Russia: Armed Forces

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the Russian armed forces.

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

My Lords, Russia has been modernising its armed forces since 2008. These are being used in a highly assertive manner in conjunction with wider political, economic, misinformation and intelligence activity to project Russian influence, especially towards, but not limited to, former Soviet states. This has been demonstrated by strategic aircraft sorties both in Europe and the Far East, the increasing number of large no-notice snap exercises close to NATO allies and Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that Russian rearmament has been so rapid and the response to it in the West has been so slow that there is now a real possibility of a new cold war, which Mr Putin just might believe he can win? In those circumstances, is it not essential that Her Majesty’s Government ring-fence the defence budget at at least 2% of GDP?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, NATO’s credibility depends on unity and implementing quickly and efficiently decisions taken at the Wales summit—in particular, the readiness action plan that will include a new high-readiness force to enhance NATO responsiveness and effectiveness—and publicly acknowledging the commitment by allies to aim to meet NATO’s target of 2% of GDP spent on defence. We are working with allies to ensure that momentum is maintained ahead of the summit in Poland next year.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Mr Putin has increased spending on his nuclear triad by 42%, even though the country is an economic basket case. It has built a new class of ballistic missile submarines; it has introduced a new type of submarine-launched ballistic missile; and it has a new class of attack submarines, which, worryingly, have now got a long-range Cruise missile with a nuclear tip, which probably breaks the INF. Does the Minister agree that what Mr Putin calls his strategy of de-escalation, because he sees a conventional imbalance, is actually a strategy of escalation? Does he also agree with Labour that it is imperative now that we maintain our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, the minimum force possible, and replace the ageing Vanguard-class submarines one for one?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The 2015 Russian defence budget is stated to be the equivalent of $50 billion, which is around 4.5% of Russian GDP. As to the Russian military doctrine, which the noble Lord mentioned, the last one was published in December 2014 and more emphasis is placed on the perceived danger from NATO, asymmetric warfare, advanced weaponry and the use of information and subversion.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the real tragedy is that in the 23 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has almost wholly failed to restructure its economy? It now has the economy of a third world country, it is suffering from the effects of the fall in the price of oil, and it has at its head a regressive and reactionary leader who is quite unworthy of being in command of the armed forces and who has contracted out of the world’s search for peace, stability and prosperity.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I agree with everything that my noble friend has said.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, what was the Russian ambassador’s response to the Foreign Office when it called him in to complain about the transit of a Russian bomber aircraft along the Channel?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Russian ambassador committed to giving a full explanation in writing of that long-range bomber activity.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the problem for Russia and the former Soviet Union that there is now growing instability? As the Minister said, this is clearly a matter for NATO and the UK, but it is also for the European Union to have some sort of strategy towards Mr Putin’s policy, which is in acute danger of causing either another cold war or something worse.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very good point, and these are all issues which will be discussed at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting being held in Brussels today.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Wales summit last year, the readiness action plan and the defence investment pledge are all vital. Does the Minister agree that we need to co-operate more fully with our partners in the EU and NATO not just in terms of expenditure but also by working to negotiate for de-escalation through diplomatic routes?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We have been very clear that above all, the solution requires Russia to end its deliberate and continuing destabilisation of Ukraine. Russia must withdraw its equipment and troops from Ukraine, secure its borders and cease support for the separatists. It is clear that the international community has a role to play by exerting the greatest possible pressure to ensure that that happens.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that when the explanation is received from the Russian ambassador about what those Russian planes were doing so close to our waters, it will be published and a copy put in the Library of the House?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I will do my very best to ensure that that happens. Just for the benefit of the House, on 28 January two Russian bombers flew close to the south coast in congested civilian-controlled airspace, unauthorised and without communicating with UK air traffic control. The UK response was conducted in accordance with well-practised NATO procedures and the bombers were escorted from the UK’s airspace by Royal Air Force aircraft.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has agreed with the NATO minimum target for defence expenditure of 2% of GDP, but his own party has yet to commit itself to that minimum level for the United Kingdom. Will he take this opportunity to correct the position now, and if he cannot do so, will he explain the inconsistency between that and what he has just said? Will he also explain how on earth we stand any chance of persuading our partners in NATO and Europe to do better, because they are doing even worse than us in this regard?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we have met the 2% target for this entire Parliament. We are committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence until the end of the financial year 2015-16, following which decisions will be determined in the next comprehensive spending review.

Armed Forces: Aircraft Carrier

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will have operational aircraft to fly off the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier when it comes into service.

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

My Lords, initial flight trials of the F35B aircraft from the carrier remain on track for 2018, allowing a coherent build-up towards delivering a cutting-edge expeditionary capability for the UK from 2020. Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots and supporting ground crew are now operating UK F35Bs in the US, to conduct flight and weapon trials and, in due course, flights off our carrier. Our carriers will be capable of operating a wide range of operational aircraft, including helicopters.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, there is widespread concern at the substantial gap in time during which we will have an absence of capability. This is also evidenced in our having no capability whatever in airborne anti-submarine detection, running in parallel. Was it wise to put all our eggs in one basket and leave a major part of our defence capability dependent on the development of a single aircraft which is, as yet, unproven and increasingly expensive?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this is a fantastic aircraft. British pilots who fly it tell me it is a real step change in capability. The F35 fleet has now flown some 20,000 hours and successfully completed two sets of sea trials off the USS “Wasp”. The F35 is the world’s largest single defence programme, and the UK is playing a leading role as the only non-US level 1 partner, resulting in significant contracts and jobs for UK industry.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, is it not intended that the United States Marine Corps will purchase and operate the same aircraft as us? Will its aircraft be operating from our carriers?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, British F35B aircraft and pilots will be the first to operate from our carriers. UK pilots, engineers and deck handlers are currently operating from US Navy carriers, developing and maintaining skill sets to regenerate our carrier strike capability, working, as my noble friend said, with the US Marine Corps. We continue to identify opportunities to develop interoperability and synergy with our allies, including potential options to operate US Marine Corps aircraft from our carriers.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House, and the nation, are delighted that we are now developing this carrier capability again after the real risk we took in 2010 of dropping it for the first time in 100 years. We are looking forward to this date. It is a long period of risk: we have got through five years of it and there are five years to go. There have been reports that the Sea Lightning—which rolls off the tongue much better than Lightning II, so perhaps the Minister would consider calling it Sea Lightning in future, rather than F35B—might be vulnerable to cyberattack through the autonomic logistics information system. If this is true, will the Minister confirm that we are making sure it is resilient, and that that resilience will be hardened, to stop that happening?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, that is a very good question. I gave a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on this very subject. The F35 autonomic logistics information system has been designed to be resilient against cyberattack and will be subject to testing throughout the life of the programme.

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, pending the full operational capability of the Sea Lightning, between that date and when the aircraft carrier is actually commissioned, there are other roles it can very usefully play around the world?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I absolutely agree with the noble and gallant Lord. The carriers are highly versatile defence assets, able to meet the widest range of tasks, from humanitarian assistance to carrier-strike and amphibious operations with Royal Marines and battlefield helicopters. Work is under way to plan the most effective and coherent way to operate the carrier capability. This includes the development of deployment cycles, manpower requirements, total F35B—or Sea Lightning—numbers and interoperability with allies.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that it is the intention to place a contract very shortly, perhaps in April, for the dredging of Portsmouth harbour? Will he give an indication of the likely cost of that dredging?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that it is our intention to dredge Portsmouth harbour. As we are in the process of selecting the preferred bidder, it would be inappropriate to give a cost. We will also be carrying out some other infrastructure upgrades to support the carriers coming into Portsmouth.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive Answer on the dates for the aircraft and the carrier. However, if you google the aircraft, looking particularly at the US media, you see that the project is full of delays, with tranches of software not available and guns that will not work for more than four years, while the Department of Defense says that the programme is unaffordable. How confident is the Minister that the dates he has given will actually happen? How many aircraft do the Government envisage buying, and will there be enough aircraft to operate on both carriers?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am told that there are always technical issues during the test phase of an aircraft programme, so what is happening is not uncommon. With regard to the numbers, the UK has received three of 35 to date. Another is being built, and the MoD recently approved the purchase of 14 additional aircraft, the first four of which were ordered at the end of last year. Total F35 aircraft numbers will be examined within SDSR 15.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister join me in paying tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for getting UK industry fully involved in the F35 programme?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend.

Defence: Type 26 Frigates

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to place an order for any Type 26 Frigates before the General Election; and if so, how many.

