and perhaps somehow under orders, there could be a risk that they could find themselves not supported but actually challenged by the chain of command as to the usefulness or otherwise of their intervention. While we would not want to deter off-duty members of the Armed Forces from intervening in a personal capacity in an emergency situation, we do not think that it would be appropriate for them to be duty-bound to intervene or to think that they were. Would we want an unarmed, off-duty member of the Armed Forces to think that they were duty-bound to tackle heavily armed terrorists and that they might face disciplinary action should they fail to do so?
We should also not rule out the possibility that their efforts, however well-intentioned, may not necessarily be welcomed by the police or other emergency services. It is long-established that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that members of the Armed Forces should deploy in an official capacity on the streets of the United Kingdom. The civilian emergency services rightly have primacy in such matters.
The notion that individual service personnel may deploy as members of the Armed Forces on official duty not under orders but instead, in effect, on their own say-so would also represent a very significant departure from very long-established practice, under which the use of service personnel is authorised and regulated under orders through a chain of command. I am afraid that it is a departure that the Government cannot support.
I also note that Amendment 20 would purport to allow members of the Armed Forces to use,
“all necessary steps to neutralise”,
an attack. The criminal law allows only the use of such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. This is the standard that applies not only to members of the public generally but also to the police and members of the Armed Forces who are under official orders to tackle armed terrorists. We do not see any basis for departing from this long-established standard.
In short, we do not consider that the proposed amendments are necessary to allow members of the Armed Forces to intervene in the circumstances discussed and we are not convinced that it would be appropriate to put in place the proposed legal rules regarding such intervention. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed. The Minister gave me exactly the answer I would expect. The first part of his answer was particularly useful so I am grateful to him for that. I am a little surprised by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because nowhere was I suggesting that there would be any special training. It was basically whether off-duty servicemen should have any top cover from the MoD. I do not see that there would be any extra costs in that. It certainly would not be a new task or mission for the MoD. I am still very grateful for the noble Lord’s response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“Career employment group
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no female member of the armed forces shall be allocated a “career employment group” whose primary role is to close with and then engage or destroy the enemy in close combat.(2) In this section, “career employment group” means any alpha-numeric reference number to identify a trade and used for personnel management.(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a female member of the Armed Forces who has been specially selected on the basis of being extraordinarily fit and having exceptional mental and other capacities.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this is a short probing amendment to explore where the Government are on the issue of allowing women to serve on the front line. I do not intend to return to it at a later stage.
There is a wide variety of important roles for women in our Armed Forces and they make a significant contribution. In many cases, they stand in harm’s way and take the same risks as their male counterparts. Furthermore, they can increase operational effectiveness. My only concern is that perhaps the range of roles was increased merely to plug a recruiting gap that should have been dealt with by improving pay, terms and conditions of service, and accommodation. There are many roles in which women can perform better than men, including traditional male roles. However, they are excluded from roles that are primarily to close with the enemy and kill him.
The intention of my amendment is broadly to allow women to serve in the Royal Armoured Corps but not infantry regiments, but I accept that it may not actually achieve that. Subsection (3) is merely an exemption, a get-out provision, to allow posting and recruitment for very special roles including but not limited to Special Forces. I do not see any need for the Committee to debate this provision as it is merely to avoid any undesirable effects of the amendment.
My concern is that the roles that I seek to exclude require a very high level of strength as a prerequisite. My first question for the Minister is: what proportion of females does he think can meet the current fitness and strength requirements for the infantry? I ask because very few women are as strong as the average male soldier. Secondly, do the Government have a target for the percentage of our Armed Forces that should be female? I would be very interested to hear the views of the Committee on this issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will correct me if I have this wrong when he sums up but I understand that a Statement on this issue is expected in the near future, and that both the PM and the Secretary of State expect to lift this ban within a year.
Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, could help me. I want to make sure that I understand what his amendment is trying to do, taking the three subsections together and weaving them into an argument. I understand the noble Earl to be saying that a female member of the Armed Forces can engage or destroy the enemy in close combat only if they are specially selected for being extraordinarily fit and having exceptional mental and other capacities. Is that right?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I did touch on subsection (3), the purpose of which is to ensure that we do not prohibit females from being posted to Special Forces units. Perhaps that would not be suitable for the SAS or SBS but perhaps other roles could be caught by my amendment as drafted. It is merely to make sure that the Minister does not criticise me for causing unnecessary problems. I suggest to the Committee that females can serve in the Royal Armoured Corps, operating an armoured fighting vehicle, but they should not be able to be in the infantry, sticking the bayonet into the enemy.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the noble Earl for that clarification. I rather suspected that that was what he was going to say. I was wondering about the words “extraordinarily fit” and,
“exceptional mental and other capacities”.
I wondered how these would be determined, defined and measured. The noble Earl has helped me out to a certain extent there.
We know that women already serve as medics, intelligence officers, fighter pilots and submariners. They have been awarded medals for their bravery in battlefield situations. Should these criteria not be applied to anybody, men or women? They sound gender-neutral. I see what the noble Earl is trying to achieve but I am not sure he has achieved it. It seems that it could apply to either men or women. Whatever happens, whoever we send into battle, we need the people engaging for us to do so based on their abilities, not their gender.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my worry is that, if the Government decide that, yes, we can have females serve in the infantry, the fitness and strength standards for a combat infantryman would have to be lowered. That would mean that we lower the capability of the infantry—they would not be as fit and strong—in order to have a unisex standard.
Baroness Jolly
I understand what the noble Earl is trying to get at. Conversations I have had about this suggest that the number of women who are likely to fit the category will be very small indeed. I am sure that they will ensure that they have all the other characteristics that the noble Earl suggests they should have in order to engage.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the amendment proposed by my noble friend would have the effect of excluding women from those roles in the Armed Forces, where the primary aim is to,
“close with and then engage or destroy the enemy in close combat”.
As I know my noble friend agrees, women play a vital role in the Armed Forces, with 70% of all posts being open to women. Women have made and continue to make a valuable contribution to current and recent operations, including Afghanistan. They are fundamental to the operational effectiveness of the UK’s Armed Forces, bringing talent and skills across the board.
My noble friend asked whether there was a target for the percentage of the Armed Forces who should be female. The answer is: yes, the Ministry of Defence has a target for recruitment of women into the Armed Forces of 15%. As at 1 October 2015, 10.1% of the Regular Forces were female, and that has remained stable since 1 October 2014. So we have a way to go in this area.
Women already serve in a variety of support roles with front-line units, including as medics, fire support team commanders, military intelligence operators, counter-improvised explosive device operators and dog handlers. Under the Equality Act 2010, the Armed Forces are permitted to exclude women and transsexuals from employment in some areas where it is necessary and appropriate to ensure that the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces is maintained. However, under the equal treatment directive, the UK Government are obliged to review this exclusion every eight years. To that end, studies were conducted in 2002 and 2010. Women are currently excluded from 30% of posts in the Army, 21% in the Royal Navy and 6% in the Royal Air Force. The units of the Armed Forces that are affected by this are the Royal Marines general service of the Royal Navy, the infantry and the Royal Armoured Corps of the Army, and the Royal Air Force Regiment.
In May 2014, the then Secretary of State for Defence announced a review of the exclusion of women from ground close combat roles. The review was led by the Army and it was completed that year. The review achieved a considerably better understanding of the physiological considerations than existed previously, due to significant improvements in the accuracy of data available and the fact that the military female cohort is both larger and more representative than that available to previous studies.
While defence welcomes the prospect of opening further military roles to women, the findings of the 2014 review identified that further physiological research is required into the high physical demands inherent in ground close combat roles and the associated potential impact on women’s health. To lift the exclusion without doing this research could place women at risk of personal injury. The physiological research programme is now examining the challenges and risks of including women in ground close combat roles in order to inform a final decision.
