Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on her maiden speech and look forward to her being involved, perhaps even in this topic as it goes through Committee.

I welcome the Bill, as I think everyone here does, and that the Minister gave a clear outline of all its details. We could not have a better Minister taking this through the House today. What I like about it is that, crucially, it is on a statutory basis. That is key to making it clear to service men and women that they will have someone there with real authority to initiate investigations into general service welfare matters. That will be crucial in raising morale. As we have all said, and the Government have admitted, our Armed Forces are badly demoralised. The right person in that job could really make a difference. I hope that the right person will be appointed to it.

I appreciate that the Bill went through the House of Commons unamended, with cross-party support, and it will of course do so here. However, we might want to look at some amendments, but all will be in the context of making the Bill better and stronger. It is a particularly important time to be debating this Bill given the pledge that the Prime Minister has made to send our troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and agreement as a peacekeeping force.

Many in the military have followed in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers, and mothers these days too. My concern is that the younger generation will not be so willing to join up when they see how their older relatives and retired military have been treated. That is why the link that the new commissioner has with veterans commissioners is crucial. It is vital that the job of veterans commissioner is also put on a statutory basis. In Northern Ireland, we lost an excellent veterans commissioner, Danny Kinahan, recently, because he found the lack of independence in his role not just frustrating but preventing help and support being given to veterans. The role is part-time, for two days a week, though Mr Kinahan spent far more time than that on the job. However, because of how the Office of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner is set up, it is not on a statutory footing and the commissioner does not have the independence to do the job without constant interference from the Northern Ireland Office. The two staff members report to the Northern Ireland Office, and not to the commissioner, which puts the staff in a difficult situation—wanting to co-operate with the commissioner, wanting to help to do something for veterans, but the Northern Ireland Office for other reasons wanting to stop it. The structural limitations imposed by the NIO have transformed the role of the commissioner into a figurehead.

I know that the Minister understands Northern Ireland very well and knows that a very large number of veterans live there. Despite the Belfast agreement and the changes that have come about, many of them still live in fear. We also should remember the various soldiers who have been killed at different times. Around 1,441 British military personnel died during the deployment in Northern Ireland. In one year alone, 1972, 130 British soldiers died. We must never forget their sacrifice to keep people safe in Northern Ireland.

The previous Government abolished the veterans’ support office, which helped to co-ordinate all the veteran support services in Northern Ireland, so I am afraid that a lot of veterans in Northern Ireland do not trust the MoD, having experienced decades of neglect and inertia in the provision of help. An independent body is essential, as the veterans welfare service and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs are now run by the MoD and are not independent.

Then we have section 75 of the Belfast agreement, which means that no one can be picked out above or before anyone else, so Northern Ireland veterans cannot be identified and are then, in effect, discriminated against compared with their former colleagues living in GB. A way has to be found of working around section 75 so that veterans can be identified, understood and supported properly.

I could talk quite a lot, but I will not, about the delays and problems within our health service in Northern Ireland, which affect veterans in acute need of physical and mental health support even more. Some of them have had to wait up to eight years for operations or critical care. I do not think that, across GB, their colleagues as veterans have to wait so long.

An inability to understand the difficulties arising from veterans in Northern Ireland not having suitable care means that we must look at this. Unless we have a veterans commissioner who can stand up with power and authority, we will never change that. Although this is going slightly wider than the details of this Bill, at Second Reading we can go wider, and this must be looked into.

Because the Government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, we are moving back into a phase where we will see many more veterans, from incidents 30, 40 or 50 years ago, dragged through our courts. We saw the Clonoe decision recently—33 years on, some soldiers are likely, if the judge gets what he wants, to be prosecuted for something that they did on a dark night under huge pressure, doing what I think they were absolutely right to do, which was to shoot four people who had been out deliberately trying to kill civilians and police officers.

Those kinds of issues are why veterans are incensed about the recent legal judgment. They are incensed— I have to say it again—about the possible compensation payments to Gerry Adams. I hope the Minister will do his bit from the MoD side to ensure that that will never happen.

