Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Craig of Radley

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I have one very small comment. It would seem to be quite wrong to restrict such an annual report to the Army. It would be necessary, if such an approach were to be adopted, for the report to cover all three services in full.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

I absolutely agree with my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig on that point. On reading the Defence Committee report, Future Army 2020, I was concerned to note two statements:

“We are surprised that such a radical change to the Army’s structure … was not discussed at the National Security Council”,

and,

“We note that the Secretary of State for Defence accepts that Army 2020 was designed to fit a financial envelope”.

The financial envelope includes not just the Army but the other two services. If we look at history, an annual debate was held in both Houses on the estimates for the Navy and the Army. We are therefore putting back history, as it were, if we have an annual estimate. Particularly in this case, I note the suggestion that the first discussion should be in January 2015 because, of course, when the strategic defence review 2010 was introduced it was clear that its achievement was dependent on the money that would be available in 2015. Looking around, it seems pretty obvious that that amount of money may not be available—in which case, all three services will have to face a review of the current plans.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Craig of Radley

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 13 in my name and that of other noble Lords mentioned on the Marshalled List. In the course of the debates on the topic of medals it has become clear to me that there is considerable ambiguity and genuine confusion over who is responsible, who does what and why, and when foreign awards may be accepted by British subjects with or without restriction. Restriction seems to mean that a recipient may accept an award but is not allowed to wear it.

It has been normal for the Foreign Office to handle awards from foreign states but that now seems to be in doubt. I asked a Written Question about the Malaysian Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal but it was answered not by an FCO Minister but by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. The noble Lord has since written to me to say that he has set in hand a review of the process by which advice about the institution of medals and the acceptance of foreign awards in respect of military service is put together, considered and submitted to the Queen.

I also raised in Committee the issue of the prerogative when it came to submissions to the sovereign. I quoted two examples of Written Ministerial Statements, in 2005 and 2006, which made clear that the rules of no double medalling and a five-year moratorium were government policy. The Minister, in a Written Answer about the prerogative, dated 23 September, states that these references to the Government, “are not strictly correct”.

Noble Lords will be taken aback to learn that such authoritative Statements to Parliament as two Written Ministerial Statements are not correct, or are deemed to be incorrect, in order to uphold a unique position claimed for the honours committee in relation to advice to the sovereign. I remind the Minister that in a reply to my Written Question in September about wearing the PJM medal, the noble Lord said about Commonwealth Governments:

“Each Government apply their own rules and judgment to their own citizens”.—[Official Report, 5/9/2011; col. WA 17.]

Is there really such a difference for the UK Government? It would appear not. In his letter to me and other noble Lords dated 23 September, the Minister states that,

“there remains under the Prerogative scope to make exceptions”.

In other words, Her Majesty follows the advice of her Ministers.

The Minister also claims that when an exception is allowed, the results are likely to be seen as anomalous or unfair. Surely, that is not the right conclusion to draw. Rather, it is that with the passage of time the rules themselves and officials who seek to hide behind them are the problem, not the numerous exceptions that have been granted over many decades. I am sure the Minister is right to have instituted the review. It should look at the so-called rules, and I welcome his assurance that a Written Ministerial Statement on the outcome will be forthcoming.

Amendment 13 should not be delayed because of any review. As I mentioned in Committee, the long-standing issue of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal has yet to be resolved. I visited Malaysia last June at the personal invitation of Prime Minister Najib. It was clear from what he told me and what I saw that Malaysia is now well on the way to achieving its vision of being a fully developed nation by 2020. Putting a restriction on the generous recognition of the contribution of many service and other personnel to the start of that process of development seems quite unnecessary and lacking in appreciation of the donor’s gesture and standing in the world. Even more bizarre, a British recipient has Her Majesty’s agreement to accept but not to wear the PJM, while an Australian serviceman has Her Majesty’s approval to accept and to wear it. How confusing and frustrating must that be to an individual with dual nationality?

