Afghanistan

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

In preparation for today’s debate, I put out an all-stations call to my constituents to establish their opinions. By Jove, they have many questions about what has happened.

Today, we need to focus on what we do next. We must do all we can to assist those Afghan people who supported the British effort and who are now at risk of retribution, namely the thousands of interpreters still waiting to leave. It would be optimistic to assume that the air bridge will remain open much longer. I urge the Government, as others have, to ramp up the substantial efforts already being made to maximise this brief window of opportunity. I, too, commend the Secretary of State for Defence for his tireless work over the past few days. However, despite the need for expedience, we must ensure that our national and border security is upheld and prepare for an influx of refugees. These are areas of concern to my constituents.

The Defence Committee has just undertaken an inquiry into the experiences of women in the military and of female veterans. It saddens me immensely that we will now see the re-emergence of the oppression of Afghan women, nowhere more so than the oppression of women upholding democracy in the military, media and Parliament. I urge the Government to consider them with preference in the citizens’ resettlement scheme. I have been talking to many fellow veterans, as we all have, and unilaterally they hold a deep and fresh grief for the loss of service lives in Afghanistan. I want to reassure them that for those who served and made that sacrifice, that meant that terrorists were denied the ability to launch attacks on and in Britain, and for that we are eternally grateful.

Of the 457 service personnel who were killed, 32 were from Wales, including Guardsman Shadrake from Wrexham—the anniversary of his death was yesterday. Two thousand, two hundred were physically wounded, and countless are left with mental scars. We must do all that we can as a society and as a Parliament to support those people. Finally, I would like to name the four service personnel from my old corps, the Intelligence Corps, who made the ultimate sacrifice: Sarah Bryant, James Brynin, Jabron Hashmi and Oliver Thomas.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

It is with honour that I rise to pay tribute to His Royal Highness The Prince Philip on behalf of my constituents. Of course, the Duke of Edinburgh was also Colonel-in-Chief of my corps, the Intelligence Corps, and I would like to concentrate on his military career.

We think of the Duke of Edinburgh as a dashing naval officer. Many might regard him as having been privileged and certain to succeed in life, but that was not the case. His young life was unstable and fraught with difficulties. His father was nearly executed, his family was exiled, his mother—profoundly deaf—was sent to a sanatorium, and his sister was killed in a plane crash. He did not have it easy, but in his own words,

“One just gets on with it.”

The Duke of Edinburgh served at sea throughout world war two, from the Arctic to the Pacific—five years in harm’s way. Following the night action at the battle of Cape Matapan in 1941, he was mentioned in dispatches, still only a midshipman—an officer under training. That showed his unwavering resolve, which he continued through the rest of his service to the Queen, the country and the Commonwealth.

There has always been a close relationship between the royal family and the Royal Navy. The Queen’s father, George VI, was a gunnery officer on HMS Collingwood at the battle of Jutland. He, too, was mentioned in dispatches. Two of the Duke’s sons followed him into the Navy. Indeed, my husband, Nick—yet another dashing naval officer—served alongside Prince Andrew, both Lynx pilots in the 815 Naval Air Squadron.

The Duke of Edinburgh’s life of service is an inspiration to generations of men and women in all three services. His is an incredible story of service; of duty to the Queen and his adopted country; of a life lived to the full; of a legacy of steadfastness; and of an unshakeable sense of duty but also a sense of fun, no nonsense and candour.

The 1944 “Royal Navy Officer’s Pocket-Book” suggests that a Royal Navy officer should learn that the

“art of command is…to be the complete master, and yet the complete friend of every man on board; the temporal lord and yet the spiritual brother of every rating; to be detached and yet not dissociated.”

Without exception, His Royal Highness commanded that recommendation. We saw that in his innate ability to connect with all rank and file, from sea lord to sapper. He shared a unique understanding and relationship with all who served. He cared deeply and understood the values, standards and demands that military service places on our armed forces. He was one of us. He will be sorely missed by the military family, and our thoughts and prayers are with Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family at this time.

Many of us in the House who swore in the military to serve our Queen and country have lost a role model—a man with a sense of duty and service, whose desire was to see every young person achieve their best through personal challenge, discipline and resilience. My hope is that, out of the sadness of his passing, we can have conversations like those we are having today, which tell the stories of his life and service and which will inspire future generations of Royal Navy recruits.

