Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Bill and of course start by declaring my interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces, and so subject to it. I also fear I am a veteran of this process, having served on the 2006 committee and the 2010 committee, and been the Minister responsible in the House of Commons for taking an Armed Forces Bill through in 2016. Of course, the star turn of this Bill is the enshrining of the Armed Forces covenant into law. That is most welcome, although it brought a slight wry smile as I recall saying something similar before, when we were simply enshrining the requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year. None the less, this is welcome. Like other noble Lords, however, I wonder whether it goes far enough.

I understand absolutely the Government’s argument when it comes to local authorities; they certainly want to hold them to account while not necessarily restraining them in how they should enforce the covenant. Focusing on healthcare, housing and education is the right thing to do but, at the same time, if I am true to myself, I recall slightly irritating my noble friend Lord Robathan when he was the Minister back in 2011 by proposing a Back-Bench Conservative amendment in Committee that pensions should be added. At the very least, I feel that a role for this House as the Bill progresses will be to explore to what should be included in the military covenant.

Linked to that, since a Second Reading is about what should be in the Bill, there is also potentially a missed opportunity here with the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees. As noble Lords know, these are 13 regional committees which advise, advocate and assist. They are very much a conduit between the MoD and helping veterans in the regions, but their role is very much governed by law. There has been talk for some time about whether we should be updating their role, yet we have not done it. As we bring the Armed Forces covenant into law, why are we not looking at those committees? They are desperate to do more. Why are we not allowing them to do more, when it would help us as the Armed Forces covenant is enshrined in law?

It would be wrong, however, not to recognise the progress that has been made in recent years in the world of veterans. Not least, there is the creation of the veterans’ gateway and the one-stop shop of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. Even last year, we saw for the first time in the census the question about whether or not veterans should be included.

I too want to say a couple of words about indefinite leave to remain. I declare my interest as colonel commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I have lobbied the Government on this issue and know that it was out to public consultation, but I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could update us on that. I urge a word of caution to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, when it comes to Gurkha pensions. We are comparing apples and pears. The Gurkha pension from 1948 enabled a Gurkha soldier to receive an immediate pension after just 15 years’ service, meaning many Gurkhas received a pension from their early 30s for life. A British soldier at that time had to serve 22 years; had they served 21 years, they would get not a penny. Be very careful when calling for equivalence between those two schemes: they are quite different.

I am particularly pleased about Clause 9, which brings in continuous service for the Reserve Forces. I declare my interest as over the last year, I have been chairman of the Reserve Forces review. The headmark is the integration of the reserve and regular forces. We have a vision of a spectrum of service whereby, on the right of the arc, we have a civilian working in industry and we can bring their skills through reserve service into the military. On the left of the arc is full-time service in the Armed Forces, and we enable the individual through their service career to move along that spectrum. This clause removes some of the obstacles preventing that. Terms and conditions of service for both regular and reserves are quite different. In the same way that the 2006 Act brought together the three single service Acts, there are some who call—and I am probably one of them—for the bringing together of the Armed Forces Act and the Reserve Forces Act into a single piece of legislation, as that will enable further integration.

Finally, I want to offer one word of caution, which I have mentioned before. I declare another interest—this is a very happy interest—as colonel commandant of the Cayman Islands Regiment; I look forward to going to visit them soon. I fear we made a mistake last time by excluding Gibraltar from the Act, and it is excluded again from this Bill. Shortly after excluding it, we had the airport incident in Gibraltar and, because of a misunderstanding about whether this Act applied, three members of the Armed Forces were arrested and there is still rancour there. Yes, Gibraltar has now passed its own Armed Forces Act, but as soon as we pass this Bill, Gibraltar will be out of kilter again. I simply do not understand why it, like other overseas territories, cannot be included in this Bill.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Grand Committee

My third point is simply that, in my experience of sitting on court martial appeals and knowing very well the Judge Advocates-General, I have always thought that they had an intimate knowledge of how the service system worked; that is the sole justification for keeping it separate. Therefore, you have a specialist judge familiar with the entirety of the operation of the Armed Forces, which makes things seem much fairer to all concerned—and these days one is concerned not merely with the defendant, but with the wider public perception that sentencing is carried out by a judge well capable of absorbing and dealing with the guidelines and who is intimately familiar with the service background to the case.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I will contribute briefly. I will not say this every time, but of course I start by declaring my interests as a serving member of the Army Reserve. I support the government amendments; they seem a sensible measure, as my noble friend the Minister described them. While I understand the thrust of the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on Amendment 3, I want to air a brief concern about the potentially diminished role of the lay members.

With minor offences that come before the court martial, the intent is very much that we wish to keep service personnel in the service. Indeed, MCTC in Colchester is designed very much to do that. Only if you are sentenced to more than six months do you have to leave the service, I think. For many soldiers who have been through that centre, a common theme has been that they come out better soldiers; when I say soldiers, I also mean airmen and sailors.

What really worries me is that we used to have three single service Acts, which were merged under the Armed Forces Act some time ago, but the three single services remain very distinct. Under the Levene review, we have delegated responsibility, which was originally intended solely to be a financial delegation to the three single services but in reality has become a policy delegation. Despite an effort by the MoD to regain that under unified career management that means that, for members of the Armed Forces at the same point of their career, a certain sentence may have a disproportionate impact on them depending on which service they are in. Although any judge-advocate may well know the system well and be very experienced, I am not sure that they would necessarily have the detail of the single service to apply to their judgment.

I accept that it is quite possible, however unlikely at this time, that a senior warrant officer or officer on the court martial would not have front-line experience; I am willing to bet that almost all of them have, because of recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am willing to bet that there are not many judge-advocates who have front-line experience.

It is important that lay members continue to play an active role. I am concerned that, in what is proposed, we are moving away from the defendant being able to look lay members in the eye, knowing that their peers will play an active role—through first-hand experience and being able to compare their own careers with those before them—and be part of the sentencing process.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, as we begin Committee on this important legislation, I stress to all sides that we must use this opportunity to improve the lives of, and protections and support for, personnel and their families through legislative change.

Her Majesty’s Opposition stand firmly behind our brave service personnel and their families, and we strongly believe that the law should be on their side. That is why we support the principles behind the Bill and welcome the steps to create a legal duty to implement the principles of the covenant and the key elements of the Lyons review. But we all know that there are many, both in and outside the House, who believe that the Government could and should go further. Therefore, I repeat that our main priority will be to work with other parties to improve the legislation.

Our forces communities are themselves determined that the Bill should not be a missed opportunity, so the amendments tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition and those we are supporting, we believe, are designed in good faith to reflect the cause of personnel, their families and the organisations which represent them.

The first group of amendments, which focuses on Clause 2 and Schedule 1, concerns the constitution of the court martial and implements recommendations from the Lyons review. These include fixing the size of court martial boards at three or six, and a move to qualified majority verdicts instead of the simple majority systems currently used.

The Bill’s Select Committee stated that the

“use of the simple majority verdict had been criticised by some, including … Jeff Blackett, and Liberty, who proposed that unanimous verdicts be sought in the first instance.”

The Government have subsequently tabled Amendments 1, 2 and 4, which they say enable the court martial to remain validly constituted if a three-member board loses a lay member—for instance, due to illness or the need to isolate. The Minister has said that she is making a small adjustment to future-proof the system of three-member boards to allow for the appointment of a four-member board for longer cases.

Why are these amendments suddenly needed? How often does the Minister think that a four-member board will be appointed? What consultation process has there been for this change? Is there a large enough pool of board members to support this change? When she says that four-person boards are for longer cases, what type of cases does she mean? Will it be just about time, or some other characteristics of the case?