As I have already mentioned, in his response to my Written Question about the PJM, the Minister attempted to explain this anomaly away when he said:

“Each Government apply their own rules and judgment to their own citizens”.—[Official Report, 5/9/2011; col. WA 17.]

In other words, the Government are in the lead and Her Majesty is following that advice. How does that sit with the claim that the honours committee is independent of government? Once again, we have confusion and conflicting answers to the same Question. No contortionist could so ridiculously point in so many different ways at the same time. Other Commonwealth countries are also making giant strides in development, and this Government are anxious rebuild and reinforce the ties of Commonwealth. For these reasons, I believe that now is the time to make special provision for awards from Commonwealth countries. With the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting due at the end of this month in Perth, it would be a positive announcement for the Prime Minister to make at that meeting.

A further argument sometimes prayed in aid of the discredited restrictive rules is that the presence of a second award on the chest of an individual somehow reduces the value of the national award. I wonder whether that is really right. The individual can take pride in both and his contribution is clearer to those who see the medal ribbons on his uniform. I recently saw a photograph of the late Lord Mountbatten of Burma. He had 10 rows of medal ribbons on his Admiral of the Fleet uniform. I am sure he was proud to be able to display them all, but I shudder to think how the honours committee of the day managed to recommend so many exceptions to their precious rules so close to the date of their original adoption. I invite the Minister to accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, as in Grand Committee, I support every word of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig. Unlike in Grand Committee, I have not brought my PJM medal with me; nor have I brought my General Service Medal with its clasp, showing that I was involved in confrontation in Borneo, but they are two medals for the same thing.

Another aspect of the unfortunate way in which this issue has been handled relates to the veterans who raised the issue of the PJM with the Government. They were, frankly, treated in a way that I would not have expected of the Ministry of Defence. The HDC—the Honours and Decorations Committee—may have met, but if it did so, it did so internally and did not share any of its findings. The letter that was then sent to the veterans was unworthy of the ministry. I am grateful to the Minister for announcing that he is going to revisit this, and I hope that this time there will be proper transparency so that the veterans are aware of the arguments and that they are not just produced in secret and, as my noble and gallant friend has said, erroneously.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Craig of Radley

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, at Second Reading I drew attention to the Government’s positioning of this important clause in the existing Armed Forces Act 2006. Clause 2 is entitled in bold type, “Armed forces covenant report”, and the wording is to be inserted after Section 359 into the 2006 Act as new Section 359A. Section 359 is one of a number of sections towards the back of the 2006 Act, listed as “Miscellaneous”. I pointed out that Section 359 concerns “Pardons for servicemen executed for disciplinary offences: recognition as victims of First World War”. This is an unfortunate juxtaposition for the requirement to report on the covenant, a covenant to which the Prime Minister and many members of the Government have given their strong support. I invited the Government to think again about the placing of this provision because appearances can be important. In winding up, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, accepted that this could be reconsidered.

At Second Reading I criticised not only the placement of Clause 2 but made what I hope was a sensible suggestion for it to be inserted immediately after Section 339 rather than Section 359 and numbering it Section 339A. This would place it in Part 14 of the 2006 Act, headed “Enlistment, Terms of Service etc”. During the Recess I had a letter from the Minister which indicated that, following inquiries with parliamentary counsel and the House authorities, it should be possible to arrange for the position of the Armed Forces covenant section to be changed so as to insert it in the 2006 Act as new Section 353A in Part 17, entitled “Miscellaneous”. I responded saying that I would not challenge the Minister’s intention that the new section should be placed in Part 17 rather than in Part 14 as I had proposed, even though I think that the covenant is rather more important than a miscellaneous adjunct to the Act.

Noble Lords will also have spotted that my amendment inserts the words “Armed forces covenant” as an italic centre heading to the new section, while the Minister proposes to use the words “Armed forces covenant report” as his italicised centre heading. These words are also in bold font at the start of the new section. My service writing directing staff would, I am sure, have red-inked the same phrase appearing in a centre heading and an immediately following side heading. Omitting the word “report” from the italicised centre heading would also allow any further new sections about the covenant to be added at a future time if that were required, without a change to the centre heading. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider this, and explain why, as his letter claimed, it might be possible to achieve the positioning of this new section by a “printing change”, which is a new concept for me. If this is not achievable, can the Committee expect the Minister to table an amendment on Report to reposition this important clause?

