Armed Forces Bill

HL Deb 18 July 1996 vol 574 cc1140-62

7.42 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Armed Forces Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Clause 2 [Enlistment or entry for local service]:

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 13, at end insert—

("(3) Within 6 months of the coming into force of this section the Secretary of State shall, before proceeding to any further replacement of Ministry of Defence police, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report relating to the outcome of any pilot projects for alternative arrangements under subsection (1) for duties which have been undertaken by Ministry of Defence police.

(4) No proposal for alternative arrangements under subsection (1) for duties which have been undertaken by Ministry of Defence police shall have effect unless it is confirmed by order made by statutory instrument and subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that these amendments are the same as those we tabled on Report. We did not press them to a Division at that stage because we believed that it was important to give the Government and the Minister time to consider the arguments and the substance of the amendments in the hope that we might receive reassuring positive answers this evening. We shall be listening most attentively, because we want to be able to leave the Chamber reassured.

Clause 2 deals with what could be in danger of becoming—I hope that I am not unkind—a sort of "Dad's Army", with second class conditions of service but with potential for duties way beyond what is initially described. Anyone enlisting in that organisation should be wary of buying a pig in a poke. Nowhere is that better illustrated than by the fact that the homework does not yet seem to have been completed, even as to what will happen about pensions. If, for example, a regular soldier leaves the normal Army, with expectations of a certain pension, and enlists in this new-fangled organisation at a lower rate of pay, what will then happen to his pension, because of course he will be part of the Army in this new organisation?

I believe that it is fair to say that the proposal that we are considering in Clause 2 is more marked by the uncertainties which arise from it than from any certainties. The amendment is concerned with the military local service engagements for which the Government are preparing, and for the military provost guard service.

It is clear that if the Bill goes through in its present form, we shall have given the power to the Executive as to whether or not this new organisation is brought into existence. There can be no argument about that. Ministers may reassure us that they will come back and consult and enable us to have debates, but the Bill will entitle the Executive to make the decisions. The House should have no uncertainty about that. It is clear that that is what we are doing.

Therefore we are looking to the Minister tonight for convincing evidence that there will be no question of the Government proceeding if the pilot projects—as they have been described—give any grounds for anxiety about the scheme, and that there will be a chance for both Houses to express their views and to consider in some detail what has been experienced in the course of those pilot projects.

Perhaps I may be permitted briefly to mention some of the issues upon which we should be glad to have reassurance from the Minister this evening. First, what correspondence has he received from the Chief Constable of the MoD Police on the future viability of the reduced police force which will result from the new scheme? What was it that the Chief Constable had to say about it all?

Secondly, what will really be the basis for what the Government have described as this one-for-one replacement of present members of the MoD Police by members of the new MPGS? I ask that because the more I have gone into the matter, the clearer it becomes that, whatever the Minister may in good faith be saying, it is difficult to find any member of the MoD Police in the country who is doing guarding duties alone. Almost all of them are caught up in wider police activities. So just how is the calculation being made of what is one-for-one in terms of replacing guarding duties by members of this new organisation?

Next, Chilwell is one of the places that has been chosen for the experiment. But am I right in believing that Chilwell was chosen for the experiment before the decision was made and confirmed and the process under way for the Army Technical Services Agency to move into Chilwell, bringing with it 1,000 new civilian jobs, plus the civilian element of the Royal Engineers? In the new context of the reality of what Chilwell will become in those new situations, does it still make sense as a place in which to undertake a pilot project of that kind?

Then, what about the anxieties which exist about the whole issue of the remoteness of the mobile area MoD Police units, how long they will take to be on the spot if they are needed in support? How definite and firm are the arrangements with the local civilian police, should their support be needed in the short term? On that of course there are cost elements about which in a wider context the House should be concerned, because are we potentially shifting some of the responsibility for guaranteeing the policing of communities and the rest from what has been a de facto responsibility of the MoD Police onto the civilian police, so that we are putting responsibility for what had been defence tasks onto other elements of public expenditure?

Then there is the related issue about how the new MPGS will operate in the wider areas surrounding the bases. Only today I was involved in conversations which informed me that in the Nottingham area there is a great deal of anxiety about the matter. In communities which may not be largely defence-oriented we may see armed soldiers in Army vehicles touring civilian areas. Have local populations been prepared for that? What are the implications of it? Those are the kind of worries which we all have about the quality of life and about people's expectations on the mainland of the United Kingdom.

If the MPGS is drawn in to wider activities—I hazard a guess that sooner or later it will be drawn in one way or another—what will be the redress of the public if the public have complaints? I have raised that matter before, but we have not had a satisfactory answer. If the Ministry of Defence Police do something about which a member of the public wishes to complain, the Police Complaints Authority has jurisdiction over the MoD Police. However, the Police Complaints Authority will not have jurisdiction over the members of the MPGS. We need to have firm assurances from the Minister about that.

In the Minister's courteous way, he and his officials have been at pains to have meetings to try to explain the issues. I am grateful for that. Tonight it is important that the noble Earl tries to get convincing answers on the record in this Chamber. However well-intentioned was his full letter to me of a few days ago about some of the matters raised, I must give him notice that among some of those immediately concerned the letter raised more anxieties than it provided answers. I believe that during the course of the pilot projects and so forth he will hear a good deal more about some of the points made in the letter. What he believes to be the situation on the ground is not how it is seen by those immediately involved. I beg to move.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment and look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to the pertinent questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We have been over much of the ground before and I shall content myself by asking a single simple question. Will the Minister assure the House that he will not give a go-ahead to other pilot schemes before the existing pilot schemes have been completed and properly assessed? I ask the Minister for that simple assurance, which I am sure he can give me.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I remind the House that I have an interest in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, questioned the Minister about the wider duties of the MPGS. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that during our debate on the Defence Estimates last Friday I asked him whether the MPGS would be used for patrolling against mortar baseplate locations. I hope that he can give a definite answer to that question which is causing a great deal of concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred also to the plans to move ATSA to Chilwell. He raised an important point. Perhaps the Minister should look at a more suitable location or a trial.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)

My Lords, on Report I congratulated the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, on their persistence in relation to Clause 2. They posed a formidable number of questions during our debate that evening. I answered a few of them then and I hope that the letters which I subsequently sent to the noble Lords reassured them on at least some of their other concerns. However, I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about my letter having raised further concerns beyond those which I was trying to cover. I recognise that it will be helpful today to place on the record the Government's position on some of those issues and I hope that the House will bear with me if I take a few minutes in doing so.

