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

Debate between Lord Beamish and Madeleine Moon

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Moon]

Amendment 22, which is in my name, seeks to define “undue delay”. I pay respect to the Minister, who has taken time to meet everyone involved with the Bill. We had considerable discussion on the issue of undue delay and how it could be defined, and we agreed that, although I would not press the amendment today, it was important that there was a dialogue about delay.

There are two things that one can say for certain about the current complaints system: delay is an endemic problem within the system, and everyone is aware of it. It came to the attention of the Committee many times that only 25% of cases are resolved within a 24-week target, and only 26% of complaints made in 2013 were closed during that year. The internal risk register looking at the implementation of the service ombudsman Bill within the MOD stated that there was a high risk that the system would lose further internal credibility if there was continuing media exposure of how powerless the ombudsman is. Rather than media exposure taking place, it is important that the system operates well so that there can be internal confidence.

There is a high risk that the system will continue to fail and that current delays will continue. There is a high risk that service personnel will be let down, damaging their mental health and leading to suicide attempts. None of us wants to see any of that, which is why the Defence Committee has worked as closely as possibly with the Minister to ensure that we move forward in a constructive and productive manner.

In January 2013, 325 complaints had a red flag. By December 2013 that figure had swelled by over 50% to 500. We have seen repeatedly how delay has been used to wear down complainants so that they go away. It is also used as a punishment for complaints being made in the first place.

Members have raised concerns about this being an attack on the chain of command. Let me say that, since the Bill Committee, I have taken time—I have spoken to the Minister about this—to talk to people in the chain of command and to ask them how they feel about the changes introduced by the Defence Committee. Every person I have spoken to has welcomed the changes and not felt threatened by them. They all felt that the changes were right and that they would focus people’s minds and attentions on complaints so that they are not put in a cupboard and regarded as an annoyance, but are seen as one of the parts of the job to be dealt with first, so that the unit operates efficiently and effectively. The bad pennies that exist would be dealt with quickly and a clear message would be sent that bullying and harassment, in particular, would not be tolerated anywhere in the chain of command.

Delay is caused in part by the labyrinthine system that was initially set up by the Ministry to process complaints. In his evidence to the Defence Committee, retired Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Field railed against the masses of paperwork involved. The abuse of process by those in the chain of command either to propel a dubious complaint or to hold up a legitimate but inconvenient one is also a worrisome cause of delay. Such abuses can have a devastating impact on individual complainants and on their mental health and well-being. When such cases come into the public domain, the system and confidence in it are undermined.

I raised the case of Tom Neathway on Second Reading and in Committee. Another concerning case that I would like to mention briefly is that of Sergeant Major Michael Booley, who was Prince Harry’s flying instructor. He accused the Army of gross mistreatment after a four-year dispute that ended his distinguished career. When reading about the case, it is very worrying to see that the service complaints panel found that Major Graham, who Sergeant Major Booley claimed had been acting deliberately and maliciously against him, was an unreliable witness and that his conduct not only wronged the complainant, but acted against the interests of his employers in the Army. I think that that is the big issue. Where there is bullying and harassment, it is against the interests of the Army, the RAF or the Navy. We must always keep that central to our thinking and our focus when looking at complaints. That is why the changes set out today are so important.

I think that it is important to have some sort of definition of undue delay, but I accept that it might not necessarily need to be in the Bill, or even in regulations. It can be something that the ombudsman sets out herself when setting out the definitions that will guide her judgments. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider and discuss with the ombudsman how we can move that forward.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I give the Minister 10 out of 10 for her brass neck, because these amendments were tabled subsequent to her losing the vote in Committee, and the Government do not want to press them to a vote tonight for fear that she might lose again. The amendments are consequential to the major change that took place in Committee, namely that to the nature of the ombudsman. What the Minister originally proposed was a dry institution that would have dealt only with maladministration, but the ombudsman’s role has now been opened up to cover a wider range of complaints. I have been arguing for that for a long time, and the Defence Committee also argued effectively for it in its report.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Madeleine Moon

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I was going to take the hon. Lady’s intervention, but if the two of them are going to fight, I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am glad to see that the dinosaur tendency of the Conservative party is still alive and kicking on the Back Benches. Exactly the same arguments were made against the introduction of the armed forces complaints commissioner. This is not about making the training or the discipline less rigorous; it is about behaviour that is totally unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman should read Lord Justice Blake’s report and the Select Committee report that went alongside it to see whether he can justify some of the things that went wrong then. I accept that, as the Minister says, things have moved a long way since then, but the type of behaviour that we saw was not acceptable then and is not acceptable now.

[Mrs Moon]

The argument that has just been articulated—that somehow the armed forces are different and separate—may be part of the reason why so few Members are present in the Chamber. There is a feeling that that is so. The reality is that the law is set by this House. This House sets the rules and the legislation under which the armed forces operate, and long may that last. That is how a democracy works. The service chain of command must accept that.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are making progress by changing the attitudes of some of the old and the bold in the Conservative party and changing the culture among the senior management of all three services, who accept as a fact of life that bullying, harassment and sexual discrimination are not acceptable in our armed forces and will not be tolerated. The Minister is right that the present chiefs, as I know them, take a zero-tolerance view of such behaviour, and this will support them in ensuring that it does not happen.

Mental Health

Debate between Lord Beamish and Madeleine Moon

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Moon]

I am very aware of that research; the point I was about to make comes from it. The problem is that we often use the police as our first line in dealing with people with mental health problems, but they are not trained and equipped to carry out that role and function. We must do something about that. Otherwise, the person with the mental health problems is often dealt with as a disruptive element, and treated as if they are someone violent and aggressive, rather than someone who has a mental health problem. We must deal with that problem.

