Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. Many Members across the House are not only pleased by his elevation to the Front Bench, but relieved to see him there. I wish him all the best in his new role.
A major frustration for those of us involved in earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee was the refusal of the former Minister to consider even the most reasonable and uncontroversial amendments. That meant that the Bill sent to the Lords was fundamentally flawed. What we have back is a slight improvement on a flawed Bill, rather than what we were looking for, which was a competent piece of legislation. The Bill was sold as legislation that would tackle vexatious claims, but throughout its passage the evidence we received, both written and in Committee, pointed to the problems arising from flawed investigations. Nothing in the Bill will improve service justice, and much of it will damage the UK’s international reputation.
We rightly expect our personnel to conduct themselves with the highest professional standards, and the vast majority do. Let me take this opportunity to thank them for their service in what is often a challenging and dangerous environment. We must have robust systems for investigation that are understood, and in which personnel, Members of the House, our allies worldwide, and members of the public have confidence. That is the importance of this issue. We must be able to stand by the Bill and say, “This will do what it says on the tin.” I do not think we are convinced of that yet.
We welcome Lords amendment 1 from Lord Robertson, but although the Government’s proposed amendment in place of that removes the presumption against prosecution for torture, crimes against humanity and genocide, as many have already said—I think we will hear more about this—it retains the presumption against prosecution for war crimes. The right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has already given us a graphic illustration of what that means and why war crimes must be included. The Minister has tried to explain this issue, and I commend his efforts to explain that the prosecutor will retain agency, but we should not be leaving it to the prosecutor. We should be getting this right in the Bill, and ensuring it is correct at this stage.
There is no justification for protecting those accused of war crimes. The problem is what such a measure does for our international reputation, and we should not have to stand up in this place to point that out—it is blindingly obvious. War crimes also come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, so despite the efforts of Lord Robertson, the revised Government amendment still leaves troops at risk of being hauled in front of the ICC. That is one of the big problems with the Bill.
The Government’s amendment is an improvement on their original position, but it is far from satisfactory. I hope the Minister will take that point away and consider it. When the Bill returns to the Lords, I hope they will throw it back at us again. We have to get this right, and the Bill just needs the inclusion of that provision for it to be strengthened significantly.
Moving on to Lords amendment 2 from Lord Thomas, while we support the amendment, this brings us back to the manner in which investigations are conducted. The Bill was an opportunity to overhaul the system that is in place for investigations and, sadly, this seems to be an opportunity lost. Unless we establish proper structures and processes for investigations, and that will include independent investigators—we cannot be marking our own homework on this—I worry that personnel will remain vulnerable to repeated investigations and, indeed, investigations by the ICC.
The Minister made comments about the timescale of investigations involved under the amendment, saying that they were unrealistic. I have some sympathy for that position and understand the point that he is making. Many of us do not understand what it is like to be in the theatre of war under which these investigations would be carried out. However, some timescale, some independence and some urgency around investigations would result in a system in which we could all have a bit more confidence.
Jamie Stone
Does the hon. Lady agree that Lord Thomas’s amendment 2 and the issue of duty of care, which has been touched on repeatedly in this debate, if not dealt with properly, could act, first, as a disincentive to serving personnel staying on in the services and, secondly, as a major disincentive to future recruitment?
Carol Monaghan
I thank the hon. Gentleman—yes, of course. We heard evidence directly from Major Robert Campbell in the Bill Committee, who has gone through 17 years of hell, of repeated investigations. There is no doubt that people looking at that—serving personnel and potential serving personnel—will consider their future career.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Lady is right, but the missing point in this is investigations. It was heartbreaking to hear Robert Campbell’s evidence to the Committee, but if the Bill goes through as it stands, there will be nothing to stop another case like Campbell’s going forward in future. This has been sold as a way of stopping vexatious claims and investigations, but without change in investigations, it will not do that.
Carol Monaghan
And in fact could make it worse. If we throw the ICC into that as well, potentially, we could have a much worse situation for personnel who are facing prosecution.
On Lords amendment 3, any derogation from the European convention on human rights for future overseas operations would have set a damaging precedent for an international treaty—an international treaty that this country played a major role in drawing up. These proposals would have undermined the protections that the UK was so integral to establishing. We welcome Lords amendment 3 and are pleased that the Government have accepted it. It is one of those common-sense ones that should not have needed to come to this stage, but we have got there, so we are thankful for that.
On Lords amendment 4, I spoke on Second Reading and in Committee about the issue of the time limit on claims. One thing that was raised was that some personnel are told, while they are still serving, that they are unable to pursue a claim, which is false, or they are told by those higher up the chain of command that they do not have a valid claim. The nature of the armed forces is that, for many serving personnel, if they are told by their superiors that they are not able to do something, they will accept that. It is only when they find out years later that, actually, they do have a valid claim and they are able to pursue it, they will be able to take action, but with this six-year limit, that is problematic.
We very much welcome Lords amendment 4, but it does not go far enough. As has already been mentioned, it in effect creates an unfair two-tier system in which MOD civilian employees, or indeed the families of deceased personnel, will not be able to make claims beyond the six-year limit. So we will be supporting the amendment, but it is disappointing that it only applies to members of the armed forces.
The Government had the opportunity to strengthen Lords amendment 4 by widening it to apply to all, but instead they are rejecting it entirely so that everyone has the time limit applied. We have heard about those with hearing loss, and again I spoke in Committee about an individual whose significant hearing loss could not be pinpointed to one event and had got progressively worse. Certainly, the six-year limit would have caused problems for that individual to pursue a claim, as it would for claims relating to post-traumatic stress disorder, because that can manifest itself very differently in different people and it may be many years later.
I know the time limit is supposed to be from the point of diagnosis, not from the point of first symptoms, but even at the point of diagnosis the link would still need to be made to service, and if that was not done in a timely way, it would prevent further progress of a claim. Another such issue I have spoken about is that of the nuclear test veterans, who 60 or 70 years on are still looking for stuff, but they would be prevented from making any claims under this. It is notable that we should be making it easier for our personnel to make claims against the MOD when the MOD is seen to be negligent, but as has already been said, this legislation seems to be crafted specially to protect the MOD, not the personnel themselves. We should all be quite concerned about that, so we will be supporting Lords amendment 4 today.
Finally, on Lord Dannatt’s amendment—Lords amendment 5—which ensures care and support for personnel involved in investigations, I cannot see why every Member of this place should not be supporting it. I know the Minister has spoken about the reasons why the Government are not supporting this, but if all these structures are in place just now, why do we still have personnel who are not getting that support at the moment? If that support is already there and is not working, then we do need something, and if it has to be statutory, then it should be statutory.
I will finish my comments by saying that I hope, with the change of Minister, that we do see a change of attitude. I know it will surprise Government Members, but occasionally Opposition Members may have points that are worth consideration. We are not always out to get you, although I will not be putting that on social media. I think there has to be an acknowledgment and a recognition of the experience that Members across the House can bring to legislation, particularly legislation such as this. I will, finally, just thank the Minister for his input today, and we certainly look forward to working with him in the future.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
Let me begin by warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on his promotion. He started his Government career as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to me, so I congratulate him in particular on overcoming that disadvantage and acquiring a job that I know he will enjoy, and I am sure he will do it extremely well. I congratulate him too on the way he has handled the business this afternoon. It is no easy task to deal with something this complex, and certainly not when given it at almost a moment’s notice.
I want to follow on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has said. I support the Government’s move to change their approach to Lords amendment 1, but like my right hon. Friend, I am concerned about whether they have gone far enough. Like everyone who has spoken so far and I am sure a large number of people more broadly, I support the intention of this Bill. It is clearly the right thing for us to do collectively to offer what reassurance we can to armed services personnel that they will not be pursued through the courts for offences that are either illegitimately alleged or interminably investigated. I also take the points that have been made about the need to improve investigation. However, like my right hon. Friend, I want to confine my remarks to Lords amendment 1 and the Government’s amendment in lieu.
