Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

It is always difficult when, on one side of the argument, some people are not quite convinced by the Bill and, on the other side, other people are also not convinced by it. We are in the middle, and I am convinced that we have got the balance right. The chain of command need not think that they have anything to fear or that they will be undermined by the creation of the ombudsman and the new system. Equally, we have satisfied those who want a more rigorous approach to ensure that genuine grievances, which cannot be raised in the normal way by virtue of service, will be properly dealt with, and that if they are not—when maladministration is alleged—they will be properly investigated.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that the Bill is long overdue and most welcome. How wide is the remit of the ombudsman? Does it stick at maladministration, or can it go further? The Minister said she wanted people to have every opportunity to raise their concerns. How far is she prepared to see that go?

[Anna Soubry]

I could be rude to the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he read the Bill. It is clear that it provides for an ombudsman in the traditional sense of someone who investigates when a complaint of maladministration has made. The definition of maladministration is broad, but we are clear that we are putting in place a new complaints system. As a result, we now have an ombudsman. That is not another level of appeal: it means that someone whose grievance has been flawed through maladministration and not been dealt with properly can take their complaint to the ombudsman, who will see whether there has been maladministration. The ombudsman will have the breadth of remit to go into the detail of the allegation of administration, and then to report without fear or favour and with rigour. At any stage and at any time, the ombudsman can go to any of the chiefs of staff or any Minister—most importantly, of course, the Secretary of State—and has complete freedom, should he or she so wish, to go to any member of the press and say, “Something is happening here that I am not happy about”, or to the Chair of the Select Committee and say, “This is something that I have found out and I am concerned about.”

In many ways, those are the great freedoms, but it is clear in the Bill that the ombudsman is appointed to look at maladministration—never forgetting that it is the individual who has raised a grievance, sought redress, felt that they have not got it through the system and have exhausted their appeals who will go to the ombudsman on the basis of maladministration, like many of those who go to an ombudsman.

We have drafted regulations that deal with the new system of complaints. Hon. Members have rightly raised the criticism—Dr Susan Atkins also complained about it—that too often there is too much delay. That is wrong, and that is why it is imperative that we reform the system. When we have the ombudsman in place, he or she must be in a position to conclude that delay is part of maladministration. He or she will be able to look specifically at that and take their recommendations to the Defence Council if need be. I have confidence that action will be taken accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am struggling to have much sympathy with that argument, because it is certainly my experience that allegations are taken extremely seriously by the Secretary of State, and indeed by any other Minister in the Ministry of Defence. It is also my experience of the service chiefs, notably the new head of the Army—the new Chief of the General Staff—that on issues of bullying, harassment and the role of women and any discrimination against women, they are extremely rigorous. In every conversation and meeting I have ever had with the Chief of the General Staff, even when I might have wanted to talk about one or two matters as well as the role of women, he has insisted that we speak about that, such is his determination to eradicate harassment, bullying and sexual discrimination in the Army. We have seen a huge sea change, and it is to be welcomed, not criticised.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I am grateful for the thorough way in which this matter is being put to the House tonight, but one issue has always hung over the way in which the MOD handles things. If someone makes a complaint of bullying and then, in one way or another, dies, the complaint dies with them. Under this Bill, will it be possible for the next of kin to pursue that complaint, using the ombudsman’s powers to do so?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In the terrible circumstances in which someone dies when a complaint has started, there are many instances in which we would want that complaint to continue, most notably if it were about something that might affect somebody’s pension or allowances and would therefore be to the financial benefit of the family, or if there were a point of principle. The trouble is that when somebody makes a complaint about bullying, they make that complaint against somebody else and if that second person denies that they have bullied the first person, they are entitled to a fair hearing. In the terrible event that the first person has died, the second person cannot challenge the complaint and so the danger is that the person against whom the complaint is made is effectively denied a fair hearing because he or she cannot, in effect, query or challenge the complaint. I hope that that makes sense. It is a terribly important part of natural justice that if somebody makes a complaint against somebody else, the person being complained about should have the right to give their side of events so that whoever is determining the case can hear all the evidence on both sides and reach the right conclusion.