On behalf of the Royal Navy veterans in Wrexham, I would like to end with these words: Fair winds, calm seas, stand easy Sir, your watch is done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

What steps the Government are taking to deliver civil service jobs outside London.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

What steps the Government are taking to deliver civil service jobs outside London.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

What steps the Government are taking to move civil service jobs from London to Lincolnshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Thanks to my hon. Friend, I never give Clacton anything other than serious consideration. Clacton, Frinton and the communities that he so ably represents contain talented people who have a contribution to make, and of course we will do everything possible, not necessarily by relocating civil service departments to that part of Essex, but by ensuring that there are opportunities through apprenticeships and the civil service fast stream, to ensure that talented young people in Essex have an opportunity, like him, to serve.

[Sarah Atherton [V]]

The Minister may know that Hollywood has bought into Wrexham football club, and seeing as our American friends are investing in Wrexham, may I ask the Government to consider doing likewise? We already have the much welcome promise of office relocations to the north of England, so will he make such a commitment to north-east Wales? Will he consider Wrexham, the gateway to Snowdon, with its skilled workforce, business-minded council and easy transport links to Liverpool, Manchester and London, as a candidate for some levelling-up relocation?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for Wrexham, and an economic renaissance is taking place across north Wales from Dolgellau to Wrexham, ably assisted by the brilliant advocacy of new Conservative MPs such as my hon. Friend and her colleagues. The Government want to get behind that, not just by ensuring that our new levelling up fund can provide additional resources for local authorities and businesses in north Wales, but by ensuring that we can have senior decision makers relocated to north Wales—whether that is in Wrexham, Bangor, Prestatyn, Rhyl or other locations that are still to be decided. Of course, the case that she makes for Wrexham is a formidable one, and one that has been heard in the Cabinet Office and, indeed, in No. 10.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

This deal will be welcomed by businesses on both sides of the Atlantic because it will hopefully bring an end to harmful tit-for-tat tariffs. I agree with my hon. Friend, but to add to the point, the rest of the United Kingdom continues to be Scotland’s largest market for exports. It accounts for more than 60% of all Scotland’s trade.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential opportunities for Scotland arising from COP26.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential opportunities for Scotland arising from COP26.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)]

The Secretary of State has regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the opportunities COP26 offers Scotland, including through the COP26 Devolved Administrations Ministerial Group. The group brings together the COP President, territorial Secretaries of State and Ministers from the devolved Administrations to support the delivery of an inclusive and welcoming COP26 summit in Glasgow.

[Sarah Atherton [V]]

Over the past year, many of our national celebrations have been curtailed due to covid. Companies that have accrued decades of specialist event management skills have been severely compromised and risk collapse. However, COP26, with its opening and closing ceremonies, offers the opportunity to showcase the splendour, heritage and culture of our four nations, our one Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that events companies and charities, such as the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, have all that is required to show the world what a good Scottish hooley looks like?

[David Duguid]

I completely agree with that last point. Certainly, the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, if you have not seen it yourself, Mr Speaker, is a sight to behold. We are working closely in partnership with the Scottish Government and a range of partners to assess the implications of covid-19 for COP26. We want to showcase the best of the UK at COP26 and have recently concluded a process for stakeholders to express their interest in being involved in UK Government-managed spaces to support our objective of making COP26 inclusive and representative of the whole United Kingdom.

Armed Forces Bill

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) [V]]

As a veteran and an advocate for our armed forces, I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate and to recognise this Conservative Government’s commitment to make the British military the best in the world and to make Britain the best place to be a veteran. I congratulate the Minister on the significant progress that has been made to improve the lived experiences of veterans and their families. I know that his determination to improve their support is matched by the progress he has made on the armed forces covenant.

This Bill enshrines in law the principles of the armed forces covenant. Local authorities will now need to demonstrate due regard to veterans to ensure that the principles of the covenant are upheld. It places a legal duty on councils to meet veterans’ needs, which can now be done in a locally responsive way. Some councils, including Wrexham County Borough Council, have appointed an armed forces champion and are proactive in identifying support services. However, some councils are not so focused, and a requirement in the Bill for councils to appoint a champion would be welcomed.