At the Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, expressed concern about whether we were intending to embark on a genuine pilot scheme or whether, once Clause 2 and the enabling regulations for military local service engagements had been enacted, the move to introduce the full Military Provost Guard Service scheme would be a fait accompli. He has repeated that worry tonight. I can assure your Lordships that the pilot scheme will be precisely that—and no more. The Army and the Government would have no interest in introducing the full MPGS scheme if the pilot scheme had proved to be a failure.

The undertakings which have been given to report to this House and to the Select Committee on Defence on the outcome of the pilot scheme bear repetition. I can also reassure noble Lords that there will be full consultation on the outcome of the pilot scheme before a decision is taken to proceed with the main scheme.

I was asked on Report whether I had seen a paper by the Defence Police Federation proposing what it considers to be the most cost-effective arrangements for the MPGS pilot scheme. I have only just seen a copy of that paper and have not had time to consider it fully. Indeed, I understand that the paper had not been completed when we had our last debate, so perhaps I should be congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the quality of his inside information. I shall undertake to study it with due care.

However, in essence, the federation's paper contains two proposals. The first is that the introduction of MPGS and the withdrawal of Ministry of Defence Police from the pilot scheme sites should be phased, and that the MPGS should be monitored by some authority with specialist knowledge. The second is that Chilwell is an inappropriate site for the pilot scheme and that the Defence Animal Centre at Melton Mowbray would be a better choice.

One of the DPF's arguments for phasing the pilot scheme is that it would avoid the loss of 50 MDP officers through voluntary early retirement or voluntary early severance. However, as the consultative document issued on 29th May makes clear, we do not anticipate that any MDP voluntary early retirement or severance will be required as a result of either the pilot scheme or the main scheme. All MDP job losses resulting from the conversion of posts to MPGS should be covered by natural wastage.

In any case, to have members of both the Ministry of Defence Police and the Military Provost Guard Service simultaneously undertaking armed guarding duties at pilot scheme sites would not provide a sound basis for assessing the effectiveness of the MPGS. For such an assessment, the MPGS needs to take over the full guarding task at the pilot scheme sites from the outset.

As for the need for the pilot scheme to be monitored by a body with specialist knowledge, the Commander in Chief Land Command, who will be monitoring the scheme, meets this requirement precisely. He has overall responsibility for the guarding and security of Army establishments and has the necessary specialist staff to ensure that the Army's security requirements are met.

As I have already said, the Army has no interest in using the MPGS if it proves not to meet the requirement, and I can assure your Lordships that there is no question of our being anything other than open in reporting on the outcome of the pilot scheme.

As for the Defence Police Federation's suggestion that the Defence Animal Centre at Melton Mowbray would be a better pilot scheme site than Chilwell, I am afraid that we cannot agree with this. Melton Mowbray is guarded by full engagement regular soldiers and MoD Guard Service personnel, not MDP officers. MoD Guard Service guards cost a great deal less than MDP officers and there is no general financial or other case for using MPGS soldiers to replace them on unarmed guarding duties. The full engagement regular soldiers undertaking guarding at Melton Mowbray are complemented for other duties for which they would still be needed if the MPGS took over their guarding tasks.

In its paper, the federation continues to assert that the MDP at Chilwell fulfil a policing role. I assure your Lordships that the review at Chilwell has confirmed that MDP officers there are complemented for armed guarding duties. The civil constabulary requirement there is limited and can be met by an area policing team. Indeed, I am happy to be able to report that it has been agreed that an area policing team should be based at Chilwell. I should add that we are, of course, ready to listen to the arguments of the DPS on whether any of the posts at Chilwell are required for policing. Indeed, I repeat the assurance that I gave that that paper will be given full attention.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is concerned about the ability of area police teams to cope with the demands which may be placed on them given the size of the areas which they will cover. It is worth noting that most defence establishments currently do not have an MDP presence and that at many establishments civil police requirements are met by the Home Department police. It is envisaged that the creation of area police teams will give the chief constable of the MDP more flexibility to provide a civil policing service throughout the department where required than has been possible hitherto.

Concern was expressed on Report that MPGS soldiers would get drawn into dealing with situations which required constabulary powers. Their position will be no different from that of full engagement regular soldiers, or indeed of members of the civilian MoD Guard Service, who detect incidents that require a police presence; that is, they will have to seek the assistance of a police officer. I should add that complaints by the public against members of the MPGS will be treated in exactly the same way as complaints against other service personnel, many of whom have of course long been engaged on armed guarding at the perimeters at service establishments. They will be investigated fully by the relevant service authorities. As now, members of the public will also have the right, depending on the nature of a complaint, to pursue it through the courts.

A further point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, concerns the pension arrangements for MPGS personnel. MPGS soldiers will be offered membership of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Some detailed aspects of the application of the rules of the scheme need clarification and approval. However, we anticipate that former full engagement regulars will be able to carry forward into their new local service engagements any preserved pension earned in their previous service. I understand the importance of trying to ensure that we get this right and that we do not have pension arrangements which act as a disincentive to would-be recruits.