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

My Lords, we are working positively with BAES to maintain momentum on detailed ship design, cost, technical integration, supply chain and shipbuilding on the Clyde. Our common aim is to achieve greater maturity in designing the capability needed by the Royal Navy while maximising taxpayers’ value for money. We expect to make an announcement before the end of this Parliament. We are planning to replace the 13 Type 23s on a one-for-one basis.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Interestingly, Japan is an island nation dependent for its existence on the sea, rather like the United Kingdom, but it does not run global shipping and is not responsible for 14 dependencies worldwide. It has just decided, in this very dangerous and chaotic world, to increase the number of destroyers and frigates in its navy from 47 to 52. Does the Minister think, in view of the fact that we have only 19 destroyers and frigates, that replacing the 13 frigates with the Type 26, bearing in mind that the oldest of them is seven years beyond its design date already, is very urgent? At the very least we should order long-lead items for those 13 now.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, it will be for the 2015 SDSR to consider how best to deliver the capability that the Royal Navy requires in the long term, but to ensure that the Navy gets the number of Type 26s and the capability that it requires we must be certain that we have a mature design and build programme before committing to an initial order size. I can assure the noble Lord that we expect to make decisions on some of the longer-lead items shortly.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, would it not be a good idea for some of these frigates to be built other than in Scotland, in view of the uncertainties surrounding that place?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Type 26 will be built by BAE Systems on the Clyde. Complex UK warships are built only in UK shipyards and we have no plans to change this. Although the contract has not been awarded, we have been clear that from 2015 the Clyde will be the UK’s only shipyard that builds complex warships.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord tell the House what the incremental cost is of maintaining and refitting the Type 23s, which would not have been necessary had the Type 26 programme come forward on time? If the reason for the delay in the programme is lack of money, as I suspect, why on earth have the Government underspent in their defence budget in this Parliament—against a much reduced, severely reduced, some of us think irresponsibly reduced defence budget? The Government have underspent by nearly £400 million; the exact figures were given to me in a Written Answer the other day. Is that not a dereliction of duty, both to the country and to members of the Armed Forces themselves?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the figures that he requires, but I can assure him that we want to get the Type 26s and the capability that the Royal Navy needs, to get value for money for the taxpayer, and to have a very strong British shipbuilding industry.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, there are reports that the delays referred to by other noble Lords are due to arguments about the growing sophistication and weight of the Type 26s, which has vastly increased costs. BAE Systems originally put the weight at 5,400 tonnes, which has now risen to 6,500 tonnes. Fully loaded, they are expected to weigh 8,000 tonnes. Costs have risen by £100 million per frigate. Can my noble friend say what action the MoD is taking, following Sir Nick Houghton’s comment that there was,

“an expensive habit of over-specifying our equipment needs”?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the report into the Al-Sweady inquiry into allegations that British forces tortured and executed up to 20 Iraqi men on 14 and 15 May 2004, and mistreated nine others between 14 May and 23 September 2004.

I am today laying before the House the independent report published this morning by Sir Thayne Forbes as chairman of the public inquiry into these incidents. I am grateful to Sir Thayne and his team for their painstaking work, and for producing a report that puts to rest once and for all these shocking and, as we now know, baseless allegations. As I know Sir Thayne will acknowledge, the Ministry of Defence has provided unstinting support for his inquiry.

During 169 days of hearings, Sir Thayne heard evidence from 55 Iraqi witnesses, 222 current and former service personnel, and four expert witnesses. He also considered the written statements of a further 328 witnesses. His findings are incontrovertible.

It was alleged that, following a planned and co-ordinated ambush of British troops by heavily armed Iraqi insurgents around the Danny Boy permanent vehicle checkpoint on the main road between Basra and Al-Amarah, British service personnel had captured up to 20 Iraqi men alive, had taken them back to Camp Abu Naji, and had then tortured and killed them in cold blood. These are allegations of the most serious nature, and they are untrue.

The allegations have changed several times over the years. This is how Mr Phil Shiner, of the firm Public Interest Lawyers, presented them at a press conference in 2008:

‘What you have heard is evidence that these 5 survivors have witnessed, seemingly in three separate venues at close hand:

The execution of up to 15 men.

Between 4 and 5 of these executions involving shots at close range and the remainder some sort of strangulation or throat cutting.

Some of these executions preceded by torture or mutilations that are so horrific that our clients could not describe the prolonged screaming without breaking down’.

Today it has been confirmed that British soldiers did not carry out the atrocities that have been falsely attributed to them. Sir Thayne deals unequivocally with the soldiers’ actions and the falsity of the allegations. I quote:

‘this Inquiry has established beyond doubt that all the most serious allegations, made against the British soldiers involved in the Battle of Danny Boy and its aftermath and which have been hanging over those soldiers for the last 10 years, have been found to be wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility’.

Sir Thayne contrasts the falsity of the Iraqi accounts with the truthfulness of the military witnesses:

‘the vast majority of the allegations made against the British military, which this Inquiry was required to investigate (including, without exception, all the most serious allegations), were wholly and entirely without merit or justification. Very many of those baseless allegations were the product of deliberate and calculated lies on the part of those who made them and who then gave evidence to this Inquiry in order to support and perpetuate them’.

Counsel for the nine former detainees and the relatives of the deceased conceded only as late as March 2014 that the evidence pointed overwhelmingly to the fact that—as the Government have maintained throughout this public inquiry and the preceding judicial review—all those whose bodies were handed over to the Iraqi authorities for burial on 15 May had died on the battlefield.

The delay in making this concession is both inexplicable and shameful. By 4 July 2013, expert witnesses had already demonstrated unequivocally that the Iraqis had died as a result of wounds sustained in the fighting. Had the concession been made then, it would not have been necessary for so many soldiers to give evidence. Sir Thayne could have concluded his hearings more quickly and there would have been a significantly smaller bill to the taxpayer.

Following the battle, the nine detainees were taken to Camp Abu Naji. Sir Thayne has rejected most of the allegations made in connection with the detainees’ treatment at Camp Abu Naji, including a lack of adequate medical care, assaults, withholding of drinking water in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, and the use of ‘white noise’.

I accept Sir Thayne’s conclusion that some instances of ill treatment did occur: the detainees were not provided with adequate food, and such food as was given was not provided until after they had been tactically questioned; they were prevented from sleeping until three to four hours after arrival at the camp; the detainees’ sight was restricted almost continuously; and the tactical questioning involved the use of the—since withdrawn—‘harsh’ technique and thus amounted to ill treatment. Importantly, Sir Thayne observes that as a result of changes by the MoD over the past several years, such ill treatment should not occur in future.

Sir Thayne also concluded that the requirement for detainees to undress fully as part of the medical examination and concurrent search for prohibited items amounted to ill treatment, and he criticised the attitude of the regimental medical officer towards the medical examination of the detainees on their arrival at Shaibah. But Sir Thayne has concluded that only one of the detainees—who suffered discomfort for longer than he might otherwise have done—suffered any adverse consequences as a result of any deficiencies in the medical examination. I wish to express my regret to the House that these instances of ill treatment should have occurred.

Sir Thayne Forbes has made just nine recommendations, and acknowledges the progress that the MoD has made since 2004 to improve all aspects of the prisoner-handling system—from policy and doctrine to unit-level instructions and procedures, as well as training and oversight—and ensure that these comply with domestic and international law. I accept all nine in principle but have commissioned urgent work on their practical implications. In particular, we need to ensure that they will not prevent the Armed Forces from carrying out vital tasks. I will announce to the House my final conclusions as soon as possible.

The Iraqi detainees, their accomplices and their lawyers must bear the brunt of the criticism for the protracted nature and the £31 million cost of this public inquiry. The falsity of the overwhelming majority of their allegations, the extraordinarily late disclosure of a document showing the nine detainees to have been insurgents, and the delay by their lawyers in withdrawing the allegations of torture and murder, have prompted the Solicitors Regulation Authority to investigate possible breaches of professional standards. It is expected to complete its investigation into Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day & Co early next year.

Had the Legal Services Commission been aware in 2008 of this document, it would have refused legal aid for the judicial review which took place then. This would have spared the service personnel a further six years of uncertainty and anxiety, the relatives of the deceased a further six years of false hope, and the British taxpayer a very high bill.

While procedural failures by MoD led to this public inquiry being established, it is those who made these false allegations who bear responsibility for saddling the taxpayer with what has turned out to be a £31 million bill. While there is no provision in the Inquiries Act for recovering the costs of a public inquiry, the MoD is exploring whether the claimants’ failure to disclose the militia document will allow us to recover any of the costs in the judicial review.

I regret that it was found necessary to hold a public inquiry to disprove these allegations. This is not another Baha Mousa or an Abu Ghraib. No one died in British custody. There was no deliberate ill treatment. Rather, the few instances of ill treatment were the result of failings in doctrine and training that have already been or are being corrected. This was a shameful attempt to use our legal system to attack and falsely impugn our Armed Forces. That it has failed reflects the diligence and skill with which Sir Thayne has uncovered the facts.

I quoted earlier the accusations made by Mr Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers in calling for this inquiry. At that time he said:

‘Do not believe for one second that we make these allegations lightly or without the evidence available to substantiate every single word of what we say’.

It is now beyond doubt that those allegations were without foundation. I challenge him and the other lawyers involved to issue an unequivocal apology to the soldiers whose reputations were traduced, and to the taxpayers who have had to pay the costs of exposing these lies.

I would add only one final remark. Following the Battle of Danny Boy, five soldiers were awarded the Military Cross and one the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross for their conduct there and in other engagements in early 2004. Other acts of bravery emerge clearly in the accounts of the battle. This is who our service men and women are. The reputation of our Armed Forces has been hard won in the service of our nation. It will survive the baseless slurs of those who seek to undermine those on whom we all depend.

I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we, too, welcome the report and the spirit of the recommendations. It is a full account of what happened and we are most grateful to the chairman for his careful analysis of the evidence. I agree with the noble Lord that our Armed Forces are the best in the world. They were in great danger and we owe them only a debt of gratitude. A couple of months ago, I was honoured to meet many of the soldiers who served on TELIC 4 at their service in Southwark Cathedral commemorating the 10th anniversary of TELIC 4. It was a very difficult tour and the post-operation report by the 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment reported more than 850 contacts, 250 rocket or mortar attacks and close to 40 casualties during the period April to June 2004.