Aircraft Carriers and UK Shipbuilding

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to report that relations in the shipbuilding industry between management and unions are good and constructive. The unions understand the challenge that the industry faces, and they have worked with the management to address it. That sometimes means that union officials must make tough decisions as well, because they know that the industry cannot be sustained at its current size.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to the diversity of the shipbuilding industry. We hear a great deal about how shipbuilding will be sustained through the commercial market and the third-nation market, including the market for warships, but I am afraid I have seen no evidence to suggest that we are able to compete in what is a very aggressive global market for commercial shipping. I think that the shipbuilding industry in this country will be primarily dependent on Royal Navy orders placed in the United Kingdom, because of the sovereign requirement for us to have warship building capability.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

Can the Secretary of State explain why it was decided to transfer the existing work that was commissioned in Portsmouth away from the yard, so that the employees there will have no opportunity to complete the construction of the aircraft carriers? Can he also assure us that the MOD will not seek to claw back any of the money that is made available to Portsmouth through the city deal?

[Mr Hammond]

Let me respond first to the question about the aircraft carriers. Today BAE Systems announced its plan for rationalising the industry, as it must do under the TOBA in order to sustain warship building capability in the future. The challenge for us is to bridge the gap between the completion of the carrier and the start of the Type 26 programme. By moving three carrier blocks to the Clyde, along with the manufacture of the OPVs, we shall be able to sustain warship building on the Clyde and to maintain its viability into the future.

I should be happy to discuss the city deal negotiations with the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, is well acquainted with the affairs of Portsmouth city council. I understand that the MOD is prepared to make land available as part of an overall scheme which would create investment and employment opportunities in the city.

Arctic Convoy Veterans Medal

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Dinenage]

In two moments, I will. I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North, whom I think is still a serving member of the Army. I am sure that he very much represents the views of the service people of today, who recognise fully and fully appreciate the sacrifice that these gentlemen made.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Like others, I congratulate her on successfully securing the debate. She said that there were two words that she wanted to talk about. There are two other words that, unfortunately, have not been taken on board by the Government. One is gratitude—the gratitude of the nation to these men. The other is obligation—the obligation that successive Governments have refused to take up to honour these men with the medal they deserve. The Minister’s outburst belittled the importance of this debate, and I regret that he chose to make those statements. I believe that “obligation” and “gratitude” are the two things that the nation now needs to show these men while they are still alive.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and echo everything that he has said. I know that he has also been a great supporter of the Arctic convoy veterans in their campaign for a medal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, which further underlines the obstacles that are being put in the way of doing the right thing. The Ministry of Defence was asked to review the medals system in July 2010, and it took 16 months to get nowhere. However, time is of the essence. It is 70 years since the first convoys, and the remaining veterans are in their 80s and 90s; of the thousands who took part in the convoys, only 200 are yet alive.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

The hon. Lady is being enormously generous in giving way again. Is she, like me, unable to find a single precedent other than that of successive Ministry of Defence Ministers from all Governments against giving the medal?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Absolutely—I have yet to find anyone who finds the medal unpalatable, other than members of the MOD.

Does the Minister agree that enough time has already been wasted on reviews and delays? How long will the new independent review requested by the Prime Minister take, and when will it be completed? Finally, what are the scope and leadership of the review? According to the MOD, the details are expected to be released shortly—but “shortly” is not a period that we understand. What does it mean? Time is not on our side, and I ask him to be more specific. I understand that the MOD hides behind rules, protocols and precedents, but another criterion ought to take absolute priority: this is the right thing to do. Those men are not politicians, and at their age they should not have to fight for justice. It appals me that people who gave so much to ensure the freedoms that we daily take for granted should have to beg for the recognition that they deserve.

Successive Conservative leaders in opposition have committed to the medal without review. It is dreadful that it has to be reviewed again and again. I urge the Minister to ensure that it is done quickly. Time is not on the side of those brave gentlemen. It would be utterly disgusting were a medal awarded and no one was alive to receive it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I am saying that that determination is possible if people in the past got it wrong. We are saying in this debate that those in the Admiralty who determined who would receive medals got it wrong and that in some way we who were born after the second world war know better than those who were in that war. Actually, they were people like us, who are sitting in our centrally heated Chamber. Mountbatten was not on the Admiralty Board because he was Viceroy of India at the time, but he had commanded Kelly during the war, and ended up an admiral. That was not unusual for experienced people. We are in danger of saying that we should gainsay their knowledge and disparage their decisions, which were made by good people with experience.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

No, I will not.