I need to make it clear to my noble friend that the women in ground close combat roles review follows the principle that all roles should be open to women unless it can be demonstrated that the exclusion was necessary to maintain combat effectiveness. Therefore, in the event that the exclusion is lifted, any woman serving in a combat role will have passed the physical tests and training to be there in her own right. I can reassure my noble friend on one important point. The requirement to maintain combat effectiveness remains the paramount consideration. Training standards will not be lowered in order to accommodate women and this, in turn, will ensure that the combat effectiveness of ground close combat units is maintained.
The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary are united in wanting to see all roles in the Armed Forces opened up to women. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, I cannot be precise on dates, but the decision on whether or not women should be allowed to serve in ground close combat roles is expected by the middle of this year. I hope that this explains our position and, in view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, had a go at me. I went part of the way: I said that we could have women in the Royal Armoured Corps because there is no logic for why a woman should not be able to operate a tank or an armoured fighting vehicle. In fact, there is a possibility that women may be better in certain roles.
The noble Lord, Lord West, was very cruel to me because he took away one of my killer questions to the Minister, which is: if we were in general war and had to conscript people, would we be happy to conscript women into the infantry? I do not think the Minister needs to answer that because it is far too tough a question.
I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will not authorise the fitness and strength standards in the infantry to be lowered. Can we have an assurance that that will not happen? If there are one or two superhuman women who can do it, fine. But as soon as we lower those training and fitness standards, we will have reduced the combat effectiveness of the infantry.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my position is that the solution outlined in my amendment is the right one. In other words, yes to women in the Royal Armoured Corps but no to the infantry and the Royal Marines. We will have to see what happens. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the very important questions put by other noble Lords. I just add one brief reflection. I spent a great many years when I served in the other place helping to deal with compensation claims from former miners for illnesses they suffered as a result of working underground. For several years, I chaired a committee set up by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen when he was Welsh Secretary and I was his deputy. We sought ways to speed up the system of payments. I had more than 500 cases in my own constituency of Islwyn and more than £50 million was paid out in compensation. We had to overcome all sorts of difficulties, but we worked at it and did it. However, that job was unfinished. Try as we did, we could not persuade the Government to compensate workers on the surface who were often exposed to more dust than those working underground.
I was moved at Second Reading when my noble friend Lord West of Spithead spoke for the small number of mesothelioma sufferers who did not meet the qualifying date to be included in the compensation scheme. It would now appear that that has been corrected, and I pay tribute to him and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the work they have done on this. The Government have listened. That is not a bad thing. I am the first in line to congratulate them on listening and acting.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the progress that has been made by the Government in expanding the scheme. When I supported my noble friend Lord Freud with the Mesothelioma Act, I could not understand why it was not extended to MoD personnel. My question to the Minister is about research. Many noble Lords raised the issue of research, which could have very great benefits. What lines of research are available? When I was with my noble friend Lord Freud, I understood that there were not that many good avenues for research. I have not found any areas of research that might provide some benefits.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Perhaps I can help the noble Earl because his noble friend Lord Prior of Brampton has been extraordinarily helpful on this subject and, as recently as two weeks ago, convened a meeting at the Department of Health which I attended. Many of the people involved in current research into mesothelioma were present. The big issue they all raised was sustained funding. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, knows far more about this than me so I am sure he will deal with it in his reply. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, can be reassured that there is a lot of interest within the research community but it comes down to funding.
Armed Forces Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
“( ) For subsection 1(b) substitute—“(b) 12 other persons (“lay members”).”( ) For subsection 2(a) substitute—“(a) 12 lay members; or”.”
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I still have an interest as I will be commissioned until October, when I have to retire.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested that we needed to look at the composition and operation of the court martial. The Minister said that it would be a big change to alter these arrangements. However, that is why we have a quinquennial review. The MoD can quite easily change the court martial rules but bigger changes are a matter for us in Parliament.
One of the problems we have with some of the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that we have very little idea of how either a civil jury or a court martial board works because research is illegal, except for certain criminal investigations. Therefore, the Minister cannot prove that the system is as good as we can make it, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, cannot show that it is defective—we do not know how the system operates. The difficulty is particularly relevant to the noble Lord’s amendment on majority verdicts. The Committee needs to remember that the board of a court martial is not a jury; it is composed of officers and warrant officers superior in rank to the defendant. My Amendment 11 proposes to permit closely controlled research into how the board works. I envisage that this would take place soon after all normal appeal rights had been exhausted or were time-expired. Members of the board would not be told in advance that they would be contributing to the research, and there would have to be numerous other protections.
In Amendment 1, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, proposes that the board of a court martial be composed of “all ranks”. Presumably, if the amended is accepted, court martial boards would provide that members must be at least one rank superior to the accused. Interestingly, I do not have a problem with his proposal, provided that the noble Lord recognises that he is moving away from a very select panel who have already been chosen as officers and warrant officers on the basis of a whole range of qualities that other ranks do not necessarily possess. If he wants to do that, I think we will need a military jury of 12. They will still understand the military context, which is surely the reason we have a military court martial, and the increased number I am suggesting would make up for any reduction in intellectual horsepower. I would suggest that on average a military jury could be of better quality and more suited to these cases than a civilian one, and therefore an all-ranks military jury could be just as reliable as a civil jury.
However, there are some snags. I suspect that the noble Lord feels that an all-ranks board would be more forgiving and understanding. I am not convinced. For instance, I fear that an all-ranks board could be swayed by the accused appearing to be a rotten soldier when military jury members are sure that they are not. The officers on the board of a court martial would put that to one side and study it with much more intellectual rigour. I suspect that the noble Lord would still have some officers on the board or the jury, but I cannot really envisage a junior NCO asking searching questions to test an officer’s position on a case, even though a large proportion would undoubtedly be able to do so. A warrant officer certainly would, which is why we already have them on the board.
Finally I turn to the noble Lord’s amendment concerning who determines the sentence. If we went for a military jury of 12, this would be merely a consequential change. Again, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, believes that the judge advocate would be more lenient. I have to tell the Committee that I have heard, although I should not have, that on one occasion the board of a court martial in Germany dealing with an assault case regretted not being able to consider a not-guilty verdict because the accused pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, the judge advocate was recommending quite severe penalties which the board had to resist strongly. In any case, complex though the matters are, the judge advocate tells the members of the board of the court martial what their options are. The sentence is internally reviewed and the case can then be taken to the court martial appeals court, so it is not clear to me what can go wrong.
Lastly, I do not have a view on the noble Lord’s suggestions about which offences should be triable only in a civilian court.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the first two groups for debate today discuss the generality of military law. The first group relates to how an individual is found guilty and sentenced, while the second group deals with the extent and scope of the body of military law. I make the point because I take a very different view about the extent to which we should consider changing the two groups, and hence these groups of amendments. We will come on to debate the second group, but I approach the first group from the point of view of the rights of the citizen who, as a member of the Armed Forces, has become the accused. I find the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, persuasive. With that individual having committed an offence and gone into a process which is now so analogous to that of a civil court, I find quite strong the idea that the individual should have the right to a trial that is analogous to that in a civil court.
The amendments before us would, first, create more of a jury of the individual’s peers and, secondly, produce a voting system that is much closer to that of a Crown Court, which seeks unanimity. The proposals put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, are close to unanimity in their form. The reforms the noble Lord is suggesting would mean that the rights of the individual who has been accused would become increasingly similar to those of a normal civilian in a criminal case. Since 2006 we have developed the three bodies of law, brought them together and introduced civilian best practice—there is probably a better way of putting that, but it is essentially what we have done—so I find this next step very attractive.