It was also helpful to hear the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, behind Amendment 3; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to these points. With that, and with a careful reading of Hansard, we will be considering our position on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 65 and to Amendment 64. Like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I support the other amendments in this group brought by her and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. They have given us clear arguments why those amendments are important, and I do not think they need to be rehearsed again.

On Amendment 64, my noble friend talked about people who have come here under ARAP. She and I raised this at Second Reading, and the Minister was kind enough to take some time to discuss it with me yesterday; I am grateful for that. There is clearly a question of scope in an Armed Forces Bill such as this. To suggest that we might extend the Armed Forces covenant to people who have not been service personnel with the British Army, Commonwealth or Gurkhas might raise some eyebrows. There were certainly some questions about that around tabling Amendment 64, which is why there is a specific bit of phrasing about extending the covenant

“to cover civilians subject to service discipline”.

My noble friend Lady Brinton asked whether we have a moral duty. The answer is surely that we have a moral duty to support in every possible way the people coming to the United Kingdom under ARAP. By definition, they are arriving here under ARAP because they worked as interpreters for our Armed Forces, with other allies or perhaps for the British Council. Those who worked for the British Council are vulnerable. It is easy to assume that it is simply interpreters putting their lives on the line, but those who were out teaching English now find that their lives are under threat. It is incredibly important that we look at them, not just at interpreters—although the situation with interpreters is very important. Why bring this amendment? Clearly, the ARAP scheme is in place and remains open, but those coming in under ARAP have worked closely with our Armed Forces and potentially put their lives on the line for the United Kingdom.

Surely we owe them a duty. Given that the Armed Forces covenant is supposed not to give advantage to service personnel and veterans but to ensure that they are not at a disadvantage, so there will be many issues facing people here under ARAP that are very similar to those faced by service personnel and veterans. I would like the Minister at least to explore what provisions we can make for people under ARAP, in particular to ensure that anybody arriving under ARAP can work from day one, because most people who come here under other Home Office arrangements seeking asylum are not permitted to work initially. That is very important.

My Amendment 65 is slightly different and perhaps should have been decoupled, because it relates to the duties put on local authorities and local health authorities. The Bill talks about having “due regard” and requesting local authorities to do certain things. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that they have to have due regard, but there will not necessarily be financial provision for them to do so because they already have a duty to do certain things, so incorporating the Armed Forces covenant into law will not really make a difference. The way I phrased it may have sounded muddled, but I have been left muddled by the Government’s intention. If there is a purpose to putting the Armed Forces covenant into law, surely it is precisely to ensure that it makes a difference. If local authorities find that in paying “due regard”, now on a statutory basis, to the Armed Forces covenant they are required to engage in further expenditure, where will that money come from?

It is not possible within the scope of a Bill in the House of Lords to table a line saying, “Please give local authorities additional funds”, so we are not asking for that. We are asking for the Government to report on the financial implications of enshrining the Armed Forces covenant into law. If local authorities, housing associations and local health authorities incur financial consequences when engaging in their duties by supplying services such as social care, housing or health, we would then know that and it may at some suitable point be possible to bring forward relevant legislation. If no assessment is made, it is impossible to know the consequences.

The amendment is in a sense a probing amendment because we need to understand the real consequences of enshrining the Armed Forces covenant into law. If it is causing local authorities additional costs over which they have no say we should try to ensure that the finances are there to cover that.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group. I have no fundamental objection in principle to extending the categories as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. When I was the Minister responsible for this Bill five years ago there was great discussion of what the categories should be.

My concern—not an objection—is practical, which is perhaps the purpose of Committee. There has been some cynicism about the effectiveness of the Armed Forces covenant since we first created it, and its implementation has been patchy across the United Kingdom. Given how many local authorities are recovering from the pandemic and have been overwhelmed, I am slightly concerned that by adding all these categories now—the key word is “now”—we run the risk of overwhelming various bodies and simply adding to the cynicism that we have not managed to implement the Armed Forces covenant when they fail to implement it effectively.

My suggestion is a sensible one, though perhaps not for today, as to whether there should be an incremental addition to the categories that we put in the Armed Forces covenant. I am sure it cannot be beyond the ability of the Bill to attach dates for when categories are potentially added. I am not saying that we could necessarily sort that out today, but it may be a sensible compromise as we seek to slowly expand the Armed Forces covenant and make sure that we do not lose public consent to it being implemented effectively as we do so.

Equally, I have great sympathy with Amendment 64, having served in Afghanistan and worked closely with interpreters. There is no doubt that they were subjected to the same sorts of pressures and stresses that members of the Armed Forces were. Of course, having now crossed the line where we have rightly welcomed them into the UK, although it is a question of scope, and it may well be beyond the scope of the Armed Forces covenant to include them, I think the Government have a duty to explain how exactly, if they are not going to be included in the covenant, we will ensure their ongoing welfare.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

I must apologise for not being here at Second Reading when I was unable to come over from Northern Ireland. I declare an interest in that we are involved at my home with veterans and I am president of the Northern Ireland RFCA. Whereas it is different in England, we have not responsibility but more interaction with veterans themselves.

What worries us all is the “due regard” and how that is treated by our different and separate Administrations. I am not shining a light on Northern Ireland in particular nor asking the Minister to make any comments about Northern Ireland, where we have a special issue. However, this problem is seen as an issue by veterans. When we talk about the mental welfare of veterans, one of the biggest issues is who we are talking about. We have veterans who we know individually have mental welfare problems, but the big problem is the one that we do not know about: the vast number of veterans who have mental welfare issues but do not come forward. They do not do so for many reasons and we cannot go into them too much, but they include pride and the fact that they live with their families and do not want to admit the problem.

We know that the length of time between leaving service or being traumatised and presentation has gone down since Prince William and Prince Harry drew attention to it, from roughly 12 or 13 years to some six or seven, which is tremendous. However, the doubt as to how the covenant works and how it benefits our veterans inhibits a lot of them from coming forward. It is very difficult to admit that you have a problem and then be turned away due to a postcode lottery. Indeed, which Administration you live in can make it more difficult.

At the moment, I think the covenant is the beginning of a story and of a method by which we can support our veterans. It is not a done deal but a start. I therefore support the gist of the amendments because they would take us in the right direction, though I appreciate that some of the scope and the lack of teeth are only a start. We have to make sure that we can take it further and cover an increasing proportion of those people.

The statistics, which are roughly equivalent to American and Danish statistics and therefore correct, show that 6% or 7% of all service people—interestingly, this relates outside this business to police and other front-line services—suffer some form of mental illness, while 17% of those on operations do so. So there is a very large body of people out there, and we have to enable this commitment to the covenant and to our people to be extended.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton]

14: Clause 8, page 18, line 28, at end insert—
“343AG Regional committees(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to give committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989, known as Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, additional functions specified in the regulations relating to all former members of Her Majesty’s forces and their relevant family members, and a new name.(2) The regulations may in particular provide that it is a function of the committees—(a) to report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on matters that are or may be relevant to—(i) their armed forces covenant report, and(ii) sections 343AA to 343AD and guidance issued under section 343AE;(b) to provide a distinct, identifiable, and independent point of reference in their region for both the veteran community and all those supporting it;(c) to raise awareness of, and support the implementation of—(i) services provided to the veteran community alone or with others,(ii) the Government’s strategy for veterans, and(iii) the terms of armed forces covenant;(d) to act as an advocate, promoter, facilitator, or communicator of services that are relevant to the veteran community;(e) to report and make representations and recommendations on existing or proposed services that are relevant to the veteran community.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the statutory functions of Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (VAPCs), currently limited to functions relating to compensation schemes for veterans and their families (the War Pensions and the Armed Forces Compensation Schemes) to all aspects of veteran life.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I first raised the subject of Amendments 14 and 15 in my name at Second Reading. I hope they will prove uncontroversial. Indeed, to pick up on the conversation we have had over the last few groupings, all these amendments seek to do is effectively to support the Government in what they are already doing and, equally, to try to embolden a committee to deliver the Armed Forces covenant. I shall be very brief.