The intention post-war was not to cover everyone with medals. Medals in the UK mean something, and we pay tribute to the people in the Public Gallery who are showing the medals that they won through risk and rigour. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport mentioned the USSR. Authoritarian regimes and dictators, such a Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, often throw medals around. North Korean generals are covered with medal ribbons. We have traditionally taken the view in this country—hon. Members may disagree—that medals will be awarded only for campaigns that show risk and rigour.

Defence Transformation

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The big difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we not only say that we believe in the Territorials; we are funding the Territorials, whereas they cut the Territorials. Moreover, we believe that having a stronger reserve is one of the ways of increasing the links between the armed forces and the communities of this country. That community linkage should not be underestimated, and it is not easy to put a monetary value on it.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

As the Secretary of State did not say too much about the Royal Navy, can we take it that the bases in Portsmouth, Plymouth and Rosyth are safe from any cuts? Can he give an assurance that the Navy basing, based on the plan announced earlier this year, will be maintained?

[Dr Fox]

The reason I did not mention any specific bases is that there are no changes planned in the usage of any of the bases that my hon. Friend mentions.

Armed Forces Bill

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

If the review that is being carried out into the reserve forces comes up with recommendations that would need to be written into the covenant, would it be possible to update it in the yearly report, or would the covenant, as now written, have to await the five-yearly report under the Bill?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raises two points. First, should things change as a result of the reserve forces review that might give rise to something different, that would not necessarily be covered in the Bill as enacted but might require some other form of legislation. Secondly—I am delighted to see the coalition acting as one on this—we have argued all along that we want broad guidelines within the covenant report, not boxes to tick, so the Secretary of State can consider almost anything he likes when preparing his report. Furthermore, the external reference group, or anybody else, can raise whatever they like under the covenant report and our subsequent discussions about it.

To return to the protection of employment for reservists, the 1985 Act will apply to the amendment that we passed to widen the use of reserves in the UK and to all other current operations. I hope that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will accept that assurance as a response to her earlier point, and I will not send her a letter if that is okay.

I think that this is a good Bill. It is the first Bill that I have taken through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I would like first to offer the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who spoke for the Opposition, and the Minister the opportunity to join the reserve forces, because if their combative skills in this place are anything to go by, they would both be welcome in whichever element of the service—

[Mr Robathan]

I am too old.

[Mr Hancock]

One is never too old to give service to one’s country.

I join the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in paying tribute to the two coroners who have dealt with military deaths up to now. I have assisted families who have been through that process, and they have always been very complimentary about the way the coroners have acted, the way they were treated by the court and the way the coroners—they believe rightly—tackled the very controversial issues that had resulted in the deaths of their loved ones. I have yet to meet or hear from anyone who is seriously dissatisfied with the behaviour of those coroners, both of whom rightly deserve to be congratulated and thanked on behalf of this House and all the families who have been through that process.

There are those Members who would like more written into the Bill than the three points in the covenant, but really the list is endless. The three issues identified were those that have been raised most consistently, but that is not to say that the others will be ignored. One benefit of having a yearly review and a report to this House is to give all players—those inside and outside the armed forces, whether former or serving members, and other groups representing them—the opportunity to put into play their points of view. Therefore, not writing things into the Bill is not as relevant as some would want to think. I happen to believe that Members from all parts of the House who have worked as Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have tried to put the armed forces at the forefront of their endeavours to be fair.

I also criticise those who do not believe that the covenant is a contract. It is a contract: a contract between the British people, through this House, and the armed forces. Those who have criticised the idea that the covenant is not a written contract are mistaken. At a time when the armed forces have never been held in greater esteem, the people of this country believe that we have a duty not only to honour the covenant, but to make it work for those inside or outside the forces. The idea in the Bill of giving greater independence when complaints are made and dealt with is to be welcomed. However, I am slightly dismayed that we have not done more to introduce a proper ID card for veterans, to give them the same status that veterans have in other countries. I am grateful that the Minister and the Secretary of State have at different times conceded that further consideration will be given to that matter. We need to be sure that we honour our pledge to provide these services through the covenant and through the Bill, wherever they are asked for around the country. It should be irrelevant where the person lives at the time.

