Defence: Carrier Strike Capability

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

First, I extend our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the three members of our Armed Forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf in the service of our country.

I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place. Yesterday we had the Queen’s Speech, which contained no direct reference to our Armed Forces or to defence. Today we have found out why. Defence policy is today an embarrassment for a Government who acted in haste when they came into office and were more interested in trying to score points than in embarking on a measured and considered strategic defence and security review with time for full and appropriate consultation before final conclusions and decisions were reached. They are a Government who were more interested in making unsubstantiated claims about an alleged £38 billion unfunded liability over the next 10 years, and judging by the Statement just repeated by the noble Lord, the Government’s approach has not changed on that score. They have withheld information from the Commons Defence Select Committee as to how that figure was calculated, and the National Audit Office figures did not support their claim either.

A key reason why money is now in short supply is because the growth in the economy which this Government inherited had been thrown away by them six months after they took office, has never been restored, and we are now in a double dip recession. The rushed strategic defence and security review made no real reference to north Africa, yet a few months later our forces were involved in action in the Mediterranean off the Libyan coast. In their foreword to the strategic defence and security review, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister had declared, as they decommissioned HMS “Ark Royal” and sold off the Harriers at a knock-down price, that:

“In the short term, there are few circumstances we can envisage where the ability to deploy airpower from the sea will be essential”.

Fortunately, that view was not shared by those nations which did have an operational aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister went on to assert that the previous Government,

“committed to carriers that would have been unable to work properly with our closest military allies”.

They said that they would “rectify this error” by fitting,

“a catapult to the operational carrier to enable it to fly a version of the Joint Strike Fighter with a longer range and able to carry more weapons”.

Indeed, the Prime Minister asserted that the previous Government had got it “badly wrong”. The Government’s rushed strategic defence and security review then told us:

“Installing the catapult and arrestor will allow the UK to acquire the carrier-variant of Joint Strike Fighter ready to deploy on the converted carrier instead of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. This version of the jet has a longer range and greater payload: this, not large numbers of aircraft, is the critical requirement for precision strike operations in the future”.

Do those words I have just quoted from the SDSR now represent government policy or not in the light of the Statement the Minister has just repeated, which says that the Government will switch the order for JSF aircraft from carrier-variant to STOVL? In view of the penultimate sentence in the foreword to the SDSR by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, which says:

“We must never send our soldiers, sailors and airmen into battle without the right equipment”,

has the Prime Minister now changed his view? Does he now accept that the STOVL-variant rather than the carrier-variant of the JSF is the “right equipment” for our forces?

The Prime Minister has now come to the conclusion that the previous Government’s policy is right. However, the Statement repeated by the Minister seeks to hide behind a claim that the facts have changed. Apparently it has now been found out that the “cats and traps” system cannot be delivered until late 2023 at the earliest. Partly as a result of the delayed timetable, the estimated cost of fitting this equipment to the “Prince of Wales” has apparently more than doubled in the last 17 months, and the cost of fitting cats and traps to the “Queen Elizabeth” would be even higher. Perhaps a little more time spent on undertaking the strategic defence and security review and consulting more widely would have drawn attention to these problems of timescale and cost that the Government say have caused them to rethink their approach.

The Government had clearly decided that there was no likelihood of a problem with cost and timescale, because the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister said in their foreword to the SDSR:

“We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier to enable it to fly a version of the Joint Strike Fighter with a longer range and able to carry more weapons”.

There is nothing there about any possibility of a problem over timescales or costs, or a need to look at timescales and costs. We were also told that,

“at the time of the SDSR, there was judged to be a very significant technical risk around the STOVL version of JSF”.

The technical risk was apparently so significant that it does not appear to have been referred to in the strategic defence and security review as a reason for the Government’s decision to switch the order for JSF aircraft, a decision they are now reversing.

The fourth reason given for the change of approach is that,

“further work with our allies on the best approach to collaborative operation has satisfied us that joint maritime task groups involving our carriers … is the more appropriate route to optimising alliance capabilities”.

Surely that is the kind of issue that should be considered at the time of a strategic defence and security review, not immediately after it. No doubt it could have been considered as part of the SDSR if the Government had not been so determined to rush it through and end up with the policy U-turn that we are being told about today.

The Minister has told us in the Statement why the decision made by the previous Government on carrier strike capability was right and why the present Government’s policy has had to be abandoned. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the cost to the nation of the Government’s U-turn, and when the Government expect to make further announcements on their equipment programme in the light of Future Force 2020. Can the Minister also take this opportunity to put the record straight and confirm the National Audit Office finding that cancelling both carriers would have saved £1.2 billion but that, in government, his party agree that it is not in the national interest to do so?

At a time when cuts are having to be made, at the very least our Armed Forces deserve clarity and certainty of decision-making by the Government. On the subject of carrier strike capability that most definitely has not been the case. Since the Prime Minister took personal responsibility for this key decision in the strategic defence and security review, it is the Prime Minister’s competence that has been found wanting.

We support the policy U-turn announced today, which accepts that the previous Government’s decision was correct, but we do not support the taking of the wrong policy options previously by this Government under a rushed SDSR or the resultant waste of time and money. Let us hope that the decisions announced today will now provide our Armed Forces with the much needed clarity and certainty they deserve as far as carrier strike capability is concerned.

Armed Forces: Personnel

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

I am actually Lord Rosser, not the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. Anyway, I, too, add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde for securing this important debate.

In a Written Ministerial Statement on 13 March this year, the Secretary of State for Defence said that he was pleased to confirm that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommendations would be accepted in full. But what he did not remind us of was the fact that his predecessor had previously told the PRB to confine its recommendations to a small overall pay increase to just those earning £21,000 or less, because of the two-year pay freeze imposed across the public sector.

The PRB has made it clear that, following its previous report it had heard a strong message from service personnel about the cumulative impact of the pay freeze, the Ministry of Defence allowance cuts and cost-of-living increases on their everyday lives, which implied a noticeable reduction in real income for many personnel. However, any suggestion that the PRB will soon be able to address the concerns also expressed by service personnel about perceptions of its independence appear to have been dashed.

In his Autumn Statement at the end of November last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear that the Government intended to continue to hold back pay in the public sector, including the Armed Forces, with awards at an average of 1 per cent for each of the two years following the freeze. The pay review body has told the Secretary of State for Defence that it believes that the Armed Forces would be disappointed by this, which seems a bit like the understatement of the year. It asked the Secretary of State to give it a degree of flexibility. This he has declined to do. Will the Minister confirm that this continues to be the Secretary of State’s position in relation to the next two years, despite service personnel regarding the two-year pay freeze as exceptional and making it clear to the PRB that they wanted it to resume its normal role in 2013?

The Government’s argument is that the Armed Forces’ pay has to be frozen and, after that, held back, because the United Kingdom is, to use their words,

“recovering from the deepest recession in living memory”;

that the overall value of the reward package to Armed Forces personnel remains “generous”, with pension provision being significantly better than in the private sector; and that, because of continued pressure on public finances, public sector pay awards must continue to be severely restricted following the end of the pay freeze.

However, a key reason for the continuing freeze and future heavy restraint on Armed Forces pay is the result of the Government’s economic and financial policy, which has led to the growth rate of the economy, which had been restored when the Government took office in 2010—some 1 per cent growth in GDP in the April-June quarter of that year—vanishing by the end of the year and not reappearing since. Growth provides increased tax revenues for government as well as more jobs and lower unemployment. This Government, in their enthusiasm to cut public expenditure too fast and not pay sufficient regard to the issue of growth, have killed the growth rate in the economy and thus the increased revenues that they inherited. That has made the financial situation more difficult than it could and should have been, and with it has given us at least the intended level of heavy restraint on Armed Forces’ pay over the next two years.

It is also worth mentioning that a continuation of severe pay restraint for our Armed Forces lies ahead at a time when well over 50 per cent of pay increases in the private sector are of at least 3 per cent, and the economic climate that the Government say necessitates their approach to severely restricting the pay of the Armed Forces does not also apparently prevent them from implementing next year a tax cut of 5p in the pound on incomes in excess of £150,000.

