Royal Navy: Escort Vessels
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot comment on what the noble Lord says about BAE. However, I compliment him on his resolute lobbying for the Royal Navy to attend the Royal Australian Navy’s 100th anniversary. The noble Lord has had a word with me two or three times about it. I can now assure him that the Royal Navy has responded to his request and will attend the 100th anniversary. HMS “Daring”, a Type 45 destroyer, will also be out there.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, bearing in mind the reduction in the number of surface vessels over the past few years, what commitments have Her Majesty’s Government had to give up as a result?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the Naval Service, which includes the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary which supports them, is able to fulfil commitments around the globe and maintain a maritime presence in priority regions, such as the South Atlantic, the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. The Naval Service also safeguards the security of home waters, meets our defence commitments in the North Atlantic and the Caribbean, patrols the Antarctic waters and undertakes periodic deployments to other areas, such as the Far East and the Pacific.
Armed Forces: Pay
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they did not approve the 0.5 per cent increase in the X-factor supplement recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in its 2013 report (Cm 8571).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, earlier today my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in the other place that we would fund an increase in X-factor, so this recommendation will now also be accepted. This will be welcome news for service personnel and their families who should receive the increase with their May pay. This positive response to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommendation also emphasises the importance and the respect that the Government accord to the views of the review body.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, that is of course very welcome news, although I think it would be a shade fanciful to think that a topical Question could so rapidly change the Government’s mind. Nevertheless, because there has been a delay, can the Minister assure the House that the pay uplift will be made available on time in April, or will it be delayed and have to be backdated? I hope that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that it does not have to be backdated. Will this additional pay be available to full-time mobilised reservists as well as to service personnel?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, service personnel will receive the increase from 1 May onwards. I understand that it is the general policy of all Governments not to backdate, to avoid adding complexity and risk to normal administrative operations. The noble and gallant Lord asked if the uplift in X-factor will be paid to mobilised reservists. X-factor is paid at the full level—currently 14%—to all ranks up to and including lieutenant-colonel or equivalent in the Regular Forces, full-time reserve service personnel on full commitment and mobilised reservists.
Armed Forces
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for arranging this debate. He has been most assiduous in keeping your Lordships’ House aware of defence issues and this is yet another example of that. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, to her new responsibilities. She has proved to be an excellent Front-Bench spokesman on other subjects and I am sure that that she will be equally good, or better even, on this subject, of which she has much background knowledge.
In this Remembrance Week, many families and friends of the fallen will be thinking of their loved ones—loved ones who served in the two world wars and in a variety of combat operations since 1945. Along with many others, I shall be honouring their memory next Sunday as I march past the Cenotaph with the Not Forgotten Association contingent, of which I am the senior president. While the majority who served in the two world wars or on national service were called up, causalities in more recent conflicts were volunteers. They joined the Armed Forces as a career choice, accepting that in the course of their service they could be exposed to real danger. Public support for Remembrance Sunday, as in your Lordships’ House, is thankfully large.
The recovery of the Falklands following Argentina’s invasion was ultimately a matter for combat operations and, importantly, enjoyed overwhelming national support. However, I fear that our more recent efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have not enjoyed the same national understanding or backing. Many reasons are suggested for this. The rationale for committing so much treasure, for sacrificing so much in lost lives and limbs, and for continuing over so many years—double the years that it took us to win through in World War I and World War II—is complex, difficult to explain simply and difficult for the public to grasp. But unlike with the world wars or even the Falklands, it is not easy to engender a sense of real tactical successes or even ultimate victory. Media coverage is largely confined to reporting casualties in Afghanistan, and much more needs to be done about that. Minds are now focusing on getting out of Afghanistan, and hopefully enough will have been done by the coalition to enable Afghanistan to look after itself.
However, the so-called war against terror has yet to succeed. There are limits to the contribution that military forces can make in the fight against terrorism. The enemy is not like a state, which is a geographic entity. It can and does threaten from many widely dispersed areas and in numerous different forms. This presents Governments with far more difficult choices for the involvement of their forces in support of other diplomatic and political initiatives.
The current approach is based on two incompatible assumptions. On the one hand there is the size of the financial commitment to defence, not just for day-to-day functioning but also for the future size and shape involving programmes that take many years to realise. For shorthand, let me characterise this as a commitment of 2% of GDP. The other assumption, now shown to be incompatible with the first one, is that the Armed Forces are to be structured to meet a certain level of immediate and ongoing enduring commitments without an honest costing of what that might mean for defence funds.
Most telling now is the number of criticisms of the MoD and Government by coroners dealing with inquests about the lack of life-saving equipment or inappropriate kit for the tasks expected of the casualty. This serves to highlight the mismatch in the public’s mind—their perception of a mismatch between the 2% GDP and what capabilities can be procured and operated on an enduring basis with such funds. Ministers would do well, if the 2% of GDP is not to be increased, to realise the risks of relying on urgent operational requirements and backing from the contingency fund in future engagements. They must never lose sight of the fact that those who will fight for them are volunteers who are prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice. So service men and women have a right to reasonable expectations that they will get not only political and moral support but the right equipment in the right place at the right time when they are ordered into conflict in a war of choice.
There are two other particular constraints that do not seem to figure as strongly as they should, and attract little or too little attention in the ability of our Armed Forces to take on new operational commitments. The first is that no matter how much current equipment—ships, aircraft or armour—has advanced in hitting power and accuracy, these improvements provide no recompense for meeting geographically widespread commitments.
Noble Lords will recall the endless arguments about frigate/destroyer numbers over the years. My first exposure to this was half a century ago when a force of at least 55 of these ships was deemed to be the absolute minimum. Without going through each of the soon-to-be-breached irreducible minimums in defence reviews in the intervening years, we now expect to stand up a mere 19 of such vessels. Of course, each of the 19 will be more powerful than any of their predecessors, but you cannot cut any of the 19 in two to spread the coverage on worldwide commitments. The Falklands guard ship, the Caribbean drug-busting task force, combating piracy in the Indian Ocean and safeguarding the deterrent are just a few examples of worldwide enduring commitments, as of course are training and ship repair schedules. These could leave too little available for mounting any wars of choice with a maritime contribution. Air power has the flexibility and reach to move rapidly afar, but it, too, can become overcommitted on enduring operations, as we have experienced in the combat air support of Afghanistan—and that was before the most recent cull of front-line fast-jet numbers.
Another factor that has a bearing on numbers is the risk of losses in combat. Since the Falklands, our forces have been fortunate to operate in benign or near-benign air environments. Consequently, losses to opponents have been non-existent or very small. It would be all too facile to assume that future operations would take place in a benign air environment, with no serious loss of ships or aircraft or other major equipment. Experience in the Falklands against an enemy of only limited air power capability cost us dearly, particularly in ships sunk or badly damaged.
