Armed Forces Bill
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
“PART 14AArmed Forces Covenant340A”
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I know that the House is interested in hearing from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on an important amendment, and I invite noble Lords to leave the Chamber quietly so that he may begin to move his amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the government Chief Whip. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, winding up the Second Reading debate on this Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in a letter to me during the Summer Recess both agreed that it was inappropriate to insert the new section that appears in Clause 2 of this Bill after Section 359 in the 2006 Act because Section 359 dealt with pardons for servicemen executed for disciplinary offences in World War I. I had suggested at Second Reading that the new section in Clause 2 would be better placed in Part 14, which has the collective title “Enlistment, Terms of service etc”, relying on the “etc” to accommodate the new section. Part 14 heads the second group of parts in the 2006 Act.
However, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, retracted his acceptance and averred that no relationship is implied by that positioning in the Act. I sensed, and in a letter to me the Minister has confirmed, that government business managers are anxious to avoid returning the Bill to another place. It—or at least Clause 1—has to be given Royal Assent by 8 November, otherwise all three Armed Forces will have to be declared redundant. That will not happen, I am certain.
Bringing the Report and Third Reading dates forward is tacit admission by government business managers that improvements to the Bill, and particularly the issues addressed in the next and other amendments, are called for, and so more time is now available to get the Bill right.
I would hope to avoid further time and argument in favour of my new amendment if the Minister would indicate agreement for tabling the changes that I propose for Third Reading. Need I do more than remind him and the House of the strength of support for incorporating the covenant into legislation expressed by Mr Cameron? For example, quoting from the No. 10 website, he said:
“Our service personnel make an extraordinary contribution to British life … So all of us—the Government, the private sector, and the voluntary organisations—need to go the extra mile for them”.
He also said:
“The high esteem we all have for our armed forces will soon be given the recognition it deserves—as part of the law of the land”.
That is but one of the many supporting statements made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence about incorporating the covenant into statute. Surely the covenant must be given greater prominence in the revised 2006 Act, as my amendment proposes. It seems both mean and hypocritical to speak so strongly of support for the covenant and then to park the single statutory reference to it at the tail end of the 2006 Act and a group of miscellaneous sections that wind up the end of Part 17 of the second group of parts also entitled “Miscellaneous”.
Is not the covenant worthy of more than that, worthy of its own part in the revised 2006 Act? I hope that on reflection, and given the need to improve the wording and thrust of Clause 2, the Minister will agree to table an amendment at Third Reading. If not, I fear that all the Minister’s briefs are headed, “Resist” as the Government seek to steamroller this Bill through without having to return it to the Commons. Surely on a Bill of this non-partisan nature, and with the opportunity to review and revise the Armed Forces Act only once every five years, the Government must take note and accept the need for some revision of the Bill as it now stands. To resist every amendment negates all the praise and support that they say they have for the Armed Forces. Are the Government so insensitive to the needs of the forces, whose morale is reputedly shaken thanks to recent cutbacks, enforced redundancies and insensitive handling of personnel issues? The Armed Forces have performed their role with great valour and commitment on long-duration operations. Surely business managers can be less po-faced and will find the very limited time necessary to revise some details of the Bill, and get it right for the next five years. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, much has been said on Second Reading and in Committee about the matters which should be included in the Secretary of State’s annual report on the covenant. We have also looked at the question of auditing the operation of the covenant. Amendment 2, in my name, seeks to address these matters.
A great deal has been said about the role of the covenant reference group and I want to build on the responsibilities of the group by ensuring that it is given ample notice of the matters that the Secretary of State wishes to include in his annual report. I believe that that can be best done by the Secretary of State publishing the list of matters to be included in plenty of time. The covenant reference group should then be given time to consider the list and add to it if it thinks it right to do so. The Secretary of State should then be obliged to report on the additional matters referred to him by the group.
I have no doubt about the good intentions of the Secretary of State in coming forward with a proposal for an annual report but for that report to be credible, there must be an opportunity for matters other than those that the Secretary of State thinks should be included to be put into the report. My proposal is modest and there is a precedent for it. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, I recall that each year the Comptroller and Auditor-General, on behalf of the National Audit Office, would draw up a list of investigations that he intended to carry out in the year. That would then be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, which would have the opportunity to comment, amend or add to the list of inquiries that the Comptroller and Auditor-General would wish to investigate.
My amendment does not represent a major change to the Bill and I feel sure that if the Government reflect on it, they will see it is a step forward to greater participation and involvement of those most interested and concerned about the welfare of our serving men and women and our veterans.
