Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in his autumn statement, we are exploring the best approach to consumer protection from April 2024 as part of wider retail market reforms. I reiterate that we paid half of energy bills in Scotland last winter, thanks to the strength of our Union.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I remind the Deputy Prime Minister and the House that yesterday was National Remembering Srebrenica Day? May I particularly point out a little-known fact? British soldiers took about 2,000 civilians out of Srebrenica in April 1993. Those British soldiers were from B Squadron 9th/12th Lancers. It is not widely known, but, under my command, they saved a huge number of lives by taking those people out of Srebrenica. They, too, should be remembered for their very gallant actions, because it was very dangerous.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my right hon. and gallant Friend and to all those whom he commanded in the 1990s. We must honour the memory of those killed, and pay tribute to the extraordinary courage shown by their families, survivors and all those members of our armed forces, who served so gallantly in that situation.

Ukraine

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and let me also say that one of the reasons I want to keep our fantastic British embassy staff in Moscow, even though the temptation is there simply to sunder diplomatic relations with Putin, is that I want them there to support groups such as the ones that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have given evidence at four war crimes trials. It was with genocide and crimes against humanity that those people had been charged. May I ask my right hon. Friend and the House to agree with me that any Russian who kills a Ukrainian must remember that one day they may well be brought to court for crimes against humanity or genocide?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and not just any Russian combatant, but anyone who sends a Russian into battle to kill innocent Ukrainians.

Ukraine

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very important point. I think actually we are making a huge amount of progress. I want to thank my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for the work that they are doing, because I think we are bringing together the west on a very tough package, and that is what we need.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I remind the House that we do actually guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine, having signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, along with the United States and Russia, and I think later France, and even China. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we really economically and financially strangle Russia with sanctions, Russia could well become bankrupt, and that alone might be something to cause Mr Putin to blink before he gives agreement to using military power and turning it into military force?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right that we have the potential—the potential—to do very serious economic damage to Russia. What we have to make sure of, as everybody said on the call last night, is that we do not inflict damage on the western economies just as people are suffering in particular from high gas prices. That is what we have got to do. Do not forget, it is quite right to say that 41% of Russia’s GDP comes from oil and gas.

Emergency Covid Contracts

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

There was a proper demonstration of the will of the Scottish people when they had their referendum on Scottish independence and made their views clear. Interestingly, Scottish National party Members never seem to accept that.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this was not a PPE contract; it was a contract about communications and the important role they played in managing the pandemic at a time when we did not have the vaccine, the testing capacity that we wanted or other measures that we needed to tackle the pandemic. Communications, in this context, were extremely important in making sure the public understood the behaviours they needed adopt to keep themselves safe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Ministers are not actually in charge of checking contracts—the civil service is. Does my hon. Friend agree that any contract, whether urgent or not, always requires due diligence by the civil service, even after the decision, and that that happens within every Department? I find accusations of cronyism to be normally very wrong indeed—does she agree?

Security of Ministers’ Offices and Communications

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those very important questions to which we all want answers. I hope that they will be answered as part of this investigation.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the Department of Health and Social Care handle its own ministerial office security, or is that done across Whitehall by other organisations such as the police?

Debate on the Address

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I know that the Prime Minister places a high premium on strengthening the Union, and we welcome the measures in the Gracious Speech that are designed to strengthen the Union. We embrace the levelling-up agenda—we want to see Northern Ireland benefit from it, and we want investment in our infrastructure—but my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If our farmers, our businesses and our citizens find that doing business with the rest of the United Kingdom is becoming increasingly difficult, that is a levelling down for Northern Ireland, not a levelling up. Great Britain is our biggest market, and the supply chains between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are vital to the economy.

The European Union has stated that its desire is to protect the Belfast agreement and the peace process in Northern Ireland—yet, as I have warned in this House, harming the economy of Northern Ireland and undermining our ability to deliver prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland undermines the peace process, because peace and prosperity go hand in hand. It pains me to see young people out once again on the streets of Northern Ireland, engaging in violence against the police. It pains me to see the instability that is arising because of concerns around the protocol. To be clear, violence is not the way to address this, but politics has to be seen to be working.

