Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dannatt]

14: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of care to service personnel
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year— (a) prepare a duty of care update, and(b) include the update in the Armed Forces Covenant annual report when it is laid before Parliament.(4) The duty of care update is a review about the continuous process and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;(d) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.(5) In preparing a duty of care update the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;(b) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;(c) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct;(d) meeting national standards of care and safeguarding for families of service personnel, where relevant.(6) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).(7) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.(8) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause will require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, and to include a duty of care update in the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, in opening this short debate on Amendment 14, I first thank the noble Baroness the Minister and the Minister for Defence People and Veterans for meeting me and other noble Lords on matters pertaining to this and other amendments. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for meeting me twice on these matters.

It is perhaps no surprise that I am of the view that we share common objectives for the Bill, which I hope will become an Act within this parliamentary Session. These common objectives include the better protection of serving and veteran soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from repeated and extended investigations and unjustified prosecutions arising from their service on behalf of the nation on overseas operations.

We also share the common objective of properly supporting such personnel while they are going through an investigation and prosecution process—after all, when a soldier lays their life on the line at the behest of their employer, I am sure that we can agree that he or she has a right to expect that employer to exercise a proper duty of care towards him or her as they go through any investigative or judicial process.

If we are broadly agreed on the common objective, where we are not yet fully agreed is on the scheme of manoeuvre—the campaign plan, if you like—to reach that common objective, but we are making progress, and many of the constituent parts of a successful plan are beginning to emerge. Amendment 6, which we earlier debated and voted to stand part of the Bill, for the time being at least, is an important and welcome addition to the provision of safeguards into the investigation of allegations relating to overseas operations. Moreover, the Minister has today released a Written Ministerial Statement asserting that the purpose of the Bill is to provide better legal protection to Armed Forces personnel and veterans serving on military operations overseas. The Statement references and underlines a defence instruction and notice whose basic principle is that the department

“is committed to standing behind its people who act reasonably and in good faith in the course of their duties”.

If we are agreed that a good employer will discharge a proper duty of care towards its people, then the pieces of this jigsaw—this campaign plan—are beginning to come together. Amendment 14 would join those parts of the jigsaw into one picture, to bring these hard-fought battles and engagements into line in a comprehensive campaign plan for the benefit of our people in uniform and for those who have worn a uniform in the past.

Defence priorities change; the fortunes of military charities fluctuate; Ministers come and go; but the law does not change. Amendment 14 would bring into law the good ideas and intentions of well-meaning Ministers and officials with whom we are currently united in common cause but who are strangely reluctant to enshrine the fruits of their endeavours in a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament and thus part of our law—a law to protect our people for all time from vexatious investigations and prosecutions.

I have heard an argument that says that if we enshrine a duty of care in law it will present the possibility of creating grounds whereby disaffected parties could take the MoD to court if in their opinion the terms of the legally binding duty of care had not been adhered to, but is that really an honourable or credible argument against creating a duty of care in the first place? Surely in any walk of life, rules and regulations setting out what is and what is not acceptable are a commonplace occurrence. If you act within the rules, all is fine, but if you step outside, then sanctions follow. I am no lawyer, but I am sufficiently aware of the way our civilised society is organised to know that if I step outside the law, whether it is in a transaction on the high street or in my behaviour on a rugby field, I will be sanctioned. Is the Ministry of Defence so frightened that if it establishes a duty of care that passes into law and then it acts outside that law some of its employees might sue it? Surely the correct approach is for the Ministry of Defence to lay down a duty of care within the next six months, as Amendment 14 suggests, and then commit to live within that legally based statement of the duty of care for the benefit and transparency of both the employer and employees. Is that too much to ask? I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I offer my support for this amendment for all the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Dannatt. I thought that it would be right for me as a lawyer to ask myself whether the amendment was asking the Secretary of State to do something that our legal system would find hard to recognise or put into effect. It is a long amendment, full of what no doubt was thought to be necessary detail; but the key words to which I have directed my attention are to be found in proposed new subsection (1), read together with the definition in proposed new subsection (7). They are the words “duty of care”, which are used to define the obligation that is already owed to service personnel, both moral and legal, to ensure their well-being.

