Armed Forces: Military Corrective Training Centre

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Wednesday 25th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Indeed, the latest report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons is exceptionally positive and has graded the centre as good for its four tests of a healthy custodial environment: safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement—something that it very rarely does.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I declare two interests: one as adjutant-general, when I was responsible for the MCTC, and one as Chief Inspector of Prisons. I visited the centre when the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, sent young offenders there under the mistaken impression that it was a boot camp. In fact the experience of being in a disciplined environment, particularly in the way that they were treated by staff, was wholly positive for those young offenders sent there. Is consideration being given to sending young offenders to the MCTC as part of their sentence, particularly if they want to join the Armed Forces and their level of criminality is not great? Armed with the experience there, they are more likely to have a proper career when they join the regular services after that. If they misbehave, they can of course always be sent straight back to custody.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord but the answer is no. It has been the policy of successive Governments since 1963 that our Armed Forces are manned by volunteers. We have no shortage of applicants who have not committed any crime. In 1996, the Glasshouse was set up as a trial at MCTC for approximately 30 civilian young offenders aged 18 to 21. They underwent a military-style regime, including drill, physical training and room and kit inspections. In 1997 the Government ordered that young offenders tough enough to cope with this would be sent to MCTC, but the scheme was stopped in 1998. I understand that it was too expensive.

Army 2020

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I, too, thank the Minister for his reply and declare two lateral interests with regard to the Statement. First, as Adjutant General to the Army, I had to implement the Options for Change instruction to reduce the Army by a third over three years. Let us remember what that meant in terms of all the people who were in the Army. Secondly, Lieutenant General Nick Carter was at one time my ADC and later MA. He, his father and I served together in the same regiment, the Rifle Brigade, whose tie I am proud to be wearing today.

I have two things to say. First, I think like many of us, I deplore the leaking of this Statement during the past few days, because I wonder whether those responsible for it realise the damage that it has done to the morale and well-being of the Armed Forces whom they claim to support. I hope that the Minister will take every possible step to discover who is responsible for this and take appropriate action. It must not be allowed to happen.

The noble Lord, Lord Lee, asked for a debate on defence. I welcome that, because the other thing that I wanted to say was about striking the balance between the Armed Forces. I wonder whether the Army has gone a step further than the other two forces. If there is any restructuring or rebalancing to be done, will the Army be reconsidered in the light of what happens?

My question relates to the last page of the Statement, which says that the vision is that the Army will remain “best in class”. Who else is in that class?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned General Nick Carter and the Rifles. The Rifles are a very good example of a change that has really worked. All the people I meet who serve in the Rifles are hugely proud of that regiment and of the successful change that it has made.

The noble Lord mentioned the leaks, which did not come from the Ministry of Defence. I was told about these changes only yesterday. A very small group of people in the Ministry of Defence knew of them, so I do not know where the leak has come from. I will certainly go back to the department and see whether we cannot do more to stop such leaks.

We could debate “best in class” all afternoon, but I have met quite a number of officers and reservists in the past 24 hours who are hugely excited about the challenges of the future and really feel that they are up to it.

Armed Forces: Personnel

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, on obtaining this debate. It is very important and there is no doubt that word of it will get out to the Armed Forces that we have taken an interest in what, as I know from personal experience when serving, is regarded as the highlight of the year almost on the personnel side: the annual report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, of which the noble Baroness was herself a most notable chairman.

I must admit that what struck me when reading the report was its similarity with what I regarded as one of the low points of my career, which was in 1977, when we had to face what became known as the Irishman’s pay rise, when the pay rise we were given was less than the increase in the accommodation and food charges. The result was that a number of commanding officers resigned because they refused to read out to their men what they were told to read—that this was a good pay settlement and that there was also to be a considerable increase in what is now called voluntary outflow. The result of that, thank goodness, was that the incoming Conservative Government had taken note of what was happening. There was an almost immediate pay rise, following the new Government taking over in 1979, which rescued a very dangerous situation. I was struck by the similarities of that situation when I read that there will be rental increases varying from 2.9 per cent for grade 1 to nothing for grade 4, and a 4.9 per cent increase in the daily food charge, when so few people are getting any increase in their pay. That strikes me as being along exactly the same lines as the previous situation. People are not silly and will see it as such.

I was for a time the Adjutant-General, the personnel director, for the Army. I was fortunate with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body of the time. It was extremely well led and it listened. It was encouraging to me that the board always came back and discussed what it had heard from us. There was therefore a partnership between the board and the military. The board recognised that the military welcomed the board, rather than not liking having it around, and particularly welcomed this partnership.

I was therefore intrigued that this AFPRB, which, as the noble Baroness said, has produced a very direct report, is clearly listening. I noted that it pointed out, among other comments, that it had heard,

“significant concerns about the wide-ranging changes in train following the Strategic Defence and Security Review”.

In other words, it was looking widely and looking for causes to report about, not just for individual things. Why is that serious? It is very serious because here we are faced with another two-year pay freeze, and we are told that the achievement of what was set out in the strategic defence review depends on a financial upturn in 2015. Frankly, looking ahead, it does not seem that that financial upturn is likely to provide what people were talking about in the SDSR. Again, soldiers, sailors and airmen are not silly, and they can see this. Coming on top of a freeze, with jam tomorrow being promised to them, and with 2015 not looking like it will provide the jam that was suggested in the SDSR, they are understandably concerned—particularly when they see that against the natural requirement for an upturn in personnel costs, which have been so adequately and fully described by the noble Baroness, the equipment programme is so vast that it is likely to swamp or dominate the personnel side, if we are not careful.

However, two sentences in the report worried me more. They were:

“We were due to undertake a number of scheduled reviews this year. For some reviews, MoD did not submit the evidence we required at the start of the round and we made clear that further evidence was needed”.

Frankly, I find that utterly disgraceful. Despite all the evidence that is there every time you talk to a serviceman, the MoD could not establish the evidence on which the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was due to do its work. No one should know this more than the current Permanent Under-Secretary, with whom I once worked when she headed the Prime Minister’s Social Exclusion Unit. She knows all about the impact on people of the things we have been talking about.

I know that we are very fortunate in having in the Minister someone who listens, cares and will take note. This is not just criticism for criticism’s sake—it is serious alarm that the MoD should be reported on by the organisation to which service men and women look up to more than any other to look after their interests. It should not be accused of not providing the evidence needed.