This report will come as some form of relief to the soldiers involved in this deadly insurgent ambush. The report identifies that they acted with exemplary courage, resolution and professionalism. The noble Lord said—and we agree entirely with him—that we must be accountable to UK and international law, and we must be open and frank when high standards are not met. While the vast majority of the accusations against the military were entirely without merit and the Army’s use of force was appropriate, there were some instances of ill treatment. We are satisfied that those incidents would not occur today thanks to changes made since 2004, including, as the noble Lord said, as a result of the Baha Mousa inquiry.

The noble Lord asked me about the recommendations. We accept the intent of all the recommendations but want time to study them fully and to consider their practicalities. In particular, we need to ensure that they will not prevent the Armed Forces carrying out vital tasks. We will announce the results to Parliament as quickly as possible.

Of course the Army and its soldiers must be held to account when they fail to uphold our high standards. I entirely agree with the noble Lord on that. However, this case raises—the noble Lord alluded to this—serious questions about how far the tentacles of litigation of this kind should extend into the battlefield, where our people are forced into making split-second decisions under the most intense and deadly pressures.

I wish to make one point on the recommendations. There was criticism of the storing of documents. We have implemented a better system for collecting, repatriating and archiving information created during military operations, and there has been no occurrence of failures since then.

The noble Lord asked whether we have improved detention. All this happened 10 years ago. The procedures have changed and lessons have been learnt in the decade since the early stages of the Iraq campaign. Our detention practices have now been brought fully into line with UK and international law. The Army Inspector, who is independent of the chain of command, confirmed in two inspections in 2010 and 2012 that these changes have taken effect.

The noble Lord asked about the service men and women who were involved and who might still be serving. I understand that one is still serving and the others have all left. No disciplinary action has been taken against any of the soldiers whose treatment of the detainees the report finds amounted to ill treatment, nor is it clear that disciplinary action could be taken now against any soldier still serving since the report accepts that they acted in accordance with their training.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I, and I am sure the whole House, would agree with what my noble friend says. He asked me about the Legal Aid Agency’s inquiries into Mr Shiner. The agency was asked by the previous Lord Chancellor to investigate whether Public Interest Lawyers withheld these documents, thereby improperly obtaining public funding for the judicial review. The LAA has referred some concern to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and we understand that the SRA had already commenced an investigation into whether PIL or Leigh Day & Co breached any professional standards.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I welcome this report, which has been thoroughly done—and thank goodness it has put to bed those dreadful claims. However, I have some real concerns. We seem to be more willing now to concern ourselves with the human rights of people who set out to kill us—these men were actually intending to kill our soldiers, and often people are intending to kill civilians as well—than with the human rights of our own soldiers. I also have a real concern, to which the Minister alluded, about the impact that it might have on operational considerations. There is no doubt, when one looks back over the past few years, that these pressures, concerns and behaviour have an impact on operations. It has happened within the Royal Navy and in the Army. War is a nasty, bloody and horrible business; we cannot pretend it is anything else. People have to make decisions in seconds. When you are trying to get operational information, sometimes it is not the nicest thing possible. That does not mean that we should break all the human standards and behaviour that we expect—and we do not. But we have to be very careful about putting too many limits on them. I share the view of the noble Lord opposite about Mr Shiner and his firm and the other firm. I have managed to read only the first part of the report but clearly there are issues that need to be looked at by more than the Solicitors Regulation Authority. They should be looked at in great detail because we should never allow this sort of thing to happen to our own people by firms in this country. An ambulance chaser is too good a term if what is said in the report is true.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. I agree very much with what he says. He is concerned about service men and women on operations. I have discussed this issue at some length with the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who I know also has concerns on this. I have spoken to many service men and women in the Army and the Marines, and I think that we have got it right at the moment. We learnt a lot of lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan—lessons learnt by the previous Government—regarding detention, interrogation and the rules of engagement. The lawyers learnt a lot of lessons, too. A few years ago I had many complaints about lawyers from soldiers, but I have not had a single one since I have been a Minister. I feel quite comfortable—from talking to soldiers, especially to the Special Forces, although we cannot say too much about that—that we are in a good place at the moment.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, as a former Chief of the General Staff, and speaking on behalf of all those who have served, are serving and will serve in the Army, I can say that this report is extraordinarily welcome. It is no surprise because the allegations were so outrageous that they were always going to be found to be baseless. I say that because, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, when we believe that things have gone wrong we are not backward in coming forward to launch an investigation. Baha Mousa, who has been mentioned several times in the Chamber this afternoon, is a clear case of that.

Does the Minister agree that what comes out of this report, among other things, is that there is a somewhat unhealthy predisposition to take the allegations sufficiently seriously when common sense and normal practice—and the normal values and standards of behaviour of the Army—fly in the face of those allegations? There has been a predisposition to take seriously allegations by a firm called Public Interest Lawyers, but in whose public interest it operates I really do not know. We took it so seriously that we were prepared to spend 10 years and £31 million investigating something that many people, after a preliminary investigation, would have thought was baseless, as it has turned out to be. The stress and strain placed on many worthy servicemen who were doing their duty in the most difficult circumstances is an outrage and a stain on a wider process. I hope we do not go down the same track again and enter into an investigative process where the likelihood of a conviction coming out of it is so extraordinarily low.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and I pay tribute to all those service men and women who served in Iraq. I know that the noble Lord had a very distinguished service out there. Lessons have been learnt. Ministers are very concerned about the situation; we have discussed it at great length. I assure the noble Lord that lessons have been learnt. We do not want ever to have another inquiry like this. I make no criticism of the previous Government for calling this inquiry. There were very good reasons for doing it. However, we need to talk to the legal industry to see whether there is some way of avoiding going down this road ever again.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that the action of the lawyers, which has been commented on by several noble Lords, greatly contributed to the huge cost of this exercise. Can my noble friend say whether there is any possibility of reclaiming some of those costs, possibly from the firms of lawyers concerned?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I agree entirely with my noble friend. There is no provision for the sponsoring department to recover costs incurred during a public inquiry. However, in light of the inquiry’s findings and the claimant’s disclosure failure, I assure my noble friend that we intend to appeal a costs order in the stayed judicial review, with a view to recovering some of the costs of that litigation.

[Viscount Slim (CB)]

My Lords, I ask noble Lords to think carefully and—as you always do—sensibly about this business of tactical questioning. This could have been an action with a wider content in the overall Iraqi plan. Further down the road or within 24 hours another major ambush such as this may have been contemplated, was being prepared for and would take place. Therefore, the immediate tactical questioning was very important to discover whether the incident was isolated or part of a larger plan. One has to be severe in the questioning, and there are ways of doing that, harsh and not so harsh—they could be offered a cigarette, for example, but there is no need to go into details. But it is vital to find out if there is more to come, immediately.

Therefore, when you use tactical questioning, which is not deep interrogation, minds should allow for this up to a certain period. The Ministry of Defence has now defined what can take place immediately after the battle, which is for the good and necessary for the future. If the Iraqis had captured nine of our soldiers, we would not have nine soldiers to speak to today and it would have been a slow process of death. It is worth remembering these things.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am assured that there is now a clear policy on tactical questioning and interrogation. This policy has been in place since 2005. The policies were separated in 2010 to emphasise the distinction between the two disciplines. They were further revised in 2012 to incorporate recommendations from the Baha Mousa inquiry and have been reviewed following the Court of Appeal judgment on the Hussein case.

Obviously, as the noble Viscount said, I cannot go into details of interrogation, but again I have spoken to a large number of service men and women about this subject, which interests me a lot, and I have visited military police. I accept that we still have many lessons to learn from noble Lords with a lot of experience in this and I am always ready to hear whatever advice they may have.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, as, I suspect, one of the few ex-NCOs here, I feel considerably outgunned by one or two of the contributions.

[Lord Snape]

Well, like the noble Viscount, my father joined up in World War II and became an NCO. I was fortunate enough to join the Armed Forces during a period of peacetime. What I was attempting to put to the Minister was that I believe that no other army in the world could behave with the restraint shown by the British Army, particularly after incidents such as the Danny Boy incident.

As for the report’s conclusions about ill treatment, does the Minister agree that the question of inadequate food and sleep would apply to the soldiers as much as to the detainees? On the question of Public Interest Lawyers, is the Minister aware that Mr Shiner made his reputation by attacking members of the police force, largely unsuccessfully for many years, before moving on to trawling round the battlefield looking for people prepared to make allegations against the British Armed Forces?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord said about our Armed Forces. I do not think that any other army would put themselves through the inquiry that we have had since 2004. The noble Lord asked about inadequate food and whether that also applied to the soldiers. That may well have been the case. I was not aware that Mr Shiner had started his career chasing after the police. I was interested to hear that.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

If there is to be an investigation by the SRA into the conduct of the solicitors, will my noble friend assure the House that that investigation will be concluded speedily, as investigations can take quite some time to complete?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I can give my noble friend that assurance, yes.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, may I address again the question of cost? Since the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which has already been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we have lived in an era of the juridification of armed conflict. These inquiries are often necessary—I was the historical adviser to that inquiry—but it cost £200 million. This inquiry has cost £31 million. We can be pretty sure that, despite the observations made in this House this afternoon, Mr Phil Shiner is not going away. There is an interesting question in this report about possible ways to avoid such costly inquiries in the future. Would the Minister comment on those? These inquiries often govern, as he said earlier, split-second decisions made in moments of conflict.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I listened to part of the Statement as it was made in the House of Commons, and I think the suggestion was made that we should be talking to the legal profession to see whether there is some way to cut down the costs and simplify the process in the future. As I understood it, the Secretary of State responded favourably to that. Let us hope that it is one way forward.