Specifically, the amendment enables the Secretary of State to extend the statutory functions of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, VAPCs. They are regional statutory committees—nine in England, two in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland—established by a statutory instrument made under Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989. Each committee has between 12 and 20 members, who are all volunteers. They are public appointees who act independently of their sponsoring department, the MoD, and so provide evidence and views from that independent standpoint. During my time as Minister for Veterans, I felt that as a body they played a valuable role, both as advocates on behalf of the MoD and as a source of candid advice to me as a Minister and to the wider veteran community.

However, the issue is that the enabling power limits the statutory functions that can be given to VAPCs solely to functions relating to the compensation schemes for veterans and their families, namely the war pensions and Armed Forces compensation schemes, and as such are mandated to engage with only a relatively small part of the veteran community and not the Armed Forces covenant in general.

As we seek to improve the implementation of the Armed Forces covenant, it strikes me that, through their independent approach and regional structure, the members of the VAPCs are well placed to make a useful contribution to the Government’s drive to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. Indeed, just one aspect of this drive is the implementation of the duty introduced by Clause 8(3) of the Bill to have due regard to the principles of and relating to the Armed Forces covenant. In my view, at least, this is not only timely but long overdue.

Interestingly, we have in all honesty been talking about expanding VAPC powers for some time. As I recall, it was a proposed amendment put to me as a Minister when I was responsible for taking the last Armed Forces Bill through Parliament five years ago, but due to lack of preparation time was ultimately not included. We really have been talking about this for a very long time.

It is also an argument that has already in part been conceded by the Government, by their agreeing in principle that members of each regional VAPC be invited by terms of reference to join parallel informal regional groups to perform functions relating to all veterans. This is exactly what this amendment is trying to do, and they are proposing to do it. We even now have a position in which the Government are actively advertising the role of membership of VAPCs as extending beyond the original statutory functions. I have sent this to the Minister. I was rather surprised to discover that on the public appointments website, dating back over four years—the current appointments are equally advertised—the principal role for the chair of the south-east England VAPC, the first role it describes as being required, is to

“act as advocates for implementing the Armed Forces Covenant and associated measures at a local level”,

even though at this point it was not mandated within the statutory requirements. They have already been advertising it, so it seems logical that we should enshrine it in this legislation.

To be fair, this amendment is carefully crafted to ensure that it ties in with the Government’s intent to review the interim solution that they are proposing for the function of VAPCs after one year, after which it will enable the Secretary of State to give VAPCs functions relating to all veterans only if it should be concluded after that review that this is potentially the best way to maximise their contribution to helping support the Armed Forces community.

My plea to the Minister is simple. The Government have accepted in principle that the role of the VAPCs should be expanded by delivering this interim solution. The Government are even actively advertising it as an expanded role. All that these modest amendments would do is put in place the ability for the Secretary of State—if, and only if, he so wishes—to make that change after the review period rather than having to wait yet another five years for the next Armed Forces Bill.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am generally supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. He very ably made the point why the time to act is now rather than waiting a further five years before something is done. I very much hope the Minister can respond positively to what I think is a very sensible amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I must apologise to my noble friend; I had hoped to discuss his amendment with him before consideration of it in Committee. I would certainly welcome an opportunity to have that discussion with him following today’s debate but, meanwhile, I invite him to withdraw his amendment at this time.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am of course grateful for my noble friend’s courteous reply. Indeed, if nothing else, having waited for seven years, if coincidentally, yesterday, the terms of reference were finally signed, then perhaps we have achieved something through tabling this amendment. That is good news. However, I must say to my noble friend—and she is a dear friend—that I am slightly disappointed by the reply. The one aspect that she did not address is why it was deemed necessary to put some of the roles of the VAPCs on a statutory footing, yet now it does not seem necessary to put on a statutory footing the extended role. There seems to be an illogic in that argument, which was not addressed. That is something we can discuss, because it certainly was not my noble friend’s point and we did not have the opportunity to meet before Committee.

I reserve the right to look at this again, because there is a strong sense of feeling. I know that many people listening to this debate will be feeling that, yet again, the Government are kicking the can down the road. When the Government issue adverts luring people in to be members of these committees, because they would apparently be supporting the Armed Forces covenant even though they are not on a statutory footing, that sends a very poor message. For the time being, however, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I accept the Minister’s assurance that this is a wholly technical amendment. If my assistants find that not to be true, I shall return to it ferociously on Report. But assuming that is the case, I am content with the amendment. I make the point that the next group goes into a fundamental area, and I would greatly object to any attempt to move into that group tonight.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to contribute briefly on this group, which is an area of particular interest to me. I declare my interest as chairman of the Reserve Forces Review 2030, which is the 10-year review of the Reserve—the outcome of which is, I should like to think, partly responsible for some of the Bill’s provisions on the Reserve.

The headmark of that review was the integration of the Regular and Reserve Forces. Within that, we attempted to create a spectrum of service—right of arc, full-time regular service; left of arc, a civilian—and within that spectrum of services, enabling the principle of bringing civilian skillsets through Reserves into delivering against defence demand signals. We encountered two principal barriers to that spectrum of service. The first, frankly, was money. Unlike the Regular Forces, the Reserve Forces are always considered to be a marginal cost and therefore, as soon as there are pressures on costings, it is the Reserves’ budget that will be reduced.

The other, to which this technical amendment goes directly, was terms and conditions of service. Of course, we already have full-time Reserve service, but we do not have the ability for reservists to have not a contract, per se, but an assured Reserve capability. That could be on a part-time but enduring basis—for example, not being contracted to work five days a week and becoming a temporary regular, but to be able to do it as part of a portfolio career. That would enable you to come in and, perhaps, work one day a week but over an enduring period. It would make the Reserve much more effective in delivering almost as augmentees, working on a daily basis, and moving away from its traditional role as a contingent capability that trained at weekends and was always used as that traditional Reserve.

That is why this government amendment is so welcome, to my mind. It helps to deliver that traditional Reserve capability for a Reserve which will be very much suited for the 2030s.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, before I spoke because I thought that if there were any heffalump traps, he might have spotted them, given his expertise on reserves. I seem to recall that when we were looking at flexible working for the regulars it garnered some concern from certain Benches and perhaps from some noble and gallant Lords who were a little concerned that you could not be a part-time soldier. Actually, that was never what was being suggested.

Looking at these amendments one by one, a bit like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I could only assume that they were all doing what the Minister said they were doing because they look so technical. I think the statement given by the Minister and the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, both suggest that this is helping to bring the reserves into an even more effective place. The reserves clearly play an important role, and if there can be a logical movement between full-time and part-time work and that counts as continuous service, that has to be all to the good. The only thing I would say, if anyone were looking at a complete guide to plain English, is that by the time anyone is looking at this Bill it will be totally unreadable because the language seems to be so arcane. I hope it will keep the government lawyers working for many years to come.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches are very grateful to Sir Richard Henriques for his report and recommendations. We understand why, in the three months since they were published, they have received only light-touch consideration from the Government. Perhaps I can be forgiven for giving some historical context to the role of the chain of command in courts martial, because it appears in Amendment 43 and in the Bill.

In 1757, Admiral Byng was convicted not of personal cowardice but of failing to do his utmost to engage the enemy in an attack upon French forces besieging the British garrison in Menorca. The truth was that his fleet of ships had been hastily assembled by the Admiralty. They were in poor condition and he had to retire to have them repaired, but he was convicted by court martial under the Articles of War and, despite pleas for clemency, even by the Prime Minister William Pitt himself, George II refused to commute the sentence. Admiral Byng was shot on the quarterdeck of a British ship by a firing squad. Your Lordships will recall that Voltaire, in his book Candide, commented that in Britain, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others—“pour encourager les autres”.