Losses in a fight with a better equipped enemy than we have had to face in the past two decades could be infinitely more serious today. Indeed, the very limited cover we might be able to mount for a carrier task force, particularly as we now lack the protection of any maritime patrol capability, could restrict its use to operations facing benign threats and an opposition without any serious strike capability. The Exocet type of threat has not gone away.
A defence budget of only 2% of GDP, which will include the replacement boats for the nuclear deterrent—requiring 25% or more of the equipment budget during the peak stages of that programme—has to be the driver for calculating the variety and mix of short or enduring capabilities that the Armed Forces could mount. This must be constantly reviewed so that Ministers are able to reach judgments on the use of the Armed Forces in the expected threat environment. What this produces must be the yardstick used by Ministers before embarking on any future war of choice.
Surely it should be part of the military covenant that our young men and women are sent on combat operations only when adequately armed and equipped for the task. It should not be acceptable that they have only additional support from the contingency fund but do not have the strength and depth of equipment and back-up for losses in conflict. Such losses cannot be made good overnight, no matter how much money is thrown at them. Unless Ministers are guided in this way, there will be more avoidable casualties in the nation’s thoughts on future Remembrance Sundays.
Armed Forces: Reserve Forces
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, it is my great privilege and pleasure to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, on his maiden speech. He has entertained us well and, I think, rather modestly left out some other judicial appointments in his magnificent career. He was of course Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in between the times he served here, first as a Law Lord and then as the Senior Law Lord, before moving on to the Supreme Court. He obviously learnt from his time in the Royal Navy. Whether it was all good or all bad, I think we can judge that he enjoyed it, and I am certain that we are going to enjoy his contributions to this House. We welcome him and thank him for speaking today.
I congratulate, too, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, on his choice of topic. He is right to focus our thoughts on the future of the reserves. Much thought has been given and effort put into this as part of the major restructuring of the Armed Forces following the strategic defence and security review. I am myself a firm supporter of the value of Armed Forces reserves that have real operational worth and are not seen by those outside or within the reserves as weekend chancers playing at being soldiers or, indeed, sailors and airmen. Happily, thanks to the important changes that were introduced for the reserves over the past decade, and the large number of reservists who have been on active operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is far greater public understanding of the key value of reservists, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice.
To concentrate on the future, I hope that the Minister will give the House a better understanding of the Government’s expectations of reaching the numbers and mix of reserves that they are now pursuing, and the risks if they are not achieved. As it is well understood, a variety of factors will influence this outcome. First, of course, there are the individuals who have to be attracted, motivated and committed to volunteering and remaining within the reserves structure so as to become worthy and effective members of their units. If trained from scratch, it is essential that the individual is prepared to serve for a number of years in order to “amortise”, as it were, his or her training costs.
Then, as has already been mentioned, there are the employers. While the country is involved in operations overseas, the profile of the Armed Forces is much enhanced in the public mind. Employers react to this by wishing to be as accommodating as possible in releasing employees for reserve activity and retaining them on the payroll after service. But as we move, we hope, beyond the past decade or two of wars of choice—that is, choice by the Government of the day to commit forces into sustained expeditionary operations—will the reduced prominence of the Armed Forces still be a good recruiting sergeant for the reserves, and will they be as readily accepted by employers as they are today? I am not clear what proposals or suggestions the Government will pursue to encourage and, indeed, to reward employers who agree to have and release reservists when they are required for training or for operations. More will need to be done in this regard.
I am also concerned that the Government’s expectations in terms of achieving their recruitment and retention targets are overambitious. Even for the Royal Air Force, which has a good blend of reserve units and is standing up further elements in other geographic areas, such as Liverpool and Northern Ireland, to expand areas for recruitment and provide or sustain an RAF regional footprint, forecasts have not lived up to expectations. I recall mentioning in 2008 in a debate on the reserves the serious dip in recruitment that had been experienced by the RAF Auxiliaries earlier that decade and that it was estimated that full strength could not be reached before 2013-14. A quick look at the figures shows that the trained strength is now forecast not to be reached before 2016. In other words, expectations have not been fulfilled.
Why are the Government so confident that this time around, with far greater ambitions for reserve numbers, the targets can be reached? What evidence do they adduce from past figures? What will have changed so dramatically in the next five to six years that trained strength targets will be reached and sustained? I hope that the Minister can reassure the House on this critical point. Or will he be frank and say that while their aspirations are to get to 100%, 75%, say, may be more realistic?
Defence Equipment and Support
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this is a really big issue. I had only a short time in which to prepare for this Statement and that made me realise what a big subject this is. It may be an area on which we could have a debate in the House, and I would encourage my noble friend to go through the usual channels to see whether a debate could be set up. He asked why no legislation was necessary for this. I asked officials about that and their advice was that it is very unlikely—but just in case it is needed, all the building blocks are being put in place. No decisions on the future operating model of DE and S have yet been taken. The GOCO may require legislation, but the issue will be addressed in due course.
I cannot answer my noble friend’s question about whether it was just MoD officials involved in the decision-making process, but I understand that there will be no additional redundancies as a result of these changes. I am pretty certain that that is the correct answer.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, one of the criteria that Mr Bernard Gray identified in his major study of DE and S was that a budget provision for a 10-year period should be made for the equipment programme. Many instances of overloading the programme in the past have probably been attributable to changes in the budget provision, which the Ministry of Defence had expected. Has an agreement been reached on the lines of what Mr Bernard Gray was looking for, with a 10-year guaranteed budget for the equipment programme? Without that it will be difficult to be sure that we will not overload the programme if there are cuts.
Lord Astor of Hever
I can assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that Bernard Gray, who wrote the report, is now working for the MoD—poacher turned gamekeeper. I am confident that he has extracted a lot of the assurances that he was after.
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012. The purpose of the order is to continue in force the legislation governing the Armed Forces for a further period of one year, until November 2013.
I should like to say a few words about the legislation that the continuation order is set to continue—that is, the Armed Forces Act 2006 as amended by the Armed Forces Act 2011. The 2006 Act made significant changes to the legislation governing the Armed Forces and established a single system of service law for the first time. The single system applies to all members of the Armed Forces, wherever in the world they are serving.
The 2006 Act was fully implemented and came into force on 31 October 2009. I am pleased to say that the services say that the 2006 Act is doing a good job—the modest scale of changes made to it by the 2011 Act is testament to that—so I am confident that the 2006 Act will continue to serve the Armed Forces well for many years to come.
