Falkland Islands Defence Review

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State on what is a busy day for the Ministry of Defence, with one oral ministerial Statement and no fewer than five written ministerial Statements.

In his Statement today, and on the radio this morning, the Secretary of State—in response to a question about a newspaper report that Russia was working on a deal to lease 12 long-range bombers to Argentina—said that he had been reviewing the defence of the Falkland Islands and it was right to do that every so often. He went on to say that we needed to modernise our defences in the Falklands to ensure that we had sufficient troops there and that the islands were properly defended in terms of air maintenance and maritime defence. He added that our commitment to the Falkland Islanders having the right to remain British, and to proper protection by our forces, remained absolutely clear. We would certainly endorse that commitment, not least in the context of the outcome of the 2013 referendum when the Falkland Islanders made clear their emphatic wish to remain British. We, too, wish to express our gratitude to our personnel who have served, and continue to serve, in the Falklands, and in particular to our 255 service personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice and the hundreds who were injured in action retaking the Falklands.

Can the Minister say whether the Government regard the threat to the Falkland Islands as having recently increased and whether the Statement today is the response to that? On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State simply said that the threat had not reduced; he did not say that it had increased. Do the Government regard Russian influence in the region as increasing? What, if any, new diplomatic initiatives are taking place with the Argentinian Government and other Governments in South America, as well as with our allies?

In the Statement, reference was made to the refurbishment of the harbour in the Falklands. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate when that work is likely to be completed. Can he also say how soon the missile system will be upgraded?

We certainly support the measures that the Government have announced today, but I would like to ask where this announcement fits in with the pending strategic defence and security review, since the Government have presumably decided that the announcements today could not wait until the SDSR planned for later this year. On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State said that he had started a review of the defence of the Falkland Islands last year—not, as I think is indicated in the Statement today, that it had begun in 2013. Last year, the Secretary of State said in the other place that he was,

“very clear that the next SDSR is being carried out next year”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 662]—

that is, in 2015; and that the Government had not started on the review in 2014, since “that awaits next year”. Now we know that a review of what is surely one important part of our existing and future defence commitments was in fact already taking place when the Secretary of State made that statement. Can the Minister say what other aspects of our existing and future defence commitments are currently the subject of review at ministerial level? I ask that in the context of the Government’s apparent lack of willingness to engage with the public in general—and key stakeholders in particular—on the 2015 strategic defence and security review, which is now scheduled to be completed in some nine months’ time. Yet we now find that what appear to be key decisions have just been made in respect of the defence of the Falklands, which will surely have implications for the 2015 SDSR, on which very little significant progress, if any, has apparently been made.

Indeed, it appears that a further key strategic defence decision has already been made by this Government since the Secretary of State repeated on the radio this morning the statement made by the Prime Minister that there will be no further cuts in the size of the Regular Army, a statement that likewise must have some considerable significance for the direction and content of the SDSR. The Prime Minister’s statement was an interesting one. Does the reference to no further cuts in the size of the Regular Army also extend to no cuts in the future size of our intended 30,000 Army Reserve strength, or was the silence on any commitment in respect of the Army Reserve both deliberate and significant?

Have any other decisions impacting on the 2015 SDSR recently been made before there has apparently been any attempt to involve the public or key stakeholders in consultations on the 2015 SDSR? Finally, while I reiterate our support for the measures that the Government have announced today, do the Government feel that the situation in the Falklands from a defence point of view is such that the decisions could not have been announced later this year as part of, and in the context of, the 2015 SDSR?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his broad welcome for our conclusions to the review. I join him from these Benches in paying tribute to those who are currently serving in the Falkland Islands. Like him, we remember those servicemen who were lost in the battle long ago.

The noble Lord asked me a lot of questions; I was not able to write quickly enough to get them all down, but I will undertake to write him a letter with the answers as soon as I possibly can. He mentioned the recent referendum and the democratic right of the Falkland Islanders to remain British. This Statement sends a strong message to the Falkland Islanders.

The noble Lord mentioned the review. We review all our activity routinely. However, in 2013, given the time that had elapsed since the comprehensive review of the Falkland Islands, officials and Commander JFC advised that such a comprehensive review would be appropriate. Ministers agreed with this advice and provided clear direction for that review.

The noble Lord asked whether Russian influence had increased in the region. The Ministry of Defence undertakes regular assessments of potential major threats to the Falkland Islands to ensure that we retain an appropriate level of defence capability to address such threats. He asked if the threat had increased. There is no current evidence of Argentina’s intent or capability to launch a credible military attack on the Falkland Islands, but we are not complacent and the Government remain absolutely committed to the protection of the Falkland Islands and its population.

The noble Lord mentioned the story in the newspaper this morning. I have no idea where that came from; I have asked officials at the MoD and they do not know either.

The noble Lord asked me about the missile system being upgraded. Our current short-range air defence system—Rapier—is due to go out of service at the end of the decade. Due to the age of that system it would be impractical to sustain it in the longer term, and therefore it needs to be replaced if UK forces are to continue to be able to provide defence to our deployed forces against an air threat.

The noble Lord asked about diplomacy. We have warm relations with most of the South American countries. I meet a number of Foreign and Defence Ministers from these countries, and I assure him that none of them has ever mentioned the Falkland Islands to me. Still, I am sure that these diplomats have noticed the Falkland Islands referendum. We want to have a full and friendly relationship with Argentina as neighbours in the South Atlantic and responsible fellow members of the G20, but we will not negotiate away the rights of the Falkland Islands people against their will or behind their backs.

The noble Lord asked when the harbour is going to be refurbished. It will be done by the end of 2017. I am afraid I could not keep up with all his questions, but he asked me about the 2015 SDSR. As he knows, a lot of background work is being done on that. The decisions on the Falklands Islands announced today are separate from the SDSR, and in all honesty the Statement is not making very big decisions.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 16th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify the response that he gave to me on additional finances and staffing. Is the additional £500,000 as a result of the extension of the remit that is covered in Commons amendments, or was it the amount that was going to be needed anyway in additional money to cover the changes in the Bill as it was originally worded? Was the increase in staffing from nine to 20 also to cover the changes in the Bill as it was originally worded? Surely if the remit has now been extended in the way that it has under the Commons amendment, does that not require additional resources and additional staffing? I was not entirely clear from the answer that the Minister gave to me whether that was what the £500,000 and the increase in staff from nine to 20 covered.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I stand to be corrected, but I think that the extra cost of £500,000 would have arisen anyway and we would have needed to increase the number of staff from nine to 20 anyway under the original Bill.

[Lord Rosser]

Does that mean that, if that was what was deemed necessary under the original Bill, no further money is coming forward to take account of the enhanced remit—and it is an enhanced remit—under the Commons amendment and there is no provision for any additional staff?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I need to check on this, but the message that I received was that everything would come out of the £500,000 and that the staffing level would be adequate for the additional responsibilities.

Ukraine

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 9th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we very much follow the wise advice of former President Teddy Roosevelt to talk softly and carry a big stick.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, so far there has been no real attempt by the Government to engage in any public debate about the 2015 strategic defence and security review and the future direction of defence strategy in the light of developments both at home and abroad, including in Ukraine—unlike the previous Government, who issued a Green Paper. Why have the Government so far declined to have any such public engagement, and is it not as a result becoming increasingly likely that if the next SDSR is to be finalised in 2015— in less than 10 months’ time—it will, like the last one, have to be another rush job carried out without the level and degree of engagement with key stakeholders and the public which such an exercise surely both merits and requires?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we are thinking very seriously about the next SDSR. The MoD has conducted some early thinking to prepare for the review, and this programme of work will provide a solid and sound basis on which we can consider whether adjustments to current policy and plans will be required when the review gets under way later in the year.

Ukraine

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. We agree that the international community must continue to put diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia and we endorse the non-lethal support for Ukraine just set out by the Minister.

I wish to raise a few points. On what basis was the conclusion reached that up to some 75 military personnel should be deployed in Ukraine as opposed to a significantly higher or lower figure than that? For how long are we committing to deploying members of our Armed Forces in Ukraine? Can the Government confirm that our Armed Forces will not be deployed under any circumstances anywhere near the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine and that, as a result, issues of force protection should not arise?

In what circumstances, if any, would the Government decide to either withdraw these military personnel from Ukraine earlier than intended or, alternatively, significantly increase their numbers in Ukraine? When do the Government envisage making a decision on the further requests from Ukraine, to which the Minister referred, for additional assistance and support?

Finally the deployment of our Armed Forces in Ukraine is not, as I understand it, being done under the NATO umbrella. Is that regarded as a potential strength or a potential weakness by the Government, and which other NATO countries are also deploying, or have committed to deploying, members of their armed forces in Ukraine, and in what numbers and capacities?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for non-lethal support for Ukraine.

The noble Lord started by asking me about the 75 military personnel. Up to 75 UK service personnel will be based in Kiev to provide the training advisory support in four areas, as mentioned in my speech. In practice, lower numbers of personnel will be in country initially, and the numbers of personnel required to train in each area will be assessed according to Ukrainian requirements and capacity to absorb the training.

The noble Lord asked for how long the deployment will last. The length of training will be dependent on the Ukrainian capacity to absorb this. We will work closely with them to continuously refine the length and forms of the training packages.

The noble Lord then asked for a commitment that there will not be any deployment near the conflict zone. I can confirm that UK service personnel will only be training well away from the conflict in the east. Most of the trainers will be around Kiev in the west, which is an area that we know very well. It is peaceful, and we do not expect our troops to be armed, but obviously we are keeping that under review.

The noble Lord asked under what circumstances we would withdraw our troops earlier or possibly increase them. Training will be tailored to meet Ukrainian requirements; for example, the medical teams will initially deliver short combat life-saver courses to Ukrainian students.

Gurkhas

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness and I pay tribute to her work as an ambassador for the Gurkha Welfare Trust. Gurkhas within the British Army are proof that different religious and ethnic groups can work together in defence of a set of common values based on the mutual trust and respect that has grown over the last 200 years and I am immensely proud to have served alongside Gurkhas in Malaysia and Hong Kong.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We on this side also recognise the unique contribution made by the Gurkhas over the last 200 years. Do the Government agree that the best way to mark the 200th anniversary would be to ensure a clear and continuing role for the Gurkhas in Army 2020? Can the Minister say whether that is the Government’s objective and what that role might be?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, of course we are very keen on a proper role for the Gurkhas, and we feel that they have a proper role at the moment.

Defence: Type 26 Frigates

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. As an example, we acknowledge that there have been in-service reliability issues with the Type 45 destroyers’ power and propulsion systems. I can assure my noble friend that we have learnt lessons. We are addressing them as we take forward the Type 26 programme.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Can the Government indicate to what extent a decision to order Type 26 frigates before the election, and the number of them, pre-empts options on the future strategic role of the Navy under the 2015 strategic defence and security review, which has yet to be undertaken? Could the Government indicate their assessment of the extent to which there will be an export market for the Type 26 frigates and whether there have been any expressions of interest?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, bilateral conversations are ongoing with a number of international partners to explore opportunities for co-operation on the Type 26 itself, as well as on its design and on the systems that are planned to be fitted to it.

Afghanistan: Interpreters

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we recognise the huge debt that we owe to our Afghan employees, and we are working with the Home Office and the Afghan authorities to avoid any unreasonable delays in relocation. We take intimidation very seriously and trained police investigate claims. We provide security advice and relocation in-country—or, in extremis, back to the United Kingdom. We are aware of no staff killed or seriously injured on duty. We very much welcome the noble Baroness’s ideas on interpreter opportunities and we are working closely with the Home Office to try to take this forward.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we, too, extend our condolences after the deaths of the Afghan interpreter and the British security guard in an incident that is a stark reminder of the dangers that those in Afghanistan still face. How do the Government now keep track of the continuing safety or otherwise of those Afghans who were interpreters with our Armed Forces? It is surely only with this information available that a realistic assessment can be made of whether an application to move to this country under the intimidation policy should be agreed. Who in Afghanistan is now responsible for what the Minister, in responding to an Oral Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, last December, described as the,

“very thorough anti-intimidation policy which applies to all staff employed since 2001”?—[Official Report, 10/12/13; col. 713.]

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, on continuing safety, we have an enduring commitment to ensure the safety of our Afghan staff. Anyone who feels in any danger will contact our staff. On who is responsible, it is the same team in Kabul which was previously responsible for delivering our intimidation policy.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I express no surprise that the Government have not felt able to accept this amendment, since the Minister indicated to me in a recent letter that the Government would not be tabling any amendments on thematic investigations for Third Reading. As we come to the end of our consideration of the Bill, I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for their thoroughness and unfailing courtesy, at the Dispatch Box, in correspondence and outside the Chamber, in responding to issues that we have raised. I extend those thanks to the Bill team and to all noble Lords who have taken part.

I also thank the Minister for his kind words. I am grateful to him for having somewhat contradicted the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who clearly believes that the issue I am raising is of no significance. Indeed, I think he used the expression “clutching at straws”. The Minister clearly does not believe that the issue I am raising is clutching at straws. He has said specifically that the Government do not want the ombudsman to be able to carry out an investigation into, for example, bullying at a particular location. That is not a minor issue or clutching at straws; that would be a particularly useful and relevant role for the ombudsman to have. When the Minister talks about undermining the chain of command, it depends on whether the chain of command will regard the ombudsman as the enemy or as being of assistance to it in dealing with issues of military life and military personnel that arise. We are getting off on a very bad footing but I sense that the ombudsman will be regarded as the enemy, who should not be let out more often than is absolutely necessary.

In his response, the Minister reiterated the Government’s position: while they agree that the ombudsman should address wider issues, they do not want him to have any statutory powers to investigate those issues. The ombudsman can apparently report that there is a wider problem but he or she cannot fully investigate whether that is the case, or, if it is, the extent to which it is the case, and make recommendations. The ombudsman can do this if the Secretary of State requires him to do so but not of his own volition. We know that Secretaries of State do not ask—they have not asked the present commissioner—for such investigations to be carried out. Investigations into maladministration will not necessarily provide scope for raising matters of concern over thematic issues or abuses because such an investigation needs a specific complaint, or complaints, of maladministration. There does not have to be a procedural issue in how complaints are dealt with for there to be an issue of concern.

In conclusion, the main issue is that the Government intend that the ombudsman may only report, not investigate, concerns over systemic or thematic abuses or issues, and that it should then be up to the Defence Council or the Ministry of Defence whether any further action is taken to investigate those concerns. By definition, the ombudsman will not be able to substantiate such concerns or base any recommendations on the facts that emerge from the investigation. He or she will not have the power to investigate concerns beyond what arises from an individual complaint, not about the issue itself but about maladministration of the way a complaint has been dealt with. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights said, the appearance of the independence of the ombudsman is important to provide the necessary confidence. In opposing my amendment, the Government have not provided a sufficiently convincing explanation of the difficulties that would be caused by the ombudsman having the power to carry out investigations.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I may be able to help the noble Lord. In winding up, I misread one word. I said that we do not want the ombudsman to highlight any thematic issues; I should have said that we do want the ombudsman to highlight the thematic issues. That was entirely my misreading.

[Lord Rosser]

Although that sounds like a significant change in the Government’s position, actually it is not. What the noble Lord has said is that the Government want the ombudsman to be able to highlight systemic issues—that is, to say, “I’ve been told that there is a problem”—but not to investigate the issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting what he said but it does not alter the position that the Government do not want the ombudsman to be able to investigate.

There is a difference between telling somebody that there is a problem and being able to investigate it. As I was saying when the Minister intervened, the Government have not provided a sufficiently convincing explanation of the difficulties that would be caused by the ombudsman having the power to carry out investigations into thematic issues of concern of his or her own volition, even though they do not dispute that it may be necessary to carry out such investigations—but only if the Secretary of State requires the ombudsman to do it. So it may be necessary if the Secretary of State wants it but not if the ombudsman thinks it should be done. That does not add up to a credible position on the Government’s behalf, and I wish to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 29th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am saying that the chain of command would want these matters resolved. It is part of the Armed Forces covenant that these sorts of situations are clarified.

[Lord Rosser]

May I ask a further question? In the scenarios that the Minister has referred to, if the family of the deceased were dissatisfied with the outcome, would they then be able to refer the matter to the ombudsman, on the basis that there had been maladministration, or would they not be able to make such a reference?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The answer to that is no. The noble Lord asked me earlier whether next of kin, families or personal representatives could make applications to the ombudsman where a complaint had already been made. The answer is no; they could not if no application had previously been made. If an application to the ombudsman had been made by the complainant before they died, there may be circumstances in which that could continue, depending on the feasibility of doing so and on whether appropriate redress could eventually be granted. This would apply equally to the bringing of an appeal in the internal system. As I said to my noble friend, if there is serious redress or something that needs to be put right, that would be within the interests of the Armed Forces and I am sure that the chain of command would want the situation to be rectified.

Treating families with concerns seriously, and being seen to do so, is important if we are to maintain confidence in the Armed Forces more generally. It is in everyone’s interests to address any feelings of injustice that bereaved families may have and to reach a satisfactory outcome where possible. Where these concerns are potentially related to the individual’s death, we would expect the chain of command to consider the concerns very seriously and whether appropriate action can be taken as a result of the claims. I hope that noble Lords will gain a degree of comfort from what I have said and will be prepared to withdraw their amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, in Committee I raised the question of the intended role for the ombudsman as regards the Royal Military Police, both in respect of complaints raised by members of the RMP in connection with their working environment and situation and those raised by service personnel about the activities of the RMP and how it had carried out its role. The Minister drew attention to the fact that he had sent me a letter on that issue two days previously, and I responded by saying that I thought it would be helpful to have the information in the letter with regard to the role of the ombudsman on the record in Hansard. The purpose of my amendment today is, I hope, to achieve that objective, and nothing more.

The Minister’s letter covered the procedures that relate to service police officers in all three services, not just those in the RMP. On the assumption that the Minister will cover the position comprehensively in his reply, I do not intend to refer to any parts of the letter, with one exception. The letter indicated that the Government were also looking at other ways in which serious allegations and complaints made against members of the service police could be investigated. I simply ask whether the Minister is able to give any sort of timescale within which that exercise is expected to be completed. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, Amendment 3 deals with how the proposed service complaints system will work with regard to the Royal Military Police. I can confirm that the provisions of the Bill apply in much the same way to complaints concerning members of the service police as they do for any other service person. For example, where a service person believes they are bullied by a service policeman acting in the course of their duties, they can complain about that.

There is one exception in that service complaints cannot be made about decisions a service policeman has made following an investigation about whether to refer a case to the Director of Service Prosecutions under Part 5 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. That circumstance is specifically excluded from being dealt with as a service complaint under the current regulations, and the intention is that it will remain so under the new regulations.

The reason such decisions are excluded is that, as a matter of principle—and this is important—the chain of command should not be able to interfere with prosecutorial decisions in the service complaints system. However, as in the civilian context, there are mechanisms for challenging such decisions via the courts, either during service proceedings or by way of judicial review.

For completeness, I will make another point: a member of the service police can complain about the same matters as other members of the Armed Forces and is subject to the same exclusions and other rules if he or she believes they have been wronged; for example, about pay, appraisals or any other matter. As such, under the new process the member of the service police would also have access to the ombudsman.

As regards who the specified officer would be in respect of any service complaint—as is clear from draft regulation 3 of the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations—that would ordinarily be the complainant’s commanding officer. There is no separate procedure or route for service complaints about the Royal Military Police, nor is that required. The role of the specified officer is to consider whether the complaint is admissible or not. If that person decides that the complaint is inadmissible, the complainant can ask the ombudsman to review that decision, and any decision on the admissibility of a service complaint by the ombudsman is binding.

Finally, we are also considering other ways in which serious allegations and complaints made against members of the service police might be dealt with. However, there are a number of complex issues to consider, including how any new arrangement could work in the context of an operational theatre and the need for an extension of statutory powers. We expect to conclude this work in time for next year’s armed forces Bill. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

I hope that I have provided noble Lords with reassurance that the ability already exists for a service person to make a service complaint about the way in which a service policeman has conducted themselves in their role. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response and for placing on record in Hansard the thrust of the letter that he kindly sent to me. I am very grateful to him for doing so and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group would require there to be a gap of five years between a person ending their service in the Regular or Reserve Forces and becoming eligible to be appointed to the post of Service Complaints Ombudsman. The provision in the Bill requires simply that, to be appointed to the post, an individual is not currently a member of the Regular or Reserve Forces nor of the Civil Service. The service complaints process is in place to deal with a wide range of matters that can give concern to our personnel. For those concerns to be addressed and resolved, it is essential that everyone who might wish to use the process has confidence that it will deal with complaints in an impartial and professional way.

The need for the system to be fair, effective and efficient is already well established, and is the basis in the Bill for the ombudsman’s annual assessment in the ombudsman’s report as to how the process operated during the preceding year. In creating the new role of ombudsman, those principles of impartiality and professionalism are also the characteristics that everyone will expect to see the postholder display. Crucially, postholders must also be demonstrably independent of those whom they seek to hold to account for the way in which complaints have been handled.

That is why the ombudsman is outside the chain of command and has access to Ministers when the ombudsman considers it is necessary. The ombudsman will also be able to approach the chain of command at any level and on any issue, should there be a need to do so. The ombudsman will continue to be accommodated outside the defence estate to reinforce the independence of the role and the ombudsman will recruit its own staff in line with prevailing Civil Service recruitment guidelines. The Bill includes a new provision as a further mark of the role’s independence and security of the postholder’s tenure, in that the postholder’s appointment will be subject to appointment by Her Majesty.

The ombudsman will be a post that is of public interest. As such, the recruitment activity will include a pre-appointment hearing by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, once a candidate selected by the interview panel has been approved by the Secretary of State. This was introduced for the Service Complaints Commissioner post for the same reasons.

In reviewing the terms that will apply to the ombudsman post, we have considered the length of engagement of other similar posts and, to answer the noble Lord’s question, we have determined that when the next recruitment campaign is run the tenure will be extended to five years. To answer his other question, the term will not be renewable. This will give any future ombudsman sufficient time to familiarise themselves in the role and then become fully effective, which would not necessarily be the case if the term was shorter. Having looked at how other ombudsman institutions in the public sector are set up, we are aware that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has a seven-year non-renewable term. By keeping this aspect of the ombudsman appointment in the terms of appointment rather than in the Bill, we retain the flexibility to increase it in the future if experience shows that that might be beneficial.

The skills and experience that are needed for this post are those expected for any high-profile oversight role, with the additional challenges in the short term of transforming the current role of the Service Complaints Commissioner to that of an ombudsman. Proven analytical skills and the ability to make sound judgments and recommendations on the basis of evidence, along with a proven record in change management, will be key. Individuals can acquire these skills in any number of ways and it is for applicants to show how they have demonstrated them in practical terms that will be of benefit in this role.

We are clear that, on taking up the appointment, the ombudsman should not be a serving member of the Regular or Reserve Forces, nor of the Civil Service, so that the independence of the post and postholder is not in question. We do not, however, limit ourselves, as the amendment would, to those who may have left service during any particular period. Our aim is to get the best candidate for the job and to be in a position to encourage applications from as wide a field as possible. To put in an arbitrary bar would disqualify otherwise excellent candidates with potentially relevant and recent experience, a point that was well made by my noble friend.

