Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

It is clear that the Government intend such a report to include health care, housing and education. However, my right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear that I would happily be tempted into other areas within the discretion that the Bill allows. That is an absolute minimum. The country would expect us to look at wider and interrelated issues, if we are to offer the degree of scrutiny that the House and the country would want on this subject.

Clause 2 provides for what the Secretary of State must cover in his report, and as my right hon. and learned Friend said, effects on health care, education and housing will normally be addressed in it. There are perennial issues that I believe will always be important to the service and ex-service community, and those are among the foremost. Other issues will emerge at the time, so the Bill provides for flexibility, and I will want to consider other issues as they emerge.

There is also the question about who is covered in the Bill. The Bill refers to a broad span of people. The total number of serving and former personnel and their families is about 10 million—one in six of the population of this country. For ex-service personnel, the Bill specifies an interest in those who are resident in the UK. Again, that does not prevent a Secretary of State from covering relevant issues for those who live abroad, although many aspects of their lives would be matters for their own Governments.

The Bill—rightly in the Government’s view—says little about how the annual report will be prepared, but as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), we intend to consult widely and to ensure that there is rigour and independence in the information that is ultimately put before the House through the Secretary of State’s report. My intention, as Defence Secretary, will therefore be to consult widely with interested parties, inside and outside Government, in preparing a report. Charities and devolved Administrations will have much to contribute, as too, no doubt, will Members of the House of Commons.

I also believe, however, that the report will evolve over time. We are breaking new ground, and we will learn from experience, listen to comments and move forward together in a positive way. I am clear that that is the right way to proceed, rather than making the legislation excessively prescriptive.

The Bill also contains a group of clauses that will further buttress the independence and effectiveness of service police investigations. I am delighted that shortly before Christmas the High Court gave a strong endorsement of the ability of the service police to investigate, under the Armed Forces Act 2006, the most serious allegations. Nevertheless, we want to be sure that the independence and effectiveness of service police investigations have all the safeguards we can reasonably provide.

The first clause in the group places on each of the three provost marshals—the heads of the service police forces—a duty to ensure that service police investigations are carried out free from improper interference. The second clause provides for the service police to be inspected by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. The inspectorate has previously inspected the service police on a voluntary basis, but the clause places an obligation on it to carry out inspections of the service police and lay its reports before Parliament. The third clause provides that the three provost marshals will in future be appointed to their positions by Her Majesty the Queen. Once again, that recognises and reinforces their independence from the service chains of command when carrying out investigations. In making these changes, we seek to ensure that the service police will continue to carry out to the highest standards their role as a part of the armed forces but one that is independent of the main chains of command, and I believe that the provisions in the Bill will do just that.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Given the harmonisation of military law across the three services, does the Secretary of State feel that perhaps the time has come to be bolder? Why do we still need three separate police forces within the armed forces? Why can we not have one military police force, given that all these forces now undertake training together?

[Dr Fox]

I know that this issue was examined by the previous Government, as it has been by this Government. The view that has been taken is that because there are differences between the three services this approach is culturally the best way to go about things. If my hon. Friend has very strong views on this, I am sure that he will be willing to bring them to the House, perhaps in the form of an amendment, during the passage of the Bill. That would give us a chance to debate the merits and demerits of this approach further. There are undoubtedly arguments on both sides and the Government have just decided that, out of due respect for the differences between the services, this was the best way for us to continue to proceed.

Other provisions in the Bill introduce a new regime under which service personnel commit an offence if they exceed an alcohol limit while carrying out certain duties. The limits and duties will be prescribed in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. The Bill also contains provisions allowing commanding officers the flexibility to test on a case-by-case basis in two circumstances. One is where they have reasonable cause to believe that a service person’s ability to carry out a prescribed duty is impaired due to drugs or alcohol. The other is where they have reasonable cause to believe that such a person is in breach of a limit on alcohol specified in regulations in relation to particular duties.