Nuclear Test Veterans: Service Medal
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes
Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The debt does not disappear just because the years roll by, and the debt that we owe these people can be marked in precisely the way that I have recommended and that he has endorsed.
Nuclear power is an extraordinary force, sufficient to warp the cellular building blocks of man, but that is something that the veterans now—the servicemen then—could not possibly have understood. This was their duty. They were part of a mission to develop a safe and effective nuclear deterrent for Britain that would keep the nation safe and strong throughout the cold war; the fruits of that mission defend the realm to this very day. The details of what nuclear veterans endured in service to their country have been set out time and again over the course of a long campaign to grant them appropriate recognition.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done over many years on behalf of the nuclear test veterans. One reason given for not giving these men a very well-deserved medal is that they were not put in any danger. Does he agree that that is obviously ludicrous? These days we would not ask any service personnel to what they did because of the danger posed. It was clearly a dangerous situation and should be recognised as such.
Sir John Hayes
I could not agree with the hon. Lady more, and I thank her for what she said. I will deal with and, indeed, reinforce the point she makes when I come to discuss the consideration of the matter so far and what more now needs to be done. She is quite right, as I shall explain.
For me, this journey began, as the hon. Lady suggested, long ago: I went to see the Labour Defence Minister at the time—so we are stretching back in time, Madam Deputy Speaker—the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who gave the case a good and fair hearing when I took veterans to see him. I know that he was then, and I imagine he continues to be, very sympathetic to the case. Time and again we have been blocked by a combination of the top brass—I do not know whether the Minister regards himself as top brass—and the military establishment in the Ministry of Defence. Politicians from all parties in this House have typically heard the sense that has been offered again today by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and, to a lesser extent, by me in making this argument.
Over the years since then, I have heard heartbreaking stories of lives forever altered by radiation sickness. I have witnessed the tireless efforts of those involved in obtaining formal recognition for the servicemen who selflessly endured the unknown risks of atomic testing. Indeed, I have come to know many such veterans well. There is, of course, a rate of attrition as these people become older and deal with some of the illnesses that I have described, but there are remaining veterans. I have come to know well one of my constituents, Douglas Hern, who was one such person drafted into the south Pacific nuclear testing programme. Every meeting I have attended and every story I have heard reminds me of our moral duty to deliver a suitable emblem of the debt that we owe not only to the more than 1,000 nuclear test veterans who are still with us but to their families. I see no reason—perhaps the Minister will tell me why it is not a good idea—why families should not collect medals on behalf of those they have loved and lost.
In 2019, following a meeting that I led with the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, the then Secretary of State for Defence announced that he would ask the honours committee to re-examine whether a medal should be awarded to nuclear test veterans. He rightly stated:
“We must never forget their courage and bravery in contributing to keeping their country safe during the Cold War.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that it met only half a dozen times in the two years after he missioned it to look at this matter, and after no testimony whatsoever from veterans or veterans’ organisations, the advisory military sub-committee refused to recommend the award of a medal model on the grounds that—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West made reference to this—such service
“did not meet the level of risk and rigour”
required. Not enough risk? These men flew fighter planes through mushroom clouds and felt the heat of nuclear explosions on their bare skin. Knowing what we know now of the life-altering effects of radiation exposure, to state that serving in that environment did not amount to risk and rigour sufficient to deserve a medal is—I put it as mildly as I can—bewildering, baffling, astonishing. There is clear evidence of a legacy of heartache and of pain—literally and metaphorically—that spans generations. There is a legacy of cancers that cut great men down to size before their time, wives who suffered the unimaginable pain of infant mortality, and a generation of children born with life-altering conditions.
The United Kingdom has a long tradition of marking the service of our personnel through the award of medals for particular operations. My father, a second world war veteran, wore them proudly. I do not have them, but I have no doubt that the Minister wears his proudly. Campaign medals have rightly been granted for novel and non-combat operations in the past. The Minister will know of the Ebola Medal for Service in West Africa and the medals awarded to remote drone operators in 2017. There are clearly established precedents for the awarding of service medals for non-combat operations. In 2012, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, personally intervened to secure a medal for Arctic convoy veterans, so there is a specific precedent for the award of a medal long after the event it marks.
The time for excuses has long passed. Now is the time for decisive action. For the veterans and the mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren affected, I urge the Government to act before it is too late. It is time to step up for those who stepped forward when their country needed them. It is time our generation recognised what those generations before did to make us safe. In the twilight of their storied lives, it should be our privilege to present our nuclear test veterans with an emblem of our gratitude for what was endured in the name of Queen and country. Not to honour these good and true people who served their nation would disappoint them, but it would dishonour all of us.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his speech. He has campaigned for a number of years on this and has worked tirelessly to see those who served their country get recognition for their service. I pay tribute to him for his huge efforts.
Ensuring that victims get the recognition they deserve is fundamental to supporting veterans in this country, as is recognised in the strategy for our veterans, and I am determined that we recognise our veterans in the correct way. The Government have committed to veterans in a way that none of our predecessors have, with more money now being spent on the veterans community than ever before. Establishing the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was a systemic change and an indication of the Government’s commitment to her veterans. Never before in previous Governments under previous Ministers has there been an Office for Veterans’ Affairs to take responsibility for these issues and to champion the needs of veterans across government.
I hope today to assure my hon. Friends that the contributions of those who participated in the nuclear testing programme are not unrecognised, and that the Government continue to acknowledge and thank all service personnel who participated. Importantly, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, they contributed to keeping our nation secure during the cold war and since by ensuring that the UK was equipped with an appropriate nuclear capability. We will never forget their service, and we continue to recognise all that they did for their country.
As hon. Members will be aware, the advisory military sub-committee, which has been mentioned, was established to reconsider historic medallic recognition cases. As has been mentioned, last year the committee considered this case and concluded that participation in it did not meet the committee’s criteria. It is important to get across to the House that this is an independent process. It operates to a strict criteria and is outwith ministerial control, and rightly so. It was not a decision that some campaign groups, veterans and their families hoped for. I understand their disappointment—of course I do.
Carol Monaghan
In 2012, David Cameron agreed to award medals—I cannot remember for which campaign; it may have been the Ebola campaign—so Prime Ministers can step in to let their feelings be known and to put pressure on the appropriate people to ensure that medals are awarded. There is a role for Ministers and for Government in this. This would be a very simple way to recognise the specific and dangerous situation that these veterans were put in.
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Member. She is not correct; there is no formal role for Ministers to play in this decision-making process. There never has been for medals. It is important that the AMSC is able to determine for itself which medal claims should be reviewed. The terms of the sub-committee are clearly laid out, and any new submissions that might have been provided have been passed to the sub-committee. The decision on whether the case will be reviewed will be shared with campaigners by the AMSC in due course. This is not the end of the line. Those reasons will be shared.
As I have said, the medallic system is outside the control of Ministers, and it always has been. It is rightly in that position, protecting the integrity of the medals system—this is important—and of those who have received honours in this country. However, I am determined to continue to do all I can to support this cohort of veterans. It is fundamental to me that there is no tiered approach to veterans in this country, that those who have served for any period, in any circumstance, are recognised and supported as veterans. Therefore, although there are no dedicated compensation arrangements for UK nuclear test veterans, all claims have been and continue to be considered under the war pension scheme.
Any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation under this scheme, and I encourage them to do so. War pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury as a result of service in the armed forces before 6 April 2005, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Decisions are medically certified and follow consideration of available service and medical evidence, and carry full rights of appeal to an independent tribunal.
Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister is quite correct to say that a private school allowance or boarding school allowance is available across every rank, so we agree that that is factually correct. What is also factually correct is that it is almost exclusively utilised by commissioned officers rather than non-commissioned ranks.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the Minister of his own policy.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
New clause 19 is designed to provide for the establishment of a federation for the armed forces. It owes much to the British Armed Forces Federation, which pioneered service representation. This issue has been close to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, and I am loth to let an Armed Forces Bill go without raising it. It has been clear for some time that the armed forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses that I have seen before this Committee have reinforced that point and we continue to hear shocking stories of abuse that takes place within units. We have also heard that continued delays discourage the use of the service complaints system, and of a concerning perception that someone’s career will be under threat if they complain persistently. Most members of the armed forces have also endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade.