As part of the recruitment process for posts of this nature, the recruitment consultants who are running the campaign will scrutinise closely the information provided by applicants, and will compare it to the required skills and experience that have been set out in the advertisement for the post. The consultants will also work closely in the run-up to and during the campaign with those who will be interviewing the applicants and recommending the candidate to Ministers for their approval. As has been the case in the past for the Service Complaints Commissioner, the ombudsman interviewing panel will include a mix of military and Civil Service personnel who know the complaints process well and have a clear understanding of the environment in which the ombudsman will be operating. This helps the consultants to understand in more detail the role that they are recruiting to and the benefits and disadvantages that certain areas of previous experience might attract.

The period since a potential candidate left the service might not necessarily be an issue. What may be of relevance is the role and function they carried out and the length of time they were in the service. For example, an individual who served for only a short period but who prior to joining up had experience of particular value to the ombudsman role may be an especially strong candidate who should be given serious consideration. Each candidate is therefore considered on their merits and always with the need for the chosen candidate for the post to be, beyond question, independent of those whom they will be holding to account.

As part of their checks, the consultants will clarify any potential issues that arise that they feel might raise any real or perceived doubts as to an applicant’s independence from the Armed Forces if an applicant were to go on to become the commissioner or, in future, the ombudsman. They will also look for any possible signs that an applicant might not otherwise be acceptable or might bring the integrity of the post into question, which might include, for example, whether they have been or are currently the subject of a complaint. The selection panel chaired by a public appointments assessor must also satisfy itself that all candidates can meet the Standards in Public Life principles and that they have no conflict of interest that would call into question their ability to perform the role.

There is undoubtedly a fine balance to be struck between having some relevant knowledge of the way that the services operate and being completely new to their ethos. The Armed Forces operate in a unique employment environment. Their need for strong discipline is among the factors that make them such an effective fighting force on operations. It can be difficult for someone who is unaccustomed to the way in which that discipline is instilled and maintained readily to understand how this environment differs from the civilian workplace and, indeed, how that might transfer to the way in which complaints are viewed and how the services handle them. By the same token, we need and want a fresh pair of eyes to look at our complaints process and determine what is fair, effective and efficient in the way that we deal with any complaints that might arise within that unique environment.

If an applicant for the ombudsman post had only recently left the Regular or Reserve Forces, we would still want to consider such an application. The checks and balances that we have in place as part of the rigorous recruitment process—and our need to ensure that the postholder is seen as independent—give us the flexibility to consider as wide a range of applicants as possible for this important role and to secure the best possible candidate. These amendments would lead to good candidates being excluded arbitrarily, and for that reason I must resist them. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

Will the Minister clarify a point he made? I think he said that a panel will make the appointment. If I understood that correctly, did he say that the panel would recommend a candidate or candidates to those who would make the final decision?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I think the answer is one candidate. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord know.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that and for his response. I noted that he said that the intention was for a non-renewable five-year tenure. Obviously, one would want to reflect on that. Personally, I can see some advantages in having a lengthy period of tenure that is not renewable, because then the occupant of the post may not be tempted in their decisions to do things that might lead to the contract being renewed at the end of the period. One could see the advantages of that, but I stress that that is an immediate personal response to that point.

Obviously, I am sorry that the Minister did not feel able to go any part of the way towards the objective that the amendment sought to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, said that we should not exclude people in primary legislation. Of course, a response to that is that we should not enable somebody who left the Regular and Reserve Forces the previous day, metaphorically speaking, to be appointed to this post in primary legislation. Perception is very important here. The reality is that the proposed legislation that we have in front of us enables an appointment to be made of somebody who has literally just left the Regular and Reserve Forces. I am sorry that the Minister did not feel able to make any movement at all on that. From the nature of the response, the Government obviously do not feel able to say that there should be any minimum period before anybody from the regulars or the reserves should be able to be appointed to this position.

However, I am grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive nature of his reply. I want to reflect further on it and on the points he has made and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the first amendment in this group would extend from three to six months the period in which a former or serving member of the Regular or Reserve Forces can bring a service complaint. The second amendment would extend from six to 12 weeks the period in which a complainant can submit an appeal about a decision taken on their complaint.

The third and fourth amendments seek to ensure that regulations do not foreshorten periods referred to in the Bill within which a complaint can be made and an appeal can be submitted. The time taken to deal with a complaint from the point at which it is first raised by the complainant with their chain of command, through to their being given a final decision, can be crucial to perceptions that the process is fair. If a complaint is particularly complex and means that a large amount of material needs to be gathered or witnesses interviewed, the time taken may be long, but the parties will most likely consider it to be proportionate and necessary for the interests of justice to be served. In other cases, an informal approach, such as through mediation or a quick discussion to sort out a minor confusion, can be equally as effective in delivering an outcome with which those involved can declare themselves content because it has given them a satisfactory result.

The time allocated in the process for the complainant to formulate their complaint can also be an important factor in whether they consider that the process is working for or against them. If the process gives them only a short time in which to put together their complaint, to gather their thoughts or any material they might need, they may feel that they are being rushed unnecessarily into making a complaint and that they would have been better prepared and would receive a better hearing if they had been given longer. If, on the other hand, they are given too long to prepare, there is a risk that the facts become less clear or are forgotten.

As in any aspect of a complaints process, the procedures should not focus solely on the needs of the complainant, but consideration must also be given to those who may be being complained about. If the period in which a complaint can be made is too long, they may be unaware that they are going to be complained about, so do not capture information or their recollections while still fresh. Fairness must therefore extend to them, especially if there may be consequences for their reputation if they are the subject of a complaint that they have behaved improperly. The time limit in the Bill for making a complaint is the same as that under the current system, which is three months. It is a period that is neither so short that the individual could not corral the facts and put together their complaint nor so long that those details will be forgotten. To extend that period to six months would risk the very problems arising that the current time limit is designed to avoid.

The same considerations influenced the provisions in the Bill for the time limit for making an appeal. At the point that the complainant is considering whether to appeal a decision that has been made on their complaint, they will have a keen sense of what it is that they are not satisfied with, whether that is about the decision itself or the way in which it was reached. The process of setting out the reasons for their appeal should therefore be a relatively quick one, compared, for example, to setting out the original complaint. As ever, there is a balance between the need to keep the process moving on and giving individuals time to gather their thoughts. A lengthy period of uncertainty on whether or not a decision will be appealed can also have consequences for any other party to the complaint, especially someone who has been complained about. For these reasons, extending the time limit for making appeals to 12 weeks is considered to be counter to the principles of fairness. Fairness also requires, however, that there should be the ability to react to unforeseen circumstances. Timescales are therefore not hard and fast, which would give the impression that there is simply a process to be followed without the chain of command being able to take a more pragmatic and sensitive approach when individual circumstances require.

I circulated an initial draft of the regulations on 9 July. As noble Lords will see from these, there is scope for those in the chain of command who are dealing with a complaint to extend both of these time limits if it is just and equitable to do so. It may be, for example, that an individual gives notice that they would be unable to respond by the time stipulated because of a personal matter, such as a bereavement, leave, training or operational commitments, or because they are about to receive medical treatment. In such a situation, it would be just and equitable to agree a new timescale but, again, one that is aimed at moving matters on as quickly as possible, with due consideration to other parties.

There is a similar provision in the new procedures in the Bill for making applications to the ombudsman which gives the ombudsman discretion to extend the time limit set out in the Bill within which complainants must make their applications—this was a point that the noble Lord asked about. The draft regulations show that the intention is that the ombudsman would be able to apply the same test to extend the time limit application if the ombudsman considers it is just and equitable to do so. As these are procedural matters, just as in the case of making an initial complaint and in making an appeal, it is right that this is spelt out in regulations rather than in the Bill.

There are two further safeguards in the Bill that aim to protect the complainant from someone in the chain of command who takes what they consider to be an incorrect decision not to extend a time limit. These are at the point at which that decision would prevent a complaint from entering the system or from progressing to an appeal stage. Under a new right, the complainant can approach the ombudsman at both junctures if they wish to have those decisions independently reviewed. If the ombudsman finds that the chain of command was wrong not to extend the time limit on just and equitable grounds, the ombudsman’s decision is final, and the complaint or appeal will be returned to the chain of command to proceed as normal.

We gave very careful consideration to these timescales and compared them with those under other procedures which, though not directly comparable, provide a useful benchmark about what is considered reasonable. In respect of matters before employment tribunals, for example, the time limit for making a claim is three months from the first incident complained of, and in respect of discrimination claims within three months of the latest incident complained of.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the time limits start to apply when there is a series of related complaints. I cannot read the writing on this, but I will write to the noble Lord on that.

The third and fourth amendments are also resisted. The Bill sets out minimum periods within which a complaint can be made and an appeal submitted. As such, neither of these can be foreshortened by regulations. For the reasons I have set out, we judge that these time limits are fair and reasonable, especially taking into account the important safeguard that they can be extended where it is reasonable to do so or reviewed by the independent ombudsman.

On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I think he has confirmed that there is nothing in the service complaints regulations that will foreshorten or have the effect of foreshortening the time limits referred to in the Bill. The Minister has also explained why the time limits that are in the Bill have been felt to be appropriate and related them either to existing time limits or time limits that exist in other situations. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, these amendments would extend the ombudsman’s authority to conduct investigations beyond those matters raised by complainants about the handling of their case to a much wider range of matters, based on the ombudsman’s judgment of issues that are in the public interest. In the second of these amendments, the ombudsman would also be able to investigate the merits of individual allegations. As such, the second amendment in particular represents a significant development in the role of the ombudsman, which it is right that we have debated, as we seek to improve on the way the complaints system operates through the increased oversight afforded by a reformed commissioner role.

Observations on the way the current complaints system has operated since its introduction in January 2008 have focused primarily on the concerns that, in too many cases, the time taken to reach a conclusion is too long. While it is possible for any complaint to take longer than would reasonably be expected, particular concern has been expressed about complaints that involve bullying and harassment, where the consequence of delay can be more keenly felt and which by their nature have a more damaging effect on relationships, and in some extreme cases, on an individual’s health. The current Service Complaints Commissioner covered a range of issues in her annual reports, including delays. For example, in this year’s annual report she has made recommendations that aim to increase the services’ understanding of what the numbers and types of complaints can tell them about the effectiveness of the training they conduct in values and standards and the need to treat everyone with respect. Wider recommendations of this kind might strictly be considered to go beyond the operation of the current system or the exercise of the commissioner’s function, in that they aim to reduce the number of instances of poor treatment by one colleague against another, making a reality of the services’ zero tolerance of bullying and harassment, for example. Recommendations by the commissioner serve a wider aim however, which is to encourage individuals to speak up when they experience such behaviour, as they see that good can come from it, ultimately, if behaviour is changed.

The commissioner is able to make such comments and recommendations under current provisions in the Armed Forces Act 2006 that are replicated in the Bill before us. The focus for the ombudsman will be to provide strengthened and independent oversight of how the complaints process operates. It will hold the chain of command to account for the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency with which it discharges its responsibilities.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister said—I think I heard him correctly—that the ability of the ombudsman to undertake the kind of reports and investigations that we are talking about is already contained in previous legislation and is replicated in this Bill. Which are the parts of the Bill that say that the ombudsman can do what we are seeking in this amendment?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I hope I will come to that point later in my response. The commissioner is able to make such comments and recommendations under current provisions in the Armed Forces Act 2006 that are replicated in the Bill before us. The focus for the ombudsman will be to provide a strengthened and independent oversight of how the complaints process operates. It will hold the chain of command to account for the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency with which it discharges its responsibilities, and through its investigation of individual complaints, the ombudsman will provide a valuable source of lessons that will provide resolution for the individual, and which will also support the Defence Council in its role of delivering a better complaints process.

The service chiefs are clear that the system has not been operating as efficiently as it should and accept the criticism that I referred to earlier, that too many complaints are taking too long to resolve. They are also clear that in taking forward reform of the system, it should continue to be the chain of command that investigates complaints and works with complainants to find a solution that they are satisfied with. That way confidence in the chain of command’s ability to treat them fairly will increase, encouraging more people to speak out when they are unhappy so that, ultimately, we maintain the highly effective fighting forces of which we are rightly proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, responds, I should say that I misunderstood my brief. My noble friend Lord Palmer asked me about Canada, and the answer that I gave relates to Canada, not to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked. With regard to Canada, we looked at ombudsmen within the public sector in the UK but did not look at models from overseas, so we did not look at the Canadian model.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I am a little confused about the Government’s stance. On the one hand, part of the answer appeared to be—maybe I misunderstood it—that to give the ombudsman the powers suggested in the amendment could cause conflicts with other inquiries and investigations. Having said that, I got the impression that the Minister was saying that those powers were already there in the existing system, whether under new Section 340O, which deals with the annual report, or in new Section 340L, which deals with reports of investigations. I was rather getting the message that, on the one hand, it would be unacceptable because of possible conflicts but that, on the other hand, the powers were already in those two parts of the Bill to which the Minister referred.

The heading of new Section 340O is:

“Annual report on system for dealing with service complaints”,

so it is not dealing with reports outside the annual report or with something separate. It is interesting that the Secretary of State, who has the power to ask the ombudsman to prepare a report on any matter relating to the ombudsman’s functions, has never chosen to do so, as I understand it, hence our amendment saying that the ombudsman, having advised the Secretary of State, and it being perceived to be in the public interest, should have the ability to do so. That is, the ombudsman should not be dependent on the Secretary of State asking them to prepare such a report, because the Secretary of State has apparently never done so.

One finds it a little odd that, if the power is already there for the present commissioner to do this, one does not get the impression that the commissioner felt that the power was already there when one reads the commissioner’s evidence to the Defence Select Committee. The commissioner proceeded, in fact, to give a list of topics on which a wider report could have been written, which—this is the inference—she might have been interested in doing. That does not suggest that the commissioner felt that the existing legislation already gave her the power to produce the kind of reports that are referred to in the amendment.

In view of what I regard as potential slight confusion over the reply, in that on the one hand it seems to be saying that it is undesirable but on the other it is saying that the power is already there, I will want to read closely what the Minister has said before considering whether to pursue this issue any further. However, I am genuinely grateful to him for his comprehensive reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

This amendment, which is fairly straightforward, relates to the provision in the Bill that gives the ombudsman the power to require a person to provide documents for an investigation. However, the draft regulations appear to provide that if the documents are not received the ombudsman may proceed with the investigation and preparation of a report. Of course, the alternative remedy available to the ombudsman is to go to the High Court if the documents required are not forthcoming. The purpose of putting down this amendment is to seek to clarify two points. First, can the Minister confirm, either now or subsequently, whether the word “may” that has been used in the draft regulations —that is, “may proceed with the investigation” without having got the documents—means that and will not be interpreted as “must”?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether the position of the ombudsman in respect of the power to require documents is not weakened if it is already written into the draft regulations, and thus generally known, that an investigation can proceed without the ombudsman having got all the documents that are required? Why did the Government deem it necessary to put that into the draft regulations? Are they saying that the ombudsman could not have decided to start an investigation without all the documents sought without this specific provision being in the regulations? Unless the answer is that the ombudsman could not start an investigation, on the face of it, it does not seem particularly helpful to put in the regulations that documents that have been requested and required but have not been produced will not stop the ombudsman starting the investigation. That does not seem to be exactly encouraging those who have been asked to produce documents to do so.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I hope that I will get an answer to the noble Lord’s two questions. If not, I shall write, but I am fairly optimistic that I will be able to get an answer.

This amendment would ensure that the ombudsman’s investigations can proceed only when the ombudsman is satisfied with the information and evidence received. This may be considered desirable to ensure that the resources of the ombudsman are used efficiently. It may also be desired that the ombudsman may proceed with investigations only when they have all of the information and evidence that they need in order to do their job effectively. Otherwise, it might be argued that they could come under pressure to conclude investigations in the absence of all of the evidence that they need.

Under new Section 340I(1) in the Bill, it is for the ombudsman to determine whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation. Under new Section 340I(4), the ombudsman may make such inquiries as he or she thinks appropriate. Under new Section 340J, the ombudsman also has broad powers to require a person to provide documents or other information in their possession and has the powers of the High Court in respect of the attendance and examination of witnesses and the production of documents. The effect of this amendment, perhaps inadvertently, would be to limit the discretion of the ombudsman to carry out his or her investigations. It is very important that the ombudsman has all of the information required in order to carry out their role effectively, and the Bill provides for that.

Regulation 6 in the draft Service Complaints Ombudsman investigation regulations permits the ombudsman to proceed with an investigation and prepare a report under new Section 340L, whether or not they have all of the information that they have requested. That is a permissive provision, so that the ombudsman does not have to proceed with an investigation in the absence of information, but they can do so if that would be the fair thing to do, bearing in mind the need for efficiency and effectiveness.

The noble Lord asked whether the word “may” means that, and the answer is that it does. He also asked whether it weakens the position of the ombudsman’s power to get documents, and the answer is that it does not do so in any way.

I must resist this amendment. It is right that the ombudsman retains discretion on whether to proceed with an investigation in all the circumstances of the case based on the information and evidence put before them. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I will withdraw the amendment, but are the Government saying that, without that provision in the draft regulations stating that the ombudsman may proceed with the investigation and the preparation of a report under Section 340L of the Act if the documents or other information is not provided within that period or not provided under paragraph (b), the ombudsman would not have the power to proceed with an investigation without having got those documents?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I do not have an immediate answer, but I will write to the noble Lord on that.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I have one or two comments to make on this group of amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am waiting to find out whether the Government’s view is that the Bill as it stands gives the Defence Council the right to reject the ombudsman’s findings on maladministration as opposed to the ombudsman’s recommendations. The Bill refers to the Defence Council deciding what action,

“to take in response to the findings”,

of the ombudsman, but it is not quite clear how the Defence Council could decide not to accept the findings without carrying out a separate investigation of its own.

The amendments also refer to rejecting or modifying the recommendations of the ombudsman. We will listen to the Minister’s response with interest, just as I have listened with interest to the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, put forward. On the one hand, one could say that being able to modify a recommendation might then lead to the Defence Council accepting it rather than rejecting it in totality, which I think is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has made. On the other hand, I suppose that one could argue that being able to modify a recommendation rather than either accepting or rejecting it, and having to explain why if the latter, could be interpreted as meaning that the Defence Council can effectively write its own recommendations on the findings of the ombudsman. That might be seen as rather weakening the objective of the ombudsman making recommendations and the Defence Council then having to decide yes or no, rather than being able to rewrite bits of them. As I say, we await with interest the Minister’s response on that.

It could mean that the Defence Council could modify only parts of a recommendation that it found, for example, inconvenient, and then announce that it would accept the rest. If the provision is for a straight rejection or acceptance, the Defence Council will know that it has to produce some pretty convincing reasons if it is to reject the recommendations in totality. It will also know that, if it is unable to modify them, it may well have to put up with parts that it simply finds inconvenient. We await with interest the Government’s response, as there are two ways of looking at the amendment and its implications.

The reality is that the Defence Council will have to show itself willing to accept the ombudsman’s recommendations if service personnel are to have confidence in the new arrangements. If the Defence Council starts rejecting recommendations because it does not particularly like some parts of them, it will raise questions about the effectiveness of the new arrangements and could lead to pressure in the future—a pressure that is already there anyway from some quarters—for the ombudsman’s recommendations to be made binding under a future defence Bill.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, Amendment 14 would make the ombudsman’s recommendations binding on the Defence Council and would mean that the Defence Council had no choice but to accept the findings of the ombudsman in all cases. Amendments 15 and 16 aim to clarify the powers of the Defence Council in responding to recommendations from the ombudsman —to make clear that the Defence Council can reject or modify a recommendation.

It is our intention that the findings of the ombudsman in its investigation report will, in effect, be binding on the Defence Council. The Defence Council would be able to judicially review those findings if it considered them to be irrational or otherwise flawed on other public law grounds. However, we do not anticipate that happening, and expect the Defence Council to accept the findings before going on to consider any recommendations that the ombudsman may have made in the case.

There has been recent judicial consideration of the legal status of both findings and recommendations in relation to the local government ombudsman. While that consideration related to a different ombudsman, we anticipate that a court would apply those principles to the legal status of the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s findings. As such, we do not consider that it is necessary to make specific provision for this in the Bill. That is, again, in common with other ombudsman legislation.

While we accept the importance of the point being raised, and agree with it in substance, it is considered unnecessary to make specific provision for it in the Bill. The amendment is resisted for that reason.

Turning to Amendments 15 and 16, it may be helpful if I explain in more detail the role of the Defence Council when considering and responding to the recommendations of the ombudsman. The first, as I explained in my closing speech at Second Reading, argues that the recommendations will clearly have some legal effect. The Defence Council will not be free simply to reject the recommendations because it disagrees with them. It would need to have very good, cogent, written reasons to do so, such as where the implementation of the recommendations in full was simply unworkable or where significant resource implications may be involved. It is right that the Defence Council should be able to reach a final decision on matters covered in any recommendations made by the ombudsman.

Given that starting point, the focus of the Defence Council in most cases where the ombudsman has made recommendations will be to decide precisely how it will respond. That may be simply a matter of implementing the recommendations by, for example, making an appropriate apology to the complainant. It may be that the person or persons who made the final decision in the internal process will be asked to reconsider a particular piece of evidence to see whether that would have affected the outcome of their decision. There may be some cases in which the failings identified by the ombudsman are such that a full reconsideration at the final stage of the complaint process is required. That may involve the appointment of a new person or panel of persons to hear the complaint again or, for example, to hold an oral hearing to test some crucial evidence.

This is all provided for in new Section 340M. The Defence Council will not need to modify the recommendation open to it. It would simply decide to reconsider the complaint in a way that suitably responded to the recommendations after careful consideration. I hope these points I have made answer the questions of my noble friend. As such, the amendments are unnecessary, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to make specific reference in new Section 340O to the requirement for the ombudsman to make an assessment in their annual report of the adequacy of the resources available in exercising their functions. This new section in the Bill requires the ombudsman to provide the Secretary of State with an annual report which he must lay before Parliament. The report must comment on the fairness, efficiency and effectiveness with which the system has operated during the preceding calendar year. It must also cover the exercise of the ombudsman’s functions during that period. Additionally, the ombudsman may include in the report any other aspect of either of those elements, as the ombudsman considers appropriate. These are clearly fundamental to any report from the ombudsman and an important product of their oversight role.

The ombudsman’s assessment of the system and the role they play in it can ultimately have a significant impact on the extent to which our personnel and the public at large have confidence in the complaints system and, as a result, are prepared to engage with it to address the concerns they feel. As with other specific areas of the ombudsman’s role, such as their power to conduct investigations, the Bill leaves it to the ombudsman’s discretion about what other issues they feel are pertinent to how the system has operated in the preceding calendar year, and how they have been able to exercise their functions. As in all matters, these will differ from one year to the next and it is right therefore that the ombudsman should be able to judge what is relevant and worth including in their annual report.