Courts martial were seen then, and for 200 years afterwards, as an instrument of discipline rather than justice. It is undoubtedly the case that men were shot for cowardice in the First World War to encourage their comrades to go over the top. Discipline was seen to be a function of command, and the commander must achieve discipline to secure cohesive action and singleness of purpose.

It was the Labour Government of 1946 who appointed a commission to examine the administration of military justice. It advised the appoint of a civilian judge-marshal but made no change in the way the board and the prosecuting officer were appointed. So it was that in 1996, the structure of courts martial was still within the chain of command. The convening officer, who was the field officer in command of a body of the Regular Forces within which the person to be tried was serving, was the person who decided the charges against the defendant, appointed the board and the prosecuting officer and arranged the trial. He—the convening officer—could dissolve the court martial during the trial, in the interests of the administration of justice, and could comment on its findings publicly, in the interests of discipline. He confirmed the findings and could reject or change the sentence, so the board was still subject to command influence.

A fair and impartial trial is obviously difficult in an atmosphere of command control. All the personnel connected with the trial are dependent, or were at that time, on the commanding officer for assignments, leave and promotion. A member of the board could not deviate too far from his commander’s views of the case if it might affect his career. That is why, following the criticisms made by the European Court of Human Rights in Findlay, we brought about such significant changes in 2006. Justice is now the dominant element and in a volunteer army, this is vital to morale and to the retention of personnel, as Sir Richard Henriques himself comments.

Despite this history, the Government have rejected Sir Richard’s recommendation 14. In paragraph 5.4.1 of his review, he says:

“An investigating body, charged with the responsibility of investigating serious crime allegedly committed by members of the Armed Forces, must be hierarchically, institutionally and practically independent both of the chain of command and of those whom they are under a duty to investigate.”


The wording that he uses—“hierarchically, institutionally and practically”—comes from the judgment in Jordan v United Kingdom, 37 EHRR 2. Explicitly, the European court was following Lord Steyn in 2003 in the Appellate Committee of this House, where he said:

“Public perception of the possibility of unconscious bias is the key.”


That issue of public confidence was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, at the last hearing of this Committee.

However, instead of following that wording and explicitly breaking away from the chain of command, the Government have put forward the existing wording taken from the 2011 Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out. New Section 2A, proposed by the noble Baroness’s Amendment 42, would impose a duty on the provost marshal to ensure that all investigations are “free from improper interference”. That in no way matches the language of recommendation 14 of Sir Richard Henriques’s report, which makes an explicit break from the chain of command.

In recommending a strategic policing board for civilian governance and oversight of the provost marshal for serious crime, in paragraph 5.6.13 of his report, Sir Richard Henriques looked around the world. He looked to New Zealand, Australia and Canada. He also considered the function of the independent advisory group, which was formed for Operation Northmoor in this country. It appears that he agreed the composition of the strategic policing board with the Chief of Defence Staff and the Chief of Defence People.

Today, the noble Baroness told us that the Government have accepted the strategic policing board’s structure, but it is something to be put into the future. The strategic policing board is the person who stands behind and is the instrument of governance of the proposed provost marshal for serious crime. You cannot have one without the other, so perhaps the noble Baroness will explain how you could appoint a person to a position and give them responsibilities without first having the strategic policing board of civilian governance and oversight that Sir Richard Henriques called for.

Finally, I add my support to Amendment 66 and its requirement for a report to ensure that Sir Richard Henriques’s recommendations are carried out.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, but I have a number of questions for my noble friend the Minister.

The tri-service serious crime unit is definitely a good idea but, given that the Armed Forces Act brought together the three single-service Acts back in 2006, I have for some time questioned why we do not have a joint service police force, given their relative sizes. The Royal Air Force Police is commanded by a group captain; the Navy, by a commander; and, of course, the Army provost marshal is a one-star brigadier. Who will own this organisation? If it is not going to be linked to one of the other service police forces, how can we ensure that it will not wither on the vine in time? For example, what will happen to the SIB, which has a proud operational record over the past 40 years? What will its role be vis-à-vis this new organisation? Equally, as we create what will be a fourth provost marshal, who will sit on the National Police Chiefs’ Council? Currently, the three single service provost marshals do. Does this mean that now there will be four? How will that look? Will defence be speaking with a single voice?

--- Later in debate ---

My noble friend Lord Lancaster also raised an issue about structures and who is accountable to whom. A lot of this work, obviously, is still under consideration. Will more information on the unit be provided? Yes, our officials continue to work on the detail, alongside specialist resource from across the tri-services, and we will provide more information as it emerges. A number of noble Lords sought further information about the unit itself and I thank them for their interest.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I sense that my noble friend might be coming to the end of her remarks. Perhaps I might take her back to the question of independence and the need for the appointment to come from members of the service police. The answer that she gave to the Committee was, “Well, that’s what the Armed Forces Act says”. My response would be, “Well, so what?” Is it not the purpose of this Bill and this Committee to look again at these issues? I do not want to put my noble friend on the spot, but could we perhaps think again as to whether that is still the best thing to do, given the nature of the role, and whether, as we move forward, because there are other examples in defence where we recruit from civilians because they are best qualified and best placed, the time has come to look again at that requirement?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I cannot give my noble friend the certainty of the assurance that he seeks, but I indicated that the rank was decided based on the current rank range of the single service provost marshal. We are open to revisiting the rank of provost marshal for serious crime—that is one of the recommendations in Henriques—and we would intend to review the post three years after the unit is operational. That is a sensible review period to allow some time to elapse. We want to ensure that the post remains aligned with the level of responsibility that is implicit in the role and the relevant and recent skills and experience of the postholder, and that it remains open to all three services to compete for. I can say to my noble friend that there is continued thinking on this, but I cannot at this stage provide him with the certainty that he seeks.

I have tried to address the points that have arisen and I hope that I have covered them all. In these circumstances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 and will follow what the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said. I will say why the amendment and more care for mental illness are required.

I live in a town in Scotland called Dunblane. In 1996, a gunman used a private armoury to kill schoolchildren and their teacher. At that time I was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and lived in the town. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, was the local Member of Parliament. We came together that day. It was by any standard a traumatic day. We did everything together after that to handle the issues that came up in the media. The following day, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition came to the town.

Within days I was back at work, which you do: it is traumatic, but you get through these things. I thought, “Well, I’m tough enough”—I had been a politician in Scotland for long enough, after all. You think you can take it all. But gradually I came to realise that I was not coping with it at all. I remembered that the Secretary of State for Scotland had offered counselling to those who had been affected. We were also made the same offer as individuals. I went to see the counsellor because I found I could not mention the events of that day without breaking up, and this was not something that was convenient or natural when you were in the bearpit of Scottish politics. I took up the offer and went to the counsellor. I spent a morning with an experienced counsellor and I was fixed. It took only a morning, but that lady was quite remarkable in the way she treated me.

Fast forward two years and I am Secretary of State for Defence. The Omagh bomb exploded in that small town in Northern Ireland. I went across as Defence Secretary with the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler, and spoke to the troops that day. The troops based there who had helped in the aftermath were pretty hardened infantry soldiers—as tough and as hard as you can get, and they had been in Northern Ireland for some time—but they were deeply affected by what they had seen that day. They could cope with most things, but the sight of a baby torn in pieces was something they were deeply traumatised by.

