Armed Forces Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Grand Committee

I hope that between now and Report we can reflect on this, but I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on tabling Amendment 2 and speaking so eloquently and sensibly about the issue.

[Lord Dannatt]

My Lords, I rise principally to support Amendment 2, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. I also support Amendments 3, 5, 9, 12 and 13. It seems to me that those amendments get to the person, position and authority required to fully deliver on the Armed Forces covenant.

Despite the best efforts of the Secretary of State for Defence and his predecessors—and of their junior Ministers—who have been charged over the years to deliver what we now know as the Armed Forces covenant, we have not been able to do enough to bring it into balance. On the one hand, the so-called covenant recognises the legitimate work given by the elected Government of the day to those members of the Armed Forces and their predecessors to do what they are required to do in the best interests of the nation, while on the other hand providing for the legitimate needs of individual servicemen and their families—and of their forebears, the veterans. That is why we are at a balance.

Amendment 2 is about a reviewer. That has much to commend it. The others that I referred to are about the ministerial responsibility. The idea articulated particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—that the Minister should be not in the Ministry of Defence but in the Cabinet Office, and therefore with pan-Whitehall observation and ministerial responsibility for veterans affairs—has a lot of merit. This once-in-five-years opportunity should be seized. There is a mood in the country at present that we must do better for our veterans, and indeed for our current service men and women and their families. Therefore, I ask the Minister to pick up that mood and reflect with other members of the Government on whether this is an opportunity to improve things in the best interests of those who lay their lives on the line for the nation, those who have done so in the past, and their families.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I have my name down to support Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. The comments that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, made about the amendment in no way diminish the important point that it tries to make. It is about collecting information relating to healthcare needs “affecting service people”—that is specified by the amendment, and includes families—

“including issues related to access to healthcare”.

There was a clear deficit in access to healthcare by service personnel and their families.

In my time, I have had the privilege to serve on the peer review board, ably and effectively chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and as a member of the Armed Forces equality and diversity advisory group, and I have come across many service personnel and their families. Being the only doctor on the board it was inevitable that they spoke to me about health issues. There was a clear deficit in access to healthcare by service personnel and their families, and in the kind of care offered to those who suffered injuries and whose surgical repair required long-term care, particularly physiotherapy, to make them fit again. That was absent. To have a covenant that requires the authorities to produce a report that tracks the healthcare needs of service personnel and their families is extremely important. We need a commitment to look after them as they move about. Their usual comments were that they had to join the end of the queue again on the waiting list as they moved from one place to another. The amendment makes a commitment to collect that information. Although the amendment refers to “research” it is not research in the true sense, but collecting information. I do not believe that the amendment would add an extra burden in any way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dannatt]

My Lords, in the spirit of not wanting to be guilty of repetition, I want to speak in favour of these three amendments. They highlight a number of the aspects that this debate is touching on. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, looks at the distinctions being made between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have heard that distinctions quite rightly exist between the needs of serving service personnel and veterans. There are distinctions between that part of the welfare that can be dealt with by the Ministry of Defence and that which is dealt with by other government departments. Further, there are the things in the defence area that are properly dealt with by the Ministry of Defence and others which are dealt with by the service charities. Whichever way you look, there are lots of distinctions, and we have to agree that the situation is complex.

Complexity does not equate with saying, “This is too difficult so we are not going to address it”, but that there is no simple solution to governmental responsibilities. Ministers in various departments must retain responsibility for those things that are their responsibility, so the issue is finding a solution to the lack of co-ordination and dealing with complexity.

Currently, the Bill provides that, in effect, the Government are being asked to mark their own exam paper. I do not think that is right. We put a question to the previous Government, who chose not to go down the track, which I shall repeat. Would they consider putting in place a reviewer? The right reverend Prelate mentioned this, while earlier in his career the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. If we had a commissioner looking into all aspects of this, he could bring together the Government, the public, private and the charitable sectors. That would not take away the challenge to the Government of Parliament, but someone would have the responsibility for drawing the threads together and holding all the bodies to account, which would give a comprehensive picture of the myriad dimensions I have described. Perhaps the Government would give this some consideration, and if it cannot be done, perhaps they will give us a cogent explanation of why it cannot be done.

Afghanistan

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. We are not living in a perfect world but we are doing our very best. As for the ANSF, it is becoming much more professional, much better trained and bigger. We are about to begin implementing the security transition process by which the Afghan forces will take the lead. It will be a gradual, condition-based process that is on track to put the ANSF in security lead in all provinces by the end of 2014.

[Lord Dannatt]

My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the improving situation, in Helmand in particular, with regard to the poppy harvest? Does he agree that we are never likely to have a more stable Afghanistan while its economy is largely based on the illegal activity of growing the poppy for opium? Can he comment on the progress that we have made in changing farming practices and, therefore, the economy in the country over the past two, three or four years?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, yes, we are making progress on that point. The noble Lord mentioned corruption. Our support for the Afghan Government cannot be unconditional. The Afghan Government must ensure that British taxpayers’ money is spent well and wisely, and President Karzai must personally grip the problems around the Kabul Bank and the need for the new IMF programme.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt]

My Lords, much of what is in this five-yearly revisitation of the legislation that regulates the procedures of the Armed Forces has already been well aired and debated, but I would like to draw attention to three particular aspects of the Bill: the covenant, changes to the service police and the call out of reserves. All these, I believe, are important for differing reasons.

