I thank the Minister for her response which, as usual, sought to engage with the questions. That is always very helpful to the Committee. In particular, we all look forward to what she mentioned in her last point: she said to the Committee words to the effect that there will be a significant response to the Defence Select Committee report, which we have been referring to. I am sure that the Committee will look forward to that response.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for not mentioning that she had added her name to the amendments. I did not mean to be rude. I had it in a note that I wrote to myself but I just went over it, so I apologise for that.
In addressing the specific amendments, on Amendment 53 I wrote that I understood what the Minister had said. I think I nearly understood what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was saying. That reflects my ignorance, not his explanation, and it was an important point. I would be interested to see that, but I understood the points that the Minister made about Amendment 53. However, like all of us, I am going to have to reread Hansard a little to fully grasp some of this—and Amendment 54 is a classic example of needing to read it. As I understood it, the Minister said that if the ombudsman makes findings, they are binding; but if they make recommendations, they are non-binding, but that is okay because they can be judicially reviewed. I need to read what she said because, again, the role of the ombudsman is important for us. On Amendment 55, perhaps I need to look again, but I think she said that the Committee will be pleased because the Government are going to go further than is stated in the amendment so, in that sense, more will be done.
Before I make a couple of general points, with respect to Amendment 66B I refer the Minister—if the Committee will bear with me for one moment—to something that I will read. She referred to the Diversity and Inclusion Directorate as one of the reasons that a defence authority was not needed, but paragraph 147 of the report says:
“Although the Wigston Review identified a pressing need to reform the complaints process, the MOD has not fulfilled the recommendation for a Defence Authority, to handle complex BHD complaints outside the chain of command.”
5.15 pm
The Minister then referred to the Diversity and Inclusion Directorate, but the committee says:
“The new Diversity and Inclusion Directorate does not fulfil this function, due to its limited role in complaint handling. Nor are we convinced that the new standing Decision Bodies and ‘centralised functions’ do either, because they are still in the Single Services. Due to a limited mandate, the Ombudsman does not offer an alternative reporting system in the first instance.”
So there would appear to be a divergence of view between the Minister said and the committee with respect to the defence authority. The Government are saying that there is no need for a defence authority, but the Defence Select Committee is saying that those bodies do not do the job and prove why there is. We will need to look at that.
With respect to the Minister, and within the realms of common sense, what is appropriate and what does not compromise security, it is exceptionally important that not only we in this Committee but people more broadly know what was said at the Army Board this morning about how the Defence Secretary wants to see some of his concerns addressed and what is to be done. That is why I couch it in the terms of common sense and reasonableness, because I accept that there will be things that should not be said, but after a meeting which has been briefed out—not leaked out, briefed out—where the Defence Secretary raised his concerns publicly and said that he will call in defence chiefs to discuss it with him as a special defence board at the Ministry of Defence, we are entitled to know a little about what was said at the meeting and what recommendations arose from it. I make that request to the Minister, who I know is reasonable—and the Defence Secretary is a reasonable man. We should hear formally what was said and how it seeks to address some of the concerns. Some of what was said at that meeting may affect what amendments Members may wish to table on Report. That may be important information for us.
The Minister said, “Things have to change. It is a pivotal report. We intend to go further.” Can she guarantee that no policy improvements will be held up because of any timescale problems? Supposing that the Government’s response to the Defence Select Committee comes in four weeks’ time. The Bill may well have gone through Parliament before then. Supposing there are issues in the Government’s response to the report that require primary legislation. The time will have passed. The Government will not be able to fulfil their own desire because the primary legislation vehicle will have passed.
I respectfully ask the Minister to consider, with her officials and the ministry when she goes back, trying to ensure that no primary legislation would be required to put into effect anything in the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report; otherwise, the vehicle to do so will have gone. I am sure the Government could find somewhere else to do so, but I hope the Minister takes my point.
I reiterate that this is an extremely important area that we may wish to return to on Report and I thank the Minister again for her response. With those brief comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.