I told them my story that day to say that they had been injured by what they had seen and that they needed to take the counselling that was going to be on offer. Although they were tough and hard, if they had been told after being shot in the shoulder to put a sticking plaster on it and it would go away, it would not have seemed sufficient even for them, yet they had been injured in another way, and there were ways in which they could be treated. I hope that had an effect that day and persuaded some of them to take that treatment, which they probably felt was not something they would ever really need.

Since then, of course, the traumas of Afghanistan and Iraq have come along and many more of our Armed Forces have been severely affected. Therefore, this amendment, which, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, maybe does not go far enough, alerts the Ministry of Defence to the necessity that is there to make sure that more attention is paid to that aspect of medical welfare.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think anybody can disagree with the intention of these amendments. Indeed, I agree entirely and am pleased to have heard about the progress made by the MoD in recent years when it comes to mental health—and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, the differing approach that we have taken to mental health and physical health over many years. It begs the question as to whether there is anything about physical health in the Bill, if we are potentially about to put something in about mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 49 and 63, but I shall speak to Amendment 63 and concentrate on the plight of the few UK Armed Forces veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. For completeness, I also include veterans of the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron. They were all full members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces throughout their service. They took the same lifetime oath of loyalty as all other British service members, and paid full UK taxes. Officially recognised as veterans by Her Majesty’s Government, they are not being treated fairly and reasonably, as the covenant requires. I have already explained the background to this issue to the Minister and raised it many times in this House, so I will not repeat myself now in this Committee.

The recent swift action by the Government to evacuate and grant right of abode to thousands of Afghanis shows that the Home Office can respond fast. Is there any reason why the Government have prevaricated for the past nine years and refused to come to a decision about granting the request of the Hong Kong veterans for British citizenship and right of abode? These veterans’ covenant rights should apply in Hong Kong as they do anywhere else.

The imposed national security law in Hong Kong has put the “one country, two systems” paradigm in a precarious state. These veterans find themselves living under Beijing rule. They, along with many other Hong Kongers, are worried, but they are small in number and believe their case is now a matter of humanity, not politics. They feel they are being treated as aliens, not veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

They, as much as other past members of the Armed Forces, deserve a positive decision, not the endless excuse that their case is being “actively considered”. That euphemism has been the response of Home Office Ministers and a frequently repeated response to approaches from Members of both Houses on behalf of these veterans for the past nine years and more. Over 60 individual applications from this small group of veterans, which I forwarded to the Home Office on their behalf in March 2020, over 18 months ago, have gone unanswered. It all smacks of a Sir Humphrey-style reaction, unworthy of the Home Office, unless it aspires to remain a department unfit for business in this area. It is long past time for this request to be resolved finally and clearly.

Is this not an equally pertinent example, as was the case of Gulf War syndrome, highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the earlier Committee debate, of the need to include the Secretary of State for Defence in the list of those who must have a duty of care under the covenant? These Hong Kong Armed Forces veterans’ concerns and requests are not ones that could be devolved or passed to a local authority. Including the Secretary of State in this Bill is necessary to fill this gap in the duty of care under the covenant. Will the Government acknowledge that this Hong Kong veterans’ claim is a long-standing and legitimate one that should be honoured by reaching a decision now?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to contribute on Amendment 49. In doing so, I declare my interest as Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I have had a long association with the brigade since, as an 18 year-old troop commander in the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers, I first visited Nepal in 1988. I have served with them ever since, in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere, so I am delighted to now be the Colonel Commandant.

This is an interesting day. Yesterday marked the 207th anniversary of the death of Major-General Rollo Gillespie at the Battle of Kalunga, where a tiny Gurkha or Nepali force of some 600 held off for nearly a month a much better-equipped and larger British Army force. That honourable draw effectively started the relationship between the British Army and Nepal, when the Prime Minister at the time, Bhim Thapa, allowed the East India Company, as it was then, to start recruiting Gurkhas.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Fundamentally, I believe that it would be seriously detrimental to the chain of command. I have some questions. Will membership be voluntary? Would there be a subscription? Would all Armed Forces members be expected to join?

I want to focus particularly on the purpose mentioned in the amendment: that the federation might represent members on welfare, remuneration and efficiency. On welfare, we have the covenant. We have myriad Armed Forces charities, and we have the internal welfare services and a number of other things. I cannot see what value this would add. On remuneration, the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body has respect among the members of the Armed Forces. How would this dovetail with the federation? On efficiency, what do we mean by efficiency? Is it fighting efficiency—in which case, what will the competence of the federation be to decide what is good or bad efficiency on the fighting side of life?

The amendment also says that:

“The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings”.


Would we have to have an Armed Forces federation member, rather like a Soviet commissar, on ships deployed for example in the Pacific? I think this is completely impractical.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, oppose this amendment. I take the opportunity at the start of the session to remind your Lordships of my interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve.

I was going to intervene on the noble Lord, but perhaps I will give him this opportunity to intervene on me in reply to this question: how many members of the Armed Forces have contacted him or the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to ask for this? Surely somebody has. I say that, because at no point in my 33 years’ service in the regular and reserve has this ever really been a topic of discussion for serving members of the Armed Forces. If the noble Lord wants to intervene on me or perhaps answer the question when he comes back at the end, I would be fascinated to know how many members of the Armed Forces have actually asked for this. I have a horrible feeling that the answer is none. I certainly have no experience of that.

Equally, I share the noble and gallant Lord’s concerns about the impact on the chain of command. Given the unique circumstances that we find ourselves in in the military, certainly on operations, there is a distinct way of doing things with the chain of command. There are ways through the chain of command to make your complaints. Of course, we now also have the Service Complaints Commissioner. We have quite a developed sense of how this works in the military, which is why I go back to my first point: I just do not sense that there is any demand for this at all within the community the noble Lord is seeking to impose it on.

Where there are areas of concern, for example pay, we have quite a developed system with the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. I have given evidence to this body as a Minister. It is a very considered body, it is independent and its recommendations have been taken very seriously by successive Governments now for many years. We have seen that in the annual pay award, which the Government are forced to respond to

I suppose my principal opposition to all this is that I just do not understand where the demand is coming from, other than political parties potentially wishing to impose their values on our Armed Forces.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I do not support this amendment either. Indeed, I fully endorse the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I do not for a moment question the good faith in and the fulsome support of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, for the Armed Forces. However, I believe that there is a concept, of which this amendment is an example, that has been aired from time to time over the past 30 years and more—a concept that seems to have sprung in part from the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. The concept, or supposition, was that the Armed Forces were “civilians in uniform”, so their treatment, expectations and everything else about their daily lives should be seen and fashioned in that civilian primary context. However, it is a false premise.

I believe that the proposal in this amendment has been floated unsuccessfully more than once since the 1980s. Of course, members of the Armed Forces, like all their civilian counterparts, are human, but members of the Armed Forces have duties and responsibilities unmatched in the civilian environment. The fact that we are dealing with an Armed Forces Bill that affects the lives and well-being as well as the fighting efficiency of our Armed Forces underlines that point in spades. The fact that this Act has to be renewed every year and owes its origins to the time of Henry VIII exemplifies the unique difference in treatment, both in law and more generally, of the Armed Forces from the civilian world of employment over centuries.

Whether on or off duty, the behaviour of service personnel may be much praised, but if they fall short of good behaviour it is their service as well as themselves that attracts bad publicity and opprobrium. The more senior the individual, the greater the public dismay at poor or reprehensible behaviour. Both on or off duty, the service individual has a duty to behave responsibility, and who or what has or should have the responsibility to lead and encourage that? It must be the chain of command.