Much has already been said about the Armed Forces covenant, but I would like to give my cautious support to this proposal. My support is cautious for several reasons. Frankly, I would prefer to call it a military covenant rather than the more politically correct Armed Forces covenant; but whether specific mention is made or not, rather like the unwritten quality of the British constitution, there always has been and always will be what I would call a military covenant. It is that hitherto unspoken and unspecified balance, on the one hand, between the legitimate work demanded of the Armed Forces by the elected Government of the day on behalf of the nation, and, on the other hand, the nation's ability, through the Government of the day, to look after and meet the legitimate individual needs of our sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines, their families and our veterans. When the work demanded and the needs met are in balance, the services can run hot and at a high operational tempo; but when they are out of balance, the pressure rises, the heat increases, sparks fly and our servicemen begin to vote with their feet. In my view, we were close to the brink in 2005-06, and many believe that we are getting close again now. Once over the brink, in manning terms at least, freefall is very difficult to arrest.

Do we need a covenant enshrined in law? For the last 300-odd years we have not. However, if the moral obligation on the Government of the day to do the right thing by those who risk their lives on behalf of the nation cannot be guaranteed as an automatic response, perhaps we do now need a legal obligation. Therefore I give my cautious support to this clause in the Bill, but I am pleased to note that the provision is in principle only, not in detail. That said, the success of this part of the Bill, as many noble Lords have said, is not in its drafting and enactment but in its delivery. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, earlier quoted Rudyard Kipling, reminding us that,

“Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!”,

and I believe that, in the years ahead, Tommy will be watching very closely.

Straying slightly from the specifics of this Bill, I point out that the provision for the needs of our service people and veterans has never been just the responsibility of the Government. The British way of doing this has always been an amalgam of the best efforts of the public, private and charitable sectors. If that were not so, how did the Royal Hospital Chelsea or the Erskine Hospitals in Scotland come about, to name but two institutions? However, to be really effective, the three sectors need to co-operate together, be well co-ordinated and perhaps even become more integrated. For that to happen, there needs to be a common vision, an agreed plan and, above all, acknowledged leadership. This is not currently in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would reflect on whether, when the current defence reforms have stopped erroneously targeting the individual service chiefs, effort might be concentrated on arguing for an increased overall defence budget and on thinning down the stultifying bureaucracy and unnecessarily complex decision-making processes within the MoD’s head office. When that part of the defence reforms has happened, the physical space in the MoD main building vacated by the departed staff might be offered to the service charities in order that they can co-locate under one roof, cut down on their overhead costs and increase their co-operation one with another, perhaps one day leading to full integration, with the obvious benefits of greater efficiency and effectiveness, in the best interests of our service community and our veterans. I am not alone in commending that thought.

Turning to the service police—and I declare an interest, having been Colonel Commandant of the Royal Military Police for six years—I very much welcome their removal from the chain of command with regard to investigations. It has been too easy to allege improper interference in such investigations, and therefore the proposals in the Bill are timely and sensible, as, in my view, are the recommendations for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to inspect and report on the service police. I do not believe that hitherto the service police have had anything to hide—and therefore they have nothing to fear—but the transparency injected into the process will boost the confidence of all concerned in those aspects of the military policing and judicial system.

Finally, I turn to the clause relating to the call out of reserves. This is a most welcome and timely proposal. Hitherto, in the face of natural disaster, terrorist attack or a sudden security threat, it has not been possible, despite the natural enthusiasm of individual members of our Reserve Forces, to mobilise them legally for these important duties in support of the civil power. Yes, there have been, and are, well-honed procedures for military support for the civil community, the civil ministries and the civil power, but these are provided almost exclusively from the Regular Forces of the Crown. Under this clause, Reserve Forces can be called out for,

“urgent work of national importance”.

This means that such mobilisation will give the individual reservist the same rights and protection in being called out for duty at home as he or she would receive when mobilised for deployed operations abroad or for war. For the reservist this is truly transformational, and for the nation it makes a significant resource available, should the need arise—and I suspect that the drafters of this part of the Bill had not completely forgotten the Olympics next year.

I close on another word of caution. The risks of increased use of an increased number of Reserve Forces must be weighed against the financial temptation to reduce our Regular Forces. In land force terms, it is superficially attractive to talk about a future Army of 120,000 with two-thirds regular and one-third reservist. However, although the costs may be attractive, one has to ask: is an Army of 80,000 regulars large enough to do what the challenges of the future might throw at us, and can we recruit a Reserve Force of 40,000 when today, even in a period of high unemployment, we are struggling to man a Reserve Force of 30,000? There is no question that the Armed Forces could not have done what they have done over the past 10 years without the mobilisation of large numbers of reservists, but this admirable legislation for necessary and urgent work of national importance at home must not become a Trojan horse for the wholesale emasculation of our Regular Forces.