It is of course not only pay that is an issue, as my noble friend Lady Dean and others have so powerfully reminded us. The PRB itself referred to the significance of pensions as a top issue for many service personnel. As has already been said, personnel were already concerned about how pension changes might affect them, and particularly about how far a commitment to protect accrued rights would apply and how changes will affect the early-departure provisions in the current pension schemes. Pensions are important to service personnel, not least because they will be dependent on them for rather more years than people in other walks of life, and adverse changes—for example, in the basis of determining pensions and determining increases in pensions in payment—will have a much greater cumulative financial impact on service veterans and widows than on others.

On top of that, there are the uncertainties for personnel because of the redundancy programme at a time when unemployment is high in the external labour market, the continuing pressures arising from the sustained high operational tempo, issues over housing, the long hours worked by many service personnel, and the impact of separation from families. This is all having an effect on morale and motivation, as the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey shows. The PRB said that, in general, levels of satisfaction fell in 2011 compared to the 2010 survey results, with significant falls observed around basic pay, allowances and pension benefits. Morale was less positive, it said, as was satisfaction with service life in general.

The question is: what does the Secretary of State for Defence—and I mean the Secretary of State, not the Minister—intend to do about this? Is he able to say anything about what will happen when the financial position improves? The holding back of pay and adverse changes in allowances and pensions will be permanent, unlike the present financial situation, unless the Minister can give an undertaking that the position will be looked at again as the financial situation improves, with a view to reversing the impact of the adverse effect of current policy on Armed Forces’ pay, allowances and pensions. Since the Government acknowledge the unique nature of military life, including the threat of loss of life or life-changing injuries, and we now have the military covenant enshrined in statute, will the Minister back up the Government’s view of service life and conditions by giving such an undertaking as I am asking about?

The Ministry of Defence is obviously determined to save money. One hopes that the Minister will now be equally enthusiastic over saving morale and motivation in our Armed Forces, to which the pay review body has drawn attention.

RAF: Fukushima Accident

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I join my noble friend in remembering the Afghan civilians who were murdered the other day. I also agree with him that the RAF Regiment’s ability to deploy rapidly and assist in the way that it did is an excellent example of military aid to the civilian authority. The unique skills of the RAF Regiment go far wider than just on the battlefield. As for mentoring the Afghans, members of the RAF Regiment have mentored Afghan police from Helmand’s provincial response company, put them through basic and advanced training and deployed with them in a mentoring role over the past six months. Detailed planning for the redeployment of personnel from Afghanistan is ongoing, and it is too early to say when the RAF Regiment will return.

[Lord Rosser]

We would wish to join the Minister in offering our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the nine members of our Armed Forces who have recently lost their lives in Afghanistan while in the service of our country. Mere words cannot lessen the pain of separation but we want their families and friends to know that our thoughts are very much with them at the present time.

Could I ask the Minister whether the British nuclear industry has been able to learn any lessons from the knowledge gained from the RAF involvement in the aftermath of the Japanese nuclear power plant accident?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, safety is always our number one concern for the British nuclear power industry. Fukushima changed the energy debate around the world. Questions were rightly raised about the extent and safety of nuclear power—people wanted to know what happened and whether it could happen again. Our chief nuclear inspector, Dr Mike Weightman, undertook a full lessons-learnt analysis on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and my noble friend Lord Marland reported the findings through a Written Ministerial Statement on 11 October last year. Copies of the Weightman report were placed in the House Library.

Armed Forces: Afghanistan

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, planning is still at an early stage, and the exact speed of recovery has not yet been set. It is too early to say what equipment we plan to retain, or its value, and what we will gift to the Afghans. We currently use a combination of surface and air routes to support operations in Afghanistan; work is ongoing to increase these to ensure that our drawdown is conducted in good order, and all equipment is consignment-tracked using an asset tracking system.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on this side we also wish to express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the 10 brave members of our Armed Forces who in the service of our country have been killed on operations in Afghanistan recently. British military personnel will continue to be in Afghanistan in a non-combat role after the withdrawal of our combat forces in less than three years’ time. Who will be responsible for their security, particularly in the light of the recent killing of four French soldiers and wounding of 15 others by an Afghan force soldier, when this was by no means the first such incident of this type? What test will the Government apply to determine whether or not the Afghan national security forces are able to provide the necessary level of security for our non-combat personnel in Afghanistan after 2014?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, UK and international forces are helping to build the strength and capability of the ANSF to allow them to lead security across Afghanistan by the end of 2014. They have responded professionally and effectively to several high-profile attacks and are ready and willing to take on increasing levels of responsibility. After 2014, UK troops will continue to support the ANSF by providing training at the new Afghan national army officer academy, and we will work with other NATO nations to ensure that the necessary force protection measures are in place.

Armed Forces: Afghanistan and Libya

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very good point. The UK is rightly grateful to its coalition allies for the contributions that they have made. But in these times of austerity, this may be difficult. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the UK is only one country within the broad NATO-led coalition of allies that has been operating both in Afghanistan and Libya, so we would more likely look to NATO to conduct such an event.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister has had the sad duty of reading out the names of nine members of our Armed Forces who have recently lost their lives in the service of our country. On this side, we, too, extend our sincere condolences to their loved ones and friends at this particularly difficult time for them. No words can adequately express the debt that we owe to all who have given their lives on active service.

Will the Minister accept that the Libya campaign illustrated both the strengths and weaknesses of NATO? The strength was NATO’s continuing relevance in a mission that was quick and successful; the weakness was that less than a half of NATO members contributed to the mission. On top of that, there are still issues over the significant number of European nations not meeting NATO expenditure targets on defence. Will the Government use the success of the Libya mission in particular to pursue again this issue of NATO members making an appropriate contribution?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s last point. Some allies shared significantly more of the burden in Libya than others and this imbalance needs to be addressed in the future. In practice, we saw a two-tier alliance in terms of operation. Only half of the allies took part militarily, exasperating the limited availability of NATO’s capability.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we, too, welcome the amendments moved by the Minister in response, I think, to Amendments 6 and 7 moved on Report and also Amendment 1 moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, just now with government support. We appreciate the work of the Minister and his officials, first, in listening to the points being made since the Bill was first debated in your Lordships’ House and, secondly, in bringing forward the Government’s own amendments to address those points—amendments which I am sure have support from all sides of the House.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. Although I did not take part in the debate last week, I listened very carefully to it. Arrangements had been made so that we did not vote last week; I expect that we will today on this amendment.

Following the Bill closely, I feel somewhat incredulous that the Government have not conceded in this area. This proposal is very much diluted from where we originally started. About three years ago I was privileged to sit in on a consultation, conducted by the Ministry of Defence, with the bereaved families of members of the Armed Forces. It was somewhat humbling to sit there and listen to them talk very constructively about how things could be changed. It would not help them, since they had already been in that situation, but it would help bereaved families of service men and women in the future and ease their lives with regard to delays in inquests. I gather that there is still a backlog of inquests.

I regard this as quite a simple amendment. It is about our duty of care to our service men and women. The covenant covers active service personnel and veterans, but what about service people who lose their lives and pay the ultimate price? What about the families they have left behind? This is a very small, light amendment. It does not call for huge expenditure. In my view, it meets what the whole ethos and spirit of the covenant to our Armed Forces personnel is really all about.

A number of colleagues have thanked the Minister for the changes in the Bill, which will leave the House very different from how it arrived. I give much of the credit for that to the Minister, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and to the civil servants who have worked hard on this; I am not sure that these changes would have been achieved in another place. I ask why, on this last small request, which is really about the duty of care, the Government will not concede.

The amendment would not cost money and it certainly would not cost a lot of time. It would help the families and it would prevent us going back to the situation that we were in three years ago. It looks likely that multiple deaths will still be dealt with in Wiltshire, but inquests on single deaths in the Armed Forces look like going to a coroner who has probably never dealt with one before, which cannot be right. I give this amendment my wholehearted support, and hope that, if not through the Government conceding, then through a vote, we can get this into the Bill.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendment would provide that the annual Armed Forces covenant would cover the operation of inquests as well as the subjects of healthcare, housing and education.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments already advanced in support of the amendment about why it is essential that there should be a specific reference in the Bill to the report covering the operation of inquests. Suffice to say that the decision not to proceed with the creation of the office of the chief coroner has strengthened the case. One of the roles of the chief coroner accepted on all sides of the House was the monitoring of investigations into service deaths and ensuring that coroners are trained to conduct investigations into military deaths. The chief coroner would also have had the responsibility to transfer inquests into military deaths to coroners in different jurisdictions to ensure that an inquest would be held by a coroner trained in military matters. The position now, as I understand it, is that investigations into single fatalities will still be transferred to the coroner closest to the next of kin. Inconsistency in quality of service and in quality of investigations for military families will therefore remain.

