Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I think it is a very good idea. I have to say that Shetland and Sutherland are benefiting from space investment as well as Cornwall. At this stage, I cannot make any firm commitment, but I do think that my hon. Friend has made a strong case for Cornwall.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]]

We know that hostile foreign actors are spending more money and following more sophisticated methods than ever before when it comes to sowing disinformation, including here in the UK. The latest data from both Facebook and Twitter tells us that in particular Iran and Russia are giving the United Kingdom and politics in the UK a lot of attention. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster arrange a briefing for Members of Parliament and political parties, on appropriate terms, with the security services, so that we can all better understand the threat and ensure the integrity of our political discourse and democracy?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point; when it comes to many foreign defence and security questions, his is a sane and sensible voice. He is absolutely right that all political parties should be made aware of some of the potential attempts to subvert our democracy. Therefore I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that the material that we can share is shared and that everyone is aware of what we need to do to defend our democracy.

Integrated Review

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. This is a big moment for us, because we can ensure that that these colossal investments do drive jobs and growth in this country, and that is what they are going to do. That is why I am so thrilled about the announcements for shipbuilding in particular, but this is not just about shipbuilding; it means new jobs in new technology in all kinds of ways across the whole country.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]]

I can only assume that Conservative Members are awfully punch drunk on the numbers, because what the Prime Minister has effectively done is to rip up the integrated review by announcing the spending before the review. Surely, the review is supposed to inform the spending. Let me ask him a specific question about a specific promise. At the last independence referendum, his party promised 12,500 armed forces personnel permanently based in Scotland. Will that promise be met by the time of the next independence referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very interesting question about a hypothetical political event that is at least a generation away. What I can say is that there is absolutely no threat to the Black Watch, to DFID in East Kilbride or to any of the other fantastic investments that this package brings to Scotland. It is a fantastic thing for our country and for our Union.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We must come to the winding-up speeches. I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am only sorry we did not get to hear the end of the speech by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).

I rise to support the new clauses, and to speak to amendment 32 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I want to begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who served on the Bill Committee, among other hon. Members who find themselves here this afternoon. I am afraid to say to hon. Members, particularly those who were with us on Second Reading, that very little has changed from what I said then. In fact, almost nothing has changed from what I said then and that is a great shame. It is the case, then as now, that senior legal, military and political opinion was united in consensus against the Bill. That has not changed. [Interruption.] That did not take very long, did it? The Minister should not worry; I will come to the points that he loves to chunter.

[Stuart Anderson]

It is not fair to say that opinion is united against the Bill. That is not factual from the evidence given to the Bill Committee.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Well, we will go through some of that evidence, shall we? We will go through some of the comments made by senior military, legal and political opinion that make it quite clear that what I have said is correct. I accept, of course, that there are differences of opinion within those fields, but it is the case, I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister chuntering at me from the sidelines, that senior military, legal and political opinion believes that the Bill is farcical in several respects. I will go through them in turn.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We cannot get more distinguished than the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, who was firmly of that opinion. The Minister did not perhaps listen, but the judge made his position about the Bill very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes, that is entirely correct. Or we could take the former Conservative Defence Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I think I said in the previous debate that he is not exactly known as a sandal-wearing, lentil-munching, Guardian-reading lefty hipster type, is he Mr Deputy Speaker? I suspect you know him way better than I do, although we have some experience of him in Scotland, of course. He is against the provisions in the Bill. So when the Minister chunters away that what I have said is incorrect, I am afraid what he needs is a mirror, because what he is saying is fundamentally incorrect.

It did not have to be this way. Back in that Second Reading debate, I said, along with others, that we would try to bring forward amendments to get a Bill we could support. But with every attempt to do so—we will see it again, I am quite sure—we have had the door slammed shut in our faces.

The Minister might win in the Lobby tonight, but for a man so convinced of his powers of charm and persuasion, he has failed to bring forward a Bill that the House can unite behind. Those who were here before the election, and who have been in the few defence-related debates we have had since, will know that, on defence matters—setting aside the nuclear question, certainly for myself—there is actually a lot of consensus in the House. So why is it that the one Minister who brings forward a Bill on issues of security, supporting the armed forces and the rule of law, where that consensus exists, has failed to get any Opposition Member to support him? It is his failure that the Bill will divide tonight, with one or two honourable exceptions, between Government and Opposition Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does the hon. Member share my worry that potentially putting our armed forces up against the International Criminal Court could be the beginning of a path to undermining the Court itself? It is quite easy to see a situation where British service personnel are investigated, and then Conservative Members start braying for us to leave the Court in its entirety.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

That is exactly the slippery slope I fear we are on. I hate the phrase “the thin end of the wedge”, but I am afraid that it rather fits where we are with this Bill and this Government. We have those senior opinions in military, legal and political circles against the Bill. That is before we get to the recent damning report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which made clear the number of flaws in the Bill.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), suggested that, were we to change our defence posture with regard to training or peacekeeping in supporting Ukraine, we could be subject to what he called “a Russian hand” trying to take legal action here—no doubt that Russian hand is a Tory donor. That is exactly the kind of thing that would see UK personnel further exposed to the International Criminal Court.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

No, I am going to wind up.

The Minister has to take that into account, but he has failed, and the failure is his alone. I do not want him to think that, when he gets his way tonight, the job is done. The job is not done. He has promised the House legislation to fix the investigation system. My goodness, I hope he will do a better job on that than he has done on this Bill.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

This is not a wind-up speech. We have had a good debate, with 23 Back-Bench contributions, some really good speeches and serious concerns about the Bill raised on both sides of the House. We are legislating, and I want to say to the Minister that it is wrong to see all criticism as opposition or all opposition as hostility. The Government never get everything right, especially with legislation, and no one has a monopoly on wisdom, especially Ministers. I say to him, it is wrong to dismiss anyone arguing for amendments to the Bill as ill informed or ill willed. There has never been a Bill brought to this House that could not be improved—this is certainly one of those. That is our job as legislators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

It is quite extraordinary the way that individuals carry on in this House. That is precisely why I became a Member of Parliament—because quite frankly the military were sick and tired of some of the warm words that come out of this place when actually the actions are what matters.

I thank the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee and my fellow members of the Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. As I said in Committee, we may not always agree, and that is to be expected, but I have listened to the views put forward, including those of Members who have spoken today. I hope that I will be able to address a number of the points raised and set out the Government’s position on the amendments chosen for debate.

On part 1 of the Bill, as I have said before, I fully recognise the importance of striking an appropriate balance between victims’ rights and access to justice. This has meant seeking to have a balance in the Bill. On the one hand, we are introducing protective measures that set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine that a case should be prosecuted and ensuring that the adverse impacts of overseas operations would be given particular weight in favour of the service personnel or veterans. On the other hand, we must ensure that in circumstances where our service personnel fall short of the high standards of personal behaviour and conduct that is required, they can still be held to account. That is one of the reasons why we have not proposed an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel and veterans as part of these measures—a claim again produced by Labour Members today. That is not true. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne can chunter from a sedentary position about what is in the Bill, but all that has been mentioned all afternoon is what is not in the Bill. It is literally a waste of everybody’s time. I see that Momentum has said this afternoon that we have forced Labour Front Benchers to vote against it. I was unaware that Momentum had any seats in the House of Commons, but clearly Labour Members are unable to think for themselves. However, that is a matter for them. We have also ensured that the measures are compliant with international law.