Words and anecdotes can be dangerous, particularly in the military. Research was published this week by the Defence Analytical Services and Advice agency on Falkland veterans. It found that 95 veterans had taken their own lives since the end of the conflict. That figure is lower than previously assumed, although each death is a tragedy for the individual and family involved. The research showed that, of the 26,000 mobilised, 255 died in conflict and 95 took their own lives, but 455 died of cancer. We sometimes forget that our armed forces community has problems we need to address that are not necessarily mental health problems.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend that each of those 95 people taking their own lives is an individual and family tragedy. My problem is that, in opposition, the Conservatives, including the Prime Minister, took the figure used prior to the research and quoted it freely, like confetti, to try to discredit what the Labour Government were doing for veterans’ mental health.

[Mrs Moon]

I tracked that figure back and found that it initially came from a story in the Daily Mail. That is how currency becomes fact.

[Mr Jones]

It was repeated by the Conservatives.

[Mrs Moon]

The repeating of such figures is the dangerous part as it places the perception in people’s minds. More dangerously, it goes into the minds of veterans, who then think, “I have served. I will have a mental health problem and post-traumatic stress disorder,” when the opposite is true. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to ensure that our work and the facts we share come from academically proven research. A study by Lord Ashcroft suggested that 92% of the public believe that all veterans will have a mental health problem, but research suggests that the opposite is true—that 90% do well.

We have had a 15-year report from the King’s Centre for Military Health Research, but we need a 20-year report showing the impact of the draw-down from Afghanistan and the increased numbers of veterans in the community.

In this debate on mental health, words can be dangerous—they can harm and create impressions in vulnerable minds. They can make people believe they have a problem they do not have, or that they have a problem that they can survive and grow from. Military mental health is robust. The transition to civilian life, alcohol misuse and reservists are risks that we must take seriously and tackle. The MOD will need to work more closely with the Department of Health. As people leave the armed forces and become civilians, civilian society organisations need to be equipped and ready to help. As civilians, we face the same problems together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

We need to explode the myth that the problem is funding. I do not think it is; I think it is where the funding is spent—a point raised earlier. Indeed, funding that is properly spent on early interventions for people with mental health issues will save the NHS money in the long term, not cost it.

[Mrs Moon]

There is an issue with the interaction of mental health and alcohol. I repeatedly had texts from a dear friend of mine who is a minister in the Church. He had severe depression and was self-medicating with alcohol. His family and the police would repeatedly take him to mental health services, which would turn him away, because they said he had been drinking. He was drinking because he needed their services and could not access them. We have to ensure that mental health services cannot turn away people who have been drinking, but hold them until they are no longer under the influence of alcohol and then ensure that they access the services they need. The link between alcohol and mental health has to be explored and tackled.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Before the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) continues, let me say that interventions are becoming speeches in their own right, when they are supposed to be brief and pertinent to the point that has just been made. If we could return to that, perhaps it would help the flow of the debate.

Defence Reform

Debate between Lord Beamish and Madeleine Moon

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The Minister is making various assumptions, which is not unusual for him. That note says precisely what I am saying today, which is that we need to shoot down this erroneous myth that has been put about by this Government. If he wants more evidence on this, he should read the National Audit Office “Major Projects Report 2009”. It says of the defence budget:

“The size of the gap is highly sensitive to the budget growth assumptions used. 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 ten years. If, as is possible given the general economic position, there was no increase in the defence budget in cash terms over the same ten year period, the gap would rise to £36 billion.”

Even the NAO did not reach the £38 billion figure, therefore. I acknowledge that the figure it gives is £2 billion out and this Government seem to think such sums are unimportant, but I have just quoted from the NAO report. That is possibly where Conservative central office first got the figure of £36 billion, but there is a big difference between £36 billion and £38 billion. The £36 billion is based on an assumption of a flat-cash budget over the next 10 years and every single item in the equipment budget being maintained, when everyone who has ever been involved in MOD matters knows that things come into the equipment budget and things fall out of the equipment budget.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Defence Committee was advised in one of its briefings that the projected figure of £38 billion included a roll-forward of all items on wish lists—not things for which contracts had been let, but items the MOD had expressed a possible interest in purchasing for the future. This was, we were told, the equivalent of an individual becoming bankrupt because they fancied buying a Ferrari but never actually bought one.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Let me quote from the evidence given to the Select Committee by the former Secretary of State. In response to a question from a Member, he said:

“There is a huge ability to reduce a very large proportion of that. My guess is that of that £38 billion we are talking of something like £8 billion to £9 billion, and that is a ballpark figure.”

During that evidence session, he gave a commitment to the Select Committee Chair that he would write giving details of how he arrived at that figure, but he did not. The Committee was still waiting for that information when the report was produced, but it did not appear. I heard one of the Government Front Benchers scoff when I said that certain things move in and out of budget, but they clearly do. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) is right: the Government racked up everything in the programme over a 10-year period and assumed that it would all be delivered. That is similar to the argument used about pension black holes, the assumption being that all the money is paid out, today. That is not the way the defence procurement budget is structured.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Madeleine Moon

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend takes me on to my next point, which is about the decision to debate the issue in five hours tomorrow. That is to ensure that the measure will be dealt with before the framework document is in place, but it seems ludicrous to have the discussion tomorrow and fundamentally change the funding of higher education in this country before we have the full framework policy document. That should be in place, not only to reveal how what is decided tomorrow may be interpreted, but to allow some newer universities a debate about their financial future. It is clear to me that some of them will struggle when these measures are implemented.

[Mrs Moon]

Is it not one of the risks that we are running that many universities in England will find it more attractive to bring in overseas students paying, yet again, higher fees? English students will not be able to afford to go to university. We are going to debate the issue within five hours, but the structure of education in Britain is to change dramatically. We need more than five hours to discuss that.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a good point about the five-hour limit.