There are a number of things that need to be said to explain why the amendment has my support. First, this is a duty of care, not an absolute duty. It sets a standard that the amendment is talking about at the right level. An absolute duty is a duty that must be complied with irrespective of the circumstances. What has been talked about here is a duty to take reasonable care to achieve that standard. It is not driving the Secretary of State to achieve something that cannot be achieved with the exercise of ordinary care.

Secondly, the concept of setting a standard to be applied in addressing the needs of a particular group within our community is not new. It is familiar in the context of healthcare, for example, with regard to the care of the elderly.

Thirdly, and most importantly in view of the point made by my noble friend some moments ago, the method used should not be seen as encouraging a resort to litigation any more than the setting of standards does in healthcare. What is sought is to set a standard of behaviour, not a set of statuary rules. If litigation has to be resorted to, the complaint would be of a failure in a duty to take reasonable care, using the standard simply as setting out the criteria for what that duty required. There is nothing novel in that approach.

The Ministerial Statement that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, very helpfully read out to us when speaking on amendments in the first group this afternoon is, of course, to be welcomed. I do not for a moment doubt its sincerity, but Ministers come and go, and Ministerial Statements are, I fear, a bit like the Cheshire Cat. This amendment seeks to bring it up to a higher level of formality. Added to that, it seeks to ensure that the matter is kept under continuous review and public scrutiny. All that seems to me to be for the good. Therefore, if the amendment is put to a vote, I will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

In the light of the further information I have made available about these important issues, if the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, wishes to pursue this further, I ask him to look at the Armed Forces Bill as an appropriate conduit or forum for these discussions. In these circumstances, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I was going to say that it was a short debate but it was a proper-size debate, getting at a number of these issues. I thank the Minister for her thoughtful and comprehensive reply to the points raised and for addressing Amendment 14. She is right that in some ways there is no more than a cigarette paper between us. In my opening remarks, I said that I was pretty clear that we shared a common objective. The current area of disagreement is over how we march towards achieving success on this common objective.

Amendment 14 is about establishing a duty of care standard. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for referring to this as a vital amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also indicated the support of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. If we believe that we have a common objective in doing the right thing by our serving and veteran personnel, then I fail to see why clearly setting out a duty of care is causing so much difficulty for the Ministry of Defence.

In Committee, there was some discussion about whether this was the right Bill to address these issues. Many of us argued that, if we were to lose this Bill, it could be quite some time before there was another Bill that could address them. I argue strongly that we should maintain this Bill on its passage through Parliament.

Integrated Review: Defence Command Paper

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Lord is aware, we have a partnership at the moment with our American friends, who provide support to the carrier. That is a matter of merit; it is about alliance, friendship and interoperability, and we should understand that. The Government’s commitment is to increase the fleet size of Lightning beyond the 48 aircraft of which we are aware. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.

[Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]]

My Lords, now that the Regular Army is once again to be reduced in size in order to provide additional funds for the defence equipment programme, can the Minister give an idea of the thinking within the Ministry of Defence about increasing the size of the Army should the Government of the day wish to take part in a large operation, such as the two Gulf wars, or an enduring operation, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan? My concern is that the future may not look how we might wish it to look; however, history has a habit of repeating itself.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dannatt]

31: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of care to service personnel
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year—(a) prepare a duty of care report, and(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The duty of care report is a report about the continuous process of review and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;(d) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.(5) In preparing a duty of care report the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;(b) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury; (c) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct;(d) meeting national standards of care and safeguarding for families of service personnel, where relevant.(6) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;(c) former members of any of Her Majesty's forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).(7) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.(8) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause will require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations, and to report annually on their application of this standard.

[Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in seeking to move Amendment 31, I pay tribute to the tireless and detailed way in which the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, have been responding to the extensive and detailed sequence of amendments to this Bill in the last two days in Committee.

That the list of proposed amendments is so lengthy indicates a considerable degree of concern about the Bill as drafted, but my concern does not extend as far as the concerns of those who would wish to see this Bill thrown out completely. Many noble Lords, myself among them, have been arguing for some years to have a Bill introduced that would provide better protection for serving and veteran soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from vexatious, extensive and recurrent investigations arising from their actions in past operations. This Bill seeks to meet that aim, so I do not want to see it fail, but I do want to see it meet that honourable objective more effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

These are all well-established policies and processes and, of course, we continually review them to ensure that they provide the best support and care possible for our personnel. I hope that the detail that I have provided has reassured your Lordships about the way in which the MoD both acknowledges and specifically addresses our duty of care and provides an environment for personnel to express and raise concerns. We are clear on our responsibilities to provide the right support to our personnel, both serving and veterans, and to seek to improve and build on this wherever necessary. I do not believe, therefore, that setting a standard for duty of care in the Bill is necessary, nor does it require an annual report to Parliament. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords who have taken part in this debate for their helpful contributions. At the heart of Amendment 31 is a simple issue: to get back to the original purpose of the overseas operations Bill, which is to better protect our servicepeople against a recurrent, extensive and vexatious series of investigations. The intent behind the amendment to ask the Secretary of State to lay down a duty of care is to answer some of the questions that I put in my opening speech. How many times is it reasonable for someone to be investigated and over what period? What should the attitude of the chain of command be?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her response to the debate but, with the greatest respect to her, its principal part was to list the wider welfare provision for the Armed Forces provided by the Ministry of Defence and service charities. I know all that; I was head of my service through difficult times. With Bryn Parry, I co-founded Help for Heroes. I know what we are trying to do but, with the greatest respect, that part of the speech of the noble Baroness, whom I admire enormously, misses the point behind this amendment, which is simply to lay down a duty of care to bring to an end these recurrent, vexatious and almost unending—in Major Campbell’s case, there were eight—investigations.

I am grateful for the support that has been voiced for this amendment by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and on behalf of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. Both are former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and each is a former head of the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. Bear in mind that I am a former head of the Army. I am grateful for the support that has come from Members of all political parties in this House, but I am deeply disappointed that the Minister does not see the opportunity that this amendment poses. It gives the Ministry of Defence an opportunity to say, in simple and plain terms, how it can solve the problem of incessant vexatious investigations.

I regret that I decided not to press this amendment to a Division at this stage. I note that the Minister did not invite me to have further conversations with her, with her officials or with Johnny Mercer, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. If she wishes to extend that invitation, I will gladly accept it. But I am quite certain that, with the support of the representatives of the armed services who have spoken and from all political parties, we will return to this on Report. If I do not feel that we have reached satisfaction in getting to the nub of the purpose of the Bill, which I have repeated several times, we will press this to a Division on Report. In advance of that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment at this stage.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

British Armed Forces: Global Britain

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]]

My Lords, some might thing that the UK, in claiming for itself the title “global Britain”, was being more than a little pretentious. The challenge is to substantiate the claim, and the route to that substantiation is the gaining of influence in the world, a reasonable ambition in the post-Brexit era. The real influence comes through a combination of the UK’s hard and soft power, a true integration of the skills of our diplomats, the strength and versatility of our Armed Forces and the correct focusing of our international development budget.

While I applaud the recent and significant increase in our defence budget, a welcome addition to our hard power, I am utterly dismayed—along with former Prime Minister Theresa May, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and others—by the decrease from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP in our international development budget. In the overall context of the Chancellor’s fiscal challenge, this £4 billion saving is tiny, but the damage that it does to the global Britain aspiration and our international reputation is huge. Would the Minister like to comment on whether this truly awful decision will either be reversed shortly or maintained solely for one year?

