Ministry of Defence Tenants: Evictions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and caught in the middle of those two big parties are the residents affected—our constituents, who are being told that they need to change their life plans and find somewhere else to live at the worst possible time.

I first became aware of what was happening on 11 September. A constituent contacted me in distress, after having received an email from the letting agent on 9 September with the subject header “Notice to Quit”. The email explained that the MOD had decided that it no longer wished to continue with the current lease and was thus planning to terminate the tenancies by the end of March 2021. My constituent was told that they would receive a formal notice to quit from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation in the next few days, and that they would have six months to leave.

Over the next few days, I received similar emails from other residents, all expressing anxiety and shock at the news and all incredibly worried about what the future would hold for them and their families. My first reaction was to assume that this was a move initiated by Annington, which after all basically owns the properties. I was really surprised and disappointed to find out, from reading the emails and then speaking to residents in person, that it is actually the Ministry of Defence that is behind this eviction. With no concrete reason or explanation it is evicting a bloc of families in the middle of a pandemic, and at a time of mounting economic uncertainty and hardship. There is no plan whatever for what should happen to those families, and I just feel that that is unacceptable. We can, and should, do a lot better.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I just do not understand this. The Ministry of Defence does not own the properties but it is telling the residents to get out. Annington owns them, so why does the MOD have a dog in the fight?

[Stephen Crabb]

Because, as I said, the PFI deal was a lease and leaseback arrangement, so the MOD has leased back the homes—I think for a period of about 200 years, but the Minister will enlighten us further. It is a complicated arrangement, and caught in the middle of it are these families, who have now been told at the worst possible moment, “You have to get out and find somewhere else to live.”

Annington Homes has told me categorically that it was not aware of those notices being sent out. The housing department of Pembrokeshire County Council tells me that it was not aware of them. I am not sure that Ministers were informed and, given the comments of the permanent secretary at the Public Accounts Committee a fortnight ago, it looks as if senior civil servants were not informed either—certainly local Members of Parliament were not given any warning. So the move by the MOD came well and truly out of the blue.

The Minister is fully aware of my concern and anger about the issue; I appreciate his taking the time to discuss it with me when I first became aware of it. He has since responded to letters from me and other colleagues and met us as a cross party group to discuss the matter. We really appreciate that. I am fully aware of the financial pressures on his Department over service accommodation—especially the empty properties, which are losing significant sums for the Government. I am also fully aware of the commitments that the Department has entered into with Annington to hand back blocks of empty housing over the next few years.

The question for us is how we should treat the properties where civilian families are living. I have heard it said by Ministers on previous occasions that the MOD should not really be in the business of being a landlord to civilian tenants, and I have some sympathy for that view. But as recently as January this year, Ministers were acknowledging that sub-letting to civilian tenants is actually a core part of MOD strategy. In answer to Lord Hylton in the other place, the Minister of State said in a written answer:

“The Department is focused on reducing the number of empty properties in the UK from the current level of 20% overall to a 10% management margin by Autumn 2021. This is being achieved by handing back vacant properties in England and Wales to Annington Homes; widening eligibility to cohabiting couples and Service leavers; and”—

this is the important bit—

“accelerating the letting of temporarily empty properties to screened members of the public at prevailing market rates.”

So yes, the MOD is very much in the business of being a landlord. Indeed, when we consider that the MOD is paying Annington only 42% of market rent for the properties, it is difficult to see how it cannot make money by letting to civilian families. But that is a side issue as far as today is concerned.

One of my main points to the Minister this evening is to encourage the MOD to be a good landlord. Many of us will have experience of renting over the years and will know some of the key characteristics of good landlords, who recognise the importance of treating tenants fairly: providing clear, open information at all times and taking the time to share with tenants their intentions if they wish to dispose of properties. That has not happened in this case. I would go further. Given the unique circumstances we are in, I urge the Department to be not just a good landlord but a model landlord. The uncertainty and, sadly, the increase in unemployment and hardship, mean that this is a rotten time for someone to be told to quit the home they rent. We have a duty to look after these families.

My second point to the Minister, stemming from the first, is that, although the Department may sometimes speak in—forgive me—the cold language of “units”, “voids”, “vacancy rates”, “dilapidation relief” and so on, what we are actually talking about here are homes: homes where, behind each front door, there are individuals and families whose viewpoint and experience in all this, I think, really matters.