The scope of the Bill includes housing, health and education. For a veteran living under a devolved Administration, the ownership of these services lies with that Administration—in Wales, with the Welsh Labour Government. However, the Bill does not place a legal duty on the Welsh Government to make them accountable for what they do or do not deliver. The devolved Administrations should be involved, have ownership and be subject to scrutiny on how they support veterans, in line with the legal duty being placed on Welsh local authorities.

There are over 1,800 armed forces charities serving approximately 6.3 million personnel, veterans and families across the UK. A UK-wide charity called Blesma has supported limbless and blinded veterans since world war one. It is quietly doing excellent work. It has highlighted the trouble with veterans receiving timely service when they move between the charitable sector and NHS Wales, specifically around the issue of pain management. Some Welsh veterans find themselves with no other option than to travel from Wales to King Edward VII’s Hospital in London in order to receive adequate pain treatment. Surely this is not acceptable.

The Defence Committee currently has a sub-Committee looking at the experiences of women in the military and female veterans. Evidence sessions are running until Easter, and the Secretary of State for Defence has been supportive in allowing us to engage with serving personnel.

I would like to see more women recruited in our armed forces. Many women have a positive military career and recommend it to others, as do I. However, preliminary findings suggest that six out of 10 women who experience in-service harassment, bullying or intimidation, usually of a sexual nature, do not report their complaint because they have no faith in the service complaints system. They feel that it proves counter-productive to their careers and, in some cases, affects the rest of their civilian lives. This needs to change. The service justice system review—the Lyons review—has made a number of recommendations to improve this area, and I am pleased that they have been integrated within the Bill. However, there is still debate on the issues of murder, manslaughter and rape, and I take note of clause 7 on concurrent jurisdictions. I know that Ministers are working hard to address certain issues. I look forward to hearing that kit such as body armour will soon be designed to fit women and that the veteran ID cards are on their way, working on the back of the very successful veterans’ railcard.

I support this Bill, which, with the pending integrated review and corresponding defence White Paper, will set out a positive blueprint for our military and veterans, and defence sector, going forward.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

The Government have rightly identified that there is a problem, and there is a need to provide greater legal protections to armed forces personnel and veterans serving overseas, but they have drafted legislation that makes the problem worse. I urge all Government Members to look beyond the rhetoric and the political spin, read the actual legislation before them and consider these amendments and new clauses carefully before voting tonight to put our armed forces and our veterans at a disadvantage.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who is a fellow patron of the women’s veterans charity Salute Her, part of Forward Assist and the only other female who sits with me on the Defence Committee.

In consideration of new clause 1, I remind the House why the Bill is necessary. The Government of the day sent the British military into operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for over a decade after, these troops were hounded by lawyers, chasing the money and putting our troops through hell once again. So prolific was this hunt that it was given the name “lawfare”, and it is this lawfare that we seek to address.

Over the past few months, I have spoken to a significant number of serving personnel and veterans about the Bill. What sticks in my mind are five soldiers who specifically told me about their experiences of being investigated through Operation Northmoor and the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. All were vexatious claims and four left the service as a direct consequence of their treatment—exemplary soldiers all feeling let down and betrayed. All five believe the Bill would have protected them in some form, and they all welcome its introduction.

Retention is a big challenge for the military, especially the Army. In the British military, we train soldiers to the highest standard. Their professionalism and capabilities are renowned across the globe, but the military is a bottom-up organisation. Someone cannot enter the Army as a regimental sergeant major. Promotion comes from within the ranks. We have lost many to this lawfare and even worse is the feeling that service personnel and veterans are not valued. There have been over 4,000 lawfare compensation claims made against personnel, and only one went to prosecution. Just think about that litigious process and what it did to the remaining 3,999 people’s mental health and wellbeing and the impact on their families, and it was allowed to happen.

Opponents of the Bill suggest that it protects soldiers from prosecution against war crimes and crimes against humanity, and I support the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) regarding the Geneva convention. The Bill offers no such protection. The service personnel I have spoken to are unanimously affronted by the suggestion that they want and would be protected by such an Act. They find the mention of blanket immunity abhorrent.