Your Lordships’ House has enjoyed full and interesting debates on matters of great importance to the Armed Forces, none more so than during last year’s passage of the Armed Forces Act 2011, which received Royal Assent on 3 November last year. That Act continued the Armed Forces Act 2006 for a further year, allowed it to be continued by annual Order in Council until 2016 and made various provisions to amend the Armed Forces Act 2006.
I should also like to say a few words about the 2011 Act. Although it is modest in size, its provisions are wide-ranging, partly as a result of the Ministry of Defence normally bringing forward primary legislation only every five years. I am pleased to report that over half the provisions in the new Act have been commenced, and an implementation programme for the remainder is well under way. Our aim is to complete the largest part of that work by spring 2013. Notably, for the first time, and as a result of this Act, the Armed Forces covenant is now recognised in legislation. The 2011 Act places an obligation on the Defence Secretary to report annually on progress made by the Government in honouring the covenant. The first report will be published at the end of this year. The Armed Forces covenant makes a clear commitment by the Government on how service people should be treated. Now, this and future Governments will be held to account on what they deliver on the covenant.
I should make a further observation about the order that we are considering today. Previous Governments have given an undertaking that Ministers moving instruments subject to the affirmative procedure will tell the House whether they are satisfied that the legislation is compatible with the rights provided in the European Convention on Human Rights. We believe that the order that we are considering today is compatible with the convention rights. I welcome this opportunity for another interesting debate. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. The Armed Forces Act 2011 introduced into law the concept of the Armed Forces covenant, as he has mentioned, and the particular requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare an Armed Forces report. I was pleased to note when that report is due to appear.
As the Minister knows, I have also tabled a Question for Written Answer about compulsory redundancies. I asked whether, in selecting personnel for compulsory redundancy, consideration was given to their immediate pension point. For the record, is the Minister able to answer this question now? There has been considerable anxiety and press coverage. There is a feeling that the Government are solely focused on achieving financial savings rather than showing understanding for the effect on the individuals involved of a sudden abrupt end to their aspirations of a lifetime career in the Armed Forces. Equally, it is a difficult time to find alternative employment in civilian life.
The effect is of course not confined to the individual but spreads to their immediate family and friends, who are as shocked, taken aback and worried about the future as the individual being made redundant. What steps is the Ministry taking to help those who are being sacked? There seems to be little in the public domain to give confidence that these individuals are being looked after with sympathy and real understanding for their plight. It would underline the value of the military covenant, and show that personnel should be considered, if a more proactive approach to the impact of redundancies on the individual were to be taken by the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, lest any of the points I wish to make should be construed as meaning otherwise, I make it clear at the outset that we of course support this order, which enables our Armed Forces to remain in existence, by law, for at least a further year by providing that the Armed Forces Act 2006 will not expire on 3 November 2012, as currently scheduled, but instead will continue in force until 3 November 2013. As the Minister has said, the 2006 Act also brought together various orders of discipline in the Armed Forces while the 2011 Act enshrined the Armed Forces covenant in legislation.
Depending on one’s point of view, this order is either a piece of archaic ritual bearing no relevance to the way that we should be conducting the affairs of our nation, or indeed the affairs of our Armed Forces, in the 21st century or an essential constitutional prop, ensuring that anyone who might be tempted to think otherwise knows that our Armed Forces remain in existence to perform their role not because they think—or anyone else thinks—they should, but only because the representatives of the people in Parliament have decided that that should be so, with that decision having to be renewed and restated each year. As I understand it, the order that we are discussing stems from the Bill of Rights Act 1689, or 1688 by old-style dating, which restated in statutory form the declaration of right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England while further restricting the powers of the sovereign by laying down certain constitutional basic rights, in respect of which the Crown was required to seek the consent of the people as represented in Parliament. Among those basic rights was that no standing army could be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of Parliament.
I am not sure that the people of this country are quite as suspicious, in the 21st century, of a reigning monarch deploying a standing army as they were in the 17th. While other countries have suffered and do suffer from military dictatorship, I am not convinced that it is the existence or knowledge of the requirement for this Armed Forces Act continuation order to be agreed each year by Parliament that is preventing or deterring a takeover of this country by the military. There may just be other, rather more powerful and influential factors and considerations at play. Having said that, is it literally the case, as I understand it, that if this continuation order was not approved our Armed Forces would cease to exist from early November, or is there in reality other legislation or a decision of Parliament that would enable them to continue in being?
I make these points seriously to understand what failing to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006 for a further year—I stress that this is not a road I am suggesting we go down—would mean in practice, as opposed to theory. We have an Armed Forces Act every five years. If there is a continuing widespread feeling, as is presumably the case, that Parliament should have to make a regular decision in order for our Armed Forces to continue in existence, one wonders whether there is still a need for this to be done every year as opposed to, say, every five years in the Armed Forces Act. The debate on this annual order does not seem to be regarded as an opportunity for having a wide-ranging discussion or debate, no doubt because there are other, better ways of having more frequent and lengthier discussions and debates on our Armed Forces in your Lordships’ House. It is presumably also the case that if the other place had reservations or concerns at any time, it could bring things to a head—not least by declining to agree to the necessary expenditure needed to maintain our Armed Forces for the following financial year. Nor does it seem likely that your Lordships’ House, as an appointed House, would decide to vote down an order on such a major issue as retention of the Armed Forces, and surely not when the other place, the elected House, had voted for the order.
Armed Forces: Personnel
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, the House should be most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for bringing this topic to attention. Her experience of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body was extensive, both as a member in 1993-94 and as the chair from 1999 to 2005. The Minister and Government should pay most careful attention to her remarks and criticisms, and those of other noble Lords who spoke. I will add my slant to the thrust of their remarks.
Noble Lords will recall that the early 1970s were a time of acute national economic difficulty. A series of government steps such as the pay and prices code and the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 were applied nationwide. Looking at the Government’s strictures on public sector pay, have we not all been here before? However, for the Armed Forces of today, things are not as they were then. Experiences of dealing with the Cold War and the threat from the Soviet Union are far removed from the expensive and extended expeditionary warfare of today, in which large numbers of an ever dwindling cohort of service men and women are now involved, at greater risk of being killed or severely wounded or of being long separated from their families.
This significant change was recognised by the previous Government in their Command Paper, The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans, and by this Government with the passage into law of the Armed Forces Covenant last autumn. That special recognition of the distinctive nature and value to the nation of the Armed Forces receives scant attention in this year’s AFPRB report. The Government’s across-the-board imposition of pay freezes in the public sector treats service personnel once more—as was the practice in the 1970s and 1980s—on a par with the rest of the public sector. However, it was the prime thrust of the Armed Forces Covenant and the previous Government’s White Paper that the services and their families were distinct from the rest of society and merited preferential treatment.