My message is this. While much in the Bill is good, please do not forget that, in looking at how we treat our military today, if we do not remember the service and dedication of those veterans who are now, in many cases, seemingly being abandoned, we will not get young people who feel that going into the armed services is worthwhile.

Fleet Solid Support Ships

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I observe to my noble friend that the vast majority of the build work will take place in the UK. There will be an element of the aft blocks built in Spain, but by far the majority of the shipbuilding work will be here. We should celebrate this. It is a matter of commendation not depression.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the awarding of the contract to Harland & Wolff in Belfast. This was welcomed right across communities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give us an assurance that this will be the first of many contracts?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her encouraging remarks and for accepting the real world in which we live. Her aspiration is laudable. It is always our intention in the MoD to support the indigenous industry as best we can. We have a good reputation and record for doing that. Let us see what the future holds.

Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I totally disagree. This is a positive intervention to, as I said earlier, assuage and prevent tragedy and make a positive contribution to helping the plight in which the migrants find themselves.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, just before Christmas the French Government closed their borders to British citizens, seeming to be able to do so legally. Can the Minister explain to the British public how they can do that, yet we seem not to be able to stop migrants illegally coming into our country?

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

In summary, I make one final request to seek a meeting with the Minister, together with the rights-based organisations, to clarify fully the issues and to demonstrate clearly how this Bill contravenes the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, particularly in relation to the ECHR. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. It is a simple amendment to Clause 15, seeking to put into legislation the promise made by the Government that the same protections in relation to prosecutions of veterans of overseas operations will apply to those who served in Northern Ireland—that is, to the 300,000 service personnel involved in Operation Banner from 1969. The amendment requires the Government to report on progress to that end before the necessary commencing regulations under subsection (2) are made. I hope that progress will come early rather than later, although I recognise that it will require courage within government—the same kind of courage as was displayed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Johnny Mercer MP, who took this Bill through Committee in the other place.

On Second Reading, I explained that the Army and the police stopped a civil war breaking out in Northern Ireland, for which they get little thanks, just vexation, prosecutions and unending reinvestigations—largely due, ironically, to the overinterpretation of the right to life in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They paid a colossal price in blood: some 700 soldiers, including in the UDR, and 300 RUC officers were murdered. The equivalent number of police officers killed on a UK-wide basis would be 10,000; that figure says it all.

In reality, the Bill is limited in its provisions. Reinvestigations will not be ended but I hope that they will be curtailed. It does not constitute an amnesty, although it is worth pointing out that, since the Belfast agreement, we have already had many elements of an amnesty, including the early release of all paramilitary prisoners and the letters of comfort for IRA members on the run.

Now the only matters investigated and coming to prosecution are those involving Army veterans, half a dozen of whom are awaiting trial in relation to events 50 years ago. That process has taken a very long time. Much of the investigation evidence appears to be based on files in the National Archives at Kew, where the Troubles archaeology proceeds apace. The IRA did not leave any paperwork to be excavated, of course.

The Bill before us carries in Clause 1 a permission for prosecutors to consider

“whether or not any proceedings against a person for a relevant offence should be continued”.

This is a key provision that must be extended to Northern Ireland and just might enable the persecution to cease. Our Amendment 18 is grouped with 17 others, all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, from whom we have just heard. Those 17 amendments are a pre-emptive strike against the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland, which is what my amendment wants. It is being pushed hard by the legal academics at Queen’s University and the CAJ, who all seem to be more obsessed with persecuting veterans than real justice.

In the Member’s explanatory statement, the noble Baroness states that the Bill is incompatible

“with the provisions of the Belfast Agreement that require incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Irish law”.

However, in my view, she misinterprets the 1998 Belfast agreement. It said nothing about the prosecution or non-prosecution of members of the security forces. Yes, the UK Government undertook to incorporate the ECHR into British law; they duly did so in the November of that year when the Human Rights Act received Royal Assent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said at Second Reading,

“nothing in the Bill could be interpreted as undermining the commitments contained in the Belfast agreement, and nothing that would diminish the essence of the protections that the Human Rights Act currently offers to the people of Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 9/3/21; col. 1585.]