The same provisions apply to the current Service Complaints Commissioner. She has varied the issues covered in each of her annual reports, depending on what she has experienced during the report period. Those reports have included comments on the adequacy of the resources that have been made available to her office. My noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, commented at Second Reading that it was important that the new arrangements provided under the Bill are properly resourced. We set out in the impact assessment that accompanied publication of the Bill that we are working with the Service Complaints Commissioner on the changes that her office needs to enable it to convert to the new task of the ombudsman’s role. That will require additional resources and personnel with different skills. As we made clear in the impact assessment, we anticipate increasing the number of staff from the current nine of the commissioner’s office to 20. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with those numbers.

The noble Lord asked me about the Royal Military Police. Two days ago, I wrote a two-page letter to him on this subject, which he may not have received. I think this goes into some detail in answering him.

[Lord Rosser]

I am aware of it and grateful for the letter. I was rather hoping that the noble Lord would refer to it, so it is on the record in Hansard.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The letter is very detailed. Rather than reading out the main points from the Dispatch Box, I would rather refer to the letter. The discretion available to the ombudsman in Section 340O, to include such aspects of the exercise of their function as they deem appropriate, is considered sufficient to cover any eventuality that may arise, without the need to make specific reference to resources, as this amendment proposes. For that reason, I must resist this amendment and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Rosser]

My immediate reaction is to say that I want at some stage to have that on the record in Hansard. I appreciate the Minister’s lack of enthusiasm for standing up to read it all out now, so I am not wondering why he is not doing that, but I may have to consider whether to table an amendment on Report to achieve that. We are always extremely grateful—and I mean this—for the letters that the Minister sends and the care that he takes to respond to questions raised. I appreciate his approach and the assistance that he provides, but I think that some letters ought to be on the record in Hansard, so I may table an amendment on Report with the purpose of getting that one on the record.

As for the rest of the amendment, I hinted that under the wording of the Bill the Service Complaints Ombudsman could probably comment if they felt that the resources that they had were inadequate—or even if they were adequate, because an assessment of the adequacy could mean that the ombudsman says that everything is fine. I do not share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that an ombudsman would never consider what they had to be adequate—that was what I inferred from what he said. After all, if an ombudsman were to announce that resources were inadequate, they would have to submit some justification in the report, which would be, or be in, a public document. The very fact that they had to write it down and could be questioned on it might make them think very hard whether they were being reasonable in their approach.

I included the provision because I think that there are uncertainties about what the workload will be. There is the issue of the wider-ranging reviews and whether they are already encompassed in the Bill; there is the issue of the number of complaints that may come forward if people have real confidence in the new arrangements. It did not seem to me to be unreasonable to include as a requirement an assessment of the adequacy of the resources. After all, if the ombudsman is entirely happy, it is a one-sentence response: “I consider that my resources are adequate”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I think the Minister may have already given part of the reply to this amendment when we were discussing Amendment 7, but if he was—I thought he was—I have to say that he caught me unawares, so I did not really follow, and I will probably be asking for an element of repetition.

As the Minister knows, this amendment was prompted by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of the Bill. The effect of our amendment, if it has been tabled correctly, is to make sure that the regulations referred to in new Section 340B(5)(c) would require an affirmative resolution. In fact, that does not appear to go as far as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggested, if we have read correctly the conclusion it reached, because it refers to the provision in new Section 340B(5), which states:

“For the purposes of subsection (4), a service complaint is not admissible if … (c) the complaint is not admissible on any other ground specified in service complaints regulations”.

The argument of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is that this is an extremely wide-ranging power under which it would be open to a Secretary of State, now or in future, simply through regulations to decide that things that one might have thought acceptable to be the basis of a complaint would no longer be in that category and would be regarded as inadmissible. In its report the committee says:

“In our view the powers are potentially very significant in that they allow additional restrictions to be imposed on a person’s right to have a complaint dealt with under the new redress procedures. At the same time the powers conferred by section 340B(5)(c) are very wide: they contain no limits on the kinds of matters which might be specified in the regulations as grounds for a service complaint to be inadmissible. Given the importance of the power and its potential to limit the right to bring a service complaint, and the lack of any restrictions on the matters which may be specified under the regulations, we consider the delegation of powers conferred by section 340B(5)(c) to be inappropriate”.

I read into that that the committee would probably not feel that our amendment was sufficient; indeed, it might suggest that what should be proposed should be the complete deletion of new Section 340(5)(c). However, we have tabled the amendment in this form, saying that it should go through the affirmative procedure. Clearly, the committee’s concern was that even if nobody could have any exception to the regulations, when they come out—I hope that I correctly anticipate that nobody will have any great exception to them—nevertheless, the power is there for some Secretary of State to do something in the future which could lead to matters which one might feel should be the subject of complaint being no longer admissible, simply through regulations. That really is a very wide power indeed.

I will wait with interest to hear the Minister’s response in the light of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s views on the very wide-ranging powers within the clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, some of my answers on Amendment 7 are obviously relevant to this amendment but I shall not repeat what I said earlier. Amendment 20 is aimed at providing a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny of any Defence Council regulations made in respect of inadmissibility grounds. At first glance, it may seem inconsistent to make the Secretary of State’s regulations specifying matters which are excluded from the service complaints system subject to the affirmative procedure, but not the Defence Council’s regulations on grounds of admissibility. There is a distinction to be made between excluded matters and grounds of admissibility, although they are closely linked. Excluded matters, as can be seen from the initial draft of the service complaints miscellaneous provisions regulations, will include, as now, matters which are subject to alternative dispute mechanisms or involve decisions of independent persons, such as judge advocates or the service police.

The two additional grounds of inadmissibility which we are proposing to include in the draft service complaints regulations have emerged during the operation of the current service complaints system over the past six years. They are grounds related firmly to the fair operation of the service complaints system itself, and are, in our view, relatively uncontroversial. There is no current intention to expand on these grounds, but the Government wish to retain some flexibility here to be able to add to the list if other grounds of a similar type emerge which are impacting on the overall effectiveness of the system, without impacting on the rights of complainants to make service complaints.

Given the distinction between excluded matters and grounds of inadmissibility, we are of the view that it is appropriate for them to be dealt with in different sets of regulations and for those regulations to be subject to different parliamentary procedures. The former go to more fundamental matters, carving out small classes of complaints from the system, so it is appropriate for them to be dealt with in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and subject to the affirmative procedure. That is the same as now in respect of the equivalent regulations. As the additional grounds of admissibility relate broadly to procedural grounds for exclusion they should properly be covered in the Defence Council regulations dealing with the internal complaints system, and there is no reason for this aspect alone to be made subject to the affirmative procedure. As was noted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it should be remembered that the current Defence Council regulations are not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny at all. As I have already indicated, we will reflect on this provision before Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, observed that the power in new Section 340B(5)(c) is very wide ranging. As I mentioned in responding to Amendment 7, I have asked officials to consider what more might be done to limit the scope of the power. In the light of that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. In the light of the fact that he indicated further consideration is being given to this issue, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.

Armed Forces Front-line Combat Roles: Women

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My noble friend is right, which is why we keep this subject very much under review. Women already serve on the front line with great distinction, and we will take into account the factors that my noble friend has mentioned, as well as other aspects, particularly the effect on unit cohesion. My noble friend mentioned other countries. That will be very relevant, although we need to be sure that the answer is right for our Armed Forces and the way they operate.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

On this side, we also wish to express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the five members of our Armed Forces who have recently lost their lives on operations. We are reducing the numerical strength of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan, but the dangers remain, and the enormity of the sacrifices which young service personnel continue to make on our behalf has been brought home to us all once again.

Women currently serve in theatre as engineers, intelligence officers, medics and fighter pilots. The ban on women serving on submarines has been lifted, and increasing numbers of women have been appointed to senior military posts in recent years, but more needs to be done to make sure that our Armed Forces reflect the communities they serve, in line with a key objective of Army 2020. Serious consideration needs to be given to the further roles that women can play, including serving in front-line combat, since we need to maximise the talent and expertise available. The Minister said that the Government are looking at bringing forward the review, which is due by 2018. I wonder whether he can be a bit more specific on that. Is it currently the intention to wait until 2018, or is there an earlier target date for a decision? What are the considerations that will be taken into account by the Government in looking at the issue of women serving in front-line combat roles?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, as I said in my Answer, we are looking very clearly into the possibility of bringing the review to an earlier date than 2018. As soon as I have any information, I will come back and report it to the House.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister explained the background to this amendment which arose from an undertaking that he gave when we last discussed the Bill. I should like to take this opportunity to explain our position on the amendment and our views on it.

We welcome the amendment as it represents a move from the Government’s previous stance that the affirmative order without any associated requirements stated in the Bill would be sufficient, if passed by both Houses, for a future Government to change significantly defence procurement services by making arrangements for such services to be provided by a company to the Secretary of State under contract. The Government’s amendment does not go as far as we would wish, given that the Government were not prepared, as we sought, to withdraw Part 1 when it became known that they could no longer proceed before the general election with their preferred option to go down the road provided for in Part 1. We argued for a super-affirmative procedure involving an independent examination of a future Government’s case for bringing in an outside company to provide defence procurement services and for a report on that independent review by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee prior to Parliament being asked to make a decision on the affirmative order. That did not find favour with the Government either.

What we do have is the Government’s amendment providing for a report to Parliament on the options for carrying out defence procurement with a requirement, as the Minister said, that one option that must be covered in the report is the carrying out of defence procurement by the Secretary of State in the way it is carried out at the time the report is prepared. In other words, the effectiveness or otherwise of the new DE&S-plus-plus organisation that started to come into effect a couple of days ago, at the beginning of this month, will have to be compared with any other proposed arrangements that a future Government may wish to introduce. That is important because the Minister said in the debate on this issue in Committee that if it had been a matter for this Government rather than a future Government, they would have looked at the outside company option—the GOCO—only if the new DE&S-plus-plus organisation now being introduced did not transform the defence procurement operation.

If a future Government adopt the same approach, the report on the effectiveness of the new DE&S-plus-plus organisation will be crucial, as will be the objectivity of that future Government’s assessment of DE&S-plus-plus and their case for believing that the GOCO option would be more successful. Proper time will be needed to evaluate and consider the report to Parliament from that future Government, as provided for in this amendment, if that Government decide they want to go down the GOCO route and not to continue with the new DE&S-plus-plus organisation.

A big concern we have about the Government’s amendment is that it does not lay down any minimum timescale, either directly or indirectly, between the report on the options for carrying out defence procurement being laid before Parliament and the associated affirmative order being considered by Parliament. A future Government, having made up their mind that they wanted to go down the GOCO route, might be tempted to try to rush through the affirmative order. In that context, I cannot help but recall that this Government, in declining to withdraw Part 1, argued that there might in future be a need to bring in the GOCO option with a minimum of delay—an odd argument, bearing in mind that the Government themselves had just had to delay their intentions on the GOCO option by at least two or three years, but nevertheless an indication of a Government’s thinking that they might seek to make the change as quickly as possible at the possible expense of proper scrutiny. Hence my comments and concerns that the Government’s amendment does not provide any real check on such an intention by a future Government.

However, despite our reservations, we shall not oppose the Government’s amendment, as it clearly represents progress towards our position and a move away from the Government’s earlier stance. We are grateful for the support there has been from other noble Lords in pressing the Government to move from their initial stance that affirmative orders, without any associated requirements that would also have to be met, were sufficient.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords and the noble and gallant Lord for their helpful contributions to our short debate. It is clear that this amendment attracts support, particularly from the Official Opposition, and that it would significantly improve the arrangements for parliamentary oversight should Part 1 ever be commenced. I accept the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that our amendment does not go far enough but I think we can agree that this amendment makes a good Bill much better.

As we have, I hope, reached the final stage of the Bill in this House, I thank noble Lords for their work on the Bill. In particular, I am grateful for the contributions of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Stirrup, the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, and my noble friends Lord Palmer, Lord Roper and Lord Lee among many other noble Lords who have spoken during the course of the Bill and done so much to ensure that it leaves this place in good shape. We have covered a lot of ground including on some quite technical matters.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Jolly for her assistance on the Bill and to my officials for their support and hard work. The Government have listened to the concerns that have been raised and have responded, where appropriate, by bringing forward amendments such as the one before the House today. I therefore ask noble Lords to support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Rosser]

Before we go through the final stage, I should like to thank the Minister for his usual patience and courtesy in taking the Bill through your Lordships’ House, and not least for the detailed responses he has given to the amendments that have been pursued and the questions that have been asked. I should also like to thank his ministerial colleague, Philip Dunne MP, for meeting us on more than one occasion, in particular my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on Part 2 on single-source contracts. We extend our thanks in that regard to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. Having meetings with Ministers has also involved officials, and likewise we extend our thanks to them for their courtesy and helpfulness in responding to the many points that we raised.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I was coming on to that point in response to the point that my noble friend Lord King made.

The final issue that I need to address is the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser: if we are having an annual report on the reserves, why should we not have such a report on the Regular Army? The reserves are a unique set-up: part-time volunteers who juggle work, family and military commitments. In recognising the importance of the reserves and in seeking to revitalise them through the Future Reserves 2020 programme, it was considered important to have an external independent view of how we were doing because the changes impact on reservists, employers, families and communities.

The reserve associations are community-facing organisations which provide an essential bridge between our Armed Forces and the civilian population. An association exists for each of 13 administrative areas of the United Kingdom. They provide advice and support on behalf of our volunteer reserve forces and cadets, work with the chains of command of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force and establish and maintain links with the community. They therefore have the knowledge, skills and experience to report effectively and independently on the Future Reserves 2020 programme. Clause 47 puts that into statute. The reserve associations would not be able to fulfil that same role for the Regular Army, as that is not where their expertise lies.

My noble friend Lord King mentioned the reserves, and that recruiting got off to a bad start. My noble friend Lord Lee also asked about this. In the Ministry of Defence, we have given a lot of time to this issue. We are working hard on it. We have recently increased the bounty to encourage regulars to join the reserves, which was a point which my noble friend also made. Over the past three or four weekends, I have been out to see reserves training in Scotland and different parts of England. I can report that morale is high. The senior officers to whom I have spoken are optimistic that we shall reach the numbers that we have set out, so I am confident. I had organised for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and two or three other Peers to visit the recruiting centre in Upavon. We had to cancel that because we had a Statement in the House, but I think that it is in the grid to have another visit there.

My noble friend Lord Palmer asked what manpower would be needed to prepare the report. The answer is a small number. My noble friend also asked what information is already in the public domain. The answer is plenty—the annual report and accounts and the Army 2020 update both cover progress in detail. He asked whether revealing deficiencies might help our enemies. We would not wish to reveal any weakness that may help our enemies, which will and does limit what we can release.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to “radical change” that had not been discussed by the National Security Council. I had better write to the noble Lord as I have quite a lot of information here that I am not going to be able to read out.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked whether we were spending enough on cyber. The Government have recognised the importance of addressing the cyber threat to the UK and we have established a joint cyber unit of regulars and reserves.

I hope that I have answered most of the questions, but if I have not I will certainly write. I have set out why I do not believe the amendment should be accepted and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his reply and all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford for responding to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and do not intend to pursue it any further in the light of the response that my noble friend gave on that point.

A number of concerns have been raised. One is about the potential security implications of producing the report called for in the amendment and, indeed, the report called for by the Defence Select Committee. Since the report would be prepared by the Government and by the Secretary of State for Defence, one would assume that that in itself was a safeguard against anything being revealed that would put at risk our national security.

The issue was also raised that the report refers only to the Army and not to the other services. Obviously, that was in the light of the fact that this has come from a Defence Committee report which was geared to looking at the Army and Army 2020. Of course, if that is felt to be a major stumbling block, there is no reason at all why the Government—if that is their objection—could not come back at Third Reading with an amendment that included the other two forces. The alternative, of seeing this amendment not go through because it does not refer to the other forces, would simply mean that we end up with no report at all.

It is also worth stressing that the key element of the Defence Select Committee’s concerns was actually on the progress being made on the implementation of the Army 2020 plan. I went through the comments that it had to make at some length, because the comments were geared to real concerns about whether the plan would or could be implemented as intended and what the implications would be if it were. It was in that context in particular that the committee called for reports on the progress of all aspects of the Army 2020 plan.

I feel that I have addressed some of the concerns that have been raised. There can be no security implications when the report will be produced by the Government and the Secretary of State for Defence—they are not going to start revealing things that will be of use to those who are hostile to us. The concerns that have been expressed over the implementation of the Army 2020 plan are over how it is going to be implemented, whether it will be implemented as intended and what the implications will be. Primarily what is being sought are reports updating us on the progress that is being made and, as the Defence Select Committee said, detailing any setbacks there have been.

There are reports about what is happening with the reserves. I do not accept the Government’s argument that that is totally different from what is being asked in respect of the Army 2020 plan. They are both reports on progress being made towards implementing objectives set out for our future Army strength. In view of that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Flooding: Military Deployment

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 24th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend—the work of the Armed Forces is always excellent. The lessons learnt will provide a valuable opportunity to look at how the contribution of our Armed Forces to civil resilience can be enhanced and accelerated in future emergencies. We are working with the Treasury to consider whether there is potential for improvement to the funding processes. We routinely support civil authorities on a wide range of resilience activities, such as support in the event of industrial action by fuel tanker drivers and firefighters.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, on 12 February the Prime Minister told Parliament that money would be no object in the response to the floods and that local authorities had only to request military assistance, yet the flooding started in late December in the West Country. Why did it take not far short of two months to make that statement on money being no object, and why was it so long before the military was called in? Why was no action taken by the Government in the first week of flooding to consider and determine the potential role that the military could play? Was it because the Government were not prepared to find the funding to enable cash-strapped local authorities to call in the military until weeks later, or was it because the Government just did not get round to doing it?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the department received its first request for assistance on 29 January and had deployed the requested support by the following morning. As the weather continued to deteriorate, defence became increasingly involved in providing support to local authorities.

Scottish Independence: Faslane

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 3rd March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with every word that my noble friend says.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we want to see Scotland remain a key player in the United Kingdom, to the mutual benefit of each country within it. Defence is a vital component of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister say what the size is of the UK defence footprint in Scotland?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence spent over £20 billion with UK industry in 2011-12. It would be for the Scottish Government to explain clearly what their armed forces would look like. However, to date, they have failed to provide sufficient clarity. At some £34 billion, the UK’s annual defence budget is one of the largest in the world. As part of the UK, Scotland benefits from the full range of the UK’s defence capabilities that its budget provides.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

Before I withdraw my amendment, can I clarify what I think has been said? We are talking about the additional payments to the employer, over and above what has already been paid—and I thank the Minister for setting out what the current arrangements are. On the additional payment, which is one of £500 a month for each month that a reservist is mobilised, can I confirm that the intention is that that will be paid only to small and medium-sized businesses? I think that he then said that there would be flexibility over the level of the payment. Does that flexibility mean that it could exceed that £500?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The answer to the noble Lord’s first question is definitely yes—it is just for the SMEs. I shall need to get back to the noble Lord on the second question.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his contribution. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out on the record what the current situation is and what the Government’s intentions are as regards this additional payment. In the light of the reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I will try to answer the noble Lord’s question when I respond to other noble Lords’ questions. I repeat that the next SDSR, which will take place at a time when the programme has had some time to develop and demonstrate maturity, would be the right time to scrutinise the force structure and whether it needs to adapt to reflect new threats, opportunities or other such variables. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

One of the joys of having amendments in a group where the Government have the first amendment is that you get the Government’s response before being able to explain the reasons for your own amendments. However, I would not wish the Minister to take that in any way as a criticism because we are always extremely grateful for the thoroughness with which he replies to amendments and for the extent of the information he provides to us. I will be as interested as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen in the answer to the question he raised about the amount of discussion that is or is not currently going on in relation to the SDSR due in 2015.

Government Amendment 18 and my Amendments 18C and 18F have one thing in common; namely, they all provide for reports of one form or another. The Minister has explained the thinking behind the Government’s amendment, which, as he said, has arisen from a commitment given when the Bill was being considered in the other place. We have no issues with the Government’s Amendment 18. Our Amendment 18C calls on the Secretary of State to publish annually an analysis of the mental health provision for members and former members of the Reserve Forces and to report on the annual spend on such services. On that latter point, I note that the Minister said, in effect—I appreciate these were not his exact words—that this information could not be provided.

The amendment also makes provision for the transfer of medical records belonging to former members of the Reserve Forces to the National Health Service and for the monitoring of the health needs of former members of the Reserve Forces. Without such an arrangement working effectively, there is a distinct possibility of reservists going to their GP and their full medical history not being available. I appreciate what the Minister has already said in that context, but the reason for putting down the amendment with this requirement is because of claims that this is not what happens on occasions.

Mental health provision is, if anything, even more of an issue for reservists than for members of our Regular Forces as reservists after deployment go back into the civilian world rather than back to their units and can undoubtedly feel isolated on occasion. Hence the importance of the Ministry of Defence and the National Health Service knowing where reservists can be contacted and ensuring that they get the support they need.

A study published in 2012 showed a significantly higher rate of common mental health disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder among reservists, with the incidence of other types of mental illness being greater than that of PTSD, as it also is for regulars. The study also drew attention to the fact that reservists have much more difficulty with post-deployment social functioning and that such difficulties appear important not only to mental health but to fitting back into the family.

In future, we will be expecting a greater and different kind of commitment from our reserves and we need to ensure more than ever that the advances we have made with the Regular Forces with regard to mental illness, to which the Minister has already referred, are also achieved for our Reserve Forces. Government Amendment 18 provides for the annual report from reserve associations to include that association’s assessment of the provision that is made regarding the mental welfare of members and former members of the volunteer Reserve Forces but, apart from the issue of the extent to which reserve associations would be qualified to make such a full assessment, the Government’s amendment does not lay any requirement on the Secretary of State to make such an assessment or to address the issue of the transfer of medical records.



We believe it is important that there is such a requirement on the Secretary of State as well, particularly in relation to making the assessment. Making the provision set out in Amendment 18C and putting it in the Bill would help to ensure that mental health provision for members and former members of the Reserve Forces was regarded with the importance that it deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I almost feel as if I am once again moving an amendment after the debate on it has already taken place. Amendment 18A provides for the Secretary of State to publish quarterly recruitment figures and trained strength numbers for Reserve Forces against adjusted quarterly targets. I certainly do not wish to speak at any great length on this amendment but, as has already been said, there has been a significant change in approach by the Government to the role of the reserves since the increase in reserve strength was first announced alongside further reductions in the size of our Regular Forces. At that time, the previous Secretary of State made it clear that the reduction in the size of the Regular Forces would take place only as and when the reserves had been increased.

That is not now the Government’s stance, which has changed to saying that the reduction in the size of the Regular Forces and the Army, in particular, is not dependent on first delivering the increase in the size of our Reserve Forces. However, the increase in the size of our Reserve Forces must be for a purpose and, presumably, if we do not achieve the target that has been set within the period set, the capability of our Armed Forces as a whole will be less than it would otherwise have been. If that is not the case, it begs the question of why we are increasing the strength of our reserves.