I cannot miss out on the opportunity to mention Northern Ireland. More service personnel died in those troubles than in Iraq and Afghanistan put together, and I have already received ministerial assurances, but I urge the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland to expedite this provision for those veterans who served.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady brings up a pertinent point. Obviously, the Bill provides protection, but there does not seem to be the same protection for soldiers who served on Operation Banner, the greatest operation in British history. Does she feel that this protection should be extended to those who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner, so that they have the same protection as they would have if they had served in Afghanistan or Iraq?

[Sarah Atherton]

I am just about to say that they, too, should be afforded certainty that the unique operational pressures placed upon them will be taken into account. Prosecution decisions are made on alleged historical offences, and I understand that there will be some debate in this House on that matter.

I have spent the past few weeks scrutinising the Bill line by line in the Public Bill Committee, along with a number of other Members. Is the Bill perfect? No, it is not, but it is infinitely better than where we are now. No Bill or Act will ever suit all people in all circumstances, but which group would object to this Bill the most? It is the group who would lose out the most: the unscrupulous human rights lawyers. Service charities welcome the Bill, although I acknowledge that they have some reservations. But all service personnel and veterans want to be and should be supported by the Government, their politicians and their people. After all, they are prepared to, and do, put their lives at risk for us, and this is the duty of care these service personnel want. This Bill goes some way in offering that support, and I welcome it.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to you for the opportunity to take part in this debate, Mr Speaker. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) indicated, it bears a remarkable similarity to the one we had on Second Reading, because, it would appear, of how matters were proceeded with in Committee. That is unfortunate, because on Report the House is charged with the more detailed scrutiny of the sort we would normally expect to have and the Bill will be the poorer for its lack. I have listened with care and attention, occasionally trying to intervene, but I am struck by the fact that so many of those who speak in favour of the Bill continue to do so on the basis of seeking somehow to limit civil claims being brought against the Ministry of Defence.

The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) spoke about lawfare and made a good point; I speak as a distantly former solicitor and the behaviour she refers to was disgraceful. However, the way to deal with such utterly disgraceful behaviour lies with the regulatory authorities for the legal profession; it is not necessarily for this House to start driving a coach and horses through the important protections we all enjoy, which ultimately benefit most of our armed forces personnel. I do not understand why part 1—an interference with the prosecution and the creation of a presumption against prosecution in criminal cases—will make any difference to the spectacle we saw in relation to lawfare.

Let me deal briefly with the provisions tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). His suggestion in new clause 1 is sensible: judicial oversight of some sort for investigatory processes in the context where, as we all know, it is difficult to come by evidence, because it has to come from a theatre of conflict. That sort of protection is sensible, and it is unfortunate that the inadequacy of our proceedings today will not allow his proposal the sensible scrutiny and debate it deserves.

However, I wish to focus the bulk of my remarks on amendment 1, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). For me, the operation of the presumption against prosecution in relation to torture is the most egregious aspect of this Bill. I suspect that if we could sort that—I am pretty certain that it will be sorted when the Bill goes to the other place—then we could probably fairly easily build a consensus around the Bill: the sort of consensus that, by and large, we manage to achieve most of the time in relation to the conduct of and support for our armed services.

I was struck by what the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said about the various protections that he claims are within the Bill and how that would still make it possible to bring prosecutions in the exceptional circumstances envisaged by its authors. There is some merit in his proposition, but it did occur to me that if these provisions are adequate for torture, they should also be adequate for protections against sexual offences—but sexual offences are carved out in schedule 1 expressly because they should never be countenanced under any circumstances. It is absolutely right that they should be carved out in schedule 1 for those reasons, but it is for those reasons that torture should also benefit from the same sort of exemption that we have seen in respect of sexual offences.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden touched on Belhaj. I will say only this: let us remember that the Belhaj papers were only found, following the fall of Gaddafi, entirely by accident. That is how difficult it can sometimes be to obtain the evidence of torture.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

[The Chair]

[Mr Jones]

[Sarah Atherton]

[Sarah Atherton]

[The Chair]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

[Sarah Atherton]

[Sarah Atherton]

[Sarah Atherton]

[The Chair]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 8th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Can I just ask one question about the ombudsman?