I recognise that alleged misconduct by service personnel is dealt with most effectively if individuals are investigated and, where appropriate, subject to disciplinary or criminal proceedings at the time of the conduct. Nobody should underestimate the often inordinate difficulty in delivering timely justice in relation to investigations of alleged historical offences. As we have heard in many oral evidence sessions, this can leave our service personnel with stress and mental strain for many years afterwards. There is a danger that if we fail to recognise that all the elements of the armed forces have come a long way from the beginning of the Iraq conflict, it looks like we are not continuing to learn and adjust. That is not true, which is why the Secretary of State has announced, in parallel with this Bill, a judge-led review of how allegations of wrongdoing on overseas operations are raised and investigated. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there. That is why it might be unintentionally disingenuous to suggest that nothing is being done, Madam Deputy Speaker.

A number of amendments are proposed to clause 6 and schedule 1. A number seek to exclude torture offences from the presumption, and we know what this is; I should make it clear again that there is no requirement in customary international law for a state to prosecute a war crime or other breach of the Geneva convention in all circumstances where it has sufficient evidence of the offence, irrespective of this clause. We believe that the statutory presumption, which still allows the prosecutor to continue to take decisions to prosecute, is consistent with our international obligations.

Similarly, amendments 1 to 10 seek to ensure that the offences in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to torture, and the relevant sections of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 in relation to offences of torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, should be excluded offences in schedule 1. I am very much aware that many people have misinterpreted the decision to exclude only sexual offences from the presumption against prosecution, including by suggesting that it somehow undermines the UK’s continuing commitment to upholding international human rights law and humanitarian law, including the UN convention against torture. As Opposition Members well know, that is completely untrue. The UK does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purposes, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Johnny Mercer]

I think I have put up with enough this afternoon; I will not take any interventions.

The Bill does not decriminalise torture or war crimes, and it will not encourage or allow our service personnel to act with impunity. We will continue to take other offences such as war crimes and torture extremely seriously. The severity of the crime and the circumstances in which it was committed will always be factored into the prosecutor’s considerations. I have previously explained the Government’s decision to exclude only sexual offences from the Bill, and I am not going to say it again.

I wish to discuss new clause 5, which seeks to amend part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by current or former service personnel. None of the measures in part 2 of the Bill will prevent service personnel, veterans or their families from bringing claims against the MOD in connection with overseas operations within a reasonable timeframe, which most have done historically. To exclude, as Opposition Members would want to me to, claims from service personnel and veterans from part 2 of the Bill would amount to a difference in treatment between categories of claimants, including the civilian personnel who deploy alongside service personnel on overseas operations. That would not be justifiable and it would likely be discriminatory. Therefore, in the interests of fairness to all claimants, claims from service personnel and veterans are not excluded. I am confident that these measures do not break the armed forces covenant. The new factors and limitation longstops apply to all claims in connection with overseas operations, and I have dealt with that point a number of times before.

I wish to say to colleagues that this House has a poor record on looking after those who serve. There comes a tangible moment, which the public can see and feel, when Members must cross the divide. In my experience, Members never tire in this place of warm words towards our armed forces or sombre reflections, particularly at this special time of year, as we run into remembrance weekend, but, as I said, there comes a moment, which the public can see and feel, when we must do better and match our words with action. This is that moment—one our predecessors have consistently failed, time and again, to seize. I am proud that this Government will move from warm words to actually dealing with how we look after those who have served. Gone are the days when this was an afterthought, and I pay tribute to this Prime Minister for his resolution to allow me to change this.

There are a lot of amendments that I am unable to speak to, but what I will say is that I have listened to all the contributions. I know that there is this kind of feeling that I do not listen and that I am not going to change the Bill. The reality is that I did not write the amendments—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

No, I am not giving way—I have suffered enough. The House has suffered enough at the hands of the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to all the points about the amendments, but I did not ,write them. I wrote the Bill and the Bill as it stands deals with the problem that we are trying to fix, and hon. Members fully know that. Imagine my surprise—the Al-Sweady inquiry has been picked out by Opposition Members, but they would not believe who was the Minister at the time of the Al-Sweady inquiry: the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). If Members are really going to contribute honestly with a debate that they know the answers to, it has to be done with the sort of standards, values and ethos that we expect our people to adhere to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I also thank the Clerks and the staff of the House who have worked on the Bill and the Library staff who have worked hard to ensure that Members are briefed properly. I want to mention Clorinda Luck, our own researcher, who has put a lot of work into this as well.

I echo much of what the shadow Secretary of State has said. We all wanted to solve the Phil Shiner problem. I do not think that any of us wants to see Phil Shiner mark 2, but this was not the way to do it. The Minister, with whom I enjoy these exchanges, has let himself down. He could have had a chance, as he said he wanted on Second Reading, to bring together all the Members of the House who wanted to solve the problem, and he did not accept one single amendment. On arithmetic, he might win this evening, but his powers of persuasion and politics clearly need a lot more polishing than he thinks. When this legislation comes forward on investigations next year, I hope that he will look back at the Hansard of this debate and at how he conducted the passage of the Bill and do it differently next time. He has good will in the House that I fear he has squandered irreparably, especially in the passage tonight. This Bill does not protect the armed forces; it risks them being dragged in front of the ICC. If he is happy with that as his legacy, that is for him to resolve, but it is not something that we can support. For that reason, we will be against the Bill in the Lobby tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What I can say is that we will unite and level up with infrastructure projects across our country. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his lobbying for that particular scheme and can tell him that last year we put £31 million into the Preston western distributor scheme, which is a new dual carriageway that will reduce congestion in Preston and lead directly to the creation of 3,000 houses and more than 500 jobs. As for further expansion of the M55, my hon. Friend will have to wait, but there will be further announcements in due course.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]]

Even before the pandemic began it was clear that the UK has one of the most manifestly inadequate systems of statutory sick pay in the world: we are second from the bottom in European terms, and it continues to shun millions of workers who are low earners, work in the gig economy or are self-employed. As we come back from the crisis in economic terms and make the workplace better, will the Prime Minister agree to work with those of us in the Opposition who want to see a [Inaudible.] system that is fit for the 21st century that can meet people’s needs?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course, statutory sick pay is an important part of the way we tackle the problems of self-isolation and all the issues faced by people facing coronavirus, but people also receive additional funds. Anybody looking impartially at what we are doing to support the people of this country throughout this epidemic will concede that the UK has done more than virtually any other country on earth to look after the people of this country, whether through the furloughing scheme, the bounce-back loans or anything else. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I should say I have also pledged that we are going to put in gigabit broadband across the whole of the UK, so that he can be heard more clearly in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

As the Prime Minister said, there will be “unfettered access” between Scotland and Northern Ireland and indeed the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on maritime security off the coast of Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)]

The Scottish Secretary and I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss a range of issues of importance to Scotland, including maritime security.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Not least because of the Minister’s own constituency, he will understand that there is an obvious breach point in the high north of Scotland for adversaries to come into, as has happened before. Can he assure the House that the Scotland Office will be engaging fully with the upcoming integrated defence review, and will he agree to meet me to discuss some of the issues that are important to him and to the rest of Scotland?

[Douglas Ross]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, and we can continue that discussion about the great investment by the UK Government into Scotland, and into Moray. Last week we welcomed the first of nine P-8A aircraft, the “Pride of Moray”, which touched down at Kinloss. That is a huge investment by the UK Government and Boeing, and I also put on the record the outstanding work done by local firm Robertson, in building the Poseidon facility.