As this year’s AFPRB report makes clear, far from being independent and able to make its recommendations to the Prime Minister, the board has been directed by Ministers to observe the public sector pay restraints. This seems somewhat at odds with the response that I got to a recent Written Question about the Government’s attitude to the AFPRB. I asked the Government whether it was part of their commitment to the military covenant to implement the recommendations of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body in full. Their reply stated:
“The Government believe that the recommendations of an independent body such as the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) should constitute an integral part of the process used to determine the pay of the Armed Forces.”—[Official Report, 10/2/12; col. WA 113.]
That hardly describes the process followed this year and is some way, at least, from the assurances given by successive Governments in the past that the independent review body’s recommendations would be accepted unless there were clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. It would have been a more independent review if the body, after taking account of how comparators were faring, had been freer to reflect the increasing pressures of service life. The board stated:
“The Chancellor’s announcement in November 2011 of two further years of public sector pay restraint, with average increases (excluding increments) capped at one per cent, disappointed Service personnel who had made clear their expectation that we”—
the board—
“would return to making recommendations in the normal way following the pay freeze. We emphasised to the Secretary of State during oral evidence that this would be of great concern to our remit group and pressed him on whether there should be special consideration for the Armed Forces”.
I hope that the Minister will say something about that. The Board has perforce danced to the Government’s economic tune.
What gets overlooked in these immediate restrictions on pay and increases in charges is the longer-term impact on an individual’s financial circumstances. The baseline for calculating remuneration increases in future years has been debased and lowered while that for charges has been raised. As we heard from a number of noble Lords, at this sensitive time for morale and motivation in the services, the importance of treating service men and women—as both this Government and the previous one set out in statue and White Paper—is critical. Positive action, not vapid assurances that “we are all in this together”, is required to sustain the calibre of the forces that the nation must have to defend its interests.
Armed Forces Bill
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 and thus speak to my Amendment 6B, which I proposed as an amendment in lieu. In the latter part of his remarks, the Minister reminded the House of the Government’s thinking on the issues that have been central to our debates on the medal amendments that the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig, and I tabled at the earlier stages of the Bill. Our responses to the Government’s views are on the record of our earlier exchanges. I do not propose to dwell on them now other than to say that my colleagues and I repeatedly urged the Government to take action on two of the issues about which the Minister has just spoken.
I shall speak first about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal, the PJM medal, the subject of my Amendment 6B. This award was offered by the King and Government of Malaysia to members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and other Crown servants for their contributions to that country’s security in the difficult times of the Malayan emergency and, later, during confrontation with Indonesia. In 2007, acceptance of this award was recommended by the HD committee to Her Majesty for approval, but the committee did not recommend that the medal could be worn without restriction.
As I have explained in earlier debates on the Bill, many recipients have been unhappy about this, particularly as Australian and New Zealand recipients, alongside whom they saw service, were granted permission to wear the PJM medal at all times. The Minister has now assured the House that the HD committee will be making a further submission to Her Majesty and that, subject of course to her approval, these medals may be worn on Remembrance Sunday this year and thereafter. In the context of the Bill that is bringing the Armed Forces covenant into legislation, this is a most welcome approach of fair treatment of veterans who are the recipients of the PJM medal. On that understanding, I do not intend to press my Amendment 6B, which deals solely with the unrestricted wearing of the PJM medal, since the noble Lord’s proposal may achieve the result that it seeks to secure by the more traditional path: that is, within the present architecture of the royal prerogative.
The other topic raised by the noble Lord relates to the workings and responsibilities of the HD committee, which has the most difficult and sensitive task of dealing with a variety of issues concerning medals and other rewards, particularly those of foreign Governments. I greatly welcome the Minister’s reassurance that the time has come for an independent review of the HD committee. In moving our Amendment 6 in your Lordships’ House on 10 October, I contended that there are some HD committee rules that,
“are not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, 10/10/11; col. 1348.]
On those grounds, I sought the view of the House and our amendment was carried. The arrangements that the Minister has just described will set in hand a thorough and independent look at the HD committee. In the light of the Government’s position as just stated by the Minister, I attach great importance to the independent leadership of this review. I am grateful that it will consider in particular the no-double-medalling and fixed-time limits that have been the source of much unhappiness and concern over the years. I hope that the HD committee, as well as the whole House, will welcome the review.
I should also like to place on record my appreciation for the extremely considerate and open way that I and my colleagues have been treated in dealing with these matters. The new Defence Secretary, in his most busy initial week, took time to discuss them with me and, as the Minister pointed out, has also written to me. The Minister has been most approachable and considerate; he is in full grasp of his brief and greatly admired in this House. It is a measure of his great contribution to the Bill that he was able to persuade his business managers and all the involved departments of Government that it was not realistic nor in the best interests of the Armed Forces and veterans to resist every amendment. Instead, he has contributed greatly to the Armed Forces Bill outcome, with which all should be content.
I am full of admiration for the extremely hard work and commitment of the team of officials and service personnel whose most strenuous efforts have enabled us all to reach this accord. I hope that it is in order to commend them and thank them. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on my appreciation and that of my colleagues.
I should rather have avoided dealing with any of these issues as grounds for party political discord. It is alien to me as an independent Cross-Bencher, particularly when dealing with matters that affect our Armed Forces. Nevertheless, I am most grateful to the more than 200 Members of your Lordships’ House who supported our Amendment 6, which, along with other amendments, sent the Bill back to the other place. I am personally delighted that the end result has been agreed by negotiation and agreement, a smart win-win result for all sides.
This is a historic Bill since it introduces into the law of the land the Armed Forces convention, an arrangement that will prove to be most valuable and supportive to service personnel, veterans and their families. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing it into statute in this carefully considered manner. For the convenience of any debate, I formally move Motion A1, having made clear my intention about Amendment 6B.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I welcome the statement from the Minister this evening about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal and the independent review of the operation of the HD committee. We have battled on this issue for years in the other place. Here in the House of Lords—I do not want to enter into the debate about a future appointed or elected House—we have achieved something that the elected House did not manage to achieve regarding the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal. It is a great credit to all concerned that we have been able to do that.
I also think that the Minister’s statement tonight sends out the positive message to a close and dear ally in Malaysia, a Commonwealth ally, that we respect the generosity of the king and the people of Malaysia in honouring those British servicemen who fought in that country. I certainly welcome the independent review of the HD committee. I can see that it has a difficult job but I am not entirely happy with the way that it has done it.