The Government must listen to those of us who have a political voice, heed what we are saying on behalf of the people who represent us, and understand the depth of concern that exists in Northern Ireland about the protocol, its impact on Northern Ireland and our economy, and its impact in undermining our place within the United Kingdom. Article 1 of the Belfast agreement is clear: there shall be no

“change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent…of its people”.

There is no consent for the Northern Ireland protocol; indeed, the consent mechanism within the Northern Ireland Assembly has been changed by the protocol in a way that diminishes the safeguards that were built into the agreement in the first place. That is intolerable, and the Government need to address it in their current and proposed legislative programme.

I value the Union, like the rest of my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, and I want to see Northern Ireland prosper within the Union. The world’s fifth largest economy is the United Kingdom, and our United Kingdom provides us with the support and resilience that we need through difficult times, and with incomparable opportunities when times are good. I believe that the case for the Union is strong. It is a case that I want to make and that my colleagues want to make, but the protocol undermines that case in a way that is harmful to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.

The Gracious Speech also touches on the matter of legacy—the legacy of our troubled past in Northern Ireland. We recognise it as an issue that needs to be tackled. For too long, the innocent victims of the dreadful violence that we endured in Northern Ireland have not been given the priority that they deserve within the context of the peace process. Today, we have had a verdict delivered in the coroner’s court in Belfast on the inquests in the cases of what have been described as the Ballymurphy families. They have waited many years for this moment, and the coroner has issued his verdict today. We recognise that there is a desire across all innocent victims in Northern Ireland, whatever their background, to get to a moment where they can have a better understanding of what happened to their loved ones and to pursue justice.

We believe it would be wrong to deny people the opportunity of pursuing justice. That is why we will oppose any measure that seeks to introduce an amnesty in Northern Ireland for crimes such as murder. Sadly, our troubled past is marked at times with injustice that has occurred in Northern Ireland. The act of terrorism itself is a great injustice, and the hurt, the pain and the tragedy that it has inflicted on people in Northern Ireland and on many families is an injustice, but we must not compound injustice with further injustice.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intercede. I take it that the right hon. Member will fully support the cessation of vexatious claims against veteran soldiers, veteran policemen and veteran security personnel in Northern Ireland. What he was referring to is terrorism, which is entirely different.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and he anticipated the point I was about to make. Where there is evidence that someone has committed murder or potentially committed murder, we are very clear that no one is above the law, but I am concerned, for example, about the case we saw last week in Belfast. Yet again, veterans of our armed forces were dragged before the courts, with no new evidence, having previously been subjected to article 2-compliant investigations, and were put through the agony and the distress, in their latter days, of having to go to court and defend themselves. That is what the hon. Member was referring to when he talked about vexatious prosecutions, and we opposed that.

We are clear that the veterans of our armed forces and our police officers who courageously served on the frontline and who defended our entire community against the ravages of terrorism should not be subjected to such vexatious prosecutions. There has been far too much focus—far too much focus—on our veterans and our retired police officers. We need a process that brings the spotlight on to those who caused by far the greater amount of hurt and suffering in Northern Ireland, who are those who stepped outside the law and were part of paramilitary terrorist organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will be on the time limit, I hope.

I listened very carefully to the Gracious Speech, and I made the assumption that the promise to address the legacy of the past with regard to Northern Ireland refers to a Government commitment to protect veterans from vexatious and repeated prosecutions. That assurance was solidified when I looked at the media Q and A that accompanies the Queen’s Speech, where it is put much more specifically. My good friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans also promised this to me in the Chamber on 21 April, and now I expect it to happen.

Privately, I have been assured from a very high level that such action to help veterans and indeed other members of the security forces is imminent. I hope so because, honestly, it is a matter of huge importance to me. I speak as a supporter and a member of the Justice for Northern Ireland Veterans campaign. Personally, I served over three years on operations in Northern Ireland. I have been involved in several actions there, witnessed several terrorist murders, and have lost too many soldiers and friends who were working alongside me. I have also held innocent people, caught up in terrorism, who have died in my arms. It devastated me then, and it still does to this day. So to me, this commitment finally to sort out a cessation to legacy vexatious prosecutions is exceedingly personal.

