Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, both the amendments in this group are in my name, and Amendment 10 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Amendment 2 relates to a matter of particular concern to my honourable friend in the other place: that we need to be very mindful of those who are going through the recruitment process. The legislation is obviously about those subject to service law, but one of the concerns is that, as people go through the recruitment process, they are potentially vulnerable. Clearly, that would not apply to somebody just walking into an Army recruitment office, but if somebody has got to the point of applying, going through the medical process and then going through various assessments to see whether they are suitable to be recruited—apparently there is sometimes a requirement to stay overnight, for example—there is a real concern that we need to make sure that they are not put in any difficulty, particularly when it comes to young people.

If there is no Service Complaints Commissioner because the role is being taken over by the Armed Forces commissioner, will it be possible for those going through the recruitment process to be part of that? I know that the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, but it would be helpful if he would at least explain to the Grand Committee how the interests of those going through the recruitment process, particularly the very young, will be maintained and if he would confirm that safeguarding will be in place.

Amendment 10 is to some extent related to the draft regulations that have just appeared. At Second Reading the Minister said that he would make sure that the draft regulations would be out in good time before Grand Committee—I think he may have said that it would be not just half an hour before. They arrived a good two hours before Grand Committee, so we are probably winning. The draft regulations talk about deceased service personnel’s family, so that bit of our amendment has already been covered, but I have two questions, one of which is linked to the amendment as initially tabled, which is about kinship carers and whether the language used in the draft regulations is intended to cover that or whether we still need to think about a more specific amendment on kinship carers coming back on Report.

At the moment, the various clauses in the draft regulations talk about “relevant family members”, including those for whom someone

“has assumed regular and substantial caring responsibilities”,

but there is very little definition of what is meant by that. It may be that there is other, not necessarily Armed Forces legislation, where there are very clear definitions, but it would be helpful for Grand Committee to understand how His Majesty’s Government understand that.

As the draft regulations happen to be in front of us, I wonder whether this is the right place to ask the Minister my second question relating to them, regarding Regulation 2(3)(b) about

“a former spouse or civil partner or a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”.

I am just wondering how far the remit of “relevant family members” is intended to extend. If we are talking about someone at the time of a bereavement, it is usually clear who is the spouse or civil partner. Where we are dealing with people who have previously held those roles, is it anyone who has previously been in the role of something similar to a spouse or civil partner? How do His Majesty’s Government intend to define that? Is the Armed Forces commissioner supposed to deal with all those relationships, or will we be looking at a narrower definition? I beg to move.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I will speak against Amendment 2. I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board.

I understand the intent, but my objection to Amendment 2 is based on practicality. The recruitment process has changed dramatically in recent years. Indeed, you can start your recruitment process not by going into an Army recruitment centre but simply by going online and clicking a button. Last year alone, we had over 100,000 applicants to the Regular Army and over 30,000 applicants to the Army Reserve. That was just for a single service, so I think it is fair to say that probably in excess of 200,000 people will have applied to join the Armed Forces over the past year. If we were to allow these people to access this system, I think the system would simply be overwhelmed and goodness knows what the cost would be.

The principle is that those who are subject to service law are subject to the Bill, and service law does not kick in until the point of attestation, when you actually join the Army. I was privileged to be in Nepal only three weeks ago to witness our next 372 Gurkhas being attested into the British Army. I understand the sentiment, but, with the greatest of respect, I think it is simply impractical. We would open the aperture of the system to so many people that we would run the risk of the system simply not working because it would be overwhelmed.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

That is a very helpful intervention, and we are probably all delighted to hear that there were so many applications for the Army last year, given that recruitment has been an issue. Could the noble Lord continue with some of that exposition? Obviously, it is possible to apply by going online and clicking a button and, clearly, the applicant should not have recourse to the Armed Forces commissioner at that stage. But at the stage where somebody is going through a medical or being assessed, could there be concerns that we need to think about, even if that is not through the Armed Forces commissioner?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point, which is why I said at the start of my remarks that I understood the intent behind what she is trying to achieve. Without getting distracted, the challenge that we face at the moment is a crisis not of recruitment but of conversion. One of our biggest challenges is that we have a conversion rate—forgive me if this figure is not quite right—of about 13 or 14 to one in the Army and about 20 to one in the Army Reserve. The challenge is in the process of recruitment and the time that it takes. I am straying beyond my role here today, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the Armed Forces are seeking to address that. Those who are frustrated in that process probably should have the ability to have redress, but I am not sure that this process is the right one.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 65 and to Amendment 64. Like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I support the other amendments in this group brought by her and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. They have given us clear arguments why those amendments are important, and I do not think they need to be rehearsed again.