This leads me to the one recommendation that I would like to put to the Minister, based on the Armed Forces covenant. As the noble Baroness said, the covenant is about the services and their families, and veterans and their families. I am not talking about veterans and their families. The key part, as we discussed during the Armed Forces Bill, is when the Secretary of State reports to Parliament on the covenant. At the moment there is no set date for that, but bearing in mind the importance of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and its report, and the fact that we in this House—and, I hope, the other House—will take a keen interest in this, I suggest that the timing of the Secretary of State’s report on the Armed Forces covenant should be related to the annual report of the AFPRB so that the Government’s comments on the AFPRB can be included in that covenant report. I believe that that is what service men and women will be concerned about more than any other issue.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about the government amendments that we have now seen and thank the Minister for his co-operation in listening to the voices of several Members of this House on all sides who raised the issue at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. It has perhaps taken a little longer than we would have liked to have reached this position, which is very much a last-minute position, but very real progress has been made. Those of us who have been involved in the passage of the Bill will want to acknowledge and thank both Ministers and officials for the level of co-operation and the constructive outcome that we have.

I particularly mention Amendment 7, which is important in making it clear to those entitled to be covered by these provisions exactly what their positions are. They are named in different categories so no one who is entitled should have any doubt that the Armed Forces covenant will apply to them.

We have had a good level of co-operation. We have proved the usefulness of this House for those who have any doubt and I am sure that in another place these changes will be widely welcomed. I appreciate the work and co-operation on all sides of the House. We should all be very pleased with the conclusions and the final drafting that we have.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I first speak to Amendment 1, which is in my name as well as that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I repeat his thanks to the Minister and his officials and to the officials in this House who came in for some criticism the other day for possibly being slow over this matter.

In Committee and at Second Reading a number of us made comments about how the veterans part of this covenant would be overseen. I am enormously grateful for the way that the Government have moved and for the amendments now before us. However, thinking through how this might happen, I still think that in the years to come the Government may well find that they will have to have somebody outside the Ministry of Defence responsible for overseeing the delivery of the veterans part of the covenant. A number of us have suggested in the past that that would be better done by having a Minister for veteran affairs in the Cabinet Office. I suggest that whoever is given that appointment will also need someone like a commissioner responsible for the 24/7 oversight of the work being done for veterans in response to whatever is presented by the various Ministers in each of the annual reports.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I, too, speak to Amendments 5, 6 and 7. I, too, am grateful to the Minister for his attention to these matters. I recall when I first went to see him in July that his officials were somewhat sceptical about the need for some of these changes. But if these amendments are accepted, the Bill will leave the Chamber a better and stronger piece of legislation than when it came in. The military covenant is gradually being defined to the extent that it will mean things to people. I was anxious to avoid some potential political slip-ups in the future, particularly with regard to devolved regions, and to try to ensure a degree of compatibility and comparison in terms of the treatment available to people in different parts of the country so that over time we did not see disparities developing.

I thank the Minister for communicating with us and making himself and his officials available, which I think has contributed to the comments that have just been made. I believe that we can now move forward in a much stronger position with the concerns raised on all sides of the House addressed. I certainly will be supporting these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and officials for the time they have spent looking at all aspects of the Bill and the amendments we have just debated are most welcome. I now want to return to the question of including the operation of inquests in the annual report on the Armed Forces covenant. This would be incorporated into the new wording of the Bill.

It is important to consider that in this part of the Bill “service people” means,

“members of the regular forces and the reserve forces … members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law … former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom … and relevant family members”.

I welcome the Minister’s comments that the report must be open and inclusive and I would hope that the operation of inquests could therefore also be included. The covenant report is to be about the effects of membership or former membership of the Armed Forces on service people. The reference group would steer and guide the detailed content of the report in relation to healthcare, education and housing and in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine.

Why do we need the operation of inquests in the Bill? I suggest it is needed because the quality of civilian inquests is very variable and there is no office of chief coroner to address that. This amendment would complement such a post whenever it comes into being. Currently, the narrative verdict is used differently by different coroners and the information in the narrative verdict is not collated. However, it is important data, particularly in relation to former members of Her Majesty’s forces. For example, self-harming behaviours that are fatal may be linked to previous trauma. The long-term effects of emergency resuscitation techniques in the battlefield or from the use of equipment may as yet be unknown but they will emerge with time. Of course, many ex-service personnel die and there is no inquest—they die in civilian life and die of diseases like everybody else.

However, sometimes there is an inquest. I take asbestos as a specific example from history. The family of someone with mesothelioma may develop it from inhaling asbestos fragments that were on the clothing of the person exposed. As asbestos-related death has to be related to a coroner, such data were picked up. A current example that may be pertinent is those with Gulf War syndrome. I know that these personnel are being followed, but when they die, inquest data will become important.

The long-term sequelae of battlefield injuries may result in early deaths in civilian life. Cataloguing these can provide information for trauma management in future and the information will not be captured unless inquests into deaths of ex-service personnel are specifically catalogued. I am aware that many do not want to be followed up when they return to civilian life. They want to get on with their lives and put the past behind them. That makes health follow-up particularly difficult and is precisely why unnatural and untimely deaths, as would be referred to a civilian coroner, may represent the only point at which long-term sequelae of active service could be picked up.

I return to the operation of the inquests themselves. Those who die on active service are subject to support from the Defence Inquest Unit of the Ministry of Defence. It provides coroners in the civilian world with a summary of the incidents in which people have died on active service and suggests who to call as witnesses. The unit meets the pledge in the covenant to support the bereaved, but it is involved in the inquests only on those on active service, including those who die in training. Sadly, year on year, there are deaths in training; one man died very recently. The tragedy is that the number of deaths in training really does not seem to be falling year on year; it seems almost to be flat-lined.

The Armed Forces covenant document requires that help and support are given to the bereaved families, as is done by the Defence Inquest Unit, but it does not specifically state that the operation of inquests themselves will be monitored. Yet some bereaved report experiences at these inquests that were unexpected and deeply traumatic. The waiting time for inquests has only recently fallen and has not yet reached the target time of nine months. Bereaved families often feel unable to grieve properly awaiting the inquest, and my concern is that unless we maintain a spotlight on inquests themselves the timing may slip. In civilian life we know that some people are waiting up to seven years for an inquest.

Currently, the quarterly reports to Parliament are a very important catalogue of deaths, but the reports will cease when we are no longer in the theatres of war. The reference group for the report on the covenant will include the Royal British Legion, which has been very active in campaigning for a chief coroner. Despite all the discussions since the Public Bodies Bill, no development has obviated that need. To have the operation of inquests on the face of the Bill will complement such an office; it will not replace it.