We also hear a great deal these days about transparency in public life and my amendment underpins that. Involving the covenant reference group in the way that I am suggesting will act as a form of audit for the Government which would benefit us all and certainly answer a number of the concerns that several noble Lords have expressed during Second Reading and in Committee.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
It is for the convenience of the annual conference, not for the convenience of this House.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank all those who spoke to my amendment. I note that the Minister has moved from the heading “Resist” to that of “Consider further”. I hope that the consideration will prove amicable to us both. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
“( ) An armed forces covenant report must include a statement from—
(a) the Secretary of State for Health,(b) the Secretary of State for Education,(c) the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,(d) the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and(e) the relevant comparable ministers in the devolved assemblies,in respect of progress in fulfilling obligations to serving military personnel and their families, and to veterans.”
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, it will not have escaped the notice of the Minister that this amendment has the support of all sides of the House. It is a practical and workable attempt to bring together the various strands and ideas put forward in the excellent debate on this aspect of Clause 2 in Committee. The nub of the argument is that there are two principal constituencies of service personnel and their families. There are those who have left the Armed Forces and others who are still serving who, with their families, may need different consideration. I shall leave it to other noble Lords who have added their names to the amendment to expand on those points in their contributions.
I understand that there is in the Ministry of Defence not inconsiderable support for the concept of a commissioner to assist the Defence Secretary. Indeed, would the Minister be prepared to go so far as to confirm that this idea is favoured by Dr Fox and others in the MoD, so it could be acceptable in principle? If so, the debate and the arguments can concentrate on the best ways in which to bring the necessary assistance to the Defence Secretary in fulfilling his remit. If Amendment 6 is not yet to the Government’s liking, would the Minister consider one that captures the essence of the assurances about how the Government intend to handle the requirements of Clause 2, because that might well be a way forward?
The Minister made the valid point that this Government cannot commit their successors by mere words in a debate in your Lordships’ House; one looks for an Act of Parliament to do that. So I hope that we can still find a way to put into the Bill an amendment along these lines. However, should the Minister find that unacceptable, would he consider a clause that would allow for the creation of a new appointment—in shorthand let me call it the “commissioner”, but another title might be more appropriate—by secondary legislation, as experience in preparing the statutory annual reports expected from the Defence Secretary is gained? The Minister may argue that there is no need for secondary legislation as such a post could be set up without statutory authority, but my point is that it would be much better, and an indication of the importance attached to the way that the covenant is to be handled, if this potential need were to be covered in statute.
It is generally agreed that the covenant is a moral construct that does not lend itself to prescriptive or detailed rules and requirements, but if it is to be given the benefit of statutory recognition, as the Bill will achieve, it is worth making the importance of all aspects of the reports and their preparation clear, and in particular to make possible provision for further steps as experience is gained. The opportunity to do so arises only once in five years, so it seems sensible to take the opportunity now. There is wide agreement that the annual report is going to be a serious and important piece of work. I hope, having listened to the arguments from noble Lords, that the Minister will be prepared to agree with this amendment, but if not, will agree that a provision for the revision of the current proposals by means of secondary legislation would be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble and gallant Lord and to speak to Amendment 6. I think that we in this House are all aware of the low morale that exists today, sadly, in our Armed Forces. According to the Armed Forces continuous attitude survey of all service personnel, only 18 per cent regard morale as high, whereas 44 per cent regard it as low. In the RAF, only 9 per cent regard it as high and 62 per cent regard it as low; in the Navy, 9 per cent regard it as high and 56 per cent regard it as low. I think that it is obvious to us all why morale is so low, given the cancellations, the cuts and the recent unfortunate redundancies. So anything that we can sensibly do to add certainty and clarity to the Armed Forces covenant must be beneficial to Armed Forces morale.
Amendment 6 builds on the earlier amendment that I and other noble Lords moved in Committee. I am happy to acknowledge the movement in the Government’s position as a result of the contributions from noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. However, I still ask my noble friend and the Government to go just one step further and include in the covenant report specific statements from the respective Secretaries of State, thereby giving them part ownership of and direct responsibility for the report.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, noble Lords have made some very important points on both amendments this afternoon. I have listened very carefully. I repeat what I said earlier on the first group. Noble Lords wish to be absolutely clear as to which parts of government participated in the process of preparing the report and what position they have taken. My ministerial colleagues and I have already indicated that the Secretary of State will consult widely and will identify the source of the evidence and opinions that we include in the report. We have also noted that the annual report will be laid before Parliament on behalf of and with the approval of the whole Government. Nevertheless, I can go further by giving an undertaking that the Secretary of State will consult all UK government departments with a significant role in the delivery of services to serving personnel, veterans and their families and the three devolved Administrations. In the annual report he or she will confirm that he or she has consulted other government departments and the devolved Administrations, and will identify their contributions in the published report.