As an alternative or as a supplement, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has suggested a minimum number of 12 on the board. That is an interesting suggestion which again is in step towards achieving similarity, and I would guess that he has suggested the figure on the basis that while such a revolutionary change might not appeal to the Government, there is also the idea of an inquiry to see how courts martial work to see if that could be a step towards reform.
Clearly, and I have sat on that side, these amendments will not work and there will be something wrong with them. However, that is irrelevant. What matters is: should we make steps in this direction using this quinquennial Act? We do it only every five years and I would find unconvincing the argument that it is not appropriate. I am putting a burden on the Government, today and perhaps in subsequent meetings and in writing, to argue the case for why we should not move in the general direction of these amendments and make the whole process for the defendant more analogous to that of a civil court.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the response to my Amendment 1A. On the point about maintaining discipline, I am not convinced that that would be a problem, especially if the other ranks were no lower than full corporal or equivalent, because they would have a stake in the maintenance of discipline as well. After all, a civilian jury is handling the same problem: they want to discipline other members of society for things that they have done wrong. Therefore, I do not find the maintenance of discipline—
Lord West of Spithead
It is very different from civil society. The whole structure of discipline within the military is, I am afraid, very different. That surely is one of the key points: it is people who really understand discipline, how it is applied and have knowledge of it over many years who are actually making judgments, because most of the cases relate to that disciplinary structure. I know that other amendments are looking at whether courts martial should cover other things, which might be another issue. However, in terms of discipline, civil society is very different from military society.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—I almost said the noble and gallant Lord; he is noble and gallant, but not technically. My slight worry about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is that a full corporal would be less understanding and perhaps take a much tougher view than an officer. I am not convinced that the noble Lord is wrong on the argument of the maintenance of discipline, but I will leave the main attack to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, because he is far more capable than I am. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord West, would have added a keel-hauling or something of that nature.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his support for my amendments. No doubt we will have some fruitful discussion on a way forward. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that an investigation into how court martial panels deliberate would be apposite; it is a good suggestion. There are all sorts of problems around it, and if the public do not have confidence in the court martial system, which is what I believe and the thrust of what I am saying—that although I personally have confidence, the public do not—such an investigation would in one way or the other be very good.
However, the noble Earl may have misread my amendments. I am not looking for leniency. I have no reason to suppose that court martial panels that consisted of other ranks would be more lenient; I rather agree with him that they could well be tougher. What such panels would be is more understanding. They would appreciate things more. I know that the Armed Forces regard themselves as a family and I concede to what the noble Lord, Lord West, has said, but there is a gap in understanding between the other ranks and the officers of what motivates people. That is where an extended panel would be useful, helpful and more just. It is not about leniency at all. The noble Earl should not think that I am a particularly lenient person. I have sat as a judge and prosecuted many times, and leniency is certainly not a part of that.
I tend towards the thrust of the noble Earl’s comments, supported by the noble Lord, Lord West, that it is all about discipline. The fact is that if anyone is convicted at court martial of a serious offence, he is out and he loses his pension rights. It is not a question of discipline for a serious offence. As I indicated at the beginning, I have no objection to the court martial system in relation to Sections 1 to 39 of the 2006 Act, which cover mutiny, absence without leave, desertion and issues of that sort. But where I think the court martial system lacks public confidence is when it deals with other criminal offences which are normally dealt with in the Crown Court. The maintenance of discipline is not particularly apposite, in my experience. People who are convicted of serious offences, as I have said, are thrown out.
Many of the Minister’s remarks were addressed to the issue of sentencing. I do not believe that the sentences of the courts martial are particularly wayward, as we have a very good system of judge advocates who assist them in their deliberations. But the noble Earl will know that the current Judge Advocate-General has argued many times—as he did in 2006 before a committee of the House of Commons—that sentencing should be a matter for a professional judge, as judge advocates are, and not left to a panel of officers for whom it may well be their very first meeting with the criminal law in any context. They are not experts. They are appointed to a court martial board—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord West, has more experience of courts martial than most people, from all points of view—but most who sit on a panel do it perhaps once or twice. The president of the court is a more permanent official, of course, but a judge advocate is a professional judge who goes on training course after training course, sits in the Crown Court when not sitting as a judge advocate and has the fullest experience of sentencing and what is appropriate in a particular case. I do not suggest that he should sentence when uninformed himself, nor does the Judge Advocate-General, but that he should consult the members of the panel, listen to their views and take into account the maintenance of discipline, if that is what is required in the case.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not quite sure why the panel should go outside the guidance of the judge advocate. For me, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has not produced a convincing case why it should do that. Why would it not adhere to the advice of the judge advocate because, as the noble Lord told the Committee, it is very good advice?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am not going to recount anecdotes but it is not necessary for the panel to follow the advice of the judge advocate who is sitting in a particular case if it chooses not to do so. Very often when a person is found guilty, the sentence may not be obvious. It may be a choice between various courses such as imprisonment, a sentence that does not involve imprisonment, or sometimes whether someone should go back to Colchester for retraining—a disciplinary approach—so there are different possibilities.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, surely the choice between prison and detention—in other words, “soldier on”—is a purely military one, which means that the officers on the panel are best placed to make that judgment of whether they can keep the serviceman in. In fact, some who go off for a period of detention turn out to be very good servicemen later on, as I am sure the noble Lord recognises. This is a purely military decision.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am not suggesting that the judge advocate should act entirely without the advice given to him by the panel. But where should the responsibility lie? That is the issue. I do not think that responsibility for sentencing—a highly complex and professional job for which people train for years, first as barristers or solicitors and then as judges—should be in the hands of people who have in all probability never been in a criminal court in their lives. Suddenly, they are faced with a particular problem and may have all sorts of views about it. Nor should it be thought that intellect and intelligence rest only with the officer class, as the noble Earl suggested. That is not necessarily so. Sitting on issues of fact, a panel composed across ranks would come to a better and safer conclusion which is more acceptable to the public. We cannot go on having demonstrations outside this House by present and retired members of the Armed Forces against the verdicts and findings of courts martial. You do not see that happening with Crown Courts but you see it with courts martial, and that cannot continue. I am concerned about the reputational damage to the services that such scenes show.
I will read all the detail of the Minister’s speech and come back to him about it but one or two points arose. For example, he stressed that a simple majority means that there is no need for a retrial. That may not be a very good thing. It may be that if a significant proportion of a panel hearing a case are not satisfied with the guilt of the defendant, there should be a retrial. The case should be put before the court and heard again. Retrials happen, not all that often, when juries are unable to reach a verdict in the Crown Court. They do not follow as of law; it is a question of the discretion of the prosecutor. I have stopped prosecutions after a jury had disagreed. “There is no need for a retrial” is not a mantra which sits very well with the Ministry of Defence.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 5. In the late 1980s, I was dragged from my destroyer by the First Sea Lord and tasked with doing a study into whether women should serve on the front line at sea. Being an ambitious officer, I went to see the First Sea Lord and asked him what result he wanted from that study—but he told me that I was to do a proper study. I spent six months doing it, and I learned a great deal. At the end of it, I concluded that women could serve in all jobs at sea, that there was no reason why they could not do that on the front line and that it was in the interests of the Navy. I thought that that would ruin my career—my wife said that I could run a well woman clinic if things went really wrong —but in fact it did not affect my career that badly.
What I failed to understand was the level of sexual predation that might result from this. I did talk with other navies around the world but I have say that I did not talk to the Army; it was all naval. I have been really quite shocked by the level of sexual predation which one is aware of now. It is necessary to expose what is happening to make it clear to people that things have to change. It is only by laying down the cases that have happened that this will be thrown into the public eye and the eye of the military, and then action can be taken. I am not so convinced by Amendment 6, but Amendment 5 makes a lot of sense.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for moving this amendment, which concerns a very serious and important issue. He mentioned Deepcut. I urge all Members of the Committee to get the Blake report on Deepcut, which was commissioned by the last Government, as we may have forgotten the background.