This amendment will not incur expenditure; it will ensure joined-up government between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice, the latter having responsibility for inquests. The report can incorporate the current quarterly reports on military deaths and any other reports that get laid before Parliament. But when the frequency goes down, it will ensure that military deaths continue to be monitored, reported and catalogued. It will ensure that there is a record of inquests held on those actively serving, respecting their memory, and will allow collation of deaths of those who died after leaving the forces and whose deaths, for whatever reason, were the subject of an inquest, thereby providing important epidemiological data in the long term.

These annual reports, as they are proposed and as I hope they become, will be a historic document of our forces’ health and welfare. I suggest that we must also record their sacrifices of life through active service. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Finlay in this amendment, having also supported her in the campaign to get the chief coroner into post as part of the Public Bodies Bill. She has already mentioned that. I mention this because it has been 149 years since the coroners legislation was last updated, and it is now not fit for purpose. Those constituents who are finding it so are the families of those armed servicemen who are killed overseas. They have to wait an inordinately long time now for the inquest. This adds to their distress and is the very antithesis of everything that the Armed Forces covenant is all about. Therefore I hope that by putting this in the Bill and having it included in the annual report on the covenant, we will put pressure on those who ought to see that the coroners regulations and way of operating is updated and made fit for purpose, particularly for our servicemen and their families.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. Once again, I thank the Minister for all that he has done in helping us forward on the covenant. I have seen all too often in the see city of Wakefield recently the tragic sight of funerals at the cathedral of people who have lost their lives in Afghanistan. The clergy often finds itself at the sharp end of this, as it were, because it is trying to minister to families who are feeling particularly raw through the normal outcome of war and the sadness that that brings.

I support the amendment for two reasons. First, the delays that we have heard about reinforce that rawness and sense of loss that families find so difficult to cope with, particularly having lost loved ones in these tragic and, in some ways, unforeseen circumstances. Although people realise that they are taking a risk when they join the military forces, somehow one always thinks that it will be someone else who actually dies in battle.

Secondly, there should be proper monitoring of what is going on, as the noble Baroness said. It seems to me that remembering people who have lost their lives and having them recorded is essential in this process. The fact that it is not going to cost anything ought to encourage us to go with this amendment. I realise how much the Minister and the Government have worked to improve the Bill, but if we do not include this amendment, I think that ultimately it will not capture the proper operation of inquests. For that reason, I ask noble Lords to support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Minister to accept the strength of those arguments and those of other noble Lords and to let the revised Bill complete its passage through both Houses with the amendment to gain Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I put my name to the amendment, as I did in Committee and at Report. I declare an interest as a holder of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia. I shall not repeat all the arguments made so well by my noble and gallant friend, which have been put forward on numerous occasions. I should just like to mention three points.

First, as my noble and gallant friend said, the existing rules are utterly discredited. It was mentioned in the previous amendment that the coroners’ regulations are 149 years old; some of the regulations for these medals go back to the Crimean War.

Secondly, it is all very well saying that it is a committee of civil servants who will draw this up, but it is actually Ministers who should give advice. I am concerned that Ministers do not appear to have given the ruling on this issue that they might have done.

I mention that in coming to my third point, because we are all abundantly clear—it has been made clear by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and by the Minister in this House—that the Foreign Office is trying to put back the C into the FCO. There is an emphasis on the Commonwealth. This is a Commonwealth medal. To my mind, it is discourteous not to accept something from the Commonwealth when the people who were awarded it went out honouring a treaty obligation to help a fellow Commonwealth member in trouble. This really ought to be put right as soon as possible.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Williams of Elvel]

My noble friend has made the extraordinary statement that it has been agreed between the usual channels that votes should be taken not on Report but at Third Reading. There is clear guidance in the Companion to the Standing Orders that matters that are decided or fully debated on Report or earlier should not be raised at Third Reading. Perhaps the government Chief Whip, or whoever is in charge of government business, will illuminate us on this extraordinary procedure.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 1, tabled by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig, because it has underneath it the word “trust”, which I have mentioned on more than one occasion in connection with this Bill, in particular with what is called the Armed Forces covenant.

When I was serving, the Armed Forces covenant did not exist. The regiment that I joined had an ethos, as I have mentioned before, that was laid down by my ancestor Sir John Moore of Corunna, that there should be a mutual bond of trust and affection between all ranks, which the officers had to earn. That mutual bond of trust was not unique to my regiment or indeed to the Army, but was very much a key element of every single military organisation, because without that trust, from top to bottom and from bottom to top, organisations that are called upon to go to war simply cannot exist. Therefore, whenever the word “trust” comes up in connection with trust having been broken in the military connection, one must be very concerned.

Like many other noble Lords, I am sure, I was extremely concerned when I saw the headline in the Daily Telegraph last week,

“Fox blames Forces chiefs for black hole”,

in which it was quoted that he had said that there had been,

“a ‘complete breakdown of trust’ between them—

the forces chiefs—

“and Whitehall, worsening the already fractious relationship between defence chiefs and politicians”,

on which a senior military source commented:

“To say that we are speechless after these comments is a mild understatement. It is quite staggering. What this Government fails to understand is that the military has been running very, very hot fighting the politicians’ campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. If there was no breakdown in trust before, there is now”.

He was referring to the Secretary of State’s earlier failure to overturn the disgraceful traduction of two senior officers, General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, for allegedly introducing defence cuts that contributed to the loss of a Nimrod over Afghanistan, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the previous Defence Secretary, said in this House that it was Ministers who laid down such cuts. Then there was the discussion over the defence review. Then only last week the noble Lord, Lord Lee, raised the question of the sudden cancellation by the Secretary of State of money being spent on housing for both single servicemen and families. Therefore, if the Armed Forces covenant is an expression of the public response to the services putting their lives on the line, it is desperately important that one should have trust that the covenant will be observed.

