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

Debate between Lord Beamish and Dai Havard

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and the Defence Committee for their work on the Bill. The Committee produced an excellent report covering some major concerns about the system of redress for members of our armed forces which, I have to say, have been raised for many years. The amendments tabled in Committee and on Report today show how effective a Select Committee can be when it does its job. We covered many of the amendments in Committee, and as the hon. Gentleman said, he is not going to press his to a vote, but some of these issues will need to be looked at in regulations. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said that she would keep a close eye on the regulations, and I am sure that the Committee will as well.

The issue that amendments 24 to 28 deal with has followed me throughout my time in Parliament—I was on the Committee that discussed similar matters when we set up the Service Complaints Commissioner—so I am pleased today that we are moving to where we should have been back then, with an ombudsman with the powers and effectiveness that our armed forces require. On the commissioner’s length of service, the suggestion, which we supported in Committee, is between five and seven years, to give the person time to establish themselves and avoid the situation that we see with many public appointments where the person spends more time in the last few years trying to ensure their reappointment than doing an effective job. For that reason, we will have to consider the time limits for the ombudsman.

When we set up the commissioner, it was argued vociferously, especially by Conservative Back Benchers, that they had to have military experience, but I think the present commissioner has shown otherwise. She has done a very effective job without a service background and has earned the respect of the members of the armed forces she has worked with, and I look forward to the new armed forces ombudsman carrying on that tradition. It is important that the position be seen to be independent and that it gives complainants confidence that individuals cannot use the old boys’ network, as it was called in Committee, to influence the ombudsman or commissioner. Much strength has been gained from having someone, in Susan Atkins, who has done a forensic job and taken the trouble, time and effort to understand how our armed forces work and the cultural differences between them. As those who have dealt with them know, they are very different, have their individual cultures and in the past have differed in their implementation of various forms of discipline.

Under the amendments, the Defence Council would consult the ombudsman before making regulations, which, again, I do not see as a threat; it could help the council and the MOD ensure that regulations have an independent eye cast over them. Just as the Defence Committee has played a role in developing the Bill, so I see a role for it in scrutinising regulations and how it is put into practice. It might be a good idea for it to look back, perhaps in a year or so, to see how it has worked in practice.

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend was a signatory to the 2003 report that followed the Deepcut barracks incidents, when the Committee started work on such a system. I pay tribute to him and other Committee members who have worked consistently to get to this situation, and I am sure that the next Committee will be equally diligent in ensuring we go further. Would he agree?

[Mr Jones]

What—praise myself? Surely not, so modest as I am! I wish to put on the record, however, my thanks to my hon. Friend, who is retiring at the election, for his service on the Committee. I think he has been a member for most of his time in Parliament. He has not only shown a keen interest in the subject, but cares about the issues.

I will develop the point further on Third Reading, but it is good to see this legislation coming into being. Should it have happened earlier? Yes. Do the inerrant conservatisms within the system work? Yes, I think they do. When the idea of having an armed forces Service Complaints Commissioner was brought forward, to hear some people talking about it one would have thought that the earth would stop spinning on its axis if such a person were created—but it has not: it has helped the chain of command and provided greater transparency over the tough decisions that we recognise have to be made. When this Bill comes into force, the same question will arise again—why did we not do this many years before?

Amendments 32 to 36 deal with the issue of whether the ombudsman will have teeth and whether the decisions she takes should be accepted and then enforced on the Defence Council. I said in Committee that we would support the amendments. Time will tell, but I think it would be a brave Defence Councillor or Minister who turned round and rejected a recommendation from the armed services ombudsman. What the Defence Committee wanted to achieve through these amendments will in practice become simply a part of the normal system and the Defence Council will accept the ombudsman’s recommendations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend makes a good point in her amendment 23, and I pay tribute to her tenacity in pursuing this Bill and to her broader support for ensuring that when things go wrong in our armed forces, individuals get the justice they deserve. Her amendment refers to discrimination and harassment. She makes a good point that it is important for at least one of the individuals on the board to have full knowledge and training in relevant areas. The new ombudsman can look at the issues raised today and assist the armed forces by ensuring that the personnel on the panels have the necessary training and expertise.

We shall not press for a vote on the amendments, but many of the issues that have arisen from them today will be dealt with through regulations. It is important that, in drawing them up, the Ministry of Defence takes into account the clear concerns raised by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the Defence Committee. I would not want regulations somehow to limit or put a straitjacket on the operations of the new armed services ombudsman.

