Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the announcement by Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia that they intend to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines; and whether they intend to consider withdrawal as well.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
His Majesty’s Government (HMG) has noted that Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have stated their intention to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention. The UK acknowledges and shares concerns about the security environment in the region as a result of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We also acknowledge that it is the sovereign right of those countries to make this decision. The UK will work to mitigate impacts on vital arms control and disarmament norms, while continuing to engage bilaterally on the actions States plan to take.
The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (also known as the Ottawa Convention) continues to play an important role in protecting civilians from harm caused by anti-personnel landmines. As a State Party to the Ottawa Convention, the UK’s commitment to it remains unwavering. We continue to encourage countries to join the Ottawa Convention, subscribe to its provisions; and discourage States from using anti-personnel landmines.
HMG continues to publicly express its commitment to the Ottawa Convention, most recently by Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Baroness Chapman, at a House of Lords debate on Landmines and Cluster Munitions on 3 April 2025 (Official Report vol 845, column 425).
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government on which dates since 2016 the Advisory Military Sub Committee has met.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) is a sub-committee of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (the “HD Committee”) which provides advice to The Sovereign on honours and medals. Following the independent review of medallic recognition by Sir John Holmes in 2012, the AMSC met later in 2012 and 2013. It was then reconstituted in 2019 and has since met on the following dates:
Further information about the work of the AMSC, including Terms of Reference and a summary of past recommendations can be found at the following website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advisory-military-sub-committee
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether minutes of Advisory Military Sub-Committee meetings are kept.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
I can confirm that minutes of Advisory Military Sub-Committee meetings are kept.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government under what circumstances they would reconsider the decision not to award a clasp to the General Service Medal for service in BRIXMIS.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
As the noble Lord was advised in 2023, cases regarding historic medallic recognition are a matter for the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) to consider, rather than the Ministry of Defence. In 2020, the AMSC considered the issue of awarding a clasp to the General Service Medal for service on BRIXMIS, and the recommendation of the Sub-Committee was that BRIXMIS did not meet the criteria for medallic recognition. This recommendation was accepted by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee).
Any further review of this issue would be for the AMSC to consider, should additional evidence be submitted, which fulfils at least one of the following criteria: significant new evidence has become available that had not been considered previously; facts relied upon during the original decision-making process are shown to be unsound; the original decision appears to be manifestly inconsistent with those for other similar campaigns; or the decision appears to have been taken for reasons which have nothing to do with risk and rigour.
Should the AMSC agree that any such new evidence was sufficient to alter their original decision, they would make a recommendation to the HD Committee for further consideration and, if agreed, submission to His Majesty The King for His Majesty’s final approval.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what definition they use for "family members" in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The full definition of ‘relevant family members’ for the purposes of this Bill will be included in secondary legislation. This is being done to mirror the approach taken elsewhere in legislation relating to the Armed Forces.
A draft of the definition of ‘relevant family members’ will be shared with Peers as part of Committee Stage in the House of Lords, scheduled for 19, 24 and 26 March 2025.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the value of the Defence Gateway in enabling communication with and the work of the active and strategic reserve.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Defence Gateway remains a valued digital portal which enables effective communication, information sharing, and system access to users across the Defence community. Work to address its contracting is underway, due to commercial sensitivities I am unable to disclose further detail at this time.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to extend or replace the contract for the Defence Gateway.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Defence Gateway remains a valued digital portal which enables effective communication, information sharing, and system access to users across the Defence community. Work to address its contracting is underway, due to commercial sensitivities I am unable to disclose further detail at this time.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what conditions (1) regular members of the British Army, (2) members of the Army Reserve, (3) members of the Regular Reserve, (4) members of the recall reserve, and (5) civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence are subject to under service law; and what conditions immediate family members of each of these groups are subject to under service law.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Armed Forces Act 2006 (AFA 06) sets out the conditions under which different categories of individuals are subject to service law. Section 367 of the Act sets out the conditions for (1) Regular members, (2) members of the Army Reserve and (3) members of the Regular Reserve as follows:
(1) Every member of the regular forces is subject to service law at all times.
(2) Every member of the reserve forces is subject to service law while—
(a) in permanent service on call-out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (c. 9) or the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c. 14) or under any other call-out obligation of an officer;
(b) in home defence service on call-out under section 22 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980;
(c) in full-time service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;
(d) undertaking any training or duty (whether or not in pursuance of an obligation); or
(e) serving on the permanent staff of a reserve force.
Individuals liable to recall (4) are not members of a reserve force under the Act and would only be subject to service law if they were recalled.
Civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence and immediate family members (if they are civilians) (5) would not be subject to service law under the AFA 06. In certain circumstances they could be subject to service discipline under Section 370 of AFA 06 and these circumstances are set out in Schedule 15 of the Act, such as when they are on an HM aircraft in flight or on a HM ship afloat or they are living or staying with someone who is subject to service law outside the UK.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Coaker on 14 February (HL4757), what assessment the Service Complaints Ombudsman has made, if any, of (1) the average to time required to process a service complaint, and (2) how many different transfers between individuals a single complaint may pass.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
Statistics regarding the timeliness and average time taken to close a Service Complaint can be found in the annual statistical tables published by the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces (SCOAF). The tables can be round below.