Therefore, it seems very important that the position of the covenant is enshrined in this Bill and it is very disappointing to find, with regard to Clause 2, that it is not actually the Government or the Ministry of Defence but business managers, allegedly in this House, who are preventing a very small amendment being made to the Bill that could easily be made if there was a will to do it. I suggest, therefore, that on behalf of the people who have to work in defence, the business managers in this House think again when they say that they cannot get this amendment through before 7 November. There is no connection between this and any other clauses, and it would not interrupt the Bill or cause any problems. It is clarification, and would separate the Armed Forces covenant, on which so much stock should be put, from a clause that is to do with those who were executed for cowardice in the Great War. I hope that the Government will accept that it is desperately important that they do all they can to increase trust in the covenant. This is one way of showing that they regard it as being very important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

My Lords, I too support these amendments, in particular Amendment 6. I would like to reinforce the argument made by my noble friend Lady Taylor, which was reinforced by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that the responsibility to reinforce the commitment that each of the departments has is crucial. We have some evidence now, as we regrettably have a number of members of our Armed Forces either being made redundant or leaving the service early. The evidence is that in terms of education and skills there are great gaps in the opportunities that they have had in the Armed Forces and that they are having to catch up very quickly. The Bill refers to the opportunity of not discriminating in that way. It would be extremely interesting for all of us to see what the Secretary of State for Education—and perhaps even the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, in terms of their responsibility for skills—would have to report about that. That would be reassuring for all us. More importantly, all the arguments have been made about how much it will mean in the department if it has to report back, but that would be absolutely enforceable. In that context, I support Amendments 6 and 7.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I make no apologies for returning to the word “trust”, which I used earlier. I must say that I exclude the Minister from my remarks, as I am sure we all have absolute trust that he will do precisely what he has said in his comments. I should add that I am enormously grateful to him for the way that he has taken so much trouble to brief us on this Bill, and to write to us, which has been hugely appreciated.

I pick up on two things that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned—first, the importance of the quality of the first report and, secondly, the expectations that people will have of it. By “people”, I refer to the two constituencies mentioned by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig; that is, the veterans, and the servicemen and their families. My concern is over the presentation of the report. The Minister will remember that when he was in Opposition he and I both regretted the fact that the Government had cancelled the position of the chief of public relations for each service. Those three officers had the responsibility of projecting and protecting the image of their particular service, and of protecting the image of their own chief of staff. As a result of the removal of those people, the PR from the Ministry of Defence became much more concerned with protecting and projecting the image of the Minister, which is not the same thing at all. Instead of having the chiefs of staff protected and not going out and saying things that might damage their very important relationships with Ministers, chiefs of staff were speaking out. My noble friend Lord Dannatt will remember this himself: the situation must have been uncomfortable for him, and in earlier days he would not have needed to say the things he did because they would have been said by others.

People in the two constituencies mentioned will have huge expectations on the publication of the first report of the covenant. I put it to the Minister that it is therefore very important that the way in which this is presented is thought through. I use the word “trust” because, although guarantees are given that there is a momentum at the present in the first covenant that the ministries concerned will say things—I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, mentioned the Ministry of Justice as well because of the issue of veterans who fall into the hands of that service—we cannot be absolutely certain that that immense momentum will be maintained. This is where the word “trust” comes in. People will have trust if they see in the Bill the fact that each and every year all the people who have an impact on them and their lives will have to give an account of what they are doing to look after them. This may seem like micromanagement, but when we are considering something as important and fragile as morale and trust in our Armed Forces, I do commend that this is thought through with great care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

Briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Empey. Just today, I had a briefing on the impact of the commissioners who will come in under the Health and Social Care Bill. On the Floor of this House, I have already raised the question that the National Health Service is without sufficient skilled technicians to look after the high-tech artificial limbs with which some of our injured are being fitted. That is exactly the sort of thing that we do not want to have postcode lotteries for around the country. We need to put those two matters together in the reflection which I know that the Minister will carry out.

[Lord Lyell]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I hope that I was not flippant in my comment about my military career, which ended in 1959. I agreed with the points that he raised, especially about Northern Ireland, and the two wonderful words that he used: running jump. Of all people, I appreciate what he was getting at. As for my devolved Administration in Scotland, I see enormous enthusiasm among relevant Ministers in Scotland to do everything possible for injured servicemen and those who have suffered, but, as a very humble member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, I am sure that, with its skills, it could consider the budgetary and financial implications of the measures we are discussing today on either a case-by-case or a category-by-category basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has raised the point and has been wonderfully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. As far as is humanly possible, every case and category that we have been discussing this afternoon should be considered on a United Kingdom basis. The funds should be found to boost support, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I hope that that will be the case in Scotland. I do not know if we have heard anything about Wales; perhaps I had better not delve into that.

I am very grateful for the support and comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, at Second Reading I drew attention to the Government’s positioning of this important clause in the existing Armed Forces Act 2006. Clause 2 is entitled in bold type, “Armed forces covenant report”, and the wording is to be inserted after Section 359 into the 2006 Act as new Section 359A. Section 359 is one of a number of sections towards the back of the 2006 Act, listed as “Miscellaneous”. I pointed out that Section 359 concerns “Pardons for servicemen executed for disciplinary offences: recognition as victims of First World War”. This is an unfortunate juxtaposition for the requirement to report on the covenant, a covenant to which the Prime Minister and many members of the Government have given their strong support. I invited the Government to think again about the placing of this provision because appearances can be important. In winding up, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, accepted that this could be reconsidered.

At Second Reading I criticised not only the placement of Clause 2 but made what I hope was a sensible suggestion for it to be inserted immediately after Section 339 rather than Section 359 and numbering it Section 339A. This would place it in Part 14 of the 2006 Act, headed “Enlistment, Terms of Service etc”. During the Recess I had a letter from the Minister which indicated that, following inquiries with parliamentary counsel and the House authorities, it should be possible to arrange for the position of the Armed Forces covenant section to be changed so as to insert it in the 2006 Act as new Section 353A in Part 17, entitled “Miscellaneous”. I responded saying that I would not challenge the Minister’s intention that the new section should be placed in Part 17 rather than in Part 14 as I had proposed, even though I think that the covenant is rather more important than a miscellaneous adjunct to the Act.

Noble Lords will also have spotted that my amendment inserts the words “Armed forces covenant” as an italic centre heading to the new section, while the Minister proposes to use the words “Armed forces covenant report” as his italicised centre heading. These words are also in bold font at the start of the new section. My service writing directing staff would, I am sure, have red-inked the same phrase appearing in a centre heading and an immediately following side heading. Omitting the word “report” from the italicised centre heading would also allow any further new sections about the covenant to be added at a future time if that were required, without a change to the centre heading. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider this, and explain why, as his letter claimed, it might be possible to achieve the positioning of this new section by a “printing change”, which is a new concept for me. If this is not achievable, can the Committee expect the Minister to table an amendment on Report to reposition this important clause?

As I am on my feet, and with the leave of the Committee—I have already spoken to the right reverend Prelate—may I speak to Amendment 3, which is also in my name? It is, of course, a probing amendment. To save space and complexity in the Marshalled List, I have amended only the first reference to “Secretary of State” in the new section. He is repeatedly referred to, and my proposal should be read to apply to the words “Secretary of State” throughout it.