Having said all this, I will reflect again over the next day or two with my ministerial colleagues. I have asked my officials to do the same across government as a matter of urgency. I will be in touch with the noble and gallant Lord as soon as possible.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, which is clearly one of the most important in this part of the Bill. The Minister read out yet again the assurances that he wished to have on the record. I recognise that they are. However, he failed to repeat that this Government cannot commit their successors. We all know that. I feel very strongly that the only way in which successor Governments may be committed is by an Act of Parliament. They often overturn them but that is the right way to go. Therefore, I urge the Minister to continue in the way in which he has been moving, towards finding an acceptable compromise on which we can all come together. This is a non-partisan point and a very important Bill. We have only one year in five in which we can do something about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
“Commonwealth medals
After section 339 of AFA 2006 insert—“339A Commonwealth medals
Medals awarded by Commonwealth governments, including the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal, to present or former members of Her Majesty’s armed forces may be worn without restriction.””
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 13 in my name and that of other noble Lords mentioned on the Marshalled List. In the course of the debates on the topic of medals it has become clear to me that there is considerable ambiguity and genuine confusion over who is responsible, who does what and why, and when foreign awards may be accepted by British subjects with or without restriction. Restriction seems to mean that a recipient may accept an award but is not allowed to wear it.
It has been normal for the Foreign Office to handle awards from foreign states but that now seems to be in doubt. I asked a Written Question about the Malaysian Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal but it was answered not by an FCO Minister but by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. The noble Lord has since written to me to say that he has set in hand a review of the process by which advice about the institution of medals and the acceptance of foreign awards in respect of military service is put together, considered and submitted to the Queen.
I also raised in Committee the issue of the prerogative when it came to submissions to the sovereign. I quoted two examples of Written Ministerial Statements, in 2005 and 2006, which made clear that the rules of no double medalling and a five-year moratorium were government policy. The Minister, in a Written Answer about the prerogative, dated 23 September, states that these references to the Government, “are not strictly correct”.
Noble Lords will be taken aback to learn that such authoritative Statements to Parliament as two Written Ministerial Statements are not correct, or are deemed to be incorrect, in order to uphold a unique position claimed for the honours committee in relation to advice to the sovereign. I remind the Minister that in a reply to my Written Question in September about wearing the PJM medal, the noble Lord said about Commonwealth Governments:
“Each Government apply their own rules and judgment to their own citizens”.—[Official Report, 5/9/2011; col. WA 17.]
Is there really such a difference for the UK Government? It would appear not. In his letter to me and other noble Lords dated 23 September, the Minister states that,
“there remains under the Prerogative scope to make exceptions”.
In other words, Her Majesty follows the advice of her Ministers.
The Minister also claims that when an exception is allowed, the results are likely to be seen as anomalous or unfair. Surely, that is not the right conclusion to draw. Rather, it is that with the passage of time the rules themselves and officials who seek to hide behind them are the problem, not the numerous exceptions that have been granted over many decades. I am sure the Minister is right to have instituted the review. It should look at the so-called rules, and I welcome his assurance that a Written Ministerial Statement on the outcome will be forthcoming.
Amendment 13 should not be delayed because of any review. As I mentioned in Committee, the long-standing issue of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal has yet to be resolved. I visited Malaysia last June at the personal invitation of Prime Minister Najib. It was clear from what he told me and what I saw that Malaysia is now well on the way to achieving its vision of being a fully developed nation by 2020. Putting a restriction on the generous recognition of the contribution of many service and other personnel to the start of that process of development seems quite unnecessary and lacking in appreciation of the donor’s gesture and standing in the world. Even more bizarre, a British recipient has Her Majesty’s agreement to accept but not to wear the PJM, while an Australian serviceman has Her Majesty’s approval to accept and to wear it. How confusing and frustrating must that be to an individual with dual nationality?
As I have already mentioned, in his response to my Written Question about the PJM, the Minister attempted to explain this anomaly away when he said:
“Each Government apply their own rules and judgment to their own citizens”.—[Official Report, 5/9/2011; col. WA 17.]
In other words, the Government are in the lead and Her Majesty is following that advice. How does that sit with the claim that the honours committee is independent of government? Once again, we have confusion and conflicting answers to the same Question. No contortionist could so ridiculously point in so many different ways at the same time. Other Commonwealth countries are also making giant strides in development, and this Government are anxious rebuild and reinforce the ties of Commonwealth. For these reasons, I believe that now is the time to make special provision for awards from Commonwealth countries. With the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting due at the end of this month in Perth, it would be a positive announcement for the Prime Minister to make at that meeting.
A further argument sometimes prayed in aid of the discredited restrictive rules is that the presence of a second award on the chest of an individual somehow reduces the value of the national award. I wonder whether that is really right. The individual can take pride in both and his contribution is clearer to those who see the medal ribbons on his uniform. I recently saw a photograph of the late Lord Mountbatten of Burma. He had 10 rows of medal ribbons on his Admiral of the Fleet uniform. I am sure he was proud to be able to display them all, but I shudder to think how the honours committee of the day managed to recommend so many exceptions to their precious rules so close to the date of their original adoption. I invite the Minister to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, as in Grand Committee, I support every word of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig. Unlike in Grand Committee, I have not brought my PJM medal with me; nor have I brought my General Service Medal with its clasp, showing that I was involved in confrontation in Borneo, but they are two medals for the same thing.