The amendment would not reverse or amend the Government’s decision in respect of the office of the chief coroner, but it would ensure that the issue of the operation of inquests—which, as has been said, remains a matter of considerable concern—is one that the Secretary of State has to report on each year in the Armed Forces covenant report, and thus is guaranteed to be the subject of continuing parliamentary and public scrutiny, challenge and debate.

In his responses in Grand Committee and on Report, the Minister—I think that he will accept this—has accepted that the operation of inquests is a subject that would be required to be covered by the Secretary of State in the Armed Forces covenant report at present but, his view is, not necessarily in future. The Minister argues that we currently have forces deployed overseas in military action—obviously, for example, in Afghanistan—which, sadly, continues to result in fatalities and consequential inquests, but that, hopefully, this will not be a permanent situation and thus there is no need, as there is with healthcare, housing and education, to have the operation of inquests included in the Bill as a required subject matter to be covered in the annual report.

I am sure that we all share his hope that the situation regarding fatalities will be transformed, but under current policy the current operations in Afghanistan will be continuing for just over another three years, and inquests are not always resolved and finalised quickly, as has been pointed out. Further, the anticipated position could well not materialise and we just do not know when or where our Armed Forces might be deployed overseas in the future. It is also the case that not all fatalities on active service occur overseas, as has been said, and there are fatalities in this country, including, in some years, some high-profile ones. It seems unrealistic to claim that, even though a highly sensitive issue such as the operation of inquests is one that the Secretary of State would almost certainly be expected to address for the next few years in an Armed Forces covenant report, such is our apparent certainty over what is going to happen in the highly uncertain and volatile arena of world affairs in the medium and longer term that we should decide now that it is not necessary to include any reference to the operation of inquests, along with healthcare, housing, and education in the Bill.

We have an Armed Forces Bill every five years—it is the one piece of guaranteed legislation that emanates from the Ministry of Defence, which is a department that generates very little new legislation. As a result, legislative changes and amendments that are required tend to be left until the next Armed Forces Bill. It may well be that experience of the processes and procedures provided for in this Bill for the annual Armed Forces covenant report will lead to some amendments being put forward by the then Government in the next Bill in just the same way as other parts of this, or previous Armed Forces Bills, may necessitate revision or amendment. There is nothing wrong with that, and there is likewise nothing wrong with the reference to the operation of inquests being included in this Bill as a subject matter that will be addressed in the annual Armed Forces covenant report, when we know it is an important and sensitive issue, because in what many might feel is the less than likely event of its ceasing to be an issue of importance and concern, it can be removed from the Bill by an amendment to a future Armed Forces Bill.

If the noble Baroness does not feel able to accept the Minister’s reply, and is minded to seek the opinion of the House, we will be supporting the amendment.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, during both Grand Committee and Report stages, the noble Baroness gave a detailed and moving account of problems which had been encountered by bereaved service families in the course of a coroner’s inquest. I have considered carefully what the noble Baroness said on Report; it seems to me that she has three main areas of concern, and I shall try to deal with each in turn.

The first is the process and quality of inquests. In the past decade, more than 500 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in military operations, including 12 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. Sixty-three of these inquests were held this year alone. Several years ago, bereaved families could have waited around two years for an inquest. Last year we completed 131 inquests into operational death, for which the average date was 15 months, and only 11 and a half months for those where there did not have to be a service inquiry. For those who died last year the average wait is currently eight months, although this will increase, as a small number of inquests have yet to be held.

These improvements are a direct result of changes we have made, including the setting up of a dedicated defence inquest unit. But we are not complacent. The Ministry of Defence will continue to support coroners to ensure that they are able to hear inquests into service deaths promptly. This we hope will go some way to ease the burden on families at such a difficult and distressing time.

The defence inquest unit deals generally with around 20 to 25 coroners, and as the noble Baroness said on Report, the Ministry of Defence has held training events for them. I note, too, that the noble Baroness also raised concerns over the wide variation in the standards and performance of coroners. At present there are 99 coroners in 114 coronial districts. She will be interested to know that the Government propose to take forward a package of measures aimed at improving the standard of service provided by coroners, including statutory provision set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, such as training regulations for coroners, and powers to make new rules, regulations and guidance. In the mean time, the Government will also publish a new charter for the current coroner service in early 2012. This will set out the minimum standards of service that those coming into contact with the system can expect and establish a new bereaved organisations committee for the important role of monitoring the impact of the charter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I gather that it is traditional at this point for the Minister guiding the Bill to say a few words of thanks. More than 30 noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords spoke during the debate at Second Reading in July. That is testament to the deep and abiding interest in the Armed Forces that exists in this House. In our exchanges since then, we have at times taken different views on some issues. However, I have been impressed, as I always am, by the courtesy and helpfulness that have been shown to me by noble Lords on all sides of the House. It is difficult to single out individuals, but I should like to pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his hard work on the Bill and for his tenacity in pursuing issues that he thought were wrong. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is not in her place now. I should also like to thank the many people behind the scenes, in the House and elsewhere, who have supported us during the Bill’s passage. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the Armed Forces. This Bill is for them. We owe them our best efforts at all times, and I believe that we have a Bill that meets the high standard that they set for us.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief, but I would like to thank the Minister and his team for all the considerable help that they have given on this Bill. The Minister has been prepared to listen with an open mind to the points made during our discussions. Where he has felt able to make changes in the Bill to address some of the concerns that have been raised, he has done so. We wish to express our thanks to the Minister for all the work that he has done on the Bill and for his major contribution to the fact that our debates have been constructive and conducted without rancour, and conducted with the interests of our Armed Forces in our minds.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 4 and 11. I thank the Minister for his letter of 15 September 2011 following the last discussion we had on the Armed Forces Bill. However, I would also like to express my concern about the last paragraph on the first page of that letter. It says:

“There is however a significant question over the best way of meeting these objectives. It is, of course, our practice in the House to table amendments in order to ensure that issues are properly debated and addressed. That does not mean that it is always appropriate to resolve those issues through changes to legislation. In this case, in order to avoid legislation which is overly prescriptive and to ensure that the Bill completes its Parliamentary stages in a timely fashion, I think we must look very carefully at whether we can achieve our aims by other means.”

This Bill has not been delayed by anyone other than the Government, who were forced to rethink their stance in relation to the Armed Forces covenant and the report in the Bill. The desire of a Government to ensure that a Bill completes its parliamentary stages in accordance with their own hoped-for timetable can hardly be regarded as a good reason for not accepting constructive and appropriate amendments, which is what the Minister’s letter, to which I have referred, appears to be seeking to say.

In Committee, I put forward an amendment providing for a more comprehensive list of subjects to be addressed in the annual report than is provided for in the Bill, which refers only to healthcare, education and housing. Whether any other issues are covered in the report is ultimately entirely a matter for the Secretary of State to determine—not just the current Secretary of State, but any future Secretary of State of whatever political colour. Thus an opportunity is provided, which one hopes would not be taken, but could be taken, for any Secretary of State to sideline some other important issues which were proving awkward or contentious. In rejecting the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that even if a longer list captured everything today, it would be out of date tomorrow and that it would be better to stick with the short list of three headings in the Bill, leaving it to the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion on what else to cover.

The Minister also rejected a further amendment I put forward in Committee which would have required the Secretary of State to publish the observations of the reference group. In doing so, he repeated what the Secretary of State had said earlier this year—that he would publish the observations of non-government members of the external reference group alongside the report. The Minister went on to say that given that clear commitment, there was no need to include it in the legislation.

My Amendment 4, which is not dissimilar in its objectives from Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lord Touhig, to which he has just spoken, provides for any comments which the covenant reference group may wish to make on the Armed Forces covenant report to be included in that report. With the Secretary of State being able to decide whether anything else apart from healthcare, accommodation and housing should be included in the report, and the Minister declining to extend that list, a safeguard needs to be written in to the Bill. The matter should not depend on the word of one Secretary of State. The comments, in full and without any editing or summarising, of the covenant reference group on the Secretary of State's report should be made public and thus open to debate and discussion in the same way as the Secretary of State's report. To say that on a matter of this importance, and on an issue that the Government did not initially want to be in the Bill, that an undertaking from one Secretary of State is sufficient is not adequate or appropriate, particularly since the covenant reference group will provide the only form of independent audit of issues relating to the covenant.