Why do I think that the Secretary of State is not the right person to report on veterans affairs? I made some comments on that on Second Reading and do not wish to go over all that now. I think that the Committee shares the feeling that someone other than the Secretary of State is the person who should make the annual reports. The Minister will be able to judge for himself the strength of that feeling as we debate the issue.

What should be done instead? On Second Reading, I drew attention to the arrangement made when the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, was made the first Minister for the Disabled over 40 years ago. He specifically did not wish to be embedded in the department for health or any of the other departments that would have an interest in and responsibilities for the disabled. He wished to be able to operate across departments and to bring together their specific involvements with the disabled, which of course cover many issues of interest to veterans too—health, education, local community support and so on. Indeed, there is a good list of appropriate fields in Amendment 5. A Minister for Veterans would be well placed in the Cabinet Office. The Prime Minister of the day accepted the arguments and reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and we all know how successful the noble Lord was and has been ever since in his support and advocacy for the disabled. The arrangements made by Command Paper 7424 in July 2008 for the external reference group, now the covenant reference group, to operate within the Cabinet Office seem an excellent start on which to build and establish a Minister with responsibility for veterans policy in the Cabinet Office. If this idea were taken up, it would also give a far greater indication of the Government’s commitment to veterans and their interests.

In the United States, there is of course a separate Department of Veterans Affairs. Our veteran numbers are no match for the United States, but the principle of separating defence policy and policy for overseeing veterans affairs is a sound one. We should adopt it too. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who added his name to my two amendments, is unfortunately away from London at this time. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, my Amendment 12 is also in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. It refers specifically to the Minister for Veterans Affairs being in the Cabinet Office rather than the Ministry of Defence. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I have raised the matter on a number of occasions. The comparison with the success of the Minister for Disabilities, which he mentioned, is mirrored by another appointment by the previous Government—the Minister for the Third Sector, who was able to speak from the Cabinet Office and unite the activities of the voluntary sector across the whole spectrum of ministries. It seemed to work extremely well.

I have always gone further. To my mind, the Government have created the ideal post in the Minister for Civil Society, who already has to pull together all the people responsible for the support of veterans in the community as a whole. Rather than necessarily appoint another separate Minister for Veterans Affairs, it would seem logical that that could be added to the portfolio of the Minister for Civil Society, who is already there with a role that precisely mirrors what is required for veterans.

As we have seen, the Minister for Veterans Affairs actually covers every other ministry, including the Ministry of Defence, but has no real rights to interfere with their activities from where he currently is. In addition, the Minister who has the responsibility for veterans affairs now has a very large number of responsibilities, which may in fact inhibit his ability to speak with all the ministries—those of health, transport, work and pensions, communities and local government and so on—that are so vital in veterans affairs. He is responsible for the approach to service personnel and civil servants, reserves, cadets, the Defence Vetting Agency, the MoD Police and Guarding Agency, the People, Pay and Pensions Agency, service children’s education, the Met Office and the Hydrographic Office, in addition to the Service Personnel Veterans Agency. He is already a very busy man. If he has all those responsibilities I do not see how he can carry out all the responsibilities for veterans, particularly as foreseen in the report that is going to have to be made by this covenant. If he were in the Cabinet Office, to which everyone had to report, then you could establish a mechanism to make certain that all the right ingredients were in the report when it was presented to Parliament.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, if I might interrupt, it might help the Committee. There are a large number of amendments in this group under different noble Lords’ names and I do not know whether they are aware that they should be speaking to them now—they will not get a chance later on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, this is a very important amendment because of what has happened to the Public Bodies Bill. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the new Chief Coroner would have had a role in monitoring investigations into deaths of service personnel and in ensuring that coroners were suitably trained to conduct such investigations. However, that is not the situation at the moment.

The requirement in the Bill is that the Armed Forces covenant report includes information on the effects of membership or former membership of the Armed Forces on servicepeople, or descriptions of such people. It is really important to be aware in our deliberations that, while there are quarterly reports on those who die on active service overseas, a large number of serving personnel die on active service but not overseas. I have the data from 2000 to 2009. In 2009 there were 59 deaths during hostile action and 47 other deaths: four violent, four suicides, 22 accidents and 19 that were disease-related. The important point is that these deaths are not being catalogued anywhere. I am glad that the Government are continuing to produce quarterly reports on the inquests of service personnel who died overseas. The latest report was on 19 July 2011. A total of 476 inquests had been held into the deaths of service personnel who had lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 12 service personnel who died of their injuries in the UK.

However, the way in which those inquests were handled raises some questions. There were 75 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan: 21 involved deaths in the previous six months. The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner had retained 28 of the remaining open inquests, but there were 54 outstanding inquests, which meant that relatives had waited for more than six months. Thirty-five inquests were being conducted by coroners closer to the next of kin. That group becomes really important because, when one looks through the list of inquests from 2002 to August 2009, some were held by coroners who did more than five inquests a year but, in 2009, half of them were conducted by coroners who did fewer than five military inquests in their whole working lifetime. Sometimes the list may include one inquest done by one coroner over the whole period of the list being available. The problem is that those coroners may have no training in military inquests. The questions they ask may not collate the important and relevant information. That is because the role of the coroner’s inquest is to determine the cause of death and potentially make recommendations, but a lot more information needs to be gained.

The other concern is the experience of the bereaved families. I will quote one bereaved relative who said that when her sister died outside the military the police advised that they should get legal representation. She said that such advice was small comfort to the family at the time. That was in 2009. When a young man in the family lost his life on active service, the family went into the inquest blind and totally unadvised about the process.

In 2009, the Royal British Legion facilitated a meeting of bereaved families. The comments from that meeting are horrific. One woman said:

“Listening to your husband’s final words or viewing images on screen of his partial burial site is a very personal, emotional and private time. One should not have to see this for the first time in a court room”.

Another bereaved person said:

“Had we known before we went to the inquest, the agenda and the proceedings would have been entirely different and we could have provided more assistance to the coroner”.

The way that these inquests are currently being handled is excellent in some cases, but I am afraid that in others it is not good at all, but lamentable. That is despite the Ministry of Defence having published in 2008 the Boards of Inquiry and Coroners’ Inquests Information for Bereaved Families booklet. That booklet is not providing any support to these bereaved families.

The proposed Chief Coroner would have provided leadership over the way in which the inquests are conducted, the information to be collated from them and central information about all other military deaths which do not occur overseas. The problem is that when a body is repatriated to the UK, if only one person has died in that incident, the coroner—it has been the coroner from Swindon and Wiltshire—can allocate the inquest to the local coroner wherever that person is to be buried or cremated and have their final resting place. It is because of that that we have this lack of expertise across the whole country.