I understand that the new Bill might involve introducing what could be called a qualified statute of limitations, with the presumption that no charges should be brought against security force personnel for alleged offences before the Good Friday agreement of 1998. Quite rightly, this plan is based on the fact that if no new compelling evidence against such people has been brought forward, such a prosecution ends. Let me be clear: nobody in the military, the police or the security forces supports anyone who breaks the law, and if someone does so, it is right that they face the full vigour of the legal system. That is the essential and crucial difference between a soldier and perhaps a policemen, and a terrorist. The security forces operate on behalf of and under the law, whereas terrorists do not. There is no way that soldier and terrorist should be treated equally under the law—and that must not happen.

I am delighted that, at last, we are beginning to see this matter resolved for a number of veterans, who to this day still dread a knock on the door and being hauled off to Northern Ireland from retirement—many are in their 70s and early 80s—to answer charges for actions that took place many years ago, and which were normally investigated and dismissed at the time.

The recent collapse of the trial of soldiers A and C is hugely significant, as the judge sent the prosecution packing with scathing comments about its case. However, I am worried because the word is that those people who have been charged recently or are in the process of being charged may still face prosecution in the Belfast court. Having myself given evidence in that court in 1986, when five terrorists were charged with murder, I know that it is not a prospect that veterans face with equanimity —they often say they would much prefer to be under fire. When I stood in court to give evidence for the prosecution against terrorists, I was shouted at, demeaned, threatened and told that my family were dead. That is not something that people like happening to them.

I gather that around seven more trials of veterans are in the offing, with perhaps another 16 more veterans also in the frame for prosecution. I feel that those trials and prosecutions should be stopped in their tracks, and I very much hope that will happen. Perhaps the same logic that sent the prosecution in the case of soldiers A and C out of the court with its tail between its legs will prevail. We owe our veteran soldiers and, indeed, all the people who tried to preserve peace in Northern Ireland—not just soldiers—a debt. They have lived under the continual threat of prosecution for many years; we should sort it out.

Our Northern Ireland veterans do not want an amnesty. Why should they have an amnesty? They have done nothing wrong. They obeyed the law, often at great risk to themselves, and are rightly affronted when some people suggest that they are just the same as terrorists. They are not—they are most definitely not. Like me in my time, veterans were sent to Northern Ireland at the behest of predecessors of ours in this place and told that if they obeyed the laws of conflict and of this country, we would look after them. That is exactly what Jim Callaghan, as Home Secretary, said to my own platoon of the Cheshire Regiment in Londonderry during the spring of 1970. At the time, my soldiers, 36 in strength, were reduced by a third, who were in hospital with burns and broken limbs. Mr Callaghan was seriously shocked by what he saw. He promised me, my men and all our soldiers in Northern Ireland that our predecessors here in this place would look after us as long as we obeyed the law. I think it is time that we honoured that pledge given by the Home Secretary 51 years ago.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

May I first take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on their new position? It is always good to see Dochertys in very lofty positions, even ones that are lofty in the wrong direction.

The Bill was supposed to tackle vexatious claims, yet the evidence received, both written and in Committee, pointed to the problems arising from flawed investigations. Nothing in the Bill improves service justice or tackles repeated investigations. The Bill was an opportunity to overhaul the system, but that is an opportunity now lost. Unless the Government establish proper structures and processes for investigations, including independent investigators, personnel will remain vulnerable to repeated investigations and indeed investigations by the International Criminal Court.

Still, the Government have been forced into significant concessions in other areas of the Bill because of the work of Members in the other place. The Government agreed last week that genocide, crimes against humanity and torture would be excluded from legal safeguards in the Bill. The threat of a further possible defeat at the hands of peers has, I am glad to hear, forced the Government also to exclude war crimes from the presumption against prosecution. Although we on the SNP Benches recognise this change, it should not have taken until the last gasp of this Bill for the Government to make it.

In their refusal to listen to evidence presented in Committee and to the calls of Members of this House, the Government, at least from our perspective, have profoundly damaged the UK and Parliament’s reputation internationally. We also see that the final version of the Bill retains the six-year longstop on civil claims against the MOD, denying members of the armed forces justice in valid civil claims. Indeed, it will significantly disadvantage those who have served abroad. The House should be making it easier for personnel to make claims when the MOD has been negligent, but this legislation seems to be crafted especially to protect the MOD and not the personnel themselves.