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

I don’t mind, Mr Stringer.

[The Chair]

Okay. Just one. There might be time for further questions, because only Sarah is indicating that she would like to ask one at the moment.

[Mr Jones]

Q The ombudsman can look backwards. We heard Major Campbell the other day; even though he had been completely exonerated, there was no ability to investigate why he was treated the way he was. Do you think it would help those individuals who have gone through very poor service—in his case, it was 17 years of hell, by the sound of it—to have recourse to the ombudsman to have that investigated, to at least get some answers as to why things were actually happening?

Lieutenant Colonel Parker: I would say a strong yes, because in all the incidents I have seen where it has gone wrong, if the individual concerned knew that there was some way that an independent person would be able to investigate them, they may have been less likely to think that they could get away with it; it is often individuals acting fully in the knowledge of what they are doing because they can get away with it. Personally, based on my experience, I would say yes to that.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, the Tigers, was caught up in the battle of Danny Boy. As an association representative, can you give the Committee a sense of what the soldiers and families went through during those vexatious claims? There have been high-profile cases of Brian Wood and Scott Hoolin, whom I assume you know all about. Can you give us a sense of what they went through during these vexatious investigations?

Lieutenant Colonel Parker: I will, and if it helps you, I would prefer to answer that in the broadest terms, rather than focusing on individual cases, to avoid causing them any further distress. Obviously, a lot of the things we talk about are very confidential, and a lot of them are very tearful.

With that incident and the aftermath, once it started to break out that there was going to be some sort of investigations, and the manner of those investigations, there was certainly a feeling of horror and almost terror that swept through people, because they realised, “When will this stop?” It was a particularly brutal engagement, and it was cited, as the Committee probably knows, as being along the lines of second world war bayonet fighting-type engagement—incredible bravery but also incredible stress. One of the individuals I know—a large, strong, tough individual—was in tears in my arms, explaining that he had enough to deal with coping with having had to kill several people, and now he would have to deal with the fact that he might be court martialled for it. He just could not understand it.

We have to remember, again, that the individuals concerned are not people who are able to sit and pick through legal documents, nor understand them. Whether we ask the most vulnerable or tough people in our society to go forward and do these extremely tough and brave point-of-the-spear jobs, such as combat roles, we must remember that we have a duty of care to protect them from anything—intellectual or otherwise—that might affect them later in their distress.

In answer to your question about the families, that whole inquiry, and certainly that incident, were the largest single point of family distress that I have witnessed in my entire military service or veteran chairmanship of five years. That amount of distress was not only for those who were being prosecuted, but for their spouses, partners, mothers, fathers, others, and children in some cases—those who knew that the veteran had been involved not only in that incident but in others—because there was immediate presumption that there would soon be a knock on the door or a letter popping through the door for some sort of summons, so the stress levels, the distress and the impact snowballed to quite a large level. It was very hard to put a lid on that stress because that is what happened: letters did start to arrive and people did get knocks on the door, so it became a very distressing time.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Thank you for talking in general terms. How would the Bill have changed their experiences?

Lieutenant Colonel Parker: There are two parts to that. First, we would have at least had something to be able to say back, “No, no. There is protection here.” Whether it was a six-year limit or inside that is, of course, a different point. At least there would have been something there to say that.

We must remember that in parliamentary terms, it can be easy to understand it as a Bill about legal process. In the veterans sense, it is much more simple than that. It is simply understood as: the people, the public, the nation, does not want to do this to people who have stood on the wall and had to fight for freedom. They do feel that a Bill like this would allow those of us who are able to soothe and reassure to say as a result, “It’s okay. The country does care; Parliament does care.” Therefore, every effort is being made, which is why we admire what you are trying to do to close the gaps that have allowed those things to happen.

[The Chair]

I cut you off Kevan. Do you have another question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

Q Not all of those were investigated.