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]]

My Lords, we have waited far too long for a Bill to be introduced that provides adequate protection for British service men and women to conduct operations free from the fear of retrospective investigation and possible prosecution—a justifiable fear that hangs over individuals for many years, or even decades, after events have taken place. Today we are debating a Bill that attempts to meet that requirement. As the Secretary of State for Defence said in introducing this Bill, it is,

“to protect our veterans against repeated reinvestigations where there is no new or compelling evidence against them, and to end vexatious claims against our Armed Forces.”

Although the Bill refers only to overseas operations, there are closely related issues with regard to Northern Ireland, about which noble Lords have frequently expressed their concern, not least in a debate in my name on 5 September 2018.

As much as we welcome this attempt to address the legislative aspiration by the Secretary of State and expanded on by the Minister just now, we have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not meet the aim that it purports to satisfy. Although it has passed all its stages in the other place, many amendments were tabled and debated but rejected by the Government, whose majority in the House of Commons ensured that outcome. Moreover, there has been considerable criticism of the Bill outside Parliament, and our inboxes have been filled with briefings by well-respected commentators and professional groups, many urging that it be defeated or at least paused.

Here lies the dilemma: do we ultimately reject the Bill and lose the opportunity to provide the protection needed by our serving soldiers and veterans, or do we do our constitutional duty and seek to amend it, so that legitimate concerns are addressed, while ensuring that our servicepeople get the protection that they need? As parliamentary time, especially in the other place, is always at a premium, I am loath to give up the Bill, or even to pause it, and I therefore believe that the focus in this Chamber must be to amend the Bill to make it fit for its legitimate purpose.

Within the time constraints of this debate, I will raise three points. First, the Bill, which complements the Armed Forces covenant, needs to set out very clearly the Ministry of Defence’s standard of duty of care in relation to the legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations arising from overseas operations. If an example is needed as to why this is important, I refer to the case of Major Bob Campbell, who, along with two Royal Engineer colleagues, was investigated no fewer than eight times over 17 years before being exonerated. He is now a broken man, his career and health in ruins. He fell well outside any reasonable duty of care.

Secondly, the very sensible presumption against prosecution set out in Part 1 of the Bill needs to be more closely defined, removing the doubts that have been raised that such a presumption opens the way for cases such as rape and torture to go potentially unpunished. It has been argued that this presumption against prosecution is not needed because there have been very few prosecutions. But that is not the point. The point is that an outrageous number of allegations and investigations have proved groundless, thus resulting in very few prosecutions. It is well recorded that a virtual industry to pillory British soldiers was set up following the unpopular intervention in Iraq in 2003. As the Secretary of State for Defence has said, for example:

“In 2004, Phil Shiner, a lawyer, went fishing. He fished for stories, he fished for victims and he fished for terrorists.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; col. 984.]


That conduct was completely unacceptable and Mr Shiner was quite properly struck off, but the damage to the reputation of the British Armed Forces had been done. Thus, a presumption against prosecution is a very reasonable safeguard, as is the five-year time limit, unless, of course, new and compelling evidence emerges. Those are the “exceptional circumstances” to which the Bill quite properly refers.

Thirdly, there is the relationship that the United Kingdom should have with international bodies to meet our wider obligations. The Bill suggests an amendment to the Human Rights Act 1998 to provide for the Secretary of State to consider whether it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation. While this has superficial attractions, I believe that—like the recent flirting in the internal markets Bill—the UK would run the risk of weakening our reputation as an upholder of international law and conventions. Moreover, such derogation could place the British soldier on the battlefield at even greater risk from his or her enemies, if international standards of conduct are overturned. War is a two-way exchange and actions have consequences.

I support the Bill, but it needs radical amendment to achieve its stated purpose.

Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

With their unique skills, the reservists have played a pivotal role in the response to Covid-19. They have been part of that response at every level. At one point, we had 2,300 Army reservists mobilised as part of Operation Rescript and the MoD’s contribution to the Covid-19 response. Currently, 340 reservists are mobilised to that operation and we have 100 additional reservists to support wider defence recovery. I pay tribute to their contribution.

[Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]]

I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their appreciative comments about the use of the Armed Forces during the pandemic. Historically, deployment of the Armed Forces in support of civil authorities has been found from spare capacity within the Armed Forces. Does the Minister acknowledge that the size of the Armed Forces has been considerably reduced in recent years and, therefore, available spare capacity is also much reduced? Will the noble Baroness indicate whether, in the forthcoming integrated security and defence review, future support to civil authorities will become a formal military task and be properly resourced as such?

British Overseas Troops: Civil Liability Claims

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie [V]]

I reassure the noble Baroness that this Bill will not abolish the right of people to make claims. It puts into context that a time limit will now surround when those claims can be brought. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that is fair and proportionate. It is fair to our service men and women, to victims and to potential claimants.

[Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]]

My Lords, when does the Minister believe that Her Majesty’s Government will extend legislation in the overseas operations Bill to cover operations in Northern Ireland? I seem to recall that my first deployment in Northern Ireland in 1971 was by sea from Liverpool, so I regard this as a legitimate question. On a pertinent point, can the Minister confirm that should Major Bob Campbell, having been questioned and investigated eight times about the drowning of Said Shabram in Iraq in 2003, be exonerated by the Iraq Fatality Investigations inquiry, he will be within his rights to sue the Ministry of Defence should he be so inclined? Seventeen years of investigation have broken this decorated soldier, ruined his career and wrecked his mental health.

[Baroness Goldie [V]]

I will answer the latter part of the noble Lord’s question first. I cannot comment on a specific case but, clearly, every individual is entitled to seek legal advice and consider what is appropriate action for them. On his first point, I assure him that, yes, a Northern Ireland Bill is coming forth to deal with similar issues; the Northern Ireland Office is currently in the process of preparing it. We expect more information in early course.

Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Associations

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, on securing time for this debate on our Reserve Forces, a subject that often gets overlooked when the focus of attention is elsewhere.

However, it is a simple fact that our Armed Forces—the Army in particular—could not have done all that they have done in recent years without a significant contribution from our Reserve Forces. During the course of the extended and very difficult campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 10% of the manpower of each successive brigade group that deployed for a six-month tour came from the Reserve Forces; in some deployments, the proportion was higher.

Moreover, some operational deployments that were hitherto conducted by regular units have been conducted by reserve units—something very much to the credit of, and demonstrative of the commitment of, our reservists. It is also worth remembering that, as our Regular Forces decrease in number and visibility, our Reserve Forces and cadets are the public face of the military. For example, in cities, towns and villages on Remembrance Sunday, it is invariably Reserve Forces and cadets that appear on parade.

The importance of our Reserve Forces up and down the country is at the heart of one of the major concerns that brought about this debate, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and other noble Lords outlined. To those closely involved with the administration and organisation of our Reserve Forces, the current governance structure of the network of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations—the RFCAs—up and down the country works well. There is a strong belief that, as the noble Lord, Lord West, said, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

However, it would appear that the Ministry of Defence believes that the RFCAs’ structure is not fit for purpose and wishes to make some quite fundamental changes. The so-called tailored review of the RFCAs which is looking into these matters has concluded that there are issues around the legal status of the Council of RFCAs, the financial arrangements and the classification of the RFCAs themselves. But like other noble Lords, I question whether these are real issues or simply a commentary on the way that our reserve forces are administered and organised—a bespoke and pragmatic process that has hitherto worked well but now does not appear to fit neatly into Cabinet Office, Treasury and Ministry of Defence templates.