I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not have the highest regard and affection for Her Majesty the Queen, and no one would want to put her in a difficult position regarding the question of honours. I feel that it is the actions of the HD committee that have embarrassed Her Majesty in this respect by the way it advised her that the veterans should accept the medal but not wear it. Thankfully, that is being resolved this evening.
I am a great believer in fate, in the sense that I think that sometimes one faces an issue or a problem and someone comes along and solves it. I pay tribute to the Minister because I am not sure we would have achieved this without his personal efforts. He has been hard-working, honourable and decent throughout this whole thing and has strongly represented the views of this House, and of many others outside, with regard to the veterans.
I join the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in his praise of the Minister’s team because they have assisted the Minister in bringing about this decision. I cannot speak highly enough of the regard I have—and I am sure the whole House has—for the Minister. As for the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, he has led from the front. He has been persistent and pushed hard, and worked with the Minister and lobbied. I do not know how many meetings he has had with the Minister, and I have to weigh the e-mails I have had from him about the progress he has made on this issue. We owe him a great deal.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer at this late hour. I can honestly say that as a Parliament and as a country, as a result of the Minister’s statement tonight on the veterans of Malaysia, we have redeemed our honour.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, and I thank particularly the Minister for the help that he has given. The hour is too late to go any further than that, other than to express my appreciation, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Armed Forces Bill
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
“PART 16AArmed forces covenant report343A””
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, the amendment is in the names also of the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Ramsbotham.
I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for inviting me to lead on this amendment. The issue is one that I first raised at Second Reading last July. I felt strongly that Clause 2, dealing with the military covenant, was not getting the visibility and treatment that its importance to all service personnel, to veterans and to their families—a very large constituency—deserved.
The Prime Minister and other senior Ministers have repeatedly stressed the high esteem in which they hold the Armed Forces and said that they were determined to give formal recognition to this as part of the law of the land. However, the Bill before the House inserts a single clause giving meaning to those sentiments at the tail end of ad hoc and miscellaneous provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Regrettably, it will follow immediately after Section 359, which deals with pardons for servicemen executed for disciplinary offences in World War I.
There was a stark mismatch between the fine sentiments of the Ministers and the derisory legislative approach intended. I argued for a special part of its own for the covenant in the Act to emphasise and reflect the importance of this government initiative.
The collusion of noble Lords who support me in this amendment demonstrates that a very satisfactory outcome has been reached—albeit after some hesitation by the Government. This amendment inserts Clause 2 as a new stand-alone Part 16A of the 2006 Act. This far more adequately reflects the importance of this new legislative initiative of the Government.
I am most grateful for the way that both the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, have helped in achieving this satisfactory outcome. I pay tribute to their efforts in support of an amendment that, from the time that I first raised it, has engaged their personal interest and sympathy. I am also very impressed by the strenuous efforts of all the officials involved, working in very shortened timeframes, to get this amendment, and Amendments 5, 6 and 7, into shape and through all the necessary hoops of government. They have done us all proud. I thank and congratulate them. Thanks to all these efforts, Amendment 1 has, I believe, the Government’s full support. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his kind words. He first mentioned his concern during the Bill’s Second Reading. He made reference to the unfortunate juxtaposition that would result from the Armed Forces covenant clause being inserted into the Armed Forces Act 2006 directly after Section 359, which deals with pardons for soldiers executed during the First World War. Since then, he and I have had several exchanges. We have discussed the possibility of a printing change that would remove the need for a formal amendment, and considered the possibility of adding provision to the next Armed Forces Bill. At each stage, as the noble and gallant Lord has said, I have made clear my sympathy for the point that he raised. I am therefore pleased to be able to support his amendment, which will have the effect of moving the clause to a different position in a new Part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006. The new part will be entitled “Armed Forces Covenant Report”. So, in the future, the covenant report will have its own part within the legislation.
This is a good outcome. Once again, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his helpful and constructive approach. I pay tribute to his resolve in pursuing this matter and I am pleased that we have been able to meet his concern.
I should now like to speak to the government amendments in this group. Further to discussions at the Bill’s Report stage, these amendments clarify the role that Ministers and departments other than the Ministry of Defence will have in contributing to the annual report. If the amendments are approved, the Defence Secretary would be under an obligation to obtain the views of the relevant government departments on the matters covered in the annual report, and to seek those of the relevant devolved Administrations. He will be required to set out those views in full, or to summarise them in the annual report. In the case of a summary, he will need to obtain the department’s agreement to any summary.
We have accordingly responded to requests from several noble Lords to bring forward proposals of our own on the subject. I am very grateful to officials in the department and elsewhere who have been able to get the amendments ready in time for the House to consider them this afternoon. When we come to the amendments later, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and her colleagues and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will accept that the three amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wallace meet the aims of their own amendments. I also hope that they will accept that the formulation that we have adopted fits better into Clause 2 and reflects the legislative conventions by avoiding references to other Secretaries of State.
During the passage of the Bill I have sought to make it clear to noble Lords that the Government are committed to an open and inclusive approach in preparing the annual report in order to maximise its value to Parliament. The statements that I placed on the record at Report taken together with the amendments that we are now considering lay a strong foundation for the future. I accordingly invite your Lordships to approve the government amendments.
Lord Craig of Radley
“Commonwealth medals
After section 339 of AFA 2006 insert—“339A Commonwealth medalsMedals awarded by Commonwealth governments, including the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal, to present or former members of Her Majesty’s armed forces and other Crown servants may be worn without restriction.””
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 8 in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig. I am grateful for their support. As I made clear in my remarks at Report and Committee stages, the current arrangements are not satisfactory. This is not so much a criticism of individuals but of a process that is no longer—to use that popular phrase—fit for purpose.
I propose to respond to the points made by the Minister when he resisted this amendment in his letter of 23 September and at Report stage. In that letter to me and to other noble Lords who have spoken on this topic, the Minister said that when exceptions to the long-standing rule of no double medalling and the five-year moratorium are allowed, the results are then seen to be anomalous and unfair.
This is surely the wrong conclusion. The problem arises because the rules are out of date, and are no longer suitable for dealing with the donor countries and international organisations of today and the variety of involvements of many individual recipients. I am glad the Minister has put a review in hand. However, it must address the matter of what guidance there should be on accepting—or refusing to accept—foreign awards. The no double medal and the five-year moratorium have been breached at least since the time of the Korean War in the early 1950s and, in one way or another, in almost every year since. It is simply not tenable to claim that they are the right benchmark. I suspect that the mindset—or default position—is to try to deter an offer first, rather than have to deal with the much trickier problem of refusing or prevaricating over one once made. That is why these rules are still prayed in aid. However, they have lost their validity with the passage of time.