On Amendment 64, my noble friend talked about people who have come here under ARAP. She and I raised this at Second Reading, and the Minister was kind enough to take some time to discuss it with me yesterday; I am grateful for that. There is clearly a question of scope in an Armed Forces Bill such as this. To suggest that we might extend the Armed Forces covenant to people who have not been service personnel with the British Army, Commonwealth or Gurkhas might raise some eyebrows. There were certainly some questions about that around tabling Amendment 64, which is why there is a specific bit of phrasing about extending the covenant

“to cover civilians subject to service discipline”.

My noble friend Lady Brinton asked whether we have a moral duty. The answer is surely that we have a moral duty to support in every possible way the people coming to the United Kingdom under ARAP. By definition, they are arriving here under ARAP because they worked as interpreters for our Armed Forces, with other allies or perhaps for the British Council. Those who worked for the British Council are vulnerable. It is easy to assume that it is simply interpreters putting their lives on the line, but those who were out teaching English now find that their lives are under threat. It is incredibly important that we look at them, not just at interpreters—although the situation with interpreters is very important. Why bring this amendment? Clearly, the ARAP scheme is in place and remains open, but those coming in under ARAP have worked closely with our Armed Forces and potentially put their lives on the line for the United Kingdom.

Surely we owe them a duty. Given that the Armed Forces covenant is supposed not to give advantage to service personnel and veterans but to ensure that they are not at a disadvantage, so there will be many issues facing people here under ARAP that are very similar to those faced by service personnel and veterans. I would like the Minister at least to explore what provisions we can make for people under ARAP, in particular to ensure that anybody arriving under ARAP can work from day one, because most people who come here under other Home Office arrangements seeking asylum are not permitted to work initially. That is very important.

My Amendment 65 is slightly different and perhaps should have been decoupled, because it relates to the duties put on local authorities and local health authorities. The Bill talks about having “due regard” and requesting local authorities to do certain things. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that they have to have due regard, but there will not necessarily be financial provision for them to do so because they already have a duty to do certain things, so incorporating the Armed Forces covenant into law will not really make a difference. The way I phrased it may have sounded muddled, but I have been left muddled by the Government’s intention. If there is a purpose to putting the Armed Forces covenant into law, surely it is precisely to ensure that it makes a difference. If local authorities find that in paying “due regard”, now on a statutory basis, to the Armed Forces covenant they are required to engage in further expenditure, where will that money come from?

It is not possible within the scope of a Bill in the House of Lords to table a line saying, “Please give local authorities additional funds”, so we are not asking for that. We are asking for the Government to report on the financial implications of enshrining the Armed Forces covenant into law. If local authorities, housing associations and local health authorities incur financial consequences when engaging in their duties by supplying services such as social care, housing or health, we would then know that and it may at some suitable point be possible to bring forward relevant legislation. If no assessment is made, it is impossible to know the consequences.

The amendment is in a sense a probing amendment because we need to understand the real consequences of enshrining the Armed Forces covenant into law. If it is causing local authorities additional costs over which they have no say we should try to ensure that the finances are there to cover that.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group. I have no fundamental objection in principle to extending the categories as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. When I was the Minister responsible for this Bill five years ago there was great discussion of what the categories should be.

My concern—not an objection—is practical, which is perhaps the purpose of Committee. There has been some cynicism about the effectiveness of the Armed Forces covenant since we first created it, and its implementation has been patchy across the United Kingdom. Given how many local authorities are recovering from the pandemic and have been overwhelmed, I am slightly concerned that by adding all these categories now—the key word is “now”—we run the risk of overwhelming various bodies and simply adding to the cynicism that we have not managed to implement the Armed Forces covenant when they fail to implement it effectively.

My suggestion is a sensible one, though perhaps not for today, as to whether there should be an incremental addition to the categories that we put in the Armed Forces covenant. I am sure it cannot be beyond the ability of the Bill to attach dates for when categories are potentially added. I am not saying that we could necessarily sort that out today, but it may be a sensible compromise as we seek to slowly expand the Armed Forces covenant and make sure that we do not lose public consent to it being implemented effectively as we do so.

Equally, I have great sympathy with Amendment 64, having served in Afghanistan and worked closely with interpreters. There is no doubt that they were subjected to the same sorts of pressures and stresses that members of the Armed Forces were. Of course, having now crossed the line where we have rightly welcomed them into the UK, although it is a question of scope, and it may well be beyond the scope of the Armed Forces covenant to include them, I think the Government have a duty to explain how exactly, if they are not going to be included in the covenant, we will ensure their ongoing welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to contribute briefly on this group, which is an area of particular interest to me. I declare my interest as chairman of the Reserve Forces Review 2030, which is the 10-year review of the Reserve—the outcome of which is, I should like to think, partly responsible for some of the Bill’s provisions on the Reserve.