The other reason that it is important carefully to collect information from military inquests relates to a previous amendment that we discussed in the names of my noble friends Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel. It is important to do this because battlefield tactics change rapidly and therefore a coroner with relevant experience will have conducted inquests into contemporary military fatalities and will ask more pertinent questions and collect more appropriate data. The other problem is that when a coroner gives a narrative verdict, others with a legitimate interest may never see it. A coroner’s verdict will represent a summary of the evidence and ought to be a matter of written record but is currently not collated. Unless we include a requirement to report on the operation of inquests and not merely to collate their outcome, we will do a major disservice to those who have lost their lives while on active service for this country and to troops currently serving whose lives remain at risk because we are not collating information and learning lessons from deaths that have occurred, quite apart from not doing the right and best thing by those who are bereaved and left behind.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I will add one thing to what the noble Baroness has said. One of the bodies taking most action against the Government as regards the Chief Coroner is the Royal British Legion. It has worked with the charity Inquest, which looks after bereaved families, and has presented a powerful case. That case would be a great deal more powerful if the Ministry of Defence took as strong a line on behalf of serving people affected by this matter as the Royal British Legion is taking on behalf of veterans.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, inquests are a crucial part of how we now support those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. Previous generations had to make do with a letter which said little about what happened. Over the past 30 years military inquests have evolved. It is fair to say that they are still evolving. A decision has been taken not to go down the road towards separate military inquests but to allow inquests on deaths in the Armed Forces abroad to be conducted by the civilian coroner service.

It is fair to say that the majority of inquests have been very well conducted and have been very helpful to the families concerned; those families have made that clear. Inquests, of course, bring very mixed emotions. On the one hand, it is right and proper that families have the opportunity to learn in detail how their loved ones died, hear witnesses and ask hard questions. On the other hand, each inquest brings home to the family and to everyone else the tragedy of loss and the human cost of the operations on which we have embarked. As noble Lords have remarked, the change in the character of warfare means that the technical details that inquests now have to go into are also evolving. Ensuring that the inquest system is fit for purpose in meeting the needs and expectations of bereaved service families is an important responsibility for any Government. The Joint Ministerial Statement on military inquests made to Parliament each quarter—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to this—bears this out and provides valuable information.

We recognise this topic as an important element of the Armed Forces covenant, particularly in the current sad circumstances where in recent years we have suffered a substantial number of casualties in Afghanistan. In current circumstances, we therefore fully expect it to be covered in the annual report. However, noble Lords can also imagine a happier time when the operation of the inquest system will be of less concern to the Armed Forces community because we might not then be involved in deployed operations or suffering fatalities. It is not a perennial issue like healthcare or education. The amendment would, however, force the Secretary of State to examine it in those circumstances as well as those of today. We would lose the flexibility to focus the report on the key issues of the day. Our concern with key issues changes over time, so our argument for flexibility in the report is precisely not to enshrine in statutory form today’s definition of what the most important issues are.

I therefore suggest that our own approach, giving the Secretary of State the discretion to decide which topics should be covered, is a better one. However, in no way does this fail to recognise the importance of the good conduct of inquests for the families of those who have died on active service abroad. It is an extremely important topic which the Ministry of Defence recognises and which will, under the current circumstances, clearly form an important part of any report. Having said this, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will not press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

13: Clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) An armed forces covenant report must state what contribution to the preparation of the report was made by each government department with primary responsibility for each field covered by the report.
( ) Where an armed forces covenant report states that special provision for former service people or particular descriptions of former service people is justified, it must also state in respect of each field covered by the report what particular duties are imposed on each government department with primary responsibility for each field.”

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13, but if I had seen them before, I would have spoken also to Amendments 14 and 15 because they say very much the same thing. They are an amplification of some of the points that have already been discussed in relation to this clause. I tabled this amendment because I had supposed that after the Grand Committee, the Minister would want to reflect before the Report stage on many of the things that had been put forward. Indeed, those of us who have tabled amendments have done so in order to make certain that what comes before the House on Report is a consideration of all that has been said related to the aim of the covenant and what it is trying to do.

My reason for tabling Amendment 13 is that I am uneasy about two subsections in their implications for veterans. I refer particularly to subsections (2)(b) and (c) which talk about the report looking at,

“the fields of healthcare, education and housing; and … in other such fields as the Secretary of State may determine”.

Presumably that is a reference to the Secretary of State for Defence. My other concern is about subsection (6)(a) which states that,

“the Secretary of State must consider whether the making of special provision … would be justified”.

I do not think that it is up to the Secretary of State for Defence to decide what it is appropriate for Parliament to be told about veteran affairs. As has already been said, veteran affairs are the responsibility of many other ministries which presumably will decide how they implement the responsibilities that are laid on them by the Government and the nation. It is not up to the Secretary of State for Defence to implement that. He is responsible for the application of the covenant to those people who are serving.

That is where I disagree slightly with the Minister because I think that there are two parts to this covenant. One is to do with the serving, which can be dealt with by the Ministry of Defence, and the other is to do with the veterans, which is dealt with by others. That is why I suggested that the Minister for veteran affairs should be somewhere else where he can co-ordinate that activity. Therefore, based on the suggestion that the covenant should be in two parts, it is important that, while I agree that you cannot list everything that should be there, there should be a very clear indication given by the Government to the ministries that have a responsibility for veteran affairs as to what those responsibilities cover. The Cabinet Office is well able to do this. For example, there is mention in the covenant book published by the Ministry of Defence that there is going to be a mental health well-being website, which it is the responsibility of the Department of Health to establish. Presumably, that department will report on that.

On prosthetics provision, I await with interest the report by Dr Murrison because, as I have mentioned in the House before, I had once to accept a cheque on behalf of a voluntary organisation, accompanied by a young Royal Marine who had lost two legs and one arm in Afghanistan. He had just returned from America where he had had his prosthetic legs serviced because the NHS was unable to provide technicians to service them. That is utterly unacceptable. The NHS must make provision for having artificial limbs serviced wherever the person happens to be. That is for the NHS to do and to report on, and not for the Secretary of State for Defence.

Changes to service pensions are for the Department for Work and Pensions. As regards social housing, I think that it is interesting that a number of counties have already come forward with their own version of the covenant as it applies in their county. I mention Hampshire in particular because I happen to have seen that version, which is very interesting. I suggest that this is a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government to take an interest in to make certain that what is provided is consistent throughout the United Kingdom, and that it is not a postcode lottery as to where you happen to live as a veteran because one county is doing something and another is doing something else.