The Minister rejected my amendment for a longer list of issues to be covered in the Secretary of State's report on the basis that my additional items, unlike healthcare, education and housing, which the Government are including in the Bill to be covered in the report, would not be “enduring topics”. I assume that the Government's intention is that the work of the covenant reference group, including its comments on the annual Armed Forces covenant report, will also be “enduring” and thus ought to be regarded in the same way as healthcare, education and housing, and included in the Bill.

Amendment 11 provides that the parliamentary and local government ombudsmen should have a duty to investigate complaints from service personnel, veterans and their families that a public body or local authority has failed to meet commitments outlined in the Armed Forces Covenant and in the other document, the Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow. In his letter of 15 September, the Minister said that the Secretary of State would have regard to the full range of topics identified in the Armed Forces Covenant, published in May this year.

I moved an amendment in Committee that was slightly different from the one we are debating today. In rejecting it, the Minister paid tribute to the work of both the parliamentary and local government ombudsmen, acknowledged that they could do much to help members of the Armed Forces community, and said that we should do more to make service personnel aware of how the ombudsmen can help them. I agree. One clear way of making service personnel aware of this is by including in the Bill this aspect of their role in respect of complaints that a public body or local authority has failed to meet its commitments in relation to the covenant. In Committee, the Minister commented that the scope of the amendment was limited to service personnel and excluded family members and veterans. This amendment includes veterans and families and I hope that it will receive a more favourable response from the Minister.

The amendments in this group cover a number of issues that no doubt will be addressed later in the debate, including a requirement for the Secretary of State, when preparing the Armed Forces covenant report, to have regard to the responsibilities that the Armed Forces have towards minors, and also for the Secretary of State to commission research into healthcare issues affecting servicepeople. I understand that it has been agreed through the usual channels that any vote should take place at Third Reading rather than on Report today because of the clash with the Conservative Party conference. However, I hope that that fact will not prevent the Minister giving helpful and supportive responses on the issues raised in my amendments and in the others that are part of the group.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

It is very important that, just as we do not forget our servicemen’s health, education and welfare, neither should we forget them in death. Nor should we forget the information that their death will provide both to future serving personnel and to the rest of the population. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I certainly will not repeat the powerful arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, when she moved her amendment. However, when the issue was debated in Committee, the Minister said in reply that the Government recognised that inquests were an important element of the Armed Forces covenant. He referred to the substantial number of casualties in Afghanistan and said that he fully expected the matter to be covered in the annual report. He went on to say that he could also imagine a happier time when the operation of the inquest system would be of less concern to the Armed Forces community because we might not be involved in deployed operations or suffering fatalities. In other words, the issue of inquests was not likely to be another “enduring topic”, to use a government phrase, on a par with healthcare, housing and education.

I do not share the view that the Government can reject the amendment in quite the way that they did when it was discussed in Committee. We are likely to be involved in Afghanistan for a few more years and, sadly, the issue of inquests will continue to be high on the agenda for some time. In addition, numbers of serving personnel die on active service but not overseas, so it may be optimistic to believe that a time will come when inquests need not be covered in the annual Armed Forces covenant report. However, since we have an Armed Forces Bill every five years, if it was felt that the operation of inquests was no longer an issue of concern in five years’ time or at some later date, this perfectly reasonable amendment could be removed in the next or a subsequent Armed Forces Bill. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a more sympathetic response to the amendment than was the case in Committee.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, in Grand Committee and again today, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has given a detailed and moving account of the problems that have been encountered by bereaved service families in the course of a coroner’s inquest. It is very sad that any family should feel at the end of an inquest that their burdens have been made even heavier, but this is particularly regrettable for the family of someone who has given their life for their country.

We are focusing on the Bill today and time does not permit me to detail the progress that has been made. As the noble Baroness knows, Parliament is kept well informed through quarterly ministerial Statements. However, I can understand her wish to ensure that this subject is not allowed to drift away from public attention. I hope that my remarks on the first group of amendments have offered her reassurance, in two ways.

First, the commitment that the Secretary of State would have regard to the whole range of subjects included within the scope of the Armed Forces covenant, as set out in the guidance document published on 16 May, includes the operation of the inquest system for bereaved service families. Secondly, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the membership of the covenant reference group, which will now be consulted on the subjects to be covered in the annual report. It includes both the Royal British Legion, which has campaigned strongly on this issue, as the noble Baroness said, and the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain, which brings together many of those who unfortunately have first-hand knowledge of inquests. I am therefore confident that the Secretary of State will receive very clear advice on this aspect of the covenant.

I recognise that the noble Baroness is not just concerned about inquests for serving personnel. She also envisages drawing together information from any inquests into the deaths of former service men and women that might perhaps show a common thread. I can understand how data of this kind could be valuable, and we are always interested in developing our knowledge of the health outcomes of veterans, where this is practical. However, I would point out to the noble Baroness that the field of healthcare is already mentioned in the clause. Beyond that, I would not wish to commit to any more detailed provision in relation to inquests without a much clearer idea of what is feasible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I intervene very briefly to support the spirit of the amendment and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. We must remember that we now have people surviving injuries who previously would have died. They are therefore surviving with much higher needs for prosthetic fitting for artificial limbs, and so on, than previously. Unless the budgeting is looked at carefully, in a central format, we will have people whose needs cannot be met locally because some of them are literally unique in surviving in their situation. The budgetary implications must be addressed in the reflection.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister had the support of the whole House in his response to the previous amendment, and I hope that he will also give a helpful response to this one.

As has been said, our Armed Forces are United Kingdom forces. For that reason alone, it would surely be undesirable not to try to ensure that special provision for service people is broadly the same across the United Kingdom. The amendment does not require the Secretary of State to do the impossible and ensure that special provisions made are broadly the same, but simply provides for the covenant report to state how the Secretary of State will seek to ensure that such provisions are broadly the same. This is an eminently reasonable and constructive amendment, and I hope that the Minister will give an equally constructive response.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, noble Lords who have spoken in support of Amendment 9 have voiced their disquiet at the prospect of variation between the different countries of the United Kingdom in the way that special provision or special treatment is applied. I have previously said to your Lordships that the Government are sympathetic to the principle of consistency. As noble Lords have pointed out, members of the Armed Forces serve the Crown and the whole of the United Kingdom, not a local council or the devolved Administrations. The Armed Forces covenant is with the nation, not with one part of it. All parts of government across the UK share the moral obligation to honour it.

Nevertheless, we must keep this in perspective. The terminology of a postcode lottery is emotive and sometimes used unfairly to describe the legitimate scope for local decisions about local services. There are many examples where that scope for local decision has led to better outcomes for members of the Armed Forces community, rather than allowing councils or Administrations to escape their obligations. The Government have no wish to stifle that local initiative or control everything from Whitehall by regulation.

One alternative to regulation is successful dialogue. Again, I have referred in the past to what dialogue has achieved across a range of different domains, such as the introduction of the new arrangements for scholarships for bereaved service children. Another example I gave was the new transition protocol for transferring the care of injured personnel from military to civilian services across all the countries of the United Kingdom. So I am not as pessimistic about the future as the noble Lord, Lord Empey. The noble Lord knows that the particular terms of the amendment, which would require the Government to include in the report a statement on how we would ensure that the provision is broadly the same across the UK, causes difficulty. That goes some way beyond what we envisage as the content of the annual report. Even if we accepted the underlying assumption that the UK Government should act in the way suggested, we would not necessarily have the answers available when the report was published.

In Grand Committee, the noble Lord invited the Government to reflect further on those matters, and we have. He used a very good phrase when he referred to his desire to connect every part of the UK to the report process. In that debate, I gave the noble Lord the assurance that, where the Secretary of State reaches the conclusion that special provision is justified, the annual report will attempt to take into account the position across the United Kingdom. We would take a wide view. I trust that that assurance, together with the further statements which I had made today about the report process, will give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

10: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Armed forces advocates
After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—“359 Armed forces advocates
(1) The existing network of armed forces advocates will be extended through the nomination of supporting advocates at regional and local level to ensure that local authorities work together to identify and resolve issues in local policy or the delivery of services that may affect service people.
(2) In this section “armed forces advocate” means a public servant nominated to monitor and resolve policy or legislative issues that arise for service people.””