UK Special Forces: Iraq and Afghanistan

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Given that there is extended time, I will perhaps—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Will Members leave quietly, please? We are still engaged in a debate.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that there is extended time, I will let Members rush out as quickly as possible because, as I am sure Government Front Benchers understand, these affairs are hugely important and deserve the proper attention and scrutiny of the House.

I should say at the outset that there is absolutely no joy in bringing this debate before the House this evening, but it is important. It follows, as the Minister knows, the joint investigation of The Sunday Times and “Panorama” of the role of special forces and UK personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. The investigation contained some of the most serious allegations, including allegations of war crimes that have been committed and subsequently covered up by members of the armed forces and perhaps even Ministers themselves.

I should lay out at the very beginning the high regard in which I and those on the Scottish National party Benches hold members of the armed forces. I can see two Defence Ministers on the Government Front Bench who already know that. The high regard in which we hold them is matched only by the high standards placed on them by the Government, on behalf of the British public, and rightly so. The Minister responding this evening knows that better than most.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I sought his permission to intervene. Does he agree that our British Army have served in the most difficult wars and conflicts and that their courage and bravery are never in doubt? Does he recognise that every soldier has been subjected to traumatic and stressful circumstances and that the MOD must ensure that every soldier receives the legal advice and help that they need?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to make that point, and I thank him for making it early. The two theatres of conflict in the title of this debate this evening—Iraq and Afghanistan—are two of the toughest. Indeed, he is also right to mention that members of the armed forces perform their duties in some of the most extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

It is entirely right, however, as the hon. Gentleman and I discussed before the debate, that standards are upheld. I know that the Government Front-Bench team agrees with that. It is entirely right that this House expects the Government to live up to what the Geneva conventions require. As I said to the Secretary of State earlier, in a different but not entirely unrelated statement, there should be an unforgiving quest for truth and to uphold rules and laws, but I shall return to that later.

In truth, these affairs can get uncomfortable for officials, for Ministers and for serving personnel, but it is entirely right and entirely appropriate that we grapple with them in the most forensic fashion, not least because of the Government’s announcement in the Queen’s Speech and long-held plans, of which the Minister who is to respond has been a champion, to change the rules around what can be investigated for Members who have served in Northern Ireland.

The joint investigation by The Sunday Times and “Panorama” was an extraordinarily important piece of investigative journalism. I am quite sure that all the Ministers on the Front Bench have furnished themselves with the details of it from top to bottom, and I thank those journalists and investigators who took the time to take part in it. Investigative journalism is important, especially in such affairs, as a mechanism in a democratic society to arrest any temptation to sweep over these matters or any temptation of a corrupting view setting in.

The important thing about the allegations that have been uncovered—hundreds of documents and statements —is that they were not made by what the former Prime Minister called ambulance-chasing activist lawyers. Nobody wants to see vexatious claims being made, but these allegations were made by serving members of the armed forces. They were made by military intelligence officers and Government-appointed detectives.

Even with the extended time we have this evening, it would not be possible to get into the detail of every case that was uncovered in that journalism, but I want to adumbrate some of the things that it brought to our attention: degrading and inhumane treatment; the unlawful killing of civilians; faulty intelligence; doctored and amended statements when affairs have been investigated, including by the Royal Military Police; and evidence of torture at Camp Stephen in Basra. Anyone who read that journalism or watched the “Panorama” programme could not fail to have been shocked by what appears to be a ruthless and co-ordinated effort to close down the investigations. As I mentioned, it will not be possible to go into all the details of the investigations this evening, but I am sure the Minister will understand that I may wish to follow up on some of the specifics with him in writing.

I plead with the Government in their entirety, not least the Minister who responds this evening, to be judicious in their response and in the handling of these affairs and to approach them with the seriousness they deserve.

There is also the case of the shooting of three boys and one young man in Afghanistan—shot in the head. The premise was that they were Taliban insurgents, but the joint investigation has told us that no such evidence was ever produced. That information was passed to the Service Prosecuting Authority, and a recommendation of war crimes charges was made. A cover up by military officials then ensued. Serious, serious questions about why these allegations appear to have been whitewashed in the way they have been need to be addressed.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, false information was knowingly given to the victims’ families. Two civilians died in Iraq under the care of the Black Watch, and their families were told that they died days after they were arrested. The families were told that they were in hospital, which was never the case. There was less than a week between those two cases. What looks like a co-ordinated effort to evade justice simply will not hold.

I talked to some Conservative Members earlier, and I was reminded that this stuff has a habit of coming back to bite if it is not dealt with properly. It may be that it comes back in the most serious fashion imaginable. I support Lord Ken Macdonald’s calls for these affairs to be reopened and investigated properly via a public inquiry led by a judge, but it could be that it ends up with the International Criminal Court. It is hard to think of a more seriously grave situation in which the Government could find themselves.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful statement, and I am sure all Members will take note of what he says. Does he agree this serves to highlight that we need some parliamentary mechanism to delve into and investigate such accusations and claims?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

It is almost as if the hon. Gentleman can see the notes in front of me, because I am coming to that exact point.

The allegations uncovered by the joint BBC and The Sunday Times investigation have to be taken out of the Government’s hands and given to an independent inquiry led by a judge. No honest person could disagree with that.

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important wider point, which is Parliament’s broader ability to hold special forces operations to account. That is woefully lacking in this country, and we are being outdone by the United States—the United States!—on the oversight of special forces. In this modern age, the public expect there to be proper parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. The system needs updating.

Clearly, there cannot be a free-for-all in which every single Member can access information on live special forces operations, as only a fool would suggest such a thing, but it cannot be beyond the House’s collective imagination, or beyond the collective imagination of the small group of Members, some of whom are unfortunately no longer with us, who regularly attend debates on defence, to propose a mechanism by which we can catch up with the United States—the US system is not perfect, but it is something—Denmark and Norway and have proper oversight of special forces operations.

Indeed, it has been mentioned before in the House by both the Labour Opposition and the Scottish National party, to great resistance from Conservative Members, that the time has come for us to introduce a proper war powers Act. I say to the Government that it is better to take this stuff on now and to have a serious parliamentary debate on the scrutiny efforts this Parliament can take forward before it ends up in the International Criminal Court—nobody wants to see that, but it may well be heading there. A failure to deal with this properly, to be judicious and sober in approaching these matters and to ensure that justice is done and the pursuit of the truth is absolutely unforgiving is nothing short of an assault on our values. It is worth remembering that the ICC was set up with the United Kingdom’s enthusiastic support, and rightly so. As I said, I do not want to see this end up in the ICC and I am sure that neither does the Minister. He has an opportunity to ensure that it does not.

Against a backdrop of assaults on the international rules-based order, which the Government tell us day in, day out they want to defend and uphold, surely we must respond to this mind-blowing investigation properly.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I detect that the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence wishes to intervene.

[Dr Lewis]

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, may I ask whether he feels that a mechanism similar to that of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which conducts investigations into matters relating to the intelligence agencies that cannot be discussed on the Floor of the House, might not be a slightly more appropriate response than the much wider aim of a war powers Act, with all that that would entail?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

It sounds to me as though I have an ally in the former Chair of the Defence Committee, because I think that part of the remit of the judge-led inquiry that I have advocated on the Floor of the House tonight should be to make a recommendation to the House on what mechanism the House or the Government bring to the House so that these operations can be properly scrutinised. The ISC would be an obvious outfit for that, although I know that other Members would perhaps disagree.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman makes three separate points. One is about having a war powers Act. I was a co-signatory, with Mr Tony Benn, 20 years ago, in a call for a war powers Act. That is one issue about the role of the House in approving conventional wars over and above article 5 responses—defensive actions.