Given the renewed emphasis that Ministers appear to be placing on the value of people as assets to national defence, the time may be right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay. I want to stress that this federation would not be equivalent to a trade union for the armed forces. It would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It would also recognise the importance of the chain of command. We can learn from positive forerunners such as the British Armed Forces Federation, which clearly reinforces the point that the chain of command is to be recognised, not overridden.
Although the proposal might be seen to be radical or dangerous by some, other nations, including the US and Australia, already have similar models embedded into existing military command structures. Given that Ministers in this Government have been so fond of looking to Australia for solutions, I hope that they will feel able to do so again. The nominally independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the service complaints ombudsman present a clear direction of travel towards independence.
Our armed forces give their lives for us. Ministers should seize this opportunity and also give them a voice.
Carol Monaghan
I just want to add a couple of comments. Both these new clauses seem to worry the Government, and we have to wonder why. I think many personnel will wonder, “Why would the Government not wish to support these proposals?” A body that can speak for armed forces personnel on issues such as housing, terms and conditions, and pay would surely be a benefit. If personnel could raise these issues themselves, it could avoid situations such as those that we have seen recently through the National Audit Office report on the poor quality of single living accommodation.
It is important that we look at other bodies that work. The Police Federation would be a good example. In the Police Federation, individuals do not have the ability to strike and there is no threat to the chain of command. Despite us raising these issues time and again, the Government simply throw the same lazy arguments back at us. Those lazy arguments include, “We don’t want anything that undermines the chain of command.” This organisation would operate separately; it would be a body that personnel could go to without breaching the chain of command. All of us here understand the importance of that.
What arguments is the Minister going to come up with for opposing these new clauses? We have heard the same arguments time and again on strikes and chain of command, but we have said that these new clauses are no threat to those things. What can the Minister tell us other than that? Why would he not want to support personnel when they are looking for improvement? I do not think any of us would argue about what they want. They want decent housing, and decent terms and conditions; and we should not have any problem with that. I am really interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Johnny Mercer
What we have seen there is the granularity of the problem when it comes to debating these issues. The Scottish nationalist party Members have put forward two things that are fundamentally and factually inaccurate to support their argument—
Carol Monaghan
On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. Could you remind the Minister that the name of our party is the Scottish National party? He is using that other term deliberately and continues to do so.
Johnny Mercer
Colleagues have put forward two arguments that are factually not true. I just do not know how to respond when colleagues put forward points of view that they know to be untrue, which I correct on the record, yet they still advance them as though they are on some crusade for the benefit of the members of our armed forces. It really is sixth-form-debating-level behaviour and it means that I cannot respond to their points—
Johnny Mercer
No, I will not give way, because my hon. Friends even corrected each other when one said that the continuity of education allowance was only for officers, which it is not, and then split between commissioned—
Carol Monaghan
On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. The Minister is now trying to rewrite the record. I was very careful in what I said and I pointed out to him that I agreed 100% with what he said about the education allowance being available for all. However, I did say that it was almost exclusively used by officers, and that is the case.
Carol Monaghan
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I hope the Committee will agree to the new clause, which would establish gender-neutral drafting in the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Act should reflect the diversity of military service personnel and veterans in the UK armed forces. The armed forces should be a safe and inclusive environment for all those who serve, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity or class. That inclusivity and respect must permeate all levels of military organisation, including at legislative level. By adopting gender-neutral language in the Armed Forces Act, we can demonstrate that the legal commitment to inclusivity for all gender identities permeates it. Words have power, and language matters. It is important that we adapt the legislation to reflect the true democracy of our armed forces, and I hope the Government feel able to support this new clause.
Johnny Mercer
Hon. Members seek to amend section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by substituting the gender-specific words in that text with gender-neutral language. Clearly, gender-neutral drafting in legislation is important, and it has been deemed essential by successive Governments in recent times. The practice now is that new primary legislation is drafted in a gender-neutral way. On 8 March 2007, the then Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Jack Straw, announced that all future Government Bills would be gender neutral
“so far as it is practicable”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 143W.]
That approach is reflected in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel’s current drafting guidance. In accordance with that guidance, this Bill, including the amendments it makes to the Armed Forces Act 2006, has been drafted in a gender-neutral way.
However, the Armed Forces Act 2006 was drafted before the new approach of gender-neutral language was adopted, and it is not drafted in a gender-neutral way. While, as I say, the practice is now to draft in a gender-neutral way, it is not the Government’s practice to update language in all legislation that is not otherwise being amended. In short, it is one thing to insert gender-neutral legislation, as this Bill does; it is quite another to revise existing legislative text, as this new clause proposes.
Further, from a common-sense perspective, the proposed new clause is rather narrow, seeking only to amend one small part of the Armed Forces Act 2006 and leaving much of the Act in the old, gendered-pronoun style. Conversely, it would be rather impractical and time-consuming to revisit the entirety of the Act. The Government will, of course, continue to adopt gender-neutral drafting when amending the Armed Forces Act 2006 for other reasons. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will agree to withdraw her new clause.
Carol Monaghan
The Minister’s response is rather disappointing. Yes, this new clause does refer to just one part of the 2006 Act, but it was hoped that that would then permeate through all of the Act. It is disappointing, when we are talking about the importance of diversity in the armed forces, that the Minister is not willing to look at this proposal. It would not be a huge amount of work to amend the entire Act; it would simply involve updating these particular gender-specific words. I am not going to push this new clause to a vote, but I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 20(2)(d) insert—
‘(e) the person is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, alcohol or drugs.’
(3) After section 20(3) insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State has a duty of care to offer a specific pathway for support and treatment for current and previously serving service personnel who experience—
(a) a propensity to misuse, alcohol and drugs,
(b) alcohol or drug dependency, and
(c) gambling disorder.
(3B) The Secretary of State must include in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report—
(a) the number of people accessing treatment and support as set out in section (1), and
(b) the current provisions for rehabilitation facilities for Armed Forces personnel who are experiencing a propensity to misuse or have a dependency on alcohol, drugs and gambling.’”—(Dan Carden.)
This new clause places a duty of care onto the Ministry of Defence to provide treatment pathways to serving personnel and veterans who experience alcohol, drug and gambling disorders and will include the number of people accessing treatment and current rehabilitation provisions in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would place a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence in relation to finding a pathway to treatment for people suffering with addiction. We are familiar with the existing narrative that many of our armed forces community will, at some stage, struggle with their mental health. While there is agreement that we must prioritise the mental health and wellbeing of our armed forces, alcohol, drug and gambling use disorders—otherwise known as addiction—do not receive the same consideration, and serving personnel and veterans experiencing addiction are being failed by the current system.
In society, we should afford the same attention, resources and support to addiction as to any other mental health matter, because addiction is an illness—an illness with a higher prevalence across the services. The new clause would place a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence to ensure that it has a role to play in finding a pathway to treatment for those men and women who have given service. Combat Stress confirms that military personnel are more likely to suffer from substance misuse problems than civilians, yet there is only one veteran-specific addiction treatment facility in the whole of the UK—Tom Harrison House, in Anfield, in my constituency.
Turning to alcohol, drugs and gambling in times of uncertainty or hardship is normalised in the UK. The latest Office for National Statistics alcohol-specific deaths data show that this is now a national crisis. Our armed forces are a niche community with distinct values that make engagement with local services difficult. Many veterans and their families are isolated and do not receive the treatment they need and deserve. I have met many veterans visiting Tom Harrison House who felt completely let down by the MOD. I am yet to meet one who has received the support they need for their addiction through the Army, Navy or Air Force. Too often—in fact, it is the norm—people have to hit rock bottom to get picked up and offered support. Even then, treatment is not always available. One veteran told me:
“I gave my life to service, I was trained to lack empathy; conditioned to survive; asking for help was a weakness; encouraged to drink and when there was nothing left for me to give, I was discharged, without any re-conditioning, no support; completely alone.”