Concerns were also expressed on Report about MPGS initial training. The intention is that all those recruited directly from the services would undergo a four to six-day selection and induction course. We believe that most of them would have sufficient experience as military guards not to need further training. However, if the selection and induction course showed that further training was required, it would be provided. If necessary, the soldiers concerned would attend the whole of the MoD Guard Service course at Wethersfield and have additional firearms training. We will not cut corners over this.

It is of course true that if more ex-full engagement regulars required full training than we currently expect, training costs would increase above the level assumed in the investment appraisal. The effect would, however, be relatively minor. The break-even year would be unchanged.

Even if many more than 5 per cent. of the MPGS had to be recruited directly from civilian life, it would still not raise costs sufficiently to undermine the financial viability of the scheme. The break-even year would then be deferred by a year, to 2001–2002. However, we do not believe that this will happen, as we believe that the MPGS will attract sufficient ex-full engagement regulars to meet its needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about reserve commitments. I can confirm that MPGS soldiers will not incur any additional reserve liability from their MPGS service, whether they are ex-full engagement regulars or join directly from civilian life. Reserve liability resulting from previous regular service will run concurrently with MPGS employment. We see the task of MPGS soldiers in war as being to continue to guard their respective establishments; and they would therefore be put to the bottom of the list in the unlikely event that it became necessary to mobilise all ex-regular service personnel. This arrangement will have no significant effect on the Army's reserve capability.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred this evening to armed military patrols off-base. If such patrols occur, they can take place only with the approval of the local chief constable. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that there is a safeguard there. It is not something which will happen as a regular routine matter.

The noble Lord asked me also about what correspondence I had had from the chief constable of the MDP about our proposals. The chief constable has been party to our discussions on the MPGS scheme and he has expressed confidence in the future viability of the MDP. Once again I refer the noble Lord to the assurances which I gave at previous stages of the Bill about our firm wish to see the MDP remain as the viable and essential force that it is today.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred specifically to Chilwell. The MPGS will be there to protect service personnel at Chetwynd Barracks. Policing will be undertaken by the MDP area policing team, as I have said already.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked me about patrols off-base. I apologise to him for not answering his question last Friday due to the time constraints. MPGS soldiers, like any other soldiers, will undertake general security patrols off-base as required by the unit's commanding officer. There is close co-operation with the local police in relation to security arrangements for the protection of defence property and personnel. Any armed patrolling by service personnel off-base takes place only if authorised specifically by the local chief constable. I am sure that noble Lords would not expect me to go into further details in what is, as I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate, a sensitive area.

I shall attempt to sum up the underlying concerns—these appear to be that the pilot scheme might not be conducted properly; or that Parliament might not have a proper opportunity to assess its outcome before that main scheme was introduced.

I think that the first of these concerns is somewhat unfair to the Army; and to the Commander-in-Chief Land Command, who would be responsible for ensuring that a full, fair and comprehensive report was made. It would certainly be in the Army's interest to evaluate the pilot scheme properly, since it is Army personnel and property that the MPGS will be protecting. I have no doubts at all that they can be relied upon to do so. However, to make assurance doubly sure, my honourable friend Nicholas Soames and I personally intend to monitor the progress of the pilot scheme very closely. This will include receiving a full interim report at the end of the first year, which we could make available to Parliament, if it was considered that it would be useful to do so.

As to the second of those concerns, I am not sure what more I can say to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the other proposers of this amendment. My honourable friend Nicholas Soames has promised a report on the outcome of the pilot scheme to the Select Committee on Defence and I have promised a report to this House. I have no doubt that those reports will be very thoroughly scrutinised; and that any problems or difficulties would be fully exposed.

However, we fully recognise the concerns which have been expressed here and in the other place. We equally recognise the need to take Parliament with us. If it was the wish of the House to debate the matter between the issue of the report on the outcome of the pilot scheme and beginning work to get a main scheme underway, that would of course be something we could discuss at the time.

If it would offer any further reassurance to noble Lords, I can tell them that I believe that a government might be open to the charge of having acted rashly, were they to choose to proceed with the main scheme in circumstances where Parliament had clearly demonstrated that it was unconvinced that it was right to do so. I imagine that the noble Lords might agree with that.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he would be kind enough to give me the very simple reassurance that I asked for. I am sure that he will be able to do so. Can he confirm that no further pilot schemes will be started before all the monitorings and assessments of the scheme are carried out?

Earl Howe

My Lords, I tried to cover that point in my response. It is unthinkable that any further pilot schemes should be commenced—or, indeed the main scheme commenced—if the pilot scheme had not been fully evaluated and found to have been a success.

Lord Judd

My Lords, perhaps I may, first, make the observation that I always appreciate the optimism of the noble Earl that it will in fact fall to him and his honourable friend Mr. Soames to make the evaluation in a year's time. Of course, it will be those of us who find ourselves on this side of the House this evening who will be making that evaluation. Nevertheless, we listened carefully to the responsibilities which the Minister has placed upon us. No doubt we shall do our best to discharge them to the full.

I turn now to the very firm assurances which the Minister has given this evening, which we take most seriously. First, he said that there will be no question of proceeding if the pilot scheme is a failure. That, of course, is reassuring. Secondly, he said that there will be full consultation with all involved; that there will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate the matter, and that Parliament's views will be taken into account. In the light of such assurances I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

However, I wish to make the following observation. I believe that there is a constitutional issue at stake. It is not satisfactory that what is in fact happening is that we are giving the Executive a go-ahead on a scheme because, in the end, it will be the Executive who consults and the Executive who makes the decision. We are doing so before we have available to us the outcome of the pilot studies. As I said, that is not satisfactory. Nevertheless, the Minister is a man of great good faith; indeed, I am sure that no one in the House doubts that fact. We take what the Minister said seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

Clause 21 [Sex discrimination: Great Britain]:

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 2: Page 15, leave out lines 30 to 45 and insert— ("(9B) A complaint to which subsection (9A) applies may be presented to an industrial tribunal under section 63(1). (9C) Nothwithstanding subsection (9B) of this section, a complaint to which subsection (9A) applies may be made to an officer under the service redress procedure applicable to the complainant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 to 17. The amendments deal with those clauses in the Bill which cover issues of racial and sexual discrimination, grievances concerning equal pay, employment rights and industrial relations matters. The purpose of the amendments is to enable those with a complaint or grievance to go straight to a tribunal and not to make their access to a tribunal dependent upon first pursuing a complaint internally, which is what the Bill proposes.