Secondly, there is a question about the oversight of special forces operations. I have doubts on that, because of the cramping effect on our ability to respond flexibly to serious, non-full-war operations.

It is important to differentiate the third point, which is about the allegations—they are just that at the moment—that have been put by reporters and repeated by the hon. Gentleman. The proper response to those is through criminal actions; we need not an inquiry by this House, but proper investigation and proper criminal prosecution, independently by the authorities. All the soldiers I know —senior special forces soldiers, senior generals and operational officers in the field today—would welcome that, because no soldier wants to be fighting from the low moral ground. A British soldier wants to be fighting from the high moral ground, and in that at least we are in the same place.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman deeply for that intervention, as he is of course entirely correct. I would just come back to the second point he picked me up on, which was about oversight. Nobody wants to deny flexibility; clearly, there has to be an ability to respond. We discussed earlier how the US system is not perfect, but I do not think anyone can say that President Trump feels particularly inflexible as a result of the oversight mechanisms that exist on Capitol Hill. I am not suggesting we mirror those in their entirety, but the right hon. Gentleman is a great authority on these affairs and I think it is time—it is only my proposal at this stage—that if we have a judge-led inquiry that investigates these matters, part of its remit could be to make a recommendation to the Government and the House on the best means of moving forward for proper oversight that does not compromise flexibility and security, because nobody would want that.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is one thing to have oversight, but what if it does not change the culture of acceptable behaviour that has brought about this investigation? One thing that the House does consistently is reject the idea that members of the armed forces are employees—that has been objected to by Government Members on the Front Bench. Among those of us on the SNP Benches at least, there is an acceptance that if we want to change culture, we need to treat members of the armed forces as employees and give them a trade union.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend tempts me down another path entirely, and he knows I agree with him on that, but his broader point is entirely spot on. I know he has spent a lot of time looking at these matters over the past two and a half years that he has been a member of the Defence Committee, so he speaks with some degree of knowledge of them.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I have sympathy with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying—and, indeed, with what the former Chairman of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said—but my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made the point that this could be crippling, and one needs to balance it quite carefully. Let us not kid ourselves: our top soldiers do not go out wanting to commit war crimes. They go out in very confused, dynamic, frightening situations, operating with imperfect information, to take on people who would otherwise hurt our constituents. We need to keep that firmly in mind and not imagine that we have some great problem of crazy guys with unseasonal suntans running around killing people. That is clearly not the case.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman identifies an allegation that I have not made. That is important to remember, because I agree with what he just said. Of course members of the armed forces do not go out wishing to commit crimes and atrocities—of course they do not, and I do not allege that.

In response to what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said, I should say that the allegations—and they are just allegations—do not come from reporters. They are exposed by reporters but they come from members of the armed forces. The problem with what has happened, especially in the Afghan case—the shooting of three children and one young man—is that video evidence is available of what that soldier went into, in an extremely tough situation, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) mentioned, but that video evidence has been concealed from top members of the armed forces. It has been concealed from people for whom security clearance exists. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has watched the BBC “Panorama” programme but I strongly suggest that he does so. It has around 90 days left on the iPlayer, so there is plenty of time to do so.

We are clearly not going to resolve this issue and get into all the details tonight, but tonight has to be the start of a proper, judicious and sober parliamentary discussion to ensure that those on the Government Front Bench act appropriately. As I was saying, the assaults on the international rules-based system, which can change depending on who uses the phrase, are coming at us from all angles, so let us be the ones who say, “No more.” Let the Government come forward and do the right thing. Let the Government come forward and say, “This will be uncomfortable, but it is entirely right that we are held to the standards that we are supposed to be held to under international law; that we do have high standards for serving members of the armed forces; and that we will not put up with any concerted effort to cover this up.” Let us shine a light on this stuff.

Where there is a problem politically is that clearly vexatious claims have been made. I do not want to see that any more than the Minister does; in fact, I want to see it dealt with, but I want to see it dealt with properly. It cannot be used as an excuse to shut down any discussion or to close off any avenue of investigation into the deep, deep seriousness of what has been uncovered by the joint investigation.

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

Of course we know that the majority of our armed forces who have served in these theatres have served with integrity and honour at all times, but we did not support them in their integrity and honourable behaviour by failing to investigate these allegations. In fact, we must investigate, and the investigation must include an investigation of the victims. Until we do that—unless we properly investigate them—we do not properly support and we do not properly stand up here in this House and say that we can defend completely and utterly the actions of our armed forces.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Ultimately, the rules and the laws exist to protect serving personnel, as well as to protect those who are in the theatre of conflict to which they are deployed. The rules and laws are there to uphold the very honour to which we pay tribute in this Parliament.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will finish with this point.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government tell us that they always want to uphold the international rules-based system. I suspect that we have different views on what that can mean, but this is not it. Clearly, the Minister cannot make any promises to me this evening, but the Government must set up an independent inquiry into the allegations that have been made by fellow members of the armed forces, and I beseech him to do that. We need to know what took place, what the Royal Military Police were doing, why statements were amended and why faulty intelligence leads were followed, resulting in the deaths of civilians and their families being lied to. Their families deserve better, and our armed forces deserve so, so much better.

Although there is a broader political debate on oversight—and it sounds like I have some allies across the House in ensuring that that is on the agenda—I ask the Minister tonight, especially given the intentions of the Government in relation to Northern Ireland, to approach this matter appropriately, to come to the Dispatch Box and to make it clear that there will be an unforgiving and relentless pursuit of the truth and of justice. If he does that, I will back him all the way.

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate? He covered a lot of ground, but I want to try to stay within the remit of tonight’s debate. He has some very interesting ideas, and in me he has someone with a very contemporary view of defence. I think that we need to modernise some of the things that we do, but much of that is for another day.

What is hugely important is that Parliament and the public should have confidence in how our armed forces conduct overseas operations and in how allegations of criminal behaviour are investigated. This issue is highly topical in the wake of the recent allegations made by The Sunday Times and the BBC, which I will address in my reply, and as this Prime Minister has asked me to address the long-standing unacceptability of how we deal with historical prosecutions against servicemen and women, often decades after service.

I want to be clear with the House and with the country from the outset. Many words have been written and said about what I have tried to do, both previously from the Back Benches and now on behalf of the UK Government, when it comes to historical allegations against our servicemen and women. They are almost always inaccurate and usually simply seek to answer one side of the debate, or satisfy one party in the argument.

Let me be absolutely crystal clear: Members will not find any individual in this House more committed to prosecuting those who break the law while in uniform than I am. Many of my cohorts operated in harsh and chaotic circumstances over many years while remaining firmly within the boundaries of the law. Like all of us, I hold no truck whatever with those who were or who are unable to operate within the constraints placed on them as a professional member of the UK’s armed forces—armed forces that remain the envy of our peers. I am equally clear that there are few higher sins of Government than to expose those who volunteer to serve and ultimately to sacrifice themselves on this nation’s behalf and to subject them to years and years of interminable court processes, allegations and deep personal distress simply as a result of serving this nation on operations. Where there is clear evidence of crimes being committed, the Prime Minister and I are unequivocal that individuals must be held to account for their actions, irrespective of time passed. But we will not allow veterans in this country who have committed no crime to be exposed to endless legal processes well outside of the original intended scope of the laws under which they are brought—hounding some of the nation’s finest people years after service.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I hear what the Minister saying and I carry a lot of sympathy for it, but if he does not deal with this properly, quickly and appropriately, the problem will not be courts in the United Kingdom; the problem might well be in the International Criminal Court.