If we can accept that our Reserve Forces will have an even more important role to play in the future, the question of whether recruitment targets will be achieved is a matter of some importance. Last autumn, there were reports in the press of the Army failing to attract and recruit sufficient Army Reserve personnel, and as a result it was claimed that the Army faced an increased risk to its structure and operational capability. If we are falling behind in recruitment, it may take time to recover lost ground since it is not simply a case of recruiting people. The people recruited have to be trained before they can become fully effective members of the reserves, and that takes time.

We are talking about ensuring the overall effectiveness of our Armed Forces and thus about our nation’s security. Our reserves are not simply something that is nice to have if people can be recruited; they will have an important and enhanced role to play in the future as part of our overall Armed Forces strength. In view of that, it does not seem unreasonable to provide in this Bill for not only the current Secretary of State but future Secretaries of State to publish the figure that will enable us all to know whether the targets for increasing the size of the our reserves are being achieved and thus that the future intended capability of our Armed Forces is being delivered in full. The fact that this information will have to be published may also help concentrate the minds of all those directly concerned in ensuring that targets set prove to be targets achieved. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, reserves have always made an essential contribution to national security and that contribution is set to increase, with exciting opportunities being offered not just for individuals but for formed units. Reserves will be an integrated part of the whole force required for almost all operations, both at home and abroad. To do this, we are growing our reserves to 34,900 across all three services by 2018 and investing an additional £1.8 billion over 10 years. The Army will grow its reserves to a trained strength of 30,000, the Royal Air Force to 1,800 and the Royal Navy to 3,100. This is a challenging target but one that we are committed to achieving.

These requirements are challenging, but the planned overall numbers of trained reservists are well within historic levels. In 1997, the Territorial Army was more than 50,000 strong; it was reduced to around 40,000 by 2000 and, by 2009, it was down to just 26,000. We now have about 19,090 trained reserves. We should not be surprised if growth is neither uniform nor smooth. Given the time that it takes to train reservists, trained strength improvement will lag behind recruitment. Reservists will be an integral and integrated part of the whole force alongside their regular counterparts. The Committee will no doubt be aware that, recognising the interest in the progress of reserves recruitment, the MoD publishes the trained and untrained strength data for the reserves quarterly. The last figures were released on 14 November and the next set of data is due to be released in the next few days. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that, with such a commitment, there is no need to enact legislation.

The Army is undertaking a significant number of surge activities alongside recruit partnering projects to boost reserve recruiting and grow the reserve force. The initial response to the new recruiting campaign is encouraging and a number of new initiatives have been introduced. These include the revised medical process, introduced in January, and the new online application forms introduced this month. Both these new major initiatives will simplify the process and are aimed at improving the candidates’ journey into and through the application process. I must point out that the programme is still in its early stages. The White Paper was published only in July, and it is true there have been some administrative issues in the process. However, we are working with Capita and the senior Army leadership actively to address these issues. I believe that we can work them through. Adjustments have been made to the application process to ensure that we can continue to progress new recruits. Marketing campaigns based on the new White Paper proposition have just got under way; the latest marketing campaign for the reserves started in early January.

Maritime Reserves has stabilised its numbers and is working to ensure the retention of trained personnel already in the reserve and reduce wastage during the training programme by tailoring the training methods to better suit the reservist experience. Although there is a slight reduction in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force’s trained strength, the number in training is the highest since April 2012. The force looks likely to meet its end-of-year target and is seeking authority to allocate extra resources to marketing in order to improve further its recruitment rate. Recruiting activity itself is better co-ordinated across the three services than in the past; this should ensure a much more joined-up approach to recruiting. The new recruiting campaigns are delivered at a regional level, following planning and guidance from a national level. We are working hard to deliver the message through internal communications within other government departments that the reserves are recruiting and to demonstrate that the Civil Service is taking the lead in the public sector.

The additional costs of recruitment associated with growth of the reserves are all factored into the Future Reserves 2020 programme. Should recruitment be slower than planned, some funding earmarked for paying personnel who were not in fact recruited could be switched to increase the recruiting effort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord makes a very good point about the National Guard, and I apologise if I did not refer to it in my response. This is quite a detailed subject. I will write to the noble Lord and copy my letter to the other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for her comments. I also thank the Minister for setting out the statutory safeguards, as well as the non-statutory measures that have been, and are being, taken to address the issues that I have raised. If the Government find that working with employers and not going down the statutory route does not work, I hope that they will reflect again on providing legislation to protect the position of employees who are members of the reserves, who could find themselves in a vulnerable position.

Having said that, I appreciate that this is a difficult area. It can be very difficult to prove discrimination against somebody on the basis of membership of the Reserve Forces, particularly if one had to seek to prove that there had been discrimination through, for example, denying someone a promotion or giving them a lower salary increase or some other act of that kind. I also accept that proving discrimination on these grounds could be difficult.

I conclude by thanking the Minister for his comprehensive reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all of us in saying that we hold the same view about discrimination against members of the Armed Forces. It is a completely unacceptable form of behaviour towards the men and women who have committed themselves to defending this country, its people and its way of life, and to making sacrifices that others perhaps sometimes take for granted. Those who discriminate against service personnel, or against the wider Armed Forces community, succeed only in diminishing themselves.

Discrimination can take many forms. Some of it is thoughtless or uninformed—for example, when public services fail to take account of the special circumstances in which Armed Forces personnel find themselves. Some of it is based on myth and prejudice—a view that soldiers create trouble or are unreliable customers is a misperception that we must challenge. However, some discrimination or abuse stems from genuine hostility to members of the Armed Forces, motivated by politics or perhaps by some unfortunate personal experience. It is on that narrow part of the spectrum that this amendment focuses.

The amendment would have the effect of amending Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which lays down circumstances in which the seriousness of a criminal offence, and thus the severity of the resulting sentence, is increased. It provides for increased sentences where an offender demonstrated hostility based on the victim’s sexual orientation, disability or transgender status, or where the offence was motivated by hostility towards persons of a particular sexual orientation, persons who have a disability or persons who are transgender. Section 145 of that Act makes similar provision in respect of “racially or religiously aggravated” offences.

The amendment would provide for increased sentences where an offender demonstrated hostility based on the victim being a,

“member of the reserve forces”,

or indeed,

“any relative of a member of the reserve forces”.

It would also provide for increased sentences where an offence was motivated by hostility towards members of the Reserve Forces.

It is important that we are clear about what the amendment would not do. It would not cover situations such as a refusal to admit members of the Armed Forces to a hotel or bar. Such situations have led to widespread public indignation but they generally do not involve a criminal offence.

The Government’s view is that there is no need for a change in the law on these lines. The courts already have a wide power in sentencing to take into account factors that make conduct more serious. Criminal acts based on irrational hostility to a person because he or she is in the Reserve Forces may lead to a higher sentence in any event. I am not aware of any evidence of courts finding that they have insufficient powers to give an appropriate sentence to an offender in such circumstances, or that we have received representations from the courts asking us to amend the law in this way.

In contrast, converting the flexibility that the courts currently have into a mandatory requirement, as the amendment proposes, may present practical difficulties. For example, demonstrating to a court that the aggravating factor was present and should be taken into consideration could be relatively straightforward in some cases, such as where a victim was in uniform, but far from straightforward in other cases, such as those in which the victim was a relative of a member of the Reserve Forces. How are the courts to deal with a situation where an offence is motivated by excessive rivalry between different sections of the Armed Forces or, perhaps, a domestic dispute? A mandatory requirement for a higher sentence reduces the court’s ability to take a sensible, common-sense approach to what is really going on in the circumstances it is examining.

There is a fundamental difference between offences provoked by hostility to the work of the victim and offences motivated by prejudice against inherent characteristics, such as homophobic crime. Section 146 of the 2003 Act is designed to help to change deep-rooted prejudices. It would be quite wrong to suggest that such provisions were necessary in relation to the Armed Forces. However, the most telling argument against this amendment is the views of the intended beneficiaries. I am not aware of any general desire in the Armed Forces community for legislation of this type. The service men and women who wear their uniforms with pride want to be respected in and considered part of their communities, and rightly so. We should not put them in a position where they are forced to explain why they require protection in law in a way not enjoyed by, for example, firemen or ambulance staff. Indeed, the amendment deals only with members of the Reserve Forces, as the noble Lord pointed out. It would not extend to members of the Regular Forces, meaning that rather than helping create the whole force which we seek the amendment would separate out members of the Reserve Forces for different treatment in law. I am not sure whether they would wish to see that in this context.

None of this means that the Government are complacent about discrimination against service personnel: quite the opposite. The Armed Forces covenant has a high profile across the whole of Whitehall and beyond. The first principle, that members of the Armed Forces community should not suffer disadvantage as a result of that membership, has given rise to many initiatives which are making a real, practical difference. In the first statutory annual report on the Armed Forces covenant, published in December 2012, we described what we were doing to make these principles a reality. We are working to remove the disadvantage that the children of service personnel can face in the schools system as a result of their mobility through the admissions code and the service pupil premium. We are ensuring that service personnel and leavers encounter a level playing field in access to social housing or Government-funded home ownership schemes.

At the same time, we are working to build the links between the Armed Forces community and the wider community to improve the knowledge and understanding that must be at the centre of that relationship. From knowledge flows the esteem for our service men and women that is ultimately the most powerful way to counter discrimination. The community covenant has now been signed in nearly 400 local authority areas, from Cornwall to the north of Scotland, and around 60 companies have signed up to the new corporate covenant, signifying a real determination to strengthen ties with the Armed Forces. I am confident that it will continue to gain further support. The grant scheme linked to the community covenant has allowed us to back a range of schemes that will help to put these declarations into practice. To that, we can now add the £35 million fund created as a result of the LIBOR fines, which will support charities with projects to help the Armed Forces and their families.

This is not an entirely new proposal. Thomas Docherty MP previously raised this issue in a Private Member’s Bill and has another for consideration this year, with its Second Reading having been scheduled for 24 January. The debate was adjourned and is expected to resume on 28 February. The previous Government, in response to a similar recommendation in the 2008 report from the then Member for Grantham and Stamford, now the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, said,

“we do not think that a change in the law is necessary or appropriate.”

As a result of the Armed Forces Act 2011, we have a new vehicle at our disposal in the form of an annual report to Parliament—effectively a report on the state of the Armed Forces covenant. In February of last year, my right honourable friend, the member for Rayleigh and Wickford, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, indicated that the question of discrimination would be a legitimate issue for the next report at the end of 2013. The report, published on 16 December 2013, said:

“Our view is that, in the last year or so, the extent of public knowledge and sympathy for the Armed Forces has continued to grow—aided by the Community Covenant and the new Corporate Covenant. We therefore continue to believe that education, rather than legislation, is the key to eradicating the kind of behaviour that we all abhor”.

In answer to the question from my noble friend Lord Palmer about what instances there have been of service personnel not taken to include those in the amendment, we recognise a service person as a regular or reserve member of the Armed Forces. Proposed subsection (7) in the amendment seems to be drafted to enable debate in this Committee otherwise it would be out of scope, as it was judged to be in the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about legal protection. Legal protection for all Armed Forces personnel would be out of scope of this Bill.

I hope that I have answered all the noble Lord’s concerns and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for his contribution and support and also the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for his contribution. The Minister has once again done us the courtesy of giving us a very full and comprehensive response to the amendment, setting out the Government’s position. I am slightly disappointed with the reply, although I do not want to suggest that I had imagined the Minister would say that the Government would accept the amendment.

The Minister made reference to ambulance staff not having this kind of protection. That may be true in England and Wales, but I do not think that it is true in Scotland, where I believe it is offered to members of the emergency services. If I am proved wrong in saying that, I shall of course apologise. However, I think there is a wider scope in Scotland which goes beyond the police. In England and Wales, that kind of protection is there in respect of the police but does not extend beyond that.

I would like to reflect on what the Minister has said before deciding whether to pursue this at a further stage and in discussions on the Bill. In the meantime, I thank him again for his comprehensive reply, which I appreciate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. Obviously, views have been expressed about keeping the law and its enforcement up to date with developments in the nature and conduct of warfare. Also, at the back of what has been said there is a desire to know what is going on in our name and what the outcomes have been in relation to the use of some of the unmanned systems to which reference has been made. Certainly I await with interest the Minister’s response.

There seems to have been a general acceptance that this is an issue which should be debated and discussed, although obviously doubts have been raised as to whether, as far as the amendment is concerned, how relevant it is to this Bill. The only comment I would make before concluding and leaving it to the Minister to give the Government’s response is that, of course, as far as concerns the provision of any additional information that there may be, or any developments in the law, whatever is done must be consistent with the national interest and national security.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lady Miller, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tabling the two amendments in this group. It has enabled us to have a useful and interesting debate about a number of important issues. The Defence Reform Bill deals with the future arrangements for defence procurement and the Reserve Forces, and I think it is fair to say that the debate on these amendments has drifted some way from those issues—a point made by my noble friend. In responding to them, I will try to address the specific effect of the amendments on Part 1 of the Bill, but I shall also set out more widely our position on some of the other issues that have been raised.

Before turning to the detail of the amendments, it might be helpful if I set out the UK Government’s policy on unmanned aircraft systems. I think it is important to use the correct terminology when discussing unmanned aircraft systems, or UASs. The term “drone” is often used, but the word evokes thoughts and images of computer-controlled machines free from human oversight, which is simply not the case. The term “unmanned air vehicle” had previously been used extensively in the UK, but it is no longer aligned with NATO or international thinking, and in the interests of interoperability we have now moved away from using it. Often, the actual level of human involvement is unclear when discussing unmanned aircraft systems and hence it is entirely appropriate that the term “remotely piloted aircraft system”, or RPAS, is also used as it emphasises the reality that a trained professional pilot is in control of the system. UAS and RPAS are the generic terms that define the totality of the components of an unmanned or remotely piloted aircraft together with the other necessary components, including all equipment networks and, most important, personnel.

The UK operates a range of these human-controlled systems principally for surveillance and reconnaissance purposes. There is often a misconception that remotely piloted aircraft systems are autonomous. Again, we have to be careful with the terminology as the word “autonomous” can mean different things to different people and organisations. The Government consider an autonomous system as being capable of understanding high-level intent, a system that is capable of deciding a course of action from a number of alternatives without depending on human oversight or control. Our current and future RPAS will not be autonomous. A military pilot will continue to remain in control of our armed systems, just as they are now. In fact, our current armed RPASs have greater human involvement than our other armed aircraft types. Our Reaper RPAS crews comprise highly-trained pilots, sensor operators and analysts who all make decisions in real time.

The UK currently deploys unmanned aircraft systems in support of operations in Afghanistan and of Royal Navy ships. These systems are predominantly used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks, providing vital intelligence in support of our troops on the ground and our sailors at sea. They provide persistent video imagery for the development of situational awareness in order to conduct planning and to protect our forces. While the sensors are broadly similar to those onboard conventionally manned aircraft, unmanned or remotely piloted aircraft systems have the ability to loiter for longer, building an intelligence picture that significantly enhances the situational awareness of our commanders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Schedule 2 is referred to in Clause 7 which is very brief and simply states:

“Schedule 2 (restrictions on disclosure or use of information) has effect”.

It is in Part 1, which deals with defence procurement. Clause 38, in Part 2, which deals with single-source contracts, is similarly brief and simply says:

“Schedule 5 contains provision about disclosure of information obtained under this Part”.

In essence, the purpose of this amendment is to seek to replicate, in respect of disclosure of information, the criminal offence provision contained in Part 2 and Schedule 5 on single-source contracts in Part 1 and Schedule 2 in respect of defence procurement. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 2, references are made to “unauthorised disclosure” and “unauthorised use” of information but there is no reference to any penalties or implications for disclosing or using protected information. However, in Schedule 5, which relates to wrong disclosure of information obtained under Part 2, on single-source contracts, there is a reference to penalties of imprisonment or a fine.

We do not understand why there is this distinction on unauthorised disclosure of information between Part 1 and Part 2. It is our view that failure to protect protected information from disclosure should be an offence with laid-down penalties. We appreciate the purpose of Schedule 2 in enabling a GOCO to be given confidential information provided by defence suppliers and held currently by DE&S in order to take over the management of existing MoD contracts should a GOCO come into operation.

The Government’s argument for not putting the penalties in Schedule 5 for misuse of confidential information into Schedule 2 appears to be that the Official Secrets Act, along with the GOCO contract itself and the constraints of Schedule 2, will give confidential information given to the GOCO the same protection from disclosure as it has in DE&S today. If there was a misuse of information, the owner of that information could bring an action directly against the GOCO as it can at present against the Ministry of Defence. However, that raises the obvious question of why similar arrangements are not proposed by the Government in Schedule 5 in relation to disclosures of information in respect of single-source contracts.

The information covered under Schedule 2 will include private and commercially sensitive information to which the Ministry of Defence has been given access, outside of a contractual obligation, in circumstances where the owner has a reasonable expectation that the MoD would hold it in confidence and not disclose it to a third party—which, under a GOCO, might be regarded by the owner of the information as including companies that either had been, or might be in the future, competitor organisations.

The Government say that it is not appropriate for a criminal offence to be created for the disclosure of information acquired in the normal course of defence procurement on individual projects and programmes, but that a criminal offence of the disclosure of confidential information provided to the Single Source Regulations Office is justified because the information is highly detailed supplier information and is forward-looking, covering future financial performance, anticipated business plans and planned subcontracting activity.

If that is the argument the Government are going to advance again today, I remain to be convinced by it. Sections of the defence industry have certainly expressed concerns about the prospect of disclosure of their confidential information that would be provided to a GOCO operator in respect of defence procurement contracts and believe that firm penalties are needed to deter such activity. The Government’s argument may be that the information that would have to be provided in respect of single-source contracts is likely to be more commercially sensitive, and thus potentially more damaging if disclosed, than the information provided under defence procurement contracts. However, surely that is something that should be reflected in the decision on whether to prosecute and through any decision of a court on the level of the penalty to be imposed rather than by, as the Government propose, having no provision for any criminal sanction at all in Schedule 2. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, Schedule 2 in its current form is necessary to allow a GOCO to have access to existing confidential information provided by defence suppliers that is held by DE&S so that the GOCO can take over management of existing MoD contracts. If the GOCO does not have access to that information, it will seriously curtail the contracts that GOCO will be able to manage. It will not be able to manage contracts that involve the need to access confidential information provided by a supplier. If the MoD provides confidential information from existing programmes to the GOCO without the protection conveyed by Schedule 2 in its current form, the supplier of the confidential information may claim that the MoD has no legal right to do so. The MoD could seek to negotiate amendments to contracts or obtain licences to supply the necessary information to the GOCO; however, the volume of information concerned, the amount of time and resources required to undertake the negotiations, the costs in licence fees that may be incurred and the possibility of the owner refusing mean that this is not a practical proposition.

Schedule 2 as currently drafted provides protection for owners of confidential information because there are only limited circumstances—essentially where necessary or expedient for defence procurement—when the MoD can share the information with the GOCO. Schedule 2 also provides that the GOCO is then subject to the same confidentiality obligations as the MoD. For example, some of the information the GOCO has will be classified as “UK eyes only”, the classification applied to certain information that cannot be shared with non-UK nationals due to national security issues. The GOCO would not be able to share this information with any employee or parent company that does not meet the nationality requirements.

If the GOCO misuses the confidential information, the owner can bring an action directly against the GOCO in the same manner as it could have done if the MoD had misused the information. This is in addition to confidentiality obligations that the MoD will place on the GOCO through the management services contract. The GOCO will be contractually required to maintain the confidentiality of supplier information and not to disclose it to third parties without the permission of the MoD. The GOCO’s parent companies will be third parties, so the GOCO will not be able to disclose the information to them without the MoD’s permission. The Official Secrets Act will also apply to the GOCO and its staff. The information will therefore receive essentially the same protection from disclosure as it does in DE&S today.

The proposed amendment to Schedule 2 involves deleting the existing schedule in its entirety and replacing it by what is largely a replication of paragraph 2 of Schedule 5, which creates an offence of disclosure of confidential information provided to the Single Source Regulations Office. The creation of such an offence is reasonable in the context where the information is highly detailed supplier information that will be received under the single-source pricing regulations and which suppliers are required to provide by statute. However, the situation is very different from the GOCO situation, and it is not appropriate for a criminal offence to be created for the disclosure of information acquired in the normal course of defence procurement on individual projects and programmes, where any confidentiality is capable of being protected by the GOCO contract coupled with the Schedule 2 constraints. We do not want to create new offences unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. The single-source provisions cover a supplier’s future financial performance, anticipated business plans and planned subcontracting activity. It is highly unusual for the MoD to receive access to information covered by Schedule 5. The offence and tariff proposed is consistent with that applied to other price-regulated industries such as water, utilities, telecommunications and railways. It is not appropriate to day-to-day defence procurement business, which is best conducted as a commercial relationship between the MoD and suppliers.

The new statutory framework outlined in Part 2 has been designed to help ensure that we get value for money on an average £6 billion a year of single-source procurement. Our single-source suppliers can price in the knowledge that they will not be undercut by a competitor—a highly unusual position, and one that is not conducive to getting good value for money. We need to address this, and to do so we need information about a supplier’s actual costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate since it seemed to be going on to rather wider issues than strictly covered in the amendment. For that reason, I am not going to go through the specific wording of the amendment and respond to the particular points in it as to where we stand because clearly the issues being raised in this debate go way beyond the amendment and, in my opinion, way beyond the provisions of this Bill.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, these amendments have enabled us to have a debate about a number of issues. The Defence Reform Bill deals with the future arrangements for defence procurement and the Reserve Forces. As with Amendments 10 and 11, which we debated earlier, the issues in this group of amendments go some way from the issues covered by the Bill. Therefore, I will address the impact of the amendments on the Bill, and I shall also try to deal with some of the other issues that have been raised.

First, I turn to Amendment 14 which would require the contractor—the GOCO—to report annually, or more frequently if specified, to the Secretary of State on the technical characteristics, capabilities and use of the equipment and services procured under the provisions of Part 1 and to ensure that anyone who provides defence procurement services to either the GOCO or the MoD provides all the information necessary to enable such a report to be made. Currently, DE&S does not report to the Secretary of State on the details of all equipment and services procured. Procurements are classified on the basis of value, and approvals take place at the appropriate level, with approvals for very high value, novel or contentious procurements elevated to the Defence Council. Where appropriate, DE&S seeks legal assessments of equipment and services procured. An established project management and acceptance process exists for equipment and services with the customer.

It is envisaged that this process would continue to exist under the GOCO arrangements. These arrangements will be agreed in the defence procurement services contract in place between the contractor and the MoD. It is currently not practical or necessary for DE&S to report to the Secretary of State on the details of all equipment and services procured and likewise it will not be practical or necessary for the GOCO to report these details to the Secretary of State.