On the issue of classification, as recently as 2007, the Cabinet Office concluded that the legal position of the Council of RFCAs and the RFCAs themselves was clear, stating they are properly established under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and have Crown status. Moreover, the Cabinet Office stated that they were not a non-departmental public body with all that that entails; but now the MoD is arguing that the RFCAs should indeed become a non-departmental public body. What has changed in 12 years to cause this about turn? I would suggest that nothing has fundamentally changed about the RFCAs, although much has changed in terms of good practice. What has changed is the MoD’s desire to force the RFCAs into a convenient template.

However, one must assume that the MoD’s underlying concern is rooted in financial governance, as set out in the policy document entitled Managing Public Money. It would seem that the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, as the overall accounting officer for defence money, does not believe that he has sufficient control over the RFCAs and so is arguing for—and perhaps even demanding—significant change. To my mind, the change being argued for is itself inappropriate and, if implemented in the manner envisaged in the tailored review, would do untold damage to the volunteer ethos of the RFCAs and weaken the sense of localism that underpins the support network of our reserve forces and cadets. That said, I can understand the Permanent Secretary’s desire to ensure that he can fully deliver on his accounting officer responsibilities. The National Audit Office rarely takes prisoners these days, especially where defence expenditure is concerned.

However, the solution to the Permanent Secretary’s problem is not the recommendations of the tailored review; instead, it should be a simple application of the MoD’s own budgetary hierarchy. Were the Council of RFCAs to become a higher-level budget within an appropriate top-level budget, and the RFCAs around the country to become intermediate higher-level budgets or basic-level budgets, accountability would be ensured, sensible delegation would remain in place and local initiative and enthusiasm encouraged. I have been a top-level budget holder as the Army commander, held a higher-level budget as a divisional commander, and held an intermediate higher-level budget as a brigade commander. The system is tried and tested, works well and is understood. Would the Minister be kind enough to explain in her closing remarks why this model is not being considered for our Reserve Forces?

There is another dimension to the tailored review recommendations which shows just how out of line with reality they are. The report states that, “Consideration should be given to remunerate RFCA Board and Regional Council members to attract applicants with a diverse mix of military and professional knowledge, skills and performance.” Such a recommendation is little short of downright insulting to the hundreds of volunteers in the existing RFCA structure and network who freely give of their time and expertise—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble and gallant Lord that this is a timed debate and he has rather gone over his allocation.

[Lord Dannatt]

Of course, and I shall move on to a conclusion.

The volunteer ethos is why hundreds of men and women up and down the country are willing to give of their time freely to run the Reserve Forces organisations and structure. Does the Minister really think that paying people is the answer to a question that, to my mind, does not even exist? I do not just fear for the future of our Reserve Forces; I know that untold damage will be done to their ethos and efficiency. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to think again.

Brexit: Common Security and Defence Policy Missions and Operations (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the members of the European Union External Affairs Sub-Committee for their most interesting and informative report, which is now the subject of this short debate. Notwithstanding its publication a year ago, as has already been mentioned, the strategic context of our impending departure from the European Union remains as valid today as it was on the date of publication.

Last year or this year, our future security and defence relationship with our European friends, partners and allies remains a most significant topic, and our departure from the European Union should in no way be seen as a lessening of our commitment to the security of all the peoples of Europe, nor of the role that we as Europeans can play in overall world security. That said, the report highlights that historically the United Kingdom has played only a modest part in EU common security policy missions and operations, contributing only 2.3% in manpower terms, but believes that we have played a more significant role in the formulation of strategic guidance at the planning stage of many of these missions and operations. Our national concern, well expressed in chapter 4 of the report, is that as only a “third country”, as it is termed, our influence will be diminished. This may indeed be right in the narrow context of EU membership, but I believe that, in the overall context of security and defence, this view is too narrow.

More broadly, within the EU or outside it, the facts remain that the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a significant player within the G7 and G20 and the leading European military member of NATO, which, after all, is our highest-priority defence and co-ordinating alliance—an alliance that not only secured the peace in Europe during the Cold War but has played a significant part in securing peace and prosperity in a number of parts of the world in the 30 years since the end of the Cold War. The role of the United Kingdom in NATO and in coalitions of the willing under United States leadership must not be overlooked or played down. That role stands proud as a major contribution, especially when compared with the modest UK contributions to EU missions and operations.