I am not convinced by the new clause proposed in Amendment 5, and I hope that the Minister shares that position. However, I would like to ask the Minister about service police records. We are all aware that there will be serial offenders who are posted from unit to unit. I would even dare to suggest that if a commanding officer knows that someone is “a bit dodgy” for one reason or another, they might rather get rid of them, and so send them off to another unit. Then, that same serviceperson becomes a problem in another unit. If the service police were carefully recording complaints against a serviceman—unit 1 gets a complaint; unit 2 gets a complaint—while it may be only slightly inappropriate conduct, there would be a record so that if something serious happens, and the serviceman already has a record of minor offences, you can be pretty sure that there is a problem. If someone has been serving for 15 years and there is not the slightest suggestion of a problem, you might take a slightly different view. My issue is this: are the service police recording every single complaint against a serviceman? I can assure the Committee that I have seen this in the reserves where we had a problem with a junior officer and it turned out that he had had a problem in another unit as well.
Members of the Committee have suggested that the Armed Forces have a problem. I do not deny that there is a problem, but my question for the Minister is this. Is it a bigger problem in the Armed Forces than it is in the civilian world, such as in industry, for instance?
Lord West of Spithead
I am sorry, but surely that has nothing to do with it. We have to get it right within the Armed Forces, have we not? It is only by exposing it that this can be dealt with. When I did my study, I was shocked at the level of this sort of thing going on in banks. I visited banks and large retail outlets and I was absolutely appalled and shocked by it. I must have been naive being stuck at sea. You might think that sailors are not naive, but my goodness me, it was quite a shock. Surely we have to look at what is right within the military.
Earl Attlee
Once again I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that we have to address our problems and deal with them vigorously. I want just to suggest that we ought to be able to compare how the Armed Forces do with the rest of industry. Although we have a problem that we want to and should deal with, the statistics may not actually be as bad as we think they are. We need to compare. That is not a reason for not doing anything about the problem; far from it.
Amendment 6 seeks to take the matter out of the hands of the commanding officer. I agree with this proposal, although I am at variance with the noble Lord, Lord West, on it. These matters are extremely difficult to determine in terms of what has been going on. As he suggested, commanding officers are not well equipped to deal with them. You might think that someone is a really good person, but then you are disappointed to find out that they are possibly offending in this way, so I do not have a problem with this proposal. I inherited a case of sexual assault and it was exceptionally difficult for me to deal with. I did not have to determine the matter, but I had to manage the aftermath. I heard the two sides of the argument and I was ill equipped to determine it. The Minister should consider Amendment 6 very carefully.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has made me think about two other instances that perhaps I should refer to. One is the fact that we are not talking about and cannot relate in any way to industry. People in the forces live in a closed environment. I shall give an example which has been made public. One woman was sent to an island with 27 men, and that woman was raped constantly on that island. What kind of situation is that? This has nothing to do with working in a bank or anywhere else; it is a completely different environment.
I am also reminded of the fact that the MoD has said that some 20 soldiers who are still serving in the Army are on the sex offenders register, and in each case they have been sent to a different unit, which reflects the point made earlier about people being transferred from one unit to another. That in itself seems an absolute disgrace. The department has also stated that a number of unknown people are in the Army who have been convicted but who are not on the sex offenders register, so they cannot be identified. This is not a good situation for men or women in the Armed Forces to have to put up with.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s final point really follows on from what I was saying about the records of dodgy servicemen.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not suggesting putting the information anywhere on the service record—in the Army Personnel Centre for instance. I am suggesting that the service police, once that they have had an allegation against a particular serviceman, should keep a file on that serviceman so that if they get a second complaint in a different location, that will have a bearing on the credibility of that second complaint.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
The noble Earl has talked about the question of allegation, which is always a problem. Would he be prepared to say that a comprehensive list should be produced of the number of proven cases within the Armed Forces?
Viscount Slim (CB)
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that when we were in a committee trying to put all three manuals of service law into one manual, many of us were worried that we were removing the power of the commanding officer in a number of instances. We were all thankful that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, sat in on just about every sitting of the committee. We saw the demeaning of a commanding officer taking place in some of the discussions.
There is no doubt that there is a certain wish among many politicians to civilianise the military, and I have been worried about that in one or two things that have been said today. If you do not think that a commanding officer is doing his job properly, then, as the Minister said, you lay more and more on him so that he does do his job properly. I myself dealt with a case where I was very perturbed by what was happening. I merely picked up the telephone and asked the special investigation services and the Military Police to be in my office at 10 o’clock the next morning, and the whole thing was sorted out.
I ask noble Lords to be very careful before more powers are taken away and the position of the commanding officer is demeaned. I put it that a commanding officer can do his job, and if the military do not think he is doing it properly, certain things that the noble Earl has described can be put in place.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, legally everyone has a commanding officer; someone somewhere is the commanding officer. The Minister said that commanding officers are given training. I agree that they are given a significant amount of training and that they have a significant amount of experience. The problem is that the powers of a commanding officer can be delegated to someone who has not had that training. Their commanding officer might be only a major and might be deployed to a desert island. That has happened to me. When I deployed on Operation TELIC, my commanding officer was the commanding officer of 1 UK Armoured Division and Signal Regiment. I never met him; I did not know him from Adam. I would suggest that many soldiers do not know their commanding officers from Adam because they normally deal with their officer commanding.
The Committee needs to understand the difficulties faced by a junior serviceman. In these situations they are often making a complaint about someone who is their immediate superior, and perhaps even in their chain of command. They might rustle up the courage to make a complaint, but when they find themselves being interviewed by the company sergeant major, who they might in any case have an issue with for other reasons, they may quickly withdraw the allegation even though it is well founded. I have to say that I am not absolutely convinced by the Minister’s response and we shall need to return to this issue at a later stage.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, we have had a good short debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, but I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I am so disappointed with his response. My noble friend Lady Gould spoke from a lifetime of experience of campaigning on matters of this kind, and some of the statistics that she afforded us are staggering. She mentioned that 20 soldiers are on the sex offenders register. Is that uploaded on to the MoD website, in which the noble Earl seems to put a great deal of faith? I do not know, so perhaps he can enlighten us.
My noble friend Lord West of Spithead spoke with the authority of experience as someone who has faced up to this, not quite realising what a big problem it is, and learned a great deal. He said that we have to change, and that is coming from someone who has served his country heroically and has taken great responsibility for the people under his command. He believes that we really do need to do something about this.
I could not improve on the remarks just made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. There will be inhibitions and people will not take things forward because of all sorts of consequences that they might face, so it simply is not good enough. In his earlier remarks he also asked the Minister whether the service police are recording all complaints. I hope that he will be able to tell us at some stage whether that is the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, was spot on. Parents need to be reassured. Later in Committee we will be considering issues affecting youngsters under the age of 18 joining the Armed Forces.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment. I have to apologise to the Committee for not tabling a suitable amendment to raise this issue but what I have to say is related. In about 2011, I took out a mortgage on a house. Between me and my wife, we had the necessary financial resources to do it and it was not a problem. However, I wanted to take out term insurance—life insurance—so that if for any reason I passed away the mortgage would be paid off. The chances of my dying suddenly at that age were quite small, but I had to admit to the insurance company that I was still in the TA. That resulted in the premiums being unaffordable, and I did not take out that term insurance. The only reason why I did not take it out was because when I said I was in the TA, the premiums became unaffordable. Will the Minister write to me and tell me what the Government are doing about that situation, and whether it still obtains?