I have spent time talking to the tenants on the estate and many have since emailed me their stories: why they decided to move there and what living there means for them. One of the things that really troubles me is the number of them who said that they were under the impression that the property would be a long-term home; they did not see it as a short-term let—a place to stay before moving on somewhere else—at all. They have settled there and do not want to move.

One constituent told me how he had found the property online through Zoopla; it was listed with Orchard & Shipman. It was perfect for him and his family—it is near his work, it allows pets and it has a garage. He describes the location as lovely: nice and peaceful. They get on with all the neighbours. Since this announcement, he has started to look around for a new home, but he cannot find one; Pembrokeshire is not exactly full of available, good quality, affordable housing options at this time. The news is really devastating for his family and others across the estate.

Another constituent is finding the situation equally hard. She and her family had struggled to find a home until these homes became available and they moved in early 2018. They love living on the estate, which is near their work. They are finding it almost impossible to find other available properties. When they moved in, they were told that the only reason they would have to vacate was if the nearby barracks at Brawdy increased the numbers, but as we have discussed, Brawdy is earmarked for closure, so they naturally and rightly assumed that this was unlikely and felt that it was going to be a pretty secure long-term tenancy. This decision has completely blindsided them.

I have other testimonies from people who are living there, some of whom have disabled or vulnerable family members, and they all say the same thing. They say that it is a nice estate, that they enjoy living there and that there is very little alternative provision of good-quality, affordable accommodation. That is the third point I want to leave the Minister with this evening: what is the current situation regarding the availability of quality affordable accommodation locally? Yesterday I spoke to the housing department of the county council just to check again whether its assessment of the situation was the same as mine, and it confirmed that evicting a group of 17 families at one time would create real problems for it, saying that very few properties were becoming available at this time and that finding new homes would be difficult.

So what is to be done? The first response from the MOD when challenged on this was to extend the notice period from six to 12 months where there were cases of hardship, and I appreciate the Minister’s team trying to plot a way forward that is fair and workable, but I think we can and should do better. I believe that, in the first instance, these notices need to be withdrawn, in order to create peace of mind for the families affected. That is the first thing I will be asking the Minister to do.

The Ministry also needs to do something that it never did at the start, which is to sit down with Annington, with my local authority, the county council, and with any interested housing associations to work out a plan for the properties that does two things. First, it must enable these good-quality homes to become part of the local affordable housing stock. Secondly, it must enable the tenancies to be transferred seamlessly, with no family forced out against their wishes. It cannot be beyond the wisdom and good sense of all the interested parties to work out a solution that is fair and just, notwithstanding all the mind-boggling complexity of the deal between Annington and the MOD. I know that the county council has already spoken to Annington, and there is the beginning of a discussion about what might be possible, but I hope the MOD will also speak to Pembrokeshire County Council directly about this.

I am aware of one further headache, and it relates to the arrangements that are in place for water services to the estate to be delivered via a deal that is currently dependent on the MOD base. I have spoken to Welsh Water about this, and it tells me that it owns the infrastructure, so this is not a question of shared infrastructure; it is purely a financial arrangement. Again, it cannot be beyond the intelligence and good judgment of people to sort this out.

Let me finish by saying that the Minister is a good Minister—he knows Wales and he is a highly intelligent man who has a great heart—and I am appealing to him to try to find a way forward for us that is workable and just. I will leave him with the point that Annington receives more than £180 million every year in rents from the MOD on an estate that is valued at somewhere around £7.2 billion. Surely, with the resources of the MOD together with the powerful resources of Annington, he can come up with a solution that allows people to stay in their homes, enjoy their Christmas and not have to worry about putting another roof over their heads, with all the heartache that comes with that, at the worst possible time.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The facts of the Bill are that it places torture and other war crimes on a different level to crimes of sexual violence. That is not embarrassing; that is unconscionable for a country with a proud record of upholding unequivocally the international conventions that we helped to draw up.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

No, I will not at this point.

Ministers must think again. No wonder that the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, says that the Bill as it stands would be a stain on Britain’s standing in the world. Ministers must think again. They must remove torture and other war crimes from the Bill. There are better ways of protecting our troops and Britain’s good name.