In moving the amendment, perhaps I may re-emphasise—as, indeed, I did on Report—that there is no question but that we on this side of the House strongly favour the internal procedures. That is the way that you build a strong organisation. In that way an organisation can learn from its experiences. It is also a way to keep high morale; indeed, our amendments recognise that. However, what we do not understand is the Government's insistence on keeping the services special in terms of the right to go direct to a tribunal. If that right exists, it is a guarantee of the quality of the internal arrangements.

In my view, if the internal arrangements are working well, there is virtually no chance that anyone will want to go to a tribunal directly because those with a grievance or complaint will have confidence and would much prefer to see the matter settled internally rather than face the hassle and doubts about the future which would inevitably arise if the matter were dealt with outside. We believe that that is an unnecessary, self-imposed handicap on the future of the services. It will be good to hear tonight what the Minister has to say on the matter.

Perhaps I may briefly mention four specifics. First, in the Bill as proposed, we see a retreat on the provisions as they have so far operated in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act. Under those provisions it has been possible for someone to go straight to a tribunal. In the interests of consistency—and, of course, we see the importance of consistency—the Government are moving back from that position. That seems to us to constitute a loss. We believe that to be a pity.

Secondly, there remains the issue of the need to pursue up through the chain of command a complaint or grievance should it arise. The armed services have all the formality of a big organisation and that, inevitably, could be very intimidating for the person concerned. It also has the potential disadvantage that if it were decided at a later stage to take the matter to a tribunal, having first gone through the internal procedures, some of those with whom the complainant may have been pursuing the case could then become witnesses for the services. That seems to us to be a problem.

I suspect—indeed, I believe that I know—that the Minister will tell us tonight that there will be provision for other officers to move in so that, if there were a complaint about the particular officer, that officer would not be hearing a complaint against himself. But that does not deal with the issue of what happens if there is a general culture in a particular part of the armed services which is giving rise to concern. If there is a general cultural problem in a particular area, it seems to me that that right to be able to go to a tribunal becomes most important.

Then there is the issue of the oral hearing. I believe that the Minister misunderstood our case at an earlier stage, but I believe that he came to appreciate the grounds upon which we were arguing on Report. The important point about an oral hearing is that it enables the complainant, the person with the grievance, to hear the evidence against him and to cross-examine those concerned. Anything that the Minister can say on that subject will be most helpful.

Finally, I should like to make one point. I do so in the context of one who has become quite convinced that the services are taking extremely seriously the whole issue of racial discrimination; the need to tackle it and root it out. At this Third Reading stage, I should like to repeat what I said at an earlier stage of the proceedings. I believe that the handbook produced by the Adjutant General is a model; indeed, it is superb when one sees military language being employed to spell out what should be decent behaviour. It somehow puts all the academics and others into perspective. It is very clear and uncompromising language. All concerned, especially the Adjutant General, should be commended.

However, we know that there have been problems. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will realise that there is no room for complacency. The services are working to get it right. They are working with the Commission for Racial Equality, which thinks very highly of the endeavours that the services are making. I believe that we should look again just briefly, as we did in Committee, at the work being done at Glasgow University by Lieutenant-Colonel Crawford. The Minister will recall his research has revealed that, of the 103 service personnel who reported to him in his survey that they had been victims of racial discrimination, only 14 sought redress through official channels. Colonel Crawford himself comments, and I quote: This shows quite simply that the army's grievance procedure is not working".

We have to take that point very seriously, hence the background to our amendments. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We have heard the argument before and it is a good one. But I would like to introduce a consideration which perhaps the Minister finds a little difficult to introduce, and it is this.

Sometimes the course of action taken by soldiers is not perhaps the wisest one. I fear that, if they are able to complain outside the services' chain of command, there may be a danger that they will rush off and make a complaint. The organisation to which they have complained would then be able to accept that complaint and act on it. The whole matter could snowball out of all proportion. If a soldier has to go through the internal procedures for what may be a minor issue, the matter could perhaps be sorted out by an apology without the need to involve outside agencies.

I would also like to touch on the comments made by the noble Lord on race. It is a very important matter. He said that there were not many complaints under the redress of complaints procedure, and I am not surprised. The answer, therefore, for the services is actually to get rid of race discrimination themselves so that there is no need to go for redress of complaint.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has rightly indicated, Clauses 21 to 27 of the Bill essentially make provision for servicemen and women to submit complaints on certain matters to industrial tribunals. They also include a requirement for them to use the services' internal redress of complaint procedures before they may make application to the tribunal. The clauses ensure that, whatever the statutory basis for the complaint, the arrangements for access to tribunals will be on a consistent basis. The proposed amendments to Clauses 21 to 27 would remove the requirement for prior use of the internal service procedures.

I have given further careful thought to the arguments which were put forward in Committee, and again at Report stage, which questioned the need for the mandatory prior use of the internal procedures.