The Bill has a number of attractions for people in the armed forces, but it does not really satisfy those who have an interest in the way in which reservists who go on active service are treated when they return. The Select Committee on Defence has taken evidence recently on the way in which returning reserve service personnel are treated—by the health service or by employers, for example. The situation is unsatisfactory in that there is still a sense of exclusion. Returning reservists are not given enough support, for example, when they have problems with their employers.

We need to build into the review of armed forces legislation over the next five years, and into the covenant itself, greater support for reservists who are having trouble. It is often difficult for someone returning to the United Kingdom after serving abroad for six months to deal with problems arising from their employment. Where do they get the help and support that they genuinely need? In some parts of the country, it is very difficult to get that sort of assistance, and we must look at that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What sort of help is available for a Territorial Army reservist when he has problems with his job? How can the Government help, given that a commercial arrangement is involved?

[Mr Hancock]

I think that the military legal services ought to be made available to them. The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record of service in the armed forces, and I believe that the same facilities that would have been offered to him, should he have encountered difficulties during his military career, such as medical or legal advice, should be forthcoming to others. I want those facilities to be offered to individual reservists on their return to the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will consider that matter seriously.

On behalf of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I should like to say how delighted I am that the coalition has been able to deliver on its promise to armed forces personnel and their families that the covenant would be written into legislation and therefore deemed to be part of the law of the land. People can now have great confidence that the armed forces, if not the national health service, are safe in the hands of the coalition.

Military Covenant

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I have responded to each point raised in turn, and I will continue to do so.

We are asking the Conservative party to maintain its manifesto commitment, and to vote for it. We will vote for its manifesto commitment today, and the country will expect Conservative Members to do the same.

Today’s debate also provides an opportunity for the Government to reflect again on their decision on the chief coroner’s office. It would give families who have lost those closest to them, often in tragic, painful and extremely difficult circumstances—the type of people whom the hon. Member for Colchester was talking about—the right to the best possible investigations and military inquests into those deaths. On this day of all days, when the constitutional relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords is being considered, it is important that we listen to the House of Lords on that important issue.

I turn to the wider of issue of Afghanistan and its impact on the covenant. We have made it clear that we will support the Government on Afghanistan whenever possible, as we did on Monday. I welcome their continued commitment to update the House on progress there, particularly in the diplomatic effort, which seems far less advanced than the military campaign.

Those injured in Afghanistan face enormous burdens and a life of dramatic change. That places a huge responsibility on the Government and politicians of all parties to support them, so that the country fulfils its responsibility to them. Public services, public servants, charities, the private sector and Government must continually consider how best to support all our forces, particularly those who are injured. We should try to generate consensus on that at every possible opportunity.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

Why does the shadow Secretary of State think that the wording in the Armed Forces Bill, which reflects the will of the country to honour the covenant, is not what the people want? How does he think it fails to cover all the issues that he is talking about? A lot of armed forces personnel and their supporters undoubtedly believe that it does cover them.

[Mr Murphy]

As I said earlier, the British Legion has been pretty critical and straightforward about that. The problem is the word “covenant” being used but not given a legal definition, which allows Ministers and Governments of all parties to interpret and reinterpret it in an annual report. That is why the principle of legal definition is important.

[Mr Hancock]

We had the same problem when the last Government refused to accept their duty of care responsibilities. They did that because nobody could clearly define, in rigid legal terms, what a duty of care was.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

We did.

[Mr Hancock]

No, you didn’t. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister and before that was on the Defence Committee, will remember from his experiences on the Committee that the Labour Government’s big failure on the duty of care was that they were unable to define clearly what it meant.

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I listened very carefully to the British Legion’s campaign for the legal principle, and to its observations of the clear, glaring weaknesses in the current arrangements.