Lord Vivian asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for a right to peaceful assembly and association, including the right to form a trade union. The article allows the position of lawful restrictions on the exercise of those rights by members of the Armed Forces.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his Answer. I understand that Article 10(2) provides an exemption to Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but only if restrictions on trade union activity by members of the Armed Forces are prescribed by law with sufficient certainty in primary or secondary legislation, so as to give them sufficient clarity as to what they are and are not allowed to do. Where is that legislation laid down?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the law that covers the Armed Forces is to be found in Queen's Regulations. Of course, that is law evolved through the Royal Prerogative rather than statute. The point about Queen's Regulations is that they have power if necessary to control the effect of Article 11, if that is how it is deemed to be used. So in the second part of my Answer, we point to the Queen's Regulations which, as the noble Lord well knows, exist for all three services.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, considering the number of cases at present being brought against the Ministry of Defence, does the Minister agree that the system of redress is not working as well as it should? Perhaps a review of the means of arbitration for members of the Armed Forces should be considered.
Lord Bach: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's suggestion. It is well known that any soldier from the least rank can ultimately have his complaint dealt with by the Defence Council, if he is so inclined. That there are sometimes delays, as unfortunately there are in dealing with complaints in many fields, is true, but he has that right. Indeed, the
system of complaints in the Armed Forces has been well received, so for once I must disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, would my noble friend like to take this opportunity to confirm that many members of the Armed Forces are indeed members of trade unions?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can confirm that some are members of trade unions. The Ministry of Defence has agreements with several major trade unions and concessions with professional associations whereby service personnel may be recognised as eligible for membership. That is often regarded as an aid to eventual resettlement into civilian life. Those due to leave the services are encouraged to seek membership of an appropriate organisation. I may say in passing that doctors in the Armed Forces are members of the British Medical Association and some members of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers are also members of the appropriate trade union. That is different from saying that there is a trade union for the Armed Forces.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that this takes us back to my amendment for an opt-out for the Armed Forces? Does he also accept that Queen's Regulations are no answer to the problem posed by the Question and that it will require primary legislation, if that is the Government's wish?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord at my peril, but as I understand it, either primary or secondary legislation would cover the matter.
If I may, I should like to make clear to the House that at present there appears to be no great urge on behalf of those who serve in the Armed Forces to concern themselves with whether they are members of an Armed Forces trade union. At presentI know that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, shares my view on thisthe Armed Forces are wrapped up in serious work all over the world, in particular in Afghanistan. It is perhaps more important that we think of them today than that we deal with this issue.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does it not seem a reversal of the usual historic process for members of the Tory party to be advocating people's right to join trade unions? My noble friend is right to be cautious. Nevertheless, given that many of us are concerned about the problems of the Armed Forces and the controversies surrounding their health and welfare, will he reconsider the matter?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that seems a strange state of mind, but of course every sinner who repents will be well received both by him and by me. I stress again that the complaints and grievances procedure works pretty well. Of course, matters are raised frequently in this House, not least by my noble friend, that are matters of public importance
with which the Ministry of Defence is dealing. But on the specific matter raised by the Question, there is at present no great impetus from those who serve in our Armed Forces to take the matter further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on a lighter note, if such a trade union were to be formed, can the noble Lord visualise who would be its shop stewards? Some sergeant-majors and drill sergeants would have to undergo considerable change of personality if they were to fill such roles.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know whether I agree with the noble Lord. I am not sure that there are not sergeant-majors and warrant officers who would make superb shop stewards.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a serious issue here about representation? It is not a joke, and it is not answered by saying that there are not many trade unionists in the Army or that there are not many soldiers who want to be a member of a trade union. It is an issue of representation. Are the Government in favour of having a system of representationnot necessarily trade unionsfor members of the armed services?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is a serious issue. The Government will treat it accordingly. However, I must point out that there are no provisions in Queen's Regulations that either forbid or expressly permit the formation of a union to represent service personnel. Should a proposal arise from service personnelthat is the relevant pointwe would consider it and assess its implications, particularly those relating to operational effectiveness.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that certain of our neighbours in the European Community recognise trade unions? Will he name those countries?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is true that there are countries in the European Union that do so; the Netherlands and Sweden are frequently mentioned in that regard. It is equally true that there are other countries that do not do so.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Ascension Island Government are undertaking a public consultation exercise on the options for democratic representation on the island. We want to see democratic representation in place quickly. The Ascension Island Government recognise that taxation without representation is an important issue and have had extensive discussions with employers to seek to ensure that no individual will see a reduction in take-home pay after the introduction of income tax.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is satisfactory as far as it goes. Is it not deplorable that, although public consultation opened in April 1999, there has, until now, been no public meeting with the governor to discuss matters? Will the Minister also comment on the progress of the negotiations with the Americans about the freeing of the airport? Mr Hoon recently said that those negotiations had not got far.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it was agreed in 1999 that St Helena and its dependencies would be consulted about the development of the democratic and civil rights of the people on Ascension Island. Since that decision, several reports have gone to the Ascension Island Government. One of those was a fiscal and economic survey. There was also a recent visit by the constitutional adviser, as a result of which the first public consultation meeting took place on 10th April. There is a further meeting tonight on two specific options. There has been a time lapse between 1999 and now, but several actions have been taken to develop those options.
We have been in discussion with the United States about the airport. Those discussions, understandably, stalled following 11th September, but we are in the process of restarting them.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page