Part 2 creates a higher hurdle for civil cases after three years, as the Secretary of State said, with extra factors that a prosecutor must take into account, and a hard block on any case after six years. For British troops serving overseas with claims to make against the MOD, that does breach the armed forces covenant—a point that I made to the Secretary of State early in the summer, reinforced today by the Royal British Legion in its briefing for this debate, which says that in removing “the ability of members of the armed forces community to bring a claim for injury or death after six years, the Government will create a unique deviation from the Limitation Act 1980.” It denies those who serve our country overseas the same employer liability rights as the rest of us enjoy at home. It creates circumstances that allow the MOD to avoid claims when it fails properly to equip our troops or makes serious errors that lead to the death or injury of British troops overseas.

It is plain wrong that those who put their lives on the line for Britain overseas should have less access to compensation than the UK civilians they defend, and, since 2007, there have been at least 195 cases of troops who would have been caught by the Bill. Ministers have tried to play that down by saying that the clock on that deadline starts only at the point of diagnosis, but that is misleading because diagnosis is not in the Bill and the point of knowledge is in the Bill. That is another important provision that we must put right.

ln conclusion, we believe, and I believe strongly, despite what the Minister for Defence People and Veterans is chuntering under his breath, that the Government, Labour and the armed forces ultimately all want the same thing: we want to protect British troops and we want to protect British values, and that should not be merely a matter of party politics.

I say to the Secretary of State, during the Bill’s passage through Parliament we want to help forge a constructive consensus on the changes needed to overhaul investigations, to set up safeguards against vexatious claims that are entirely consistent with our international obligations, and to guarantee troops the right to compensation claims when MOD failures lead to the death or injury of our forces overseas. It is not too late for Ministers to think again about the best way to protect service personnel from vexatious litigation while ensuring that those who do commit serious crimes during operations are properly prosecuted and punished. As the Bill begins its passage through Parliament, I urge the Secretary of State and his Minister to work with us to ensure that it does just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

Speaking as a commanding officer who has gone into the field, may I point out to the House that it is not just this Bill that we have to operate under? Let us take, for example, torture. Article 17 of the Geneva convention specifically prohibits torture, and we can be charged for that. I certainly used to make great emphasis of this point in training troops to go into the field. It is not just this Bill under which we operate.

[Dan Jarvis]

My friend the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises a very important point. The reality is that, despite what we have heard from some Members today, if this Bill is passed in its current form, a decision to allow a prosecution to proceed following an allegation of torture after five years had elapsed would be made virtually impossible due to the threshold imposed by the triple lock. This is not the way to rebuild our reputation on the international stage. It would mean the UK reneging on our international legal obligations and could well put us at odds with the ICC. At a time when we are witnessing an erosion of human rights and leaders turning their backs on international institutions, it is more important than ever before that we uphold our values and standards and not undermine them.

Through this Bill, the Government are seeking to right a wrong, but not by addressing the root cause of the issue. In an interview last year—we have heard the quote already, but it is worth hearing again—the Minister for Defence People and Veterans said that one of the biggest problems with this was

“the military’s inability to investigate itself properly and the standard of those investigations. If those investigations were done properly and self-regulation had occurred, we probably wouldn’t be here today.”

The Minister is absolutely right, and the underlying problem is how we have ended up at this point, but nowhere in the Bill does it mention the need to review how military investigations are conducted. If we had a credible investigatory system that dealt with allegations in an effective, impartial and timely manner—one that allowed us to refer back with confidence—we would not be in the position that we are in now.

There is, though, plenty of support across this House for measures that will protect members of our armed forces. We all know, and I am sure we all agree, that historical prosecutions of our veterans is an emotionally charged subject and one that urgently demands a solution, because nobody—surely nobody—wants to see a repeat of the decades of legal wrangling, the delay and the misery that are still ongoing following investigations into the troubles.

I conclude by saying that the overwhelming majority of members of our armed forces serve with distinction and honour, and they follow the rules, but no one—not one of us—is above the law, and that principle remains true whether or not somebody wears a uniform. One of the best ways to protect our troops is to ensure that we apply the rule of law in every instance. There is much work to be done to improve this Bill, and I hope very much that Ministers will listen to the concerns that have been expressed today and work constructively to improve it in Committee and beyond. I hope that we all agree that we owe the brave men and women of our armed forces—the people who serve our nation—a massive debt. Diminishing their hard-won reputation by reneging on our legal and moral obligations is not the manner in which to repay it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I accept what he said, but I emphasise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) just made. He made the first reference to the people who are really affected by what we are talking about—that is, the young men and women who are normally charged. Let us remember, colleagues, how bloody awful it is to undergo some of these investigations time and again. Let us remember how dreadful it was when we saw those ambulance-chasing lawyers going after units and individuals in Iraq, and later in Afghanistan.