[Johnny Mercer]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have dealt with this issue for years now, including before I came here. The last individual who wants to see this country go to the ICC to deal with these allegations is me. However, I reiterate the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is no longer in his place, which is that these are allegations at this stage. I will come to that in a moment.

A balance has to be struck and we will seek that in this Parliament, starting with primary legislation, which I will shortly be laying before Parliament. It is in this very careful space—which I encourage those who are deliberately ill-informed, or who simply want to politicise and rewrite history, not to enter; and that clearly does not include the hon. Member for Glasgow South—that I will answer some of the points raised about the conduct of UK armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last almost 20 years. I just want to expand on that very briefly, given that we have a little bit of time. I cannot overestimate the pain caused to the families of the victims of these situations by ill-informed debates in this space around amnesties and other options that are simply not considered. The Government are very clear that there can be no time bar on prosecutions, and I urge everyone who takes part in this debate to do so cognisant of the victims and of the people who are being hounded in this process.

The House will be aware of the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on the activities of our special forces. This “neither confirm, nor deny” policy is an essential element in enabling this strategic asset to operate effectively. I am therefore unable to speak in any detail about the vital role that our special forces played in Iraq and Afghanistan and will have to confine myself to making observations about the allegations more generally.

On the basis of five specific incidents—two from Iraq and three from Afghanistan—The Sunday Times and the BBC make four broad allegations: first, that we operated death squads in Afghanistan; secondly, that there has been a systematic attempt by the MOD not to investigate allegations; thirdly, that the MOD has applied pressure to terminate investigations prematurely; and fourthly, that the MOD has sought throughout to ensure that war crimes in Iraq go unpunished. The BBC wrote to the Ministry of Defence prior to broadcast setting out these and other allegations that were not repeated in its “Panorama” programme. The MOD promptly forwarded these letters to the service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority. The service police have reviewed the letters and the programme and have confirmed that The Sunday Times and the BBC have not produced any new allegations or any new evidence in relation to those five incidents that had not already been considered.

Let me repeat now from the Dispatch Box to the House and beyond that anyone who has any evidence—“evidence” is the key word—has a duty to come forward and let independent police officers examine that evidence. The allegations are deeply disturbing, and as perhaps the most prominent voice on increased legal protections for our armed forces, I wish personally to satisfy myself about them. These investigations are never closed. Any evidence will be looked at in an independent and professional manner, to this day. As the House would expect, the International Criminal Court is considering the BBC’s allegations as part of its preliminary examination into alleged war crimes in Iraq. The Government are continuing to co-operate fully with the ICC, and we expect to be able to satisfy it that the service police have appropriately investigated all allegations.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am about to come on to civilian casualties. Every civilian casualty is reported to the military police. I will cover that in detail in a moment.

First, though, let me deal with the allegation that our armed forces operated so-called death squads in Afghanistan. This is simply not true. Our armed forces did conduct many daring operations to capture Taliban insurgents. However, these were not “kill or capture” operations; rather, they were carefully planned “capture” operations with the object of capturing known Taliban insurgents and their associates. While every effort is taken to minimise the risk to any civilians who are present during such operations, it is simply an unfortunate fact that the risk of civilian casualties in war cannot be eliminated altogether.

Irrespective of the unit involved in any operation, civilian deaths were reported to, and have been independently investigated by, the Royal Military Police. All three of the incidents cited by The Sunday Times and the BBC have been investigated. The RMP referred one case—the shooting of Fazel Mohammed and three Afghan minors, to which the hon. Gentleman referred—to the Service Prosecuting Authority, which, having obtained independent legal advice outside the Ministry of Defence from senior external counsel, decided that the evidence did not establish a realistic prospect of conviction. In the other two cases, the RMP concluded that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing and did not refer any soldiers for any offence.

It is simply not credible to suggest, given the scale of resources expended by the MOD on investigating alleged criminal behaviour in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this demonstrates that there could have been a systematic cover-up. Over £40 million has been spent to date on the Iraq criminal investigations, while £10 million has been spent on Operation Northmoor, which is the RMP’s investigation into 675 allegations from Afghanistan. At their height, the Iraq Historical Allegations Team and Operation Northmoor each involved over 100 investigators who have collated and reviewed vast numbers of documents and interviewed large numbers of alleged victims, families, witnesses, service personnel and veterans.

Throughout, the MOD has wanted investigations and prosecution decisions to be conducted efficiently and effectively. But the reality is that the nature of warfare has changed. So-called lawfare has become a tool for extending conflicts by other means or attempting to actually rewrite history itself.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

If I may take the Minister back just slightly, the investigators he mentions who looked at many of these allegations are the same people who have now blown the whistle to the BBC and The Sunday Times. They are the same people who have come forward and said that things have been shut down. He rightly says that he will bring forward primary legislation in the near future. Does he envisage that by that time there will be greater or less resource to investigate as a result of his legislation?

[Johnny Mercer]

Let me be very clear with the hon. Gentleman. There have been allegations made by individuals, a very small number of whom worked within the investigative teams. There have been allegations made by a small number of people associated with operational units involved in the incidents that have been alleged. They have made allegations, and investigators who have interviewed them have been persuaded by their case. Those allegations are then investigated and presented to the independent Service Prosecuting Authority, which makes a decision on whether the threshold of evidence has been breached and a conviction, or even a prosecution, is likely. That decision has been made in a clear-eyed, professional manner without fear or favour, to bring this matter to a close. It is in nobody’s interests that this has continued as long as it has. In terms of resource and how we address this, I will come to that towards the end of my remarks, but Members can pick me up if I do not.

In the case of Iraq, the investigative challenges were compounded by the behaviour of some of the legal firms involved. Public Interest Lawyers waged a long-running campaign challenging the ability of the service police to conduct independent and effective investigations. Having lost that argument, PIL notified approximately 1,200 new allegations, many of which were found upon examination to be seriously misplaced or extremely flimsy.

I am clear that IHAT could have handled matters much better—I have not changed my view on that since I personally ran the campaign to expose its practices—but I want to make it absolutely clear that there has been no strategic interference whatsoever in individual cases or in the overall Iraq or Afghanistan case loads. That would be completely pointless. Allegations that are not fully investigated will only contrive to extend the process for our servicemen and women. All investigative and prosecution decisions have been made independently by the service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority without reference to the MOD, the chain of command or Ministers. They have also been subject to independent external and periodic independent reviews by subject matter experts.

The Iraq investigations have been subject to unprecedented court oversight, with extensive, transparent reporting obligations to a designated judge of the High Court. Operation Northmoor has been subject to independent assurance by an experienced senior criminal barrister and a retired chief constable. The allegation that IHAT and Op Northmoor investigations were closed down for political reasons in 2017 is, I am afraid, simply wrong and self-defeating. IHAT’s case load was transferred to Service Police Legacy Investigations, which stood up on 1 July 2017 and is still conducting a small number of investigations. Investigations under Operation Northmoor continued with independent external assurance into 2019.

