Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, I have no doubt that the approach outlined in Amendment 2, spoken to by the right reverend Prelate, is one to which we should give careful consideration, which is why I put my name to it. For any report to Parliament on the operation of the military covenant to have credibility, it should be underpinned by an independent review of the welfare needs of both existing service men and women and our 5.5 million veterans. In that way the operation of the military covenant will be properly audited. On Second Reading I was not alone, I think, in expressing concern that there are just three areas listed in the Bill on which the Secretary of State should report—healthcare, education and housing. The Secretary of State alone would decide whether to report on anything else. If Parliament enacts this Bill as it stands, there would be precious little opportunity for future Parliaments to do anything about the issues to be reported. It would be entirely a matter for the Secretary of State. In the coming years there might be many other areas of concern about the welfare of service men and women—and veterans—that should be included in a report to Parliament. The amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate, if accepted, would afford that flexibility. In my experience, all too often Governments as a rule, Ministers in some instances, and the civil servants always like to have things buttoned down in legislation, leaving little room for manoeuvre or interpretation. I was a strong advocate for that when I sat on the other side. The scope of this amendment would, I believe, better fit the need of implementing the covenant without being overprescriptive. Under the broad heading of ““welfare””, it would be possible to widen the areas to be examined and reported on from the three specified in the Bill without the need to resort to further primary legislation. I was also concerned on Second Reading to understand how the Secretary of State for Defence would, without being given some special powers, be able to examine and report on healthcare, education and housing for veterans when these responsibilities were held by other Ministers in the devolved Administrations and other bodies that are not answerable to him. I suggested at that time that the National Audit Office, for which I have a high regard, could carry out an independent audit. It has a fine track record and an international reputation for thoroughness. I took the view that such an audit could be presented to Parliament at the same time that the Secretary of State makes his annual report. I think that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, also supported the idea of an independent audit when they spoke on Second Reading. My experience of serving on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place taught me that there is very much merit in monitoring and auditing new systems of service delivery, and the military covenant is certainly that, which is, of course, at the heart of this Bill. I believe that appointing an independent Armed Forces reviewer, which this amendment proposes, dedicated to looking at matters concerning the welfare of service men and women and veterans alone, is even better than my suggestion of bringing in the National Audit Office. The whole purpose of the independent review would be to look at the operation of the covenant under the broad heading of service men and women and veterans welfare. As a former Veterans Minister, I have long held the view that we should do more for those who served our country so bravely and so well and I believe we should have a separate veterans department. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, listed the litany of responsibilities that the Veterans Minister has in addition to being responsible for veterans. As someone who did that job, I can tell you that it was very difficult indeed to focus on the key aspects and the priorities that one would want to pursue. If the Minister could be persuaded to accept the general thrust of this amendment, he and the Government would be responsible for a significant step forward. When I was a Defence Minister, I posted my own mission statement for veterans and it was simply this: that we will honour and value our veterans, their widows and their families and do everything in our power to demonstrate this. The amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate would be a great step forward so far as that is concerned. I believe it is a sound basis for demonstrating to the 5.5 million veterans in this country and their families that we care and value them. It would also send out a very positive message to existing service men and women that they will not be forgotten when they leave the Armed Forces. These Armed Forces Bills come forward only once every five years. Let us take the opportunity to make this a most significant one for our veterans and the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who will be our future veterans. The Minister is highly regarded by all in the House, and when he speaks in the House about the loss of life or injury to our service men and women he always demonstrates the true depth and passion that he feels for our Armed Forces. I hope that he will be with us in this fight and that when he replies he will indicate that the Government are prepared to take away this amendment, work with its supporters and perhaps others, and bring forward an amendment at Report which will be of great significance and importance to the veterans to whom we owe such a great debt.