Another aspect of the unfortunate way in which this issue has been handled relates to the veterans who raised the issue of the PJM with the Government. They were, frankly, treated in a way that I would not have expected of the Ministry of Defence. The HDC—the Honours and Decorations Committee—may have met, but if it did so, it did so internally and did not share any of its findings. The letter that was then sent to the veterans was unworthy of the ministry. I am grateful to the Minister for announcing that he is going to revisit this, and I hope that this time there will be proper transparency so that the veterans are aware of the arguments and that they are not just produced in secret and, as my noble and gallant friend has said, erroneously.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, the Minister has obviously given a lot of thought to this subject. Nevertheless, I am extremely disappointed, not only that he does not accept the amendment but that his opening remarks took no account at all of the numerous anomalies and differences between what he was saying was the position and what the reality has been. I leave him with that thought, but meanwhile I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Armed Forces Bill
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
“Armed forces covenant339A””
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, at Second Reading I drew attention to the Government’s positioning of this important clause in the existing Armed Forces Act 2006. Clause 2 is entitled in bold type, “Armed forces covenant report”, and the wording is to be inserted after Section 359 into the 2006 Act as new Section 359A. Section 359 is one of a number of sections towards the back of the 2006 Act, listed as “Miscellaneous”. I pointed out that Section 359 concerns “Pardons for servicemen executed for disciplinary offences: recognition as victims of First World War”. This is an unfortunate juxtaposition for the requirement to report on the covenant, a covenant to which the Prime Minister and many members of the Government have given their strong support. I invited the Government to think again about the placing of this provision because appearances can be important. In winding up, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, accepted that this could be reconsidered.
At Second Reading I criticised not only the placement of Clause 2 but made what I hope was a sensible suggestion for it to be inserted immediately after Section 339 rather than Section 359 and numbering it Section 339A. This would place it in Part 14 of the 2006 Act, headed “Enlistment, Terms of Service etc”. During the Recess I had a letter from the Minister which indicated that, following inquiries with parliamentary counsel and the House authorities, it should be possible to arrange for the position of the Armed Forces covenant section to be changed so as to insert it in the 2006 Act as new Section 353A in Part 17, entitled “Miscellaneous”. I responded saying that I would not challenge the Minister’s intention that the new section should be placed in Part 17 rather than in Part 14 as I had proposed, even though I think that the covenant is rather more important than a miscellaneous adjunct to the Act.
Noble Lords will also have spotted that my amendment inserts the words “Armed forces covenant” as an italic centre heading to the new section, while the Minister proposes to use the words “Armed forces covenant report” as his italicised centre heading. These words are also in bold font at the start of the new section. My service writing directing staff would, I am sure, have red-inked the same phrase appearing in a centre heading and an immediately following side heading. Omitting the word “report” from the italicised centre heading would also allow any further new sections about the covenant to be added at a future time if that were required, without a change to the centre heading. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider this, and explain why, as his letter claimed, it might be possible to achieve the positioning of this new section by a “printing change”, which is a new concept for me. If this is not achievable, can the Committee expect the Minister to table an amendment on Report to reposition this important clause?
As I am on my feet, and with the leave of the Committee—I have already spoken to the right reverend Prelate—may I speak to Amendment 3, which is also in my name? It is, of course, a probing amendment. To save space and complexity in the Marshalled List, I have amended only the first reference to “Secretary of State” in the new section. He is repeatedly referred to, and my proposal should be read to apply to the words “Secretary of State” throughout it.
Why do I think that the Secretary of State is not the right person to report on veterans affairs? I made some comments on that on Second Reading and do not wish to go over all that now. I think that the Committee shares the feeling that someone other than the Secretary of State is the person who should make the annual reports. The Minister will be able to judge for himself the strength of that feeling as we debate the issue.
What should be done instead? On Second Reading, I drew attention to the arrangement made when the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, was made the first Minister for the Disabled over 40 years ago. He specifically did not wish to be embedded in the department for health or any of the other departments that would have an interest in and responsibilities for the disabled. He wished to be able to operate across departments and to bring together their specific involvements with the disabled, which of course cover many issues of interest to veterans too—health, education, local community support and so on. Indeed, there is a good list of appropriate fields in Amendment 5. A Minister for Veterans would be well placed in the Cabinet Office. The Prime Minister of the day accepted the arguments and reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and we all know how successful the noble Lord was and has been ever since in his support and advocacy for the disabled. The arrangements made by Command Paper 7424 in July 2008 for the external reference group, now the covenant reference group, to operate within the Cabinet Office seem an excellent start on which to build and establish a Minister with responsibility for veterans policy in the Cabinet Office. If this idea were taken up, it would also give a far greater indication of the Government’s commitment to veterans and their interests.