The assertion that the Ministry of Defence exploited the taint that resulted from Phil Shiner’s misconduct to close investigations is also incorrect. The evidence that PIL had paid an undisclosed number of Iraqis, apparently by way of inducement, to bring allegations against our armed forces emerged only after IHAT and the Service Prosecuting Authority had started reviewing the Iraq case load to decide in accordance with the High Court’s direction whether further investigation was warranted in individual cases. IHAT and the SPA informed the High Court of their approach and the rationale for it. The High Court did not express any concern about this review process. None of the investigations under Op Northmoor was affected by Phil Shiner being struck off, as the BBC and The Sunday Times assert, because none of the investigations involved allegations notified by Phil Shiner.

The Sunday Times and the BBC assert that the closure of IHAT was intended to ensure that the alleged war crimes in Iraq went unpunished. I have outlined why that is simply not credible to the UK’s armed forces, as an institution that prides itself on its ethos and values that set it apart from this nation’s enemies. Factually, they cite two cases in support of this wholly untenable position: the shooting of an off-duty Iraqi policeman and the deaths of Radhi Nama and Abdul Jabar Mousa Ali at Camp Stephen. In fact, both cases were taken over by SPLI when IHAT closed. SPLI’s investigations into both cases only finished in early 2019. This means that the information that forms the basis of comments by former IHAT investigators and by Lord Macdonald, to whom the hon. Member for Glasgow South referred, was incomplete and at least two years out of date. While it has not been possible to attribute the deaths of Mr Nama and Mr Mousa Ali to any individuals, SPLI referred three people to the Service Prosecuting Authority for having committed or failed to prevent, punish or report outrages upon personal dignity. In coming to a decision in this case, the director of service prosecutions obtained independent legal advice from senior external counsel.

It is a matter of deep personal regret that the original RMP investigations were flawed and that opportunities to hold those responsible to account may now have been lost. For this, I unreservedly apologise to those who suffered treatment at the hands of UK forces that was simply unacceptable, and I apologise to our servicemen and women who have, as a result, had years of investigations foisted upon them, having more often than not had nothing to do with the incidents in question.

As the al-Sweady inquiry has already highlighted, the RMP elements deployed to Iraq were simply insufficient to cope with the unexpectedly high number of incidents requiring investigation. This is what led the Provost Marshal (Army) in 2010 to direct IHAT to review nine RMP investigations, including those into the deaths of Mr Nama and Mr Mousa Ali, to ascertain whether all lines of enquiry had been followed. The considerable obstacles to obtaining sufficient evidence to prosecute in historical cases have been recognised by the High Court, which in 2013 ordered the MOD to establish a process of non-criminal quasi-inquests, which have become known as Iraq fatality investigations, to satisfy fully our obligations under the European convention on human rights. These IFIs are similar in form to a coroner’s inquest and are conducted by an independent, retired judge. They are designed to provide the families of the deceased with answers and to help the armed forces learn lessons for the future.

While the fact that the 2003 report into Mr al-Musawi’s death contains inaccurate information is deeply concerning, there is insufficient evidence to refer anyone for an offence in relation to this incident. Having exhausted all reasonable and proportionate lines of enquiry, SPLI has uncovered no evidence that conclusively refutes the soldier’s assertion that he acted in self-defence. Indeed, two of the deceased’s brothers told investigations that Mr al-Musawi fired several shots into the air immediately prior to this shooting.

Today’s debate and previous debates on historical investigations have shown the strength of feeling on this vital issue. I am considering some key policy interventions to learn lessons from over 15 years of investigations and litigation arising from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not of the opinion that any organisation the size of the UK’s armed forces will not have its challenging individuals. There is no doubt that some of the experiences of those who came into contact with the UK’s armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were completely unacceptable.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Sensing that the Minister is about to close, may I take him back, because he did ask me to remind him: does he think that after he brings forward his legislation there will be greater resource to investigate these affairs or not? In addition, is the Royal Military Police, in his view, in its current form fit for purpose?

[Johnny Mercer]

What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that, in my view, no option is off the table in reflecting, with respect to the past 15 years, on how we never end up in this position again. Resource in this investigation has not been a determining factor: over £50 million has gone into investigating these crimes—or alleged crimes—in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, this is not going to be some sort of paper exercise. It is a defining issue for many of us, and we will of course do this properly. I hope he will have seen from my comments this evening that there is absolutely no intention to cover anything up, to let anybody who sees uniform as a place where they can commit crimes to do so or to enable any of that behaviour, which is totally out of kilter with 99% of people’s experiences in the military. However, I am equally firm that the experience of too many of those who have served this nation in operations in subsequent years has been totally unacceptable, and in that respect this Prime Minister and this Government are going to redefine the debate.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I first say that I am hugely grateful to the people of North Dorset for returning me to the House, to allow me to continue to speak and work on their behalf?

It is worth reminding ourselves that this was a national referendum. I hear what colleagues from Northern Ireland and Scotland say, but we did not say that all four constituent parts of the United Kingdom had to vote uniformly. It was a national referendum on a first-past-the-post basis. There is a thin veneer of defence for those seeking to hide behind the argument supporting separatism when those lines are trotted out. For those who question the Government’s commitment to protecting and enhancing workers’ rights, I hope that it will not embarrass or upset the Opposition too much when I point out that my party is now the party of the workers of this country, who voted for us in huge, huge number. [Interruption.] No, thank you. I ask what I hope is a rhetorical question—why would any party in government seek to undermine the rights of those people who have turned in such great number to support us, not least to get Brexit done?

This is, of course, a sad day. Colleagues have commented on the paralysis that we have endured for the past 18 months or so. Today’s debate should have taken place to allow exit from the European Union in March, so I hope that a spirit of broader pragmatism and co-operation can break out.

A number of Members have reflected on key messages of the electoral event last Thursday. My take is that it was a civil war, but without the blood. Voters in great number picked up a ballot paper and a stubby pencil, reasserted their rights, and reaffirmed their role as our masters and bosses. We cannot, as democrats, ask the people of this country to give us a decision, and then, when we find it either surprising or inconvenient, find every trick in the book to try to dodge it.

Until May this year, my postbag—I am sure other colleagues found this as well—was inundated with letters from constituents who had ideas about how to break the deadlock and move things forward. However, after May, and certainly after the elections to the European Parliament, people started to write saying that they were so fed up that they were minded to opt out of the democratic life of this country or, worse, were exploring avenues of civil disobedience to, in some way, ventilate their growing frustration at the arrogance of too many people in this place who thought they knew better than the people.

What greater exposition of that arrogance was there than the campaign from the Liberal Democrats? It was illiberal and undemocratic—worthy of neither part of their party’s title. The smug intellectual arrogance they deployed—[Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and others ask where the Liberal Democrats are. Their terrible righteous smugness, which seems to be a unique part of liberal democracy’s DNA—the idea that they know more and better than everybody else—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

On the point about being smug, I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the result in Scotland. How many colleagues of his were here from Scotland before the election, and how many were returned afterwards?

[Simon Hoare]

Let us be frank: the SNP had a very successful result, although it was not as good as the hon. Gentleman and I remember from 2015. As others have commented, it will present challenges for those of us who believe fundamentally in the preservation of the Union, who will now need to find arguments that are more compelling than merely the broad, abstract and romantic, and that focus not so much on the pounds, shillings and pence but on making the positive case for the Union. That is an important point.

