Armed Forces Bill [Money]
House of Commons, 21 March 2006.
Don Touhig (Labour, Islwyn)
I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the establishment of a body whose primary function is to investigate matters relating to the mental or physical wellbeing of members of the armed forces or the operation of that body.
The purpose of bringing forward the money resolution at this stage is to enable the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill to consider any amendment that might be tabled seeking to create a statutory body or an ombudsman to investigate certain complaints made by service personnel.
This is a very important subject, and one on which the Defence Committee made a recommendation in its report on the duty of care, which was published on 14 March last year. The Government are not persuaded that that is the right way forward for our armed forces, and the Bill makes no provision for it. But we are keen to have an open debate about the issue. We have therefore tabled this resolution in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to enable proper debate in the Committee. Without the money resolution, we would not be able to debate the matter fully.
The money resolution makes clear the proposed primary function of the independent ombudsman, and I think that it is drafted sufficiently widely for a full and informed debate in Committee. If it were agreed, the creation of such a body or ombudsman would give rise to additional costs from public funds. It is too early at this stage to estimate what those costs might be. None the less, we need this motion to allow a full debate. If it were agreed, the creation of such a body or ombudsman would give rise to additional costs from public funds. It is too early at this stage to estimate what those costs might be. None the less, we need this motion to allow a full debate in Committee, and I commend it to the House.
Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)
I am grateful to the Minister for proposing the motion. What he has said about the enabling nature of the motion is sensible, and very much in the spirit of the manner in which the Bill is being considered, which could well be applied to the consideration of other Bills. After Second Reading the Bill went not straight to a Standing Committee but to a special Select Committee, which has enabled us to take evidence from a wide range of people, including those who are in favour of the establishment of the kind of grievance redress arrangements to which the Minister referred. Like him, we are not persuaded that that is the best way to proceed for our armed forces, but the motion—if passed—will enable the Committee to examine the proposition publicly and in detail, which will add further to the authority of the Committee and the professional way in which the House has approached the Bill. It is therefore right that we should debate the matter, and that the motion should have been tabled.
I would be keen to learn from the Minister whether the costs that might arise out of the arrangement have been quantified by the Department, given that he is not in favour of the establishment of an ombudsman—
David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)
Are you?
Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)
I am not in favour of an ombudsman, to answer my right hon. Friend who is chuntering from a sedentary position—
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
To great benefit, too!
Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)
It is of course of great benefit to the House, as my hon. Friend points out.
It would be helpful if the Minister would indicate whether any consideration has been given to the likely costs. As this is a money resolution, and as the Bill has implications for additional expenditure by the Department in the establishment of standing courts martial, and there is the possibility of increased litigation that might entail increased costs for the legal representation of members of the armed forces who end up in the dock, I wonder whether the Minister can give us any estimate today of the likely increases in the defence budget that might arise. That would be helpful, but if he cannot give us that information today, we quite understand that a letter may follow, as has been his custom on other occasions.
We welcome the fact that the motion will facilitate further debate, and I look forward to joining the Minister in resisting a grievance procedure that would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's armed forces. I am delighted that in the spirit of co-operation between both sides of the House in areas on which we agree, I shall be able to make the Minister's task that much easier and perhaps make common cause against some of his Back Benchers, which may be developing into a bit of a habit—
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman and others that at this stage we are debating only the costs of the proposal rather than its merits.
Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was for the further elucidation of the House that I was seeking an undertaking from the Minister that he will provide us with some indication of what those costs might be. However, I have nothing further to add to the questions I have posed.
Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)
I welcome both the motion and the words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence about the importance of the issue to which it relates.
The motion refers to
"the establishment of a body whose primary function is to investigate matters relating to the mental or physical wellbeing of members of the armed forces or the operation of that body".
The well-being of members of our armed forces is absolutely vital. They undertake a hugely important task in countries across the world, and we need to ensure that their well-being is properly safeguarded.
The Armed Forces Bill, to which the motion relates, will give us all a valuable opportunity to address the vital issue of accountability and to ensure that when, sadly, deaths occur in the armed forces, they can be properly investigated. The Deepcut and Beyond families group will be looking for answers about the deaths of their children, and I hope that the money resolution will result in the setting up of an independent scrutiny body.I hear the Minister's remarks about his views on the possibility of an ombudsman, but I hope that he will listen to the voices of parents and families and take them into account.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
The hon. Lady's speech follows that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who was sounding dangerously like a consensus politician a moment ago. The hon. Lady is obviously sympathetic to the establishment of an independent body. Has she any idea, in ball-park terms, of the capital and running costs that might be envisaged?
Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)
There are such bodies in other countries. Canada has an independent ombudsman, and Germany and Australia are looking into the idea. There would be opportunities for the Ministry of Defence to look at the expenses in other countries. The important thing is to get this right. We have an opportunity once every five years to consider the armed forces and, in this Bill, issues relating to the operation of courts martial and inquiries. Our armed forces need the best possible focus for such things.
On the sad occasions when something goes wrong, that needs proper investigation. I welcome the money resolution, and the fact that members of the Select Committee on Defence will have the opportunity to examine a vital issue in more detail. When it comes back to the Floor of the House, other Members, too, can engage in that important debate.
Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)
This is a very narrow debate. I welcome the money resolution, as it will enable the Committee to use evidence from other countries to find out how such a proposal could be implemented in this country if that was the will of Parliament. However, it would be inappropriate for any member of the Committee to prejudge and pass personal comment before we have heard the evidence. Having served on the Committee, I am aware how important it is to maintain the ethos and the culture of the three armed forces alongside the need to harmonise the disciplinary procedures, but the money resolution will enable the Committee to widen the debate to find out whether other measures could assist Her Majesty's armed forces with those procedures. If the evidence that we find suggests that that is the way forward, so be it—but equally, if the evidence states that it would not be beneficial, we should not proceed. It would be inappropriate for any member of the Committee to pass judgment before the evidence has been heard.
Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)
I too welcome the money resolution, which will give the Committee the opportunity to discuss the very important issue that has just been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Having dealt with the Ministry of Defence over the past five years as a member of the Defence Committee, I find what the Minister refers to as constructive engagement rather strange; usually we just get a "No" from the MOD—so I thank him for proposing the money resolution.
I am rather saddened by the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who clearly seems to have prejudged any debate that might take place in Committee. I thought that these days, he was a new Conservative, looking for consensus on issues about which people are clearly concerned in the wider community.
Any such ombudsman or commission needs a narrow remit. It need not be a large organisation that will cost millions of pounds. We must remember that this is not the first time that such a recommendation has been made. The Defence Committee called for something similar in its report on the duty of care during the last Parliament. The independent review of armed forces manpower and career remuneration—the Bett report—recommended extending the terms of reference of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to allow the ombudsman to deal with complaints from service personnel about administration issues. That is important, and I hope that hon. Members will not say that such a proposal threatens the armed forces. Frankly, I think that it will help them to try to repair the damage to their reputation that has clearly been inflicted by some of the press coverage over the past few years.
Don Touhig (Labour, Islwyn)
With permission, I should like to comment on the remarks that have been made today. I have already said that this is an unusual procedure. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asks how much the procedures that the money resolution will allow the Committee to consider would cost. We have not calculated any of the costs at this time, but as a guide it might be helpful to know that, although on a rather larger scale, the annual operating cost of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is about £70 million.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the consensual way in which we have approached the Bill in Committee. I commend all members of the Committee for their work. He also mentioned that he might get another letter from me. When the Bill is finished with, my goodness me, I do not know what I will do—but I will not be writing any more letters to the hon. Gentleman. It will be gap in my life—and, no doubt, a gap in his—but I am sure that we will find other things on which to have exchanges.
Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) says, the Bill addresses issues of accountability, but I am not tempted down the road that she suggests at the moment, because that is a matter for the Committee to debate. However, I am glad that she welcomes the provision that the money resolution will allow, and I share the view of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that we must await the debate in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), too, welcomed the money resolution. I make it clear to him that, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government are not persuaded of the need for an ombudsman or anything similar, but we are convinced of the need for a debate, and the money resolution will allow us to have that debate.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
A number of references have been made to the special Committee, and within the space of a few minutes it has already become clear that in the Chamber are senior, important, very respected, influential and busy people who probably have many commitments and full diaries, who are sitting on that important Committee. I confess that I am not one of them; I was not asked. However, I am uncomfortable about the idea of a cosy private correspondence between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), so I simply ask the Minister whether he will allow other Members to be party to those exchanges. Can we have a copy of all such correspondence between him and my hon. Friend placed in the Library?
Don Touhig (Labour, Islwyn)
We would need to extend the Library. However, I will ensure that my correspondence with the hon. Member for Aldershot is copied to members of the Committee, and I am sure that it can be made available to anyone else who needs it.
The Government are responding to a formal request from the Chairman of the Select Committee to which the Armed Forces Bill has been committed to facilitate deliberations on one aspect of the Bill—the redress of complaints process. We are happy to do that, because we think that it is an important Bill for our armed forces and we are keen to have the debate on this issue. The Select Committee is appointed solely for the task of examining the Bill, and this approach has been used for considering successive Armed Forces Bills since 1955. We are engaged in that process now, and I trust the House will feel that there is merit in the resolution. I again commend it to the House, so that we can have the debate in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Mark Lancaster (Conservative, North East Milton Keynes)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on how I may make a correction to Hansard even though is not in my speech? I understand that Members have an obligation to check their own speeches. At column 48 yesterday, in response to an intervention, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) made light of my role as a bomb disposal officer and suggested that I had an interest in kinetics. However, Hansard reports this as though I have an interest in Qinetiq, the defence procurement company. I want to make it clear that I do not.
Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My intention was to make a humorous remark because the hon. Gentleman has family and business interests in fireworks companies. The lesson, I suppose, is that humour is explosive and can backfire. I have asked Hansard to make the correction; we discussed it this morning. I apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman for any unintentional consequences or inconvenience.
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
It sounds as though the correction will be made. I should inform hon. Members that they can always write to the editor of Hansard to make sure that such corrections are made.