I have many times in my own experience explained why this is so fundamental to the ethos and fighting efficiency of the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, spelled all this out in the clearest of terms in her introductory remarks in the first sitting of this Committee. She said, and it is worth quoting:

“It is worth emphasising that members of the military are governed by a more stringent set of rules and restrictions than those of us in civilian life. These rules are designed to maintain discipline and promote operational effectiveness so that they can get the job done. Many of these additional rules and restrictions to which service personnel are subject apply regardless of whether they are on or off duty.”—[Official Report, 27/10/2021; col. GC 146.]


That is worth listening to and remembering.

The regard for an application of such a unique regime must rely primarily on the chain of command. I am not alone in expressing concern and, at times, even dismay at the way in which the chain of command’s uniquely important role has been set aside or weakened, sometimes in the search for more transparent justice. However, no judicial system is perfect. The imperfection is processed and managed by gradations of justice, but that does not make it infallible.

The introduction of an Armed Forces federation, regardless of whether such an organisation could perform alongside the chain of command without confusion, overlap or mismanagement, would once more be to underrate the chain of command’s importance to the efficiency and ethos of the Armed Forces. Indeed, I am not sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was saying, on what research or examination the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, have undertaken in support of this amendment. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—and, I believe, all chiefs of staff since my day, over 30 years ago, including the present holders of that office—I agree that an alongside federation as proposed in this amendment would be a grave mistake. That body of expert opinion should be heeded. I do not support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I wish to reassure the Committee that our commitment to making a difference for all women in the Armed Forces is real, and when the response to the Defence Select Committee’s report comes out, I think your Lordships will agree. It will be a really chunky and impressive piece of work.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I simply want to ask a technical question, which she will not be able to answer right now. I accept that, but perhaps she would be so kind as to write to me. Having thought about this as she spoke, can I take her back to Amendment 53 and the wonderful flexible service scheme? We are going to face the challenge between dialling down the regular service of an individual, male or female, to perhaps two or three days a week and what they are going to be paid. Given that when you are on operations, you sometimes work seven days a week but at other times, effectively, you work Monday to Friday—five days a week—are they to be paid, for example, 60% of their salary if they are dialling down to three days’ service? I am bearing in mind that a part of that is their 12% X factor, which they get because of the inconvenience of service life. Would they continue to get that 12% X factor when they dial down their service?

I will compare that to the other end of the spectrum and the Reserve service. Part of the Reserve Forces 2030 review, which I chaired, sought to have a spectrum of service so that a reservist can increase their service, potentially, to three days a week—the same level that the regular has dialled down to. Bearing in mind that a reservist gets paid only a reduced X factor of 5%, and that their individual pay is based on one-365th of their regular counterparts’, unless we manage to mirror those two schemes so that they meet in the middle, individuals will potentially be doing exactly the same service per week but will be paid quite different amounts. That is a technical challenge, but we need to think about it. I simply ask whether, perhaps in slow time, my noble friend could write to me about how we are going to address that issue.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am sure that your Lordships are, as ever, immensely impressed by the noble Lord’s command of this matter. I think he is the only person on the Committee who really understands it and I am very grateful to him. I will look in Hansard to consider all his remarks—and, yes, I do undertake to write to him, because there are serious points in there and I do not have the information before me.

Before I conclude my remarks on this group of amendments, I was saying that the response to the Defence Committee’s report will be significant and I think your Lordships will be reassured by it. I will certainly be pleased to update your Lordships once the Government’s response to the report is published and I might even, I suggest, do a Peers’ briefing on that topic when it is forthcoming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 61 and 62 consider the minimum age for recruitment into the UK Armed Forces. Amendment 61 would establish it as 18. Amendment 62 would ensure that soldiers aged under 18 were not required to serve for a longer period than adult personnel.

Noble Lords may remember the efforts of my late noble and much-loved friend, Lord Judd, who fought to change the situation with regard to the recruitment of under-18s. I am honoured to resume his campaign and hope that progress can be made. He would have reminded us—I shall do so, therefore—that people under 18 are actually children. We should not forget that. Today I am honoured and delighted to have support for these amendments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. They all have great expertise in children’s issues and are passionate in supporting children’s rights. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and, of course, the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard. I thank the Child Rights International Network for its help and support.

I have tabled these amendments due to concern about the rights and welfare of children. I have worked for many years with children—that is, people under the age of 18. Thankfully, we now have a much better understanding, thanks to research and experience, of the teenage brain and behaviour. This knowledge of the brain can help us understand the mental and emotional health of those under 18, and how those develop. Children mature at different rates and the ability of a 16 year-old to make decisions about, for example, life choices may lack the necessary maturity. The younger children are, the more vulnerable they are. Some children will thrive as recruits—we know that—but others may not.

The Minister may point to the opportunities available in the Army for young recruits who might otherwise be unemployed, but circumstances have changed and the new circumstances must be taken account of. It is now the norm for young people to stay in full-time education beyond the statutory school leaving age of 16. This includes those whom the Army targets for recruitment. Four out of five of the most disadvantaged young people in England now stay in full-time education after their GCSEs. In fact, the policy of enlisting at 16 draws young people out of full-time education. The Army is now competing not with the dole office for its underage recruits but, as its officers acknowledge, with schools and colleges.

Every year the Armed Forces enlist around 3,000 young people aged 16 or 17. Most join the Army, which tends to recruit from deprived neighbourhoods. Military recruitment at 16 is now highly unusual internationally. Three-quarters of countries worldwide now allow only adults to be enlisted. A few other NATO member states still recruit at 17 in small numbers, but the UK is the only country in Europe, and the only NATO military power, still allowing its Armed Forces to enlist 16 year-olds. Indeed, we appear to be the only country in the world to rely so heavily on that age group to fill the ranks. In the British Army, more new soldiers of 16 than any other age group—

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She places significant importance on her research. I simply seek some reassurance from her, and perhaps the other proposers of the amendment, that they have actually been to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate and talked about these issues with the young people to find out what has motivated them to join the military.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I shall mention this later. I have not visited that college myself. I know people who have and I know an organisation that has visited quite regularly. I will come on to that later. If the noble Lord is not satisfied then, I will try to give some more information.

I was saying that more new soldiers are recruited at 16 than from any other age group in the UK. I am aware that some join due to instability in their lives—I have known several of those—such as divorcing parents, or unhappiness at school or in their communities. The 16 year-olds who enlist sign a binding contract. Its terms of service are so restrictive that they could not be imposed on any person of any age in any other walk of life, with or without consent.

A 16 year-old has no right at all to leave the Army in the first six weeks, which corresponds with the most stressful period of their training. Then the recruit may leave. They are subject only to a notice period of between two weeks and three months. From the day that recruit turns 18, they have no right to leave the Army for the next four years. That means that the 16 year-old recruit is subject to a minimum period of service of up to two years longer than recruits who enlist as adults, whose four-year minimum term is counted from the day they enlist, rather than from their 18th birthday. In effect, a soldier’s service before they turn 18 is not counted, when plainly it should be. An 18 year-old recruit who serves for four years can leave the Army. A 16 year-old recruit who serves the same duration cannot.

The second amendment seeks to end that discrimination. Although the High Court has ruled that the Army is entitled to discriminate in this way, the basic principle of fairness—and, I suggest, common sense—demands otherwise. Indeed, even the Army says that the change would, to quote its junior entry review,

“provide greater consistency to U18 recruits”.

That is the Army saying that.

It is important to know that under-18s are not normally deployed on hostile operations, but that they will be during training is a matter of serious concern; here I come on to the noble Lord’s intervention. The Army’s youngest recruits undergo their initial soldier training at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. As is well publicised, the institution has an “outstanding” grade from Ofsted, awarded again this year. But Ofsted does not grade the Army Foundation College on the same basis as civilian schools. The outstanding grade is awarded not for the education on offer, which amounts to less than one day per week, but for the welfare arrangements. Despite this, the Army recorded an extraordinary 60 allegations of abuse of recruits by staff at this college between 2014 and 2020. The allegations include assault and battery. They are all on the Army’s record and officers are aware of them, but they are absent from the Ofsted inspection reports, including the latest report this year.