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment refers to the position of Armed Forces advocates and provides for the existing network to be extended at regional and local level to ensure that local authorities work together to identify and resolve issues in local policy or the delivery of services which may affect servicepeople. I moved a similar amendment in Committee.

In rejecting the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that he regarded Armed Forces advocates as an excellent idea, but in effect argued that the role of government was to ensure that best practice was promoted around the country by drawing attention to successful uses of the advocate system but did not extend beyond that. It was for example a matter for local authorities to decide whether or not they wished to appoint Armed Forces advocates. Armed Forces advocates, among other things, help to ensure that services provided at the local level appropriately recognise the specific needs of Armed Forces personnel, veterans and their families.

The previous Government piloted an Armed Forces welfare pathway which led to the appointment of some Armed Forces advocates. The Minister argued in Committee that since this had been done without legislation, the same should continue. The previous Government, however, was getting the system off the ground. We have now seen what can be achieved and there appears to be a general recognition of the merits of Armed Forces advocates. We also now have the Armed Forces covenant and a situation in which many authorities are under considerable pressure as well.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford, who is not in his place, said in Committee that it was those local authorities least inclined to establish the post of Armed Forces advocate where it was most likely that the Armed Forces would need such an advocate, and vice versa. In response the Minister said that that was a very good point and that he would certainly look at it. I hope that having done that, the Minister, even if he is not prepared to accept this amendment, will at least be able to spell out some much more specific action that the Government intend to take to ensure that best practice is actually introduced and implemented in those places where it is most needed—mainly where there are no Armed Forces advocates or their equivalents at present.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, tabled a similar amendment to Amendment 10 in Grand Committee. In response I assured your Lordships that I regarded Armed Forces advocates as an excellent idea and outlined the tasks they carried out in central government departments. I also mentioned the variety of roles which advocates or champions can and do play at local level in local authorities, NHS trusts or jobcentres. The form this took depended on the job to be done.

The issues surrounding this amendment have not changed. It is not the merits of local Armed Forces advocates that are in question but the need to legislate for their existence. Our approach is to spread good practice by demonstrating what advocates and other local initiatives are able to achieve. As the noble Lord pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, suggested in our earlier debate that it was precisely those local bodies which decline to appoint an advocate which were most likely to need one as they had not focused on the issues. I undertook to consider this point further. Having done so, I take rather the opposite view. I suggest that a local body which appoints an advocate, simply because it ticks a box or meets a legal requirement, is very unlikely to make effective use of that individual. This is not the right approach to stimulate genuine improvements at local level, and I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I am obviously somewhat disappointed at the Minister’s reply because although I accepted that he might well not be prepared to accept the amendment, I expressed the hope that he would be able to spell out in rather more detail the specific action that the Government intended to take to ensure that best practice is introduced and implemented. It does not seem to me that the Minister has really addressed that point in his reply. However, I will not pursue the matter any further at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Baha Mousa Inquiry

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we also wish to express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Mark Palin, Marine James Wright, Lieutenant Daniel Clack and Sergeant Barry Weston, who have lost their lives in operations in Afghanistan recently, and Senior Aircraftman James Smart, killed in Italy in July while supporting Operation Ellamy.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State and for giving me sight of the lengthy inquiry report. I have not been able fully to digest its contents, but the Minister is in the same position. However, even sight of the summary of the report and its conclusions is enough to know that a small group has acted in a shocking, brutal and totally unacceptable manner and, as the Minister has said, that there were serious failings in command and discipline in the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment.

I would like to add my thanks to Sir William Gage, the chairman of the public inquiry set up in 2008 by the previous Government into the events surrounding the death of Mr Baha Mousa, and to the members of his team for their detailed and thorough report. The report had to be painstaking, thorough and detailed because it appears that getting at the truth was not made any easier by the difficulties that some appeared to have in telling the truth.

The report makes it clear that the brutal and shocking behaviour was not just in relation to Mr Baha Mousa whose death occurred in British custody but also to other detainees. Other allegations of maltreatment are still being investigated by the Iraq historic allegations team, whose creation was announced in March 2010, which started in November 2010. Presumably, any further allegations will be investigated by this body.

A small group has acted in a way that is totally alien to the manner in which our Armed Forces conduct themselves and the standards they uphold, and is totally alien to the professionalism and bravery of our Armed Forces personnel, all too many of whom have given their lives or suffered life-changing injuries, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or over Libya. This report does nothing to diminish our pride in our Armed Forces. It is precisely because what happened is so far removed from the standards demanded and upheld that this inquiry has taken place, and why its findings will cause such dismay.

There are one or two points that I wish to raise with the Minister. As he has said, the Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations except one, which was in relation to a blanket ban on the use of certain verbal and non-physical techniques referred to in the report as the “harsh approach”. Can the Minister say a little more about the reasons for not accepting this recommendation? Clearly, if such techniques are to continue to be used, there will be a need to have in place very firm and precise safeguards, to make sure that all concerned are fully aware of the limits of what can be done, and that those limits are not exceeded, however difficult the circumstances may be at the time.

Can I also ask the Minister if he is satisfied with the action that has been taken or is still to be taken to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, there is no repeat of the unacceptable actions spelled out in the inquiry report, in Afghanistan or anywhere else? It is not just about making sure that appropriate processes and procedures are in place. It is presumably also about making sure that people who do have immediate responsibility for detainees have the qualities needed to meet the high demands that this role can place on the standards of behaviour of individuals concerned, particularly in the kinds of conditions and circumstances that were faced in Iraq, and also on their strength of character, to speak up if actions are being taken which they must know are unacceptable. It also means that those at the highest levels of command take a direct and active interest in what is actually happening to detainees, as opposed to what should be happening to them according to the rules and procedures. Can the Minister say what importance is attached to the role of being responsible for detainees, and whether he is satisfied that relevant checks or assessments are made of those who are given this onerous responsibility?

I want also to ask the Minister whether in the light of the inquiry report it is felt there is a need for any legislative measures to strengthen the position in relation to the treatment of detainees or the powers and duties of those who have responsibility for them. I ask that in the context that we currently have the Armed Forces Bill going through your Lordships’ House, and since there will presumably not be another one for five years, action on this point ought to be taken now if it is considered necessary.

The inquiry referred to an “inadequate doctrine” on prisoner handling, as the Minister has said, and also to a “systemic failure” that allowed knowledge of the prohibition on abuse techniques to be lost over the years. The 1972 Act banned certain interrogation techniques, but it appears from the inquiry report that the terms of the Act have been overlooked when it comes to training policies and orders relating to detention. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Act will be enforced, including the cultural change needed to ensure that?

A third point I would like to raise, and without asking the noble Lord the Minister to refer to any specific individuals mentioned in the report, is whether legal action will be taken, or is being considered, against any of those involved. I appreciate immunity from prosecution was given, but that presumably related only to an individual’s own evidence. Will the Minister say how many of those referred to in the report who are still currently serving have been suspended or have had other sanctions taken against them?

We support the statement the Minister has made. We are proud of our Armed Forces. We will not allow unacceptable and shocking behaviour by a small number of individuals to tarnish the reputation of our Armed Forces, and those who breach the standards we uphold must be held to account.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 4, 5, 16, 18 and 19. Most of the comment on and interest in the Bill has centred on the Armed Forces covenant and the Secretary of State’s report. It is therefore not surprising that by far the largest single group of amendments should relate to this issue.

The Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to produce an annual report to Parliament on the effects of membership or former membership of the Armed Forces on servicepeople. In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must have regard in particular to the unique obligations of and sacrifices made by the Armed Forces, the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for servicepeople from membership or former membership of the Armed Forces, and the principle that special provision for servicepeople may be justified by the effects on such people of membership or former membership of the Armed Forces.

However, it would appear that these principles apply to issues within the Armed Forces covenant report, but which will include only those issues that the Secretary of State decides to include. These principles should be applicable to government policy, and my amendments include provision for the principles to apply to all public policy by stating that, in preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must have regard to those matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in preparing an Armed Forces covenant report, and must also consider whether the making of special provision for servicepeople or particular descriptions of servicepeople would be justified. There should surely be an obligation on all public servants to take heed of the principles of the covenant if we are to be confident that the covenant is to be fully applied. Further, there is provision in my amendments for the Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsmen to investigate complaints from service personnel that a public body or local authority has failed to meet the commitments outlined in the Armed Forces covenant and The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow.