[Jim Shannon]

In my constituency, there are many people with mental health issues—indeed, one of my constituents, unfortunately, died just within the last month. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Bill can enshrine in law the support for those being maliciously and wrongly dragged through the courts, which definitely affects the mental health of those people in their service to Queen and country?

[Bob Stewart]

I hope so, but I am not sure that it can retrospectively. We all know that a lot of money was made—3,400 allegations were made about our servicemen and servicewomen, and 65% of those were made by Mr Shiner’s company, Public Interest Lawyers, which made a heck of a lot of money. With every accusation, the Ministry of Defence had to back it up with legal aid. The lawyers got four hours of legal aid; probably about £1,000 was given to these lawyers. Actually, the people who were under investigation did not have much support when they were going through it.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I have no particular love for lawyers, particularly of the grasping variety, with the right honourable exception of my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that what he is talking about is ultimately counterproductive to recruitment to our armed forces?

[Bob Stewart]

Actually, I do not. What is counter- productive is if people joining the armed forces feel that they will be under this sort of pressure and they will be investigated unfairly. If they believe that they will be investigated fairly, that will encourage recruitment.

I am appalled by the idea that the Ministry of Defence had to pay out £40 million for fallacious claims and another £10 million on Operation Northmoor, which was about Afghanistan. I am pretty appalled that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team within the Ministry of Defence did what it did. It did not help our armed forces, and that is held against the Ministry of Defence. It should have sorted that out a long time ago. Obviously, most claims were fallacious. Shiner was struck off in 2017, but not before he, with 65% of the allegations, had done huge psychological and mental damage to our servicemen and servicewomen.

I am pleased that these two organisations have been closed down. It cannot happen again. That is the purpose of the Bill. It may not be 100% perfect, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West said, it is what our armed forces want to happen. There are about 2 million veterans in this country and they want this to happen, and it will encourage, not discourage, people to join the military.

I did seven tours in Northern Ireland and I totally understand that Northern Ireland has to be dealt with. The Government have promised to deal with it this year, and will somehow get it sorted out. The Bill is not about Northern Ireland; it is about what happened overseas. I personally am delighted that the Bill has been brought forward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), although if he wants to continue as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence he should get a haircut. I think I have said enough. I will sit down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

The whole ministerial team talks to our counterparts across Europe regularly in the context not just of Brexit, but of our bilateral and multilateral co-operations through a whole series of organisations and fora. That work will continue whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, because our military partnerships with friends and colleagues across Europe are vital to the security of this nation.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What progress he has made on preventing vexatious claims against service personnel involved in the Northern Ireland campaign; and on what date he plans to complete that work.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

This Government are committed to ending vexatious claims as quickly as possible. I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland towards this objective. As set out in the written ministerial statement laid on 18 March, he has committed to bringing forward legacy legislation that will deliver for victims and ensure that Northern Ireland veterans are treated as fairly as those who served overseas. We will engage with colleagues from across the House as part of this process.

[Bob Stewart]

I rise as someone who has done seven tours in Northern Ireland and as a member of the Northern Ireland Veterans Association. The Prime Minister, on 23 July last year in the 1922 Committee, promised me that this matter would be a top priority for the Government. This promise was repeated in the Conservative manifesto, so I ask my right hon. Friend: when will our veterans from Northern Ireland be treated properly?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend, like me, has been a long campaigner on this—in fact, I went on my first Northern Ireland veterans campaign for just as much in 1998. I have fought for a very long time for veterans of Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Secretary of State are the lead in this. We have fed into the process. We are already committed to taking steps to protect our veterans. At the same time, my hon. Friend may not have missed this, but unfortunately, covid came along—a pandemic that no one predicted last year—and that has somehow certainly changed everything we are doing. It does not mean to say that the policy work has not been going on. We will deliver a policy that will get justice for veterans in Northern Ireland.