That experience is unacceptable.
We just do not know how many veterans experience substance use disorders, as there is such limited reporting. The new clause would address that lack of understanding. As it stands, the MOD plays no role in the pathway of support for veterans who require treatment for addiction and other mental health issues, even though we know that the effect of service is often a determining factor in a veteran’s illness. Once personnel have left service, they rely on the NHS and local authorities, and of course the UK’s third sector organisations provide help and support. I absolutely value their work, but the MOD has a responsibility to those men and women that it has shirked for too long. Veterans are expected to use the same pathway as civilians—through the NHS and local authority services—yet drug and alcohol services have been decimated in the past 10 years, with part one of Dame Carol Black’s review on drugs detailing that, in some local authorities, funding for these services has been cut by 40%. We expect veterans to navigate an underfunded system that does not cater for veteran- specific needs.
We know that addiction is often a symptom of deeper psychological problems. Substances are ways to escape and self-medicate. Although co-occurrence of substance use and mental health diagnoses is widely understood, to access mental health services the person must often address the substance use first. The Committee heard at first hand from Combat Stress just how obstructive that is to recovery. This fractured approach leaves too many in prolonged pain and suffering as they continue to fall between the cracks. While the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law, public bodies having that due regard will not help the many veterans who experience addiction.
Mr Jones
I rise to support this new clause because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South has outlined, promises have been broken not just by this Government but since 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party argued for a larger defence budget, an increase in numbers, more equipment, and a commitment to the armed forces of our country. Since then, we have not just seen the size of the Army reduced; we have seen cuts in numbers in the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, and in the Royal Air Force. Under the coalition, we had the terrible situation where brave members of our armed forces were made compulsorily redundant—again, something that was never promised in 2010. Certainly, if a Labour Government had implemented that policy, Members on the Tory Benches would have opposed it and would have been highly critical of the Government for doing so.
The overall size of our armed forces does matter, not only in terms of the Army being able to deploy individuals but to ensure that, for example, the Royal Navy has enough personnel to put ships to sea. We can have as much equipment as we want, but if we do not have the individual servicemen and servicewomen to support that equipment, it is useless. In the past few years, we have seen naval ships tied up because of a lack of trained strength, so it is important that we have this report annually and also that it talks about trained strength, because the Government do play fast and loose with the numbers.
It is not just a matter of the overall size, but what the overall capability is and how many members of the armed forces can actually deploy. There has been a decade of decline in the UK’s armed forces, and although the Minister and others champion the idea that they are supporting members of the armed forces, they have been part of a Government that have not only cut pay—as we have already spoken about this morning—but cut the actual numbers of the armed forces.
Another aspect I would like to raise is the lack of opportunity this will mean for many young people in constituencies such as mine, who proudly join the armed services to not only serve their country, but ensure they can have a career that they can be proud of and take those skills back into civilian life. The cuts will have an impact in constituencies across the country that provide men and women for the armed forces, because there will be a lack of opportunities. A lot of negative things are said about service in the armed forces, but I see service as a positive thing, where the people joining not only contribute to the safety that we all take for granted but, more importantly, get great career opportunities and opportunities that they would never have in civilian life. Once they leave, that expertise helps those individuals, and also helps local communities such as mine in North Durham. These cuts will limit the opportunities for those people, which saddens me, and is something we should bear in mind.
Carol Monaghan
I want to say a few words in support of this new clause. Again, it should be really straightforward. I cannot see any reason why the Government would oppose it; it simply asks for a report on numbers.
Both Members who have already spoken to this new clause have talked about the impact of reduced numbers. We must be clear that despite moves towards cyber-warfare and different types of platform, ultimately reduced numbers threatens our capability. When we are looking at operating in very difficult circumstances, the Government should take seriously any threat to our capability.
We must also think about the impact on the remaining personnel, because the burden on them increases as the numbers decrease, with fewer personnel having to do more. That has an impact on their lives, including their family life and interactions with those outside the military. It can also threaten their ability to take leave; it will be a serious issue if they have leave entitlement but are not able to take leave because there are insufficient personnel to cover. People cannot continue like that; perhaps they can for short periods, but not over months and certainly not over years or indeed their entire service. We need to think carefully about this.
To make a general point, I am concerned that we are in a Bill Committee and we are supposed to be discussing new clauses and amendments, with the Government looking at adopting those that are considered reasonable, but it seems to me at the moment that they have not taken on board a single one. That calls into question what we are all doing on a Wednesday morning participating in such a Committee. So I seek some advice on this from the Chair: surely the Government should seriously consider new clauses and amendments, particularly where there is consensus.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I agree with some of the fine words from my friend and neighbour the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), but it is incumbent upon those proposing changes or proposing more service personnel to explain how we would achieve that and what other programmes they would like to see cut or what taxes they would like to see rise in order to pay for it—if you will the ends, you’ve got to will the means to the ends.
Carol Monaghan
I just wanted to make a point. The hon. Member for North West Durham seemed to suggest that we were asking for numbers to be increased. It is quite important that there is clarification on that point; we are actually asking for numbers to be maintained. That is different. This Government are looking to cut numbers.
Carol Monaghan
I am happy to give way to the hon. Member, although he would not give way to me.
Carol Monaghan
I do not think this is a Bill Committee to discuss the SNP’s manifesto, but we have been quite bit clear throughout that funding has to be found. If hon. Members want to discuss the SNP’s manifesto, we can get rid of Trident, which is an enormous and expensive vanity project, which, frankly, we cannot afford.
Johnny Mercer
I really welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham. He is right about the absolute disaster zone we were left with in 2010. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham obviously likes to remind us regularly of his experiences in the MOD, but the key would be to look at them in detail and to be more honest about them. Ultimately, people watching this do not really care what happened 10, 15 or 20 years ago. What they care about is sorting out these issues now and that is what this Government are looking to do.
We have to meet the threat as it is presented in the integrated review. We have had a good defence White Paper that looks at the new and emerging threats, and the way we want to change our integrated operating concept. It is a good review. I think that members of our armed forces would like to see people get behind that, rather than talking about issues that are quite significantly out of date.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South seeks to place an obligation on the Defence Secretary to
“report to Parliament quarterly on infantry battalion soldier strength, including the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.”
The Government already publish on gov.uk quarterly service personnel statistics, containing detailed information on the strength, intake, outflow and gains to trained strength for the UK armed forces overall and specifically for each of the three services, including the Army. Providing a further breakdown of those figures to include infantry battalion soldier strength and the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion would be highly likely to prejudice the security of the armed forces for three clear reasons.
First, it would expose any extant or potential vulnerabilities and capability gaps within the force structure—a threat that will be exacerbated over the next four years as the Army reconfigures and readjusts in line with the outcomes of the integrated reviewed. Secondly, it would risk exposing any nascent and emerging capability plan. Thirdly, it could reveal the size and strength of sensitive capabilities to our adversaries.
As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South will understand, the safety and security of our service personnel and the effectiveness of our force are among my highest priorities. He will therefore understand that I am not willing to put the security of our personnel at risk in this manner. There is also a real concern that focusing Parliament’s attention disproportionately on infantry strength would serve only to undermine the guiding principle of our nation’s future security.
As the Secretary of State wrote in his introduction to the defence Command Paper, it is essential that our future armed forces are
“integrated across all domains, joining up our people, equipment and information to increase their outputs and effectiveness.”
It goes without saying that providing quarterly updates on infantry strength alone would place an uncontextualised and unhelpful emphasis on one part of a large and integrated whole force that we value highly. That is why our current reporting, which is made available to all, covers that whole force.
In the light of these very real concerns, I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the new clause.
Johnny Mercer
Not at this moment, no.