I turn now to Amendments 15 and 16. The proposed addition to the Visiting Forces Act runs contrary to the purpose of the Act and would impose an onerous and unnecessary obligation on the Secretary of State for Defence. The UK welcomes foreign military personnel from a large number of countries. Their position in the UK is covered by the Visiting Forces Act and the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. Some are here as exchange officers, others for major exercises and some for training and education. This financial year some 3,000 foreign military personnel will have trained in the UK. For example, 65 foreign students are at the Royal College of Defence Studies here in London. Some 80 foreign officer cadets are at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and eight foreign officers attend the Royal Navy’s principal warfare officer course at Fareham. These military personnel are so enmeshed into the activities of the UK Armed Forces that a separate reporting mechanism concerning procurement, command and control, and premises and property, is not needed. The amendment is broad since it concerns,

“all premises and property used by visiting forces for defence purposes”.

The Visiting Forces Act and the NATO Status of Forces Agreement do not place foreign forces beyond the reach of UK law. The Act and agreement permit foreign laws and military discipline to apply to foreign military personnel in the UK, but these do not displace UK law. There is nothing unusual or sinister about this, and we require similar provisions for our forces when they are overseas. For these reasons, the Government oppose this element of the amendment. It might be helpful in this context if I clarify that RAF bases are made available to the United States visiting forces under the terms of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and that USVF personnel in the UK are subject to the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act. I assure my noble friend that the RAF commander takes his responsibilities very seriously, and he receives very substantial training before he takes them on; I have been assured on that point.

With specific regard to oversight of the intelligence activities undertaken at RAF Menwith Hill, this is already provided by the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. The committee does not comment on the details of its work programme, although it does publish information and, when appropriate, occasionally comments in its annual report on visits it has undertaken. I am able to inform noble Lords that the committee has made such occasional visits to the joint UK-US facility at RAF Menwith Hill.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 3rd February 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The answer to the noble Lord’s first question is no, it would not be. I will write to the noble Lord about the second question on contracts.

[Lord Rosser]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I will certainly reflect on that. We never ignore advice given by the people that the noble Lord mentioned. I am very happy to organise a meeting to discuss the issue, if he feels that that would be a way forward, before Report. I will certainly take it away to reflect on it. I have just been told there were eight sittings on this issue in the House of Commons.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that cost-plus is the most appropriate type of contract for this class. The GOCO will have the commercial expertise that the MoD does not possess to identify the most appropriate contracting arrangements. In future, budgets will lie with the commands, ensuring that we can more quickly respond to changes in equipment requirements. The noble Lord asked about contracting arrangements for first-class major equipment. The target cost incentive fee contracting arrangements are one of the options available to the MoD for the reasons that he described and will continue to be utilised where they are the best option to deliver and support equipment procurement.

In the light of the government amendment and the points that I have just set out, I commend Amendment 24 to your Lordships; I will take away the point that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, mentioned; and I urge noble Lords not to press Amendments 17 and 25.

[Lord Rosser]

First, once again, I thank the Minister for the consideration he has given to the amendments and for the detail with which responded to the points that have been made. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate with varying degrees of support for the super-affirmative procedure and for the deletion of Part 1. I think it is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, very much left his options open and was waiting to hear what the Minister said on the question of the super-affirmative procedure.

My argument for removing Part 1 is that this Government no longer intend to go down the GOCO road. It will be for the next or a subsequent Government to make such a decision one way or the other, and it is that Government who should have to justify their decision in detail to Parliament in the light of what improvements have or have not been achieved through the DE&S++ organisation after the changes being introduced after April this year.

The Minister referred to the freedoms and flexibilities that have been agreed with the Treasury in relation to the DE&S organisation from April of this year but, personally, I would find it helpful if he could put in writing what has and what has not yet been agreed with the Treasury and whether there is also agreement by the Cabinet Office; we understand that those freedoms and flexibilities have to be agreed with both, and I do not think that the Minister referred to the Cabinet Office.

One justification that the Minister gave for keeping Part 1 was that it would speed up the process of moving to a GOCO if the decision was made to go down the GOCO road. I do not think that speed is the most important thing. After all, it has already just been delayed for at least three years, so how can an argument be put forward that we need this legislation in place on grounds of speed? The Minister also referred to my amendment and the proposals within it as an unreasonable burden on the Secretary of State. The convenience of the Secretary of State of the day is not the matter we should be worried about. What matters is proper scrutiny of the proposals and getting them right through parliamentary scrutiny, not speed or the convenience of the Secretary of State of the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Amendment 6 seeks to insert the code of conduct outlined in the proposed new clause. It seeks to address what is sometimes called the “revolving door” issue among Ministry of Defence personnel which can potentially lead to undue influence or access when bidding for MoD contracts.

The matter is relevant to the Bill as many Ministry of Defence staff could have cross-over work with, and come into contact with, the GOCO. There is also the question of whether the revolving door will become a bigger issue than now with the new DE&S+ organisation from April this year which will have greater private sector involvement, greater freedom and flexibilities and be a separate government trading entity.

We would like to see a code of conduct which precludes Ministry of Defence or military personnel of certain rank and above from working for defence contractors, say, for at least two years from the termination of their contract, requires contractors to publish annually a list of employees who have worked for the Ministry of Defence at the specified rank or above, and requires the creation of a register of gifts and hospitality over a certain value. Such a code of conduct would go some way towards slowing down the revolving door between the Ministry of Defence and defence contractors, and also reduce the brain drain or loss of skills in the Ministry of Defence.

Published information, compiled apparently from freedom of information requests, suggests that senior military personnel and former officials from the Ministry of Defence have taken up 3,500 positions with defence contractors since 1996. This trend continues today and clearly is not an issue that relates to a particular Government.

The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments appears to have insufficient influence or power. As rules can effectively be broken, or so it would appear, without sanction, there is surely a case for legislation which will bring greater accountability and transparency to this area. We suggest, as set out in the amendment, a code of conduct with tighter guidelines. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, before I address this amendment, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that I will write to him, answering as best I can the points he raised. I mentioned the Cabinet Office in my earlier answer.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I may express my regrets. I did not hear it. I accept fully what the noble Lord has said.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I shall certainly write. I said that officials were in discussions with Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Cabinet Office regarding the nature of the delegations required within the DE&S budget. As far as I am able, I will write as detailed a letter as possible to the noble Lord and make sure that copies are sent to all other noble Lords who have taken part in this Committee. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that I will organise a meeting to see whether we can come to some meeting of minds. We all want to do what is best for the Armed Forces and for procurement. I shall organise that meeting as quickly as I can.

On Amendment 6, I am grateful for the points raised by the noble Lord. I fully accept the critical importance of protecting the interests and integrity of decision-making within the Ministry of Defence and wider government by maintaining the highest standards of propriety of those Crown servants within the Ministry of Defence, which includes civilian staff as well as members of the Armed Forces, who interact with defence contractors. I believe strongly that the integrity and propriety of those Crown servants who may be in a position to influence decision-making should be seen to be beyond reproach.

However, I must resist the inclusion of the amendment as the issue is already effectively addressed. The code of conduct that the noble Lords wish to include seeks to address general concerns that senior government officials could be perceived to be in conflict or have vested interests when dealing with defence contractors in their day-to-day work. Further, the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, in his evidence session of 3 September to the House of Commons, also made mention of Title 10 of the US code, the section of the code relating to the Armed Forces of the United States.

The code of conduct that the noble Lords seek already exists within the Ministry of Defence in two forms. The first is in the form of the business appointment rules, which govern situations in which Crown servants wish to take up a relevant offer of employment within two years of leaving the Ministry of Defence. The second is the gifts, reward and hospitality rules, which govern situations in which Crown servants are offered a gift or hospitality. Together, these two important sets of rules set out the standards of conduct expected of Crown servants within the Ministry of Defence. For civilian officials within the Ministry of Defence, both the business appointment rules and the gifts, reward and hospitality rules are contained within the Civil Service Management Code, which was issued under Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. For military officials, the rules are contained within the Queen’s Regulations for each of the services, and the provisions of the business appointment rules have been in effect since July 1937.

The Civil Service Code states that civil servants must not accept gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party that might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity. The Queen’s Regulations lay down the conduct and procedure to be observed by service personnel on the acceptance of gifts, rewards and hospitality. In all cases, any offers of gifts or hospitality must be registered by the individual in receipt of the offer. The provisions of the business appointment rules for both military and civilian officials differ depending on the seniority of the individual, with the most senior officials requiring permission from the Prime Minister to take up an appointment following the end of their service within the Ministry of Defence.

The specific provisions of the business appointment rules are as follows. For the most senior officials in the Civil Service—at three-star level or their military equivalents—the rules require that they submit an application, which must be referred by the department to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which will provide advice to the Prime Minister to enable a decision to be taken. Due to their role at the highest level of Government and their access to a wide range of sensitive information, all Permanent Secretaries will be subject to a minimum waiting period of three months between leaving paid Civil Service employment and taking up an outside appointment or employment. As a general principle, there will be a two-year ban on civil servants at three-star level and above lobbying the Government—communicating with a view to influencing a government decision or policy in relation to their own interests. For civil servants at two-star level and their military equivalents, the rules require that an application be made to the Permanent Secretary, who is responsible for making a decision and providing a written recommendation to ACOBA—the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My noble friend makes a very good point, which I was just going to mention. The period is three months but obviously, if a Permanent Secretary has any conflict of interest, that would be extended to two years under the normal rules. My noble friend makes a very good point.

[Lord Rosser]

Once again, I thank the Minister for the thoroughness of his reply on the amendment explaining the current situation, which has clearly caused some surprise in relation to some aspects. Clearly, we will want to look at what he has said when we read Hansard. I assume from his reply that the Government as a whole are satisfied with the present arrangements, and that they are being adhered to—and that there is no problem with the rules being broken, which is what I suggested might be the case. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that as far as the Government are concerned, there is no significant or worrying breach of the rules. Perhaps he could also comment on the role and effectiveness of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as that is a matter that I and my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen raised.

I will be withdrawing the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to those points. I am loath to keep asking him whether he will reply in writing, as I appreciate that what he says will appear in Hansard but, bearing in mind some of the concerns that have been raised, it would be helpful if he could put in writing what he said about the distinction between the three-month period, and the circumstances in which that applies; and the two-year period, and the circumstances in which that applies.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I will be very happy to do that; in fact I was going to offer to write to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with copies sent to other interested noble Lords. I have been handed a fairly detailed brief on that point. Rather than reading it out, I would like to put it in a letter and address all the concerns that have been raised.

[Lord Rosser]

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. Before Committee I had a long debate with the team about this, and we changed my speaking notes radically. We changed “‘contractor” to “GOCO” in many cases. The answer to my noble friend’s question is GOCO, but the terms “contractor” and “GOCO” are interchangeable as far as the Bill is concerned. One can use both when describing provisions in Part 1 of the Bill, but for consistency and clarity we have decided, in my speaking notes, to use the term “GOCO” as far as possible. I note that a “contractor” slipped through the net.

In the light of what I have just said, I need to resist these amendments as unnecessary, and I hope the noble Lords will withdraw Amendment 7 and not move Amendment 9.

[Lord Rosser]

Once again I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I make two brief comments. Clearly the point of Amendment 7 was to seek to ensure that Parliament would still be kept advised on cost increases in defence contracts in the changed circumstances of the GOCO.

In relation to Amendment 9, if I have understood the Minister correctly, one could argue that if there is provision for financial assistance, it would mean that the risk was not being transferred to the GOCO operator but would remain ultimately with the taxpayer. That raises an important issue about the GOCO operator and the proposals: what risk is being transferred? The response given by the Minister suggests that, come the crunch, not much risk at all is being transferred. However, I do not intend to pursue the matter any further, certainly at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

The amendment inserts a new clause after Clause 1 to provide that employees transferred to a company under Clause 1 may not be required to geographically relocate outside the UK without full and proper consultation, which, frankly, one would hope in reality would mean that it would be done only by agreement, although that specific wording is not in the amendment.

There will be an opportunity under later amendments to consider all the possible implications for the employees affected by being transferred to a GOCO contractor organisation, and indeed of being part of the new DE&S organisation after April, with its greater flexibilities and freedoms. However, this amendment deals with a specific issue: the need to provide assurance that staff transferred to a GOCO consortium made up of at least some major international companies will not find themselves being told they must move to a position outside the UK when it is not something they would wish to do, nor would have been compelled to do when part of the current DE&S organisation. I am assuming that this could not happen under the new post-April 2014 DE&S organisation, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case.

The provisions of the amendment would at least reduce the prospect of such transfers being required against the wishes of the individual concerned. This is not some minor point, because requiring an employee to move abroad is a not unknown way of either removing an employee who has fallen out of favour, or is no longer needed, out of an organisation in the UK, or alternatively if they refuse, out of a company altogether. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some assurance on this point. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, going back to the previous amendment, the noble Lord asked me about risk. I can confirm that risk is transferred but must be capped; otherwise no company would bid for a GOCO, due to unlimited liability. The noble Lord may wish to come back on that.

Amendment 8 raises an important issue. I am grateful for the points that the noble Lord raised and I agree that it is important that we protect the interests of those members of DE&S who would be transferred to the GOCO. I believe strongly that the interests of the transferring employees should be protected in the event that the new company should decide to relocate some or all of the services outside the UK. However, I must resist the inclusion of the amendment because it is not needed. Those employees transferring to the GOCO would be sufficiently protected by UK employment legislation in this regard and, accordingly, there is no requirement to include this provision in the Bill.

Noble Lords may recall the note on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—SI 2006/246—provided in another place for reference, which explained the protections that those regulations afford to transferring employees. In summary, the TUPE regulations protect employees if the business in which they are employed changes hands, or the services that they provide are to be provided by another organisation. The effect of the regulations is to transfer employees and any rights, powers, duties and liabilities associated with them from the old employer to the new employer. This includes any rights specified in their contract of employment, statutory rights and the right to continuity of employment. Additionally, the new employer cannot change the terms and conditions of employment of transferred employees if the sole or principal reason for the change is the transfer. This is also the case where the sole or principal reason is connected to the transfer, unless there is an ETO reason for the change, usually requiring a change in number of the workforce. This often makes it difficult, if not impossible, for new employers to amend terms and conditions of employment of staff immediately after a TUPE transfer.

The fact that this Bill makes it clear that the TUPE regulations would apply to the transfer of employees to the company would have the effect of protecting the employees’ terms and conditions of employment in place at the point of transfer, as well as representational rights. The terms of employment that will be protected include any obligation with regard to mobility. Civil Service terms and conditions of employment generally contain a mobility obligation within the UK and abroad for all but the most junior of grades. Some employees who would transfer to the GOCO will have, on previous occasions, relocated for work-related reasons both within the UK and abroad throughout their career in the Civil Service. Any proposed change of work location would be subject to general employment law constraints, which require that any enforcement of a mobility obligation must be fair and reasonable, dependent upon the personal circumstances of the individual concerned.

Noble Lords will be aware that amendments to the TUPE regulations came into force last week, and those amendments will not have a detrimental impact on employees. Further to the protections afforded to employees by the TUPE regulations, part IV of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 (SI 3426/2004) places a general obligation on employers to provide information to, and consult, employee representatives. Consultation is the process by which management and employees or their representatives jointly examine and discuss issues of mutual concern. It involves seeking acceptable solutions to problems through a genuine exchange of views and information. Consultation does not remove the right of managers to manage—they must still make the final decision—but it does impose an obligation that the views of employees will be sought and considered before decisions are taken.

To comply with their obligations under the ICE regulations, employers must provide relevant information to, and consult employee representatives on, all matters in relation to: first, recent and probable development of the undertakings activities and economic situation; secondly, the situation, structure and probable development of employment within the undertaking and on any anticipatory measures envisaged—in particular, where there is a threat to employment within the undertaking; and, thirdly, decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations. The information must be provided at such time, in such fashion and with sufficient content as are appropriate to enable the representatives to conduct an adequate study and prepare for consultation.

Furthermore, any consultation must be appropriate in terms of timing, method and content, and conducted with a view to reaching agreement on decisions within the scope of the employer’s powers. In other words, the employer must ensure that any consultation that is conducted must be meaningful, and commensurate to the change which is being consulted on. For example, if an employer were planning to move their current premises to a new building half a mile from where they were currently located, with no effect on working practices or workforce numbers, it could be deemed that the impact of this change would be minimal and, accordingly, a minimal time period of consultation of two to three weeks would be appropriate. However, if the proposal were to relocate to new premises at the other side of the UK, or even abroad, this would have a significant impact on the workforce and a period of two to three months would probably be deemed more appropriate.

I do not have an answer to the noble Lord’s question, except “confirmed”, and I would need to pad that out in the form of a letter to him. In summary, established UK employment legislation provides the required protection to the employees that this new clause is seeking to achieve and I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his detailed and considered response, which I will read carefully in Hansard. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Armed Forces: Widows’ Pensions

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, there are 10 categories of widow or widower under the Ministry of Defence pension and compensation schemes. I have discussed this very complex issue with the noble and gallant Lord. We both agreed that I should place a letter of explanation in the Library setting this all out, which I have done this afternoon.

Defence Ministers have enormous respect for the Forces Pension Society and for the War Widows Association of Great Britain and will continue to work very closely with both of them. Successive Governments have reviewed pensions for life, but changes cannot be taken in isolation from other public sector schemes, including those for the NHS, teachers, police and the fire service, which have similar rules in place for their older schemes.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we associate ourselves with the condolences expressed by the Minister to the family and friends of Captain Holloway. His death on active service in Afghanistan is another reminder of the enormity of the sacrifices that continue to be made on our behalf by members of our Armed Forces.

We have had questions before on service pension issues, including the impact of redundancy just prior to the relevant pension qualifying date. If the money is unavailable to ensure that what some would regard as the basic principles of fairness are not overlooked in some cases over service pensions, why is the money readily available to bail out the Secretary of State over misjudgments on, for example, the Joint Strike Fighter and the IT system for Armed Forces recruitment?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that it is a fundamental principle, which has been applied by successive Governments, including that of the noble Lord, that public service occupational pension terms should not be improved retrospectively for those who are no longer active members of these pension schemes or for their dependants.

Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Consequential Provisions: Primary Legislation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has reminded us that we debated this matter on 15 October when the order was agreed and we expressed our support for it. The Minister has explained why we have to approve the order again, and that is certainly not an issue on which I wish to dwell.

I have just a couple of brief points, since I do not intend to repeat what I said on 15 October. In responding to points I raised then, however, the Minister said that the number of,

“seriously injured service or ex-service personnel … covered by this order relating to Northern Ireland … is fewer than 20”.—[Official Report, 15/10/13; col. GC 213.]

I simply ask, since the order is not coming into effect on 28 October as was envisaged, whether anyone has lost out as a result, as the order itself indicates that it comes into force on the day after that on which it is made. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what date that is likely to be, and whether anyone has lost out as a result of this apparent delay in bringing the order into effect for the reasons the Minister mentioned.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that all services and benefits should be universally available throughout the United Kingdom.

Five Ministers of State for Northern Ireland provided consent for these amendments to be made. The departments are the Department for Social Development, the Department of Justice, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. No further Northern Ireland government approval is required for this SI, but the noble Lord asked me about a possible future situation where a Minister refused consent. I am afraid that I do not have an immediate answer with me, but I undertake to write to the noble Lord on this important point.

Defence: Type 26 Global Combat Ship

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, although sharing a common acoustically quiet hull, the Type 26 will be delivered in two variants: a force anti-submarine warfare variant and a general purpose variant. All will employ a tailored-mission approach to operations, allowing equipment and crew to be reconfigured to meet changing operational requirements and the future demands of the maritime and joint environment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, is it the intention that the Type 26, as well as being used on naval combat operations, should also be capable of being used on humanitarian missions? If so, what kind of such missions?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, it is absolutely intended that that is one of the roles that the Type 26s will be used on. We are building a complement of Type 26s that, from the initial ship right through to the end of the class life, will provide us with the flexibility to respond to a wide range of tasks.

Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, there is one instrument for the Committee’s consideration today. The Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013 is required because, having introduced arrangements to set a term of imprisonment as a means of ensuring that fines are paid, we must also be able to reduce that term in proportion to any reduction of the financial penalty at a later date. This order does that, reflecting the position of the criminal courts.

Fines are meaningless unless there is a mechanism to ensure they are paid. The risk of imprisonment will help to deter those who otherwise might default on their fines, but for those who fail to pay their due, it is only fair and reasonable for them to expect any consequential terms of imprisonment to be proportionate to their fine. To put this into the service context, the alternative period of imprisonment comes into play only when a financial penalty enforcement order is made.

The services have mechanisms in place to recover fines from serving personnel through deductions from their pay. Financial penalty enforcement orders are the mechanism to recover fines from those who have left their service. Financial penalty enforcement orders apply to a person who is neither subject to service law nor a civilian subject to service discipline, but they also apply to certain personnel who are subject to service law as a special member of a reserve force.

Financial penalty enforcement orders may be made by the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency when such persons have failed to pay all or some of a financial penalty that has been awarded against them. The financial penalty enforcement order may be registered with the relevant court—in England and Wales a magistrates’ court—to be enforced, and in due course, if the fine continues to remain unpaid, the person may be imprisoned for a time in proportion to the fine outstanding.

By way of background, the Crown Court in England and Wales must fix a term of imprisonment to be served in default of any fine imposed on a defendant aged 18 or over. This is necessary and right to enable fines to be enforced. Separately, the civilian courts also have the power to reduce or remit entirely a fine following a review of the offender’s financial circumstances. Where the court does so, and a default term of imprisonment has been fixed, the court must proportionately reduce that default term of imprisonment.

I turn to the service courts. The court martial already has a similar power to reduce or remit a fine, but it has not, until now, been required to set a default term of imprisonment when fining a defendant. The Armed Forces Act 2011 inserts new Sections 269A and 269B into the 2006 Act. The first of these new sections requires the court martial, when it imposes a fine on a person aged 18 or over, to specify a term of imprisonment to be served if the fine is not paid and an enforcement order is made. Similarly, the second new section enables the court martial, when making a service compensation order against a person aged 18 or over, to specify the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed if the compensation is not paid.

These new provisions, which have come into force, are modelled on those in the equivalent civilian legislation. This order completes the necessary legislative framework for the services in dealing with financial penalties.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the need for this order and the objective that it is intended to achieve. I take it from the documentation that we have received and from what he has said that it is only a court martial that is now required under the new Section 269A to fix the term of imprisonment if the fine that it is imposing is not paid, that this does not apply if the fine is being imposed after a hearing before a commanding officer and that, consequently, only cases originally heard by a court martial will be covered by the terms of this order in respect of the term of imprisonment being proportionately reduced if the fine is subsequently remitted in whole or part.

I also understand that the reference in paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to financial penalty enforcement orders being enforced in “prescribed civilian courts” applies in cases where the offender has left the Armed Forces or is no longer a civilian subject to service discipline and, if the fine was not paid by an offender still in the Armed Forces or by a civilian still subject to service discipline, enforcement would be a matter to be dealt with in the service discipline procedures and arrangements.

Finally, was the discrepancy between the requirements on the service courts and civilian courts in respect of a proportionate reduction in the term of imprisonment one that we well spotted, or did it come to light as a result of an actual case?

We have no objections to this order or to its objective of bringing the service provisions in this specific area in line with the equivalent civilian provisions.