I very much welcomed the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that there was no dispute between us over the importance of these internal procedures for considering complaints. As he rightly added, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality also believe strongly that their use should be encouraged. I know that from my own dealings with those bodies. It is also perhaps worth noting here that the equal treatment directive refers to a right to pursue claims by judicial process, after possible recourse to other competent authorities". However, there does seem to remain some misunderstanding about the internal procedures and, in particular, about the question of oral hearings.

I should start by saying that the internal procedures do not attempt to match the industrial tribunal procedures. The two systems serve quite different purposes. Industrial tribunals are a means of satisfying the requirement, under EU law, for an independent and judicial remedy in the event of complaints on such matters as equal treatment. The vast majority of complaints considered under the services' internal redress procedures are not such as to require this type of external scrutiny. However, for those that do, such as those concerning discrimination, the industrial tribunal hearing will now be available if the complainant is not satisfied with the decision under the internal system.

The internal redress system serves quite a different purpose. It is there to investigate complaints and to provide, where possible, a swift resolution. It is, essentially, a management tool, designed to help both managed and the manager. Generally speaking, therefore, it would not be appropriate to make a requirement for formal oral hearings to be a part of such a system. We have to be wary of making the procedure so full of formal stages as to be off-putting to would-be complainants.

Nevertheless, the internal system does provide for oral hearings if the case reaches the appropriate service board. It would simply not be practicable to have oral hearings at every stage of its progress through the chain of command. During such hearings the complainant will be able to question witnesses. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was actually mistaken when he said during the debate on Report that that was not possible.

Once a complaint has reached the service board, the board must, in every case, decide whether an oral hearing would be appropriate and any request for a hearing made by the complainant would naturally be considered very carefully. The board will be fully aware that a subsequent industrial tribunal hearing will be able to question any decision not to hold a hearing and that, moreover, a complaint about the way a case has been handled internally can itself be added to the grounds of application to a tribunal.

If an oral hearing is held, the complainant must be given the opportunity to question any witnesses called. He or she will already have received copies of all the evidence which has been submitted to the board. Thus, board members and the complainant will be in exactly the same position.

This is, of course, as it should be. The board is seeking to establish the facts of the case and to provide a remedy if it finds that a wrong has occurred. The board does not constitute, as it were, "the other side" in a dispute with the complainant. The services' system is not adversarial. The purpose in calling witnesses is to clarify any points which are not sufficiently clear from the written evidence.

I should also reply to another point which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised on Report. He said that it was unfair to expect a complainant to argue his case through the chain of command when any of those who dealt with it might be called as witnesses at a subsequent tribunal hearing. In fact, I think that the only circumstances in which something like this could happen would be if a complainant added to the tribunal application a complaint about the way the original complaint had been handled. However, that is unavoidable for any employer.

It might be helpful if I explain that Clause 20 amends the Service Discipline Acts to ensure that complaints will in future be made to "such officer as may be prescribed" in Queen's Regulations. Currently all complaints must be made to the commanding officer even if he is the subject of the complaint.

The regulations will provide for complaints about a commanding officer, or anyone else in the command chain, to be made to a different officer and will, of course, make clear that any officer with any involvement in the complaint should not be invited to consider it at any stage. We shall, of course, make the regulations as flexible as possible to ensure that sensible and pragmatic solutions can be made to suit the circumstances of individual cases. I hope that that takes care of the particular point raised by the noble Lord, to which he could not see a solution.

I very much hope that I have been able to clear up any remaining misunderstandings. I do assure the noble Lords opposite that our aim in including these provisions in the Bill is not to make life more difficult for servicemen and women. Quite the contrary, in fact. We wish to ensure that service personnel have immediate access to a procedure which will investigate any complaint thoroughly and with despatch. I was very much in tune with what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said in that regard.

We are conscious that the demands made on service personnel are very different from those made on the vast majority of employees. The services themselves feel very strongly that the concomitant need for absolute loyalty and trust makes it essential that the redress of complaint system is used in all cases and should not be able to be bypassed in some instances. I stress again that no serviceman or woman will be denied the right to put an eligible case to an industrial tribunal. They are simply being required to use their own internal redress system first.

I accept that for sex discrimination cases there will no longer be a right for cases to be taken direct to industrial tribunals. However, as I have explained in previous debates, it was never the intention that this should be a permanent arrangement. This Bill has presented the first appropriate legislative opportunity to bring the Sex Discrimination Act into line with the provisions for prior use of the internal system first introduced in 1993 by amendment to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

For race discrimination cases, of course, we are introducing a new right of access to industrial tribunals. Having said all that, however, it has become clear during the course of our debates that there is perhaps a need for information on such questions as oral hearings and the opportunity for complainants to question witnesses to be disseminated more widely. Each of the services already has procedures for regularly drawing the attention of all personnel to the detailed Queen's Regulations on the use of the redress of complaint procedures. However, I believe that these could usefully be supplemented by information on the guidelines followed by the chain of command and the service boards in dealing with individual complaints. This will include advice that, although the decision as to whether an oral hearing is to be held is for the service board, complainants may submit a request for one if their complaint reaches that level. We will be taking steps to include such information both in the "permanent" regulations such as the Queen's Regulations, and in the services' equal opportunity directives and the pamphlets issued to individual service personnel—the Army version of which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has, to our great pleasure, kindly commended in his remarks this evening and in previous debates.