[Lord Freeman (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the sensible and clear conclusion of the inquiry. Will my noble friend bear in mind that, if there was any move to transfer responsibilities from British justice to the International Court of Justice, there would be serious misgivings on many sides of this House?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, yes. I am well aware of the point my noble friend makes.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

As a country that promotes the rule of law, I think we can be proud of this report in the face of such serious allegations. It does us a great service overseas when people can see our open and free system of justice. I do not wish to repeat the many points that have been made, the vast bulk of which I agree with, but I want to make a suggestion to the noble Lord. Over the past 20 years or so, and not just in military cases, I have noticed a tendency in the legal profession when handling high-profile cases to make statements to the media in which they often do not make it clear that there must be a presumption of innocence, not a presumption of guilt. I wonder if the noble Lord would consider putting it to the Attorney-General that he needs to engage in discussions with the professional bodies representing the legal profession to make sure that when statements are made, lawyers, barristers, solicitors and anyone else should always make it absolutely clear that there must be a presumption of innocence, even in the most difficult of cases.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I very much agree with the noble Lord that any statement to the press should point out the presumption of innocence. I know that the noble Lord takes a great interest in this subject, and indeed I think I sat next to him on a C17 going out to Afghanistan a few years ago.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I apologise for coming in again, but the point made by my noble friend does raise something. There is a perception around the globe that we are guilty of doing ghastly things because of the way it was put out by so much of the media. In terms of our Prevent strategy and our outward-looking strategy, can I ask the Minister whether we are really going to make sure that it gets around that there was absolutely nothing behind this? We need to put that out through all the channels like the Prevent strategy and others.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point and I will take it back to the department. I shall talk to other Ministers and to our media people to see what we can do to get into the outside world the very important message referred to by the noble Lord.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, there has been considerable criticism of the legal profession in this short debate, and of course I would not for a moment defend the costs and the conduct. It helps one to understand the backlash against human rights. On the other hand, this House has recently stood up for the principles of judicial review. I think we have to bear in mind that, although we may criticise the lawyers in a particular case, when it comes to needing a fearless inquiry or needing people who will stand up to the Government no matter how unpleasant and difficult the circumstances, our legal profession still has a lot to be said for it. Its members should not be wholly condemned because of this particular incident. There are, of course, two sides when considering the legal profession.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I have to be very measured in my criticism of the legal profession because I have a number of lawyers who are closely related to me.

UK Armed Forces in Iraq

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

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

“My Lords, the UK is currently providing substantial support to the Government of Iraq through airstrikes, surveillance, gifting and transporting equipment and the training of Iraqi forces in specialist skills. There are currently around 50 UK personnel working with the Danes in Sulaymaniyah, in northern Iraq, carrying out combat infantry and sharpshooter training. We are coming to the end of the second of four three-week courses. We also have around 10 military personnel in Erbil looking at how we can assist the Government of Iraq in training and equipping other Kurdish forces.

The international coalition is developing its plan for building the capacity of Iraqi security forces. The US envisages a coalition effort across at least four sites in Iraq. Any future UK training contribution would be absorbed into this coalition plan. In early November, I announced our intention to provide further training to the Iraqi military. No decisions on troop numbers, units or locations have been made, although we expect to focus on providing expertise in countering explosive devices.

At Defence Orals on 24 November, I also announced our intention to advise and assist the Iraqi armed forces through the secondment of advisory personnel to command headquarters, and we are considering what contribution we can make. The details of any decision will be announced to Parliament in the usual way”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we have no plans to send hundreds of soldiers to Iraq, and never did have such plans. The UK is already making the second largest contribution to air strikes and surveillance after the United States. Our training effort in Iraq will be small scale and niche, building on the UK’s strength in areas where we are best able to support the coalition. This will be a very limited mission. Our Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are not going to recommit ground combat forces to Iraq. As the Iraqi Prime Minister himself said on 17 September, the Iraqi Government do not want to see foreign troops fighting on the ground.

The noble Lord asked how many people we are sending. At the moment, I cannot tell the House very much. We have not set a number, but it will be very low. It will be mainly specialists with niche skills, such as counter-IED. That is something in which the British Army has excellent specialists. We will also be advising the Iraqi army on how to manage its headquarters. We have no plans to send in ground combat forces.

The noble Lord also asked what further help the Iraqi Government have asked for. We are in discussions with the Iraqi Government. It is the Iraqi Government who have requested help from us. The Secretary of State was in Iraq last month, and discussions are continuing to take place.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. Could he say something about the effect of the assistance given so far to the Iraqi Government in deterring or curbing the activities of ISIS?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we are confident that it is working. We have a very active training programme, which I can tell the noble Lord about. We are carrying out training on heavy machine-guns and combat infantry training. We feel that any training of this sort will help the Iraqi security forces to train up to combat ISIL.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that the House will be grateful that he clarified the point that there is no intention to put in combat troops, because clearly misunderstandings arose over that? It is helpful to have that cleared up. In respect of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, what sort of numbers are going through this training programme, and what sort of length is it? Obviously, in some respects, getting greater expertise and skill within the Iraqi armed forces at this time is a matter of some urgency.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My noble friend makes a very good point. These training courses are very important. Following on from the noble Lord’s earlier question, we feel that it is very important that we build them up. We are still scoping these training courses. As I said, we have just completed several courses in the Erbil area in heavy machine-guns. We are currently doing combat infantry training and sharpshooter training with the Danes in the Sulaymaniyah area. Two more courses are being carried out.

Our soldiers have helped commercial contractors to train the Iraqis in counter-IED. As I said earlier, this is something in which we have a real niche speciality. I can assure my noble friend that the “advise and assist” recce team returned to this country on 7 December, and options are being considered to set up a logistics headquarters and a ninth armoured mechanical division. PJHQ is developing a business case for counter-IED training at two build-partner capacity sites.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

Will my noble friend tell the House whether, across government departments, there has been an assessment of any further terrorism risks in the UK because of our further forays into Iraq? Could my noble friend also say whether the perceptions of what the UK forces are doing in Iraq has been consulted on with our ambassadors in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I can assure my noble friend that we are in discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID. As my noble friend knows, General Sir Simon Mayall has been out to the Gulf. He has just returned from Egypt and has been discussing with the Egyptian Government the very point that my noble friend raised.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

What is the position of our troops if they come under attack or are put in danger as a result of being in Iraq and helping the Iraqi forces?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord raises an important point about rules of engagement. As we are still scoping the numbers to go out and they are very small numbers, it is too early to say anything about the rules of engagement. But we are confident that members of the Armed Forces who are being sent out will be there in a training role and they will be far from the combat zone. Once we have finished our scoping, this important issue will be looked at very carefully.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

Given the increasing instability in central Europe, are the Government not absolutely right to avoid mission creep in the Middle East?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I am sorry but I missed the last part of my noble friend’s question.

[Lord Spicer]

Are the Government not right to avoid mission creep in the Middle East because of the growing instability in central Europe?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I agree with my noble friend. We have absolutely no plans for mission creep. We have previously announced our intention to support the Iraqis with training their forces and, as I said earlier, the Iraqi Prime Minister has been very clear that they do not want to see western ground combat forces.

[The Marquess of Lothian (Con)]

Can my noble friend tell the House whether the number of air strikes being carried out by Her Majesty’s forces in Iraq are at the moment increasing or decreasing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I probably can tell my noble friend that, but I fear that I may get into trouble if I say too much. I do have some figures. They are official-sensitive and I am probably unable to tell my noble friend that.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, are we providing training on our own or are we co-operating with other states? Perhaps my noble friend could say which other states are providing training missions. Are we training Iraqi regular forces or irregular forces?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend who of course knows Iraq very well, having himself served on Telic 1. As for help from other coalition members, there have been significant offers of support in principle from coalition partners. For example, I understand that the Australians have offered up to 400, New Zealand up to 100, the Danes 120, the Germans around 100 and Italy 280. The US has authorised up to 3,100 personnel to be in Iraq.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

Will my noble friend kindly tell us whether there will be a component of the preventing sexual violence initiative in the training in Iraq?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend that from the Dispatch Box. I have written to her on this issue and I will give her my assurance that I will follow it up and write to her as soon as I possibly can.

Afghanistan: Interpreters

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Afghan interpreters have applied for relocation to the United Kingdom; and by when their applications will be decided and relocation completed.

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

My Lords, first, I express my condolences for the deaths of the Afghan interpreter and the British G4S employee who were killed in Kabul last Thursday. Around 600 locally employed staff, mostly interpreters, are eligible for relocation under the ex gratia redundancy scheme. Approximately 390 have chosen the relocation option. It is not possible to give a definite timescale for the relocation process due to the variable duration of medical checks, Afghan document verification, UK screening, visa processing and placement with a local authority. Nevertheless, in the past four months we have brought back 36 LESs and 19 immediate family to the UK.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to all the Afghan interpreters who have provided our Armed Forces with a vital service at great personal risk. The numbers quoted by the Minister are encouraging but the pace of the paperwork seems alarmingly slow. Can the Government not find urgent extra resources so that all eligible LECs can relocate before the last of the troops withdraw? Secondly, will the Minister comment on the plight of the large number of interpreters who do not qualify for the ex gratia scheme but who have appealed for help under the intimidation policy? Can the terms of this policy be more generous, bearing in mind that some of the interpreters could continue working as much needed linguists in the UK?