Secondly, in his reply to my earlier amendment, the Minister claimed that the HD committee was non-political, being made up of senior Crown servants, and was the source of advice to the Queen on the acceptance and wearing of foreign medals. However it defies belief that an award proposed by a foreign head of state or Government to one or more British subjects would not be considered by Ministers at some stage. Surely the interplay of diplomatic and cultural, economic and security interests and so on between a donor and this country must be taken into account on how best to respond to a generous gesture by a putative donor.
Lacking the speed of modern communication, those considerations may not have been uppermost 70 years ago, but surely they cannot be ignored today. Ministers must have some part to play, particularly if a refusal is mooted. Moreover, as is clear from my remarks at Report about the Minister’s letter of 23 September, and in the Written Statements that I quoted about the rules and government policy, the Queen, as is normal, will on this topic act on the advice of Ministers. The Minister says so himself. I assume that this advice is couched to deal with agreements to restricted or unrestricted acceptance. I doubt that any submission put to Her Majesty seeks formal approval to refuse an award.
The Minister, in answering my points at Report, said that the effect of my then amendment would be to end the broadly consistent approach across government. The words “other Crown servants” in the current amendment deal with that objection.
The Minister’s next point was that a problem would be created by establishing a separate principle that applied to medals offered by the Governments of Commonwealth nations, as opposed to those offered by other allies. He said that it would not be easy to justify to non-Commonwealth allies or members of our Armed Forces why we would generally decline the offer of a medal from them, while readily accepting a medal offered by a Commonwealth nation. Surely, that misunderstands this amendment, and I note too the mindset or default opinion which is expressed in the words “would generally decline the offer”.
On the one hand, my amendment would facilitate, without recourse to any archaic HD committee rules, the acceptance and wearing of Commonwealth medals. That would be set down in statute. Until the rules are changed, as I believe that they should be, the treatment of other friendly nations or international organisations would be, as now, unchanged, apart from explaining to them that the new Commonwealth arrangement was approved by Parliament and had received Royal Assent. I do not see that causing any greater diplomatic difficulty than already exists, as the Minister asserted, and almost certainly a good deal less, even without any changes to the HD committee rules. Those rules, or the way in which they are applied by officials, seem designed to deter as far as possible any foreign offer. That approach must surely merit thorough re-examination.
As I mentioned at Report, there is renewed interest in Government to strengthen the Commonwealth heritage—in short, to put the C back in FCO. It would be timely to adopt this amendment so that the Prime Minister, at the forthcoming CHOGM in Perth at the end of this month, could mention it then as a gesture of the Government’s determination to strengthen their Commonwealth ties.
I now turn to the vexed question of a particular Commonwealth medal, the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal, which is mentioned in the amendment. UK subjects have Her Majesty’s approval to accept that medal but not to wear it. The Minister, who has one, says that he keeps it hidden in his top drawer. However, I welcome the statement at Report saying that the Minister would,
“write to ministerial colleagues in the FCO emphasising the strength of feeling that continues to exist, both in this House and elsewhere, specifically about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal … I will propose that they look again at whether they can advise the HD committee to recommend to Her Majesty that those who were awarded the medal should also be permitted to wear it”.—[Official Report, 4/10/11; col. 1074.]
Can the Minister confirm that he has written? Has he any indication when he will receive a response? Indeed, does this not also confirm the involvement of Ministers and that this is a topic not solely left to the HD Committee, as has been claimed?
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope he will be pleased if I simply say that I, at any rate, in what I acknowledge is an extremely difficult area, found his reply entirely acceptable, bearing in mind the pressures that he will exert for a review and the fact that he will come back to us before the end of the year.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I raised this particular question in my earlier comments. The Minister has said:
“I propose to write to ministerial colleagues in the FCO emphasising the strength of feeling that continues to exist, both in this House and elsewhere, specifically about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal … I will propose that they look again at whether they can advise the HD committee to recommend to Her Majesty that those who were awarded the medal should also be permitted to wear it”.—[Official Report, 4/10/11; col. 1074.]
Has the noble Lord written, and when does he expect a reply?
Lord Astor of Hever
I have not as yet written but I will do so very soon, and I would anticipate a pretty quick response to my letter.
Lord Craig of Radley
I thank the noble Lord for that assurance. There is a fundamental disconnect, I feel, between the approach that I and my colleagues are taking and the one that the Minister has taken. It is all to do, fundamentally, with whether the HD committee rules to which we keep referring are still fit for purpose. My contention is that they not fit for purpose. On that basis, I propose to ask for the view of the House.
Armed Forces Bill
Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
“PART 14AArmed Forces Covenant340A”
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I know that the House is interested in hearing from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on an important amendment, and I invite noble Lords to leave the Chamber quietly so that he may begin to move his amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the government Chief Whip. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, winding up the Second Reading debate on this Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in a letter to me during the Summer Recess both agreed that it was inappropriate to insert the new section that appears in Clause 2 of this Bill after Section 359 in the 2006 Act because Section 359 dealt with pardons for servicemen executed for disciplinary offences in World War I. I had suggested at Second Reading that the new section in Clause 2 would be better placed in Part 14, which has the collective title “Enlistment, Terms of service etc”, relying on the “etc” to accommodate the new section. Part 14 heads the second group of parts in the 2006 Act.
However, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, retracted his acceptance and averred that no relationship is implied by that positioning in the Act. I sensed, and in a letter to me the Minister has confirmed, that government business managers are anxious to avoid returning the Bill to another place. It—or at least Clause 1—has to be given Royal Assent by 8 November, otherwise all three Armed Forces will have to be declared redundant. That will not happen, I am certain.
Bringing the Report and Third Reading dates forward is tacit admission by government business managers that improvements to the Bill, and particularly the issues addressed in the next and other amendments, are called for, and so more time is now available to get the Bill right.
I would hope to avoid further time and argument in favour of my new amendment if the Minister would indicate agreement for tabling the changes that I propose for Third Reading. Need I do more than remind him and the House of the strength of support for incorporating the covenant into legislation expressed by Mr Cameron? For example, quoting from the No. 10 website, he said:
“Our service personnel make an extraordinary contribution to British life … So all of us—the Government, the private sector, and the voluntary organisations—need to go the extra mile for them”.
He also said:
“The high esteem we all have for our armed forces will soon be given the recognition it deserves—as part of the law of the land”.
That is but one of the many supporting statements made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence about incorporating the covenant into statute. Surely the covenant must be given greater prominence in the revised 2006 Act, as my amendment proposes. It seems both mean and hypocritical to speak so strongly of support for the covenant and then to park the single statutory reference to it at the tail end of the 2006 Act and a group of miscellaneous sections that wind up the end of Part 17 of the second group of parts also entitled “Miscellaneous”.