The headmark of that review was the integration of the Regular and Reserve Forces. Within that, we attempted to create a spectrum of service—right of arc, full-time regular service; left of arc, a civilian—and within that spectrum of services, enabling the principle of bringing civilian skillsets through Reserves into delivering against defence demand signals. We encountered two principal barriers to that spectrum of service. The first, frankly, was money. Unlike the Regular Forces, the Reserve Forces are always considered to be a marginal cost and therefore, as soon as there are pressures on costings, it is the Reserves’ budget that will be reduced.

The other, to which this technical amendment goes directly, was terms and conditions of service. Of course, we already have full-time Reserve service, but we do not have the ability for reservists to have not a contract, per se, but an assured Reserve capability. That could be on a part-time but enduring basis—for example, not being contracted to work five days a week and becoming a temporary regular, but to be able to do it as part of a portfolio career. That would enable you to come in and, perhaps, work one day a week but over an enduring period. It would make the Reserve much more effective in delivering almost as augmentees, working on a daily basis, and moving away from its traditional role as a contingent capability that trained at weekends and was always used as that traditional Reserve.

That is why this government amendment is so welcome, to my mind. It helps to deliver that traditional Reserve capability for a Reserve which will be very much suited for the 2030s.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, before I spoke because I thought that if there were any heffalump traps, he might have spotted them, given his expertise on reserves. I seem to recall that when we were looking at flexible working for the regulars it garnered some concern from certain Benches and perhaps from some noble and gallant Lords who were a little concerned that you could not be a part-time soldier. Actually, that was never what was being suggested.

Looking at these amendments one by one, a bit like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I could only assume that they were all doing what the Minister said they were doing because they look so technical. I think the statement given by the Minister and the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, both suggest that this is helping to bring the reserves into an even more effective place. The reserves clearly play an important role, and if there can be a logical movement between full-time and part-time work and that counts as continuous service, that has to be all to the good. The only thing I would say, if anyone were looking at a complete guide to plain English, is that by the time anyone is looking at this Bill it will be totally unreadable because the language seems to be so arcane. I hope it will keep the government lawyers working for many years to come.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as I said in my comments on the first group of amendments, the vagaries of parliamentary procedure mean that in some ways the groups of amendments are being debated in a less than helpful order. I hope that this group of amendments and the suite of proposals will reassure the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead and Lord Lancaster, and others who had any concerns that perhaps supporters of the first group might be seeking to eviscerate the Bill in its entirety.

This suite of amendments is intended to be constructive. I will speak predominantly to Amendment 17, in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and myself, and Amendment 28. They are both about investigations. If the purpose of the Bill is to stop unnecessary investigations and investigations being brought many years later, these two amendments in particular seek in clear and specific ways to give substance to the Government’s stated aims.

Amendment 17 gives a very clear outline of what could be done in terms of investigations: how they should be taken forward and, after they are completed, moved to prosecution. We have not heard huge numbers of veterans saying they have been prosecuted many times, but we have heard concerns about people being investigated and never getting closure. Amendment 17 gives a very clear outline of how investigations could be dealt with.

Amendment 28, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, puts limitations on reinvestigation. That surely goes to the heart of what the Government say that they wish to do. If the Government really wish to have the best legislation to serve their own stated aims and fulfil the needs and expectations of current service personnel and veterans, could they please consider these amendments?

In your Lordships’ House, the Minister often feels the need to say that, however laudable the goals of the amendments are, they do not quite fit the approach that the Government want to take. If the Minister does not feel able to support the detail of the amendments, might she consider coming back with some government proposals on how investigations and reinvestigations could be dealt with in a way that would enable the Bill to do what it says on the tin?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this group. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for the clarity with which he introduced these amendments.

I turn first to Amendment 3, which effectively seeks to remove Clause 2. That clause, the “presumption against prosecution”, is very powerful. I of course accept that this may not have the legal force it implies to some laymen, not least because of the other measures in the Bill, but it does indicate a very clear change of direction. If one of the aims of this Bill is to offer reassurance to our service personnel and veterans, this is a very powerful clause.

Amendment 3 seeks to delete this clause and effectively replace it with a guarantee of a fair trial. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, this would happen as a matter of course. I have never met a service man or woman whose concern has been that they will not receive a fair trial in the United Kingdom. So, on the face of it, it does not seem to be a particularly good trade. Removing a presumption against prosecution from Clause 2 and replacing it with a fair trial does not send a particularly powerful message—but I do understand why it is being proposed.