I cannot rewrite history, and I cannot promise every last penny that was lost out on because people did not achieve their long service and good conduct. There is no mechanism possible to make that happen. What I will do, and what we are doing at the moment as part of cross-Government activity involving the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Home Office, is find a mechanism, working with Fighting with Pride, Stonewall and others, to address the appalling injustice for this cohort of veterans.
I give a commitment today to write to the Prime Minister to ask him to reflect on my apology to the LGBT community last year, and to ask him to consider doing so at a national level. I know that will not correct it, but it will go some way towards alleviation. I saw the impact of my apology. It is easy for those who are not in that cohort to downplay an apology or not to want to do it, because of its ramifications, but apologies are important for the cohort that went through this experience. I will write to the Prime Minister on that issue today.
In light of those things, I do not want to duplicate the work that is going on at the moment, because I want to get a solution for all these people, like Fighting with Pride, with which I am in constant communication. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton will agree to withdraw his new clause and to work with me to get to a place where this cohort is properly looked after and some sort of restorative justice takes place, in line with what I have done already. I hope he has confidence in what I have done already and in my commitment to go much further in future.
Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I wish to speak in support of the amendment. The issue was quite clearly looked at by Judge Lyons in his report. As has just been said, there is no rationale for why other rank 7 was seen as a particularly relevant cut-off point. The important thing is that we make the move to mirror the civilian justice system, although I certainly accept that there are differences between the two because of operational issues.
To be judged by one’s peers is a fundamental right. The provision would exclude large numbers of individuals, including some who may have many years of experience in the armed forces and of sitting on courts martial. I do not think that a good enough reason for excluding those individuals has been put forward in evidence. One possible justification was that people would not understand the procedures. Well, I find that rather patronising for non-commissioned officers, some of whom have been in the armed forces for many years. I would draw a parallel with civilian courts, where there is no qualification process or aptitude test for sitting on a civilian jury. It is for them to weigh up the evidence.
I think that Judge Lyons was basically saying in his report that the movement he outlined was all that he could get away with in the military legal system. I think that he was pushing for further change, but quite clearly did not want to offend or cause things not to go further. I think that he certainly saw this as a step towards, possibly, allowing other ranks to sit on courts martial.
The important point is to ensure that the individuals being tried feel that they get a fair hearing. In the hierarchical way that courts martial are judged at the moment, individuals might not perceive the process as fair because they are judged by more senior officers who determine promotion and other prospects for lower ranks, and might not only have limited understanding of the individual’s life experience, but could ultimately influence the outcome of the individual’s career, for example. I do not think a good enough reason has been put forward for why this cannot be extended, and I therefore support the amendment.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I will say just a couple of words in support of my colleague’s amendment. The Bill should be seen as an opportunity to modernise and to introduce some fairness—or perceived fairness—into service justice.
To include the NCOs and lower ranks is a step towards a more equitable method of delivering service justice, and how that is viewed by personnel is important. It is important that those sitting on a court martial board understand the experience of the people before them. Unfortunately, the experiences of commissioned and non-commissioned personnel can often be quite different. This is a real chance to build greater fairness, and perceived fairness, into the system. I urge the Government to consider the amendment carefully.
Mr Jones
May I begin by thanking Justice Lyons for his review? In his evidence to the Committee, he clearly outlined why amendment 19 is needed. I am a veteran of the 2006 Bill Committee, and it is quite clear, as Judge Lyons said in evidence, that when this amendment was made to that Bill, the intention was not for the wholesale movement towards serious crimes being heard in courts martial in the UK. They were for exceptional circumstances in which, for example, one crime had been committed overseas and one in the UK, given the ability of the court martial to deal with such cases. That was a sensible way forward because the service police would clearly be the lead authority in the investigation of such serious crimes committed abroad as murder, rape or manslaughter,.
The problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West outlined eloquently, is to do with confidence in the system. When the system was outlined, I do not think courts martial were meant to deal with these serious crimes. I support the military justice system, and I do not think the amendment would do anything to damage it. I think it would boost confidence in it.
The problem with the current system has been outlined. The conviction rate for rape is not satisfactory—I accept there are problems not just in the military system but in civilian life as well—and one of the key issues is investigation. The Minister said he was confident that the service police have the capacity to investigate such serious crimes. I would not want to criticise professional individuals, but, as with anything, the more specialism someone has and the more cases they deal with, the more expertise they get in gathering evidence and in supporting victims.
Clearly, the service police deal with a limited number of serious cases, so I would have thought that, when such alleged crimes are committed in the UK, it would be important to involve the local civilian police, who deal with serious sexual assaults, rapes, manslaughter and murder more often. Because of that experience not only in gathering evidence but in dealing with victims, they should have primacy. I am old enough to remember the Deepcut inquiry undertaken by Lord Justice Blake and know those cases in detail. I accept that is going back a number of years, but the clear problem there was the way in which evidence was not gathered—in some cases it was ignored or destroyed—and the assumption, without rigorous investigation, that suicide was the main cause of death in all cases.
The amendment is really about the system’s integrity and getting confidence for victims as well. As we saw in evidence from Forward Assist and retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, there is an issue in ensuring that, first, those who complain think they will be listened to as victims, and secondly, the armed forces’ hierarchical structure is not an impediment to the proper investigation of serious accusations. I can see the reason for courts martial dealing with cases in exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the 2006 Act, such as those that take place overseas and in this country, but I cannot see why routine cases in the UK are not dealt with by the civilian courts. I therefore support the amendment.
The Minister said it is a policy decision, but I am not sure. The intention was there, and I do not think much has changed in the past 15 years. What we need to do now is to ensure that, as was outlined in evidence we heard from the Victims’ Commissioner and other witnesses, the victim is at the centre of any system we put in place.
Carol Monaghan
I will say a few words in support of the amendment. The Defence Sub-Committee has been taking evidence on the experience of women in the armed forces. We know there are a whole range of issues specific to female personnel. When we are looking at serious crimes such as rape, so many different issues have to be considered —we need to consider consent and whether there is a proper reporting structure—and those who make complaints must have confidence in the system.
We have already discussed the membership of the court martial board. How can someone have confidence in a trial when those who are deciding the outcomes are likely to be male and of higher ranks, and not likely to have any understanding of the woman or the victim’s experience? In other words, they will not have anything in common with the person who is bringing forward the complaint.
Johnny Mercer
Clause 18 reflects the Government’s commitment to the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender armed forces personnel. The clause amends section 164 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to extend posthumous pardons for very old, abolished service offences.
Presently, section 164, in so far as it relates to the armed forces, refers only to historical service offences from before 1881 of men who served in the Navy, but not of those who served in the Army or the Royal Marines, the latter being when ashore. The amendment will ensure that those who served in the Army or Royal Marines before 1881 and were convicted at court martial for now abolished service offences can be pardoned for those offences. The RAF is not affected by the amendment because it was not constituted until 1917 and is already covered in the existing provisions of section 164. I am pleased that through this clause, we continue to address historic injustice and demonstrate that the military is a positive place to work for all who choose to serve.
LGBT personnel have made, and continue to make, significant contributions to the armed forces. I hope that the Committee has seen the work that we have done over the past 12 months to try to right the horrendous wrongs that were done to that community during their time in service.
Carol Monaghan
How will the Minister determine who is in that group? Many people in the LGBT community left the armed forces, but not because they were convicted of being LGBT. They left under other circumstances—in some ways, to make it easier for the military to get rid of them. Can he give a bit more detail on how he will identify those affected? That has to be done.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Lady makes a really good point, and there is a lot to work through in that space. There is also the question of those who would have received the medal for long service and good conduct but were asked to leave because they were part of the LGBT community. I have been clear that the apology and medal restoration is a first step. We are working through the legal ramifications of addressing some of those historical wrongs. That is ongoing, but I am unable to comment on the progress at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Power of British overseas territories to apply AFA 2006 etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Johnny Mercer
I would be delighted to write to my right hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Age of Recruitment
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 328, subsection 2(c): leave out “without the consent of prescribed persons.”—(Carol Monaghan.)