[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.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does my noble friend the Minister realise that when it comes to honouring the debt that we owe to these brave men, there is widespread disquiet that the Government’s policy, particularly in relation to those on the intimidation scheme, is discreditable and even Kafkaesque? Is it not true that few if any of those on the intimidation scheme have received a visit to their home or community to assess risk because it is too risky to do so? If our current staff cannot even visit them in their own community because it is too dangerous, is it not too dangerous for them to live there?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am very happy to discuss this issue with my noble friend outside the House, but I can assure him that we take intimidation very seriously. There is an in-theatre panel of very senior military and civilian personnel who consider every case on its merits. We have returned one locally engaged member of staff to the United Kingdom under the intimidation policy. We have relocated seven in-country, and many others have been assisted with security advice; for instance, changing the route.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I am afraid that the Government have been a complete shambles on this issue. They seem to have moved forward very slowly; they have been dragged into doing things. Now I believe that they are actually beginning to do things, but we are not telling the world that we are doing them. Does the Minister not agree that it is important that we make sure that our men and women around the world are supported by locally employed personnel? They will not do that unless they can see that they are going to be looked after.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I think that we have got a good news story here. We have engaged with media outlets and briefed individuals on the progress of our two LES schemes. Our focus remains the swift implementation of the generous offers under the ex gratia scheme and the thorough investigation of claims of and effective support for locally engaged staff who believe that their safety is threatened.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, what support will be provided to these people when they come to the United Kingdom?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we take care to welcome staff and their families and ease their arrival and integration into this country. Before they leave, we give staff an information pack on living in the UK and offer a question-and-answer session. On arrival, local authorities provide them with support for the first four months. They help them settle into their new neighbourhood and access the benefits and services to which they are entitled, including schools and healthcare.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said today and for keeping informed those of us who take an interest in this by communicating from the MoD. Obviously I pay my condolences to our late Afghan colleague and the G4S employee. I suggest to the Minister that this process will not be speeded up if he leaves it to the Home Office. Has he thought of volunteering assistance from the Ministry of Defence to the hard-working people in the Home Office to expedite what everyone in this House knows is an essential prerequisite, not only as a debt of honour but, as my noble friend and colleague said, to assure British troops that they will get local support in the future?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we have a debt of honour. I can assure him that we have formal fortnightly meetings with the Home Office and we are in daily telephone contact. In Afghanistan, LESs are helped with applications by a member of the MoD staff, Edmund, who was formerly my assistant private secretary. He reassures them about the progress on their cases and liaises with the relevant authorities in the UK and Afghanistan to ensure that there are no unreasonable delays.

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

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, it is to the credit of your Lordships’ House that we have a Bill with only one amendment. It is a compliment to all sides of the House that we have managed to get a Bill that has got to this stage. I am a fairly new addition to this place but one amendment to a Bill seems a massive achievement. However, it is even greater than the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just said. I believe that we have achieved an awful lot in the Bill and the amendment is almost clutching at straws or trying to find problems. I find that the commissioner—the ombudsman—will be able to take matters to the Defence Council and the problems described seem more in the realms of fantasy than reality.

As I see it in the Bill, in reality we have the ability to conduct investigations—I do not read it as saying that there can be no investigation of any sort. I do not think that the proposal by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, gives the ombudsman that much more power than is there already. The ombudsman may investigate if a matter is,

“deemed to be in the public interest”.

In fact, most problems occur when particular members of the Armed Forces suffer some sort of bullying or have some complaint. That is where the complaints arise, rather than the big systemic complaints to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred. I do not see that the amendment is needed. There have been a lot of reassurances; they may not all be in the legislation but can be found in Hansard. But it has been proved that assurances given in Hansard can be taken and used in the appropriate manner.

If there is a vote, I shall certainly vote against the amendment, but I take this opportunity of asking my noble friend the Minister whether he would comment on a specific case. Perhaps he could say how, bearing in mind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the approach to that specific case would be helped and enhanced by the new legislation that we seek to pass. I refer to the case, reported over the last few days, of former Corporal Neathway, a paratrooper who was disabled. It took three years for his complaint to surface and for it to be seen that his commanding officers, at lower staff level and brigadier level, had not done what was necessary. What would happen under the new legislation, after the efforts of your Lordships’ House, with all the faults that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has sought to expose, if the case of this former corporal in a parachute regiment happened now rather than three years ago?

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

My Lords, the issues covered in this amendment have already been the subject of useful and detailed debates in Committee and on Report. I said on Report on 29 July that I would consider the issue further so that we could return to it this afternoon.

The Bill provides that the ombudsman’s primary function will be to investigate and report on allegations by complainants that there has been maladministration in handling their complaint. The reports from the ombudsman will contain binding decisions on whether there has been maladministration and whether, as a consequence, injustice has or could have been caused. The ombudsman can also make recommendations for remedial action including the reinvestigation of the complaint, suggested improvements to the way in which investigations into such allegations are carried out, or specific actions that would make the complaints system more effective. In addition to this, there is nothing to stop the ombudsman commenting on any underlying concern or pattern of behaviour that has given rise to the complaint.

As I said on Report, we envisage that, when the ombudsman considers it appropriate, he or she will publish information on any matters of general concern arising from the operation of the service complaints system, however such matters come to the ombudsman’s attention. We do not think that a statutory power needs to be provided for the ombudsman to be able to do this. We want the ombudsman to raise such issues as quickly as possible. When systemic failings are identified, it is important that they are brought to our attention so that they can be put right when possible.

My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill raised the really important issue of the Neathway case and asked how that case would be covered by the Bill. The Bill will mean that the complaints process in future is quicker; anyone who is unhappy with how their complaint has been handled will be able to approach the ombudsman—for example, if they believe that their case has taken too long to resolve. The ombudsman’s independent oversight will give the Armed Forces lessons in how to further improve the process.

A service complaint panel has reached a determination about the service complaint made by ex-Corporal Tom Neathway, the panel on behalf of the Defence Council has formally apologised to ex-Corporal Neathway and has made recommendations for the Army to consider. The Army has appointed a commanding officer unconnected with the events to consider all matters arising from the service complaint panel’s determination.

The Bill also provides that the ombudsman must produce an annual report. This will be able to look widely at the complaints system, the sort of cases it handles and what sort of failings and misconduct the system has identified. As I have said before, this is a wide and appropriate role for the ombudsman to have, using his or her knowledge and experience of the complaints system and any information that has come to light through that process, whether from the complainant, families, service welfare organisations, MPs or the services themselves. The ombudsman therefore has the ability to report on any underlying themes. The current commissioner has used her annual reports to comment on issues such as the effectiveness of the Army’s zero-tolerance policy on bullying.

The ombudsman can therefore report on a wide range of issues relating to the effectiveness, efficiency and fairness of the service complaints system, including on any systemic issues that have come to his or her attention. This can be done immediately through individual investigation reports, or by publishing information of general concern, or through the annual report.

The aim of this amendment, however, is to allow the ombudsman to carry out investigations into wider issues, such as a culture of bullying at a particular location, and to produce reports on those issues. Consequently, its purpose is to introduce a new role for the ombudsman that goes beyond that set out in the Bill.

There are three important reasons why we do not want the ombudsman to have such a power. First, carrying out such investigations would divert the ombudsman from their primary role of making the complaints system work better and, in particular, hold the chain of command to account in its handling of service complaints. Secondly, the ombudsman might not be the best person to carry out such an investigation. Such investigations might require the full-time dedication of a number of people with specific skills and expertise, such as investigators and lawyers. Finally, it is the chain of command that is responsible for the welfare of its people and for the environment in which they work. We would expect the ombudsman to bring any systemic failings to the attention of the individual service concerned, and to the Ministry of Defence, so that they can put things right. However, it is not for the ombudsman, in the manner of an inspectorate, then to go on to examine these issues.

I hope that I have made the Government’s position clear. We do not want the ombudsman to highlight any thematic issues they come across and to make these concerns quickly and publicly available. However, we do not want the ombudsman and supporting staff then to go off and investigate these matters. Giving him or her the power to do so would significantly change their role and distract them from the main task of making the service complaints system better.

As we have now reached the final stage of our consideration of this Bill, I thank all noble Lords for their work on it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Palmer and I also thank him for his support on this amendment. We have had some excellent debates on a number of issues, some of which we have looked at in considerable depth. I hope that all noble Lords feel that there has been adequate time for scrutiny. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for the constructive way that he has put the Opposition’s case, and to my noble friends Lord Thomas and Lord Palmer and others for their expert contributions. I also thank my noble friend Lady Jolly for her assistance, and officials both in this House and in the Ministry of Defence for ensuring the smooth running of the Bill.

With that, I ask noble Lords to reject this amendment.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Astor of Hever]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, on Report, I moved an amendment about having a credit union for the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, responding for the Government, was unable to accept my amendment but agreed that I could meet with the Minister responsible, Anna Soubry. That meeting took place at the MoD last week, and was very positive. Following the debate in the Chamber, a meeting also took place with forces charities which are supportive of a credit union for the Armed Forces. I understand that a discussion has taken place with the company which provides the payroll service for the MoD and it is hoped that either the costs will be considerably reduced or there will be no cost at all to the MoD.

What I understand to be happening next is that the MoD will identify a number of credit unions that are the right size to be able to deliver financial services to the Armed Forces community. We should be in a situation by the end of this year or early next year to offer the Armed Forces community credit union facilities that will provide loans, savings and other financial products that will be available through payroll deduction.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for her kind assistance, Anna Soubry for working very hard on this, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor. I have been a supporter of the credit union movement my whole adult life and, as a Labour Co-op Member of your Lordships’ House, I am delighted that the campaign has proved successful and that members of the Armed Forces community will soon be able to benefit from this development, as will the Armed Forces charitable services. Could the Minister maybe say a few words to the House? I thank him very much for that.

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

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Tuesday 29th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I intervene on just a couple of small points. I hope that the Minister will take regard of both these amendments. However, I want to highlight the difference between the two, which is subtle but important. When the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that his amendment was in the same form and words as it was in Committee, I was somewhat disappointed. My noble friend Lord Thomas’s amendment has some important differences from the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. My noble friend Lord Thomas’s amendment, to which I am a signatory, says that,

“the complaint may be made or maintained”,

whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says only that it should be made. Very often, the complaint has been made before the person has died and therefore it needs to be maintained. It is not necessarily made after death.

The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Thomas refers to,

“next of kin, or personal; representative”.

Those are the correct terms in law, whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talks about “relative or partner”. As we all know, a personal representative is not necessarily a relative or partner. If we are, by consensus, going to persuade the Minister and the Government to move on this issue, I hope that we will take those finer points into consideration.

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

My Lords, Amendments 1 and 2 relate to complaints about the treatment of a member of the Armed Forces who has since died. Amendment 2 would allow family members to bring a complaint about any wrong that they consider had been suffered by a serving or former member of the services who has died, but does not enable a representative of the person’s estate to pursue a complaint started before that person’s death. Amendment 1 would also allow family members to bring a complaint about any wrong that they consider had been suffered by a serving or former member of the services who has died, and in addition allow family members or representatives of the person’s estate to pursue a complaint started before his or her death.

There are two types of complaints envisaged by the amendments where a service person has died: first, complaints made by a family member, next of kin or personal representative potentially concerning a range of matters in the past where the person affected has since died and, secondly, complaints about treatment or matters alleged to be connected with the death of the service person. In responding to these amendments, I shall set out as clearly as possible how we think that complaints can—and should—be handled in different circumstances involving a serving or former member of the services who has died.

I start by making clear the purpose and primary aim of the service complaints system. It is designed to allow people to bring complaints where they think that they have been wronged or mistreated in connection with their service. Service complaints are generally about that person and concern matters that affect them personally. As the complaint is a matter personal to the complainant, it is for that individual—if needs be, with support and advice—to decide whether to initiate and pursue a complaint through the redress process rather than do nothing or deal with the matter by way of informal resolution. As a consequence, an examination of their complaint needs that person’s involvement in the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Before the Minister concludes his remarks, let us assume that a complaint has been made and the defence counsel has appointed a panel to consider it. Is he saying that although the complainant has died, if it is a matter that can be resolved then the panel will continue, as opposed to it being remitted after his death to the defence counsel to deal with it as a matter of discretion?

[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.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I do not propose to seek the opinion of the House on this but I would welcome further discussion to clarify what I think is not clear at the moment. It seems that if a person dies having made a complaint, it is just a matter for the defence counsel. I do not doubt their good will, their desire to appease the family and so on, but with a formal complaints system it should be more than that: the family should have a right to have the matter properly determined. I am still very uneasy about what has been said. When it comes to the death arising out of the matter of complaint, one thinks of the Ellement case where the complaint was of bullying but the death was caused by suicide. What is the situation there? Is it to be said that an inquiry is going to be set up in such circumstances, or what? I am still uneasy about this and I hope to have further discussions with the Minister but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, I draw attention to a couple of words in Amendment 5— “compelling circumstances”. I did not invent those words; they came from the Canadian legislation on this subject. I have always been a great believer that you should not reinvent the wheel when another Administration, and a member of the Commonwealth, have in their ombudsman regulations the provision for the ombudsman to carry out an investigation “in compelling circumstances”—so it is not just as a normal, run-of-the-mill decision. I hope that the Minister at some stage, even at Third Reading, can somehow give the ombudsman that additional power if the compelling circumstances should arise.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, whether the ombudsman can investigate wider issues was the subject of a good debate in Committee, and I do not intend to repeat my response. Instead, I hope to provide noble Lords with clarity on how the ombudsman would deal with wider issues or possible examples of systemic abuse that come to his or her attention under the reformed service complaints system. I hope that this clarity will go some way towards dealing with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friends Lord Thomas and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.

First, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the ombudsman will be able to look into any matter relating to the service complaints system or the functions of the ombudsman and that he or she is already required by the Bill to report on these matters to the Secretary of State. We are absolutely clear that, when the ombudsman comes across issues of wider concern relating to service complaints, the ombudsman can and should report on these issues. If systemic failings are identified through the complaints system, it is important that those are brought to the attention of both the individual service and the Ministry of Defence. Where things are going wrong, we want to know about them. It is also important that where the ombudsman identifies these wider issues or trends, these concerns are made publicly available. The ombudsman will see a lot of information as part of their role and this means they will be in a unique position to identify any systemic issues. In addition, new Section 340O(6) will allow the Secretary of State to require the ombudsman to report on any matters on a stand-alone basis at any point during the year regarding the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of the system for dealing with service complaints or the exercise of the ombudsman’s statutory functions.

As a consequence of new Section 340O, the Bill gives the ombudsman scope to use their judgement to cover such matters in the annual report as they think relevant to the operation of the system or to the exercise of their role. The ombudsman’s annual reports, like those of the commissioner, will be able to look widely at the system of redress, the sort of complaints that are encountered and what sort of failings and misconduct the system has to deal with. This is a broad and appropriate role for the ombudsman to have using his or her knowledge and experience of the redress system.

It is also important for any organisation to know on a cultural or systemic level when and where things are going wrong, and the services are no different in this regard. By seeing complaints from across the services, the ombudsman will be in a unique position to identify connections between individual complaints—whether they come from a particular area or deal with similar issues. That ability to be able to identify trends means that the ombudsman will be in a key position to comment upon, or make recommendations in respect of, issues that go wider than individual complaints. It will also mean that the ombudsman will be able to provide valuable insight to any investigation or inquiry commissioned into such matters.

Moreover, the ombudsman, through the production of individual investigation reports, as required by new Section 340L, will be able to draw out recurring themes throughout the year as and when appropriate, rather than waiting until the production of the annual report —if, in the ombudsman’s opinion, the circumstances necessitate that.

For example, it may well be appropriate for the ombudsman to highlight where a number of complaints have been made about a similar issue or individual, or where in respect of the handling of complaints of a particular nature such as discrimination, a consistently high number of applications alleging maladministration are made. It would be right to draw out such matters, as new Section 340L(3) is broad enough to include the making of recommendations beyond those solely relating to maladministration, to addressing the effectiveness of the redress system or other systemic issues. Such wider recommendations could concern the better handling and investigations of complaints of a particular nature where there is a finding of maladministration in connection with the handling of the complaint at hand. In addition, such recommendations could well concern the commissioning of training in carrying out investigations into certain matters—discrimination being a good example—or appointing a subject matter expert to investigate systemic issues or concerns that have apparently arisen. It is then fundamentally down to the services to respond appropriately and we would expect them to do so.

New Section 340O requires the Secretary of State to lay the ombudsman’s annual reports before Parliament and we expect that, as with the commissioner’s annual reports, the reports will also be published on the ombudsman’s website. We envisage that following individual investigations, at the appropriate time, and taking account of any relevant sensitivities or information law provisions, summaries of those investigations that draw out and publicise any wider areas of concern may also be published. How that might work in practice will be the subject of discussion with the next commissioner, who will become the ombudsman.

Asylum: Afghanistan Interpreters

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, claims for asylum can only be made from within the United Kingdom. Therefore no claims have been made by those in Afghanistan. To recognise the contribution of our locally engaged civilians we have a generous ex gratia scheme for those made redundant as a result of draw-down. Separately, to protect those directly employed by us who feel a threat of violence because of that work, we have an intimidation policy. These measures are unrelated to UK asylum policy.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, is not our national honour at stake here? Can my noble friend confirm that although something like 600 people are eligible to come here, of whom 270 have applied, only two visas have been issued? Who is dragging their feet? Is it the Home Office? Is it the MoD? Or is it a combination of both? Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, who is a man of very considerable personal integrity, to bring this shameful situation to the attention of the Prime Minister, so that he can use his authority to get some priority and resource put into this situation. We have a huge debt of obligation to those who have laid their lives on the line for this country and we have to do something about it before the end of the year.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am assured that the Home Office is able to provide the necessary resources to carry out the very important task of issuing visas and supporting the relocation of those who are eligible—who stood, as my noble friend said, shoulder to shoulder with us in the toughest circumstances. I have asked my officials as a matter of urgency to work with their colleagues across government, particularly in the Home Office, to ensure that momentum is maintained.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, would Her Majesty’s Government be prepared to review and widen the dates that restrict eligibility for the scheme if it emerges that there is evidence after the withdrawal of troops that interpreters who worked for us before the current cut-off dates are being threatened by the Taliban?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we keep this matter under serious review the whole time. There are no plans at the moment to review the date. This is not a judgment on the value of any individual staff member’s contribution. We recognise that there are staff who made a valuable contribution but who chose to leave our employment before that date. This is an ex gratia scheme linked to the draw-down from Afghanistan and redundancy on or after 19 December 2012. It is not a retrospective process. When a concern about personal safety exists, our intimidation policy applies.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Home Office is able to do this, it raises a simple question—why has it not been done? Will the Minister bring this to the attention of the Home Secretary? While we all support a robust, rational and sensitive set of rules for immigration, there is an overriding principle here. This is a debt of honour, and when there is a debt of honour, you should honour the debt. Not to do so not only leaves people’s lives in danger but leaves the reputation of this country tarnished.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. Applications are being processed, and I assure the noble Lord that this is well advanced. It is a very complicated process requiring health and security checks. Apart from the need to verify immediate family members, we also have to find local authorities that will agree to take individuals. However, we recognise the commitment that we have given to these people, and we are committed to achieving relocation as quickly as possible.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, when we are engaged in military operations overseas, such as Bosnia and Afghanistan, do we offer financial inducements to members of the Armed Forces to acquire capability in the relevant language?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I did not quite understand my noble friend’s question, but I shall read it and write to him.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I have every sympathy for the noble Lord, who is essentially answering for the Home Office, but his answers seem rather woolly. Clearly, it is the mood of this House that these brave people stood by our troops, had their lives at risk and will probably have their lives at risk after the end of this year. On our side, we are quite clear that these people should be allowed into the UK. I understand that the Government announced their policy in June 2013 and expected 600 people to qualify. I am told that two people have so far got a visa. Is this Home Office incompetence? Is it a covert policy of exclusion by delay? If it is neither of those, can the Minister seek an assurance and deliver it to the House that anybody who qualifies will be safely in this country by the end of the year?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, more than 270 former UK LECs who have been made redundant have been offered and accepted relocation under the scheme. Thus far, two visas are in passports, flights are booked and reception arrangements are being made. We expect a steady stream of visas to come through until all those who are eligible are in the UK. To assure the noble Lord, I stress my personal commitment to this ex gratia scheme and the intimidation policy. I shall do all that I can to keep on top of it.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