Armed Forces: Human Rights Legislation

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too offer sincere condolences to the family and friends of Lance Corporal James Brynin. These sombre moments have, fortunately, become less frequent in your Lordships’ House, but this moment is a reminder, first, that the courageous members of our Armed Forces continue to risk their lives on behalf of us all, and, secondly, that on occasions the risk becomes reality, with all the heartbreak that that brings.

On 25 June in this House the Minister said, in response to a question, that “urgent cross-government discussions” were taking place to consider the options in the light of the 4:3 majority Supreme Court judgment of 19 June on human rights and our Armed Forces. He also said that advice would be provided to members of the Armed Forces “as soon as possible”. What has been the outcome of those urgent cross-government discussions, and what is the thrust of the promised advice, which has presumably now been provided to members of our Armed Forces?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we continue to be grateful to Her Majesty’s Official Opposition for their support on Afghanistan. I can assure the noble Lord that my department is exercised about this issue and Ministers are working closely on it with the service chiefs. A number of cases are still before the courts and the legal position is not yet clear. We will continue to monitor developments closely, but I can reassure the House that, even when the ECHR does not apply, UK Armed Forces are at all times required to comply with all applicable domestic and international law. Customary international law and UK criminal law explicitly forbid torture and abuse, and our domestic law applies to members of UK forces at all times, wherever in the world they are serving.

Ministry of Defence: Dogs

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 14th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am learning a lot today.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, last week it was government policy being thwarted by badgers moving the goalposts; this week it is defunct, deceased dogs causing headaches. Presumably the Minister can give an assurance that no decisions to put down dogs are made on financial grounds, bearing in mind the recent disclosures about the hundreds of thousands of pounds being consumed within the Ministry of Defence on calls to 118 numbers at a time when money is in short supply. Will the Minister also clarify what percentage of military working dogs are put down before they are retired, and what percentage are retrained or re-homed on retirement?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the commitment that no dogs are put down for financial reasons. The vast majority of dogs had to be put down as the animals’ condition impeded and reduced their quality of life. As noble Lords may know from sad personal experience, everyone will at times have to put animals to sleep when it is the only option. The death or destruction of a military working dog is subject to formal investigation and report, as required. Dogs are not usually retrained during their military service. The role that a dog undertakes is normally one which the dog has a natural inclination to perform as a result of breed characteristics and behavioural traits.

Territorial Army

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Defence has well established, challenging and vibrant cadet programmes with very high reputations, which will continue to be fully supported. Cadet units provide an important link with local communities. Where cadets are co-located on a site for which there is no longer a defence requirement, I can confirm that we will pursue reprovision of the facilities for the cadets to ensure that a local cadet presence is maintained.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on two occasions recently the Minister has declined to give an undertaking that the size of the regular Army will not be reduced to 82,000, as intended, unless the size of the trained Army Reserve has been increased to 30,000, as intended. Since it would be a serious failure of government responsibility if the implications of this possibility had not been considered, will he spell out what the impact would be on the capability of our Army if the size of the regular Army were reduced to 82,000 but the size of the trained Army Reserve had increased to only 25,000 or even fewer, not to the 30,000 intended?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we intend to maintain an appropriate force level to meet our planning assumptions. We will continue closely to manage the growth in the reserves and the reduction in regular numbers. These numbers will be kept under continuous review as we move beyond the end of operations in Afghanistan. Mitigation strategies are in place to ensure that we can take early action to maintain an appropriate force level. These include innovative recruiting campaigns and measures to improve retention.

Armed Forces: Human Rights

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I hope that I can give the noble and gallant Lord some reassurance on his questions. While the judgment will create uncertainties, we are determined that it will not undermine the authority of commanders in the field to give orders required in often fast-moving circumstances. I do not expect it to be open to a soldier facing a charge of failing to follow orders to argue that his human rights trumped those orders, nor do I believe that officers acting in good faith would ever face disciplinary action in the circumstances that the noble and gallant Lord has described.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the ruling is that the families of the Armed Forces personnel concerned can take action against the Ministry of Defence, since the court ruled that the doctrine of combat immunity should be interpreted narrowly. The individual claims concerned will now return to the High Court and it remains to be seen what the exact outcome will be. While it is essential that the MoD and the Armed Forces have a duty of care to service personnel, the concerns that have been expressed by the Defence Secretary and senior military figures on the potential military implications of the ruling should give pause for thought. Can the Minister say whether any consideration is likely to be given by the Government to the legislative position in the light of the court ruling, and is he aware of any of our allies who are in a similar position to the one in which we now find ourselves?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, as I said in my initial response, urgent discussions are taking place in the Ministry of Defence. We are meeting lawyers and trying to work out the best way forward for members of the Armed Forces. As regards our allies, we know that they are very interested in this issue and we will share the conclusions of our discussions with them as soon as possible.

Armed Forces: Reserve Forces

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a very important point and we realise that this is a key area that we must get right. We are grateful to those employers who play a very important role. We recognise that the needs of employers must be understood and respected. That is why we are moving to relationships with employers based on partnering, giving greater predictability and certainty to when reserves will be required for training or, indeed, deployment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, in the House of Commons on Monday, the Minister for the Armed Forces said:

“I am relatively confident that enough people will come forward to join the reserves and that we can look forward to having a vibrant reserve Army”.—[Official Report, 17/06/13; col. 609.]

Does the Minister share the doubts of his ministerial colleague, betrayed in that answer, that the target figure of 30,000 for our Reserve Forces may not be achieved? Can the Minister give an undertaking that the size of our Regular Army will not be reduced to the intended figure of 82,000 unless and until our Reserve Forces have been increased to 30,000 and have been appropriately trained?

Royal Navy: Escort Vessels

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines continues to provide a key element of our high-readiness response force. With the Royal Navy’s amphibious shipping, 3 Commando Brigade has strategic reach and is able to land and sustain from the sea a commando group of up to 1,800 personnel, together with protective vehicles and other equipment. Other elements of the Royal Marines continue to undertake a wide range of tasks, including protecting the nuclear deterrent and contributing to operations against piracy in the Indian Ocean.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, there is a significant gap in our maritime surveillance capability. How and when do the Government intend to plug it?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, there is no gap. Everything is carefully thought out. We would not be irresponsible enough to do what the noble Lord said.

Afghanistan: Interpreters

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 27th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I have been out to Afghanistan several times, as have other noble Lords, and each time the situation is a lot better than it was before. So we do have a good story to tell. I am very optimistic about the future of Afghanistan.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, under the last Government a settlement programme was agreed for Iraqi staff and their dependants. At the end of last year, the shadow Home Secretary called on the Government to offer a settlement scheme for Afghan interpreters who had helped and worked alongside British troops, in some cases suffering injury and now facing threats from the Taliban as our troops pull out. If someone now fears for his own and his family’s safety as a result of working with our soldiers and helping to fight for Britain’s long-term security, we should be prepared to act. Why is there any hesitation on the part of the Government when these are people who have surely been through the hardest citizenship test one could envisage?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, there is no hesitation. We take our responsibility for all members of staff very seriously and have put in place measures to reduce the risks they face. Precautions are taken during recruitment and staff are fully briefed of any risks involved in their work before taking up employment. As I said, the Government are looking into this matter, and I hope to report back to the House later this year.

Armed Forces: Autonomous Weapon Systems

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, remotely piloted aircraft systems are likely to form part of the future force mix, as they may offer advantages in endurance and range. However, the dynamic complexity of fighter-versus-fighter-type missions does not favour remote control. Therefore, a wholly unmanned force is unlikely to be achievable or desirable in future. Studies suggest a likely combat air force mix of two-thirds manned and one-third remotely piloted in around the 2030 timeframe.

[Lord Rosser]

There is a perception that unmanned technology is shrouded in secrecy. Although the rules of engagement for unmanned aerial vehicles are the same as those for manned aircraft, there is surely a case for the United Kingdom taking the lead by considering having a code on the context and limitations of usage of UAVs to clarify the rules, given the significance and spread of this technology. Is this a point that the Government are considering or will consider?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I shall certainly take that question back to my department and get back to the noble Lord. We always make sure that equipment is used appropriately. Even after a weapon system is declared lawful, its use will still be subject to stringent rules of engagement governing its employment in the context and specific circumstances of the operation in question. Those rules of engagement as well as addressing legal issues can, as a matter of policy, be more restrictive than the applicable law.

Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Consequential Provisions: Primary Legislation) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 25th March 2013 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, I am introducing this legislation, which provides access to additional benefits for service and ex-service personnel who are entitled to a new benefit, to be known as the Armed Forces independence payment, or AFIP, which is to be introduced on 8 April this year. The new benefit is another example of the Government delivering our commitment to uphold the Armed Forces covenant. The Armed Forces covenant has two basic principles: that those who serve in the Armed Forces and their families should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens; and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved.

Only recently the Government announced that they would make £6.5 million available to spend on latest-generation prosthetics. We are also improving rehabilitation services across the country for service personnel and veterans who are amputees. We are putting in place support and help for those who have suffered serious injuries in the line of duty, and AFIP will further enhance that support. It is important that we introduce AFIP and make sure that those most seriously injured receive this support.

In my mind, there are three key features. First, AFIP will provide ongoing financial support for the most severely injured. They will not have to be assessed or reassessed to access these payments. Secondly, this will simplify and streamline the support that service and ex-service personnel receive. It means that additional support can be offered based on an assessment already performed under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. Thirdly, all recipients will receive £134.40 per week, which will be tax-free and not means-tested. PIP will also be tax-free and not means-tested.

To explain the need for the order, it may be helpful if I provide some background to the new payment. In July 2012, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would simplify and enhance the financial support system for members of the Armed Forces who have been seriously injured, as part of the measures to uphold the Armed Forces covenant. Since that time, my department has been working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to consider how such support could be designed. This close co-operation resulted in the design of AFIP.

At the initial design stages of AFIP, we sought feedback from ex-service organisations and charities via the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation. This was to ensure that we had input from those who represent in-service and ex-service families and the bereaved. Those whom we contacted included the Royal British Legion, the War Widows’ Association, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen’s Association and Combat Stress, as well as service members. The feedback received was valuable and helped inform the final design of AFIP.

Who will get this new benefit and the additional access to benefits that will accompany it? All service and ex-service personnel seriously injured since 6 April 2005 will be eligible. To clarify, the “seriously injured” are defined as those awarded a guaranteed income payment of 50% or more under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. It is important to note that AFIP will cover those with both permanent physical and mental injuries caused by service. It is the level of AFCS award that provides eligibility for AFIP. No additional assessment is undertaken and no further reassessment is required. This will provide ongoing financial security for the most severely injured. All those eligible will receive a flat-rate, ongoing payment of £134.40 per week. This will be tax-free and will not be means-tested. AFIP is to be introduced on 8 April this year. Seriously injured service and ex-service personnel who claim AFIP cannot also claim other disability benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions, including disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance, no two of which can be claimed at the same time.

Other disability cost benefits, such as personal independence payment and disability living allowance, are used to provide access to a number of other benefits, schemes and services that are offered by other government departments, devolved Administrations and local authorities. These are often referred to in this context as passports. To ensure that AFIP recipients also have access to these additional benefits, we are bringing forward two packages of consequential amendments. The majority of these consequential amendments are to secondary legislation and so will form a package of regulations that was laid on 18 March this year. As for PIP, these included Motability, jobseeker’s allowance, legal aid, NHS costs, working tax credit, child tax credit, housing benefit and the council tax reduction scheme.

However, to establish access to three important passports, we are required to amend three other parts of primary legislation. That is what we are here to debate today. These minor but important legislative changes are in respect of carer’s allowance, Christmas bonus and the seatbelt exemption for medical reasons. The legislative change in respect of carer’s allowance will ensure that those who provide valuable support to seriously injured members of the Armed Forces in receipt of AFIP have access to DWP’s carer’s allowance, which will be £59.75 from April 2013. This change will specifically make provision for those who devote their lives to supporting our seriously injured people, providing some financial support for doing so. It is only right that a person caring for an AFIP recipient should have access to carer’s allowance.

As for the Christmas bonus, these provisions will ensure that all recipients of AFIP automatically qualify for the tax-free, lump sum Christmas bonus, which is paid annually by the Department for Work and Pensions. In cases where the injured serviceperson requires, on medical grounds, an exemption from wearing a seatbelt, the individual must hold a valid certificate of exemption from compulsory seatbelt wearing. Only a medical practitioner may issue this certificate. This amendment will enable the medical practitioner to seek reimbursement from the Department for Transport for the cost of medical assessment that is required in these cases. As I have set out today, these three minor, but important, new provisions are designed to ensure that our most seriously injured service and ex-service personnel are able to access the additional benefits and schemes that they deserve.

AFIP is another example of the Government’s commitment to uphold the Armed Forces covenant and deliver tangible benefits for members of the Armed Forces and veterans. AFIP will provide ongoing financial support for the most severely injured service and ex-service personnel on the basis of their Armed Forces Compensation Scheme award without assessment or reassessment. Furthermore, AFIP will provide them with passports to additional benefit schemes and services that are offered by other government departments, devolved Administrations and local authorities. The Government will track the progress of AFIP and will report on its implementation in the Armed Forces covenant report towards the end of 2013.

It is important that we address these issues, meeting the principles at the heart of the covenant, and that is why we propose to bring in AFIP for members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are seriously injured. I hope that the Committee will therefore be happy to consider the order this afternoon.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the background to, and purpose of, this order. We support the principle of the Armed Forces independence payment, which is to be paid to those who have been most seriously injured, as well as the order that we are now considering and the access to the three important passports, to which the Minister referred. However, there are one or two points on which I should like clarification.

When the order was discussed in the other place earlier this month, the Minister of State, Mr Mark Francois, said that at the initial design stages of the Armed Forces independence payment, the Government sought feedback from ex-service organisations and charities via the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation. He went on to say that the feedback received was valuable and helped to inform the final design of AFIP. However, paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which covers the consultation outcomes section, indicates a degree of division among the key ex-service organisations. It states that, while the organisations recommended change to only the eligibility criteria, they,

“disagreed with each other, some considering the eligibility criteria too narrow, others too broad”.

Therefore, I simply ask whether we are now in a situation where the ex-service organisations and service personnel have agreed on the eligibility criteria for the Armed Forces independence payment.

As the Minister said, the payment will be £134.40 a week, tax-free. As I do not think that it is in the documentation, can the noble Lord indicate how many seriously injured service and former service personnel are expected to receive AFIP, and how much more these personnel will receive each week with AFIP compared with the allowances or payments that they currently receive? Can he also indicate what the total additional cost per annum of AFIP will be compared with the cost per annum of the payments currently being made to the most seriously injured service and former service personnel in question?

However, I conclude by reiterating our support for the principle of the Armed Forces independence payment and for the order that we are now considering.

Armed Forces: Pay

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, service personnel will receive the increase from 1 May onwards. I understand that it is the general policy of all Governments not to backdate, to avoid adding complexity and risk to normal administrative operations. The noble and gallant Lord asked if the uplift in X-factor will be paid to mobilised reservists. X-factor is paid at the full level—currently 14%—to all ranks up to and including lieutenant-colonel or equivalent in the Regular Forces, full-time reserve service personnel on full commitment and mobilised reservists.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Government have made as nifty a U-turn as a London taxicab on implementing the X-factor supplement recommendation. Yet the contract for the chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, Alasdair Smith, is not being renewed. He said that, because of the late decision and the time needed to make another appointment, his successor will miss the first half of the year’s programme of work, including all the visits to members of the Armed Forces that are a hugely important part of the role. That statement indicates that this was a sudden decision by the Government, made following receipt of the pay review body’s recommendations at the end of January, since just over two weeks later Alasdair Smith was told that he would be finishing at the end of this month. In view of their hasty U-turn, will the Government now offer Professor Smith a further term as chairman? After all, he will have the confidence of members of the Armed Forces since he upheld the independence of the pay review body—or is that the problem?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, there is no link between the Prime Minister’s decision not to reappoint Professor Smith and the increase in X-factor. The Prime Minister’s decision not to extend Professor Smith’s appointment represents broader government policy regarding no automatic right to reappointment to non-departmental public bodies such as the pay review body. The decision is in line with the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies. An interim chair, John Steele, has been drawn from the remaining members of the AFPRB until a formal replacement can be appointed.

Armed Forces: Reserve Forces

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 11th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made towards achieving the projected increase in the size of the United Kingdom’s reserve forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, the first year of the Future Reserves 2020 programme has been about stabilisation and understanding. The number of inquiries about reserve service has increased, and early indications are that strength is stabilising. We recently conducted a public consultation to ensure that the right relationships were established between reservists and their families, their employers and the Armed Forces. We intend to publish a White Paper in the spring that will set the conditions to deliver the reserve force strength we require.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the future strength and capability of our Armed Forces is dependent on increasing our Reserve Forces to 30,000 by 2018, yet the Territorial Army has declined by 1,000 over each of the last three years. In the year up to this March, it looks as though the number of recruits will be well below target. A Federation of Small Businesses survey showed that even among members who are open to employing reservists, two out of every five believe that the Government’s future requirement that reservists serve and are away from their civilian jobs for one year out of every five would negatively impact their business. What action do the Government intend to take to accelerate recruitment to our reserves; what incentives will be given to employers to hire reservists; and what protection will be given to reservists to prevent them being discriminated against in respect of both hiring and promotion?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we acknowledge that this is the start of a challenging programme to reshape our Armed Forces. We inherited Reserve Forces that were in decline and not being used in the most cost-effective way. What we are setting out to do is sensible and achievable, and the planned strengths are well within historic levels. However, we are not complacent, and we are already running a major recruiting campaign for the TA. This has already resulted in over 6,650 inquiries since it started on 17 January. The Government are fully committed to delivering Reserve Forces that are integral to and integrated with the Regular Forces, and we are investing an additional £1.8 billion over the next 10 years.

Armed Forces: Redundancies

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the two brave members of our Armed Forces who have lost their lives as a result of action in Afghanistan in the service of our country.

I thank the Minister for repeating as a Statement the Answer given in response to the Urgent Question asked in the other place on Armed Forces redundancies. With these further redundancies, how will the Government ensure that the specialist skills that will be required more than ever in future in, for example, North Africa, in intelligence capability and foreign languages, as well as in our Special Forces, are retained, not lost in the continuing reduction in the size of our Armed Forces?

Secondly, the reduction in the size of our Regular Army also assumes an increase in the size of our Reserve Forces. That will require incentives for employers to employ and retain reservists and cast-iron guarantees for reservists that they will not be discriminated against in their employment. What assurances can the Minister give on these two points, without which achieving the required strength of our Reserve Forces is likely to prove very difficult?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments at the beginning of his speech. He asked how we ensure that we retain the skills that we need. There are certain pinch-point skills that will be excluded from the redundancies. Off the top of my head, they are the intelligence corps, a certain number of Royal Engineers, particularly IEDs, language skills, which the noble Lord mentioned, and, of course, the Special Forces, which we do not talk about. They will be excluded.

Turning to reservists, as the noble Lord knows—we had a debate on this subject the other day—we expect to have a White Paper on this issue in the spring. We spent a lot of time debating this issue. This is a subject in which I personally take a great deal of interest. I have been involved with the reserves for a number of years, and I am confident that we can do everything possible to get up to the number we want, which is 20,000 by 2018.

Armed Forces: Medical Services

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we, too, offer our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Captain Walter Barrie. His death is another all-too-frequent reminder of the enormous sacrifices still being made by members of our Armed Forces in the service of our country.

The report of the public inquiry into the death of Iraqi civilian Baha Mousa found that military guidance on key ethical questions was not provided to regimental medical officers at the time. Is the Minister now satisfied that if there were to be an increase in the proportion of medical personnel who were reservists, appropriate guidance would always be given to them prior to deployment, and that they would be as able as regular medical officers to resist any pressures to prioritise their obligations or loyalties to the military over their ethical duties to patients? Further, will the medical services available to members of the Reserve Forces post-deployment be the same as the medical services available to members of the Regular Forces post-deployment?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord’s first question, I am pretty certain that I can give him that assurance. Like a number of noble Lords, I have been to Afghanistan and seen the hospital at Camp Bastion. I talked to a number of reservists. They work to an incredibly high standard. The NHS is very grateful for what its personnel pick up there and are able to take back to their respective trusts.

Armed Forces: Local Overseas Allowance

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Thursday 25th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the success of Operation Kipion is measured by the fact that our efforts to reassure our Gulf partners through providing a constant presence in the region continue to ensure access and basing in Gulf states. This is vital to support Operation Herrick. The Royal Navy is at the forefront of mine countermeasure capabilities in experience, expertise and technology. The US/UK/French patrols in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz are a routine part of our commitment to the free movement of international shipping in the region. In recent years our ships have played a significant role as part of the combined maritime forces of the Bahrain-based coalition naval force drawn from 25 nations, with missions including counterpiracy, counterterrorism and the maintenance of security in and around the Gulf. These are all highly valued by our allies, including the United States.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, an MoD survey of which the Minister will be well aware has shown that nearly two-thirds of officers in the Army, the Navy and the RAF now rate their own morale as low. That is twice the level it was in 2010. What plans do the Government have for improving the morale of our Armed Forces?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I do not share the noble Lord’s pessimistic view of the morale of the senior Armed Forces but, as I said, we are constantly reviewing morale, allowances and everything else that leads to morale in the Armed Forces.

Armed Forces: Military Corrective Training Centre

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 25th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. However, our primary objective is to have a professional, volunteer Armed Forces.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, how many inmates of the Military Corrective Training Centre have been deported after sentence or at the completion of their sentence in the past two years? Of that number, how many have been charged and sentenced through the military judicial system rather than the civilian judicial system? What rights of appeal against deportation do they have, and to which individual or body?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence does not track the numbers of deportations or rights of appeal. It is a matter for the Home Office. I will undertake to get these figures for the noble Lord and write to him.

Armed Forces Day

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Thursday 28th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what level of financial or other form of support they are providing for Armed Forces Day on Saturday 30 June.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, the Government are supporting this Saturday’s Armed Forces Day in many different ways. Members of the Armed Forces are involved in events up and down the country, from parades to fly-pasts, including the national event in Plymouth. As well as meeting the costs of this participation, the Ministry of Defence has made grants of some £223,000 to help communities to organise their own events. In addition, reservists were invited to wear their uniforms to work yesterday, and Armed Forces veterans were encouraged to wear their veterans’ badge. As part of the build-up to Armed Forces Day, show your support flags will be flown on all government buildings and town halls, and some local authorities are taking the opportunity to sign up to their own community covenants. This all adds up to a wide-ranging celebration of what our Armed Forces bring to this country.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, yesterday we had a Question about discrimination against our Armed Forces, and another example has been reported in the press this morning. Earlier this week, we saw Ben Parkinson carrying the Olympic torch through Doncaster. He suffered appalling injuries in Afghanistan in 2006—the loss of both legs, and brain and back injuries, which are euphemistically described as life-changing injuries. Ben Parkinson carried the torch for 300 metres. It took him 25 minutes to complete the walk. It was an act of great determination, guts and, yes, courage.