The Bill provides for the Secretary of State’s report to cover healthcare, education and housing, but anything else is left to the Secretary of State to determine. As the Minister put it in his opening speech at Second Reading:

“Other issues will only emerge at the time, so the Bill leaves this flexible”.

The difficulty is that leaving out everything apart from healthcare, education and housing provides an opportunity for any Secretary of State to seek to sideline other important issues, perhaps because they are difficult or awkward. Indeed, the Secretary of State would appear to be reporting on what other departments or devolved Administrations are doing in respect of healthcare, education and housing, for which he is not directly responsible, but not reporting on the work of his own department for which he is directly responsible. My amendments propose a much longer list in order to overcome this potential problem and limit the extent of any Secretary of State to decide which issues are relevant to current or former servicepeople. After all, if in the opinion of a Secretary of State any of the headings listed in my amendment are not worthy of reporting on in the Armed Forces covenant report in any one year, that is all the Secretary of State need say in his report, and then see if Parliament and others are of the same opinion.

At Second Reading the Minister said that,

“the process of preparing reports will evolve over time. We are breaking new ground. We will learn from experience, listen to comments, and move forward in a positive way. I am clear that that is the right way to do it, rather than making the legislation excessively prescriptive.—[Official Report, 6/7/11; col. 272.]

I am not as convinced as the Minister that the Government intend to listen if they have already decided that a specific reference to anything more than healthcare, education and housing as set out in the Bill is being “excessively prescriptive”. Bearing in mind that we normally have an Armed Forces Bill only every five years, and that the Ministry of Defence adopts the approach of keeping proposals requiring primary legislation until the next Bill is due, we need to get the wording in this Bill right on the extent of the issues which must be addressed in a Secretary of State’s Armed Forces covenant report.

My amendments, unlike the Bill, mention specifically the external reference group. At Second Reading the Minister accepted that concerns had been raised about the independence of the annual report, concerns that will relate to any Secretary of State and any Government of whatever political colour. The Minister said that the Government have undertaken to publish alongside the annual report whatever observations the external members of the covenant reference group choose to make on it. Since the issue of the independence of the report is not directed at any one Secretary of State or any particular Government, a requirement to publish any observations from the external reference group—apparently now called the covenant reference group by the Government, and confirmed by the Government as a permanent body—should be on the face of the Bill, as should the results of any additional consultation with service charities and groups and other interested parties both inside and outside government.

At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“In preparing annual reports, the Ministry of Defence would consult widely with interested parties inside and outside Government”.—[Official Report, 6/7/11; col. 272.]

My amendments extend the list of issues to be addressed in the Secretary of State’s annual report to 10 headings, including accommodation, healthcare and education. Six of the additional headings cover,

“mental healthcare … pensions and benefits … employment and training … support for reservists and their employers … the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, and progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation schemes”.

I would hardly have thought that any of these headings made the legislation “excessively prescriptive”, since they are all issues of considerable importance to serving and former service personnel, of whom, with their families, there are around 10 million, or one in six of the population.

The last heading in my amendment is,

“such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine”,

instead of as in the Bill,

“such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine”

Since all of the rest of the report will be under the auspices of the Secretary of State, the independence of the report will be enhanced by the ability of the external reference group to determine what, if any other fields should be addressed apart from those specifically provided for in the Bill, and to make their own observations on the content—or lack of content—of the report, as the Government intend. We do not want a process that is simply Ministers reporting on what Ministers deem fit to report on. My amendment also sets out the broad composition and role of the external reference group and provides for it to be independently chaired.

On this point, it would also be helpful if the Minister could clarify what is meant by the wording in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill, in paragraph 18. One sentence says:

“If the Secretary of State considers that any of the fields of healthcare, education and housing is not relevant to a particular description of people covered in a report, the requirement to report on each of those fields is relaxed to that extent”.

Can the Minister confirm that that means the Secretary of State is the sole arbiter on whether there is a need to report on anything in the covenant report, including healthcare, education and housing? I hope that he will make a positive response to my amendments, which strengthen the covenant and accountability for its implementation across public life. I also look forward with interest to his response to the other amendments which have been so thoughtfully and powerfully moved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, this first group of amendments to Clause 2 consists of some 12 items, and deals with many aspects of the Armed Forces covenant and the proposed annual report. I am very grateful for the Committee’s patience, especially as, in order to draw out some common themes, I will not keep to the strict numerical order of amendments.

Amendment 1, in the name of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Boyce, would change the position of the provision for the Armed Forces covenant report in the Armed Forces Act. At Second Reading, the noble and gallant Lord referred to an “unfortunate juxtaposition” if the new provision were inserted directly after Section 359, which deals with pardons for servicemen executed during the First World War. I am most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for the helpful and constructive way in which he has approached this issue. In their amendment, the noble and gallant Lords propose that the new provision should be moved to follow Section 339. This would place it in Part 14, which covers topics such as enlistment and terms of service. We do not favour that, because we see the annual report and the Armed Forces covenant itself going far beyond enlistment and terms of service.

I had hoped that we could arrange a printing change, such that the new provision was inserted into the 2006 Act at new Section 353A, under its own italic “Armed forces covenant report” cross-heading. As the noble and gallant Lord said, I wrote to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in these terms. I thought that we had a deal.

Regrettably, I have now been advised that the Public Bill Office has declined to make the proposed change in printing points, having originally said that it was acceptable. Nevertheless, I reassure the noble and gallant Lords that there is no significance in the current proposed location next to Section 359. The two provisions are unrelated but are both properly categorised as “miscellaneous”. No relationship is implied by their positioning. Therefore, I do not consider that there is a major issue about the correctness or appropriateness of the new section.

Three other amendments in the group deal with the annual report of the covenant. Amendment 10, tabled by my noble friend Lord Palmer, concerns housing. The noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, focus in Amendment 11 on healthcare research. The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, propose a longer list of additions in Amendment 5. The amendments draw attention to very important subjects. Amendment 10, tabled by my noble friend Lord Palmer, requires the report to provide an update on progress with housing associations towards improving service accommodation. In practice, housing associations may contribute more to helping service leavers and veterans to find suitable housing than helping those in service. Our successful pilot shared-equity scheme is managed by a housing association. Housing is one of the core topics mentioned in Clause 2 and the Government regard it as one of the most important elements of the Armed Forces covenant. We have been very active in exploring the scope to do more for our people, for example through the housing summit organised by the Housing Minister in May this year. Some housing associations are already doing excellent work in this field, and we will always be interested in good ideas from the housing sector.

Similarly, in response to Amendment 11, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, we recognise the importance of commissioning and reporting on research designed to underpin healthcare for servicepeople. Very valuable research has already been commissioned by my department, such as the work of Professor Simon Wessely and the King’s Centre for Military Health Research, comparing the health of those who deploy on operations with a control group. We will continue to support research into healthcare issues affecting servicepeople, both in-house and, where appropriate, through external funding. Other bodies inside and outside government will also commission relevant research. This is a hugely important subject and we take it very seriously.

The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, tabled a much longer list of subjects to be covered in the report, which I suspect is designed to cover everything relating to the covenant. The assumption that the amendments have in common is that the best way to ensure that the annual report covers issues that matter is to name them in legislation. We disagree. Any attempt to write a comprehensive list is unlikely to be successful. Even if it captures everything today, it will be out of date tomorrow. Topics which became less important over time would still have to be covered every year. The annual report could become a box-ticking exercise.

We feel that it would be much better to have a short list of three enduring topics, as the Bill proposes. There are certain to be issues relating to healthcare, education and housing, and to at least one section of the Armed Forces community, in every year of the report. That is why we believe that they should be included as indicative of the coverage of the report. Beyond that, we should allow the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion on what to cover and for Ministers to defend their decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

7: Clause 2, page 2, line 11, after “housing” insert—
“( ) in the operation of inquests;”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that included in the issues that should be covered in the Armed Forces covenant report is the operation of inquests. This matter was raised on Second Reading, and in his closing speech the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that the Government’s plan was to transfer several of the functions of the office of Chief Coroner either to the Lord Chief Justice or to the Lord Chancellor rather than to abolish them.