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I accept that this is a probing amendment. I think everyone would be of the view that discrimination should not take place against members of the Reserve Forces, but there have been examples where clearly it has, and we have just been given another.
In Northern Ireland we have substantial law on discrimination on religious or political grounds. Not that long ago, the identification of people as a member of the Armed Forces was sufficient to result in their being targeted and in many cases, unfortunately, assassinated. The Minister may not have the material at his disposal now but perhaps he might reflect and consult his colleagues in the Government on the implications of the publication of such material. It could result in the identification of units whose members had a particular religious or political persuasion.
So I support the principle, which I think is quite right, but I imagine that there could be some local nuances where the Reserve Forces are concerned. The Minister might care to consult with colleagues on that, since how the information might be acquired and handled may require slightly different treatment in Great Britain from that required in Northern Ireland.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue and I understand entirely why he felt it appropriate to do so. Nevertheless, I am not convinced at the moment that it is necessary or appropriate to set out a requirement in the Armed Forces Bill for commanding officers to collect and for the Ministry of Defence to publish the kinds of data that he has referred to.
We fully recognise and value the contribution of reservists and the need to ensure that their interests are properly protected. Part of that is making sure that their reserve service does not negatively affect their employment prospects. I completely accept that principle. But that is precisely why there is protection in place to ensure that reservists are not dismissed as a result of any duties or liabilities that they have to undertake; for example, as a result of being mobilised. This protection is provided by the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, Section 1 of which gives a reservist who is called out for reserve service the right to apply to his or her former employer to be reinstated after they return from mobilised service. In addition, Section 17 of the 1985 Act makes it a criminal offence for an employer to dismiss an employee solely or mainly by reason of any duties or liabilities that may arise as a result of being called out.
Further, Section 48 of the Defence Reform Act 2014 amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the current two-year qualifying period for claims of unfair dismissal where the reason for dismissal is or is primarily because the individual is a reservist. However, we are not aware of any cases having been brought as a result of this change. In addition, as proposed in the Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valuable and Valued White Paper, we have established a website that allows reservists to alert the Ministry of Defence if they believe that they have been disadvantaged in employment as a result of their reserve service. These cases are of course investigated if the complainant agrees. There have been only 13 contacts from reservists since we established the website in July 2013. Those are the facts as they currently stand.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord seeks to place a legal duty on commanding officers to collect statistics on how many reservists have reported employment discrimination on account of their reserve service and for the Ministry of Defence to collect and publish statistics on the number of complaints regarding discrimination. There are more than 300 reserve units in the UK. Given the very low incidence of reported complaints, I submit that a requirement of that kind would be disproportionate and burdensome.
However, there is another difficulty with the proposed amendment—it may be unnecessary for me to point this out, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for doing so. It refers to “discrimination” in the context of employment, but it is important to be clear that, despite the protections that I have referred to for reservists in the civilian workplace, being a reservist is not a “protected” characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, unlike characteristics such as age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. I would like to make a further point. It does not follow that an allegation of discrimination means that an individual has been discriminated against. One need only think of a simple example, such as someone who says that they have not been promoted because of their reservist status and that that needs investigation. Clearly when an allegation like that is made, it is quite a complex situation. While on the face of it the amendment appears simple, I suggest that there are significant difficulties below the surface.
Our approach, which I hope that noble Lords will agree with, is to develop open relationships with employers and to encourage and support reservists in their individual relationships with their employers. We encourage reservists to raise employer issues with their chain of command and to resolve issues through the improved relationship management process that we have put in place. I would like to think that those processes have borne fruit, in the light of the very small number of contacts with the website that I referred to earlier. Good relationships with employers are absolutely central to the Government’s programme for the Reserve Forces, but I believe that our resources in this area are better spent in strengthening these relationships than in creating and fuelling a reporting process.
The improved relationship with employers is increasingly evident from the number signing the Armed Forces covenant and the very strong examples of those employers up and down the country who have been recognised for their support to our Armed Forces. The issue raised by my noble friend Lord Attlee is slightly different, as I am sure he recognises, and I undertake to write to him about it.
I hope that the Committee will understand why I cannot support the proposal that the Bill should be amended. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, moved his amendment, he said that it was a probing amendment. However, I support the general position and tone of my noble friend’s response. He mentioned the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act. I must say that post-Operation TELIC, the MoD’s support for reservists who found themselves in difficulties was absolutely pathetic. Reservists were on their own. I used to fondly think that if I found myself in difficulty I would have the big bad main-building MoD on my side. The reality was that reservists got no support from the Ministry of Defence at all. They had the protection of the legislation, but they had to fight the case on their own. Whereas if the MoD had rung up to say, “This is the Ministry of Defence, why aren’t you re-engaging the reservists?”, it would have saved an awful lot of difficulty. But the MoD was, frankly, pathetic. It is not the Minister’s fault, but that is what happened after TELIC.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it was on the ability of all reservists to get their jobs back. It was not well handled by the MoD at the time. Let us just hope that we do not have to mobilise large numbers of reservists. We should remember that a lot of them had not volunteered to be mobilised, so it was not what they expected.
Lord Empey
My Lords, in the event of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, bringing back an amendment at a later stage, I wonder whether the Minister would agree to consult his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office on the specific issue that I raised.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lords have said. I believe that Her Majesty’s Armed Forces have been engaged in combat operations, as opposed to peacekeeping operations, for far too long. You can tolerate a certain amount of that, but when a difficult combat operation goes on for years and years it is bound to cause very serious mental problems among our servicemen. Like many noble Lords, I think that this is going to bite us very hard in the future.
Lord Empey
Does the noble Earl agree that we in the UK have a reasonably well documented example of that? Among members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who were effectively in a combat situation both in work and at home for many years, after the Troubles there was a substantial rise in the number of mental health issues that were presented. I am sure that the department would have those statistics available, and there might be some interesting things there.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
I am glad to have been asked that question because it gives me the opportunity of saying this. Combat immunity is not of relevance here in respect of the convention claims. It is highly relevant, and was the answer sought to be advanced by the ministry, to the negligence claims. What was held, as my noble and learned friend said, by not four but five members of the court was that it did not extend to the peacekeeping mission that was relevant to the negligence claims.
I would not deal with the negligence part of the claims by extending the scope of combat immunity. I would deal with those parts, as I said at Second Reading, by legislating under Section 2(2) of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act which enables one, in effect, to disapply tort law in respect of our Armed Forces. However, I would give them the compensation that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is understandably intent that they should have by making sure that they do not lose out by getting less under the pension scheme than they would if there were successful common law claims. I would give them the money on a no-fault liability basis because they have incurred these ghastly injuries serving the national interest in combat abroad.
However, I regard that as having nothing whatever to do with the limited scope of this amendment, which is simply to disapply the relevant part of the convention to that aspect of these claims. It would disapply Articles 2 and 3 so that, if necessary, it could be tested in Strasbourg whether the majority in the court in Smith needed to go as far as they did in saying that Article 2 applied. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, I believe that the court would say that the margin of appreciation here allows us not to apply Articles 2 and 3 in this sensitive situation where Armed Forces are serving in combat abroad.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I strongly support my noble and learned friend and his noble and gallant supporters. I have deployed on two military operations, in addition to aid operations. One was peacekeeping and one was war-fighting but for our purposes there was no difference because a peacekeeping operation can deteriorate into a war-fighting or combat operation.
On both operations I willingly put my life, limb and security at the disposal of Her Majesty. “Her Majesty” might sound an old-fashioned term but to me it is all-encompassing. It means the nation, its citizens, the Government, the CDS—who at the time was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—and the chain of command.
