Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 25 October (HL2691), what steps they are taking to provide compensation for pension losses caused to members of the armed forces who were discharged or dismissed solely on grounds of sexual orientation before 2000, and who would otherwise have been able to serve until reaching their immediate pension point or to the point of full career retirement.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
As defined within primary legislation, Armed Forces pension awards reflect the actual time served. In 2000, a member would have served 16 years as an Officer or 22 years as an Other Rank to qualify for the immediate payment of a pension on discharge, and those who served at least two years would be entitled to receive a deferred pension, payable at age 60 for service between 1975 and April 2006. Circumstances of dismissal relate to terms and conditions of employment and not the provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Schemes, meaning that Service personnel dismissed or discharged in respect of their sexuality retained their accrued pension rights.
In the early 2000's, the Ministry of Defence settled a number of claims from former members of the Armed Forces who had been dismissed for being LGBTQ. The compensation awarded to claimants consisted of damages for loss of earnings, loss of pension and injury to feelings. These claims were reported in the national press at the time of settlement. However, upon completion of the Lord Etherton PC Kt QC independent review into the impact of Defence's historic policy on homosexuality, the Government will carefully consider the recommendations and decide what action to take.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Goldie on 17 October (HL Deb col 952), how many service personnel discharged or dismissed before 2000 for homosexual conduct that was legal in civilian life forfeited their full pension rights; and what plans they have to restore their full rights.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
Defence recognises and accepts that the policy that homosexuality was incompatible with Service life was unacceptable and that its LGBT+ veteran community suffered as a consequence. As part of the Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan 2022-2024, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs (part of the Cabinet Office) co-commissioned Lord Etherton PC Kt QC to chair an independent review into the impact of this policy. Once completed, Lord Etherton will send a report containing his recommendations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and The Secretary of State for Defence. The Government will then decide what action to take.
The MOD is not aware of any instances in which the accrued right to a pension has been forfeited because of the member’s sexual orientation; Service personnel dismissed or discharged in respect of their sexuality retained their accrued pension rights. There are no provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme which are discriminatory on the basis of a member’s sexuality. Accordingly, it is not possible in law to amend the scheme rules so that they have retrospective effect. As there is no existing discretion in the Armed Forces pension rules to retrospectively deem pensionable service to have been given in order to provide for additional pension entitlement, they are not an appropriate vehicle for financial compensation.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who is the legally qualified chair in charge of the misconduct hearing that is to be convened for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Arrangements concerning the misconduct hearing for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, are a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Police and Crime Commissioners are obligated to meet delegations of members of the House of Lords upon request.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have a crucial role to play in engaging with the public and partners in their force area to deliver on their priorities to cut crime, including statutory obligations to consult with them on key documents, such as their Police and Crime Plan.
The actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) and PCCs must provide information and answer questions raised by their PCP where reasonable and appropriate, in line with their duties in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Where necessary, PCCs must also respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from the public, in accordance with the FOI Act 2000.
There are no legal obligations for PCCs to meet delegations of members of the House of Lords. However, PCCs should be expected to engage constructively with any such requests, in line with their position as directly elected local leaders.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what legal requirements exist to ensure that Police and Crime Commissioners answer enquiries made to them.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have a crucial role to play in engaging with the public and partners in their force area to deliver on their priorities to cut crime, including statutory obligations to consult with them on key documents, such as their Police and Crime Plan.
The actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) and PCCs must provide information and answer questions raised by their PCP where reasonable and appropriate, in line with their duties in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Where necessary, PCCs must also respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from the public, in accordance with the FOI Act 2000.
There are no legal obligations for PCCs to meet delegations of members of the House of Lords. However, PCCs should be expected to engage constructively with any such requests, in line with their position as directly elected local leaders.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who is the legally qualified chair in charge of the misconduct hearing that is to be convened for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Chair of a misconduct hearing must ensure that the hearing commences within 100 working days from the date the officer is served with a notice that they are being referred to a misconduct hearing. The Chair may, in the interests of justice, extend that period. There is no maximum period defined.
Arrangements concerning the misconduct hearing for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, are a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland. It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 18 July (HL Deb col 1756), what is the maximum period beyond which the start of a misconduct hearing cannot be postponed.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Chair of a misconduct hearing must ensure that the hearing commences within 100 working days from the date the officer is served with a notice that they are being referred to a misconduct hearing. The Chair may, in the interests of justice, extend that period. There is no maximum period defined.
Arrangements concerning the misconduct hearing for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, are a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland. It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to commission an official history of Northern Ireland from 1968 to 1998; and if they have any such plans, whether they plan to appoint a panel of historians to oversee the project.
Answered by Lord Caine - Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
As announced alongside the introduction of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill on 17 May 2022, the Government intends to commission an Official History relating to the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
This will be conducted by independent historians with access to all relevant material in Government records, and with the purpose of providing an examination of the Government’s policy towards Northern Ireland during this time.
The project will be steered by experts, who will make recommendations on scope and other important details. Further details will be announced in due course.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 7 April (HL Deb col 2185), whether the legally qualified chair of the misconduct hearing against Mike Veale has extended the time-limit on starting the proceedings; and, if so, (1) why, and (2) for how long.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Independent Legally Qualified Chairs of police misconduct hearings have the discretion to extend the period of time in which the respective case is heard where they decide it is in the interests of justice to do so.
The misconduct hearing arising from the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s investigation into alleged misconduct by former Chief Constable Mike Veale is a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner for Cleveland (PCC). It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 7 April (HL Deb col 2185), whether the 100-day limit on starting a misconduct hearing against Mike Veale has expired; and, if so, when it expired.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Independent Legally Qualified Chairs of police misconduct hearings have the discretion to extend the period of time in which the respective case is heard where they decide it is in the interests of justice to do so.
The misconduct hearing arising from the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s investigation into alleged misconduct by former Chief Constable Mike Veale is a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner for Cleveland (PCC). It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.