Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Craig of Radley

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, that is obviously most welcome news and I thank the Minister and the Government for making it clear at this stage. On that basis, I will be prepared to withdraw my amendment. However, for the purposes of the debate, I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 10 and 11. In Committee, we argued that Part 1 of the Bill should be withdrawn, following the Government’s decision not to proceed with their proposal for handing over defence procurement to a company under contract to the Secretary of State. That decision was made following a lack of bidders. Instead, the Government announced their intention to go down the road of further developing the DE&S organisation in the Ministry of Defence by setting it up as a bespoke central government trading entity with effect from next month.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Craig of Radley

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. The Armed Forces Act 2011 introduced into law the concept of the Armed Forces covenant, as he has mentioned, and the particular requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare an Armed Forces report. I was pleased to note when that report is due to appear.

As the Minister knows, I have also tabled a Question for Written Answer about compulsory redundancies. I asked whether, in selecting personnel for compulsory redundancy, consideration was given to their immediate pension point. For the record, is the Minister able to answer this question now? There has been considerable anxiety and press coverage. There is a feeling that the Government are solely focused on achieving financial savings rather than showing understanding for the effect on the individuals involved of a sudden abrupt end to their aspirations of a lifetime career in the Armed Forces. Equally, it is a difficult time to find alternative employment in civilian life.

The effect is of course not confined to the individual but spreads to their immediate family and friends, who are as shocked, taken aback and worried about the future as the individual being made redundant. What steps is the Ministry taking to help those who are being sacked? There seems to be little in the public domain to give confidence that these individuals are being looked after with sympathy and real understanding for their plight. It would underline the value of the military covenant, and show that personnel should be considered, if a more proactive approach to the impact of redundancies on the individual were to be taken by the Ministry of Defence.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, lest any of the points I wish to make should be construed as meaning otherwise, I make it clear at the outset that we of course support this order, which enables our Armed Forces to remain in existence, by law, for at least a further year by providing that the Armed Forces Act 2006 will not expire on 3 November 2012, as currently scheduled, but instead will continue in force until 3 November 2013. As the Minister has said, the 2006 Act also brought together various orders of discipline in the Armed Forces while the 2011 Act enshrined the Armed Forces covenant in legislation.

Depending on one’s point of view, this order is either a piece of archaic ritual bearing no relevance to the way that we should be conducting the affairs of our nation, or indeed the affairs of our Armed Forces, in the 21st century or an essential constitutional prop, ensuring that anyone who might be tempted to think otherwise knows that our Armed Forces remain in existence to perform their role not because they think—or anyone else thinks—they should, but only because the representatives of the people in Parliament have decided that that should be so, with that decision having to be renewed and restated each year. As I understand it, the order that we are discussing stems from the Bill of Rights Act 1689, or 1688 by old-style dating, which restated in statutory form the declaration of right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England while further restricting the powers of the sovereign by laying down certain constitutional basic rights, in respect of which the Crown was required to seek the consent of the people as represented in Parliament. Among those basic rights was that no standing army could be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of Parliament.

I am not sure that the people of this country are quite as suspicious, in the 21st century, of a reigning monarch deploying a standing army as they were in the 17th. While other countries have suffered and do suffer from military dictatorship, I am not convinced that it is the existence or knowledge of the requirement for this Armed Forces Act continuation order to be agreed each year by Parliament that is preventing or deterring a takeover of this country by the military. There may just be other, rather more powerful and influential factors and considerations at play. Having said that, is it literally the case, as I understand it, that if this continuation order was not approved our Armed Forces would cease to exist from early November, or is there in reality other legislation or a decision of Parliament that would enable them to continue in being?

I make these points seriously to understand what failing to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006 for a further year—I stress that this is not a road I am suggesting we go down—would mean in practice, as opposed to theory. We have an Armed Forces Act every five years. If there is a continuing widespread feeling, as is presumably the case, that Parliament should have to make a regular decision in order for our Armed Forces to continue in existence, one wonders whether there is still a need for this to be done every year as opposed to, say, every five years in the Armed Forces Act. The debate on this annual order does not seem to be regarded as an opportunity for having a wide-ranging discussion or debate, no doubt because there are other, better ways of having more frequent and lengthier discussions and debates on our Armed Forces in your Lordships’ House. It is presumably also the case that if the other place had reservations or concerns at any time, it could bring things to a head—not least by declining to agree to the necessary expenditure needed to maintain our Armed Forces for the following financial year. Nor does it seem likely that your Lordships’ House, as an appointed House, would decide to vote down an order on such a major issue as retention of the Armed Forces, and surely not when the other place, the elected House, had voted for the order.