I said the same thing when the Service Complaints Commissioner was appointed, and I shall say it again. Our armed forces and the military generally have nothing to fear from this new appointment. It will enhance the transparency we expect and, if it is done properly, it will improve the problem identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend—that complaints are taking far too long to resolve. In any other walk of life, it would be unacceptable to allow such long delays. As I say, this will help the armed forces. Anyone who has ever dealt with a complaints system or disciplinary procedures knows that the quicker they are resolved the better. This helps to ensure that the system is fair and that, even if individuals do not like the outcome of the disciplinary procedures, they will at least know that their cases will be dealt with quickly and effectively.

I think that the Defence Committee has done a great job, and that the Bill has been vastly improved. I hope that some of the issues that have been raised here can be dealt with in regulations.

Armed Forces Personnel

Debate between Lord Beamish and Dai Havard

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), my colleague on the Defence Committee, and his comments about the poppy.

The debate today is about armed forces personnel, so I shall talk about them and not necessarily about Parliament. It is interesting to find out who the people who currently serve are. Over a number of years, through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have had the opportunity to engage with our forces in theatre and out of theatre. One finds that a fantastic variety of people make up our armed forces. They have a fantastic array of skills, some of which we bothered to give them and some of which they come along with in the first place.

I remember being in Kabul doing some canvassing for the presidential elections. I was masquerading as a soldier at the time and it was not for any particular candidate; it was about the process of presidential elections. I said, “Come on, boys. We had better go over here. We’ll go to the caff and have a word.” They said, “You’re good at this, aren’t you?” I said, “Well, one thing I ought to be reasonably good at is canvassing. You do the soldiering, I’ll do the canvassing.” We were walking up the street when all of a sudden the Fijian flanker I had been given to look after me started to chat to the locals. I said to him, “How come you speak the local language?” He said, “I’m Fijian. I went to school with people who speak Urdu, and I can get along with these people.” I asked, “You’re not an interpreter, then?” “No,” he said. “I just get on and do it.”

The Gurkhas seem to have some Babel fish in their ear. Wherever one goes with them, they are always in some way or another able to communicate with the local people. When I was in the Balkans, there were Chileans and people from the area with a Gurkha in the middle. For some reason or another, he was able to make those people understand one another in some fashion. In the Balkans, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will know, the Welsh also serve. Our communications fell down. The only reason we could speak to one another was that there were two Welsh boys with mobile phones and they could speak Welsh to one another, just like the wind talkers did for the Americans in south-east Asia.

There is a fantastic array of skills among our armed forces, but we have to equip them as well. They come with these skills by default and we use them, but we must not abuse them. One of the things that is missing from the debate is how we enable them to do the things we want them to do. I was in Iraq and the place was jumping, as it usually was when we went to Iraq. I was talking to an American, who said to me, “See, the difference is that we train warriors. They go forward—blitzkrieg—they can fight anything in front of them, but you train soldiers. Once the fighting is done, they take their helmet off, put the beret on and start to engage with people. They are multi-skilled, so it’s different. I don’t know what you do, but you train different people.”

That does not come about by accident. We must equip our armed forces and enable them. If, as the Minister said, we need to understand them, then we need to engage with them. I would recommend any Member to use the facilities of the armed forces parliamentary scheme to get under the wire and go and live in a tent or a ditch with those people for two or three days. Very often it will be, “And another thing—” so the Member will soon find out who they are.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I slept in a tent with my hon. Friend in Iraq when I served on the Defence Committee. Does he recognise that whenever we went anywhere, we always seemed to meet someone who was from Merthyr Tydfil?

[Mr Havard]

The “Taffia” is at work. That is true. At the local field hospital at Camp Bastion when we visited, Andy Morris, who is now Major Morris, was there as a paramedic. These are the people who jump in the back of helicopters and bring people out. He is a reservist, not a regular. There is a real debate to be had about what the balance of forces is going to be. The report by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is seminal. A decision will have to be made about the balance between regulars and reserves. We do not want to cheapen their capacity or their labour. We need to maintain and improve that quality. We must not make the mistake of using it as a way of cheapening the price, rather than improving the value.

The moral component is important. We heard reference earlier to war memorials. We all have the problem. I would like to find the bandit who nicked the bayonet off the Aberfan war memorial. We probably know who he is and where he lives, and we will get it back, but that is not the point. It is about respect. Tomorrow I will be in Rhymney comprehensive school, laying a wreath at the school at its memorial with the children. I will be visiting the cadets and the reserves at Maindy. We must engage with the people.

I do not have a big poppy. Perhaps the size of the poppy is important; I do not know. I have a 90th anniversary badge, given to me by the British Legion in Dowlais. There is a whole community involved. The social and economic impact that the Ministry of Defence has in all our communities is huge. We need to recognise that in deploying the resources that we have, because we also ask people to deploy.