It is so that we can express our thanks, gratitude and support to our Armed Forces and veterans, and the enormous sacrifices that so many have made on our behalf, including giving their lives, that we have Armed Forces Day. In thanking the Minister for his comprehensive reply, may I ask whether the Government will review the levels of future support that we as a nation give, in whatever form, to Armed Forces Day to ensure that the crucial role undertaken on our behalf and the sacrifices made by our Armed Forces continue to be fully understood and appreciated, including by the minority of individuals and organisations who knowingly or unknowingly still discriminate against Armed Forces personnel?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Armed Forces will be very grateful for the Opposition’s continued support, and I share the noble Lord’s admiration for the courage of Ben Parkinson in Doncaster. With regard to discrimination, the Cabinet sub-committee on the Armed Forces covenant, chaired by Oliver Letwin, will oversee work across government and ensure that momentum on all strands of the covenant is maintained. The noble Lord asked whether we are doing enough to spread the message. Armed Forces Day now has over 1 million followers on Facebook, and this shows just how much the day has caught the imagination of people in this country. We will keep the level of assistance that we provide under review. However, one of the most remarkable features of Armed Forces Day is the way in which the lead is being taken by communities themselves, rather than here in Whitehall.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for their support in the debate today. The noble and gallant Lord asked about compulsory redundancy. When selecting personnel of the Armed Forces for compulsory redundancy, no consideration was given to the proximity of the immediate pension point. As we reduce the size of the Armed Forces, our priority is to ensure that the services maintain the correct balance of the skills and experience across the rank structures that are required to deliver operational capability now and in future. It is that which has determined the redundancy fields.

The noble and gallant Lord asked whether we were focused just on financial saving. The department has gone to great lengths to carry out these redundancies as sensitively as possible. We fully understand that making the transition from the Armed Forces into civilian life can be daunting and we remain committed to helping service leavers in taking this important step. The Ministry of Defence offers service leavers a wide range of activities that help to facilitate the transition to civilian employment. The support offered is built around preparing the service leaver for future employment in terms of accessing appropriate opportunities for reskilling as well as accessing suitable civilian job opportunities.

The majority of resettlement provision is contracted out to the career transition partnership—the partnering relationship between the MoD and Right Management Ltd. The contract is successful as 97% of eligible service leavers use CTP, 93% of whom tell us that they succeed in becoming settled or gain employment within six months of leaving. That figure increases to 97% after 12 months, and 57% will have had two jobs.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked whether, if we did not approve what we are doing today, the Armed Forces would cease to exist. He also asked whether there was other legislation or a more appropriate way of doing this. A change was proposed by the Ministry of Defence in the Armed Forces Bill in 2005 but was resisted by the Defence Committee and the Select Committee that considered the Bill. Both committees favoured retaining the present arrangements and the Ministry of Defence amended the Bill accordingly. What would the effect be if the order were not made? Unless the Armed Forces Act 2006 is continued, there would not be lawful authority for the disciplinary system that governs the Armed Forces. I hope that that addresses the issue.

[Lord Rosser]

Can I be clear, at least in my mind, that the only effect of not continuing this order would be the impact that it would have on the disciplinary system and not on the reality of our Armed Forces continuing to exist?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I think I need to write to the noble Lord. The disciplinary issue is pretty important but it is quite complicated, to the extent that I probably do not have time to provide an answer now, but I shall write to the noble Lord. If I may, I shall study the Hansard record of the points that have been raised and write to the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord if I have anything to add to these exchanges.

Defence: Trident Replacement Programme

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this will be one of the issues that the alternative study overseen by my colleague, the Armed Forces Minister, will be looking at. As I said earlier, the study will report to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister by the end of this year.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, from the opposition Front Bench I extend sincere condolences from this side to the families and friends of the five brave members of our Armed Forces who lost their lives in Afghanistan recently in the service of our country. We support retaining our independent nuclear deterrent and are strong advocates of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We believe that multilateral disarmament is the route to securing the collective goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. As has been said, the Government set up a Liberal Democrat review on alternatives to the replacement of the Vanguard class strategic submarines carrying the Trident missile. The Minister has indicated when he expects the review to be published, but can he also confirm that the cost of delaying the final decision on the renewal of the Trident programme until after the next general election, purely for internal coalition government political reasons, has already cost the nation’s taxpayers £1.4 billion?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the shared consensus that the nation’s security should be above party politics. So far as concerns the costs of any delayed decision, there are no costs at all, as the main gate decision will not be taken until 2016.

RAF: Fukushima Accident

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I join my noble friend in remembering the Afghan civilians who were murdered the other day. I also agree with him that the RAF Regiment’s ability to deploy rapidly and assist in the way that it did is an excellent example of military aid to the civilian authority. The unique skills of the RAF Regiment go far wider than just on the battlefield. As for mentoring the Afghans, members of the RAF Regiment have mentored Afghan police from Helmand’s provincial response company, put them through basic and advanced training and deployed with them in a mentoring role over the past six months. Detailed planning for the redeployment of personnel from Afghanistan is ongoing, and it is too early to say when the RAF Regiment will return.

[Lord Rosser]

We would wish to join the Minister in offering our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the nine members of our Armed Forces who have recently lost their lives in Afghanistan while in the service of our country. Mere words cannot lessen the pain of separation but we want their families and friends to know that our thoughts are very much with them at the present time.

Could I ask the Minister whether the British nuclear industry has been able to learn any lessons from the knowledge gained from the RAF involvement in the aftermath of the Japanese nuclear power plant accident?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, safety is always our number one concern for the British nuclear power industry. Fukushima changed the energy debate around the world. Questions were rightly raised about the extent and safety of nuclear power—people wanted to know what happened and whether it could happen again. Our chief nuclear inspector, Dr Mike Weightman, undertook a full lessons-learnt analysis on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and my noble friend Lord Marland reported the findings through a Written Ministerial Statement on 11 October last year. Copies of the Weightman report were placed in the House Library.

Armed Forces: Afghanistan

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, planning is still at an early stage, and the exact speed of recovery has not yet been set. It is too early to say what equipment we plan to retain, or its value, and what we will gift to the Afghans. We currently use a combination of surface and air routes to support operations in Afghanistan; work is ongoing to increase these to ensure that our drawdown is conducted in good order, and all equipment is consignment-tracked using an asset tracking system.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on this side we also wish to express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the 10 brave members of our Armed Forces who in the service of our country have been killed on operations in Afghanistan recently. British military personnel will continue to be in Afghanistan in a non-combat role after the withdrawal of our combat forces in less than three years’ time. Who will be responsible for their security, particularly in the light of the recent killing of four French soldiers and wounding of 15 others by an Afghan force soldier, when this was by no means the first such incident of this type? What test will the Government apply to determine whether or not the Afghan national security forces are able to provide the necessary level of security for our non-combat personnel in Afghanistan after 2014?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, UK and international forces are helping to build the strength and capability of the ANSF to allow them to lead security across Afghanistan by the end of 2014. They have responded professionally and effectively to several high-profile attacks and are ready and willing to take on increasing levels of responsibility. After 2014, UK troops will continue to support the ANSF by providing training at the new Afghan national army officer academy, and we will work with other NATO nations to ensure that the necessary force protection measures are in place.

Armed Forces: Afghanistan and Libya

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very good point. The UK is rightly grateful to its coalition allies for the contributions that they have made. But in these times of austerity, this may be difficult. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the UK is only one country within the broad NATO-led coalition of allies that has been operating both in Afghanistan and Libya, so we would more likely look to NATO to conduct such an event.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister has had the sad duty of reading out the names of nine members of our Armed Forces who have recently lost their lives in the service of our country. On this side, we, too, extend our sincere condolences to their loved ones and friends at this particularly difficult time for them. No words can adequately express the debt that we owe to all who have given their lives on active service.

Will the Minister accept that the Libya campaign illustrated both the strengths and weaknesses of NATO? The strength was NATO’s continuing relevance in a mission that was quick and successful; the weakness was that less than a half of NATO members contributed to the mission. On top of that, there are still issues over the significant number of European nations not meeting NATO expenditure targets on defence. Will the Government use the success of the Libya mission in particular to pursue again this issue of NATO members making an appropriate contribution?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s last point. Some allies shared significantly more of the burden in Libya than others and this imbalance needs to be addressed in the future. In practice, we saw a two-tier alliance in terms of operation. Only half of the allies took part militarily, exasperating the limited availability of NATO’s capability.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendment would provide that the annual Armed Forces covenant would cover the operation of inquests as well as the subjects of healthcare, housing and education.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments already advanced in support of the amendment about why it is essential that there should be a specific reference in the Bill to the report covering the operation of inquests. Suffice to say that the decision not to proceed with the creation of the office of the chief coroner has strengthened the case. One of the roles of the chief coroner accepted on all sides of the House was the monitoring of investigations into service deaths and ensuring that coroners are trained to conduct investigations into military deaths. The chief coroner would also have had the responsibility to transfer inquests into military deaths to coroners in different jurisdictions to ensure that an inquest would be held by a coroner trained in military matters. The position now, as I understand it, is that investigations into single fatalities will still be transferred to the coroner closest to the next of kin. Inconsistency in quality of service and in quality of investigations for military families will therefore remain.

The amendment would not reverse or amend the Government’s decision in respect of the office of the chief coroner, but it would ensure that the issue of the operation of inquests—which, as has been said, remains a matter of considerable concern—is one that the Secretary of State has to report on each year in the Armed Forces covenant report, and thus is guaranteed to be the subject of continuing parliamentary and public scrutiny, challenge and debate.

In his responses in Grand Committee and on Report, the Minister—I think that he will accept this—has accepted that the operation of inquests is a subject that would be required to be covered by the Secretary of State in the Armed Forces covenant report at present but, his view is, not necessarily in future. The Minister argues that we currently have forces deployed overseas in military action—obviously, for example, in Afghanistan—which, sadly, continues to result in fatalities and consequential inquests, but that, hopefully, this will not be a permanent situation and thus there is no need, as there is with healthcare, housing and education, to have the operation of inquests included in the Bill as a required subject matter to be covered in the annual report.

I am sure that we all share his hope that the situation regarding fatalities will be transformed, but under current policy the current operations in Afghanistan will be continuing for just over another three years, and inquests are not always resolved and finalised quickly, as has been pointed out. Further, the anticipated position could well not materialise and we just do not know when or where our Armed Forces might be deployed overseas in the future. It is also the case that not all fatalities on active service occur overseas, as has been said, and there are fatalities in this country, including, in some years, some high-profile ones. It seems unrealistic to claim that, even though a highly sensitive issue such as the operation of inquests is one that the Secretary of State would almost certainly be expected to address for the next few years in an Armed Forces covenant report, such is our apparent certainty over what is going to happen in the highly uncertain and volatile arena of world affairs in the medium and longer term that we should decide now that it is not necessary to include any reference to the operation of inquests, along with healthcare, housing, and education in the Bill.

We have an Armed Forces Bill every five years—it is the one piece of guaranteed legislation that emanates from the Ministry of Defence, which is a department that generates very little new legislation. As a result, legislative changes and amendments that are required tend to be left until the next Armed Forces Bill. It may well be that experience of the processes and procedures provided for in this Bill for the annual Armed Forces covenant report will lead to some amendments being put forward by the then Government in the next Bill in just the same way as other parts of this, or previous Armed Forces Bills, may necessitate revision or amendment. There is nothing wrong with that, and there is likewise nothing wrong with the reference to the operation of inquests being included in this Bill as a subject matter that will be addressed in the annual Armed Forces covenant report, when we know it is an important and sensitive issue, because in what many might feel is the less than likely event of its ceasing to be an issue of importance and concern, it can be removed from the Bill by an amendment to a future Armed Forces Bill.

If the noble Baroness does not feel able to accept the Minister’s reply, and is minded to seek the opinion of the House, we will be supporting the amendment.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, during both Grand Committee and Report stages, the noble Baroness gave a detailed and moving account of problems which had been encountered by bereaved service families in the course of a coroner’s inquest. I have considered carefully what the noble Baroness said on Report; it seems to me that she has three main areas of concern, and I shall try to deal with each in turn.

The first is the process and quality of inquests. In the past decade, more than 500 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in military operations, including 12 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. Sixty-three of these inquests were held this year alone. Several years ago, bereaved families could have waited around two years for an inquest. Last year we completed 131 inquests into operational death, for which the average date was 15 months, and only 11 and a half months for those where there did not have to be a service inquiry. For those who died last year the average wait is currently eight months, although this will increase, as a small number of inquests have yet to be held.

These improvements are a direct result of changes we have made, including the setting up of a dedicated defence inquest unit. But we are not complacent. The Ministry of Defence will continue to support coroners to ensure that they are able to hear inquests into service deaths promptly. This we hope will go some way to ease the burden on families at such a difficult and distressing time.

The defence inquest unit deals generally with around 20 to 25 coroners, and as the noble Baroness said on Report, the Ministry of Defence has held training events for them. I note, too, that the noble Baroness also raised concerns over the wide variation in the standards and performance of coroners. At present there are 99 coroners in 114 coronial districts. She will be interested to know that the Government propose to take forward a package of measures aimed at improving the standard of service provided by coroners, including statutory provision set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, such as training regulations for coroners, and powers to make new rules, regulations and guidance. In the mean time, the Government will also publish a new charter for the current coroner service in early 2012. This will set out the minimum standards of service that those coming into contact with the system can expect and establish a new bereaved organisations committee for the important role of monitoring the impact of the charter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I gather that it is traditional at this point for the Minister guiding the Bill to say a few words of thanks. More than 30 noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords spoke during the debate at Second Reading in July. That is testament to the deep and abiding interest in the Armed Forces that exists in this House. In our exchanges since then, we have at times taken different views on some issues. However, I have been impressed, as I always am, by the courtesy and helpfulness that have been shown to me by noble Lords on all sides of the House. It is difficult to single out individuals, but I should like to pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his hard work on the Bill and for his tenacity in pursuing issues that he thought were wrong. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is not in her place now. I should also like to thank the many people behind the scenes, in the House and elsewhere, who have supported us during the Bill’s passage. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the Armed Forces. This Bill is for them. We owe them our best efforts at all times, and I believe that we have a Bill that meets the high standard that they set for us.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief, but I would like to thank the Minister and his team for all the considerable help that they have given on this Bill. The Minister has been prepared to listen with an open mind to the points made during our discussions. Where he has felt able to make changes in the Bill to address some of the concerns that have been raised, he has done so. We wish to express our thanks to the Minister for all the work that he has done on the Bill and for his major contribution to the fact that our debates have been constructive and conducted without rancour, and conducted with the interests of our Armed Forces in our minds.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I certainly will not repeat the powerful arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, when she moved her amendment. However, when the issue was debated in Committee, the Minister said in reply that the Government recognised that inquests were an important element of the Armed Forces covenant. He referred to the substantial number of casualties in Afghanistan and said that he fully expected the matter to be covered in the annual report. He went on to say that he could also imagine a happier time when the operation of the inquest system would be of less concern to the Armed Forces community because we might not be involved in deployed operations or suffering fatalities. In other words, the issue of inquests was not likely to be another “enduring topic”, to use a government phrase, on a par with healthcare, housing and education.

I do not share the view that the Government can reject the amendment in quite the way that they did when it was discussed in Committee. We are likely to be involved in Afghanistan for a few more years and, sadly, the issue of inquests will continue to be high on the agenda for some time. In addition, numbers of serving personnel die on active service but not overseas, so it may be optimistic to believe that a time will come when inquests need not be covered in the annual Armed Forces covenant report. However, since we have an Armed Forces Bill every five years, if it was felt that the operation of inquests was no longer an issue of concern in five years’ time or at some later date, this perfectly reasonable amendment could be removed in the next or a subsequent Armed Forces Bill. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a more sympathetic response to the amendment than was the case in Committee.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, in Grand Committee and again today, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has given a detailed and moving account of the problems that have been encountered by bereaved service families in the course of a coroner’s inquest. It is very sad that any family should feel at the end of an inquest that their burdens have been made even heavier, but this is particularly regrettable for the family of someone who has given their life for their country.

We are focusing on the Bill today and time does not permit me to detail the progress that has been made. As the noble Baroness knows, Parliament is kept well informed through quarterly ministerial Statements. However, I can understand her wish to ensure that this subject is not allowed to drift away from public attention. I hope that my remarks on the first group of amendments have offered her reassurance, in two ways.

First, the commitment that the Secretary of State would have regard to the whole range of subjects included within the scope of the Armed Forces covenant, as set out in the guidance document published on 16 May, includes the operation of the inquest system for bereaved service families. Secondly, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the membership of the covenant reference group, which will now be consulted on the subjects to be covered in the annual report. It includes both the Royal British Legion, which has campaigned strongly on this issue, as the noble Baroness said, and the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain, which brings together many of those who unfortunately have first-hand knowledge of inquests. I am therefore confident that the Secretary of State will receive very clear advice on this aspect of the covenant.

I recognise that the noble Baroness is not just concerned about inquests for serving personnel. She also envisages drawing together information from any inquests into the deaths of former service men and women that might perhaps show a common thread. I can understand how data of this kind could be valuable, and we are always interested in developing our knowledge of the health outcomes of veterans, where this is practical. However, I would point out to the noble Baroness that the field of healthcare is already mentioned in the clause. Beyond that, I would not wish to commit to any more detailed provision in relation to inquests without a much clearer idea of what is feasible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister had the support of the whole House in his response to the previous amendment, and I hope that he will also give a helpful response to this one.

As has been said, our Armed Forces are United Kingdom forces. For that reason alone, it would surely be undesirable not to try to ensure that special provision for service people is broadly the same across the United Kingdom. The amendment does not require the Secretary of State to do the impossible and ensure that special provisions made are broadly the same, but simply provides for the covenant report to state how the Secretary of State will seek to ensure that such provisions are broadly the same. This is an eminently reasonable and constructive amendment, and I hope that the Minister will give an equally constructive response.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, noble Lords who have spoken in support of Amendment 9 have voiced their disquiet at the prospect of variation between the different countries of the United Kingdom in the way that special provision or special treatment is applied. I have previously said to your Lordships that the Government are sympathetic to the principle of consistency. As noble Lords have pointed out, members of the Armed Forces serve the Crown and the whole of the United Kingdom, not a local council or the devolved Administrations. The Armed Forces covenant is with the nation, not with one part of it. All parts of government across the UK share the moral obligation to honour it.

Nevertheless, we must keep this in perspective. The terminology of a postcode lottery is emotive and sometimes used unfairly to describe the legitimate scope for local decisions about local services. There are many examples where that scope for local decision has led to better outcomes for members of the Armed Forces community, rather than allowing councils or Administrations to escape their obligations. The Government have no wish to stifle that local initiative or control everything from Whitehall by regulation.

One alternative to regulation is successful dialogue. Again, I have referred in the past to what dialogue has achieved across a range of different domains, such as the introduction of the new arrangements for scholarships for bereaved service children. Another example I gave was the new transition protocol for transferring the care of injured personnel from military to civilian services across all the countries of the United Kingdom. So I am not as pessimistic about the future as the noble Lord, Lord Empey. The noble Lord knows that the particular terms of the amendment, which would require the Government to include in the report a statement on how we would ensure that the provision is broadly the same across the UK, causes difficulty. That goes some way beyond what we envisage as the content of the annual report. Even if we accepted the underlying assumption that the UK Government should act in the way suggested, we would not necessarily have the answers available when the report was published.

In Grand Committee, the noble Lord invited the Government to reflect further on those matters, and we have. He used a very good phrase when he referred to his desire to connect every part of the UK to the report process. In that debate, I gave the noble Lord the assurance that, where the Secretary of State reaches the conclusion that special provision is justified, the annual report will attempt to take into account the position across the United Kingdom. We would take a wide view. I trust that that assurance, together with the further statements which I had made today about the report process, will give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, tabled a similar amendment to Amendment 10 in Grand Committee. In response I assured your Lordships that I regarded Armed Forces advocates as an excellent idea and outlined the tasks they carried out in central government departments. I also mentioned the variety of roles which advocates or champions can and do play at local level in local authorities, NHS trusts or jobcentres. The form this took depended on the job to be done.

The issues surrounding this amendment have not changed. It is not the merits of local Armed Forces advocates that are in question but the need to legislate for their existence. Our approach is to spread good practice by demonstrating what advocates and other local initiatives are able to achieve. As the noble Lord pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, suggested in our earlier debate that it was precisely those local bodies which decline to appoint an advocate which were most likely to need one as they had not focused on the issues. I undertook to consider this point further. Having done so, I take rather the opposite view. I suggest that a local body which appoints an advocate, simply because it ticks a box or meets a legal requirement, is very unlikely to make effective use of that individual. This is not the right approach to stimulate genuine improvements at local level, and I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I am obviously somewhat disappointed at the Minister’s reply because although I accepted that he might well not be prepared to accept the amendment, I expressed the hope that he would be able to spell out in rather more detail the specific action that the Government intended to take to ensure that best practice is introduced and implemented. It does not seem to me that the Minister has really addressed that point in his reply. However, I will not pursue the matter any further at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 4, 5, 16, 18 and 19. Most of the comment on and interest in the Bill has centred on the Armed Forces covenant and the Secretary of State’s report. It is therefore not surprising that by far the largest single group of amendments should relate to this issue.

The Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to produce an annual report to Parliament on the effects of membership or former membership of the Armed Forces on servicepeople. In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must have regard in particular to the unique obligations of and sacrifices made by the Armed Forces, the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for servicepeople from membership or former membership of the Armed Forces, and the principle that special provision for servicepeople may be justified by the effects on such people of membership or former membership of the Armed Forces.

However, it would appear that these principles apply to issues within the Armed Forces covenant report, but which will include only those issues that the Secretary of State decides to include. These principles should be applicable to government policy, and my amendments include provision for the principles to apply to all public policy by stating that, in preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must have regard to those matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in preparing an Armed Forces covenant report, and must also consider whether the making of special provision for servicepeople or particular descriptions of servicepeople would be justified. There should surely be an obligation on all public servants to take heed of the principles of the covenant if we are to be confident that the covenant is to be fully applied. Further, there is provision in my amendments for the Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsmen to investigate complaints from service personnel that a public body or local authority has failed to meet the commitments outlined in the Armed Forces covenant and The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow.

The Bill provides for the Secretary of State’s report to cover healthcare, education and housing, but anything else is left to the Secretary of State to determine. As the Minister put it in his opening speech at Second Reading:

“Other issues will only emerge at the time, so the Bill leaves this flexible”.

The difficulty is that leaving out everything apart from healthcare, education and housing provides an opportunity for any Secretary of State to seek to sideline other important issues, perhaps because they are difficult or awkward. Indeed, the Secretary of State would appear to be reporting on what other departments or devolved Administrations are doing in respect of healthcare, education and housing, for which he is not directly responsible, but not reporting on the work of his own department for which he is directly responsible. My amendments propose a much longer list in order to overcome this potential problem and limit the extent of any Secretary of State to decide which issues are relevant to current or former servicepeople. After all, if in the opinion of a Secretary of State any of the headings listed in my amendment are not worthy of reporting on in the Armed Forces covenant report in any one year, that is all the Secretary of State need say in his report, and then see if Parliament and others are of the same opinion.