In return, the nation regards such service as highly commendable. If I did not come back or I was badly injured, it would be jolly hard luck. Statistically, it was actually unlikely. Whenever you deploy on military operations, it is a sad fact that it is not likely that everyone is going to come back intact, and you have to accept that if you are prepared to authorise military action. Obviously, my family would mourn my demise, but what I would not have wanted is the chain of command and the staff wasting their time on inquiries or litigation about my bad luck when they are trying to prosecute a campaign and to secure the absolute minimum number of casualties overall. I suspect that all of the cause célèbre cases that I have read about have been either misreported or misleadingly reported in order to make a good story. In some cases, I know this to be the case because at the relevant time I was in the headquarters handling the issue. If noble Lords want to be briefed privately on that, I am quite willing to do so.
It seems to me that there are several difficulties with involving the legal system when there appears to be a failure in an operation, the planning of it, the resourcing of it or the training for it. The first issue I am certain about because I have seen it myself. Sadly, in a few cases the deceased or those around him or her are the authors of their own misfortune. Sometimes, there is a failure to adhere to the training. I have read news reports where I have had to conclude that for one reason or another the training was not adhered to. Obviously, the MoD is not going to use any of these defences against a claim or misleading news report. We would be shocked if it did so, and I think that some Members of the Committee are a little bit shocked that I am taking this line.
The second issue is that there may be a very good technical reason why some equipment is not used. There could be intelligence to suggest that it is not a good idea. For instance, the capability could have been compromised in some way or using that equipment might be of benefit to opponents. There might be a military judgment to be made about which technology or capability is the highest priority to deploy to theatre. The Committee needs to recognise that in an operation logistic capacity is neither infinite nor perfect.
In about May or June 2003, I was running around in Basra province in southern Iraq in a soft-skin Land Rover. I was heavily armed with a Browning 9 millimetre pistol. My body armour was somewhere in the back of the Land Rover and I am reasonably confident that my driver had his SA80 rifle. It was a benign environment and I did not need protected mobility. But then the situation changed for reasons that the useless Chilcot inquiry may eventually tell us. Following tours had to adopt a much higher state of readiness and needed better equipment, and this was not anticipatable.
The final difficulty is morale. It does not improve morale anywhere in defence to have to endure all this completely unfair and inaccurate criticism. For instance, imagine that you are an expert in the DSTL and read a report suggesting that the very clever equipment you are developing and deploying is in some way inadequate. I have made this point before and I will make it again. I think that trying to pin responsibility for an individual fatality arising from Operation TELIC 1 against the then Labour defence Ministers is outrageous. There may well be questions about the legality, necessity, grand strategy and post-conflict planning of TELIC 1. However, the operation was militarily brilliant. We are one of the few nations in the world that could have undertaken it at all. Most nations cannot even get close to what we can do. We deployed a division out of theatre. We helped to get a regime to collapse at the cost of a mercifully low number of casualties, tragic though they were. The reality of military operations is that one never has all the training or equipment that one would desire or that could be made available in time. What you need is far better training and equipment than your opponent has, and that is exactly what happened on Operation TELIC 1. Noble Lords should make no mistake: in a deployed headquarters every fatality hurts like hell. I know; I have been there.
My final point is that there is a perverse inverse law that the level of scrutiny attached to each fatality on an operation is inversely proportionate to the number of fatalities taken. Proof of this is that if we had taken 1,000 fatalities on Operation TELIC 1, would anyone be worried about the ones who are currently a cause célèbre? I think that the Committee knows the answer.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for having given the Committee the opportunity to examine the set of issues that are of fundamental importance for our Armed Forces and indeed for the Government. As my noble and learned friend explained, the amendment would end the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to service personnel engaged in military operations outside the United Kingdom. I have very great sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Recent legal developments have raised justifiable fears in many quarters that service personnel could be unwilling in future to take the rapid and high-risk decisions essential for operational effectiveness, due to the fear of litigation. The Government fully believe that international humanitarian law, as embodied in the Geneva conventions, should have primacy over human rights law in the field of armed conflict. Addressing that issue was a manifesto commitment for this Government.
None the less, for reasons that I shall explain, I cannot invite the Committee to press this amendment. The Government are concerned about and determined to address the risks arising from developments in international human rights law, which have the potential to impose ever greater constraints on the ability of the Armed Forces and the MoD to operate effectively while defending the UK and its interests. As pledged in my party’s manifesto, the Government are absolutely committed to replacing the Human Rights Act, and will be consulting in due course on our proposals for a Bill of Rights. It is only right that that consultation should include the important question of how the Bill of Rights should apply outside the UK, and will ensure that all aspects of the change are properly and fully considered, not least its implications for the rights of our own Armed Forces, which would be affected by this measure. So I suggest that it is in the broader context of a Bill of Rights that these important issues are best considered. We are working closely with the Ministry of Justice as it develops its proposals.
I was very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for his intervention. When we speak about combat immunity, there are two issues that need to be distinguished, as he made clear. There are negligence claims and common law, where service personnel believe that the MoD or the Government have put them at undue risk—for example, due to decisions on procurements—and then there are human rights claims under the Human Rights Act or the ECHR, which are claims against the MoD brought either by service personnel in respect of injury or death or by civilians.
On the first of those categories, the negligence claims, I was grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord West. We are concerned that the Smith judgment has left the position on liability for events on the battlefield unclear. That is why we are considering legislation to bring about the necessary clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me what harm could result from the Smith case. My response is that, as my noble and learned friend explained, in the Smith case—with no disrespect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—there were such strong differences of opinion between members of the Supreme Court that it is reasonable for thought to be given to legislating.
We recognise that there is a concern about UK court decisions eroding the doctrine of combat immunity, which prevents legal claims being brought against the Government for negligence in the course of duty in armed conflict. However, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has indicated that his amendment would make provision only with respect to the second category that I mentioned, injury or death of members of the Armed Forces. It would not deal at all with claims brought against the MoD under human rights law in respect of the actions of members of the Armed Forces—for example, by Iraqi nationals. The Government are concerned about both classes of case, and our ongoing work relates to both.
I should make clear that my noble and learned friend’s amendment relates to human rights claims and those claims brought under the ECHR. We are concerned about both types of case and are examining them in the context of our work on the Bill of Rights.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked, in effect, why we could not legislate more speedily, perhaps through this Bill. I am as keen to make speed with this as he is but, alas, we are not quite yet ready. There are a number of areas that we are looking into, including examining different areas of legislation where changes could be made and what more we could do to support our Armed Forces personnel and their families. Work is under way, and we will be announcing further detail in due course.
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising this important issue today. It has been a truly excellent debate. I am confident that when we come to introduce our proposals for the Bill of Rights, we will address effectively the problem that is rightly of concern to him, and we will do so in the context of a much needed and thorough overhaul of our domestic human rights law. On that basis, I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Armed Forces: Future Force 2020
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will know, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have an approach whereby they tend to train those already in regular service, but there is also a reliance on reserves. It is a question of getting the balance right in each discipline.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, surely the answer to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Touhig—about which country is making use of specialist reserves—is the United States. The National Guard makes very great use of reserves—far greater than we do.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course, at the moment we have a much more flexible set of arrangements to integrate regulars and reserves than we did in the past. We can call up reservists at very short notice. Cyber is, once again, a good example. It is a discipline that often allows lateral entry at a more senior rank than would be the norm for general applicants on first joining. Indeed, the Royal Marines have a cyber specialisation to provide the maritime element of the joint cyber unit. That specialisation is formed from qualified practitioners recruited from industry and academia.
Armed Forces Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and to our most excellent maiden speakers.