This new clause would raise the age of recruitment into the Armed Forces to 18, in line with NATO allies and UN standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Equalising the Minimum Term for Service in the Army—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 329, subsection 2(c) substitute “or to transfer at a prescribed time to a reserve force” with “or to transfer to a reserve force after a prescribed number of years from the date of their enlistment without regard to his age on that date”.
This new clause ensures that service personnel aged under 18 are not required to serve for a longer period than adult service personnel.
Carol Monaghan
New clause 1 establishes age 18 as the minimum age for recruitment into the UK armed forces. Each year, the British armed forces enlist over 2,000 young people aged 16 and 17, mostly for the Army, and particularly for the infantry. It is notable that most Army recruits are 16, more than any other age. The United Kingdom is out of step with many of its allies in allowing enlistment at 16, and in a response to a written question from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), we find that underage recruits require longer training. We also know that they warrant more complicated duty of care plans and demonstrate a greater frequency of attrition.
In the three-year timeframe from 2015 to 2018, the Army enlisted just under 5,300 16 and 17-year-olds, and of this cohort, nearly a third dropped out before they completed their phase 2 training. As the Army’s accredited educational requirements for under-age recruits are limited to basic literacy, numeracy, and information and communications technology courses, it is clear that many 16 and 17-year-olds who withdraw from their training will re-enter the civilian world without immediate access to further employment, training and education. Typically, it has been commonplace for the Army to recruit young people from economically deprived areas, and while military service is a fruitful and fulfilling career for many of our service personnel, it is undeniable that encouraging 16 and 17-year-olds to remain in full-time education generates considerable benefits. Full-time education until the age of 18 should be the norm for all young people, and the opportunities for professional and personal development are indisputable, alongside the invaluable psychological, emotional and social growth that full-time education facilitates.
On top of these considerations, it also makes clear economic sense to increase the age of recruitment to 18, as the large drop-out rate that I have previously mentioned is costly in terms of both resources and time spent on training. Finally, adopting such a policy stands to bring the UK into line with the vast majority of its international contemporaries. Three quarters of states worldwide now have armed forces personnel who are exclusively aged 18 and over, including most of our NATO allies. While 16 and 17-year-olds cannot serve on the frontline, recruitment at the ages of 16 and 17 is detrimental to international efforts to end the use of children in military settings. The UN convention on the rights of the child has urged the UK to increase its minimum recruitment age to 18. If, as this Government have often stressed, we are entering an era of a truly global Britain, it seems appropriate that the UK should align with its global partners in the international community.
Adopting an adults-only enlistment policy would also be welcome domestically. The Children’s Commissioners for the UK’s four nations, the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights and numerous trade unions and health professionals have expressed their support for adult-only recruitment. If we are to safeguard the wellbeing, development, educational opportunities and physical safety of our young people, it is crucial that we change the minimum age for armed forces recruitment to 18.
New clause 2 would ensure that service personnel aged under 18 would not be required to serve for a longer period than adult service personnel. Most of the Committee’s discussion up to now has centred on removing any disadvantage experienced by service personnel in relation to their civilian counterparts, but we have not yet discussed the age discrimination that exists within the armed forces. The Bill does nothing to ensure that personnel recruited under the age of 18 experience no disadvantage compared with those recruited as adults.
At present, Army regulations that define a minimum service period discriminate against younger recruits. An Army recruit has a right of discharge for a fixed period of time after enlistment, but, once that period has expired, a recruit who enlisted at age 18 or above must serve for at least four years from the date of their enlistment. However, for recruits who enlisted at age 16 or 17, the clock restarts at age 18, so they must serve until they turn 22 at least—another four years. That commits them to up to six years of service when they are still a minor. As result of that disparate treatment, young recruits have to serve longer to have the right to leave the Army.
That inconsistency on service relates solely to the Army; it does not exist in the Navy or RAF. Only due to an armed forces exemption in the Equality Act 2010 is that allowed to remain. Such age discrimination would be prohibited in the civilian workforce, and new clause 2 would correct that by equalising the minimum service period for all recruits across the Army, ensuring that recruits under 18 experience no disadvantage compared with their adult counterparts.
The new clause builds on comments in the Army’s 2019 review of its junior entry policy that considered new terms of service to align the minimum commitment length of recruits aged under 18 to those who joined over the age of 18. The review commented on how a change in this area could attract potential young recruits and their parents and
“would mitigate some external criticism and provide greater consistency.”
In addition, the review mentioned that the change could make the process of leaving the Army as an under-18 “more transparent” and easier to understand. As such, the new clause would be an entirely reasonable and straightforward addition to the Bill and bring a consistent and logical approach to the minimum length of service across the armed forces. I urge the Committee to consider it carefully.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I recognise that the Minister will oppose the new clauses, especially on the age of recruitment—I am sure we disagree on that principle—but I hope the Government and members of the Committee will recognise the age discrimination for those under 18 who remain in the armed forces and the detriment caused through their service not being recognised. I hope we can agree in a collegiate way that anyone who remains in the Army once they reach 18 must have that prior service calculated in their long-term service in the armed forces. Anything else is a detriment to them and also underscores our lack of commitment to them, with their military service not being counted.
Johnny Mercer
My hon. Friend is right that passing-out parades are a huge part of the journey of our forces’ families through the system. He will be aware, though, that generally we align with Public Health England’s advice and the Government’s direction. We are looking to get those parades going as soon as possible, and I am acutely aware of the effect on families of not attending them. Guidance will be issued in due course in line with the Government’s expectations on a relaxation of restrictions.
We welcome the independent scrutiny of Ofsted and the confirmation that it provides that we treat our young recruits well. Our armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people, as well as fulfilling and rewarding careers. Following those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West will agree to withdraw the amendment, but I thank her for her careful consideration. I know that her husband is a veteran, and I am extremely grateful for the thoughtful way in which she applies herself to these subjects. I look forward to engaging with her further on these important issues down the road.
Carol Monaghan
It is interesting to hear Members talking about the positive experiences of young people. Many Members will know that I am a teacher by profession. A number of the young pupils I taught went on to join the Army at age 16. Some of them had an extremely positive experience, as I highlighted in my comments; however, we need to look at the 30% who are dropping out. Why is there such a high drop-out rate?
For that 30% of 16 to 17-year-olds, some of whom do not have the strongest educational or family backgrounds, all they have from joining the Army is another failure under their belt. They have missed out on educational opportunities in the period they have been in the Army, and it is difficult to rejoin the education system after having dropped out of the Army. Also, there are under-18s who are on active service. They might not be on the frontline, but they serve in the Royal Navy on submarines.
On new clause 2, the Minister said that up to the age of 18, people can drop out. We understand that, but the problem is that once they turn 18 the clock starts again, and it is then four years beyond that before they can drop out. That is what they are signing up to. Their entire service is a six-year commitment, essentially, rather than a four-year one. If we were to equalise the opportunity for the youngsters who are joining up in comparison to adults who join aged 18, they should be able to leave sooner. They should simply be committing to another two years, not another four.
Mr Holden
I understand the spirit and the background that the hon. Member brings to this. I think everyone knows that because of the unique circumstances of someone who joins at 16, where they can drop out at any point until they are 18, it is very different from the situation of someone who formally joins at 18 for another four years. Those things are slightly conflated in the new clause.
Carol Monaghan
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the case in the Navy and the RAF, so there is already a disparity.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Mental health report—
“(1) No later than 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report which must include—
(a) a definition of what constitutes ‘priority care’ as set out in Armed Forces Covenant and how the Secretary of State is working to ensure that it is being provided, and
(b) a review of waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans accessing mental health support.
(2) The first report published under this section must also include a resource plan to meet current Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service waiting time targets for the offer of an appointment in England and set new targets for mental health recovery through the veterans mental health pathway.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a definition of ‘priority care’ to help primary care clinicians deliver the commitments in the Armed Forces Covenant, conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, and produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets.