Is not the covenant worthy of more than that, worthy of its own part in the revised 2006 Act? I hope that on reflection, and given the need to improve the wording and thrust of Clause 2, the Minister will agree to table an amendment at Third Reading. If not, I fear that all the Minister’s briefs are headed, “Resist” as the Government seek to steamroller this Bill through without having to return it to the Commons. Surely on a Bill of this non-partisan nature, and with the opportunity to review and revise the Armed Forces Act only once every five years, the Government must take note and accept the need for some revision of the Bill as it now stands. To resist every amendment negates all the praise and support that they say they have for the Armed Forces. Are the Government so insensitive to the needs of the forces, whose morale is reputedly shaken thanks to recent cutbacks, enforced redundancies and insensitive handling of personnel issues? The Armed Forces have performed their role with great valour and commitment on long-duration operations. Surely business managers can be less po-faced and will find the very limited time necessary to revise some details of the Bill, and get it right for the next five years. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, much has been said on Second Reading and in Committee about the matters which should be included in the Secretary of State’s annual report on the covenant. We have also looked at the question of auditing the operation of the covenant. Amendment 2, in my name, seeks to address these matters.
A great deal has been said about the role of the covenant reference group and I want to build on the responsibilities of the group by ensuring that it is given ample notice of the matters that the Secretary of State wishes to include in his annual report. I believe that that can be best done by the Secretary of State publishing the list of matters to be included in plenty of time. The covenant reference group should then be given time to consider the list and add to it if it thinks it right to do so. The Secretary of State should then be obliged to report on the additional matters referred to him by the group.
I have no doubt about the good intentions of the Secretary of State in coming forward with a proposal for an annual report but for that report to be credible, there must be an opportunity for matters other than those that the Secretary of State thinks should be included to be put into the report. My proposal is modest and there is a precedent for it. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, I recall that each year the Comptroller and Auditor-General, on behalf of the National Audit Office, would draw up a list of investigations that he intended to carry out in the year. That would then be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, which would have the opportunity to comment, amend or add to the list of inquiries that the Comptroller and Auditor-General would wish to investigate.
My amendment does not represent a major change to the Bill and I feel sure that if the Government reflect on it, they will see it is a step forward to greater participation and involvement of those most interested and concerned about the welfare of our serving men and women and our veterans.
We also hear a great deal these days about transparency in public life and my amendment underpins that. Involving the covenant reference group in the way that I am suggesting will act as a form of audit for the Government which would benefit us all and certainly answer a number of the concerns that several noble Lords have expressed during Second Reading and in Committee.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
It is for the convenience of the annual conference, not for the convenience of this House.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank all those who spoke to my amendment. I note that the Minister has moved from the heading “Resist” to that of “Consider further”. I hope that the consideration will prove amicable to us both. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
“( ) An armed forces covenant report must include a statement from—
(a) the Secretary of State for Health,(b) the Secretary of State for Education,(c) the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,(d) the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and(e) the relevant comparable ministers in the devolved assemblies,in respect of progress in fulfilling obligations to serving military personnel and their families, and to veterans.”
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, it will not have escaped the notice of the Minister that this amendment has the support of all sides of the House. It is a practical and workable attempt to bring together the various strands and ideas put forward in the excellent debate on this aspect of Clause 2 in Committee. The nub of the argument is that there are two principal constituencies of service personnel and their families. There are those who have left the Armed Forces and others who are still serving who, with their families, may need different consideration. I shall leave it to other noble Lords who have added their names to the amendment to expand on those points in their contributions.
I understand that there is in the Ministry of Defence not inconsiderable support for the concept of a commissioner to assist the Defence Secretary. Indeed, would the Minister be prepared to go so far as to confirm that this idea is favoured by Dr Fox and others in the MoD, so it could be acceptable in principle? If so, the debate and the arguments can concentrate on the best ways in which to bring the necessary assistance to the Defence Secretary in fulfilling his remit. If Amendment 6 is not yet to the Government’s liking, would the Minister consider one that captures the essence of the assurances about how the Government intend to handle the requirements of Clause 2, because that might well be a way forward?
The Minister made the valid point that this Government cannot commit their successors by mere words in a debate in your Lordships’ House; one looks for an Act of Parliament to do that. So I hope that we can still find a way to put into the Bill an amendment along these lines. However, should the Minister find that unacceptable, would he consider a clause that would allow for the creation of a new appointment—in shorthand let me call it the “commissioner”, but another title might be more appropriate—by secondary legislation, as experience in preparing the statutory annual reports expected from the Defence Secretary is gained? The Minister may argue that there is no need for secondary legislation as such a post could be set up without statutory authority, but my point is that it would be much better, and an indication of the importance attached to the way that the covenant is to be handled, if this potential need were to be covered in statute.
It is generally agreed that the covenant is a moral construct that does not lend itself to prescriptive or detailed rules and requirements, but if it is to be given the benefit of statutory recognition, as the Bill will achieve, it is worth making the importance of all aspects of the reports and their preparation clear, and in particular to make possible provision for further steps as experience is gained. The opportunity to do so arises only once in five years, so it seems sensible to take the opportunity now. There is wide agreement that the annual report is going to be a serious and important piece of work. I hope, having listened to the arguments from noble Lords, that the Minister will be prepared to agree with this amendment, but if not, will agree that a provision for the revision of the current proposals by means of secondary legislation would be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble and gallant Lord and to speak to Amendment 6. I think that we in this House are all aware of the low morale that exists today, sadly, in our Armed Forces. According to the Armed Forces continuous attitude survey of all service personnel, only 18 per cent regard morale as high, whereas 44 per cent regard it as low. In the RAF, only 9 per cent regard it as high and 62 per cent regard it as low; in the Navy, 9 per cent regard it as high and 56 per cent regard it as low. I think that it is obvious to us all why morale is so low, given the cancellations, the cuts and the recent unfortunate redundancies. So anything that we can sensibly do to add certainty and clarity to the Armed Forces covenant must be beneficial to Armed Forces morale.
Amendment 6 builds on the earlier amendment that I and other noble Lords moved in Committee. I am happy to acknowledge the movement in the Government’s position as a result of the contributions from noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. However, I still ask my noble friend and the Government to go just one step further and include in the covenant report specific statements from the respective Secretaries of State, thereby giving them part ownership of and direct responsibility for the report.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, noble Lords have made some very important points on both amendments this afternoon. I have listened very carefully. I repeat what I said earlier on the first group. Noble Lords wish to be absolutely clear as to which parts of government participated in the process of preparing the report and what position they have taken. My ministerial colleagues and I have already indicated that the Secretary of State will consult widely and will identify the source of the evidence and opinions that we include in the report. We have also noted that the annual report will be laid before Parliament on behalf of and with the approval of the whole Government. Nevertheless, I can go further by giving an undertaking that the Secretary of State will consult all UK government departments with a significant role in the delivery of services to serving personnel, veterans and their families and the three devolved Administrations. In the annual report he or she will confirm that he or she has consulted other government departments and the devolved Administrations, and will identify their contributions in the published report.