Lords amendment 5B ensures care and support for personnel involved in investigations, and every Member of this place should be supporting it. The House knows from discussions with personnel that the structures currently in place are not working for those facing prosecution, and we have seen that in evidence to the Armed Forces Bill Committee, of which I am a member. Finally, if that support is already there and it is not working, we need to strengthen it through statutory requirements. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government are willing to do that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The distinct purpose of the Bill is to provide legal protection to military personnel serving overseas on operations—that is what it is about. It is all about stopping vexatious prosecutions, often generated, for large sums, by unscrupulous lawyers. In short, lawfare, such as we saw a few years ago, should be a thing of the past, but is it totally gone? I wish to explain a little of the worries I have.

I am pleased that the Government have now decided to include war crimes alongside torture, crimes against humanity, genocide and sexual crimes, such as a rape, as being not subject to a statutory presumption against prosecution. That is good news, because, as others have said, it might stop our service personnel being dragged before the ICC in the future. So we must now prosecute war crimes like any other crime, but might I suggest a slight spanner in the works here?

I have seen such crimes in my time in Bosnia, in 1992-93—obviously, I should emphasise, they were not carried out by British soldiers. I have also given evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, where such crimes were tried—this is now done by the ICC. I gave evidence in trials where the guilty were sent to prison for between 15 and 45 years. I wonder exactly what crimes are not subject to a statute of limitation. What crimes creep through? As far as I can see, most of the definitions allow us to decide exactly what happens. I am quite worried that the Minister might not be able to identify a crime carried out that we could prosecute without a statute of limitation.

Sexual crimes can be prosecuted anyway under Navy, Army and Air Force Acts. Service personnel can never be ordered to carry out such acts by superior officers. Effectively, the Bill accepts and confirms crimes under the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 2003. The Bill states that unless there is compelling evidence, service personnel cannot be charged with crimes committed more than five years ago, unless of course they have taken part in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity or genocide, which are offences without a time limit. As I mentioned earlier, I am slightly worried about what is left. Of course I go along with what we have done, but I am slightly worried that many crimes can evade the provisions and that people could be done on these classifications.

On service personnel who have suffered some form of physical or mental injury, the limit is broadly six years after the event. In short, they must have started proceedings against, say, the Ministry of Defence within that period. However, the Bill allows for the possibility of someone bringing forward proceedings where, for example, they have PTSD but had not discovered it, even if they are affected 20 years later. In such as case, they will have six years from the point when they discover they are affected or when they are diagnosed to bring a claim against the MOD. I reckon that is fair enough. The MOD is certainly not trying to disadvantage its own.

I end by reminding everyone of a point the Minister made. The Government are still committed to bringing forward a Bill to protect veterans in Northern Ireland in the same way as those who have served overseas. If they do not, our servicemen and servicewomen will have two levels of protection: those like me who served in Northern Ireland will have a lesser degree of protection than those who have served overseas. To that end, I have always believed and supported the suggestion by the Defence Committee, on which I served several years ago, that the way forward in Northern Ireland is for there to be a qualified statute of limitations unless compelling new evidence has been produced. I therefore hope that very soon the Government will bring forward legislation to stop possible unequal treatment of our service personnel.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and respected Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

It is welcome that the Government have eventually accepted that war crimes should be excluded from the Bill. However, that it took this long for them to understand the grave implications of their proposals remains very worrying. What remains of concern is the stubborn refusal to introduce a duty of care to our service personnel. I am still at a total loss as to why the Government would reject and oppose care standards for service personnel and veterans involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations.

I was not comforted by the Minister’s words last week—neither, indeed, was I just now—when he assured us that,

“The Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans, for whom there already exists a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support”,

bearing in mind the testimonies from those in my own constituency and those who gave evidence to the Bill Committee of how inaccessible and ineffective that support can be. I was even less assured after reading the media comments made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who said that help is available, yet it is hard to understand it and

“hard to understand where it is”,

and that promoting where it is and how to get to it was simply not part of this Government’s agenda.

The Minister also claimed that the Lords amendment carries a risk of

“unintended consequences, including a possible increase in litigation, which would be contrary to the Bill’s objectives.”