The main reason behind those changes is to increase safety and to act as a deterrent, and I wish to explain to the House why that is. When Parliament approved the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and regulations were made under it, the provisions were not extended to the services because they were considered to be too restrictive, given that so many service personnel are engaged in potentially dangerous activities in the course of their employment. That exemption had wide cross-party support at the time. Against that background, the then Government gave an undertaking that a bespoke scheme would be created for the armed forces. Policy development was too immature for proposals to be included in the last Armed Forces Bill and progress had since stalled due to a lack of a legislative vehicle, so I am pleased that such a scheme is included in this Bill. The provisions in this group are important, because they are aimed at creating a safer environment when service personnel are carrying out safety-critical tasks in the course of their employment, both generally and when on operations. Rather than limiting commanding officers to acting after an incident has taken place, as happens at present, the changes in the Bill will allow commanding officers also to act earlier in the future. One of the concerns that I expressed during the passage of the previous Bill was that it might reduce the freedom and discretion of commanding officers. A number of changes in this Bill go to redress that in some way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is an honour and a privilege to contribute to the debate. I begin by declaring my interest as a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces and as a serving commissioned officer in the Territorial Army.

It is fascinating to consider the history of why we are discussing this matter today as it dates back to the 1688 Bill of Rights, under which it is effectively against the law to have a standing army without the consent of Parliament. Given that history, it is a particular honour to speak on the matter today. However, it is also an honour to do so as a member of the armed forces affected by this Bill. However, because it sits uncomfortably with some that members of the regular armed forces are not allowed to sit as Members of Parliament while members of the reserved forces are, it is not an honour I intend to abuse today.

My experience has shown that members of the armed forces are very interested in politics, but they are not interested in party politics. When I wear a uniform, I always pride myself on being strictly apolitical and I intend to continue that today. Perhaps the test of my speech will be that, when read, it will seem as though it could have been spoken by a Government or Opposition Member.

I welcome the Bill because, as the Secretary of State said, it is in many ways a tribute to the previous Government for the manner in which they put the Armed Forces Act 2006 through Parliament. The fact that the Bill is mainly a tidying-up measure is testament to that, although clause 2 on the military covenant—I will come to that later—is very important. I therefore give credit to the previous Government.

There are, however, a few anomalies even though the 2006 Act attempted to tidy them up. In particular, there is the matter of military law being applied across the three services. I said that I am a Member of Parliament who is also a serving member of the armed forces and, to my knowledge, three other hon. Members also serve in the reserve forces. It may be of interest to the House that, as I stand here today, I am subject to military law as a commissioned officer in the Territorial Army. However, one of our colleagues, who merely through rank is not a commissioned officer, is not subject to military law as a serving Member of Parliament. That is an anomaly. All four of us have been mobilised and have been on operational service, and we all become subject to military law when that happens. It might seem a minor point but whether someone is subject to military law when they go to and from training in the Territorial Army is relevant.

I shall give another simple example of an anomaly before I get into the detail of the Bill. Over recent weeks, there have been calls in the House that, as part of the military covenant, we should have some form of medal to allow members of the armed forces to show that they are in the armed forces. The Veterans Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) has said that that should be subject to review. I do not think it should be subject to review; I simply do not think it should happen. If hon. Members want to argue that point, I am happy to debate the matter. My case is fairly typical in that have completed three operational tours and have been awarded three medals over 23 years. In addition, I have a Queen’s golden jubilee medal, which was effectively given to me for being a member of the armed forces, and a long-service and good conduct medal—or the Territorial decoration as it was called then.

My point is that such medals are awarded simply for serving in the armed forces and I am not convinced that giving people more medals simply for being a part of the armed forces is necessarily a good thing. However, it is an anomaly that, in the Territorial Army, both officers and soldiers can get what is now the volunteer reserves service medal while, in the regular Army, only soldiers are allowed to get a long-service and good conduct medal. It seems that officers do not receive that medal simply because their good conduct is taken for granted. That is another anomaly in which the House might be interested.

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to the non-partisan way in which the hon. Gentleman is advancing his arguments. I have no medals—the closest I ever got was a Blue Peter badge. He is referring to the anomalies. An anomalous situation for many armed forces families is because those who are killed in action all come into the UK through one of two different airfields, there have often been very long waits for a proper post-mortem. That was one of the problems we tried to rectify through the creation of the post of chief coroner. Previously, families had to wait a very long time before they could have closure in relation to the death of their loved one. Does he agree that the Government are wrong to be abolishing that post and that it would be better for armed forces families if we were to keep it?