As I have already mentioned, the services place great importance on their statutory redress of complaint system and on the system being used in all cases. Its value would, I strongly suggest, be undermined if it could be bypassed in some cases. I therefore put it to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that, if there are problems with the internal procedures—and there may well be in individual cases—then the best approach is to seek to improve these, by in any event keeping the procedures under review as part of our normal business; by addressing specific concerns and criticisms; and by ensuring that the detail of the procedures is more widely known through the services, as I have already indicated we intend to do. I would suggest to your Lordships that this will be a more productive approach than adopting these amendments, which imply the acceptance of a number of criticisms of the internal system, and suggest that the only remedy is to bypass that system rather than to seek improvements to it.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Judd

My Lords, first I must say that of course we appreciate the considerate response given by the noble Earl. What he had to say about the increased amount of information on procedures is encouraging. However, I found the candid observations of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, rather worrying. If there is a likelihood that soldiers will rush off to an independent tribunal if they have the possibility to do so, that seems to suggest there is something wrong as regards the team spirit, cohesion and the rest that is so important to the Army. I do not think we can have it both ways. If the team spirit and the cohesion are working well, a soldier will not rush off to an independent tribunal. To have the right to go to a tribunal is the guarantee that the team spirit is working well. If that is not the case, soldiers will rush off to such a tribunal. There is a certain illogicality in the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which bears consideration.

I have held the Queen's Commission myself and I have been a service Minister. Therefore I know what is being talked of here and it is important to the ethos of the services. Sometimes people say that the services are unique. However, I do not think that argument is completely credible in a modern society. I refer to the flight deck of a civilian airliner and other demanding situations in civilian life. I refer to people in the fire service and the new hazards that sometimes arise when coping with disasters that occur in urban areas and elsewhere. I believe that some of the principles we are discussing apply to those situations too. To argue that there is something particularly special about the services is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain convincingly in the context of certain situations.

I note what the Minister said about oral hearings. That was encouraging, but I am sure he will agree that he indicated it was not a right but a possibility. We should all be clear about that. In terms of what I was discussing a moment ago; namely, the need for cohesion and the importance of having an ethos and a team spirit in the services, if another officer is to step in and hear a complaint about a commanding officer or someone else I suspect that might be difficult for people in the armed services to handle. The situation could be defused by having an independent body look objectively at the situation. In that way the embarrassment of confronting officer to officer relationships within the services would be avoided.

Therefore I believe there are still some issues at which we need to work. Before I conclude I return briefly to the research of Lieutenant-Colonel Crawford. The work he has undertaken is of tremendous importance. I quote from his research where he posed the following question: 'Having been a victim of racial discrimination, why did you not seek official redress?' The answers to this question show why the Army's grievance procedure is not working. Respondents could identify more than one reason if appropriate, and therefore absolute numbers do not match the 89 individuals who said they had taken no action. Forty individuals … said that they did not complain because they believed such a step might adversely affect their careers. Twenty-seven … thought they would not be taken seriously; 23 … feared increased discrimination; while 20 … did not complain".—[Official Report, 18/6/96; cols. CWH35–36.] as the person to whom they would have to make representations was involved in the discrimination against them. That illustrates the size of the problem.

However, I am greatly encouraged by the seriousness with which the Army, the Ministry of Defence and Ministers are treating this issue. I am convinced that they want to see racial discrimination rooted out in the armed services. I believe that what is now proposed is definitely a move in the right direction. More may have to be done at a later stage, but it is a move in the right direction. Far from falling into that awful trap of saying, "The bottle is still half empty" I want tonight to say, "The bottle is apparently at least half full, and let us fill it" in terms of adopting the right approach. It would be unfortunate to pursue any kind of negative stance this evening. I wish therefore to finish on an encouraging note.

I am sure there is a great deal of agreement between both sides on this matter. The armed services are there to protect what will be for all time a multi-racial society in Britain. Therefore the more the armed services can reflect that multi-racial society and—if I may digress slightly—the more the Houses of Parliament come to reflect that multi-racial society in all manifestations; namely, MPs, Peers, officials and others, the stronger our society will be. However, that is another issue.

It is important that that should occur in the armed services. I believe the armed services are determined to move in that direction. I commend them. I hope the noble Earl will forgive my having just emphasised some of the handicaps and difficulties which I believe may still have to be tackled. I wish the armed services well in what they are trying to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]

Clause 22 [Sex discrimination: Northern Ireland]:

[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]

Clause 23 [Racial discrimination]:

[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]

Clause 24 [Equal treatment: Great Britain]:

[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]

Clause 25 [Equal treatment: Northern Ireland]:

[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]

Clause 26 [Other complaints: Great Britain]:

[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Clause 27 [Other complaints: Northern Ireland]:

[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

Clause 30 [Greenwich Hospital]:

Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 18: Page 25, line 28, at beginning insert— ("Where he is satisfied that the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) will be fulfilled.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 is an issue that we have debated at various stages of the Bill. It is encouraging to see in Clause 30 that the Secretary of State is to: have regard to … the importance of preserving for the benefit of the nation the historic buildings and monuments on the land and of maintaining the architectural integrity of the Royal Naval College site … the desirability of securing reasonable public access to the land (and in particular to the historic buildings and monuments on the land); and … the desirability of preventing any use of the land appearing to him to be out of keeping with its unique character and history". Of course it is reassuring to see those words. There had been anxiety that the Minister may be tempted into believing that the only thing that mattered was to maximise the financial return on the handling of the land. It is therefore good to see that provision. The worry is how far the rest of the clause which follows actually delivers the right outcome in terms of the matters to which the Secretary of State will have had regard.

I am aware of all the problems. I am aware for instance, that we may be moving into the realms of a hybrid Bill—God forbid! a terrible parliamentary sin—or something of that kind and that we must be wary. However, although it is good to see the aspirations, it is whether they are acted upon effectively that matters. Anything that the noble Earl can say this evening to reassure us will be welcome. I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, let me say at the outset that I understand the concerns that have led the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to table this amendment. I am sure that the whole of your Lordships' House shares his anxiety that the future of Greenwich, that magnificent site, should be protected as far as the law can allow.

The present Government are determined to establish a worthy future for the site. I can understand the anxiety that there is no guarantee that governments in the future will always share such worthy intentions. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made it clear on Report that he was not wedded to any specific words and urged the Government to find an amendment which would reflect his concerns.