Debate on the Address

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think it was Nicola Sturgeon herself who said that the referendum in 2014 was a “once in a generation” event. I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I feel that the Scottish Nationalist party should concentrate more on delivering on the domestic priorities of the people of Scotland and rather less on breaking up our United Kingdom.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe that if I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I would be forced to repeat the point I have just made.

We will abolish the threat of no-fault evictions, and we will take forward our plans to rejuvenate and, in many cases, to revolutionise the infrastructure of Britain, including Northern Powerhouse Rail. We will remedy the scandal that Leeds is the largest city in western Europe without light rail or a metro. We are dramatically improving local bus services, levelling up across the country to the standards set in London—at least, as they were set under a previous Mayor—and we are investing nearly £30 billion in our road network, including upgrading the A66 to be the first continuous dual carriageway across the Pennines since the 1970s.

Above all, this one nation Government will strengthen our United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—the most successful Union in history and a sacred inheritance that this Parliament will never allow anyone to rip up or rend asunder.

We will stand by one of the greatest international symbols of British courage and daring: our armed forces—the men and women who sacrifice so much to safeguard our way of life. We will protect our protectors from unfair and vexatious legal claims that undermine their morale and confidence. We will spare no effort in addressing the profound concerns of millions about the state of our criminal justice system with the first royal commission for almost 30 years, and there will be action now to impose tougher sentences on the most serious offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

As this is my first opportunity in this new Parliament, I put on record my thanks to the people of Airdrie and Shotts for placing their faith in me for a third time and for doing me the honour of representing them in this place. I will work for them and listen to them, regardless of which way they voted.

Although I welcome my party’s much-swelled numbers, I echo the tribute of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) to Stephen Gethins, who sadly lost his seat. He is the best of us—there is no doubt about that—and I wish him and his young family well for the future.

Today’s programme for government in the Queen’s Speech is thin gruel for those who have been hammered by austerity for almost 10 years, but that is hardly a surprise when we look at the Tory party manifesto, which makes just four mentions of universal credit and none of disability support such as personal independence payments. I can find absolutely nothing new on work and pensions. In fact, all the Tory manifesto does for social security is conflate universal credit as only being for people who are out of work when, in fact, more than a third of recipients are in work.

The Tories have nothing new in their manifesto and, again, nothing new in today’s programme for government for people on low incomes. It seems that the Brexit bonanza predicted by the Prime Minister will not reach those on low incomes—quelle surprise.

In fact, yesterday the Department for Work and Pensions removed the right of disabled people to choose whether to have the results of their work capability assessment sent to their GP. That will make it harder for those who fail these notoriously unfair and inaccurate assessments, but who simply cannot work, to get signed off with a sickness line by their GP. The Tories wasted no time in hurting the rights of disabled people.

Today, we have seen the announcement of the statistic of the year, which has been covered widely. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that 58% of all those living in poverty in the UK are in work, which is shameful. A wee national insurance tax break will do nothing to solve this and, unless there is radical change, it will become an even greater social crisis during this Parliament. Whatever time I have left here, however long it is, I will do what I can to fight for people who deserve so much better from this UK Government.

Also conspicuous in its absence from today’s programme for government is any meaningful mention of Scotland, or indeed any legislative plans for Scotland’s future. The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has written to the Prime Minister today with a clear democratic and constitutional case for Scotland being given the right to choose our own future. The Referendums (Scotland) Bill has been passed by Holyrood this evening.

Scotland is not a region questioning its place in a larger unitary state. We are a country in a voluntary Union of nations. Our friends in the rest of the UK will always be our closest allies and neighbours but, in line with the principle of self-determination, people in Scotland have the right to determine whether the time has come for a new, better relationship in which we can thrive as a genuine partnership of equals. That is the Scottish Government’s very reasonable assessment. The response of the Prime Minister and the Tory party means that democracy stopped for the people in Scotland in 2014 and that means that, right now, Scotland’s membership of this Union, according to the Prime Minister, is involuntary.

I know many of my constituents disagree with me about whether Scotland should be independent. I speak to them. I listen to them. I hear what they have to say. I would never deny them the right to have their say, and my vote counts equally, in equal weight as theirs. What the Prime Minister is suggesting is that what he has to say is more important and carries more weight than what we have to say in Scotland, and that people who both agree and disagree with him in Scotland matter not to him. He puts himself above the people in Scotland. Taking back control indeed.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Can my hon. Friend imagine the howls of indignation from Conservative Members if a scenario were to arise in which the First Minister of Scotland prevented the rest of the United Kingdom from having a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the European Union? Heaven and Earth would be moved by a Government in London to make sure it happened.

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely. I am about to make the point that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and my hon. Friend makes that point well.

Our case is made stronger because of the nature of the election campaign we just had in Scotland. Jackson Carlaw, the acting Tory leader in Scotland, said the Union was on the ballot paper. Annie Wells MSP said that if Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP win, “they get their referendum.” I am yet to see a Tory leaflet in Scotland that did not have opposition to a second referendum at the heart of it. The SNP manifesto and all my literature talked about Scotland’s right to choose. I was clear, even with prospective voters who were undecided on voting for me but opposed to independence, that I would campaign for a second referendum if I was re-elected.

The result in Scotland was clear—even clearer than here in the rest of the UK. The Tories lost half their seats in Scotland. Their share of the vote went down and the SNP won more than 80% of the seats we contested. We have a higher share of the vote than the Prime Minister enjoys. In response to my intervention, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), suggested that because we achieved only—only!—45% of the vote in Scotland our mandate can be ignored. She has not really thought that through, has she? Extend that logic to the fact that the Prime Minister achieved only 43% of the vote in the rest of the UK. Nobody is denying the Prime Minister his democratic right to govern, and they should not be denying Scotland’s right to choose any longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Gracious Speech. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). I did not agree with a great deal of what he had to say, but he certainly delivered his remarks with his characteristic force and eloquence.

I thank the people of Cheltenham for returning me for the third time. It was a hard-fought campaign, and I pay tribute to those who stood against me, because I think anybody who puts themself up for election, particularly in the social media age, takes a brave step.

The result nationally is fantastic. We are able now to break the paralysis and to move forward. It is right also to recognise that with the great power that comes from this majority comes responsibility. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister speak the language of one nation, but of course one nation can be merely motherhood and apple pie. It is incumbent on us to define what we mean by it, so I will say a few words about what it certainly means to me and what I think and hope it means to others.

One nation conservatism is about patriotism, not narrow nationalism. It is about a nation based on one United Kingdom that recognises that nationalism is never the answer to any social problem. One nation conservatism is about being engaged and involved in the world—playing a part on the world stage and not retreating into isolationism. It is a belief in social mobility and the moral imperative to drive it. It is a belief in the role of the state to deliver excellent public services and sensible regulation. It is a belief in universal human rights and the rule of law as the bulwark of our individual freedoms. Critically, it is a belief in the environment—that conservatism must elide into conservationism. There is a moral duty upon us to bequeath a cleaner and greener environment to the next generation.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman says that my party is never the answer, so can he tell me why it is that when his party and my party are on a ballot paper, his lot get horsed and we keep beating them?

[Alex Chalk]

I worry that the hon. Gentleman never seems ready to listen to what the Scottish people have said. In 2014, Scottish people said they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, but he refuses to listen to them. Respect the people of Scotland. Listen to them. Honour the referendum result,

On Brexit, the language of this one nation Prime Minister is that this is not the time when we become fortress Britain; it is the time when we become global Britain. We will be more open, more welcoming, more internationalist, more tolerant. That is the direction that we need to go in.