At Second Reading the Minister said that,

“the process of preparing reports will evolve over time. We are breaking new ground. We will learn from experience, listen to comments, and move forward in a positive way. I am clear that that is the right way to do it, rather than making the legislation excessively prescriptive.—[Official Report, 6/7/11; col. 272.]

I am not as convinced as the Minister that the Government intend to listen if they have already decided that a specific reference to anything more than healthcare, education and housing as set out in the Bill is being “excessively prescriptive”. Bearing in mind that we normally have an Armed Forces Bill only every five years, and that the Ministry of Defence adopts the approach of keeping proposals requiring primary legislation until the next Bill is due, we need to get the wording in this Bill right on the extent of the issues which must be addressed in a Secretary of State’s Armed Forces covenant report.

My amendments, unlike the Bill, mention specifically the external reference group. At Second Reading the Minister accepted that concerns had been raised about the independence of the annual report, concerns that will relate to any Secretary of State and any Government of whatever political colour. The Minister said that the Government have undertaken to publish alongside the annual report whatever observations the external members of the covenant reference group choose to make on it. Since the issue of the independence of the report is not directed at any one Secretary of State or any particular Government, a requirement to publish any observations from the external reference group—apparently now called the covenant reference group by the Government, and confirmed by the Government as a permanent body—should be on the face of the Bill, as should the results of any additional consultation with service charities and groups and other interested parties both inside and outside government.

At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“In preparing annual reports, the Ministry of Defence would consult widely with interested parties inside and outside Government”.—[Official Report, 6/7/11; col. 272.]

My amendments extend the list of issues to be addressed in the Secretary of State’s annual report to 10 headings, including accommodation, healthcare and education. Six of the additional headings cover,

“mental healthcare … pensions and benefits … employment and training … support for reservists and their employers … the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, and progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation schemes”.

I would hardly have thought that any of these headings made the legislation “excessively prescriptive”, since they are all issues of considerable importance to serving and former service personnel, of whom, with their families, there are around 10 million, or one in six of the population.

The last heading in my amendment is,

“such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine”,

instead of as in the Bill,

“such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine”

Since all of the rest of the report will be under the auspices of the Secretary of State, the independence of the report will be enhanced by the ability of the external reference group to determine what, if any other fields should be addressed apart from those specifically provided for in the Bill, and to make their own observations on the content—or lack of content—of the report, as the Government intend. We do not want a process that is simply Ministers reporting on what Ministers deem fit to report on. My amendment also sets out the broad composition and role of the external reference group and provides for it to be independently chaired.

On this point, it would also be helpful if the Minister could clarify what is meant by the wording in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill, in paragraph 18. One sentence says:

“If the Secretary of State considers that any of the fields of healthcare, education and housing is not relevant to a particular description of people covered in a report, the requirement to report on each of those fields is relaxed to that extent”.

Can the Minister confirm that that means the Secretary of State is the sole arbiter on whether there is a need to report on anything in the covenant report, including healthcare, education and housing? I hope that he will make a positive response to my amendments, which strengthen the covenant and accountability for its implementation across public life. I also look forward with interest to his response to the other amendments which have been so thoughtfully and powerfully moved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, this first group of amendments to Clause 2 consists of some 12 items, and deals with many aspects of the Armed Forces covenant and the proposed annual report. I am very grateful for the Committee’s patience, especially as, in order to draw out some common themes, I will not keep to the strict numerical order of amendments.

Amendment 1, in the name of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Boyce, would change the position of the provision for the Armed Forces covenant report in the Armed Forces Act. At Second Reading, the noble and gallant Lord referred to an “unfortunate juxtaposition” if the new provision were inserted directly after Section 359, which deals with pardons for servicemen executed during the First World War. I am most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for the helpful and constructive way in which he has approached this issue. In their amendment, the noble and gallant Lords propose that the new provision should be moved to follow Section 339. This would place it in Part 14, which covers topics such as enlistment and terms of service. We do not favour that, because we see the annual report and the Armed Forces covenant itself going far beyond enlistment and terms of service.

I had hoped that we could arrange a printing change, such that the new provision was inserted into the 2006 Act at new Section 353A, under its own italic “Armed forces covenant report” cross-heading. As the noble and gallant Lord said, I wrote to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in these terms. I thought that we had a deal.

Regrettably, I have now been advised that the Public Bill Office has declined to make the proposed change in printing points, having originally said that it was acceptable. Nevertheless, I reassure the noble and gallant Lords that there is no significance in the current proposed location next to Section 359. The two provisions are unrelated but are both properly categorised as “miscellaneous”. No relationship is implied by their positioning. Therefore, I do not consider that there is a major issue about the correctness or appropriateness of the new section.

Three other amendments in the group deal with the annual report of the covenant. Amendment 10, tabled by my noble friend Lord Palmer, concerns housing. The noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, focus in Amendment 11 on healthcare research. The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, propose a longer list of additions in Amendment 5. The amendments draw attention to very important subjects. Amendment 10, tabled by my noble friend Lord Palmer, requires the report to provide an update on progress with housing associations towards improving service accommodation. In practice, housing associations may contribute more to helping service leavers and veterans to find suitable housing than helping those in service. Our successful pilot shared-equity scheme is managed by a housing association. Housing is one of the core topics mentioned in Clause 2 and the Government regard it as one of the most important elements of the Armed Forces covenant. We have been very active in exploring the scope to do more for our people, for example through the housing summit organised by the Housing Minister in May this year. Some housing associations are already doing excellent work in this field, and we will always be interested in good ideas from the housing sector.

Similarly, in response to Amendment 11, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, we recognise the importance of commissioning and reporting on research designed to underpin healthcare for servicepeople. Very valuable research has already been commissioned by my department, such as the work of Professor Simon Wessely and the King’s Centre for Military Health Research, comparing the health of those who deploy on operations with a control group. We will continue to support research into healthcare issues affecting servicepeople, both in-house and, where appropriate, through external funding. Other bodies inside and outside government will also commission relevant research. This is a hugely important subject and we take it very seriously.

The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, tabled a much longer list of subjects to be covered in the report, which I suspect is designed to cover everything relating to the covenant. The assumption that the amendments have in common is that the best way to ensure that the annual report covers issues that matter is to name them in legislation. We disagree. Any attempt to write a comprehensive list is unlikely to be successful. Even if it captures everything today, it will be out of date tomorrow. Topics which became less important over time would still have to be covered every year. The annual report could become a box-ticking exercise.

We feel that it would be much better to have a short list of three enduring topics, as the Bill proposes. There are certain to be issues relating to healthcare, education and housing, and to at least one section of the Armed Forces community, in every year of the report. That is why we believe that they should be included as indicative of the coverage of the report. Beyond that, we should allow the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion on what to cover and for Ministers to defend their decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. We will certainly look at this.

[Lord Rosser]

I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford for his support for the amendment and also the Minister for his response. I will reflect on it, but in the mean time, I withdraw my amendment.

Defence Transformation

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on this side, we, too, wish to express our sincere condolences at this very difficult time for them to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Paul Watkins who was killed in Afghanistan the other day.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made a few minutes ago in the other place by the Secretary of State for Defence. It covers a number of big policy areas: the RAF basing review, Reserve Forces, the financial settlement and cuts to the Regular Army. The Statement, as did the strategic defence and security review, repeats the Government's line about the financial position they inherited, which arose as a result of a global economic recession which was not sparked off in this country. The Statement refers to a £38 billion black hole, but that figure assumes a flat line in cash terms in the defence budget over the coming years; in other words, a decline in real terms, which is unlikely. It also assumes that every commitment, including equipment, will be adhered to.

The National Audit Office 2009 report into major projects at the Ministry of Defence stated:

“If the Defence budget remained constant in real terms, and using the Department's forecast for defence inflation of 2.7 per cent the gap would now be £6 billion over the next ten years. If … there was no increase in the defence budget in cash terms over the same ten year period, the gap would rise to £36 billion".

I appreciate that this Government have managed to reduce the rate of growth during their period in office, but presumably even this Government intend to ensure that growth in the economy, from which additional resource can be provided, returns at some stage in the not-too-distant future.

The recent strategic defence and security review, which seems, with every MoD Statement, to be becoming less related to reality and expected reality, stated:

“Further work is required to determine the numbers of personnel that will be required to man the 2020 Force Structure. The Defence Reform Review, the review of Reserve Forces, further efficiency measures and changes in the policy context will all need to be taken into account at the next Strategic Defence and Security Review, which will set out detailed plans for the five years beyond 2015 ... We will also, for now, assume that by 2020 we will require a Royal Navy of 29,000 personnel, an Army of 94,000 and an RAF of 31,500”.

Yet the Government have announced cuts to the Army of 17,000—a sixth of the entire force—in just 10 months. However, in opposition, the Government said:

“In the real world the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the army is already too small”.

The SDSR referred to members of the Reserve Forces performing outstandingly well in Afghanistan, and we share that view and pay tribute to the commitment and dedication of our Reserve Forces and to the real contribution they play in protecting our own citizens and the lives of others in operations abroad. The SDSR also referred to the six-month study being undertaken into the future role and structure of the Reserve Forces and the Statement today includes the Government's response to that review. We, too, would wish to place on record our thanks to General Sir Nicholas Houghton, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, and his two colleagues who undertook the review. Will the Minister say whether the review suggested that the reductions in the Regular Forces should be made in the light of their recommendations on the Reserve Forces?

The Government have said that they will be undertaking a strategic defence and security review every five years. They now appear already to be making policy decisions on the structure and composition of our Armed Forces for the five years between 2015 and 2020, the period to be covered by the next defence review. What then are the strategic decisions and goals that have been made and determined for the five years from 2015 to 2020 which the decisions announced in the Statement today are presumably intended to deliver? Is it the Government's approach that our strategy for the five years from 2015 to 2020 will be determined by the Armed Forces that we have decided we will have rather than our required defence strategy for those years being determined first and then consideration being given to how to provide the Armed Forces needed to support and deliver that strategy?

If the Reserve Forces are to constitute some 30 per cent of our forces, rather than less than 20 per cent, to what extent will they become stand-alone units? There will be concerns if bespoke standing units of reservists were to become the norm since this could increase the commitment required from civilians and therefore potentially hinder recruitment. Will this approach not also undermine the one army concept? It appears as though the review highlighted the cost of Reserve Forces compared with the cost of Regular Forces. In view of the proposed increase in the percentage of our Armed Forces who will be reserves and the significant reduction in regulars, how do the Government evaluate the abilities, experience and expertise of our Reserve Forces against those of the Regular Army personnel? Do the Government consider them less effective, more effective or of equal worth and value person for person? How is such an assessment made and by whom? The boost to our Reserve Forces is, it would seem, intended to make up for the fact that our Regular Forces are being reduced.

The Statement, referring to the Army, indicated that two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars. Does this mean that RAF Leuchars will close? Will the Minister for clarity say how many personnel and what personnel are currently based at Leuchars and how many personnel and what personnel will be based at Leuchars once these changes have been implemented? What will be the cost of that change, who will be paying for it, and how long will the time lag be between the moving out of present personnel from Leuchars and the moving in of the new personnel? What is the Government’s assessment of this change on the local economy?

The Statement referred to the savings that would be realised by the reduction in regular personnel. It stated that money would therefore become available for reinvestment in our Reserve Forces and also for the construction of additional Chinook helicopters, which was an undertaking the Prime Minister gave. We welcome any additional investment in our Armed Forces, and not least the £1.5 billion investment package over the next 10 years to enhance the capability of the reserves, and the increase in the defence equipment and equipment support budget by 1 per cent a year in real terms—though we note that that is not until 2015-16. Can the Minister confirm, though, that this means there will be no increase in real terms in the rest of the core defence budget from 2015-16 to 2020-21?

We are seeing additional resources having to be devoted to our operations over Libya, which is being paid for from the general reserve, and also the need to finance the additional Chinooks promised by the Prime Minister. To conclude, what meaningful assurances can the Minister give that today’s further announcements, which we will certainly wish to study in far more detail than we have been able to so far, have not been influenced by financial considerations, but purely by military considerations?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He asked me lots of questions which I was writing down as fast as I could. I will do my best to answer as many as I can, and if I do not answer them all, I undertake to write to him.

The noble Lord first asked about the SDSR. In announcing the SDSR, the Prime Minister was clear that in his view the Future Force 2020 structure would require real year-on-year growth in the defence budget beyond 2015. The announcement today that the MoD can plan on an increase in equipment and an equipment support programme in the years before the spending review settlement means that the department has a firm base for its longer term plans. This will enable the department to make better value-for-money decisions, and makes clear this Government’s commitment to deliver the forces necessary to meet our future commitments.

The noble Lord then asked if there are going to be reductions in the regular Armed Forces because of cuts in reserves. We are confident that with the additional investment, the reprioritisation and efficiency improvement and the planned withdrawal from combat operations in Afghanistan we can rebalance the Army in particular, so that we can have a whole force of around 120,000 with a ratio of about 70 per cent regulars to 30 per cent Territorial Army. This will allow us to maintain an enduring commitment at brigade level as described in the SDSR. As the Secretary of State has said, the role of the Territorial Army has been greatly undervalued too often in the past. It will continue to have an important role in the Army.

The noble Lord then asked about strategic decisions and the Future Force 2020. We are confident that with the additional investment, the reprioritisation and efficiency improvements and the planned withdrawal from combat operations in Afghanistan, together with a rebalancing of Regular and Reserve Forces, we can generate the forces required to achieve the objectives in the SDSR, including the ability to maintain an enduring commitment at brigade level as described in the SDSR.

The noble Lord asked about the expertise of reservists. I have some personal experience: I was for a number of years colonel of a Sapper TA regiment. They had expertise of a very high order, they were very highly trained, and whenever they went out to Afghanistan they were very much respected by the Regular Forces with which they trained. This is an issue that we will be working on. Clearly, recruiting, which the noble Lord mentioned, is vital. A recruiting and training surge will be needed to meet the demands of the revised reservist roles, and to provide for more viable unit strength. The establishment of an effective recruiting and training mechanism to handle the potential surge requirement will be an essential precondition of success if reserve manpower decline is to be arrested, initially, and then increased. This should include rapid changes to existing processes and regulations to make it more attractive for ex-regulars to join the reserves on leaving.

The noble Lord then asked whether RAF Leuchars is closing. Leuchars is not being closed. It will become a major Army base. Following the SDSR, the Royal Air Force needed three, not four, RAF fast-jet bases. It could not make military sense, and would be uneconomic, to close RAF Marham or RAF Coningsby. A decision had to be taken that was best for defence as a whole. With the Tornado force drawing down at Lossiemouth, we concluded that we could build up the Typhoon force there rather than continuing at RAF Leuchars, enabling Leuchars to be utilised for the MRB to be based in Scotland.

The noble Lord mentioned the Chinooks, and I can confirm that we will be ordering the 12 plus the two very early on in the autumn. He welcomed the 1 per cent increase and asked if would it affect the rest of the defence budget. Her Majesty’s Treasury has agreed that we may plan on the basis of an uplift of equipment expenditure, and equipment support year-on-year of 1 per cent above inflation in the years beyond the current spending period. Finally, all these decisions were taken solely on military considerations.

Afghanistan

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we do not comment on the specific rules of engagement but any use of force in Afghanistan must comply with the laws of armed conflict. However, commanders take the threat of IEDs very seriously. Since June last year, the Government have spent £330 million on equipment to help them tackle that threat.

Turning to my noble friend’s other question, the Afghan economy has been growing at an impressive 9 per cent, on average, each year since 2003. It now collects almost $2 billion in revenue. We are optimistic about Afghanistan’s economic prospects but recognise that it will need the support of the international community for some time to come. We, alongside our allies and other international institutions, stand ready to support Afghanistan for the long term.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on this side, we also offer our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Highlander Scott McLaren, who was killed in Afghanistan last Monday. His death is yet another reminder of the harsh reality that our Armed Forces put their lives on the line in the service of our country.

In her response to the Statement on Afghanistan last Wednesday, my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon asked whether our Armed Forces would continue to receive all the equipment that they need in the months ahead, including the 12 additional Chinooks, which the Prime Minister promised but for which the order has not yet been placed. No direct answer on when the order would be placed was forthcoming. Will the Minister tell the House when the Ministry of Defence will have completed working towards the main investment decision on these helicopters; when it is expected that the order for the 12 additional Chinooks will be placed; and when they are expected to be operational?

Armed Forces: Overstretch

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I can give the noble and gallant Lord the confirmation that he has asked for. I cannot praise the chiefs enough. They are showing very strong leadership at a difficult time and when we are fighting two wars. As regards the noble and gallant Lord’s second question, as recent events have demonstrated, we are still capable of making a major contribution to NATO operations. In Libya we are the third largest contributor after the United States and France, while maintaining our efforts in Afghanistan and meeting our other standing commitments.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, in the Statement yesterday on the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence, the Government said that service chiefs would run their individual service and also be accountable for their budgets and delivering strategy. Under the new regime, with greater accountability by service chiefs, are the Government saying that service chiefs will not be allowed to speak out on concerns about the overstretch of the Armed Forces if they believe the resources they have been given do not enable them to implement the strategy commitments they have been told to deliver?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, as I said, the chiefs have the right, whenever they want, to talk to the Secretary of State for Defence and to the Prime Minister—that is the proper way to do it.

Armed Forces: Resources

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, dealing with the economic legacy that we inherited has required us to reduce the size of the Armed Forces and cut or gap a number of low-priority capabilities. However, the SDSR states explicitly the need for an adaptable posture to defend our interests in the world. As a result, we have structured and resourced our forces to give us flexibility to conduct operations.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we on this side also wish to extend our sincere condolences to the families and friends of Craftsman Andrew Found and Corporal Lloyd Newell, who have both been killed recently in operations in Afghanistan. We also join the Minister in paying tribute to the courage and fortitude of the wounded.

The Foreign Secretary has said that the Arab spring is a more important event than 9/11. The national security strategy, published last year, does not mention Libya or, indeed, Egypt and Tunisia. Should the Government not be looking again at the strategic defence and security review in the light of that to make sure that we have a review that has been updated to reflect what is now happening and the impact this has on our resources and capabilities to enable us to sustain our current commitments, including over Libya?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the SDSR was a thorough assessment of the threats we face. Its conclusion, that we need an adaptable posture with flexible forces, has been validated by recent events, and it will ensure we can continue to conduct operations today while preparing our future force. Those who argue for a fundamental reassessment of the SDSR are really arguing for increased defence spending, but they fail to spell out the inevitable result: more borrowing, more tax rises or more cuts elsewhere.

Armed Forces: Foreign Pilot Training

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I was aware that my noble friend was doing the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme and I very much commend the important work that it does. The Ministry of Defence recognises the value to the country obtained from training pilots from partner countries. We are at the early stage of discussions with the UK defence industry to explore how best to take this issue forward. Supporting the training needs of our partners and allies provides important defence and diplomacy benefits—for example, the involvement of Denmark in operations in Libya—and is also a critical factor in securing contracts for defence export sales, which are worth billions of pounds and thousands of jobs to the UK defence industry.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on this side we, too, offer our sincere condolences to the families and friends of Colour Sergeant Kevin Fortuna, Lieutenant Oliver Augustin, Marine Samuel Alexander MC, Corporal Michael Pike, Lance Corporal Martin Gill, Rifleman Martin Lamb, Corporal Lloyd Newell, Craftsman Andrew Found and Private Gareth Bellingham, all of whom were killed recently on active service in Afghanistan. Like the Minister, we pay tribute to those who have been wounded and face lengthy rehabilitation. We have been reminded again this afternoon of the enormous sacrifices being made by the members of our Armed Forces.

The Minister said that the Government were seeking to offer any surplus training slots to foreign trainee pilots. Will such personnel pay the marginal costs of their training or the full economic costs, bearing in mind the additional expenditure that we now face in respect of our operations in Libya? How long will the training of foreign personnel continue—the Minister referred to the time that it would take to remove spare capacity from the training programme—and approximately how many foreign personnel does he expect that we will be training?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, flying training for foreign students under international defence training is provided at full cost. Training provided by the UK Armed Forces is rightly considered as some of the best in the world. As such, we expect demand to continue. We have no plans for that to diminish. I do not have with me the figures on how many foreign students are trained. I am aware that for this financial year— 2010-11—the requirement was for 155 students in total to be trained. I will write to the noble Lord with the exact figures on foreign students.

Defence: Military Commitments

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Government’s primary responsibility is to ensure national security. Without healthy finances, we cannot create the public services or the national security we need. The SDSR established the policy framework for the Armed Forces and the capabilities that they will need to meet future challenges. Events in Libya have proved how right we were to design adaptability into defence so that we are able to be flexible as strategic threats change. The outstanding work of our Armed Forces demonstrates that Britain remains a key player that is able to project power and influence on the world stage.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, from these Benches, we associate ourselves with the Minister’s words of tribute to Major Matthew Collins and Lance Sergeant Mark Burgan of the Irish Guards. We too offer our sincere condolences to their families and hope that their pain will be eased a little by the knowledge that, in the eyes of the nation as well as of this House, Major Collins and Lance Sergeant Burgan are brave and courageous heroes.

We now have commitments in Libya that were not anticipated or even contemplated in the recent rushed strategic defence and security review, which has not survived its first encounter with reality. As a result, we have aircraft—and certainly one naval vessel—in theatre that were due to be decommissioned. Is it not time for the validity and relevance of the SDSR to be reviewed in the light of what is happening in north Africa and the new commitments that we have taken on? Is it not also the case that, if the Government decide to extend further our operational commitments, they have a responsibility to provide the additional resources and not leave our Armed Forces even more stretched than ever, as appears to be the case from the comments this morning by the head of the Royal Air Force?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord said about the two brave soldiers from the Irish Guards.

The SDSR states explicitly the need for an adaptable posture to defend our interests in the world. As a result, we have structured and resourced our forces to give us flexibility to conduct operations such as the one in Libya. The SDSR correctly predicted that we would need to carry out civilian evacuations, and rightly assessed that we could mitigate capability gaps resulting from the SDSR through working with allies, overflight and basing rights. We are continuing to develop and refine the SDSR, but it will not be reopened. Finally, the additional costs of operations in Libya will be fully met from the reserve.

Employment: Defence Expenditure

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Astor of Hever

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, from these Benches I join the Minister in paying tribute to all those who have lost their lives serving our country since the House met before the recess. For the families, there is overwhelming grief and sorrow at their loss and the pain of separation but also in each case pride at the brave and committed service given by the loved one they have lost. Our thoughts and prayers are with those bereaved families and with the colleagues and friends of all those who have died.

The Secretary of State for Defence in this self-proclaimed transparent Government appears to have written a secret letter to the Prime Minister on a matter of real public interest—namely, whether our Armed Forces will in future have the resources to continue to carry out the commitments we expect them to undertake. Does the Minister agree with his Secretary of State’s concerns that the strategic defence and security review is not really a genuine review of defence and security strategy but is instead everything to do with the Conservative Government’s spending review aimed at cutting costs, with inadequate regard for the consequences for private sector jobs in our industrial base and for our Armed Forces and their continuing ability to meet the onerous responsibilities we place upon them?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this is not just a Conservative Government; we are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats—