Armed Forces Bill

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Armed Forces Bill 2021 and support the principle of strengthening the Armed Forces covenant in law. As the Lords Defence Minister at the time, I was responsible for the passage through this House of the Armed Forces Bill 2011, which received Royal Assent in November 2011. It amended the 2006 Act, most notably by requiring an annual Armed Forces covenant report to be presented to Parliament—which has been done each year since. Following the present Government’s manifesto commitment, this Bill makes provisions to further incorporate the Armed Forces covenant into law. I very much welcome the Government’s stated support for this position, and I am grateful to Poppyscotland for the briefing that it sent me.

Maximum advantage should be taken of this golden opportunity to enhance the delivery of the covenant to the Armed Forces community and ensure that it is fit for purpose for the next 10 years. During the consideration of the Bill by the Commons Select Committee, a wide range of oral and written evidence was received from those who regularly work with the Armed Forces covenant, often daily. They included Armed Forces charities, representatives of local and devolved governments, the Veterans Commissioners in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The committee also undertook its own online survey of the Armed Forces community. The evidence repeatedly highlighted the desirability of the Bill being enhanced, and in particular the need to apply the same legal standard to national government as would be applied to local government.

Members of the Armed Forces community access public services through national, devolved, regional and local bodies, so it is important that there is a consistent approach, so that all public bodies recognise their responsibilities under the covenant. However, the Bill as introduced largely applies only to local government and some education and health bodies. National government should be subject to the same legal standard on the covenant that it seeks to apply to councils.

Many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or are based on national guidance provided to other delivery partners. This is particularly relevant to ensure that serving personnel, for whom many services are the responsibility of the MoD, benefit from the Bill’s provisions along with the rest of the Armed Forces community. I also suggest that the Scottish Government, in addition to Scottish councils and certain public bodies, should be within the scope of the new “due regard” duty. Many issues affecting Scotland’s Armed Forces community are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Without the application of the Bill’s covenant provisions to all aspects of devolved government, national policies developed in Scotland will not be subject to the duty of due regard, as will be the case at the local level. On this point, I welcome the view expressed by the then Scottish Government’s Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans in evidence to the Select Committee, indicating that he would be content with such an expansion.

The overwhelming backing for widening the Bill’s scope would suggest that improving the Bill in this way would be an uncontroversial step for the Government that would command widespread support and consensus.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I join my noble friend the Minister in paying tribute to our Armed Forces and their families. I welcome the intent of the Bill and believe that it will provide greater certainty for service personnel and veterans in respect of vexatious claims concerning the prosecution of historical events that occurred in armed conflict overseas.

I am only too aware that many claims were made without foundation and have subsequently been discredited. This caused unnecessary distress through repeated investigations of members of the Armed Forces. I therefore welcome the Bill’s further safeguards to address the impact of those claims. I also welcome the introduction of measures to consider the impact of the mental health of veterans involved in legal proceedings as a result of overseas operations.

This Bill polarises opinion, so it is important to bring back some objectivity in the scrutiny of this legislation. It is understandable that we can lose objectivity when discussing issues such as torture, war crimes and genocide. However, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents the prosecution of such acts, even outside the period of five years. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the investigation of such offences, and there is nothing that suggests that those tasked with defending our country are able to act with impunity. If any criminal behaviour is alleged to have taken place, individuals can be prosecuted.

The triple lock will give service personnel and veterans greater certainty that the unique pressures placed on them during overseas operations will be taken into account when prosecution decisions are made concerning alleged historical offences. My reading of the Bill is that there is no lock to prosecutions—only three additional steps in the decision-making process for a prosecution to proceed.

The first step is an exceptionality test, to be applied by an independent prosecutor. Although I cannot say how a prosecutor should apply this test, I would guess that serious breaches of the Geneva conventions, for instance, are not the norm but would be exceptional.

The second step ensures that the context of the overseas operation is rightly considered. Yes, the prosecutor will take such factors into account, but making this a statutory requirement sends a strong signal to our Armed Forces that their unique circumstances will be at the forefront of the decision-making process.

The final step is the consent of the Attorney-General. This consent function is not new; an AG already has responsibility for giving consent to war crimes prosecutions. These three additional steps do not amount to the state being unwilling or unable to prosecute, which means that we would continue to adhere to our international obligations and does not increase our risk of the International Criminal Court seeking to prosecute our Armed Forces personnel.

May I ask my noble friend the Minister: what do veterans think about the measures? Is there general support from our veterans? How have the proposals changed as a result of public consultation?

Finally, several noble Lords have referred to the Northern Ireland Troubles. Having served in the Army there, I look forward to seeing the legislation to address the legacy of Operation Banner being prepared by the Northern Ireland Office. When might we see this?

Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Associations

Lord Astor of Hever Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former honorary colonel of a Royal Engineers reserve regiment. My comments are focused on the effect on the costs of what is proposed in the draft report.

Her Majesty’s Treasury’s publication Managing Public Money says in chapter 3, under “Accounting Officers” that

“the accounting officer should ensure that the organisation, and any ALBs it sponsors, operates effectively and to a high standard of probity. The organisation should … use its resources efficiently, economically and effectively, avoiding waste and extravagance”.

That is much in line with a common-sense approach to controlling costs properly and obtaining value for money. MPM also says that the accounting officer should

“avoid over defining detail and imposing undue compliance costs, either internally or on its customers and stakeholders”.

The draft report on the review is complimentary about the ability of RFCAs to control costs. It says at paragraph 4.0.3:

“The Review found that the RFCAs deliver a great deal on tight resources, proving strong value for money.”


Paragraph 2.10.6 says:

“The RFCAs are able to exploit synergies by combining their work across functions to deliver greater than the sum of the parts.”


Tellingly, and with masterly understatement, it says at paragraph 2.5.7:

“Evidence from customers is that efficiencies would be unlikely to be realised if the maintenance tasks were transferred to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which is responsible for the equivalent function for the regular forces estate.”


Paragraph 8 of annexe B to the draft report says that the review proposes to

“identify activities conducted across Defence that could be done by the RFCAs more effectively and/or at less cost.”

The report then comes up with quite a long list of new tasks that the RFCAs could be considered for taking on, apparently improving efficiency and value for money, such as managing small training areas, working on the injured servicemen’s living accommodation project and delivering elements of the MoD’s veterans’ strategy.

This all seems to imply not only that the RFCAs are highly competent at controlling costs and obtaining value for money but that the author thought so quite strongly. He is not beating about the bush. Yet recommendation 5.6a proposes that board chair and members should in future be OCPA-regulated and that regional board chairs should also be appointed on OCPA principles. It would be very unusual for those appointed to similar positions on other government bodies on OCPA principles not to be paid for their time. Indeed, recommendation 5.6d says that

“consideration should be given to remunerating RFCA board and regional council members.”

So here is the draft report recommending the introduction of a new and quite unnecessary cost, which would have to be funded by so-called savings elsewhere and would inevitably mean greater centralisation and less localism, going against what it is trying to achieve.

Currently, the chairs and board members work for the RFCAs for free. They live and breathe the volunteer ethos. They understand the Reserve Forces and the huge pressures that apply to members in reconciling the demands of family, civilian work and military responsibilities. Purely in terms of value for money, let alone the casting aside of the network of experienced volunteers, I suggest the need for a rethink.