The situation facing girls is of particular concern. Freedom of information requests show that since 2015, 41 girls aged under 18 in the Armed Forces have made formal complaints of rape or other sexual assault to the service police. This is equivalent to a rate of 2.5%—one in every 40 girls in the forces. This is twice the reported rate of sexual abuse for girls of the same age group in civilian life.

The Child Rights International Network has collected some testimonies from parents of former recruits at the Army Foundation College. They have shown great courage in speaking out about their children’s treatment. The father of a former recruit at the college writes:

“[My son] had been bullied verbally [by staff]; he and the other recruits were talked down to, called [the c-word and the f-word] constantly … [we had a] fraught and stressful negotiation to get our son out.”


A mother says:

“[My son] struggles to talk about what happened … but we know that staff bullied and abused the young recruits … [My son] is a completely different person since his time at Harrogate. He has attempted suicide and his mental health is permanently damaged.”


Another mother said that her boy was,

“hit, slapped, pushed, kicked and verbally abused by staff. He told me his request”

to leave the army

“was ripped up in his face. He was only 17 years old and devastated at not being able to leave … My son died last year while still serving in the army.”

This is abuse, and these are shocking testimonies concerning young people placed in a care of an institution that has a clear legal and moral duty to safeguard them from harm. One can only imagine what would happen to a civilian school or college, whatever its Ofsted grade, with so many allegations of violent abuse to students.

--- Later in debate ---

I find this quite indefensible. It is not exactly best practice among the better armed forces around the world. Frankly, I think we should be ashamed.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 61, which would effectively prohibit the enlistment of persons under the age of 18. I, for one, certainly am not ashamed that we give young people these life opportunities. I say to the noble Lords who have proposed this amendment that many of what they seem to have taken as facts I simply do not recognise: presumably they have been published by organisations opposed to this. I am happy to give way to be corrected, but the one cohort they do not seem to have engaged with is the young people themselves at the Army Foundation College. Has anybody been to the Army Foundation College? No, no one has. That is a disappointment. Perhaps I could ask noble Lords to at least consider going to visit the college.

Slightly tongue in cheek, I say to the right reverend Prelate, on his concerns about what is an appropriate age to recruit young people into an organisation, that I think I was 14 years old when I was recruited into the Church of England, effectively, through confirmation. I have no idea what is now the minimum age to be confirmed in the Church of England, but I am happy to give way for him to tell me.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I would say that we are not asking our confirmation candidates to enter into armed conflict. It is a very different thing when we talk about membership of clubs, the Church or whatever. We have laid out our concerns about this very strange period when young people are growing up because, right across Europe and most of the world, we are absolutely clear that these are children who we are asking to undertake an adult task. That is the concern I bring—but I am happy to have further conversations.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

That is a reasonable point, but none the less, the Church of England is actively targeting young people of a certain age to be recruited into an organisation. Okay, I say that slightly tongue in cheek, but there could be a discussion of what age is appropriate for young people to make an informed decision.

I begin by reminding your Lordships that there is no compulsory recruitment into the Armed Forces. All those under the age of 18 are volunteers, and we should take pride in the fact that our Armed Forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people while in service, as well as after they leave.

The Armed Forces remain the UK’s largest apprenticeship provider, equipping young people with valuable and transferable skills for life. I declare an interest, because I applied to join the Army before the age of 18. I went through a regular commissions board and made an informed choice to join the Army when I was still a minor. Although I did not attend Sandhurst until shortly after my 18th birthday—a short course for the type of commission I was undertaking—I recall my time in the regular Army when I was a teenager with great pride and a sense of satisfaction. That may well be in part due to my posting to Hong Kong, where I received both a formal military education and a rather less formal liberal education in life—but that is another matter.

The minimum age for entry into the UK Armed Forces reflects the normal school leaving age of 16, but recognises, through the training offered, that participation in education or structured training remains mandatory until 18. In the services, all recruits who enlist as minors and do not hold full level 3 qualifications are enrolled on an apprenticeship scheme, unless their trade training attracts higher-level qualifications. All undertake structured professional education as part of their initial military training, and therefore automatically fulfil their duty to participate under the various education Acts. Many individuals who join under the age of 18 are not academic high achievers, although some are, and the duty of care and training that the Armed Forces provide enhance their self-esteem and prospects for the whole of their working life, within or without the services.

Let me be clear: our military is full of service men and women who freely admit that, had it not been for the structure, education and discipline that service life offered them as 16 year-olds, it is highly likely that their lives would have led them down an entirely different and less positive path. Joining the military at 18 would have simply been too late for them to make that positive change of direction in their lives.

In my experience, the military fully recognises the special duty of care that it owes to under-18s, and commanding officers continue to have that made clear to them. The recruiting policy is absolutely clear. No one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process. In addition, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to engage with recruiting staff during the process. Once accepted into service, under-18s have the right to automatic discharge at any time until their 18th birthday. All new recruits who are under the age of 18 and have completed 28 days’ service have a right of discharge within their first three to six months of service if they decide that a career in the Armed Forces is not for them. It is simply not in the interest of either the individual or the service to force them to stay where they are not happy to be.

MoD policy is not to deploy personnel under the age of 18 on operations. Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on any operation outside the UK, except where the operation does not involve them becoming engaged in or exposed to hostilities. There is evidence to suggest that those joining at a younger age remain in service for longer and that under-18s in the Army achieve higher performance based on their earlier promotion. Evidence clearly shows that junior entrants are likely to serve longer and to achieve higher rank than some senior entrants, so the additional costs incurred in their training that noble Lords have mentioned reap considerable benefits for the service, the individual and society as a whole.

The services are among the largest training providers in the UK, with excellent completion and achievement rates. Armed Forces personnel are offered genuine progression routes which allow them to develop, gain qualifications and play a fuller part in society—whether in the Armed Forces or the civilian world. In the naval service and the Royal Air Force, initial military training is conducted on single-service sites and, because of the smaller scale, no distinction needs to be made in the training provided to those under 18. In the Army, phase 1 training for under-18s, the basic military training course, is completed at the Army Foundation College, where the facilities have been specifically designed for this age group. The training courses last either 23 or 49 weeks, both of which are longer than the basic over-18 course and dependent on the length of the subsequent specialist training.

The MoD’s duty of care policy for under-18 entrants is laid down in a defence instruction and covers the duty of care obligations of commanding officers. This is constantly updated, and I am the first to admit that I am probably now out of date, since I have left being a Minister for two years, but I am sure that my noble friend in her response will update the Committee on some of its current components to offer some reassurance as to how the military deals with that duty of care.

Equally, as I have mentioned, all recruits enlisted as minors who do not hold full level 3 qualifications are enrolled on an apprenticeship scheme, unless their trade training attracts higher-level qualifications. For example, as a Royal Engineer I trained to be a bricklayer and an electrician. The time taken to complete their apprenticeship varies according to the programme being followed, but completion rates are high. Additionally, while in service all Armed Forces personnel—subject to meeting certain qualification criteria—can claim financial support for education under the standard learning credit scheme and enhanced learning credit scheme.

To conclude, I believe that under-18s who chose to join the Armed Forces are an important and valuable cohort among those starting their military career. The MoD invests strongly in them and they repay that investment with longer service and higher achievement. The duty of care for that cohort is paramount and establishments are regularly inspected by Ofsted and achieve consistently good or outstanding gradings. The training and education are clearly first class and MoD policies on under-18s in service are robust and comply with national and international law.