I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned those who get into the hands of the criminal justice system. I should also like to see an obligation for a report, for example, from the Ministry of Justice about how the problems faced by people ex-service getting into the hands of the criminal justice system are being catered for and how they are being helped to rehabilitate into civilian life after custody. The Ministry of Justice has not being doing that very well. Recently, the Howard League produced a report which covers some aspects but not as many of the practicalities as I would like. We want to see the practicalities in the covenant and the Ministry of Justice held to account for making certain that those things happen.

I put my name to Amendment 2 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield because its value is that it lists a whole lot of subjects that need to be covered. It is not specific in detail but it covers the aspects. It is very important to have somebody independent responsible to the Veterans Minister for co-ordinating the activities of the public, private and voluntary sectors in support of veterans. I am very glad to see that acknowledgement has been given to the role of the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, COBSEO, which is now seen as a representative of service charities, pulling them all together. The more one looks at this, it is a very fragmented area. The covenant provides a priceless opportunity to pull everything together in a more comprehensive and national way. Therefore, it is very important that those who have responsibilities in this area should be told the general areas for which they are responsible, and that should not be up to the Secretary of State for Defence to determine but for the Government, on behalf of the nation.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 14 and 15 in my name and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. First, we welcome the fact that we have a military covenant in this Bill. I would also like to thank the Minister for being so accessible to colleagues by way of explanation of what is happening and the availability of his officials for consultation.

As I see it, the big issue, basically, is this. I would like a situation where all servicepeople, irrespective of postcode, can expect that they and their families will, as far as is practicable, be able to command and receive the services that we believe are necessary in the event of them getting into difficulties on the battlefield or, in the event of a fatality, back-up for their families, which is broadly the same throughout the United Kingdom. In other words, a serviceperson from a particular part of the United Kingdom should not go on to the battlefield with the thought hanging over his or her head that if anything went wrong they or their families would receive less help and service in some parts of the United Kingdom.

I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who is not in her place, who said at Second Reading that we had some loose ends to tidy up, and I believe we have loose ends here. As has been stated by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the issue is simply that the Secretary of State is not in charge of the delivery mechanisms that are required to ensure that the covenant means something to the people for whom it is designed. Not only does he not control other Whitehall departments, but it is perfectly obvious that in the age of devolution he does not control what the devolved Administrations do. As we know, they receive block grants and, as it so happens, are in charge of the three issues that have been highlighted in the Bill—health, education and housing. Therefore, we are trying to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes his or her report to Parliament, Parliament knows who is feeding input into that report so that it can judge whether or not it is comprehensive. I do not wish to unpick or interfere with devolution settlements. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is allowing Parliament to be informed as to who precisely is contributing to the report.

Turning to the Explanatory Notes, the end of paragraph 19 says:

“Under new section 359A(6) the Secretary of State must also consider whether effects covered by the report would justify making special provision for servicepeople, or a category of them. If the Secretary of State does consider that to be the case, the report must say so.”

If the Secretary of State subsequently decided that something under that heading would have to be done, they could not deliver—at least not in all parts of the United Kingdom. That is perfectly obvious, because the Secretary of State is no longer in control. Therefore, we have the pieces on the board that are necessary to deliver a covenant, but we have not put them together in the most effective way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. I am sure that all Members of the Committee respect him when he says that he will listen and reflect. That is the style that we have come to admire in his approach to everything placed in his way. I am very grateful for that attitude. I make no apology for raising my concern about a postcode lottery and for including the phrase,

“what particular duties are imposed on each government department with primary responsibility for each field”

for consideration. My noble friend Lord Empey widened that to include parts of the United Kingdom other than England. I am glad that that point was picked up by the Minister because it is very important. I am sure that he will also reflect on the contributions made in this interesting debate. My noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup raised some spectres that are worth considering; I hope they do not arise. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield pulled a lot of points together, as he did earlier. I hope that the Minister will reflect that throughout all we have been saying today there is very genuine good will towards the idea of a covenant. All of us, not least those who have had the privilege of serving in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, want to see the best possible outcome for all the constituents of the covenant. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Defence: Reform

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for that question. It is too early to give a specific figure. We received the report of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, today and we are considering it. We have not come up with any figures on that issue.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, is the Minister implying that the three single service headquarters—land, air and naval—are being removed and replaced by this joint forces command, or are they going to stay? If so, what will be the relationship between them?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the joint forces command is a new command with a four-star commander. We are not forcing the chiefs out of London; they can still have a base there. We expect them to continue to keep a base in London, with a smaller staff, but to spend more of their time with their own services.

War Widows’ Association of Great Britain

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on obtaining this debate. I was going to congratulate him on happily achieving it on the day of the service, but he modestly told me this morning that that was not necessarily so. However, I am extremely glad that we have this opportunity to pay tribute to the War Widows’ Association on the very day that it held the moving service I was fortunate enough to attend.

I want to mention two things about that service. First, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, the indefatigable president of the association, that she read Sir William Tyndall’s timeless translation of “Corinthians” about charity quite beautifully. It is something that I shall never forget. Secondly, I was sitting alongside a window whose inauguration I shall also never forget. It is in commemoration of a young grenadier who was killed in Belfast in 1980 when he was commanding my SAS troop. I remember its unveiling and the dignity of his young wife widowed in the first year of marriage. It was moving to be sitting alongside that particular window.

Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the Armed Forces have come across colleagues and friends who early in their career have left widows. I am extremely grateful that the noble Viscount mentioned the problems of those who risk losing their pension because of marrying and cohabiting. I remember two colleagues in particular. One was killed in Aden three weeks after leaving the staff college, where for a year we had lived opposite each other. He left a wife and two young children, who had the most terrible problems trying to look after them. Another was the widow of a colleague who died on Bloody Sunday, after being shot in Londonderry six months before. In order to be able to bring up her children, she could not afford to give up her widow’s pension. It is timely to bring these things out.

I also warmly support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, about the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. It seems quite wrong that the charities and others which are trying to help people are having difficulty obtaining information that will enable them to contact the people who need help. Something is wrong here and it needs to be put right.