I believe that the constitutional arrangements whereby we expend the service discipline Act annually by order and five-yearly by Act of Parliament is the right arrangement. I remind the House that I have an interest as I am technically still a commissioned officer in the Reserves, but not for long, since I will have to hang my boots up on my 60th birthday. I have exercised summary jurisdiction under the Army Act 1955 and in my very early days I was on the receiving end of it, although in retrospect I realise that it was probably much more to do with accounting for a lost camp-bed than for anything I might have done wrong. In answer to my noble friend Lord Lyell, I was using the Army Act 1955 in 1998 and it was still being used until the 2006 Act came into force.
I do not have any problems with the provisions of the Bill, but I regard it as an opportunity to raise a number of G1, or rather J1, issues, and not just service discipline arrangements. The difficulty with defence legislation is that the needs of the majority in the Armed Forces have to be balanced with the rights of the individual. I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord West, and other noble Lords have said about the Human Rights Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised the issue of the age of recruitment. Perhaps the Minister could not just put the correspondence in the Library but share it with all of us who have taken part in the debate, as that would be very helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, talked about the statistics regarding “inappropriate behaviour”, if I may put it that way. I would be interested to see how those same questions and statistics compare with the experience in industry. It may be better or worse, but it would be useful to know what the difference is.
I will touch on “pay as you dine”. A few years ago, junior service people were charged for their food, whether they took it or not. This caused some resentment, and prior to the 1997 Parliament new arrangements were studied and were later put into place. In Committee, I will table some purely probing amendments to explore how the system is currently working.
I was very surprised that no noble Lords raised the issue of women in the front line. We already have women serving courageously in the front line and in harm’s way. They will engage the enemy as vigorously as their male colleagues. The issue is whether they should take on a role which is primarily to close with the enemy and kill him. Women are currently precluded from serving in the infantry or the Royal Armoured Corps operating armoured fighting vehicles. It is possible that, in respect of armoured fighting vehicles, women have advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. However, as regards the infantry, “closing with the enemy and killing him” is a brutal, bloody business. Physical strength is all-important. Since the average male is far stronger than almost all females, it follows that allowing women to serve in the infantry will reduce the combat effectiveness of the British Army and therefore I would strongly oppose it. There is of course an acid test for this issue. In the event of general war and conscription, would noble Lords be prepared to conscript women to serve in the front line? I very much doubt it.
We have talked a lot about the Government’s policy for the reserves, and while I have my misgivings I have a helpful suggestion; I will read very carefully what my noble friend Lord Freeman said. I believe that we should blur the distinction between regular and reserve service. This may be particularly relevant to cyber-reservists. Perhaps we should think of reserve service much more as being in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces but on a zero-hours contract. Rather than have me blunder around in the dark, it would be helpful if the Minister could arrange for me to be properly briefed on the current legal situation as soon as possible.
We have heard much about the military covenant, one of the principles of which is that no one who serves should be disadvantaged by that service. Over the last year or so, we have seen a retired officer of stratospheric seniority, who will have held the highest security classification, and who is also a Member of your Lordships’ House, having his public reputation traduced by a police investigation called Operation Midland. The public were told that the evidence was “credible and true”. As we know, parts of the operation were carried out in the full glare of publicity and not discreetly and sensitively. Of course, no one—but no one—is above the law and we need to give the police operational independence. However, I know that many noble Lords are deeply unhappy about this matter, which is fast moving, with developments even today. My main effort will have to wait for the next police and crime Bill, but I will table several amendments to address some of these concerns where they are relevant to the Armed Forces Bill. These might not necessarily be probing amendments, especially on Report.
I turn to the Blackman case. Several years ago, I told the House that service personnel deploying on operations have a secret dread fear, which is misconduct on operations. It is a sad fact that, if we are engaged in operations, sooner or later something will go wrong such as in this case. The House will recognise that the reason why we have a system of military discipline is so that our members of our Armed Forces, who are lawful combatants, will engage the enemy when required and, most importantly, they will adhere to the law of armed conflict and treat captured and injured enemies as they would want to be treated themselves. The fact that the enemy might not reciprocate is immaterial. We will not descend to the enemy’s level.
For years and years, during my annual training on the law of armed conflict I watched a video which covered some of the crucial points. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, has watched the very same video. Among the points were the duty to protect vulnerable non-combatants and cultural items and, most importantly, that wounded enemy get medical treatment according to clinical priorities and not according to whose side they are on. The video also made it clear that you cannot kill the enemy once he is wounded and no longer able to fight. There was absolutely no doubt on these points and the current training is even more detailed and carefully delivered.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, knows very well that I hold both him and the Royal Marines in the very highest regard. However, I have to part company with him on this issue. I am very sorry for Blackman and his family. When he comes out of prison I would support him in seeking good employment.
Lord Burnett
I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. The thrust of Sergeant Blackman’s case is that he shot a man he thought was dead; we should all be careful about what we say about the case, because the papers are now with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and we await what its judgment will be on the facts.
Earl Attlee
I am grateful for that. I was going to say that he is a good man but he has fouled up, and has been convicted in the courts of a serious military offence and has to be disciplined, however unpleasant that is for everyone.
The noble Lord called into question the court martial system and in particular the experience of the officers on the board. Those comments were rather adventurous. I have served on two or three court martials but only for much less serious matters, and certainly not involving the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I can assure the House that, in my experience, the mindset of the board is to acquit if at all possible. Your Lordships will recall that the court martial acquitted Marines B and C, and I am bound to say that I would have been surprised if a civilian court had done so.
The noble Lord implied that the officers on the board would have difficulty in understanding the operational conditions at the time of the incident. That is not a fair criticism but, in any case, how much more difficult would it be for a jury in the Old Bailey? The reality is that of course Crown Court juries are forever deciding cases where they have no experience of the relevant environments, such as drug dealing, gang culture and organised crime.
In the past, I have intervened in support of service personnel who have been prosecuted when I believed that something had gone wrong. The Trooper Williams case comes to mind. I am very sorry, but nothing has gone wrong with the system and my counsel to the Minister is to do nothing. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, who, as I have said, I have high regard for. Fortunately, there is much common ground between us. I look forward to Committee.
Strategic Defence and Security Review
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That this House takes note of the United Kingdom’s role in supporting international security and stability in the light of the strategic defence and security review.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am honoured to lead this debate today, although I fear that I am probably the least experienced speaker. I do not believe that yesterday’s debates and vote in Parliament have pre-empted our discussions this afternoon. The issue yesterday was about current and imminent military operations. Today, the issue is the Government’s SDSR White Paper, which concerns creating international stability and security in order to avoid conflict or confrontation arising in the first place, and, failing that, ensuring that we have the appropriate military capabilities to deal with any foreseeable problems. Post Mumbai and other large-scale atrocities, the horrific events in Paris do not mean that the White Paper is already out of date. It clearly anticipates such events and seeks to avoid them. I am sure that many noble Lords will want to cover the security situation in MENA because it is so central to our situation.
Today, we can look forward to no less than four maiden and 27 other speakers. Even with the time I have available, I cannot hope to cover all the ground of the SDSR. However, in due course, I think that we need to have far more detail about what is proposed in order to measure progress in future years.
The White Paper makes much of the fact that a strong economy is a prerequisite of a successful security and defence policy. Noble Lords will be aware that we spend more on interest payments on the national debt than we do on defence, and we simply cannot go on running a budget deficit for ever. At some point we have to pay off the debt. In the 2010 SDSR the Government had to make some very painful decisions and we have to be clear that they took on some significant risks.
I welcome the general tone of the White Paper, although it is necessarily rather more robust and stern than some of its predecessors. It offers three national security objectives. Objective 1 is to protect our people by meeting the NATO 2% target and investing in agile, capable and globally deployable Armed Forces. Of course, I would like to see more than 2% but one has to be realistic.
We are to respond robustly to the re-emergence of state-based threats, including with the renewal of the nuclear deterrent. The fight against terrorism, radicalisation and extremism at home and overseas will be prioritised by a range of sensible measures.