But this contribution stands proud only as a result of the quality, experience and determination of the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces. I stress “quality”, because sadly quantity has been diminished in the successive rounds of cuts to the defence budget since the end of the Cold War. The 2% of GDP now spent on defence—the smallest amount in modern history—has bought us the smallest Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force in modern history. I suggest that it is the diminution of our capability, rather than our exit from the European Union, that diminishes our influence in international defence fora.

This therefore is the challenge that we face in the context of overall security and defence policy. If the United Kingdom wishes to continue to play the significant role in international security and defence that we have in the past—and I sense no great appetite for strategic shrinkage—the fighting power of the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces must be restored. This fighting power underpins both soft and hard power and is made up of a balance of physical, moral and conceptual components. It is not acceptable to offer ideas and strategic guidance to missions and operations unless we are prepared to make significant force contributions manned by well-trained and motivated individuals.

With this in mind, I am pleased to note two most welcome public statements in recent days—one from the Foreign Secretary, who wishes to double defence expenditure to 4% of GDP, and the other from the new Defence Secretary, who wishes to bring forward legislation to stop the undermining of service and veteran morale and motivation by controlling retrospective inquiries years after operations have ended.

On the former point, 4% of GDP spent on defence would merely return us to the spend of the 1990s—the decade when commentators thought that war as we had known it was over and Francis Fukuyama announced “the end of history”. How wrong they were, but how different things might have been had we maintained a higher level of defence spending for the benefit of not only our own security but that of Europe and the world more widely. Whether Mr Hunt, should he become Prime Minister, can find an extra £35 billion for defence I do not know but strongly doubt. Nevertheless, his highlighting of the insecurity of the world today and our ideal response to it is to be welcomed.

On the latter point, people are at the heart of our Armed Forces, and the debilitating inquiries that have been going on for years after operations have ended drive a dagger through that heart, potentially fatally damaging our fighting power. While I welcome the Defence Secretary’s announcement today, the initiative must be extended to include the hundreds of thousands of service men and women who took part in the 38 years of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. I believe that many in your Lordships’ House, in the other place and among the general public are very much of this view.

I am conscious that I have strayed away from the narrow confines of EU missions and operations, but my final comment is to repeat something that I and others have said in this House—that an increase in our defence budget would send a strong signal not only to those who wish us harm but, more importantly, to our friends and allies in Europe that, although we may be leaving the European Union, we are not walking away from our collective responsibilities to the security of Europe and will not do so in future. Seventy-five years on from leading the largest military operation in history to secure the peace of Europe, beginning on 6 June 1944, the United Kingdom remains fully mindful not only of our history but of our continuing responsibilities to our friends and allies in Europe and more widely across the world.

Royal Navy: Type 31e Frigate

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this is the first warship design and build programme for which the UK has competed in a generation, but based on our understanding of the market, which has developed considerably since this time last year during all the engagement with industry that we have enjoyed, we believe that industry can rise to that challenge. We are committed to starting the new procurement, as I say, at pace.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the general thrust of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West. Clearly, the Royal Navy and the fleet at its disposal is far smaller than it has ever been in peacetime before. This is a national embarrassment, which our allies are picking up on. Is it, however, not a reflection on the size of our overall defence budget? We have never spent as little as 2% of GDP on our defence. Is there not surely a rising case to increase the size of the defence budget not only for the benefit of the Royal Navy but for the other two services as well?

[Earl Howe]

I greatly respect the noble Lord’s point of view, but I humbly suggest that we should not get too distracted by percentages. We need to look at the threats and make sure that we have the right capabilities to deal with them. That work is ongoing through the modernising defence programme. We continue to have one of the largest defence budgets in the world, and it is growing by £1 billion a year.