I want to say a few words about the context of the Armed Forces covenant, which is totally new to me, because in all my service it did not exist; there was no such thing. Indeed, “Armed Forces covenant” is a very new phrase. A military covenant has been talked about in the Army for the past three or four years, but is unknown to and unrecognised by the Navy and the Royal Air Force. I do not wish to appear to carp, but I must admit that one word makes me slightly cross when I read the introduction to the thing. It talks about rebuilding the Armed Forces covenant, but we are not rebuilding anything; it has never been there before. “Rebuilding” defines something that has been bust and requires repair. What we actually require is a covenant to be built—to be made. It would be much more dignified if we dropped the word “rebuilding” and set about trying to develop the covenant as it ought to be.

I draw attention to one aspect of each of the three parts that illustrates what I mean. The Armed Forces covenant itself describes the levels of support on page 5. The greatest level of support is due to those who are “bereaved due to Service”. That implies that the most should happen for them. However, the second document, The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, far from listing all the support to bereaved families has two pages that are very largely given over to discussing what help they might need from the inquest advice service when they go to an inquest. I suggest that there is a disconnect here. I seriously believe that any support that needs to be given to bereaved families, who are listed right at the heart of the covenant, needs to be spelled out much more clearly.

Recommendation 4.3.2.d in the third document, The Government’s Response to the Report of the Task Force on the Military Covenant, refers to,

“a ‘shopping list’ of areas of greatest need”.

I ask the Government whether, in close contact with the War Widows’ Association, they could draw up a shopping list of what the association recognises to be the areas of greatest need, insert them into the covenant and then set out in the covenant that the Secretary of State should be required to report every year to Parliament on how that shopping list is being met. It seems to me that that would be the best way in which to repay the debt that we owe to these remarkable people, whose bravery and fortitude, frankly, I admire and am humbled by every day.

Nuclear Deterrent

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I can confirm that nothing is on hold at the moment. We are spending money to make our policy good, but we are in a coalition. We have made an agreement with our coalition partners and we have to stick by it.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, 2015 is an important year in terms of defence because it is the year during which we will have to examine the economic situation and see whether it is possible to continue with the intent set out in the announced SDSR. The costs of the new deterrent submarine announced or at least hinted at today are, of course, going to run on over that time. Can the Minister confirm that in the study, the question of the affordability of the future defence of the country will be taken into account, bearing in mind that we have now added a given which was not there before in quite such stark terms? I notice that the study is going to take on only Liberal Democrats and not others. Perhaps it may be sensible to widen the people participating in this study to include more than merely Liberal Democrats.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this is what we have agreed and we will stick to the agreement. It will be as has been set out in the Statement. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord about the difficult financial environment in which we are working. However, we do have this in hand.

Defence: Military Covenant

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on obtaining this debate. Having spent many happy hours and days in Bishop’s Lodge, Wakefield, when my father was the bishop, I am sure that under him it is in equally good hands.

Yesterday the Cross-Benchers had the great pleasure and privilege of having the Prime Minister address us for nearly an hour. I made a point of asking him what he meant by, and intended by, the Armed Forces covenant. He replied that it was a debt that the nation owed to the Armed Forces in return for them putting their lives on the line that amounted to a fair reward and lifelong support for them and their families. I cannot think of a better description.

I was extremely glad to note that the Armed Forces covenant was mentioned in the SDSR, which showed that, although a lot of it was about equipment, people have not forgotten that Armed Forces issues are essentially about people. However, I hope that nobody thinks that the Armed Forces covenant is merely an SDSR issue to be revisited in 2015. It is a living issue, today and every day. There is a particular purpose to it which I will come to.

As Professor Hew Strachan mentioned in his report on the Armed Forces covenant, commissioned by the Prime Minister, the covenant is not one covenant but three covenants in one. The first is between the Government and the Armed Forces. That essentially covers the care and support of members of the Armed Forces during and after their service. I make no apology for returning to an issue that I raised this morning in the debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, namely the question of a Veterans Minister. I believe firmly that unless there is a named person responsible and accountable for overseeing the covenant, it will not happen.

The Minister took me to task because he thought that I was suggesting that there should be centralised control and direction. I was not saying that at all. I have said many times on the Floor of this House that there is “what” and “how” in making certain that things happen. The Government should deliver the “what” and the “how” should be left to local areas. This morning I quoted examples of local areas that are implementing this. The trouble is that recently people have been swamped with “how”. We do not need it: we need “what”, and somebody needs to be doing it.

My reason for mentioning the Cabinet Office was highlighted by a letter that I was copied into from the rehabilitation services group in the Ministry of Justice. It states:

“Our Minister is aware of the content of The Murrison Report”,

into mental health issues, which we discussed this morning,

“but as it does not contain specific recommendations for the MOJ it has not generated the need for formal response at this time. However, we would of course want to support any work which improves the delivery of health services to offenders. To that end, if DH”—

Department of Health—

“policy is sufficiently developed in the future to include new and/or veteran specific elements then we will want to engage to ensure that delivery of that to prisoners and offenders in the community is as effective as possible”.

In other words, we are doing nothing until somebody co-ordinates it. This relates to the covenant.

The second part of the covenant is between the nation and the Armed Forces. The return from the nation is seen most obviously in the donations given to service charities, and in the use that the charities put them to.

The third part, which we must never forget, is within the command chain. My ancestor, Sir John Moore, laid down the ethos of the Rifle Brigade, the regiment that I joined. He said that it was a mutual bond of trust and affection between officers and riflemen, which the officers had to earn. That is very true: the mutual bond of trust and affection between the structure of the forces and the people serving is something that has to be earned. That structure includes government. There have been examples of where it has not been earned. The covenant is the most obvious demonstration that that trust is understood and is being earned.

I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate mentioned veterans, whom we discussed earlier. I will say something briefly about those who I am very worried might become veterans prematurely unless the full implications of the Armed Forces covenant are implemented and understood. I remember a black year in my service, 1977, when the Government of the time implemented what was known as the Irishman's pay rise, when the pay increase was less than the charges made on soldiers. I remember commanding officers resigning because they refused to stand up to tell their men that what was being offered was good, because they knew it to be bad. I am very concerned that the chain of command must be told the truth—not least at a time when we are asking enormous operational sacrifices by our men and women, as one can hear for oneself if one goes to talk to them.

So it was that last week, I saw allowances being cut. When I see all the heat being engendered by the Officers' Pensions Society over the reduction in pensions, I think back to that time and I am enormously worried about the trends that I see creeping into retention rates, particularly of experienced people, commanding officers and bright young people, before their service is ended. If ever there was a warning sign to the Government, that is it. Please, please, please do not tamper with the covenant. It means something. It means that the Armed Forces will be there on behalf of the nation to do what the nation expects them to do, as it has had so vividly and regularly illustrated over the years.