House of Lords
Thursday, 28th November 1996.
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Army: Bullying
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many substantiated cases of bullying in the Army were dealt with by military police in the last year for which figures are available; and whether it is Army policy to pay compensation in substantiated cases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, there were four substantiated cases of bullying within the Army in 1994, the last year for which figures are complete. With regard to compensation payments, service personnel have the same legal rights as civilian workers to claim compensation from their employer. They are normally entitled to compensation if they can show that injury results from negligence on the part of their employer, the MoD.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that, although the Ministry of Defence and the Adjutant-General and his colleagues condemn bullying, it still goes on, and probably in far greater numbers than is reported? There are two reasons why compensation should be paid: first, to reinforce the signal that bullying is unacceptable; and, secondly, because the people affected deserve it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I entirely agree that bullying in any form is unacceptable. The noble Lord is right to say that the Army takes a serious view of bullying whenever it occurs. But I stress that the number of substantiated cases of bullying in a year is very few. Where it occurs I wholeheartedly concur with the noble Lord's view that compensation, where appropriate, should be paid. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the basis for agreeing such claims should be four-square with that which applies in the civil sector.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a good deal of anecdotal evidence--I do not say it is substantiated--that my noble friend is right in thinking that bullying is on the increase in the Army rather than on the decrease? Is the noble Earl aware also that, according to certain press reports in which we can place whatever credence we like, certain officers have been involved in such activities? In those
circumstances, what are the sanctions that those who hold the Queen's commission face who may be guilty of such appalling behaviour?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware of certain cases that have been reported in the press. I believe that the incidence of bullying in the Army is low. Occasionally episodes come to light and when they do they are dealt with firmly and thoroughly, whether it is a soldier or an officer who is involved. We are all aware of anecdotal evidence. Between 1990 and 1994--the most recent year for which figures are available--the number of violent offences committed by Army personnel fell by over 30 per cent. That is a clear indication that the measures to combat all forms of ill-treatment within the service are working.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, all that may be true. Can the noble Earl answer my question? What sanctions are available against those who hold the Queen's commission as officers who may be guilty of offences of this nature?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the penalties are exactly the same, as I tried to indicate. The problem is that soldiers are often reluctant to come forward, particularly if it is their own immediate superior who, in their eyes, is guilty of the offence in question. That is a matter that needs to be addressed. The Army is aware of that potential difficulty and has taken steps to ensure that all soldiers are made aware of the procedures open to them if they feel aggrieved.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is it not the case that the tendency for bullying, whether it be in a ship, a regiment or a school, is unfortunately part of the human condition? The problem is detecting it and taking the proper action to root it out. Those of us who served for any length of time in Her Majesty's Armed Forces know that it is up to a commanding officer and the machinery that he puts in place to do that. Is the Minister satisfied that that satisfactory way of dealing with the problem is now in place?
Earl Howe: My Lords, a lot of work has been done in the Army over recent years to address the problems to which the noble Viscount refers. The Chief of the General Staff issued a directive in December last year covering the Army's policy on sexual and racial harassment and bullying. In addition to that directive, a pamphlet on equal opportunities in the Army has been distributed to all regular Army service personnel. It provides guidance on the policy and the mechanisms available to service personnel should they wish to complain about sexual or racial harassment or bullying. That pamphlet is issued to all new recruits during their initial training.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Army's disciplinary machinery sends out strong signals to anyone convicted of those offences?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. He is quite right.
Lord Newall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who joined the forces in the 1940s were attacked by our fellow members when we were in the ranks--whether at Sandhurst or elsewhere? It was quite normal and one certainly did not worry about it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe there are varying definitions of bullying. I am sorry that my noble friend was the victim of what sounds like unpleasant behaviour.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the noble Earl be chary of being misled by questions about bullying being normal? We are talking of vicious and sadistic practices which are well documented. It is unacceptable brutality by a small minority in the Army that we are discussing. Can I assume that the Minister agrees with his colleague in another place, the Minister of State, who said that the MoD takes bullying seriously but does not keep central records? In other words, the Ministry of Defence does not bother to find out what is going on; it simply does not know; it only appears to be taking the matter seriously. If it does not keep records, it cannot know what bullying is taking place. Why does not the MoD do something about it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we do keep records; that is how I was able to answer the noble Lord's Question in the first place. This is not a subject of which I make light in any way, shape or form. Bullying in the Armed Forces, when it occurs--it occurs only rarely--is a serious matter which the services will stamp on at the first opportunity.
Millennium Project, Greenwich
3.9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is the current estimated total cost of the millennium project at Greenwich and what amounts are estimated to be contributed from the respective funding sources.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, it will cost an estimated £350 million to build and set up the millennium exhibition. The Millennium Commission intends to support it with a grant of up to £200 million, provided it is satisfied with the viability of the whole project. The balance is to come from private sector sponsorship. The Government intend to meet most of the site reclamation costs. English Partnerships is acquiring the Greenwich peninsula site, and will manage the reclamation work.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Remembering the British Library, I am sure we are all very hopeful that the cost figure of £350 million will be achieved. Perhaps I may ask a question for the clarification of the House so the matter is quite clear in our minds. If the cost is £350 million plus overrun, which I believe is inevitable, funded by
£200 million from the commission, leaving a £150 million shortfall as of now, will he tell the House how much money from the private sector is now firmly contractually committed? If there is a shortfall in the end, how do the Government budget to meet that shortfall? Are they anticipating that it might be met from public expenditure from the departmental grant?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a most important question, but I must go back to the original Answer I gave him. I explained that it was anticipated that it would cost £350 million to build and set up the exhibition. In addition to that there is the cost of operating the exhibition, which in turn will generate receipts. The proposal has gone forward on the basis that the cost of the operation of the exhibition will more or less be offset by the receipts received. In order to establish this more thoroughly, a business plan and budget is being presented by 11th December to the Millennium Commission. It will be the result of the combination of the grant, the sponsorship and the receipts that may be received from visitors and otherwise generated by the exhibition which will give the project its income. Offset against that has to be the cost of setting up and building the exhibition and running it for the duration. The Millennium Commission has said that it will spend up to £200 million from the money it currently has for the present period for which it will run and contribute that to the exhibition.
If there is to be any question of additional expenditure being required, bearing in mind the way in which the project has been described, it is the Government's intention, so long as the Government, the Opposition and the Millennium Commission are satisfied with the general robustness of what is proposed, that an order should be brought forward to extend the life of the Millennium Commission in order to enable it to collect sufficient money to meet any deficit that might arise under such circumstances.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page