UK Parliament / Open data

Armed Forces Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Dannatt (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 September 2011. It occurred during Debate on bills and Committee proceeding on Armed Forces Bill.
My Lords, in the spirit of not wanting to be guilty of repetition, I want to speak in favour of these three amendments. They highlight a number of the aspects that this debate is touching on. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, looks at the distinctions being made between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have heard that distinctions quite rightly exist between the needs of serving service personnel and veterans. There are distinctions between that part of the welfare that can be dealt with by the Ministry of Defence and that which is dealt with by other government departments. Further, there are the things in the defence area that are properly dealt with by the Ministry of Defence and others which are dealt with by the service charities. Whichever way you look, there are lots of distinctions, and we have to agree that the situation is complex. Complexity does not equate with saying, ““This is too difficult so we are not going to address it””, but that there is no simple solution to governmental responsibilities. Ministers in various departments must retain responsibility for those things that are their responsibility, so the issue is finding a solution to the lack of co-ordination and dealing with complexity. Currently, the Bill provides that, in effect, the Government are being asked to mark their own exam paper. I do not think that is right. We put a question to the previous Government, who chose not to go down the track, which I shall repeat. Would they consider putting in place a reviewer? The right reverend Prelate mentioned this, while earlier in his career the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. If we had a commissioner looking into all aspects of this, he could bring together the Government, the public, private and the charitable sectors. That would not take away the challenge to the Government of Parliament, but someone would have the responsibility for drawing the threads together and holding all the bodies to account, which would give a comprehensive picture of the myriad dimensions I have described. Perhaps the Government would give this some consideration, and if it cannot be done, perhaps they will give us a cogent explanation of why it cannot be done.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c42GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top