Judge Blackett: What I am saying is that the fact that there is a presumption against prosecution would not stop the knock on the door and the investigation. That is the whole point. The presumption against prosecution does not stop the investigation; the investigation happens. The 80-year-old who is alleged to have done whatever he has done would still get the knock on the door. He would still be investigated. Once there was sufficient evidence against him, it goes to the prosecutor. If there is not sufficient evidence, the investigation stops. If there is sufficient evidence, it goes to the prosecutor, who then has the five-year presumption against prosecution. The 80-year-old is still going through all the trauma, and it may be that the police say, “This is such a serious case that it is exceptional, and therefore we should waive the presumption against prosecution.” This Bill will not address that question. That is the whole point.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Given that you were the Judge Advocate General in 2010 when IHAT and Operation Northmoor were established, were you consulted or involved? Did you have any jurisdiction on their functioning?

Judge Blackett: No, because that was very much an investigation function. It has changed a bit because of what I have done with the system, but at that time I was effectively waiting for the investigation to happen and the prosecution to come to us. The judge becomes involved when the case first steps into the courtroom. That may take another two years, even after it has stepped into the courtroom, because of whatever has to happen. I was not consulted, no, and nor should I have been at that stage.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Do you not think you would have had the responsibility—perhaps moral if not professional—to raise any alarms or concerns you may have had?

Judge Blackett: I constantly raised concerns with the DSP that this was all taking too long and that they ought either to get rid of it or get to court. I did that.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q And you were ignored, I take it.

Judge Blackett: I was reassured that the investigations were taking time, more evidence was needed, some cases were coming, and I needed to keep out of it so that when the cases came I could deal with them.

There was one other point that I wanted to make, which is about complementarity—not with the ICC. I would pose some questions, particularly to the Minister. You will remember that six Royal Military Police were killed at Majar al-Kabir in 2003. If those responsible were identified today, would we accept that there would be a presumption against their prosecution? Would we expect the factors in clause 3(2)(a) to be taken into account? Would we be content that a member of the Iraqi Government’s consent would be needed to prosecute? Would we accept a decision by that person not to prosecute? In my view, there would be outrage in this country if that occurred. In all areas of law, you have to be even-handed. If, in that same battle, it turned out that one of our soldiers killed one of the Iraqis unlawfully and we said, “Well, he should be protected, because it was a long time ago, but we not protecting these Iraqis,” that is just not right. I fundamentally think the Bill is wrong, and I really believe it needs to be revised before it passes into law.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Judge. That neatly turned around the normal procedure—instead of the Committee asking you questions, you are asking the Committee questions. The Committee has come to the end of its questions. May I thank you on behalf of the Committee for the very interesting and valuable evidence that you have given to us? That brings us to the complete end of our oral evidence sessions with different witnesses. We will meet again on Wednesday next week to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill. We will be meeting at 9.25 am in Committee Room 10.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Third sitting)

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 8th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

The proposals for next year are to bring the armed forces covenant into law. Do you believe that a legally binding covenant and this Bill would be compatible under English law?

General Sir John McColl: We are in consultation with the Government at the moment in relation to bringing the covenant into law. We have raised a number of issues with them, which the Minister who is sitting with you is very well aware of. Charles can support me here in terms of the concerns we have.

The first concern is that initially there was no mention of special consideration, in other words, for those who had given the most—those who had suffered bereavement or very serious injury. I understand that may now be in it. There was also a concern that it was limited, in that it dealt with three specific areas rather than the totality of the covenant. We continue to have concerns in that area, and we also have concerns that it seems to focus the effort on local government rather than central Government. Those are our major concerns. I am not sure whether I have answered your question, but those are the concerns that we have. We will be watching the consultation and participating in it.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

Q Charles, on Second Reading, three times I heard Opposition Members say that the British Legion is categorically against the Bill. I have heard it once in this Committee already. Can you confirm? Are you against the Bill?

Charles Byrne: No, we are not opposing the Bill. We think the Bill can be improved, which is why we are focusing on this particular element in the second part of the Bill. To be categorical, no, we are not opposing the Bill.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q I am glad to hear that. Every Bill will never suit every person in every circumstance—that is just not possible—but would you not agree that the Bill makes great advancements to protect our veterans?

Charles Byrne: We certainly welcome the intent behind what we see the Bill is trying to do in, as the general said, trying to reduce pernicious, vexatious claims. However, we are looking to say, “Can we achieve those aims without disadvantaging service personnel?” If we can do both, both should be done.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Just going back to my point, a Bill will not cover every person in every circumstance, but this has to be a lot better than where we are now.