In the United States, there is of course a separate Department of Veterans Affairs. Our veteran numbers are no match for the United States, but the principle of separating defence policy and policy for overseeing veterans affairs is a sound one. We should adopt it too. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who added his name to my two amendments, is unfortunately away from London at this time. I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, my Amendment 12 is also in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. It refers specifically to the Minister for Veterans Affairs being in the Cabinet Office rather than the Ministry of Defence. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I have raised the matter on a number of occasions. The comparison with the success of the Minister for Disabilities, which he mentioned, is mirrored by another appointment by the previous Government—the Minister for the Third Sector, who was able to speak from the Cabinet Office and unite the activities of the voluntary sector across the whole spectrum of ministries. It seemed to work extremely well.
I have always gone further. To my mind, the Government have created the ideal post in the Minister for Civil Society, who already has to pull together all the people responsible for the support of veterans in the community as a whole. Rather than necessarily appoint another separate Minister for Veterans Affairs, it would seem logical that that could be added to the portfolio of the Minister for Civil Society, who is already there with a role that precisely mirrors what is required for veterans.
As we have seen, the Minister for Veterans Affairs actually covers every other ministry, including the Ministry of Defence, but has no real rights to interfere with their activities from where he currently is. In addition, the Minister who has the responsibility for veterans affairs now has a very large number of responsibilities, which may in fact inhibit his ability to speak with all the ministries—those of health, transport, work and pensions, communities and local government and so on—that are so vital in veterans affairs. He is responsible for the approach to service personnel and civil servants, reserves, cadets, the Defence Vetting Agency, the MoD Police and Guarding Agency, the People, Pay and Pensions Agency, service children’s education, the Met Office and the Hydrographic Office, in addition to the Service Personnel Veterans Agency. He is already a very busy man. If he has all those responsibilities I do not see how he can carry out all the responsibilities for veterans, particularly as foreseen in the report that is going to have to be made by this covenant. If he were in the Cabinet Office, to which everyone had to report, then you could establish a mechanism to make certain that all the right ingredients were in the report when it was presented to Parliament.
Lord Craig of Radley
I thank the Minister very much for that comprehensive Answer. As regards my Amendment 1, I would like to be clear that if the printing change is not acceptable the Government intend to move their own amendment to correct the present position as regards Section 359. If that is not the case, I shall certainly want to return to that. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has covered this topic extremely well so I do not wish to add much to it. The only point to stress is that the issue of a postcode lottery might affect not only those who are getting help from the various devolutions, and so on, but will affect everybody in the sense that they may fear that it might affect them. It is worth giving a lot of consideration to what can be done about it. I sense that there is an acceptance that it is bound to happen; there is not much we can do, so let it happen. But by the time the media get a hold of one or two cases that attitude will prove not to have been the best one to adopt. I hope that a real effort will be made to try to bring it together as far as is humanly possible, or to be seen to be trying to do so, to ensure that we do not have problems with that particular issue.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 14 and 15. I recognise clearly the difficulties that come with devolution but it is an issue with which the Government now have to grapple, and do so successfully. I do not believe that we can accept a postcode lottery associated with devolved Administrations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, our Armed Forces exist to defend the people and interests of the whole United Kingdom, not parts of it. The corollary is that the Armed Forces covenant and the consequences and implications of that covenant should cover the whole of the United Kingdom and not parts of it. When base closures are up for discussion, many devolved Administrations are only too keen to ensure that they retain military installations on their territory. The corollary of that is that they should accept all the consequences and implications of those bases, including with regard to the Armed Forces covenant. If they cannot or will not do this, the obvious alternatives are either to relocate those installations to England or to treat them as overseas postings, with all that that might imply in terms of the provision of service schools, access to hospitals and all the cost that goes with that.
It is not acceptable to say to our Armed Forces personnel, “You are posted to a base in an area of devolved Administration. You and your family will be disadvantaged as a consequence. Bad luck”. That would send a very clear signal that the Government are in favour of delivering on the military covenant only when it is easy to do so, not when it is hard.
Armed Forces Bill
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, five years ago when this House considered the Bill that became the Armed Forces Act 2006, it was, as the Minister has reminded us, a completely new Bill. It replaced rather than amended earlier single-service disciplinary Acts. Every word and clause of the Bill before the House reflected the intended Act. A number of amendments to the text were agreed—I moved some of them. In due course, what we had been considering became the 2006 Act. This time, the Government have reverted to the traditional quinquennial approach. This Armed Forces Bill renews and updates the existing one. But I find it a right mess doing it this way compared to the approach in 2006.