It would be difficult for me to over-emphasise the amount of concern and effort which has gone into framing Clause 30. I suspect that Ministers and officials have explored every avenue that the noble Lord considered—and probably more beside.

Your Lordships will recall that in another place the Government tabled a series of amendments, notably the present subsection (2). That was designed to ensure that the anxieties about the future use of the Royal Naval College, expressed by Parliament and elsewhere, were given prominence in the legislation and that the Secretary of State for Defence (as trustee for the charity Greenwich Hospital, for whose benefit he holds the Royal Naval College), would be empowered to take account of wider interests.

The legislation as now framed would place an obligation on a future Defence Secretary to have regard to the considerations of heritage and access as defined in subsection (2). It does not allow a future Defence Secretary to treat those considerations as some optional extra. If he failed to have regard to them, he would be open to challenge by way of judicial review.

The wording of Clause 30 also makes it clear that the considerations in subsection (2) must be borne in mind in all decisions relating to those buildings—and not just in decisions relating to a lease under subsection (3) which is the only decision to which the noble Lord's amendment relates.

Amendment No. 18 seeks to require a future Defence Secretary not simply to have due regard to those considerations, but to make them into considerations to be fulfilled. The desire to prescribe the future of those fine buildings is wholly understandable. However, as a result of our own search for wording for this clause, we had to reject that objective. Not only could such conditions make the legislation potentially inimical to the private interests of the charity, Greenwich Hospital, but they could also work against the best interests of the Royal Naval College. They could make the legislation unworkable.

Decisions on the future of the site could well involve a future Defence Secretary having to balance a complex series of interests in circumstances which cannot now be anticipated. Those interests may not always be compatible. It is not impossible to envisage circumstances where the differing considerations in subsection (2) may not be compatible. Venerable buildings can pose difficult choices between, for example, occupancy (which may be regarded as unworthy in some way) and being left empty, with the risk to the fabric that that might pose. Likewise, preservation is not always compatible with public access.

I am not wishing to suggest that there are problems now in meeting the considerations in subsection (2). But we are passing legislation which will govern the site until Parliament chooses to change it—and that could be a long time. The present form of the clause recognises that future decisions could require difficult balances to be struck. It requires that the Secretary of State must take account of specified key issues, but it avoids tying the hand of the Secretary of State in a way which could make the process of finding the best solution for the site even more difficult.

I have tried in these few words to address the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment, as the noble Lord asked me to do, and not the precise letter. I hope that he will understand that in framing Clause 30 as a whole we have had regard to precisely the interest which motivated his amendment; namely, the best interests of the Royal Naval College, together with those of Greenwich Hospital, which I am sure it was not his intention to disadvantage.

I hope that that response is helpful. I hope that it will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Even more, I hope that we shall find a satisfactory solution to the occupancy of Greenwich Hospital that will command the approval of your Lordships' House and the wider public.

Lord Judd

My Lords, given the very firm statements made by the noble Earl, I am reassured about his intentions whatever the reservations about how far the situation is totally buttoned up. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.45 p.m.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Our discussions on this year's Armed Forces Bill have covered some ground that will be familiar to those who, over the years, have followed the debates which accompany the five-yearly review of service legislation. In Committee we had a full debate on the death penalty in the Armed Forces which gave us all cause to reflect on that most sombre of issues. We also touched on racial and sex discrimination—areas where the services have made significant progress in the past few years. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Defence is the first to acknowledge that there is no room for complacency.

Much of our time has been spent debating issues which are particular to this Armed Forces Bill. I have in mind, of course, parts of the Bill such as those to which we have returned again this evening—providing for local service and for the future of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. I believe that we can fairly say that we have covered those subjects exhaustively—I was tempted to say "exhaustingly".

Without going over the ground again, I hope that our discussions have done something to reassure those who had anxieties and worries that they were perhaps misplaced. Debates in this House can be invaluable in teasing out the real areas of concern about any issues and in then giving us the opportunity to see whether we can allay those concerns. I understand perfectly a number of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

When we had our Second Reading debate a few weeks ago, I described the court martial reforms which we proposed as the centrepiece of the Bill. That appears to have had the effect of concentrating your Lordships' interest on other parts of the Bill! However, I wish to place on record my appreciation of the generous welcome which the reforms have received from all parts of the House. They represent a major step forward in the administration of service discipline.

Whatever else these five-yearly Bills may address—and this year's Bill is perhaps more wide-ranging than most—much of the focus will always be on the search for improvements in the system of discipline in the Armed Forces. Very often it will be simply a question of, at most, a little fine tuning. This year, as your Lordships are aware, the changes have been on a rather larger scale than that.

The objective though will always be the same: to strike that essential but difficult balance between preserving a discipline system which is actually fit for the purpose of maintaining discipline and safeguarding the rights of the men and women who are subject to that system. We are confident that the arrangements for discipline which will result from the passage of this Bill will strike that balance in a way which accords with the expectations both of today's service men and service women and of the society from which they are recruited.

Before concluding, I wish to express my appreciation of the contributions which many noble Lords have made to our debates on the Bill. I cannot mention them all but it is right that I should extend my particular gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Mayhew, Lord Redesdale, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. They have all enriched our discussions on the Bill and I appreciate the constructive way in which they approached often difficult subjects. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken have done us a service. I commend the Bill to the House.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, it is with diffidence that I rise to respond to the Motion because my attention has not been wholly concentrated on the Bill. It has been diverted elsewhere in your Lordships' House, as has the noble Earl's attention from time to time.

At Second Reading I expressed our general support for the Bill. It would be wrong for me to withdraw that support. Some difficult issues had to be teased out in the course of debate: the Ministry of Defence Police and the future, the tribunal provisions, the courts martial, the Greenwich problem. I hope that my contribution at Second Reading on the issue of homosexuality was helpful to the Government, despite certain remarks made last Friday by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, from the Liberal Democrat Benches which he subsequently withdrew.