Charles Byrne: Is that a way of saying that there is not the appetite to try to address those who would fall out of the Bill?

[Sarah Atherton]

Q No, I am not saying that at all.

Charles Byrne: The answer is the same: if there is good being done, we should aim to make that good go as far as possible and not exclude those who would be excluded by the six-year longstop allowing for the date of knowledge.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q The six-year longstop, the point of knowledge or diagnosis—that is the only concern that the British Legion has?

Charles Byrne: That is the concern that we have brought forward, yes. If that can be addressed through further consultation work, that would be a good development.

[Sarah Atherton]

Thank you, Charles. By the way, your new TV poppy appeal is very good. I saw it this morning.

Charles Byrne: Thank you.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Q Could you give us examples of situations where individuals might fall out with this six-year limit?

Charles Byrne: In terms of specific examples, I cannot at the moment. I know from the sample size that was taken that there were, I think, 19 individuals or families who fell outside that. I do not have specific examples.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist]

Q Finally, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Defence Secretary recently made a speech in which they said that the distinction between war and peace is no longer clear-cut. In your view, how well equipped is the Bill to deal with the complexities of grey zone warfare?

General Sir Nick Parker: We operate in grey zone warfare anyway, so I imagine that the Bill and everything being discussed has been generated in that environment. My point is not whether the Bill addresses that, but that it does not address the core, which is the investigation, in black, white, grey—wherever it is. The emphasis appears to be on prosecution. In reality, it should be on what is happening in the investigative process, whether it is grey zone or not.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Hello General. To touch on one of Liz’s initial questions, please could you expand on your questioning of the legitimacy of the Bill and on why you think it works outside of international legal norms?

General Sir Nick Parker: I do not understand why sexual acts have been excluded, but not murder and torture. I do not understand why that distinction has been made and whether it undermines the fundamental credibility of the Bill. As I said at the beginning, I am not a legal expert, but I have been told by people whose views I respect that even putting in conditions for prosecution that separate your military from the normal process will be viewed with some suspicion by those who uphold international law more generally.

I have heard enough people whose views I respect telling me that they are concerned about the five-year time limit or time point; they are concerned about the exclusion of sexual offences; they are concerned about the triple lock and why it needs to be applied when our systems for prosecution are perfectly effective if the investigation is effectively carried out and properly presented. If that is the case, we will potentially be viewed by other countries as operating in a way that contravenes international norms.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Do your reservations also include the presumption against prosecution?

General Sir Nick Parker: Yes.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Is there any reason why?

General Sir Nick Parker: Because, surely, for those serious things, we should all be treated the same. There is no need to introduce an additional check. If all of us believe that on the frontline we all do our best in very difficult circumstances, that those who commit illegal acts must be dealt with, and that everybody else should be protected by an effective record-keeping and investigative service, why does anything need to be different?

[Sarah Atherton]

Q I suppose my answer to that is that I might go to Tesco and work behind a counter, or I might go to the frontline and put myself in front of a round. They are not equal.

General Sir Nick Parker: I think it less likely that you would commit murder at the Tesco counter. My view is that we train for those really difficult circumstances. You are talking here about acts that take place under the very watchful eye of an extremely rich chain of command. I believe that we therefore operate in an environment where we can uphold the rule of law in the way that it is presented to everybody else. Do not forget that we are operating under international law, the Geneva convention and the terms of the Armed Forces Act, which allows us the opportunity to operate in those very challenging circumstances.

[Sarah Atherton]

Under the International Criminal Court’s article 53, there is a similar provision where you can exclude from prosecution, as there is here with the presumption against prosecution. It is not exactly the same, but very similar, so I do not think we are deviating from international legal norms. I will have to disagree with you, but I thank you for your comments.

[The Chair]

I will call Carol Monaghan, and then come to Joy Morrissey and Mr Anderson.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Second sitting)

Sarah Atherton Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Thank you both very much.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

Q Hello, Emma. It is good to see you again. I am intrigued with what you just said. A blunt question to you: do you feel that the Bill is necessary?