Carol Monaghan
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to use the annual armed forces covenant report to assess the health and educational outcomes of personnel under the age of 18 and the service of personnel under the age of 18 in relation to article 3 of the convention on the rights of the child.
The time in a young person’s life from the ages of 16 to 18 is significant, and this transition to adulthood is typified by expanding opportunities and capabilities. These years also bring substantial risks and vulnerabilities. Research undertaken by UNICEF has shown that adolescents are more vulnerable to external pressure, influence and risk taking than adults are because of the processes of neurocognitive and psychological development. To ensure the transition between adolescence and adulthood as a time for healthy development and resilience building, 16 and 17-year olds must be in an environment that facilitates sustained learning, skills development, respect for individuality, social support and strong relationships. The UN convention on the rights of the child recognises the needs and vulnerabilities of adolescents and it consequently defines every person below the age of 18 as a child. This convention obliges all public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies to always consider the best interests of the child in any matter which concerns them.
I do not consider 16 and 17-year olds to be children; I would consider them as young people. However, the same applies here. For the reasons I have stated, we have a moral and legal duty to pay particular attention to the experiences and outcomes of those who join the armed forces before they turn 18. Those under 18 in the military take on risks and obligations just like their adult colleagues, which may put them at a disadvantage relative to their civilian peers in areas such as health and education.
While Army recruits are not sent to the frontline until they turn 18, the impact of military employment at such a young age, particularly on recruits from a stressful childhood background, has raised numerous human rights and public health concerns. Among those who have raised concerns have been the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Children’s Commissioners for the four jurisdictions of the UK, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Ministry of Defence does not collect information about the socioeconomic profile of armed forces personnel. However, other research has found that Army recruits under the age of 18 generally come from England’s poorest constituencies, with recruitment concentrated in urban fringe areas in the north of England.
Official data from the MOD shows that the youngest recruits tend to have underdeveloped literacy. Education for the youngest Army recruits is largely restricted to basic literacy, numeracy and IT. As I have already mentioned, with 30% of 16 and 17-year-old recruits leaving before finishing phase two training, that presents an immediate risk to their employment, education, training and social mobility prospects, and it certainly puts them at a disadvantage compared with their civilian peers.
As for health, those recruited under the age of 18 are more likely to die or be injured in action over the course of their military career, and they are at greater risk of mental health-related problems, such as alcohol abuse and self-harm. The additional rights and protections of 16 and 17-year-olds under the law and the need to ensure positive health and educational outcomes for this age group is a clear justification for the MOD to consider the impact of military service on personnel aged under 18.
As such, new clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to use the annual armed forces covenant report to assess the health and educational outcomes of personnel under the age of 18 and to consider whether service is in their best interest. Such annual reporting carries no risk to the effectiveness of the armed forces, rather it would solely ensure that those entering the armed forces under the age of 18 are given the consideration they require.
When we are considering the issue of no disadvantage in health and education, this should include proper consideration of the disadvantage that young recruits may experience compared with other 16 and 17-year olds. As these years are crucial in shaping life outcomes, it is important that the Ministry of Defence treats the welfare of service personnel under the age of 18 with the highest priority and comes forward freely to report on their outcomes.
Mrs Hodgson
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. New clause 12 would require the Government to do three things: first, to produce a definition of “priority care” to help primary care clinicians to deliver on the commitments in the armed forces covenant; secondly, to conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans; and, finally, to produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets. I shall address each in turn.
“The Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2020” acknowledges the confusion about what priority care means. It says that
“in practice this remains inconsistent, and there is a lack of clarity about the interpretation of the policy by government, clinicians, and the NHS.”
During oral evidence to this Committee, Ray Lock, from the Forces in Mind Trust, said that
“anything you can do to provide greater certainty would be helpful.”
The first part of this new clause therefore seeks to do just that and provide a definition as to what the Government really mean when they talk about priority care and treatment.
Moving to the second part of the new clause, on a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, I have already written to the Minister regarding waiting times under TILS—the veterans’ mental health transition, intervention and liaison service—which have not been met. The average waiting time to be offered a face-to-face appointment for TILS in 2019-20 was 37 days, which misses the target of 14 days. Conducting a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans would establish why they are not being met and—to move to the final part of the new clause—what action needs to be taken to address that gap.
I know that the Minister is proud of the launch of Operation Courage, but I urge him to continue to seize this moment to make real and measurable change to the mental health services for serving personnel and veterans. This new clause would bring much-needed clarity to the priority care promised through the covenant and is designed to address the issue of waiting times not being met. I know that the Minister will want to resolve those issues and I therefore hope that he takes the opportunity offered by the new clause.
Carol Monaghan
For the reasons I have already stated, we have a moral and legal duty to pay particular attention to the experiences and outcomes of those who join the armed forces before they turn 18—both for those who remain in service and those who choose to leave early. While the Minister highlighted some of the work that has been done in this area with Ofsted and the MOD, surely it would not be difficult to make a specific report on the outcomes of the 16 and 17-year-old recruits? They have very specific needs and requirements. I cannot see any reason why there cannot be a statement on the health and educational outcomes of these personnel in the annual report. At the moment, however, I am happy to withdraw the new clause. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I hope he will consider my contribution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I am sure that there will be much chest thumping over this Budget, but the reality is that many of those most in need of support have been ignored. Furlough has been welcome for some, but for others, including the 3 million excluded, who have not received a penny, this Budget offers nothing.
The £10 million for veterans’ mental health is welcome, but many of the veterans and their families who contact me do so because of a lack of support from this Government. The Chancellor could have rectified this situation, which sees payments awarded for injury in service treated as normal income for DWP calculations, but he did not. What message is he sending to veterans who have given their health for this country? The recent National Audit Office report on military housing should have shamed this Government into action. The report talks about “decades of under-investment”, with nearly 2,400 personnel living in such abysmal accommodation, lacking such basics as hot water, that they are not even required to pay rent. This is a Government who profess to stand up for the armed forces, so why are there no funds for this?
Central to any covid recovery plan must be our children. This is a year when disadvantage has been laid bare. Although the Government have rightly provided digital devices and tutoring schemes for learning, children need first to be fed. The Chancellor has agreed to maintain the £20 weekly uplift in universal credit until September, which is of course welcome, but does he really think that the uplift is not required beyond September? He has probably never gone around a supermarket trying to decide which basics he can afford. Well, I have, and I can tell him the difference that £20 a week would have made during those times. In contrast, we see the Scottish Government introducing the Scottish child payment of £10 a week for every child under six. We want a commitment that this uplift will be permanent and that it will apply not just to those on universal credit, but to those on legacy benefits, so that children can be fed. Then we can talk about meaningful learning.
Finally, I want to talk about the children of Yemen. The UN tells us that the humanitarian crisis is the worst in the world, with 80% of Yemen’s population in need of humanitarian aid, 4 million displaced, and 400,000 children under five at risk of dying from malnutrition. Amid this crisis, the Government make manifesto-breaking cuts to international aid. If this is the best that global Britain can deliver, it is no surprise that Scotland is choosing a different path. One of the strengths of the UK was a commitment to international development. The situation in Yemen is critical. A tiny proportion of our borrowed funds must be shared with the world’s most desperate.
Armed Forces Bill
Carol Monaghan ExcerptsMonday 8th February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
This Bill renews our commitment to our armed forces for another five years. As we signal our consent, we should reflect on the hard-won democratic freedoms that enable us to do so, and should recognise that many in the world do not have such liberties. I add my thanks to the members of the armed forces who are currently contributing to our fight against covid, and pay tribute to their service. In Scotland, our healthcare workers will receive a £500 thank you payment; it would be fitting to do likewise for members of the armed forces, and I hope the Minister will join the Scottish National party in calling for that payment.