As the noble Lord Dannatt said in the other place, that is simply an empty argument because, under the amendment, the Ministry of Defence has the opportunity to draw up its own statement of a duty of care standard and act within that. I reiterate my comments from last week—that to claim that the duty of care proposals would be better placed in the Armed Forces Bill is not acceptable. We are debating and voting today on this Bill; it is not right for MPs to accept gaps in legislation on the promise that it may or may not be rectified in future legislation.

The Bill’s objective is to offer more protection and support to service personnel and veterans, so how can an amendment that offers just that protection and support be, as the Minister said last week,

“contrary to the Bill’s objectives”?—[Official Report, 21 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 1058.]

I would really appreciate it if, in summing up, the Minister could expand on and clarify why the Government’s stubborn objection to this duty of care has remained. There still remains nothing in the Bill that will solve the problem of repeated investigations. Without Lords amendment 5B, there is nothing in the Bill that will afford our forces personnel and veterans a duty of care when they are undergoing such awful investigations.

I remain of the view that this Bill is a hurried and inadequate piece of legislation that has never matched up to the rhetoric surrounding it. No one is in disagreement that greater legal protections for armed forces personnel and veterans serving overseas were needed, but the Government have drafted legislation that makes the problem worse, leaves our service personnel and veterans at a disadvantage and without crucial support, and fails on its promise to those who served in Northern Ireland.

Our service personnel and veterans deserve the very best for risking their all for us; I echo the pleas made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) that, in today’s vote, Government Members show that they believe this too by joining us in the Lobby.

Ministerial Code

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I read through the ministerial code this morning; it took me longer than most Members because I am slower. I could see absolutely nothing in there to make me think that the Prime Minister has done anything wrong. Why do we not leave it to the system to investigate this matter, if there is a requirement for it, rather than dance to the tune of a media frenzy?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is an officer and a gentleman, and he puts the point very well. There are tried and tested procedures and principles in order to make sure that Ministers and others in the House behave in an appropriate way. Judgments can be made, of course, by all of us in a democracy. His reading of the ministerial code this morning may be a prelude to his being appointed as a Minister in due course, but I cannot further speculate on these matters.

Emergency Services Personnel: Awards for Next of Kin

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me to have this Adjournment debate, although it seems to be a rather two-edged weapon tonight. I thought I was in a good mood, until I saw the time that we would have to do it, but I am not alone—I am with lots of friends—and I am particularly pleased that the Minister responding, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), is a very good friend of mine and new in the Ministry, so he is having a bit of, shall we say, battlefield inoculation.

At about 4.30 am on 7 December 1982, I helped to pull a young woman called Tina Collins out of the wreckage of a pub called the Droppin’ Well in Northern Ireland. She had recently been married to 20-year-old Clinton Collins, my company clerk, who I had promoted to lance corporal the day before. I was then a major in the Cheshire Regiment serving at Ballykelly in Ulster. To celebrate Clinton’s promotion, he had taken Tina to the Droppin’ Well for the evening, until, at about 10 past 11, a huge bomb blew the place apart. Tina and Clinton were together and she later told me that he had shielded her with his body when the explosion occurred. Maybe he did; I hope so.

Clinton was killed—I think, almost immediately—and Tina survived, although in great shock. I was the incident commander and it took us about five and a half hours to recover Tina from where she was lying, under concrete beside the still body of her husband. In all, 17 people were killed that evening and 11 of them were soldiers, six of them from my own company. What happened that night has marked me for life and I will never forget the horror of it.

Then, on 1 July 2009, the Defence Secretary announced in this place that recognised next of kin of service personnel killed on operations would qualify for a commemorative emblem called the Elizabeth Cross. Tina Collins, of course, received it, and it was my real honour to have her visit me in Parliament after I became an MP in 2010. Regimental headquarters of all regiments, particularly thinking of the Cheshire Regiment, have contacted most of the next of kin of their soldiers killed since 1948—the date from which the emblem has been awarded—and appropriate awards have been made. That emblem is made of a silver cross rather like the size of a Military Cross, which my father was awarded. When I sit in my office and look at my father’s decorations on the wall, I always think of the Elizabeth Cross as well. The emblem comes in a large form about two inches square and a miniature form. It is accompanied by a scroll signed by Her Majesty the Queen bearing the name of the person who lost their life in the service of their country.