My Lords, there have been 276 applications but only two relocations in the last year. It pains me to say this but does my noble friend realise that, even with the most generous interpretation, listening to his manful defence of the Government’s policy to provide protection for Afghan interpreters who have with such devotion and courage given service to our troops, one cannot but conclude that this scheme is, in its application and substance, mean-spirited and shaming to the nation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I cannot accept that. The safety of those who have worked for the UK is a major concern for us. Any LEC who has worked directly for Her Majesty’s Government in Afghanistan can come to us and seek protection from violence that is a result of their work for us. In the event of a significant and imminent threat—and a threat of this nature has yet to be presented to us—immediate action, such as moving the individual to a safe house, can be taken. If the only way to protect that individual is to bring them to the UK we can, and we would, do it.

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

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I understand all that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said about perception, but it is the reality that concerns me. I believe that all the points that the noble Lord has made about the danger of having someone who has just left the ranks of the Armed Forces may be there, but I would like to put the other side.

If we adopt the amendment that the noble Lord has suggested, we are limiting the choice. He may be right that it would be best to have someone who had not left the Armed Forces more recently, within the previous five years, but should we, in primary legislation, reduce the options that are available? If there were someone who had left the Armed Forces, say, two years before the appointment was made and that person was the admirable person for that position, should we, by passing this amendment, cut off the possibility of choosing the right man or woman for the position?

Although I welcome the suggestion that the Minister might give us a little more information about the terms of appointment and the like, which would be most useful, if the noble Lord’s amendment were to be passed we would be limiting choice, and that would be a poor thing.

[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 Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I will speak to Amendment 5, which covers very much the same ground as that just covered by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, I think that it is perhaps more succinct than his amendment. I do not think that it is necessary for the family to think that a person has been wronged. If there is a complaint, the relatives, next of kin or personal representative should be able to pursue it.

If a wrong has caused the death, the problem with the coroner’s inquest is that those proceedings are not instituted by a member of the family or next of kin but by the coroner himself. That may take time and cause delay. It seems to me that it is appropriate and would avoid a great deal of hurt for the next of kin or personal representative to be able to take the complaint to the ombudsman. That would deal with the situation where a person has died as a result of the wrong but, of course, if there is some other issue, the coroner will have no part in it at all. There again, it should be open to the next of kin to make the application, and to do it in as prompt a manner as possible. A point of principle is involved here and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, both the amendments in this group deal with an issue that was raised at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. That issue is whether the family of a deceased person should be able to bring a complaint on their behalf or to continue a complaint where it was made before the person died. It is clear that there is support across the House for allowing complaints to be made or continued in such circumstances.

The first amendment in this group would allow the family of a person who has died during the course of their service to make a complaint if they think that the deceased person suffered some wrong in relation to their service. The second amendment, in the names of my noble friends, covers slightly different ground in that it also deals with the situation where a complaint has been made and the complainant then dies. In such cases, it proposes that the next of kin or personal representative can continue the complaint.

The Bill provides for a complaints process that enables serving or former members of the Regular or Reserve Armed Forces to complain about any matter that has arisen as part of their service. That right is subject to certain conditions, such as bringing the complaint within a given period. Certain matters are excluded from the complaints process because there are other, more appropriate, avenues available to deal with the issue raised—for example, a service complaint cannot be made about a matter that can be the subject of an appeal under the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act or is a decision of the Security Vetting Appeals Panel. The service complaints process allows military personnel to raise matters that relate directly to them and where they will have a clear understanding of what they would wish to see happen to redress the wrong that they believe they have experienced.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, complaints can be brought on a wide range of issues. The type and number of complaints varies from year to year and between the single services, with the majority tending to be about the broad range of terms of conditions issues. Bullying and harassment complaints accounted for 10% of all complaints in 2013 for the Royal Navy, and 43% for the Army. As might be expected, complaints that have the potential to have an adverse effect on career prospects and on pay tend to be the greatest in number. In 2013, such complaints accounted for 89% of all Navy complaints, 50% in the Army and 54% in the Royal Air Force.

For the complaints system to be fair, it has to give equal consideration to all parties who may be involved. That means that the person making the complaint and anyone else who might be implicated in it, or otherwise affected by it, should have the opportunity to put their case. For example, a complaint about whether someone was entitled to a particular allowance may include allegations that someone sought to falsify facts so that their eligibility was in doubt or that someone deliberately misled them about their eligibility. A complaint about harassment might hinge on the intentions behind comments made or on the actions of either the complainant or the person who is alleged to have harassed them. There may be issues of what was considered acceptable behaviour by both parties. There may be witnesses to the alleged behaviour who need to be involved. For any process to be fair, and for there to be confidence in it, all the parties involved must be able to put forward their own version of events and be able to challenge the version presented by others. That is the natural basis of justice. It is particularly important where reputations or future careers may be affected.

In dealing with any complaint, it is important not to lose sight of the implications for the individuals involved. We must not allow a rigid and inflexible process to override the rights of those involved. Any system must be sensitive and adaptable. A person does not make a complaint lightly. Raising a complaint means that something is causing the individual great concern, whether it is their annual appraisal and its implications for their pay and career, the condition of their property, or bullying and harassment. Complaints may also raise issues with wider implications for the services. Tackling complaints quickly and sensitively therefore has benefits regardless of the nature of the complaint. This need for sensitivity, however, is crucial where a person has died, whether or not his or her death has any connection to an existing or potential complaint.

It may also be helpful to give an example of how a service has responded when an issue has arisen in the course of other proceedings, and the potential complainant is deceased. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the tragic case of Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement. Her family, with the support of Liberty, secured a new inquest into her death earlier this year. The coroner presiding over the inquest concluded that Corporal Ellement had been the subject of workplace bullying. The Army had already decided before the inquest that consideration needed to be given to any action it might take, depending on the coroner’s findings. To that end, the Army was able to act quickly to put in place an internal investigation after the judgment was known. That investigation is looking at what happened in this case and whether any action should or can be taken against individuals. The investigation is made difficult by the fact that the person against whom these dreadful acts were perpetrated is sadly no longer able to give her own account of events, while those against whom any allegations have since been levelled cannot challenge fully the record of those events. It is, however, a strong reflection of the seriousness with which the Army takes its responsibilities in situations of this kind that, in this particular instance, it recognised the need to act early, and that it is doing so now.

It may be helpful if I give an example of a case in which the complainant died before their complaint had concluded. Noble Lords will understand that, in doing so, I must be very careful not to identify inadvertently the individual who was involved, so I will not give any specific details. Such situations are mercifully very rare, but when they arise we must respond sensitively and in the interests of justice for all parties.

--- 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 Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, we degrouped Amendment 20 and will move it in its place.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, Amendment 7 would make it clear that a service complaint could not be rendered inadmissible by the officer receiving it simply because he believed it was without merit. It may be helpful if I explain the role of the specified officer on receipt of a service complaint. His or her role will be to decide whether the complaint is admissible in accordance with new Section 340B. The officer will not consider the merits of the complaint at all at this stage. That is not possible under the Bill as the appointment of a person or panel of persons to decide whether the complaint is well founded can take place only after the admissibility decision under new Section 340C. The officer’s function at the admissibility stage is to see whether, first, the complaint is about a matter excluded from the service complaints system in regulations made by the Secretary of State, secondly, whether the complaint is out of time and, thirdly, whether the complaint is inadmissible on other grounds specified by the Defence Council in regulations.

Noble Lords will have seen the initial draft regulations prepared by the department which cover, among other things, the other grounds of inadmissibility. It is proposed that those grounds are that the complainant does not allege any wrong, or that the complaint is a repeat of one already brought by the complainant and being considered in the service complaints process, or one that has already been determined.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee helpfully reported on the Bill in advance of Committee, for which we are grateful. It drew attention to the powers conferred by new Section 340B(5)(c) on the Defence Council to specify additional grounds of inadmissibility and concluded that those powers were too widely drawn. My department responded to the committee, explaining what these regulations are intended to cover and made reference to the initial draft regulations that are now available to Members of the House.

Now that noble Lords have seen what is intended here, I hope that some of their concerns about the scope of this provision will have been allayed. There is no intention to use this power to rule out broad categories of complaint. That would run counter to the clear policy behind the Bill to consider all wrongs in relation to a person’s service, subject to very limited exceptions. In any event, I have asked officials to explore whether anything further might be done in relation to the scope of this power. That will be done before Report stage.

The role of the receiving officer at the admissibility stage is quite limited and is strictly focused on the matters set out in the Bill, as will be amplified in the regulations in due course. There is no power for a complaint to be declared inadmissible on its merits at this stage. If a receiving officer declared a complaint inadmissible on merit grounds, the complainant would be able to apply for a review of that decision by the ombudsman. In the circumstances, we would expect the ombudsman to overturn the inadmissibility decision and the complaint would proceed. The ombudsman’s decision on any such review will be binding on both the parties. That is provided for in Regulation 7 of the initial draft service complaints regulations. In the circumstances, I must resist Amendment 7 and ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition and statement that this subsection will not be used to extend the grounds of inadmissibility. No officer who receives a service complaint should be under any misapprehension that he is entitled to decide the merits himself before putting it to the panel or Defence Council, who are the proper people for deciding whether it is well founded. I am quite sure that, with that clear statement of policy, there will be no problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, perhaps I may add just a few words to those of the noble Lord and my noble friend. I spoke about this at Second Reading and gave examples of the Canadian authorities. The words “compelling circumstances” were taken exactly from what the Canadians do—to give the ombudsman the power so that he or she can, in compelling circumstances, do what my noble friend Lord Thomas has described. I hope that the Government will consider examples from overseas which we can incorporate into our legislation.

[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 Thomas of Gresford]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply on Amendment 10. I understand him to be saying that it would be possible for the recommendations on an individual case to include a wider overview of the problems that the ombudsman saw. For example, suppose that in a particular unit there were some five or six individual complaints about an initiation ceremony that went far too far. Presumably, according to what the Minister has said—I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—the recommendations from the ombudsman in each individual case could get stronger and stronger that these matters must stop and must be investigated and dealt with properly. I hope that I have understood the Minister correctly. If I have, then I shall not be moving my amendment.

[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 ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interest as I am still a serving TA officer, albeit not very active these days. This is the only area of concern that I have with the Bill and I urge my noble friend the Minister to pay very careful attention to it.

I certainly do not regard this as a probing amendment. I do not understand why the ombudsman would not be able to ask the Secretary of State to get on to the chain of command to get the documents, or whatever information is required, released. The Service Complaints Commissioner made it quite clear to us in a recent meeting, for which we were grateful, that she was perfectly happy as regards her access to Ministers. As the noble and gallant Lord said, Ministers can direct the chain of command to release the information. However, a problem could arise with these arrangements if compliance with the ombudsman’s request interfered with current operations to some extent, especially if staff effort had to be diverted from current operations to meet the ombudsman’s request. I hope that my noble friend can meet the concerns of noble and gallant Lords in this regard. I agree with the argument made by my noble friend Lord Deben. It is fine to make legislation consistent provided that no adverse implications can arise from that. I believe that could be the case if this provision is included in the Bill.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Craig, for tabling Amendment 12 as it has provided us with the opportunity to debate this very important issue, particularly as regards the chain of command.

Amendment 12 would remove new Section 340K from the Bill. New Section 340K provides that the ombudsman will have the backing of the powers of the courts if someone unlawfully obstructs him or her in carrying out an investigation or does something which would count as a contempt of court. The effect of the amendment would therefore be that the new ombudsman would have no enforcement powers to back up their general power to require the provision of documents or other information not in their possession or control. That lack of enforcement powers would apply in respect of all persons whether they are members of the Armed Forces, civil servants or, indeed, anyone else who may have relevant information in relation to an investigation.

When investigating the actions of a public authority, any independent body, whether it be an ombudsman, tribunal or court, needs to have appropriate powers to carry out its function effectively. This includes a power to get all the information it needs to investigate and scrutinise the actions of the public authority. The power needs to be backed up with enforcement provisions when co-operation is not forthcoming from the body or individuals under investigation.

The Service Complaints Ombudsman is no different in this respect. Powers of compulsion, such as those provided in new Section 340K, are a common feature of ombudsman legislation. For example, similar provisions can be found in respect of the Pensions Ombudsman in Section 150 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and in respect of the Ombudsman for Wales in Sections 14 and 15 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005. The reason for that is not because it is envisaged that these powers will be used regularly but because without them there is no effective way of compelling people who are required to help with the ombudsman’s investigations to do so. They may be reluctant to assist the ombudsman for a variety of reasons. The power to require the production of evidence, backed up with powers of compulsion, is therefore necessary for an ombudsman to operate effectively, and this ombudsman is no different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am sure that the Committee can understand why the chain of command might be unwilling, without compulsion, to release information. However, if Ministers directed the chain of command, including civilians, to release information, can my noble friend envisage circumstances in which the chain of command would not release the information?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but I cannot give him an immediate answer that I would be happy with. I will come back to him.

[Lord Boyce]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response to the amendment. I will study what he has said. I am not entirely comfortable, but I take comfort from his comment that new Section 340K would be used only in exceptional circumstances for those in a military chain of command. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, makes a perfectly fair point that people involved in the Armed Forces but outside the chain of command may be required to disclose things. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I think that I am pushing at an open door here, because in his response on Second Reading the Minister said that the recommendations of the ombudsman may very well include the payment of compensation. I could not resist having a confirmation of that position in Committee, because I think that compensation, where appropriate, is a very reasonable remedy for complaints that may be advanced by a complainant. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this amendment would add to new Section 340L a specific reference setting out that the ombudsman could recommend the payment of compensation if, having investigated a matter raised by a complainant, it were to find that there was maladministration in the way that the complaint was dealt with by the chain of command that has, or may have, led to injustice that should be rectified.

The Bill provides that the ombudsman may make any recommendations that it considers appropriate. The ombudsman has wide discretion in all aspects of the new powers that are provided for it in the Bill. This discretion is an important element in assuring Armed Forces personnel that the ombudsman is independent, without which they will see no benefit in approaching it and no value in its investigations. The reforms that the Bill provides for in the complaints process itself are aimed at making it possible to reach a final decision on a complaint more quickly while still being within a system that is fair in the widest sense. Together, the creation of a strengthened oversight role in the form of the ombudsman and the shortened process are designed to increase the confidence of service personnel in the chain of command and in the process. If they lack that confidence, complaints will not be raised and matters of concern cannot be addressed, which can ultimately have a detrimental effect on unit cohesion and effectiveness.

The draft regulations, which were circulated to noble Lords, would to a limited extent apply procedures to the way in which the ombudsman would deal with applications made to it by complainants, how it would conduct its investigations if it accepted applications, and how it should respond when producing reports on those investigations. It is right that the Bill provides a framework for how the ombudsman will exercise its functions, and that the regulations provide some further detail to the options that should then be available to it. However, it does not follow that there should be a specific reference to a particular form that a recommendation may take, either in the Bill or in the regulations.

In that respect, it must be remembered that a serving or former member of the Armed Forces can make a service complaint about a very wide range of matters. They may also make an application to the ombudsman about any number of possible variations of a complaint of maladministration—a term that itself is deliberately not defined, in common with all other ombudsman legislation. Maladministration covers traditional grounds of judicial review, such as procedural impropriety and irrationality, but also wider concepts such as excessive delay, failure to give adequate advice, or rudeness.

While the complainant will be asked to set out what form they think the maladministration has taken in their case, it will be open to the ombudsman, having gone on to investigate the case, to find that another form of maladministration has in fact occurred. From a more practical point of view, it is therefore not possible to provide in the Bill for every permutation of likely recommendation that the ombudsman might make. That is why the provision in the Bill leaves it open to the ombudsman to make such recommendations as it considers appropriate, and it is why this amendment is resisted.

Any recommendation should, however, be reasonable and proportionate based on what the ombudsman has found and the degree of injustice that has or may have been suffered. If the ombudsman therefore considers that compensation of a certain value is appropriate, the Bill also provides that the ombudsman gives reasons for the findings in its report and for the recommendation made.

The amendment also refers to the ombudsman’s ability to recommend the payment of compensation to family or a personal representative in the event that the complainant dies before the complaint has been concluded. All recommendations made by the ombudsman are to be considered by the Defence Council, which must decide how to respond. The Bill provides that a recommendation can be rejected, in which event reasons must be given in writing to the ombudsman and to the complainant. Alternatively, the Defence Council must write to them both setting out the action, if any, that it has taken in response to the ombudsman’s findings and to any recommendations that the ombudsman has made. It is open to the Defence Council to decide that a complaint should be reconsidered to whatever extent it considers appropriate, based on those findings and recommendations. A payment of compensation may be the outcome of any of these courses of action and, where that is appropriate, any payment will be made to the complainant’s estate if the complainant has died.

If in taking forward any action in response to the ombudsman’s recommendations it is necessary to have the personal testimony of the now deceased complainant, the chain of command will need to consider carefully what, if any, further action can reasonably be pursued. That will be particularly important if the complainant’s personal testimony is key to the matter proceeding fairly.

There is a need to preserve the independence of the ombudsman, to give our personnel confidence in the ombudsman’s office, and to give the ombudsman the flexibility that it needs to be able to make recommendations that address the varied nature of complaints that can be brought his way. In the light of that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his 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.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, again I am very grateful to the Minister for making clear that which I believe to be the case, and I am happy to withdraw my amendment and not to move the other two.

--- 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.