The Government gave a promise. I strongly want to believe that promise but I am afraid that some of the things that have happened in Northern Ireland recently show even more that there is a need for this Government, and us in your Lordships’ House, to show that we mean what we say. That is why I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept my amendment and put it into the Bill.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the collection of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It does not take me to remind your Lordships that this is a very difficult moment in Northern Ireland and not one to be doing anything to undermine, or anything that could be interpreted as undermining, the Good Friday agreement.

I hear the endorsement from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, of the Government’s position: that the Bill must do nothing to jeopardise the ECHR and the agreement. With respect, however, that view is not shared by human rights analysts in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland and internationally. Of course, in this respect, even the perception of jeopardising the convention, and therefore the agreement, is a significant problem.

In the context of Northern Ireland, the problem stems from going down this road of de facto—or attempted—immunities and statutes of limitation in the first place. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, further demonstrates the difficulty with opening this Pandora’s box and going for limits on prosecution and on suits against the Government rather than bolstering the robustness and timeliness of investigations and providing adequate support for veterans and serving personnel.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome this Bill and look forward to the detailed scrutiny that will be given it by the many experts and ex-senior Armed Forces people who serve in your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Johnny Mercer, in the other place, who fought very hard to get this Bill right through Committee unscathed.

Of course, the Long Title excludes the Armed Forces acting within the borders of the United Kingdom, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords today—those involved in the Northern Ireland Troubles, the Operation Banner soldiers. They are not just soldiers but police and members of the security services, civil servants and even politicians. The object of some of the lawfare operations is to get Members of this House, even former Ministers, into court so that history can be rewritten and an equivalence proved between terrorists and the Army.

Operation Banner ran for three decades from 1969 and was the greatest civil conflict in Europe since 1945—that is, until the break-up of Yugoslavia. While our military casualties were never exceeded in the 70 years after the Korean War—neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan—those sacrifices are largely forgotten. The names of the 700 dead soldiers, many of them young teenagers from “red wall” seats, do not even appear on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website. It is almost as if Governments of all persuasions are embarrassed to mention them.

The repeated promises, from the Prime Minister down, for Northern Ireland veteran equivalence in some future legacy legislation is very welcome, but it must not be delayed or watered down. They need to get on with it, and I believe that it should be separated out from all the other legacy issues in Northern Ireland. The Army and police stopped a civil war from breaking out completely in Northern Ireland, for which they get few thanks, just vexation prosecutions and unending reinvestigations—due in large part to overinterpretation of, ironically, the “right to life” in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

They paid a colossal price in blood—some 700 murdered soldiers, including from the Ulster Defence Regiment and some 300 in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That excludes the very many who died in accidents or suicides, or whose lives were shortened by terrible injuries. The equivalent number of police officers killed on a UK-wide basis would be 10,000. That says it all. Yet it is former RUC officers who are now being arraigned in reinvestigations, reopened inquests or pointless public inquiries, with their reputations trashed and all without the benefit of being able to respond.

I praise the many recently formed veterans groups without whose efforts and organisation this Bill would not have happened. The power of social media has, in this instance, proved invaluable. Their immediate concerns are about new prosecutions. I accept that reopening investigations of old cases will continue if sufficient credible evidence of wrongdoing is provided to justify it, but it must be a high evidential hurdle, as high as the Bill provides in relation to prosecutions, not just for political harassment.

Let us not forget that the only cases now involving veterans are ones pending in Northern Ireland, which concern events of 50 years ago or more. For that reason, we need to get on with a Northern Ireland equivalent law, especially as this Bill usefully carries permission in Clause 1 for prosecutors to consider whether or not any proceedings against a person for a relevant offence should be continued.