All I can say, and the Minister will agree with me here, is that anyone I have met who has been given this badge wears it with huge pride, and I—and we all—hope it is of some, albeit limited, succour to them. But it does not make sense to me that those who protect us in non-military uniforms, such as the police, fire and ambulance services, should not have a similar arrangement for their own next of kin if they are killed in the line of duty. I think so, and so do many other colleagues in this place. To that end, I have worked alongside my right hon. Friend, and good friend, the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) to try to get support for this, and I thank him. After all, in my view, there are far too many people killed in what we might call the blue light services who leave people behind.

Even late last week, Jack Daw, a paramedic, was killed in the village of Moreton on Lugg when answering a 999 call. An object smashed through the windscreen, killed him in the passenger seat and hurt the driver. The matter is still being investigated, but the media report that it may not have been a deliberate act and was an accident. Our own Police Constable Keith Palmer, George Medal, was killed in New Palace Yard on 22 March 2017. He had a wife and children, and I think Mrs Palmer could qualify for an award.

I gather that, between 1986 and 2013, 26 firefighters were killed attending fires in the United Kingdom. Most of them, of course, had close loved ones, so how about an award similar to the Elizabeth Cross for the blue light services? By blue light services, I mean the police, fire and ambulance services in the first instance, but the award might be expanded to include the coastguard and other organisations that rescue people, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, as well as mountain and mine rescue teams. The award could be given to recognised next of kin with similar criteria to that necessary for the award of the Elizabeth Cross—in other words, their loved ones were killed in the line of duty. I suggest that, if this idea is taken up, the award should be of the same quality as the armed forces’ Elizabeth Cross, which is somewhat splendid and much prized by those who wear it. It seems that the cross—please, not a medal; a cross is so much more distinctive—would look good in silver, designed along equivalent lines to those given to the next of kin of armed forces personnel. In short, it must stand out as special, and so it should.

I have not found one Member of Parliament who has reservations about this proposal. Surely, the next of kin of blue light service personnel who die in the service of their country are just as deserving as armed forces personnel who die for the same reason. Personally, I believe that, at this time, the award might be called the Prince Philip Cross, with the permission of Her Majesty, of course. Based on what I gather about the institution of the Elizabeth Cross in 2009, it may not need legislation, but would it not be appropriate to include it in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May?

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

rose—

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

indicated assent.

[Bob Stewart]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Exceptionally, then, because it is 20 past 1 in the morning and he is still here, I call Mark Francois to make a short contribution.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

Before moving to the main meat of my speech, I wish to formally put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for his fantastic work on veterans’ issues for many years and his work in getting the Bill to this point. I know that he will share my satisfaction that, with a following wind, it will make further progress today.

Importantly, although it is not in the scope of the debate, I would like to confirm to the House that a Bill will soon come forward from the Northern Ireland Office that will protect our Northern Ireland veterans of Operation Banner and address the legacy of the troubles. I know that this will be of sincere interest to many Members here today.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the brand-new Minister for allowing me to intervene. That is very good news indeed, and I look forward to it. If that does not happen, we have second-class veteran soldiers, because those who have served abroad are first-class in the way they are treated, and those of us who served many times in Northern Ireland would be second-class.

[Leo Docherty]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention. I acknowledge his significant service on operations in Northern Ireland, and I know that he will share my keen expectation that we will, through legislation, in due course, deliver the protection that our Op Banner veterans so richly deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my friend the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I have been tussling in my mind with why a war crime is different from torture, crimes against humanity or genocide, but I have come to understand—probably because I am a bit silly or stupid—what a war crime is. An example of a war crime is getting a whole load of the enemy when they have surrendered, putting them up against a wall and shooting them. That is a war crime, and I think it is quite a good thing that we should be against that.

[John Healey]

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has experience of conflict. I do not know whether a legal mind, which mine certainly is not, would regard that as wilful killing, but as such, it is probably an act that is beyond the categories of specific crimes cited in the Government’s amendment that excludes them from the provisions of the Bill. That underlines the case I am making, for which I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, that that category of Geneva convention-defined crimes, including war crimes, really must be excluded from the presumption in this Bill; otherwise, we face the risks that we are discussing this afternoon of exposing our forces to potential action from the International Criminal Court, which none of us wants to see, and of dragging down the reputation of this country for upholding in full and fully adhering to the international rules and standards of military legal conduct.