Objective 2 is to protect our global influence primarily with soft power. We will be spending 0.7 % of GNI on official development assistance—in other words, overseas aid with a slightly more relaxed definition, although still within OECD guidelines. I will return to this later. I was particularly pleased to hear about the increased resources to be allocated to the BBC World Service and the British Council. In the future we will be developing alliances, building new, stronger partnerships and seeking to persuade potential adversaries of the benefits of co-operation.
Finally, objective 3 is to promote our prosperity. We will do this by promoting a rules-based international order. Interestingly, we will be maximising prosperity opportunities from our defence, security, diplomatic and development activities. However, I hope that this does not mean that we will be relaxing our defence export control regime.
Some in my party question the wisdom of spending 0.7 % of GNI on ODA and protecting the aid budget, even in the difficult conditions of 2010. My background is military—that is, hard power—although I have also run an overseas aid operation. Nevertheless, I am sure that this is the right approach. When you look at the cake of government expenditure, the biggest slices, in order, are welfare, health, education, state pensions, interest payments, then defence at around £35 billion, and then, after several other ever-thinner slices, the DfID budget. Even with no aid budget at all, the cake would look no different and defence’s slice would look no bigger. For the reasons described in the White Paper, we need to have both soft and hard power. Of course, it is essential to spend ODA wisely and Command Paper 9163 describes how that will be achieved.
Paragraph 3.18 of the national security strategy covers the resurgence of state-based threats and, in particular, Russia’s behaviour. I approve of the tone and the drafting, especially where it is made clear that we want to co-operate. I think that we need to be very careful to make sure that we understand the Russian viewpoint. I suspect that their map of the world looks rather different from ours. That is one reason why I welcome the return to your Lordships’ House of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Fairfax as an elected hereditary Peer. He has much experience of Russia. I hope that after making his interests clear, he will not hesitate to regularly give us his insight.
I will leave cyber and technology to others, apart from welcoming what the White Paper says and making three of my own points. It is becoming apparent that, apart from the UK and France, EU states are poor at exchanging data, and we do not know who is in the UK at any time.
The White Paper mentions Galileo, which, as a satellite system, is just as vulnerable as GPS. Can the Minister say where we are with the terrestrial eLoran system, which might be much harder to interfere with?
I welcome the Government’s decision to renew the deterrent and have a vote in the House of Commons. I wonder how much time and money was wasted by the coalition Government due to the Lib Dems insisting on studying alternatives to a submarine-launched ballistic missile system when most of us are clear that there are not any. Can the Minister confirm that it is now necessary to run the Vanguard class of SSBN longer than was intended by the last Labour Government, even if it can be done safely?
I am sure that many noble Lords will talk about the maritime patrol aircraft. I was first briefed on the RMPA project before the 1997 election. It seemed even then to be an extraordinary project. The plan was to take an existing aircraft and give it new wings, engines and avionics but save the fuselage. Why not just buy a new aircraft and system, which would be far less risky? I was very surprised that the party opposite, in government, persisted with the project.
For SDSR 2010, I think it was better to cut a capability completely than degrade a lot of other capabilities by the traditional salami-slicing technique—but yes, of course it made it more difficult to ensure that the deterrent remained undetected, as I am sure many noble Lords will remind us today. It may be very inconvenient and challenging to get the necessary help from our allies in the current relatively benign strategic threat environment. However, no one is going to plan a strategic attack on the basis that there is a possibility that they might fleetingly know the location of one NATO SSBN. The beauty of having three closely aligned states with SSBN is that there is just too much uncertainty for a potential aggressor. It works.
I turn to other hard-power issues. The Royal Navy is just not big enough, but I strongly support the concept of the aircraft carriers because they can provide vigorous and independent air support to our forces deployed ashore. The White Paper talks about extending the role of the Type 45 to include ballistic missile defence. Presumably, that would be in a theatre or area role with interception in the terminal phase. Perhaps the Minister can tell us a bit more about that.
By the 2030s, the Royal Navy will have some new general purpose frigates. Can the Minister confirm that these will be proper warships and will carry and operate a helicopter? Although the offshore patrol vessels are not warships, but will be armed, I think that they will have much utility. I have seen the Irish OPVs being built at the Appledore shipyard, and I hope that the forthcoming shipbuilding strategy will secure a future for warship building, and not just in Scotland.
I am very concerned about the state of the Army. I recognise that I am not a capability manager. However, I think that we have too great a proliferation of armoured and protected mobility platforms, with too many UOR vehicles being taken into general service. These vehicles were designed for one particular operation, with no account being taken of long-term sustainability or other military requirements.
Currently, we have only three regular Challenger tank armoured regiments. Since we will only have two armoured infantry brigades, if I am correct, does that mean that we will be down to only two armoured regiments?
The White Paper indicates that two infantry battalions are to be reconfigured for defence engagement. It sounds to me as though a more accurate description is “downgraded and reduced”. Presumably, these battalions will not have the capability of even a light-role battalion. Can the Minister confirm that I am right in my thinking and what the headcount of these battalions will be?
Apparently there are to be 10,000 military personnel available to assist the civil authorities at short notice. Can the Minister confirm that this is MAC A, military assistance to the civil authority, and not MAC P, military assistance to the civil power, and that MAC P in the UK is normally only provided by Special Forces when military primacy takes place for only a short time? I think that it would be helpful if the Minister could explain exactly what this policy means.
Regarding air power and the RAF, I welcome the enhancements outlined in the White Paper. We also now have a much-improved and modern transport fleet that is well-placed to support future operations.
Finally, I turn to personnel. I think that this will be the biggest challenge in delivering the SDSR in future years, in particular nuclear and other highly skilled technical people, both in and out of uniform. I think that some very senior officers have a touching faith in what can be achieved with contractors, especially in theatre. Interestingly, the White Paper has almost nothing to say about reserves. Perhaps we will see a paper on that later.
I am a little worried about what might be behind some of the White Paper’s comments regarding accommodation, pay and allowances. Personally, I would like to see the Armed Forces pay review body take a rather more proactive role in ensuring that the Armed Forces are able to attract the right quality of recruit.
I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, especially the Minister for answering it. I agreed with almost all noble Lords, although I think that some of them need to research the existence of the Fleet Air Arm. I remembered during the debate that I had forgotten to raise one particularly obvious point but, fortunately, no other noble Lords raised it, so I can keep it for another event. In the mean time, I beg to move.
House of Lords: Questions
Earl Attlee Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I agree that we have a problem. About 10 years ago, if I had got fed up with a Minister regarding his Written Answers, I would roll into the Minute Room and say: “Starred Question—next available slot to ask Her Majesty’s Government about it”. We cannot do that now, so we have a problem.
I think that the Opposition Front Bench should be able to ask supplementary questions at Question Time on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, but not necessarily all the time. We did try five Questions in 35 minutes a few years ago but it was a failure because your Lordships got bored with it. I think that four Questions in 30 minutes is right. It is long enough to expose the Minister’s difficulty, or for the Minister to convince the House.
I have two observations. The first one is that asking an Oral Question is perhaps the most challenging procedure in your Lordships’ House, especially when you are on the opposition Benches, because the Minister holds all the cards. The Minister knows what his response will be but the person asking the Question does not know what he will say and has only milliseconds to decide which supplementary to use. It is a very difficult procedure. That may be why some noble Lords are reluctant to table Oral Questions.
My second observation is in answer to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and I would like to boast a little bit, because I am told that I hold the record for the number of supplementary questions answered by a Minister—I think it is at least 12 and may even be 13. I told my officials that I would answer very briefly because noble Lords want to be able to say at a dinner party, “I asked the supplementary question about that”; they do not want to say, “I listened to a long Answer from the Minister”.