Bearing in mind that the introduction of the office of Chief Coroner was supported on all sides in your Lordships’ House during the discussions on the Coroners and Justice Bill 2009, it is not clear how the operation of inquests will be improved by the abolition of the office of Chief Coroner and the implementation of the Government’s new plan, with a government ministerial board focusing on matters of policy, standards of service and other administrative aspects of the delivery of the coroner service, and the dropping of the new appeals system.

It was widely agreed that the introduction of the office of Chief Coroner would help to address these issues by ensuring that military inquests were dealt with by coroners with appropriate experience and knowledge of the Armed Forces; reducing the sometimes excessive length of time taken to hold inquests; ensuring that coroners and the coroner service have the confidence of the public, including the bereaved, by being, and being seen to be, independent of government; providing the required oversight training, consistency and, most importantly, accountability and leadership, including leadership for reform for the coronial system; and providing for the Chief Coroner to be at the head of an appeals framework for those affected by the decisions that coroners make and whose redress at the moment appears to be to seek a potentially costly judicial review.

In view of the concerns widely held about the present system as it affects Armed Forces personnel and their families, the change of approach by the Government to a ministerial board covering key areas, the end of the cross-party supported independent office of Chief Coroner and the end of the new appeals system, it seems only appropriate that the troubled issue of the operation of inquests is one on which the Secretary of State should report in his Armed Forces covenant report, as well as the issues of healthcare, education and housing.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her major contribution to the debate on this amendment. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the Minister for his response. I note the gist of his reply, which is a feeling that the issue of the operation of inquests is not one that will be permanent or regular in the way that, for example, healthcare, education and housing are perceived to be. The only comment I would make at this stage is that the operation of inquests will certainly remain an issue until at least the next Armed Forces Bill, which is when we tend to review what the legislation states. I will withdraw my amendment, but I will reflect on the Minister’s response—as I imagine will other noble Lords—before deciding whether to pursue the issue on Report.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

17: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Armed forces advocates
After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—
“359B Armed forces advocates
(1) The existing network of armed forces advocates will be extended through the nomination of supporting advocates at regional and local level to ensure that local authorities work together to identify and resolve issues in local policy or the delivery of services that may affect service people.
(2) In this section “armed forces advocate” means a public servant nominated to monitor and resolve policy or legislative issues that arise for service people.””

[Lord Rosser]

This amendment deals with Armed Forces advocates, which were raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. The amendment provides for the existing network of Armed Forces advocates to be extended at the regional and local level to ensure that local authorities work together to identify and resolve issues in local policy or the delivery of services which may affect servicepeople.

My noble friend Lady Taylor referred to the action of the previous Government in piloting an Armed Forces welfare pathway under which some local authorities appointed Armed Forces advocates to ensure that, as part of policy development, steps were taken to ensure that services provided at the local level appropriately recognised the specific needs of Armed Forces personnel, veterans and their families. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said in response that the Government supported the idea of Armed Forces advocates at the local level if that was the approach chosen by the local authority concerned. That was a rather disappointing response as it suggested that, despite the warm words, the Government intended to do nothing to promote Armed Forces advocates. As my noble friend Lady Taylor said, there are considerable pressures on local authorities at the moment. She asked what mechanisms the Minister thought should be put in place to ensure that local communities are protected and that real progress is made, along with effective monitoring at both the local and national level. It is important that we have Armed Forces advocates at the point of service delivery, where the test will come of whether the state’s commitments, on which there is a political consensus, are being realised.

I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will accept this amendment. If he is not able to do so, I trust that he will respond to the questions asked at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and spell out, bearing in mind the Government's support for the idea of Armed Forces advocates, what action they intend to take to encourage more local authorities to go down this road.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rosser. I will make two points. First, the system that he proposes, as he is well aware, has existed for some time in France; I take it that the Government, too, have seen that. I believe it works extremely well. It is always sensible not to reinvent the wheel. If one finds a mechanism in a compatible country which is working well, that is evidence in favour of a proposal—or if it is not working well, it is evidence against. The French are very satisfied with the way in which this works.

Secondly, the position taken up to now by the Government—who have been very good at listening open-mindedly to these debates, so I trust that it was a provisional view—is that all we need to do is to facilitate local authorities to appoint Armed Forces advocates where they wish to do so, and that we do not need to intervene where they do not. This is a most illogical approach to the problem. Local authorities with the will to create the post of Armed Forces advocate have, by that fact, already demonstrated that they are alert and sensitive to this need. The problems arise with local authorities that are not inclined to set up Armed Forces advocates. Authorities which, either through mistrust of the military or sheer ignorance, have not focused on this and are not inclined to accept the proposal, are those where problems are likely to arise and where an advocate is most necessary. The more logical solution is the one proposed by my noble friend. I hope that it will find favour with noble Lords and with the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. We will certainly look at this.

[Lord Rosser]

I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford for his support for the amendment and also the Minister for his response. I will reflect on it, but in the mean time, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

20: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers of the Service Complaints Commissioner
In section 339 of AFA 2006 after subsection (1) insert— “(1A) The report of the Service Complaints Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) made under subsection (1) may include the results of any investigation by the Commissioner into potential defects in the service complaints system, and any recommendations flowing from such investigations.””

[Lord Rosser]

Amendments 20 and 21 relate to the powers of the Service Complaints Commissioner. In her 2010 annual report, the commissioner said that while real progress had been made over the past three years in the new system for handling service complaints, delay remained the key area of weakness in the system, with delays particularly problematic in cases of bullying, harassment and discrimination. The commissioner said that many complainants simply give up and choose to drop their unresolved complaints after lengthy delays, which can and do lead to service personnel leaving prematurely. Justice delayed is justice denied.

The commissioner concluded her report by saying that her priority was to ensure that the Armed Forces had a complaints system that they deserved; namely, one that is fair, efficient and effective. However, she went on,

“For the third year running I have not been able to give Ministers and Parliament the assurance that the service complaints system is working efficiently, effectively or fairly”.

The commissioner called for a fundamental review of the service complaints system and for the powers of the Service Complaints Commissioner to be included in that review. Currently the SCC has no powers to ensure that complaints are dealt with properly and without delay, and in her report she states that the lack of a power to make recommendations in individual cases under the Service Complaints Commissioner’s oversight has led to inefficiencies and injustice in a number of cases.

The purpose of these amendments is to address key issues raised in the commissioner’s 2010 report. The first amendment makes it clear that the report of the commissioner can include the results of any investigation made by the SCC into potential defects in the service complaints system and any recommendations flowing from such investigations. The second amendment seeks to address the issue of the time taken to respond to issues raised in the Service Complaints Commissioner’s report by providing for the Defence Council to respond within six months of it being laid, and within three months if the report makes recommendations on an individual case.

The 2010 report does not paint a happy picture of the present system, albeit that it does say that real progress has been made in the last three years in the new system for handling service complaints. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate in his response what action the Government are taking to address the concerns that have been raised as well as respond to these two amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, noble Lords may be aware that the post of the Service Complaints Commissioner was established under the Armed Forces Act 2006 in December 2007 to provide independent oversight of the service complaints system, with one of the statutory functions of the role being to report each year to the Secretary of State on how fairly, effectively and efficiently the service complaints system is working. Three annual reports so far have detailed the work of the commissioner’s office. They have been thorough and critical in their assessment of all aspects of the complaints system.

The commissioner has commented and reported in detail on specific areas where progress has been made or where further improvement is required. Indeed, where the commissioner has investigated and identified areas for improvement, recommendations as to remedy have been made in her reports. A total of 27 recommendations were made in her first two reports, and this year she has made a further 20 recommendations, as well as four three-year goals setting out her vision of how the complaints system should be operating by 2014. This is therefore a new system, one that is still developing but, we would suggest, making good progress in changing the culture of the complaints process within the armed services.

--- Later in debate ---

The commissioner recommended in her last annual report that her role should become that of an ombudsman. That recommendation includes the suggestion that the ombudsman should be able to report on individual cases to the Defence Council, with all necessary protections for individuals. The merits of the recommendation and any benefits it might offer for the complaints process are now being fully considered as part of a review. Since this review is currently under way, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept my assurance that we are still very actively considering how well this new process is working, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply and for what he has said about the review of the complaints system. I do not think he said when he expected the review to be completed but I hope it will be dealt with fairly quickly rather than dragging on and on. I will obviously reflect on the Minister’s response, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Defence Transformation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on this side, we, too, wish to express our sincere condolences at this very difficult time for them to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Paul Watkins who was killed in Afghanistan the other day.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made a few minutes ago in the other place by the Secretary of State for Defence. It covers a number of big policy areas: the RAF basing review, Reserve Forces, the financial settlement and cuts to the Regular Army. The Statement, as did the strategic defence and security review, repeats the Government's line about the financial position they inherited, which arose as a result of a global economic recession which was not sparked off in this country. The Statement refers to a £38 billion black hole, but that figure assumes a flat line in cash terms in the defence budget over the coming years; in other words, a decline in real terms, which is unlikely. It also assumes that every commitment, including equipment, will be adhered to.