Unlike the last Bill on the armed forces that we debated, there is nothing controversial in this Bill, and while we will be supporting its progress, that does not mean we are entirely satisfied with what has been presented. While our armed forces comprise some of our most dedicated and professional public servants, their lack of representation means they have little recourse or opportunity to raise issues of concern. The commitment to the armed forces covenant in the Bill falls far short of what it needs to be and ought to be. According to the Royal British Legion, the Bill can and should go further in strengthening the covenant in law.
The Bill is an opportunity to give power to the covenant, but too many areas fall outwith the scope of the Bill, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel. With the ongoing case of eight Fijian soldiers, it is both unfair and unjust that many of our veterans remain without legal status in the UK. The Bill does not hold the Home Office to account or, indeed, include any provisions to rectify that situation.
On housing, anyone who read last week’s National Audit Office report on improving single living accommodation cannot fail to be shocked by the litany of deliberate neglect. Will the Minister confirm whether forces’ housing is covered by the Bill? How can we expect local councils to provide veterans and their families with high-quality housing if the MOD cannot do the same for service personnel and their families? When will the Government lead by example?
Many of the veterans and families who contact me do so because of a lack of support from the DWP, but pension issues, including widow’s pensions, are out of scope of the Bill. Rectifying the situation that means payments awarded for injury or death as a result of service are treated as normal income for DWP calculations is out of scope of the Bill. In fact, the most pressing and difficult issues for veterans all seem to be out of scope.
The risk is that the Bill, according to the Legion, will create a “two-tier Covenant”, under which some matters may be pursued but others are covered only in an annual report. For local authorities, the Bill is supported by a promise of additional funding, which will be key when providing resources. Involved parties only having a duty “to give regard” to personnel and veterans means that there will be a lack of enforcement. The Bill does not put the armed forces covenant properly into law, nor does it guarantee no disadvantage in access to services. It has taken 10 years to get this far; surely we can do better.
The SNP supports a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look to the militaries of Germany, Norway, the USA, Belgium, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland, which all benefit from armed forces representative bodies. Such a body should be considered to ensure that our personnel can participate in services that cater for their needs. I have heard lazy arguments from the Government Benches that we could not possibly countenance such a body, as it would undermine the chain of command or could encourage strike action. However, we already have such a body in the Police Federation, which does not allow strikes and does not impact on the chain of command, but it gives voice to those it represents.
Such a federation for the armed forces could negotiate terms and conditions, including establishing a clear career progression structure, the expectation of options for flexible career paths, and guarantees on salary, conditions and pensions. It could be an advocate for personnel to have access to housing that is of a decent standard and is appropriate for their personal circumstance. Such an organisation would substantively fulfil the objectives of the covenant. Despite the lazy arguments, I believe the real reason for Government resistance is that it would give our forces and veterans a real voice.
The Scottish Government have taken their own initiatives in a number of areas. On housing, they offer funding from the affordable housing programme to deliver additional homes for disabled ex-service personnel. They have worked with stakeholders to develop a veterans homelessness prevention pathway. On recruitment and employability, the Scottish Government have sought to help personnel by encouraging skills development and putting military experience to use in the civilian world. They have offered service leavers fixed-term appointments in the Scottish Government. On education, Skills Development Scotland has established a pilot to retrain Scottish veterans and to address skills gaps in the nation’s cyber-security workforce. On health, the Scottish Government have committed to ensuring that all personnel and veterans can access the best possible care, and they have provided funding to Combat Stress and Legion Scotland for befriending and mental health first aid training.
There is always more we can do, but the UK Government should aim to mirror such examples of good practice. Although the Minister would not commit to armed forces champions in local authorities in England, it is notable that in Scotland every local authority already has a veterans champion.
Finally, getting back to the Bill, our issues lie in two areas: its lack of teeth and its lack of scope. There is no one in this place who does not want to improve our offerings to the armed forces, but without the ability to enforce, this Bill will sadly fall short. That said, we will support the Bill this evening, and we look forward to engaging with it as it progresses through Committee. I hope that this time the Minister will be open to accepting amendments.
Covid-19
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, and repeat what I have said several times. I cannot believe that it will be until the end of March that the House has to wait before having a new vote and a new discussion on the measures that we have to take.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
We have had Christmas on, Christmas off; schools in, schools out; eat out to help out; and stay at home. It is simply impossible to decipher the Prime Minister’s covid strategy. Given that the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging strains is not yet known, can he assure us that his strategy is not based on vaccines alone? To get our schools back, can he assure us that teachers will be a priority for vaccines, and can he detail his long-term covid exit strategy?
The Prime Minister
Possibly the best thing I can say in answer to that question is to repeat—and it is very, very important to repeat this—that we have no evidence that any strain of the virus is vaccine resistant. It is very important that the hon. Lady should express full confidence in the vaccine programme, which will be indispensable to our way out of this crisis.
Oral Answers to Questions
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Let me be crystal clear: the law is absolutely clear on this. Anyone can inspect copies of the current register under supervision. The register is a public document to enable concerned citizens, such as those he refers to, to check that registers only include those who are properly eligible. I will, of course, look into the matter that he raised, because we want clarity on this very important point.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee first considers whether there are exceptional circumstances that merit a review. The criteria for historical recognition are the exposure of deployed personnel to a significant degree of risk to life and limb and to arduous conditions, in excess of what might be expected as part of normal service duties.
Carol Monaghan [V]
The UK is the only country that performed nuclear tests that has not formally recognised the contribution of its 20,000 nuclear test veterans. These elderly veterans, who were exposed to ionising radiation with no protection, have heard decades of rhetoric about their bravery, but without formal recognition, those are simply hollow words. Members on both sides of the House know that these veterans deserve a campaign medal, but his Department continues to refuse that modest request. Why does the Minister consider these veterans unworthy of a medal?
Johnny Mercer
I am afraid that there were a number of inaccuracies in the hon. Member’s question. It is not my Department, and we are not the only country in the world that has this view. Only this summer, I met the chairman of the veterans group concerned and asked Veterans UK—this is separate from the medallic recognition scheme—to revisit and redesign the support available to our nuclear test veterans. I understand the disappointment at this decision. It is not within my gift. My job is to make sure these people are looked after properly. I am confident we are doing that. Again, I am happy to meet campaign groups to see what more we can do.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. May I take this opportunity briefly to thank him for the work he has undertaken as vice-chairman of the all-party group on coronavirus and the work he continues to do on the NHS frontline. He has shown real leadership in the fight against this dreadful virus. He is absolutely right that we need to improve procurement. The procurement Green Paper published earlier this week is a part of that, but I hope to work with him and others on the frontline to ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care does even better in the future.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
That is not the real reason at all. This is a very clear process that is rightly outwith the control of Ministers. There is an independent committee that looks at medallic recognition. They have looked at this again and come to the decision that they have. It would be worthwhile funnelling energies into how we look after this special cohort of people. This decision does not diminish their service in any way and, again, I am happy to meet both the hon. Lady and the chairmen of the campaign groups to make sure that we are doing all we can to look after those who have served.
Covid-19: Winter Plan
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely, and I thank Dr Andrew Wilson and the Cheshire clinical commissioning group, and Dr Alistair Adey from the Tarporley health centre, for everything they have done. GPs will obviously play a crucial role in this vaccination programme, as they do in all vaccination programmes, and they have been backed with £150 million to prepare.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Household mixing in a major vector for covid, so unless the Prime Minister has negotiated a ceasefire with the virus, the only mixing we should be considering over the next six weeks is our Christmas drinks. Does the Prime Minister have an exit strategy, or is he content to accept a certain level of risk through household mixing?
Oral Answers to Questions
Carol Monaghan Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and I congratulate her on her campaign for the people of Dover. I can tell her that, thanks to her lobbying, Highways England is now developing plans to improve Brenley Corner junction and access into Dover along the remaining single-carriageway sections of the A2 from Lydden.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I hesitate to accuse the hon. Lady of not listening to what I have just said, but I want to repeat that the furlough is a UK-wide scheme that will, of course, continue to be available to the people of Scotland. For any further elucidation of the details of the entire package of support that this Government are putting in place for the people of the entire UK, I direct her to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say tomorrow.