In conclusion, much has been made by certain civil liberties groups about Clause 12, which requires the Government, in any significant new overseas conflict, to consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights. This is useful, but Clause 12 does not mean more than what it says, and probably no more than what normally happens. The new duty simply requires the Government to consider derogation so the process cannot be discreetly avoided. The convention, as we know, is a living instrument, but enforcement is not necessarily a one-way street—something our representatives in Strasbourg need to bear in mind when responding to pressure from the Irish Government in cases involving so-called Article 2 compliance.

I hope that the Minister will, as she has been asked by many noble Lords today, give us a date for the Bill to repay the debt to all who served in Northern Ireland. They deserve our support and for us to value them just as much as we value those who served overseas.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Yes. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support and long-standing campaigning on this issue. I have checked that we are now fitting black boxes routinely on all Chinooks. I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his personal dedication to and interest in this matter, and to his party and his coalition partners for putting the issue in their manifestos. Does this not send out a message to anyone who is fighting injustice that if they persevere and continue to push their case, they will eventually, if they are right, see justice?

[Dr Fox]

I of course agree with the hon. Lady. There are a lot of downsides to being a Member of Parliament, but one upside is the ability to see justice done and a wrong righted.

UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am delighted that we are at last having a debate on the situation in Afghanistan and the deployment of British troops there. It does not reflect well on Parliament, our parliamentary structures or our democracy that the vote at 6 o’clock will be the first substantive vote by Members of Parliament on whether British troops ought to be deployed in Afghanistan. It does not do much for the role of Parliament that there has been insufficient scrutiny of this endeavour other than the quite correct memorials that have been read out to those soldiers who have tragically lost their lives in this conflict.

In preparation for this debate, I had a look at Hansard from 2001. During the relevant 2001 debate, the then Secretary of State for Defence, Geoffrey Hoon, said that he would set out the aims of the mission. He said:

“We aim to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism, to deter states from supporting, harbouring, or acting complicitly with international terrorist groups, to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community and to end its self-imposed isolation.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 1014.]

He went on to say that other aims included capturing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Well, the campaign has not been particularly successful on either the latter two aims or the earlier part.

At the end of that debate, the then Member for Linlithgow, Tam Dalyell, asked for a vote on a procedural motion and 13 Members voted against the proposal. There were four tellers, all of whom were against—one of them was my hon. and good Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who was, bizarrely, a teller for the other side—to ensure that a vote was recorded in the House on that occasion. It does not look good if a country and a democracy is so determined to go to war but those who are prosecuting the war do not want a vote in the House on the matter. I hope that those who support the war tonight will put up tellers to ensure that those of us who do not support either the amendment moved by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) or the substantive question are able to record our votes against it on behalf, we believe, of large numbers of people in our constituencies and in the wider country.

The war came about after 9/11, which was obviously appalling, awful and wrong. Whichever way one looks at 9/11, there was nothing right about it—it was dreadful—but was it right, sensible or intelligent of the then President Bush to respond by leading us into a war in Afghanistan that has now lasted for almost twice as long as the second world war or the first world war? We are moving into the 10th year of the conflict in Afghanistan, and although President Obama talks about coming out within two or three years, I have a feeling that if the military is allowed to have its way we will still be there in five years’ time or perhaps for even longer than that. The strategy does not seem to involve anything other than continuing the occupation of that country.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

We have been told many times that one reason why we are in Afghanistan is to make us feel safer here and to protect us in our communities. Do we mix with different people from Opposition and Government Front Benchers? Does my hon. Friend get many people in his constituency coming up to him and saying, “Thank goodness we are in Afghanistan because we feel so much safer from terrorism now”? I do not.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I live in and represent an inner-city area, and I have to say in all honesty that not one person in my community—not once, on any occasion—has come up to me and said that. Indeed, there is a sense of grievance among the Muslim community in Britain, partly because of this war but partly because of the substantial amounts of anti-terror legislation that have been a product of the war. They feel much less secure than they did in the past and much more isolated from the rest of the community. We should bear it in mind that foreign policy is not conducted in isolation and its effects are not felt in isolation.