The National Audit Office 2009 report into major projects at the Ministry of Defence stated:

“If the Defence budget remained constant in real terms, and using the Department's forecast for defence inflation of 2.7 per cent the gap would now be £6 billion over the next ten years. If … there was no increase in the defence budget in cash terms over the same ten year period, the gap would rise to £36 billion".

I appreciate that this Government have managed to reduce the rate of growth during their period in office, but presumably even this Government intend to ensure that growth in the economy, from which additional resource can be provided, returns at some stage in the not-too-distant future.

The recent strategic defence and security review, which seems, with every MoD Statement, to be becoming less related to reality and expected reality, stated:

“Further work is required to determine the numbers of personnel that will be required to man the 2020 Force Structure. The Defence Reform Review, the review of Reserve Forces, further efficiency measures and changes in the policy context will all need to be taken into account at the next Strategic Defence and Security Review, which will set out detailed plans for the five years beyond 2015 ... We will also, for now, assume that by 2020 we will require a Royal Navy of 29,000 personnel, an Army of 94,000 and an RAF of 31,500”.

Yet the Government have announced cuts to the Army of 17,000—a sixth of the entire force—in just 10 months. However, in opposition, the Government said:

“In the real world the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the army is already too small”.

The SDSR referred to members of the Reserve Forces performing outstandingly well in Afghanistan, and we share that view and pay tribute to the commitment and dedication of our Reserve Forces and to the real contribution they play in protecting our own citizens and the lives of others in operations abroad. The SDSR also referred to the six-month study being undertaken into the future role and structure of the Reserve Forces and the Statement today includes the Government's response to that review. We, too, would wish to place on record our thanks to General Sir Nicholas Houghton, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, and his two colleagues who undertook the review. Will the Minister say whether the review suggested that the reductions in the Regular Forces should be made in the light of their recommendations on the Reserve Forces?

The Government have said that they will be undertaking a strategic defence and security review every five years. They now appear already to be making policy decisions on the structure and composition of our Armed Forces for the five years between 2015 and 2020, the period to be covered by the next defence review. What then are the strategic decisions and goals that have been made and determined for the five years from 2015 to 2020 which the decisions announced in the Statement today are presumably intended to deliver? Is it the Government's approach that our strategy for the five years from 2015 to 2020 will be determined by the Armed Forces that we have decided we will have rather than our required defence strategy for those years being determined first and then consideration being given to how to provide the Armed Forces needed to support and deliver that strategy?

If the Reserve Forces are to constitute some 30 per cent of our forces, rather than less than 20 per cent, to what extent will they become stand-alone units? There will be concerns if bespoke standing units of reservists were to become the norm since this could increase the commitment required from civilians and therefore potentially hinder recruitment. Will this approach not also undermine the one army concept? It appears as though the review highlighted the cost of Reserve Forces compared with the cost of Regular Forces. In view of the proposed increase in the percentage of our Armed Forces who will be reserves and the significant reduction in regulars, how do the Government evaluate the abilities, experience and expertise of our Reserve Forces against those of the Regular Army personnel? Do the Government consider them less effective, more effective or of equal worth and value person for person? How is such an assessment made and by whom? The boost to our Reserve Forces is, it would seem, intended to make up for the fact that our Regular Forces are being reduced.

The Statement, referring to the Army, indicated that two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars. Does this mean that RAF Leuchars will close? Will the Minister for clarity say how many personnel and what personnel are currently based at Leuchars and how many personnel and what personnel will be based at Leuchars once these changes have been implemented? What will be the cost of that change, who will be paying for it, and how long will the time lag be between the moving out of present personnel from Leuchars and the moving in of the new personnel? What is the Government’s assessment of this change on the local economy?

The Statement referred to the savings that would be realised by the reduction in regular personnel. It stated that money would therefore become available for reinvestment in our Reserve Forces and also for the construction of additional Chinook helicopters, which was an undertaking the Prime Minister gave. We welcome any additional investment in our Armed Forces, and not least the £1.5 billion investment package over the next 10 years to enhance the capability of the reserves, and the increase in the defence equipment and equipment support budget by 1 per cent a year in real terms—though we note that that is not until 2015-16. Can the Minister confirm, though, that this means there will be no increase in real terms in the rest of the core defence budget from 2015-16 to 2020-21?

We are seeing additional resources having to be devoted to our operations over Libya, which is being paid for from the general reserve, and also the need to finance the additional Chinooks promised by the Prime Minister. To conclude, what meaningful assurances can the Minister give that today’s further announcements, which we will certainly wish to study in far more detail than we have been able to so far, have not been influenced by financial considerations, but purely by military considerations?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He asked me lots of questions which I was writing down as fast as I could. I will do my best to answer as many as I can, and if I do not answer them all, I undertake to write to him.

The noble Lord first asked about the SDSR. In announcing the SDSR, the Prime Minister was clear that in his view the Future Force 2020 structure would require real year-on-year growth in the defence budget beyond 2015. The announcement today that the MoD can plan on an increase in equipment and an equipment support programme in the years before the spending review settlement means that the department has a firm base for its longer term plans. This will enable the department to make better value-for-money decisions, and makes clear this Government’s commitment to deliver the forces necessary to meet our future commitments.

The noble Lord then asked if there are going to be reductions in the regular Armed Forces because of cuts in reserves. We are confident that with the additional investment, the reprioritisation and efficiency improvement and the planned withdrawal from combat operations in Afghanistan we can rebalance the Army in particular, so that we can have a whole force of around 120,000 with a ratio of about 70 per cent regulars to 30 per cent Territorial Army. This will allow us to maintain an enduring commitment at brigade level as described in the SDSR. As the Secretary of State has said, the role of the Territorial Army has been greatly undervalued too often in the past. It will continue to have an important role in the Army.

The noble Lord then asked about strategic decisions and the Future Force 2020. We are confident that with the additional investment, the reprioritisation and efficiency improvements and the planned withdrawal from combat operations in Afghanistan, together with a rebalancing of Regular and Reserve Forces, we can generate the forces required to achieve the objectives in the SDSR, including the ability to maintain an enduring commitment at brigade level as described in the SDSR.

The noble Lord asked about the expertise of reservists. I have some personal experience: I was for a number of years colonel of a Sapper TA regiment. They had expertise of a very high order, they were very highly trained, and whenever they went out to Afghanistan they were very much respected by the Regular Forces with which they trained. This is an issue that we will be working on. Clearly, recruiting, which the noble Lord mentioned, is vital. A recruiting and training surge will be needed to meet the demands of the revised reservist roles, and to provide for more viable unit strength. The establishment of an effective recruiting and training mechanism to handle the potential surge requirement will be an essential precondition of success if reserve manpower decline is to be arrested, initially, and then increased. This should include rapid changes to existing processes and regulations to make it more attractive for ex-regulars to join the reserves on leaving.

The noble Lord then asked whether RAF Leuchars is closing. Leuchars is not being closed. It will become a major Army base. Following the SDSR, the Royal Air Force needed three, not four, RAF fast-jet bases. It could not make military sense, and would be uneconomic, to close RAF Marham or RAF Coningsby. A decision had to be taken that was best for defence as a whole. With the Tornado force drawing down at Lossiemouth, we concluded that we could build up the Typhoon force there rather than continuing at RAF Leuchars, enabling Leuchars to be utilised for the MRB to be based in Scotland.

The noble Lord mentioned the Chinooks, and I can confirm that we will be ordering the 12 plus the two very early on in the autumn. He welcomed the 1 per cent increase and asked if would it affect the rest of the defence budget. Her Majesty’s Treasury has agreed that we may plan on the basis of an uplift of equipment expenditure, and equipment support year-on-year of 1 per cent above inflation in the years beyond the current spending period. Finally, all these decisions were taken solely on military considerations.