Whilst the SCOAF has not made a specific assessment on the transfers that take place between individuals during the course of a Service Complaint, the implementation of a new Service Complaints Case Management System and the introduction of regular workshops between the Services and the SCOAF will ensure that working practices are standardised.
Service Complaints Ombudsman For the Armed Forces Annual Statistical Tables
Table 1.13a: Average¹ time taken² to complete³ ⁴ ⁵ an investigation, | |||||||||
by case type and year closed, 2018-2023 | |||||||||
Year | Admissibility Decision | ADM_RevChk | Undue Delay | DEL_RevChk | Maladministration | MAL_RevChk | Substance | SUB_RevChk | |
2018⁴ | 6.1 | ʳ | 5.7 | ʳ | 60 | ʳ | 58 | ʳ | |
2019⁵ | 3.7 | ʳ | 3.7 | ʳ | 78 | ʳ | 75 | ʳ | |
2020⁵ | 3.4 | ʳ | 3.7 | ʳ | 81 | ʳ | 82 | ʳ | |
2021⁵ | 3.8 | ʳ | 4.2 | ʳ | 52 | 52 | |||
2022⁵ | 3.9 | ʳ | 4.1 | ʳ | 34 | 34 | |||
2023⁵ | 3.2 |
| 3.5 |
| 28 |
| 28 |
| |
% annual change 2023 | -18% |
| -15% |
| -18% |
| -18% |
| |
ʳ revised from Annual Statistical Tables 2022 | |||||||||
1 Mean. | |||||||||
2 Number of weeks. | |||||||||
3 Includes the time an investigation is delayed by when it is unallocated to an investigator. | |||||||||
4 Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review. | |||||||||
5 Excludes investigation applications declined at triage. | |||||||||
Source: SCOAF casework | |||||||||
Table 1.13b: Average¹ time² a caseworker had spent on a (completed) investigation³ ⁴ ⁵ | |||||||||
by case type and year closed, 2018-2023 | |||||||||
Year | Admissibility Decision | ADM_RevChk | Undue Delay | DEL_RevChk | Maladministration | MAL_RevChk | Substance | SUB_RevChk | |
2018³ | 3.7 | 3.4 | 56 | 54 | |||||
2019⁴ | 2.7 | 2.7 | 39 | 33 | |||||
2020⁴ | 2.5 | 2.9 | 25 | 24 | |||||
2021⁴ | 2.6 | 3.2 | 20 | 20 | |||||
2022⁴ | 2.5 | 2.7 | 17 | 17 | |||||
2023⁴ | 2.1 | 2.6 | 14 | 14 | |||||
% annual change 2023 | -16% |
| -4% |
| -18% |
| -18% |
| |
1 Mean. | |||||||||
2 Number of weeks. | |||||||||
3 Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review. | |||||||||
4 Excludes investigation applications declined at triage. | |||||||||
Source: SCOAF casework | |||||||||
Table 1.13c: Average¹ time² a completed investigation³ ⁴ ⁵ | |||||||||
had spent unallocated to caseworker, by case type and year of closure, 2018-2023 | |||||||||
Year | Admissibility Decision | ADM_RevChk | Undue Delay | DEL_RevChk | Maladministration | MAL_RevChk | Substance | SUB_RevChk | |
2018³ | 2.4 | 2.3 | 4 | 4 | |||||
2019⁴ | 1.0 | 1.0 | 39 | 42 | |||||
2020⁴ | 0.9 | 0.8 | 57 | 58 | |||||
2021⁴ | 1.2 | 1.0 | 32 | 32 | |||||
2022⁴ | 1.4 | 1.4 | 16 | 17 | |||||
2023⁴ | 1.2 |
| 1.0 |
| 14 |
| 14 |
| |
% annual change 2023 | -14% |
| -29% |
| -13% |
| -18% |
| |
1 Mean. | |||||||||
2 Number of weeks. | |||||||||
3 Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review. | |||||||||
4 Excludes investigation applications declined at triage. | |||||||||
Source: SCOAF casework | |||||||||
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government how long, on average, it takes (1) the Army, (2) the Royal Navy, (3) the Royal Air Force, and (4) Strategic Command, to process a service complaint; and what estimate they have made of the cost of each complaint.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
This information is available in the public domain. The average time required to process a Service Complaint is contained within the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Annual Report statistics which are available at the following link: https://www.scoaf.org.uk/annual-statisticals-tables.
The information you have requested on the average time required to process a Service Complaint is shown in Annex A, below.
No information is held about the cost of each complaint. This information is not routinely recorded and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Annex A
Average¹ time taken² to close a Service Complaint, by Service and complaint category, 2023 | |||||
Service | Career management | Bullying, harassment or discrimination | Pay, pensions and allowances | Other | All closed Service Complaints |
Royal Navy* | 20 | 37 | 22 | 23 | 23 |
Army | 18 | 34 | 30 | 24 | 24 |
RAF | 16 | 22 | 14 | 19 | 18 |
Tri-Service | 18 | 29 | 20 | 22 | 22 |
* includes Royal Marines | |||||
1 Median. | |||||
2 Time taken is measured in weeks. | |||||
| |||||