Crucially to me—and I have seen this time and time again—joining the Armed Forces provides prestigious and respected career opportunities for young men and women who may not have achieved the same in civilian life. But there is no need to take my word for it. I would encourage any noble Lord seeking to support this amendment to visit the Army Foundation College in Harrogate and speak to the young service men and women themselves—because it is, after all, their future we are debating.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down—

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I have sat down.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Could I just ask him—

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I have sat down.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Well, perhaps he might respond as this is Committee stage. I pay tribute to the Army training, because the noble Lord is certainly able to follow a brief and read it in a fairly military fashion and in a straight line. But if this is such a good idea, if it is so effective and productive for the children who enter the Army at the age of 16, why are we one of the very few countries in the world, and the only military force within NATO, to do this? What do we know that they do not? Why have we got it right and why have they got it wrong?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I think the evidence speaks for itself. I have attempted to outline some of that evidence, bearing in mind that for those first two years we offer first-rate training. We are the largest apprenticeship provider in the United Kingdom. We are giving life opportunities to young people who, without that discipline or training, may well have followed a different path. I am convinced through my experience of 33 years in the military, of visiting this college and of meeting young people who have been through their careers, will look me in the face and say, “Had it not been for joining the military, I would have ended up doing something awful on the streets of Portsmouth or London, or wherever. It is only through the opportunity that the military gave me at a young age that I became the man or woman that I have.” That, away from the MoD’s passion for young people, has to be the best reason why this should continue.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will not be taking part in these proceedings because she is double-booked in Grand Committee.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I have much sympathy with these amendments. Back in 2010, when I served in the Committee on the Bill, I proposed similar amendments, so noble Lords may ask why I now express some hesitancy about extending the remit. I suppose it comes from my experience as Minister for the Armed Forces and Minister for Defence Veterans, Reserves and Personnel. When we roll back the clock, if I am entirely honest, in the early days of implementing the Armed Forces covenant we struggled to get traction. It took some time to convince all the local authorities within the United Kingdom to sign up and indeed to get employers to sign up. I am delighted that now we have close to 2,000 signatories to the Armed Forces covenant.

My concern really lies around the fact that, as we continue to extend the width, we may struggle to get buy-in into this if we create yet more of a burden for local authorities in particular. Especially after Covid, as they have had a difficult couple of years, they might not see the benefit of this if we simply overburden them with yet more categories. My suggestion in Committee was not that we should not extend the categories but that we should do it incrementally over a period of time. In many ways, had that been suggested today, I would have been happy to accept this amendment, but that is not the case, which is a shame. During that early stage of the process, we also struggled to demonstrate the benefits of this to veterans.

It is a shame that we have an Armed Forces Bill only once every five years because I do not want to have to wait another five years to slowly extend the remit of the covenant. However, I simply feel that at this stage such a step would be a bit too much too soon, for the reasons that I have tried to explain.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I think it might be convenient for me to speak to my amendments in this group, Amendments 17 and 4. Something about Amendment 4 has been said already and I will not repeat that, but I shall attempt to elaborate on it somewhat.

On Amendment 17, when I was trying to consider this issue more carefully after the Minister’s argument in Committee, I happened to notice that this clause has a curious provision at the beginning: it is the same as the opening clause that was in the 2011 Bill on the Armed Forces covenant report. The only reference to “Armed Forces covenant” here is by dropping the word “report”. That struck me as rather strange in a Bill dealing with the Armed Forces covenant.

My noble friend may be able to put me right on this, but I have not found a definition of that covenant in the Bill. It is true that there is a definition on the website, but the website is not yet by law an Act of Parliament. We have to distinguish between these two. I am happy to think that what I have proposed in Amendment 17 is not very different from what is on the website, but it would at least be in the statute—in the part on definitions and principles that apply to England—and would apply through it.

My main argument, of course, is in relation to Amendment 4. It is right that central government in the form of the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament for the Armed Forces, should be responsible for respecting the Armed Forces covenant. If he does not have a duty to respect it, it is difficult to put that duty on local authorities, health authorities and so on. In Committee, I referred to what I regard as an important example of where this was really necessary. In the first Gulf War, there was a feeling early on—of course, I have no detail on this that I could go into—that there might be poison gas coming from the opposition in Iraq. A possible protection against that gas was provided to some of our Armed Forces. Needless to say, I do not know what it contained, and I do not think local or health authorities knew either. Importantly, therefore, the illnesses of a neurological character contracted by some veterans were thought to be possibly connected to the protection against the poison gas.

As it happened, I do not think the poison gas ever emerged, but some veterans had had this protection and there was a question about that. I sent the Minister a copy of the Library report on this; there was an inquiry into it by one of my judicial colleagues. The eventual opinion expressed by Her Majesty’s Government was that the illness was not sufficiently definite to be called Gulf War syndrome—it was probable that it was due to a variety of things and, therefore, it was not to be classified in that way.

I cannot see how anybody other than the Secretary of State could be responsible for carrying out an investigation of that kind. It is therefore vital that he should have regard to the principles; of course, the areas that he has to have regard to are in the Bill now and not subject to the extensions of Amendment 3 and the other extensions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. It is a simple case of three zones, as it were, in which the Secretary of State has to have regard to the principles. If anybody has to have regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant, I should have thought that the Secretary of State responsible to Parliament for the Armed Forces would be the leading person in that capacity.

It is for this reason that I tabled Amendment 4—having benefited from the copyright very kindly given. I look forward to what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I am sure she will have a good answer which will not be good enough. Unless this is accepted by the Government, or some provisional point of view for the future is accepted, I therefore intend to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton]

15: Clause 8, page 18, line 28, at end insert—
“343AG Regional committees(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to give committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989, known as Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, additional functions specified in the regulations relating to all former members of Her Majesty’s forces and their relevant family members, and a new name.(2) The regulations may in particular provide that it is a function of the committees—(a) to report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on matters that are or may be relevant to—(i) their armed forces covenant report, and(ii) sections 343AA to 343AD and guidance issued under section 343AE;(b) to provide a distinct, identifiable, and independent point of reference in their region for both the veteran community and all those supporting it;(c) to raise awareness of, and support the implementation of—(i) services provided to the veteran community alone or with others,(ii) the Government’s strategy for veterans, and(iii) the terms of armed forces covenant;(d) to act as an advocate, promoter, facilitator, or communicator of services that are relevant to the veteran community;(e) to report and make representations and recommendations on existing or proposed services that are relevant to the veteran community.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the statutory functions of Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (VAPCs), currently limited to functions relating to compensation schemes for veterans and their families (the War Pensions and the Armed Forces Compensation Schemes) to all aspects of veteran life.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I apologise to your Lordships’ House for failing to remind the House of my particular interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces and therefore subject to the provisions of the Bill. I hope that Amendment 15 is uncontroversial. It relates to the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, among which there are 13 regional committees—nine in England, two in Scotland, one in Northern Ireland and one in Wales. They were created under Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 and are mandated to simply do two things: act on behalf of the Ministry of Defence—to be very much its eyes and ears on the ground and be an independent body that can offer candid advice to Ministers—and, equally, to support veterans. But, because of the Social Security Act 1989, they are mandated to act only in the areas of war pensions and the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. While I will not give a number for this, it applies to only a relatively small number of veterans. At their wish, this amendment simply tries to update their role to that which they are currently carrying out.

Indeed, the Government have recognised for some time that this needs to be done. When I was a Minister some seven years ago, we were potentially going to include a similar amendment in the Armed Forces Act 2016 but we did not, so I am simply trying to correct that wrong. It is important because there is a feeling that, for some years now, the Government have been advertising that they should be acting on behalf of veterans when it comes to the Armed Forces covenant—but they are not mandated to do so, and this amendment simply attempts to do that.