Having said all this, I will reflect again over the next day or two with my ministerial colleagues. I have asked my officials to do the same across government as a matter of urgency. I will be in touch with the noble and gallant Lord as soon as possible.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, which is clearly one of the most important in this part of the Bill. The Minister read out yet again the assurances that he wished to have on the record. I recognise that they are. However, he failed to repeat that this Government cannot commit their successors. We all know that. I feel very strongly that the only way in which successor Governments may be committed is by an Act of Parliament. They often overturn them but that is the right way to go. Therefore, I urge the Minister to continue in the way in which he has been moving, towards finding an acceptable compromise on which we can all come together. This is a non-partisan point and a very important Bill. We have only one year in five in which we can do something about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
“Commonwealth medals
After section 339 of AFA 2006 insert—“339A Commonwealth medals
Medals awarded by Commonwealth governments, including the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal, to present or former members of Her Majesty’s armed forces may be worn without restriction.””
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 13 in my name and that of other noble Lords mentioned on the Marshalled List. In the course of the debates on the topic of medals it has become clear to me that there is considerable ambiguity and genuine confusion over who is responsible, who does what and why, and when foreign awards may be accepted by British subjects with or without restriction. Restriction seems to mean that a recipient may accept an award but is not allowed to wear it.
It has been normal for the Foreign Office to handle awards from foreign states but that now seems to be in doubt. I asked a Written Question about the Malaysian Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal but it was answered not by an FCO Minister but by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. The noble Lord has since written to me to say that he has set in hand a review of the process by which advice about the institution of medals and the acceptance of foreign awards in respect of military service is put together, considered and submitted to the Queen.
I also raised in Committee the issue of the prerogative when it came to submissions to the sovereign. I quoted two examples of Written Ministerial Statements, in 2005 and 2006, which made clear that the rules of no double medalling and a five-year moratorium were government policy. The Minister, in a Written Answer about the prerogative, dated 23 September, states that these references to the Government, “are not strictly correct”.
Noble Lords will be taken aback to learn that such authoritative Statements to Parliament as two Written Ministerial Statements are not correct, or are deemed to be incorrect, in order to uphold a unique position claimed for the honours committee in relation to advice to the sovereign. I remind the Minister that in a reply to my Written Question in September about wearing the PJM medal, the noble Lord said about Commonwealth Governments:
“Each Government apply their own rules and judgment to their own citizens”.—[Official Report, 5/9/2011; col. WA 17.]
Is there really such a difference for the UK Government? It would appear not. In his letter to me and other noble Lords dated 23 September, the Minister states that,
“there remains under the Prerogative scope to make exceptions”.
In other words, Her Majesty follows the advice of her Ministers.
The Minister also claims that when an exception is allowed, the results are likely to be seen as anomalous or unfair. Surely, that is not the right conclusion to draw. Rather, it is that with the passage of time the rules themselves and officials who seek to hide behind them are the problem, not the numerous exceptions that have been granted over many decades. I am sure the Minister is right to have instituted the review. It should look at the so-called rules, and I welcome his assurance that a Written Ministerial Statement on the outcome will be forthcoming.
Amendment 13 should not be delayed because of any review. As I mentioned in Committee, the long-standing issue of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal has yet to be resolved. I visited Malaysia last June at the personal invitation of Prime Minister Najib. It was clear from what he told me and what I saw that Malaysia is now well on the way to achieving its vision of being a fully developed nation by 2020. Putting a restriction on the generous recognition of the contribution of many service and other personnel to the start of that process of development seems quite unnecessary and lacking in appreciation of the donor’s gesture and standing in the world. Even more bizarre, a British recipient has Her Majesty’s agreement to accept but not to wear the PJM, while an Australian serviceman has Her Majesty’s approval to accept and to wear it. How confusing and frustrating must that be to an individual with dual nationality?
As I have already mentioned, in his response to my Written Question about the PJM, the Minister attempted to explain this anomaly away when he said:
“Each Government apply their own rules and judgment to their own citizens”.—[Official Report, 5/9/2011; col. WA 17.]
In other words, the Government are in the lead and Her Majesty is following that advice. How does that sit with the claim that the honours committee is independent of government? Once again, we have confusion and conflicting answers to the same Question. No contortionist could so ridiculously point in so many different ways at the same time. Other Commonwealth countries are also making giant strides in development, and this Government are anxious rebuild and reinforce the ties of Commonwealth. For these reasons, I believe that now is the time to make special provision for awards from Commonwealth countries. With the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting due at the end of this month in Perth, it would be a positive announcement for the Prime Minister to make at that meeting.
A further argument sometimes prayed in aid of the discredited restrictive rules is that the presence of a second award on the chest of an individual somehow reduces the value of the national award. I wonder whether that is really right. The individual can take pride in both and his contribution is clearer to those who see the medal ribbons on his uniform. I recently saw a photograph of the late Lord Mountbatten of Burma. He had 10 rows of medal ribbons on his Admiral of the Fleet uniform. I am sure he was proud to be able to display them all, but I shudder to think how the honours committee of the day managed to recommend so many exceptions to their precious rules so close to the date of their original adoption. I invite the Minister to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, as in Grand Committee, I support every word of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig. Unlike in Grand Committee, I have not brought my PJM medal with me; nor have I brought my General Service Medal with its clasp, showing that I was involved in confrontation in Borneo, but they are two medals for the same thing.
Another aspect of the unfortunate way in which this issue has been handled relates to the veterans who raised the issue of the PJM with the Government. They were, frankly, treated in a way that I would not have expected of the Ministry of Defence. The HDC—the Honours and Decorations Committee—may have met, but if it did so, it did so internally and did not share any of its findings. The letter that was then sent to the veterans was unworthy of the ministry. I am grateful to the Minister for announcing that he is going to revisit this, and I hope that this time there will be proper transparency so that the veterans are aware of the arguments and that they are not just produced in secret and, as my noble and gallant friend has said, erroneously.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, the Minister has obviously given a lot of thought to this subject. Nevertheless, I am extremely disappointed, not only that he does not accept the amendment but that his opening remarks took no account at all of the numerous anomalies and differences between what he was saying was the position and what the reality has been. I leave him with that thought, but meanwhile I wish to withdraw the amendment.