My Lords, first, good afternoon, everyone; it is a great privilege to be here again for the second meeting of the Committee, after what I thought was a really interesting and thoughtful discussion on our first day. As I have said to the Minister in the various meetings I have had with her, we support the establishment of the unit and think it is a good step forward. But we have questions to ask and, as the Minister can see from the amendments that we have tabled, issues that we wish to raise and press the Government on, to ensure that we make this new unit as effective as possible.
I will speak to the government amendments but, first, will say to the Minister that I was struck by one of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in the debate we had the other day on the first group of amendments. He talked about the need for public confidence and trust in any system that we set up. This is really important, and we will come to it when we talk about some of the amendments we have tabled, and some of the probing of the Government that we want to do. In reading around this group of amendments, I was struck by one of the statements made by the court in the judgment of the Mousa case, which was:
“One of the essential functions of independence is to ensure public confidence and, in this context, perception is important.”
I respectfully ask the Committee to bear that in mind as we go through these various amendments.
We strongly welcome the detailed report of Richard Henriques, and the recommendations, and we hope that the Government will implement the recommendations as soon as possible. This goes to the heart of what my noble friend Lord Robertson said. We want to press the Government on what they mean by implementing the recommendations and the timeline for all of that. The report is especially pertinent, and I wonder whether the Minister might like to take the opportunity to say something about the allegations in the Sunday Times about a Kenyan woman being murdered by a British soldier, with no action apparently being taken and evidence suggesting that the case was actively suppressed. I think all of us would hope that the establishment of this unit would prevent that sort of thing occurring in future.
I will speak to these recommendations that the Government have put down. As I said, we welcome the establishment of the serious crime unit. However, as the Minister said, the Government’s framework amendment does not fully implement all the recommendations. Indeed, as I have already pointed
out to the Minister, she wrote to us all on 22 October, only just over a week ago, saying that the amendment would implement three of Sir Richard’s recommendations. This is why many of us are wondering what this means.
In her opening, the Minister said that there were three and that four have been added to that but, as we know, Henriques makes more than 20 recommendations relating to the establishment of the serious crime unit. If there are three in the letter and four in this—unless I have misunderstood what the Minister said to us—what has happened to the other 13 that relate specifically to the unit? The Minister will understand the Committee’s desire to know more about what is happening to the rest of these recommendations. There were 64 in total, but 20 relating to the serious crime unit. What has happened to the others? What is the timeline for it? Will the Government implement the other 13—if that is the right number—or are they saying, “We’ll have a look, but we’re not very keen on these”? We need to know from the Government what exactly is happening to those other recommendations. Which are not going to be adopted? Which are the Government thinking about? We need some understanding of the timeline; I think many of us want greater clarity on that. What is happening with respect to that, and when can we expect to know more about the number of recommendations that will be implemented?
There are a number of other things that we need some clarity on. The Minister’s letter said the amendment would ensure that the new provost marshal for serious crime will be under a duty to ensure that investigations by the tri-service serious crime unit are independent. I know the Minister has sought to answer this, but the Government use the words “seek to ensure”. In the court of public opinion, people would say that we should not seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the tri-service serious crime unit are free from improper interference; it is an expectation that they are independent. Surely we should not merely seek to ensure that.
As I said before, I am not a lawyer but I think most people would say that any independent process should be free from improper interference full stop, yet the Government’s amendment talks about seeking to achieve that. Clearly, that is why a number of us—I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—have concerns about the use of these terms. I press the Minister on this. If the court of public opinion sees the word “seek”, it will not believe that in all circumstances that means it will be free from improper interference. It is important that the Minister reads into the record exactly what “improper interference” means in this respect. It almost implies that there is such a thing as proper interference.
Our Amendment 44 lists many of the things that the Henriques report says should be part of the tri-service crime unit. Again, to be fair, the Minister has intimated that the Government intend to do some of this, but that is why many of us are asking why we do not put it in the Bill. We all have experience of legislation and know that there is often debate about why something is not in a Bill. Why is it left off? Why is it left to the Government, of any colour, to say, “We will do this
later on. We will come back to it. We agree that this is important but we are going to look at how we do it”? We are saying that if it is important, it needs to be put in the Bill.
4.15 pm
The victim and witness care unit has to be embedded. I know that the Minister said something about that. It is good to hear that the unit will be operating by 1 April 2022, but that should be in the Bill.
There are other things as well. Henriques recommends that the deputy provost marshal should be a civilian. We support that. There is no annual reporting provision or provision for the unit’s leadership to be reviewed in three years. There is no clear understanding about the links between the unit and the civilian police. There is no right of first refusal over the investigation of offences, and although the Minister said that there will be a strategic policing board, we have set out that that should be in the Bill.
I will add one further comment that is not in the amendment. What is the Government’s expectation of the rank of the provost marshal? Henriques talks about a lieutenant-colonel, then potentially moving on to a colonel. It would be interesting to hear the Committee’s view of what that rank should be. What is the appropriate seniority for the holder of that office to give them the importance needed for that post? I am sure there are others here with experience of the military who will be able to answer that much more effectively than I would. Maybe a lieutenant-colonel is entirely appropriate for that position or maybe not, but it will be interesting to hear the Government’s view on what that rank should be and I would be interested in the views of other Members of the Committee.
We have tabled the cross-party Amendments 43 and 44. As I said, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for their support for them.
There is something else in the report that I want to raise with the Minister. It states that the creation of the unit would save £45 million over 10 years. Is that figure correct? If so, what is the savings estimate, if there is one? One would have hoped that, given its importance, this would be not about savings but about the need to ensure that investigators were recruited. How many investigators do the Government expect will go into the unit? It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could say something about how the three different investigative branches in the Army, Navy and RAF police forces will be merged into this new crime unit. I recognise the level of detail there, but could the Minister say something about that?
Henriques also states:
“I have no doubt that a Defence Representation Unit should be created”
to provide
“a triage service to Service personnel and veterans under investigation for criminal conduct.”
We strongly support that suggestion. Again, the Minister implied that the Government thought that was important. I suggest that that is an urgent consideration for the Government and something that needs to take
place quickly. I was therefore grateful that the Minister said something about that, but we tabled Amendment 66 to press the Government on this. The establishment of the defence representation unit is important and overdue. It would give support to many of our Armed Forces personnel in a way we would all want.
Overall, we support the establishment of the defence security unit. There are a number of important questions to be asked about it, but the Committee is seeking to ensure that when we end up with the defence security unit—we hope in April next year—it will be as effective as we all want it to be. It has an important job of work to do, not least ensuring the public confidence that we need.