I turn to Lords amendment 2, on investigations. I said earlier that the Bill does not yet do what it says on the tin. We were told that this Bill would bring an end to the harassment of forces personnel through repeated legal claims, but because it deals only with prosecutions and not with investigations, it will not do that. Only 27 prosecutions arising from Iraq and Afghanistan have been registered, yet 3,400 allegations were considered by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and 670 from Operation Northmoor. Therefore, less than 1% of allegations were prosecuted. The problem here is investigations: the serious, consistent problems that lie in a system of investigation that has proved to be lacking in speed, soundness, openness and a duty of care to alleged victims or the troops involved. Those are all problems well before the point of decision about prosecution, which is the point at which the provisions of this Bill kick in.

The Minister describes the proposals in Lords amendment 2 as somehow premature and cites Henriques. I am aware, of course, that the Government have set up a review on this, but there have been three reviews already and he might want to ask his officials to dig them out for him. There have been three reviews in the past five years, with at least 80 recommendations on investigations that the Government could act on now. The Minister and his predecessor promised us that investigations reform would be a matter for the Armed Forces Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said, yet when that Bill was brought before the House nothing was included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

For people watching who will not remember Marine A, he is a marine who effectively executed a wounded prisoner and went to prison for it.

[Bob Stewart]

Murdered.

[Mr Davis]

Yes, murdered is the right word.

What would that lead to? It would lead to members of the British military being arraigned before a court that is traditionally used for arraigning tyrants and people we would view as monsters. What would that say about our nation’s moral compass? I shudder to think how people would use it. Of course, those who would use that impugning of our position would be our opponents, who themselves have no moral compass. They would be the first to use it against us. It would embolden our adversaries and be a bad day for Britain.

I say this to the Minister: I will support the Government today, even though I am unhappy with that exclusion, because they have made a major concession in areas on which I and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) pressed them. However, I will also say to the Minister that if the Lords send it back again and insist on the exclusion of war crimes, I will vote for it next time and I will encourage my many colleagues who are concerned about the Bill to vote that way, too. The Minister cannot invent time, but it will give him time to look at all the amendments and think through carefully what is really in the interests of our soldiers and our country. On that basis, I support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). It would not be right to talk about the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill without mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). While the circumstances surrounding his departure are regrettable and sad to me, I wish to commend him for his fantastic contribution, hard work and passion. I cannot think of a single Minister who has given so much of himself, worn his heart on his sleeve or driven his cause harder. We now have legislation in place in an area where previously we had none, and I want to issue to my hon. Friend a public and heartfelt thank you on behalf of all the veterans community.

I would also like to welcome the new Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), to his place. As my friend and neighbour in Aldershot, he is perfectly placed to take on challenges ahead. He has done his time in the Whips Office, he has done his time in uniform and he is also a veteran. He is the perfect combination.

[Bob Stewart]

While my good friend is blowing smoke up the backside of the new, excellent Minister, I have to say that I have a real worry. In the Ministry of Defence, we are now stuck with two woodentops and one black mafia, with two officers from the Scots Guards and one from The Rifles. I am a bit worried about where the rest of us will fit in.

[James Sunderland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; he has stolen my thunder, because I have a similar theme. As a long-standing member of the new Minister’s association in Aldershot and a former commanding officer of a proud regiment in Aldershot, I will be keeping a close eye on him while supporting him as best I can. I know that Aldershot will be very proud of him.

I am a bit concerned that, as my good friend, the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), mentioned, the MOD has not two but three infantry officers at the helm. My admiration for Jeremy Quin, the procurement Minister, goes up by the day. [Interruption.] No, he is not an infantry officer. As the veritable quartermaster for the MOD, my good friend Jeremy will, I know, keep an eye on any daring adventures and keep them in check within the MOD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]]

It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who serves expertly as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans. It is appropriate that he has sought to recalibrate the dangerous notion that could arise from some of our considerations about the ongoing, genuine and sustained efforts that our armed forces make as they serve our country.