I can only reiterate our support for the Bill and for the Armed Forces of the Crown. They are the Armed Forces of the Crown and not the property of any government. I can assure the noble Earl that in a year or so, when we switch places, we will continue to give the Armed Forces of the Crown the support that we believe the noble Earl has given them. In that spirit, I wish the Bill well and hope that, in whatever theatre they may serve, the Armed Forces will continue to receive the support of governments of whatever party and of your Lordships' House. I am sure that they will.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, the noble Earl quite rightly said that compared with preceding Bills this one is important. I agree. It is also a liberal Bill in its balance, especially in the courts martial reforms, which we discussed very little. It is a liberal Bill. That is the highest possible praise that a Bill can be given.

However, it is disappointing that the Third Reading should begin late on a Thursday evening and that the Committee stage should take place below stairs in the Moses Room. I also recall that the estimates debate was on a Friday morning. I must warn the Government that if they are not careful Parliament may resist the trend towards devaluing debates on defence that we have in the House. That may have happened in the opposition to the Bill in that we have not given the Government the benefit of the doubt on certain points: for example, the coming into operation of the pilot scheme. It is also true in the use of the usual channels. We have not given the Government the benefit of the doubt, and part of the reason is that the Government have not been generous to the House in their allocation of time and opportunity.

Nevertheless, we thank the noble Earl. He has taken infinite trouble in replying to our questions, not only courteously but in thorough detail. He never raises his voice in debate, and that is a great point, especially to those of us who come from the other place. If we have spent years there, it is a great relief to listen to a Minister who does not raise his voice. It is much appreciated. I also wish to thank him because, following the debate on the death penalty in Committee, he wrote to me saying that he proposed to set up an inquiry on issues surrounding the death penalty. It was a long and cautious letter which dealt at length with the statement by Mr. Archie Hamilton that the death penalty would never be imposed in time of peace. I was much encouraged by the noble Earl's statement that: These matters will be looked at with an open mind and with no predetermined agenda … I hope you will consider the prospect of a fresh examination of the issues to be a positive development". I take that to mean that it will be a fairly wide-ranging inquiry. I am glad that the Minister apparently agrees with me. It should have been done long ago. It is 50 years since the death sentence was invoked and it is a remarkable anachronism. I hope that the inquiry will ask pertinent questions.

It is hard to believe that the penalty will ever be used and that is a major point which the inquiry needs to consider. Not only is the number of offences for which it can be imposed limited, but also the offence must be committed with intent to help the enemy. Again, that makes its use unlikely. It is possible, though difficult, to imagine someone in our new volunteer professional Army being guilty of mutiny, but that would not lead to the imposition of the death penalty. It has to be mutiny at a time of war with intent to assist the enemy.

When the inquiry considers such points seriously, I am sure that it will conclude that the death sentence has become a relic, an anachronism which is no longer valid. It is not a matter of great concern. In our debate at the Committee stage I recall that the Minister mentioned strong feelings on the subject. I do not feel very strongly, because I regard the provision as an outworn relic which will never be used. The question the inquiry will have to ask is: what value is it to the Army? If it is not going to be used, what possible value can there be in keeping it? It does not help the image of our new Armed Forces at all. The idea of a firing squad contradicts everything that we project the Army as doing, and the idea of freedom. If the Minister had the desire and drive to abolish the death penalty in the Armed Forces, he would find that it would improve the image of the Army in the minds of the public. It would give it a friendlier feeling; and perhaps mothers and fathers would be rather more inclined to urge their daughters and sons to join.

I thank the Minister for taking this issue seriously and for setting up the inquiry. I am glad to hear that it will raise the fundamental questions involved. If it is properly administered and run, it will reach the conclusion that this is a very sensible, overdue reform.

Will the Minister tell the House a little about the administration of the inquiry? Who are to be its members, and when will it report? We shall follow the issue keenly and not wait for the next Bill in five years' time to raise it again. If, after 15 years, I am still spokesman on defence for the Liberal Democrats in this House, I shall certainly raise the matter when the provisions are renewed in a year's time.

Finally, I thank my absent colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who did the hard work in Committee. Again I express our warm appreciation of the way in which the noble Earl has answered our questions.

9 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I had not intended to speak to this Motion, not least because I have not yet had a substantial meal today. I listened with interest to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He referred to the proceedings in the Moses Room. Those proceedings went extremely well, particularly in relation to the Reserve Forces Bill and, to a slightly lesser extent, on this Bill.

The noble Lord also referred to our tradition of having the debate on the Statement on the Defence Estimates late in the Session. Matters have improved quite a lot. My recollection is that, the year before last, it was practically the last business we took; the year before that it was definitely the last business. So the debate is being taken at a better time.

Perhaps I may address one or two other matters. I was disappointed that we did not have a full debate on the difficult question of homosexuality in the services—simply because this House has so much experience of service matters. I should like to have seen the balance of the arguments explored in this place. I feel that the debate could probably have been won by those who want a relaxation in the rules.

Taking part in the proceedings on this Bill has been a fascinating business. I am grateful to all who contributed.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I am conscious of the hour. I shall simply say that I am grateful for the remarks of all three noble Lords who just spoke.

In response to the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the terms of reference of the review that we propose to undertake will be widely drawn. We are drawing them up now. We intend it to be an internal review involving officials, members of the Armed Forces and Ministers. I am not yet sure how long the review will take. We want it to be thorough. We want it to examine exactly those questions which the noble Lord raised. I am sure that when we have reached a conclusion, we shall wish to have a full debate. I have no doubt that your Lordships will not be slow in prompting such a debate. Having welcomed all the contributions that have been made, I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill passed.