Emma Norton: What is necessary is for what happened in the past never to happen again—definitely. I just do not think that the Bill will fix it, for the reasons I have given. I will not go over them again, but they go to the lack of willingness inside the MOD to look at those allegations at the time.

I think we are in a different place now. The MOD has learned a huge amount from all those errors. I would say that the MOD has learned from some of the litigation; there have been some very positive outcomes from that, and that is missing from the debate. I just do not think that the Bill fixes those problems sufficiently.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Are you concerned about the interface between the service justice system and, perhaps, the service complaints ombudsman and what role they could play—if you feel that the Bill could be improved?

Emma Norton: Hilary Meredith mentioned this morning that the ombudsman could have a role here. I think she was looking at whether some sort of compensation or ex gratia payment scheme could be made or some form of redress could be given to the soldiers subjected to this cycle of investigation. That was a really interesting idea. I know that, separately, the ombudsman is very under-resourced, so that would need a whole separate discussion as well.

The interplay with the service justice system is something you should ask the Judge Advocate General about when you speak to him later, because—obviously—he has huge amounts of experience of issues arising where somebody is not convicted of the main charge but is perhaps convicted of a lesser charge under the court martial.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Q Mr Al-Nahhas, how aware are troops that they can privately claim for their injuries?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Good afternoon. I think it is a feature of military claims that service personnel are largely unaware of their legal rights to bring a civil claim. I often find in my own practice—many of our members have also reported this—that they will, in fact, be misinformed of their legal rights. This may be because there is confusion in their chain of command. Indeed, we have heard of many cases in which the chain of command will misinform them and say that they should wait until the end of their service before bringing a civil claim, which usually means that they are out of time by the time they bring a claim. In other cases there is confusion between civil claims and the armed forces compensation scheme, which is a separate, no-fault scheme, which has a much longer period of time in which to apply—normally seven years. In answer to your direct question, I think they are very unaware and, in fact, a lot of the time they are misinformed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Q In terms of your experience of those claims and claims by individuals who are not from the MOD—low-flying claims and other negligence claims that are not to do with operations or the MOD, but related activities—have you any idea of how many we are talking about? Are they published anywhere?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: They do split them. I do not have them to hand, unfortunately, but they separate them out, so maybe you will glean more from that. I am sorry that I cannot assist further. My understanding is that the Bill will affect the vast majority of the civil claims that are brought against the Ministry of Defence, which are the employer’s liability claims. The main provisions that the MOD break them down into are non-freezing cold injury claims, which are a mainstay of civil claims that are brought, and are in relation to negligent cold exposures, and noise-induced hearing loss, in relation to negligent exposure to loud noises. The others relate to industrial disease—things like asbestos—and then they have a quota that is defined as “other”. With a freedom of information request, we may be able to dive a bit more into those statistics. I hope that helps.

[Sarah Atherton]

Q Mr Al-Nahhas, you are talking to the uninitiated here. I absolutely agree that litigation is a strong conduit for change. For families who feel that they have been unjustly treated, how do they fund claiming and who funds the litigators?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: That is a very good question. It depends on what they agree with their lawyer. In the industry, the norm is to provide something called a conditional fee agreement. Where you can establish that a claim has good prospects of success, you may, as a lawyer, offer a service person’s family, in relation to your example, a CFA, where you do not charge them unless you win. It is conditional on certain terms. These days, there are a lot of rules that regulate how much lawyers can charge. Normally, for example, and taking a rule of thumb, they cannot exceed the damages that you recover for the individual. In the past, there were fewer constraints on the extent of lawyers’ fees.

There are lots of lawyers out there who are specialists and who offer no win, no fee agreements to service personnel and their families. The only way that service personnel or their families may be required to pay legal costs normally is that they sometimes have to pay a chunk of their costs, related to what lawyers would define as unrecovered costs, which are things that they cannot recover from the Ministry of Defence, but as long as the claim is successful, in this context, it would be the Ministry of Defence that pays the lawyer’s bill. I hope that answers your question.

[Sarah Atherton]

Yes, thank you.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q If they are successful, what percentage is taken from the soldier’s claim, on average, for the solicitors?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: It depends on the terms offered by the lawyers. They can vary, typically between 15% and 25% of the damages that are recovered. There are certain caps, but that is typically what you might find in the industry.