Let me say a little about some of the things that we are discussing on the Defence Committee and the changes that are being made. Reference has been made to how it is possible to divide communities, as well as bringing them together. We can say that armed forces personnel have special interests, and therefore should have special services. By doing the right thing, we can inadvertently do something else and create divisions. Be careful that there is not a problem with consistency, rather than uniformity, in the application of these services across the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned that earlier, and the same applies to Wales. The National Assembly for Wales yesterday published a document about what it will do to improve services for veterans.

The organisation of the health service will be different, because it is very problematic, as is housing and the rest of it. There is a variable geography and the operational delivery of services varies between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, but the Ministry of Defence must understand that the covenant is a UK document that will apply to service personnel wherever they are in the UK. If it does not have some consistency of application, it will get it wrong. That is a real problem it needs to grapple with, and I hope that we can help.

The Defence Committee—perhaps I am giving away secrets—plans to produce a report on housing in the same way as we produced reports on veterans and casualties. As my friend the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire said, the Committee’s work is to bring those matters to Parliament, because it is a servant of the House and our work should be debated here. Frankly, it is a disgrace that the House has not had a proper debate on the matter in more than 12 months. However well meaning Front Benchers have been in today’s debate, they have their political knockabout and absorb the time and the way the debate is conducted is not in the hands of Back Benchers. I know that the Backbench Business Committee has become some sort of petitions committee by default, but I appeal to it to provide time for the House to debate the work the Committee has been doing and allow Back Benchers to say what they want to say beyond the direct control of the Executive, rather than by any other process.

I would like to say one more thing about understanding people. We deploy the armed forces, so we need to protect them. One of the current debates about respect relates to people’s respect for how they are deployed and what we send them to do. The armed forces are sometimes uncertain about their legal and moral status, and if we are not careful, that will cause difficulties for the operational capacity to do things on the ground. It is known in the trade to those of us who discuss these things as the “lawfare-warfare” debate; is it legal, but is it also morally defensible? If we want respect and legitimisation, we must not only enable and provide for those people, but give them and the community on whose behalf they work some certainty that they are being properly deployed to do things that they feel comfortable being deployed to do.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Lord Beamish and Dai Havard

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

The word “strategic” is in the title of the document, but we have heard several examples of how it is not a clearly formed strategy at the moment. At the end of his thoughtful speech, the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), explained where we are now and said we needed to form a clear, strategic view of where we will be in future, and that is a job that we must all do.

The debate has been a little deficient—this is understandable because we are considering the matter from the point of view of defence—for the reason that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) gave. The review is supposed to be about defence and security—that is what the annunciator screens say—but the security part is clearly deficient. The document on the national strategy from the National Security Council is all very well as far as it goes, but it is not clear to me where our foreign policy is in this debate; nor do I think it is clear where the home services stand in terms of the Home Office, policing and so on.

Some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman are telling. The only way to deal with the problems is not with large toys and pieces of kit, but with good old-fashioned police work and intelligence. There must be correct mixture of capability, including people as well as machinery. The cross-governmental aspect of the review was encouraging. In the Defence Committee during the last Parliament, I said that we were in effect already having a defence review, but in an ad hoc and unguided way that was not very helpful or useful. It should have been put into a proper structure much earlier. That is the missed opportunity because the review does not cover the whole of the subject in the title—strategic defence, including security.

There are many parts to the review. I echo some of the points that have been made about Trident. As I said back in July, we cannot take Trident out; well, we could formally, descriptively and all of that, but in reality we cannot, so it was all nonsense. Whether that was said for political reasons to do with the coalition partners is for history to show. There is probably a lot of power in those arguments, but the reality is that it was nonsense to try to proceed in that way.

The other thing that disturbs me is that some parts of the review have not been mentioned today. The lack of clarity about a defence industrial strategy is hugely important. I know that there will be a Green Paper, apparently by the end of this year. It is now November the something-or-other, so I do not know what is meant by the end of this year. I must tell the Minister that I hope we see the Green Paper before the recess comes; otherwise we will have no opportunity to consider it. Apparently there will be a White Paper some time next year, and then something beyond that. What key capabilities are we going to focus on? What direction are we giving to industry? Where is the strategy? Where is the plan? It is not there. We have to form it, and it is to the benefit of us all that we do so.

There is also the reform group—or whatever it is called—that has been set up to transform the Ministry of Defence. We had the reform acquisition strategy before the election. I wrote all this down so that I would not get it wrong, but at that time the Ministry of Defence said, “Well, don’t worry about it, because we’re transforming ourselves. We have the PACE programme”—performance, agility, confidence and efficiency—“the defence acquisition ‘Terms of business agreement’ process, the equipment and support plan, the acquisition operating framework, and the capability delivery practitioners guide.” We were told that the MOD had lots of other things, doubtless all recommended by a legion of consultants of various sorts—not medical consultants, but business consultants—about internal process. That methodology will clearly be part of the MOD’s review.