As I am on my feet, and with the leave of the Committee—I have already spoken to the right reverend Prelate—may I speak to Amendment 3, which is also in my name? It is, of course, a probing amendment. To save space and complexity in the Marshalled List, I have amended only the first reference to “Secretary of State” in the new section. He is repeatedly referred to, and my proposal should be read to apply to the words “Secretary of State” throughout it.

Why do I think that the Secretary of State is not the right person to report on veterans affairs? I made some comments on that on Second Reading and do not wish to go over all that now. I think that the Committee shares the feeling that someone other than the Secretary of State is the person who should make the annual reports. The Minister will be able to judge for himself the strength of that feeling as we debate the issue.

What should be done instead? On Second Reading, I drew attention to the arrangement made when the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, was made the first Minister for the Disabled over 40 years ago. He specifically did not wish to be embedded in the department for health or any of the other departments that would have an interest in and responsibilities for the disabled. He wished to be able to operate across departments and to bring together their specific involvements with the disabled, which of course cover many issues of interest to veterans too—health, education, local community support and so on. Indeed, there is a good list of appropriate fields in Amendment 5. A Minister for Veterans would be well placed in the Cabinet Office. The Prime Minister of the day accepted the arguments and reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and we all know how successful the noble Lord was and has been ever since in his support and advocacy for the disabled. The arrangements made by Command Paper 7424 in July 2008 for the external reference group, now the covenant reference group, to operate within the Cabinet Office seem an excellent start on which to build and establish a Minister with responsibility for veterans policy in the Cabinet Office. If this idea were taken up, it would also give a far greater indication of the Government’s commitment to veterans and their interests.

In the United States, there is of course a separate Department of Veterans Affairs. Our veteran numbers are no match for the United States, but the principle of separating defence policy and policy for overseeing veterans affairs is a sound one. We should adopt it too. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who added his name to my two amendments, is unfortunately away from London at this time. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, my Amendment 12 is also in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. It refers specifically to the Minister for Veterans Affairs being in the Cabinet Office rather than the Ministry of Defence. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I have raised the matter on a number of occasions. The comparison with the success of the Minister for Disabilities, which he mentioned, is mirrored by another appointment by the previous Government—the Minister for the Third Sector, who was able to speak from the Cabinet Office and unite the activities of the voluntary sector across the whole spectrum of ministries. It seemed to work extremely well.

I have always gone further. To my mind, the Government have created the ideal post in the Minister for Civil Society, who already has to pull together all the people responsible for the support of veterans in the community as a whole. Rather than necessarily appoint another separate Minister for Veterans Affairs, it would seem logical that that could be added to the portfolio of the Minister for Civil Society, who is already there with a role that precisely mirrors what is required for veterans.

As we have seen, the Minister for Veterans Affairs actually covers every other ministry, including the Ministry of Defence, but has no real rights to interfere with their activities from where he currently is. In addition, the Minister who has the responsibility for veterans affairs now has a very large number of responsibilities, which may in fact inhibit his ability to speak with all the ministries—those of health, transport, work and pensions, communities and local government and so on—that are so vital in veterans affairs. He is responsible for the approach to service personnel and civil servants, reserves, cadets, the Defence Vetting Agency, the MoD Police and Guarding Agency, the People, Pay and Pensions Agency, service children’s education, the Met Office and the Hydrographic Office, in addition to the Service Personnel Veterans Agency. He is already a very busy man. If he has all those responsibilities I do not see how he can carry out all the responsibilities for veterans, particularly as foreseen in the report that is going to have to be made by this covenant. If he were in the Cabinet Office, to which everyone had to report, then you could establish a mechanism to make certain that all the right ingredients were in the report when it was presented to Parliament.