The second element of the Queen’s Speech—such an important, striking element—relates to the NHS. In the election campaign, so much nonsense was talked about privatisation of the NHS. The problem was that sometimes, mischievously, the word “privatisation” was used to mean two different things. It is important to emphasise that the principle of healthcare being provided free at the point of need, regardless of ability to pay, is sacrosanct. It is simply not up for discussion and it never was going to be up for discussion. It is an article of faith for this nation, part of what marks us out in the community of nations. I am so proud that I was able to stand in Cheltenham on the record of what the Government had achieved for Cheltenham and for Cheltenham General Hospital. We had had more money put into our A&E services and saved our A&E. We had delivered the new £2 million Apollo surgical theatre for the hospital, £1 million for Gloucestershire air ambulance, linear accelerators and so on and so forth.

What is exciting about the Queen’s Speech is the pledge to invest yet more in our hospitals and the NHS in general. I want to see in Cheltenham a Gloucestershire cancer institute, and I will support the oncologists who do such a fantastic job and provide health services not just in Cheltenham and not just in Gloucestershire, but as far afield as Wales, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and still further afield. The Queen’s Speech rightly focuses on recruiting more staff, and on ending the injustice of the parents of a small child who has to be cared for overnight, or people with disabilities, or out-patients who require repeated treatments having to pay car parking charges. The Queen’s Speech also addresses the issue of doctors’ pensions and the fact that too many clinicians, particularly senior clinicians, are feeling priced out of going back to work because of the law of unintended consequences and the way it applied to pensions. That issue will be resolved.

I am excited about what will happen to our schools. One thing that did not really surface enough in the election campaign is how standards in our schools have risen, and risen relentlessly. The situation we inherited in 2010 was that our schools were on a downward trajectory, and we were slipping down the league tables in respect of the international comparisons. That is no more: we are now heading up the league tables and are ahead of France, Germany and the United States in reading and mathematics. That is something to be celebrated and we should be paying tribute to our teachers, the parents who support them and the school governors who are doing it time and again. In Cheltenham in particular, the results being achieved in our secondary schools—in Balcarras, in Bournside, in Pate’s, in All Saints’ and in all the other schools—are absolutely fantastic.

The Government have indicated that we will provide more funding. It is a fact that schools have delivered services despite the fact that the cost base and cost pressures have been going up, not least in respect of teachers’ pensions and so on. Whereas in 2015 the schools in my constituency received about £4,200 per head as a minimum, that will go up next year to a minimum of £5,000 per head. In fact, the average in Cheltenham will be closer to £5,300 per head. That is going to empower and turbo-charge our schools to continue the fantastic work that they are doing.

One point ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was about our environment. As I said when I introduced my private Member’s Bill on net zero carbon, we need a new radicalism, but although we need to proceed with our heart, we also need to proceed with our head. I was delighted to hear of the new independent office for environmental protection, which will provide legal targets, including on air quality. There are important measures on planting more trees—the great Northumberland forest—and on new national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, but also a clear and hard-headed commitment to phase out coal completely by 2025 and to ensure that newly built houses no longer have fossil-fuel heaters. As we build more homes in Cheltenham as part of the cyber-park project, on any view they should no longer have gas boilers—I think they should be carbon neutral. That is what we need to focus on and the Queen’s Speech does so.

In summary, I could talk for a long time, but this Queen’s Speech can deliver a future for our country that is healthier, with children who are better educated, a country that is cleaner and an environment that is better protected. I am delighted to support the Gracious Speech. The future for our country can be very bright indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Obviously, it is a pleasure for me to welcome the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) back to her place in the House and to congratulate her on her victory. I enjoyed listening to her warm-heartedness. I particularly liked the power with which she presented the case on the new deal, which obviously has been something she has been working on with the all-party group while she has not been in this House.

I gently invite the hon. Lady to open her warm heart to the possibility that there may be allies all over this House who share the same public policy objectives—to serve their constituents and to make sure that the benefits system and everything else works in the right way. One of the issues on which she alighted in her speech was the consequence of our current drug policy and the work that is going on cross-party in Scotland. I understand that all the parties there are in agreement about how policy can be improved. It has been my pleasure to work with her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on this issue.

It is not only the hon. Lady who I hope will reassess her view about what she believes are the motivations of those who sit on the Conservative Benches. I will come on to what a one nation Government actually means, and I look forward to the reassessment that will have to take place. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, if they have a warm heart and are open to evidence, will have to reassess the way that they have conducted the political conversation, which has become much too strident. Obviously, that has been reinforced by having to deal with the issue of Brexit over the past few years. We now have the opportunity of a Conservative Government who can begin to change the tone. I hope that the tone and the co-operation that we have will change across the House.

Before moving on to the main points of my speech—[Interruption.] And before the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) leaves his place, I just want to pick up on a couple of points he made in his speech. I hope he will recall that in 2013 it became the Conservative party’s policy to have a referendum for the United Kingdom to leave the EU. The Scottish National party then decided to have its referendum on independence in the knowledge that that referendum would take place in 2014, and we know what the outcome of that referendum was. I congratulate SNP Members on their astonishing result in the 2015 parliamentary elections. Of course, they did not raise the issue of a further independence referendum because they had had one just a year before, and it was understood by all—including their own leader—that this was a “once in a generation” event.

I say to right hon. and hon. SNP Members gathered on the Front Bench that my colleagues in Scotland are absolutely right. The Union was on the ballot in every constituency in the United Kingdom, because if the Conservative party had not obtained a majority, quite obviously the price of the SNP’s support for being part of an alternative coalition to the Conservative party would have been to revisit that issue; that is unarguable. Who knows when in the course of this Parliament it would have happened, but it was pretty clear from the language of the Labour leader in the course of the campaign that it would have been conceded at some point during the Parliament. For me, that is not “once in a generation”. I would have thought that the difficulty that the United Kingdom has had in extracting itself from the European Union over the last two and a half years might just cause a conversation in Scotland about the price of breaking up a Union that is infinitely deeper, infinitely longer lasting, and which I would argue is the most successful political Union in the world.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I know and respect the hon. Gentleman, but voters in Castlemilk, Croftfoot and all over Scotland do not give a stuff what a Tory MP from Reigate thinks of their changing their mind. I say that with all the respect it deserves—and it does deserve some. Just as the hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), who I welcome back to this place, to open her mind to the fact that others might be right, I ask that he might do the same. I invite him to Scotland to come and have those conversations, and he will see that the conversation has changed. That is why more than half the Scottish intake of his party from 2017 are no longer here.

[Crispin Blunt]

I would be delighted to take up that invitation. There are a number of issues on which the hon. Gentleman and I work together, and I look forward to discussing those issues in Scotland as well as the whole issue of drug policy. It is clear that Scotland faces the same scale of challenge on drug policy as Portugal did in the late 1990s that led to a radical change of policy in Portugal. On the basis of the evidence, many would argue that the change Portugal has made has been of huge benefit to its people. One only has to examine the figures—this will obviously be very close to the heart of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East—to see that deaths from heroin overdose in Portugal, which were at a catastrophic level in the late 1990s, have dropped in the most astonishing manner. However, the position in Scotland—a country of comparable size—is that the figures remain of a horrifying scale, as the hon. Lady said.