[Mark Lancaster]

I would have to consider that matter in detail. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps he should volunteer to sit on the Committee—I certainly will do so—and we can then explore the issue in greater detail. That is probably a sensible way forward, and it will be interesting to see whether he volunteers to do that.

Clause 2 deals with the military covenant and that matter has already been mentioned in the debate. The Royal British Legion—I am proud to be vice-president of the Olney branch—has raised concerns, and the Secretary of State has promised to consider them and, indeed, deal with them. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the role of the external reference group to continue in some form or another. That is something else I expect we can explore in Committee.

We have talked mainly about the three principal areas of health care, education and housing. In the previous Parliament, I was proud to serve on the Select Committee on Defence under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), when we looked at the issue of the education of service families. I am delighted that the Government have introduced some of our recommendations and we should continue to consider that matter. I am pleased that an annual report will be presented to Parliament. [Interruption.] When I referred to the Government, the former Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), said from a sedentary position that it was the previous Government. I am actually being apolitical and mean the government of the land.

There has been some concern that perhaps the Government’s commitment to the military covenant does not go far enough and that the relationship between the armed forces and the Government should be enshrined in black and white. My personal feeling is that it is not important what is in black and white for the lawyers to argue over; what is important is how the covenant has been interpreted by successive Governments. I shall give one example. After the introduction of joint personnel administration—the new payment computer system in the Army—there has been a problem with some junior ranks in the British Army being effectively overpaid for a number of months. That has amounted to a sizeable sum for some individuals. I do not think any fair-minded person would suggest that that money should not be paid back; it is an overpayment and we would all expect to pay it back. However, the true test of the covenant is how the money is paid back. It should not have to be paid back in a single lump sum in one pay cheque; those concerned should be allowed to pay the money back over time. That is just one example of how the application of the covenant, and not what appears in black and white, is important.

To be honest, soldiers are quite cynical about government. They feel that any covenant would always be interpreted in the Government’s favour. I hope that the Opposition will take that point in the spirit it is intended because it is simply an objective statement of fact.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that what is being put forward today is rather disappointing, especially in the light of the Green Paper that I produced in 2009, which set out not only what we had done in terms of the Command Paper, but how we could make what it referred to legally enforceable? Does he share my disappointment that the work and the response to that have not been brought forward in the Bill, so that the things put in place in the armed forces Command Paper would be legally enforceable?

[Mark Lancaster]

I do not, because the real test will be in the implementation. I have confidence that the Government will implement and uphold their end of the bargain, so I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and only time will tell. Perhaps we can consider the matter again in one of our annual debates on the military covenant.

I was going to give one example of where soldiers are perhaps right to be slightly cynical. I fully supported the previous Government’s introduction of the operational allowance in October 2006. That was a good move, and it introduced a tax-free allowance of £2,240. However, it is worth remembering—I wish to make it clear that I think that this was more by cock-up than conspiracy—that at the same time the Government also cut the long-service separation allowance, meaning that a soldier on a six-month tour in Afghanistan lost £2,341. The Government gave with one hand and took away with the other, within the space of a month. When such moves happen, one can see why any soldier is entitled to be cynical of any Government. It is therefore very important that we see, over time, how the military covenant is improved.

As I said from the Opposition Benches shortly after I got back from my operational tour in Afghanistan, there has been a major improvement in personal kit over the past few years. I felt that when I was mobilised in 2006, the standard of personal kit that I was given then was far better than the kit I was given when I was mobilised in 1999 or 2001—so, once again, credit to the previous Government for that improvement, which I should like to continue under this Government in future years.

My other general point about the military covenant concerns rest and recuperation. I had personal experience of the problems of R and R on coming back from Afghanistan in 2006. Although I do not want to go into the details of the matter again—it was the subject of debate in this House for some time—I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the problems with the air bridge have been addressed. Clearly, we will always have trouble when we have to rely on airframes that are very old, but I have heard reports that unfortunately the problems experienced in 2006 are beginning to happen again. There have been calls for us to guarantee the two-week R and R period for soldiers in the middle of an operational tour. I do not support that for simple operational reasons. If a soldier were to lose a day at the beginning of his leave, a guarantee that he could come back from it a day later would make the whole manning plot for the commanding officer in theatre almost impossible. However, I would support a guarantee that if any R and R days are lost during an operational tour, they should be added to the post-tour leave. That is perfectly reasonable.