This Bill is over 50 pages of detailed changes to the 2006 Act. It inserts a section here; it substitutes one section for another there; it amends a subsection; it inserts new words; it repeals or revokes bits, parts or all of earlier legislation; it introduces new schedules or changes to existing ones. The insertions, substitutions, repeals et al can be numbered in dozens, not just an odd one or two. Some are described as minor; some are listed as miscellaneous. There is a raft of them entitled “Other amendments”. I can see no obvious reason for differentiating in this way, unless it reflects the preparation of the Bill and new thoughts and ideas as they occurred to the drafters. The Bill before the House is little more than a whopping great marshalled list of amendments to the wording of the 2006 Act. Is it just convention that the updating of the 2006 Act must be done in this muddling way? If it were possible, I would have tabled an amendment which proposed that the Bill before the House be presented with all the changes, substitutions, amendments et cetera carried into a new Bill for debate and consideration in Committee and on Report. This legislation, dealing as it does with disciplinary matters, should be comprehensible to service personnel and not just an Act cobbled together and worded for lawyers and other legal experts.
The Bill before the House does introduce one new and untried requirement. Clause 2 is entitled “Armed forces covenant report”. Its wording is to be inserted after Section 359 of the 2006 Act as new Section 359A. Section 359 of the 2006 Act is one of a number of sections towards the back of the Act listed as “Miscellaneous”. Section 359’s title is eye-catching: “Pardons for servicemen executed for disciplinary offences: recognition as victims of First World War”. They were veterans, but is this the best place that the drafters can find for the covenant section? Is this not an unfortunate juxtaposition for the requirement to report on the covenant, a covenant to which the Prime Minister and many members of the Government have given their strong support? I invite the Government to think again about the placing of this amendment. Appearances can be important. These sections would be listed next to each other in the table of contents of the Act. What about Part 14, titled “Enlistment, terms of service etc”? Why not insert here a new heading—“Armed Forces covenant”—and put the wording of Clause 2 after Section 339 of the 2006 Act, numbering it Section 339A?
Clause 2 is titled “Armed forces covenant report”, which clearly indicates that an Armed Forces covenant exists. While I accept that to introduce a statutory description of a covenant would be neither practical nor sensible, it is still important to have an understanding or non-statutory description of the reach, the length and breadth, as it were, of the matters considered to fall under the heading of the Armed Forces covenant. The Secretary of State, Dr Fox, described it in the other place as,
“fundamentally a moral obligation on the Government, the nation and the armed forces. It is an agreement between the armed forces and the whole nation, not just the Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/11; col. 47.]
This is pretty woolly. What has been or will be agreed? The MoD internal briefs published on 16 May 2011—The Armed Forces Covenant, to set the tone for government policy, and The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, to detail current actions being taken to deliver the covenant—are both helpful. They should be widely distributed because they will provide useful benchmarks for judging outcomes in the future.
Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each calendar year, on issues of healthcare, education, housing and any other fields he may determine. However, none of these seems to be his direct responsibility so far as veterans who have left the services are concerned. How then is he to produce an authoritative report on fields for which he has no responsibility? He must seek advice from other government departments, from devolved Administrations and other regional or local authorities. He is required by Clause 2 to draw attention to those who may be disadvantaged in comparison to other non-military persons. On whose judgment must he rely? Does he exercise his own judgment? He is expected to have an opinion according to Clause 2 and to respond to that opinion if it covers some who are disadvantaged.
While not wishing to disparage the Government’s good intentions, it is most important that the report and their reaction as a Government to what it says are well thought out and presented. It will not be just the annual report but the responses to and actions taken on the report that will really matter. Who will be held responsible for that?
I have argued before that placing responsibility for veterans who have returned to civilian life on the shoulders of the Defence Secretary is not reasonable. Responsibility for veteran affairs reaches out in many different directions. The previous Government recognised this. Three years ago Command Paper 7424, a White Paper, introduced valuable and far reaching arrangements focused on the Cabinet Office and an external reference group, now renamed the covenant reference group. This group reports to the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary annually.
I have proposed before that this arrangement could be strengthened by transferring the Minister for Veterans to the Cabinet Office, where he would be better placed to gather and consider the various fields of interest to veterans and the ways in which they are supported in the wider community. I was interested to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester—who I am glad to see in his place—that when he was invited by the then Prime Minister to become Minister for the Disabled, the noble Lord insisted he should not be placed within any of the normal government departments because the interests of the disabled and their support spread right across government. Veteran support too spreads across many fields. Why not look after them in a manner akin to the immensely successful way that the disabled were first supported some 40 years ago? It is an approach I strongly urge the Government to consider. It would give practical meaning to their support for the Armed Forces covenant.
Finally, on Clause 5 about the appointment of provost marshals by Her Majesty the Queen, what arrangements will be required if an individual provost marshal fails in his or her duty and has to be removed? Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain.