A number of reviews have been mentioned in other respects. The points that have been made today about force generation are important. I attended part of the presentation by the Marines about how they do things. They give clear costings, and they were not shy about saying what things cost them or how much time they took. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made an excellent contribution to the debate about what needs to happen with MOD processes. However, as all that unfolds and we do the work, my concern is where we are in that process. Who even is this “we”? What I have seen so far is a process that went forward over the summer, but which did not really involve the public or Parliament, as the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire said. In fact, there was a very narrow discussion among a narrow group of people, and it was therefore not as well informed as it should have been.

Scrutiny and involvement in the process are important, as is transparency. There was a review of Trident. Apparently something came out of the end of that review, but I have no real idea what process was used or what the results were. We need to understand better what is going to happen in that process if we are to end up with a better strategic review, which can serve as the overarching architecture, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex put it. The review may well be the framework for that debate, but it is not the debate itself, nor is it the end product, and to that degree it is deficient.

I shall finish now, because I know that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who is carrying the entire weight of the Liberal party today, needs to speak.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

He makes the same speech every time.

[Mr Havard]

Yes, but he is the only one here to make it.

There are issues to do with particular aspects of the review. I have concerns, partly because my local economy is affected, but the decision on St Athan and the training there is worrying. It is particularly worrying because, as the Chancellor and others have said, one way or another we have to find different ways of paying. We are talking about a private finance initiative. I have to say that I am not the greatest supporter of private finance initiatives in general, but what has happened prompts the question: why, having gone through a due diligence process pretty recently, was the facility not thought to be good enough? We now have a decision that that is not going to happen, but what is going to happen? All we have now is a vague declaration that something else will happen. The big question is about the training. It is about the people, and it is important that this aspect should not be lost in the review, with all the discussions about large pieces of equipment.

I could say a few words about the carriers, which we discussed on a number of occasions in the Defence Committee during the last Parliament. At one point, there was talk about having three carriers—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) would like to hear this, but he is not in his place—but that was on the basis of having two British carriers, with the French perhaps buying one off us and our making it for them with their Slingshot deck on it. All these discussions were going on, so this is not an entirely new argument, although it is new in some respects.

I thought a remark in yesterday’s edition of the Financial Times was prescient. It pointed out that if the Ministry of Defence gains the savings it declares it is going to get, it would be a good thing if they went back to the MOD, and did not just get lost in the coffers. If there is a dividend, the MOD should have it, not the Treasury.

[Mr Jones]

One issue raised by the treaty is whether markets, including the French defence market, would be opened up to British companies. Given my hon. Friend’s long membership of the Defence Committee and his close interest in defence matters, does he recollect whether the French have ever bought anything that does not have a main French component to it?

[Mr Havard]

I may be old, but no—that is the short answer, and it might go back longer than me. The French have a particular view about their sovereign capability, so my hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. The Defence Committee was asked to consider the trade treaty with the United States, and did some pre-work before it was agreed. The Americans have only just agreed to the treaty—it took them three years to ratify it. Included in it was important stuff related to technology transfer and the joint strike fighter. Yes, some other nations take a very parochial view: they claim to be free traders, but they often behave in a very—how can I put this? —protectionist fashion. That balance is always there. What comes out of it, I do not know. It will be interesting to find out what lies behind some of the declarations and whether it will change that form of acquisition.

I have a few small questions for the Minister. One is about helicopters and search and rescue. This may be a small aspect of defence, but it is very important, particularly in Wales, because we have to spend a lot of time calling people from Culdrose to come and rescue mostly English people off Welsh hills. In that sense, people in England have an interest in what happens in Wales as much as Welsh people do. It gives rise to a question about particular capabilities within the review. This service is under review and there are lots of individual programmes on which we need more clarity.

Some of the decisions are about timing. It is all very well saying we will have a defence review every five years. Let me tell Government Members that they will have an iteration in 2012 and another in 2014—whether they like it or not. That is because there will be political change in Afghanistan, and there is already political change going on in America. They should not try to pretend that this will work on some prescribed artificial timetable that might seem desirable today, because it will not. Events, dear boy, events—and some of those events are largely predictable because of watersheds in the political timetable set for us elsewhere as well as here. I hope that whatever the review going forward will be—in all its different component parts—it will be open. I hope that Parliament will be directly involved in the process.