I was slightly disappointed that neither Front Bencher chose to mention the reserve forces. That is an oversight that I should like to correct, especially given that some 15% of soldiers mobilised on operations are from the reserve forces. Members of the reserve forces face some very specific problems when they are mobilised. Any mobilisation process starts at the reserves training and mobilisation centre in Chilwell. If I am lucky enough to be selected to serve on the Bill Committee, I would like to suggest that we visit that facility, which plays a very valuable role. Having been through it on three occasions, I must say that the standard of service that it provides in preparing reservists for mobilisation has improved significantly over recent years.

However, there can be major problems when a reservist returns home. Because, in general, they are mobilised as individual replacements, they lack the support that a regular soldier, sailor or airman has in coming back with a formed unit. I can give an example of a very unfortunate case from my own unit when a colour sergeant came back from mobilised service in Afghanistan. Because we are a specialist unit that does not meet for drill nights, there is no regular contact every Tuesday night where we can monitor colleagues who have recently returned, and we did not see much of him until one weekend when he was clearly not well. The effects of service in Afghanistan had clearly had a significant impact on him. I regret to say that that ended up with an incident in which he attempted to shoot a colleague with a weapon that he had brought back from Afghanistan, and he is now in prison. It was an awful incident. One wonders whether the same thing would have happened had that individual been serving with a regular unit and received the same levels of support that a regular soldier would have had.

[Dan Byles]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s concern about soldiers who come back not as part of formed units. Does he agree that that points to a wider issue with the military covenant, whereby it is not simply a covenant between the Government and our armed forces but between the nation and our armed forces? Although there is talk of putting the Government’s side of this bargain into law, the issue is also about an attitude in our nation as a whole. For example, many of our public sector bodies have policies whereby members of staff can have up to 14 days off work to be a school governor or to undertake trade union activity, yet many of those organisations, particularly NHS trusts, do not give similar time off to members of the reserve forces.

[Mark Lancaster]

That is a very valuable point. I was fortunate in that before I entered this House I worked for a family fireworks company, so I had no problem getting time off—certainly for six months of the year, anyway. My experience is that many employers are very good about allowing members of the reserve forces extra time off. However, the issue is certainly something that we should consider, perhaps when we debate this matter annually.

Hon. Members have already referred to welfare for the families of regular forces—that is very important, and we should and must do more—but the families of reservists have particular problems because they tend not to live on a specific base. For any one specialist TA unit, those families can be spread across the land. We must do more to try to ensure that they have access to the same kinds of facilities as families of regular servicemen so that they get the support that they, too, vitally need.

I want to deal with one more matter—the military police, as covered in clauses 3 to 6. People say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I have to confess that for a period of 18 months I was the second-in-command of 253 Provost Company Royal Military Police (Volunteers), based in Balham, south London. Given what I am about to say, I am not sure that the RMP’s Provost Marshal will be very pleased that I had that experience. As I suggested to the Secretary of State earlier, the time has perhaps come when we should be thinking the unthinkable, and I encourage him to have a single police service for the armed forces. The three military police services already train together as a single organisation, going through one training school. The whole point of the 2006 Act was to harmonise much of military law. I see distinct advantages to this at a time when we are attempting to try to find savings within the Ministry of Defence, as having a single police service would save the costs involved in two Provost Marshal posts and all their connected staffs. The remaining Provost Marshal would then answer to the Chief of the Defence Staff instead of to the individual service chiefs, and he could be appointed by competition rather than by simple rotation.

In reality, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have had little exposure to complex investigations into operational deaths because of the nature of operational service, which tends to be Army-based. Combining the special investigation branches would not only make savings on manpower, which is vital in terms of meeting the harmony guidelines of the Royal Military Police, who are particularly affected and overstretched, but encourage the maintenance of high standards through mutual understanding and experience. Currently, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary inspects the Royal Military Police but does not inspect the other two branches of the armed forces, and that situation might be improved by bringing the three branches together. I was invited by the Secretary of State to table amendments in Committee if I am selected to sit on it and. I think that we should explore this angle. It will be interesting to see what the cultural differences to which the Secretary of State referred are in reality.

I am delighted to support the Bill this evening and will vote for it if there is a Division. I look forward to the Committee stage.