I also echo the strong feelings about the need for the chief coroner, which have been expressed before many times in this House and have my strong support.
Armed Forces: Overstretch
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their reaction to the views, recently reported by the media, of senior serving officers about the overstretch of the Armed Forces as a result of involvement in current military operations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, the vital expertise of military personnel is fundamental in the decisions made by the Government in operational matters. There are a number of fora at which Ministers and military chiefs routinely discuss operational issues, and the three service chiefs will retain the right of open access to the Defence Secretary and to the Prime Minister. At all levels of the MoD, service personnel and policy staff interact on a daily basis.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister and the Government are satisfied with the professional military advice of the chiefs of staff on current and future operations? While there can be every expectation that operations over in Libya will continue as long as is necessary, is it not inevitable that shortages of manpower, equipment and finance mean that other commitments may be adversely impacted?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can give the noble and gallant Lord the confirmation that he has asked for. I cannot praise the chiefs enough. They are showing very strong leadership at a difficult time and when we are fighting two wars. As regards the noble and gallant Lord’s second question, as recent events have demonstrated, we are still capable of making a major contribution to NATO operations. In Libya we are the third largest contributor after the United States and France, while maintaining our efforts in Afghanistan and meeting our other standing commitments.
Armed Forces: Resources
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as reluctant as all Ministers are to make reductions, we are tackling the issues that the Labour Party refused to face up to and getting the defence budget on to a stable footing. Without healthy finances we can create neither the public services nor the national security that we desire. We must recognise that our options are constrained by the need to reduce public expenditure across the board.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I join the Minister in his tributes to the fallen and the wounded. Some three months ago, in the first week of the no-fly zone over Libya, I asked the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether the Government had both the resolve and the resources to maintain the zone as long as was necessary, especially in light of the fact that in Iraq the no-fly zones had lasted some 12 years. Obviously it is important that Gaddafi understands that we have such resolve and resource but, in view of some of the comments that have been attributed recently to some people in the military, would the Minister like to take the opportunity today to assure the House once again that not only the resolve but the resources to maintain that no-fly zone as long as possible are and will be made available?
Defence: Reform
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting point about the Treasury agreeing to 10-year funding and cross-party agreement on it. This question is very much above my pay grade and I will let my noble friend know. Clearly a lot of the financing of defence was looked at in the SDSR, and it is vital that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, and the reforms that we bring in are properly funded.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Can I focus on the responsibilities that a single service Chief of Staff will have for the funds allocated to him? The Statement talks about his ability to “veer and haul” within that funding. Will all that veering and hauling have to be put to the Treasury bit by bit, or will the Chief of Staff have freedom of manoeuvre, without which he will have no advantage whatever?
Libya
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, once again, I say that no decision has been made on the use of Apaches—I cannot go on repeating that. That, I think, answers the question on “one of ours and one of theirs”. We are working very closely with the French and will continue to do so.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. He mentioned that the Foreign Secretary was anxious that further military, economic and other pressure should be kept on Gaddafi. Does that mean that there are other members of the NATO group working with us who also want to add to the military pressure? If so, what contribution are they likely to make? As far as the helicopters are concerned, I presume that some form of risk assessment will be, or has been, made. Perhaps the Minister would like to talk about what risk is envisaged if the helicopters are to be used in Libya.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his questions. We do not comment on the military contributions of other nations to the campaign. However, we are grateful for them. He asked me about risk assessments. Before we take any operational decision, we make a full risk assessment to understand the environment in which we require our personnel and equipment to operate. We will look particularly at the regime’s capability, not least its surface-to-air missiles.
Armed Forces Covenant
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
I thank the noble Lord very much for repeating the Statement and I look forward to reading the documents he has talked about. A number of the areas of support mentioned in the Statement for Armed Forces personnel, veterans and families deal with health, education and local government support. These are devolved Administration responsibilities. Can the Minister explain how the Government are going to ensure that all the devolved Administrations march in step and that there is no possibility of some postcode lottery in the treatment of individuals by separate Administrations?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, as always, raises a very important issue. Much of what is contained in the document is UK-wide but where matters are devolved, such as education and healthcare, which the noble and gallant Lord mentioned, the devolved Governments are taking forward a number of measures to support the Armed Forces community which reflect the different legislative landscape and the way in which their public services are delivered. It is for them to publicise the measures they are taking. We will work with their respective new Governments to get the best outcome for the Armed Forces community.
Armed Forces: Redundancy
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(14 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, every case of wounded, injured or sick personnel will be assessed individually. No one will leave the Armed Forces through redundancy or otherwise until they have reached a point in their recovery where that is the right decision, however long it takes.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Urgent Question. This is a very significant reduction for the Royal Air Force. Is this the end of the reductions, or are there more to come? It is very important for the service to know exactly where it is.
Lord Astor of Hever
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. As I said in my earlier answer, there is still ongoing work in my department on this issue and the House will be the first to hear about it. I very much hope that there will be no further cuts.
Armed Forces: Post-service Welfare
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(15 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord King, on his choice of this topic. Much has changed and is still changing in the support and needs of military veterans. As I will describe, their expectations of support have changed greatly over the years. When I was commissioned into the Royal Air Force 60 years ago, the strength of the three Armed Forces was approaching 700,000—almost 10 times what we shall have as a result of the recent defence review—and the medical and dental services were scaled to match those numbers. In the 1950s, with many service hospitals in this country and overseas, it was normal for most of the clinical needs of veterans and their families to be met by the medical branches of the services. The NHS was in its infancy. The veterans—largely from the First and Second World Wars—would on average have been in their fifties or in their thirties, so few of that large number of veterans were yet senior citizens, with the illnesses and disabilities more associated with old age.
By the 1970s, with the end of national service and the much reduced size of the three services, a major review of the clinical support required for the Armed Forces led to the closure of a number of service hospitals and much reduced staffing of the medical branches. It was no longer feasible, except in overseas locations, to provide medical and dental care for families or any veterans, many of whom felt very let down as a result. However, the National Health Service, by then well established, was there to provide medical care to veterans and their families, so it was wrong for the Armed Forces medical branches, at a cost to the defence vote, to double up on what could be provided by the NHS.
By the 1990s, most of the veterans of World War One had died and the age of the majority of veterans had risen to the sixties and seventies. Life expectancy was greater than before, with more likelihood of illness due to increasing years. To the World War Two number could be added those who had done national service or who had been involved in the many insurgencies and other conflicts of the latter half of that century. More recently, we have had the casualties and veterans of conflicts in the Falklands, the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Advances in medical care have seen the lives of many casualties of these most recent conflicts saved, but many will need continuous support for the rest of their lives.
A number of government responses have been made to these developments, such as: numerous ministerial Statements about the need to do more; the previous Government’s Command Paper The National Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans; the introduction of a Minister in the MoD with specific responsibility for veterans; the setting up of a dedicated veterans agency; and improvements in the immediate medical support and care of veterans who had been injured and have not yet left their service at Birmingham Queen Elizabeth Hospital near Selly Oak, Headley Court and elsewhere.
Backing up these efforts have been the activities and commitment of the service charities—I declare an interest as an officeholder in a number of these charities, as in my declaration of interests—which have, as always, been very proactive in the interests of veterans. Noble Lords should be aware of the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, whose membership consists of about 180 service and ex-service organisations, including 65 regimental associations. I should like to pay tribute to the able leadership of COBSEO’s current chairman, Air Vice-Marshal Tony Stables, who has done much to motivate and co-ordinate the work of the organisation’s membership in their help and support for veterans. He has been instrumental in winning lottery funding support for the Forces in Mind programme.
However, healthcare provision is but one of the potential needs of veterans, and poor psychiatric health is often associated with other problems of housing, welfare and finance. Important though the support and generosity of the service charities is, it is wrong for the Government to be overreliant on this sector. All should agree that the support of veterans—particularly those who have been injured physically or mentally in the course of their service for the Crown—is primarily the duty of Government. The current arrangements, while an improvement on what went before, still need further restructuring. The MoD, of course, has responsibility for the care and support of servicemen and women who are still on the active list, but with their transition to retired veterans, the link between them and the MoD is weakened and, with the passage of time, can be broken.
In the United States—admittedly with a much larger corps of veterans—a distinct and separate state department bears responsibility for veterans’ affairs and is not an adjunct of the Department of Defense. Inevitably, inside our MoD there are bound to be conflicting pressures for resources and the needs of veterans, whether in pensions, compensation, health or other support, cannot be given the priority that is necessary to care for them properly. Building on the structure of Cm 7424 and its external reference group chaired by the Cabinet Office, could we not have a Minister for Senior Veterans, with the appropriate support and budget within the Cabinet Office? I fear that it is all too clear that the present MoD’s Minister with responsibility for veterans—this is not a personal criticism—is dismissive and given to writing bleak letters of blank refusal to any and every suggestion from members of COBSEO. Of course the financial situation does not make matters easy, but surely this is a transitory problem so far as veterans and their interests are concerned. Some indication that, as the economy recovers, there will be a proactive approach by Government to meeting the long-term support requirements of veterans would be welcome.
With the average length of life increasing, the skills of modern medicine and surgery and the recognition that there will be some without physical signs of disablement who are nevertheless afflicted with mental illness arising from their experiences in operations, there are going to be veterans spread across the length and breadth of the country who will need ongoing medical and other attention. If the Government are serious in their stated intention to do better for veterans—the ones who fought at risk to their lives, but lived through the conflicts—a new approach at senior ministerial level with the right proactive support for veterans’ needs should be found.