On behalf of my party, I congratulate the new Minister for Defence People and Veterans on his appointment. I know him well. We have served together in the Select Committee on Defence, and I know he will be a true champion for veterans. It would be inappropriate were I not to mention the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). He was elected at exactly the same time as me, I made my maiden speech immediately after he made his, and we served together on the Defence Committee. I do not think that anyone in this House would question his passion or his commitment to veterans. Yesterday was a difficult day for him, but he should take comfort from knowing that he has stood steadfast by the commitments he gave to veterans who served in Northern Ireland.

I was interested to hear the Minister, at the start of today’s proceedings, indicate that the Northern Ireland Office will bring forward a Bill that offers equivalent protection for veterans who served in Northern Ireland. Last night, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View wrote that the Government are good at saying the right thing, but perhaps not so good at delivering. We need to see action. That commitment to provide for veterans from Northern Ireland was given to the House in a written ministerial statement on 18 March last year—the day that this Bill, the Overseas Operations Bill, was introduced. Thirteen months later, we are still waiting, eager and interested to see the detail. There is genuine concern, Should there be an attempt to provide equivalence between those who served our country— those honourable service personnel who stood against tyranny and terrorism—and terrorists, I hope that it will not find favour in this House.

I thank the Government for their movement in the light of Lords amendment 1. We will support the amendment, as we think that, in totality, it captures the range of issues that were fairly outlined by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). It is important that we ensure there is no suggestion or no cause for concern that our armed forces personnel would be engaged in activities such as torture, crimes against humanity, or war crimes and genocide. That is where I differ from the Government. I hope that they will reflect honourably on the fears relating to war crimes in particular. Having moved on the other three issues, I ask that the Government do the same on war crimes as well.

I ask the Minister, when he sums up, to reflect again on the comments he made about Lords amendment 5. A duty of care on legal, pastoral and mental wellbeing is not something that Government should fear. I think I heard the Minister indicate that there was potential to impact upon the operational effectiveness of our armed forces should the amendment pass, but I cannot see that cause for concern. I ask him to give that renewed consideration and reflect on it in his closing remarks.

On the other Lords amendment, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, we will support the Government. We have welcomed this Bill. We recognise the need for it. We want to see an end to vexatious prosecutions. In supporting some of the amendments and in asking the Government to go a little farther, we will keenly work with the new Minister as he embarks on his role, not only on the concluding stages of this Bill, but on honouring the commitments that he and his colleagues made, in their manifesto and to this House, on protecting veterans from Northern Ireland.

[Bob Stewart]

May I reiterate my congratulations to my very good friend and now my former Whip, who had a very difficult job of keeping me in order? Best of luck to the next one—bring ‘em on. Well done. I am really pleased for him. I am also saddened. The one thing about my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), a good friend of mine, is that he led all the time with his heart. He was trying his very best to do the right thing for his constituents and for the armed forces. It was good, too, that he was a commander gunner, rather than a woodentop or member of the black mafia.

I have given evidence in war crimes trials and in trials that involved crimes against humanity and genocide—not torture, but those two—and I am slightly concerned that we have not put war crimes into this Bill. After all, there are plenty of war crimes that are well documented from the second world war, such as Wormhoudt, on 28 May 1940, where 80 mainly British soldiers from the 2nd battalion the Royal Warwickshire Regiment and the 4th battalion the Cheshire Regiment, both regiments that have gone now, were stuck in a wooden hut and machine gunned. Grenades were then thrown in at them. This was done by the 1st SS division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. That is a clear war crime. But, sadly, we are not immune from some criticism. In the second world war, some of our submarines did machine gun survivors in the water. Some of our soldiers did rape and kill civilians in Normandy and in Germany. And, I am afraid, the British Army was involved in similar instances in Malaya and in Kenya. I will not go further on this. I am not trying to blame anyone, but I think the crime of war crime should be in this Bill. I will be voting for it, but I hope that the Government will think again on the subject of war crimes. Everyone is nodding because it makes sense.

My last paragraph or so is fundamentally to reinforce something that I know my friend the Minister is fully on board with. The Ministry of Defence cannot escape its responsibility to look after veterans from Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister has got that point. I also know that it is not the MOD that is in the lead on this; it is the Northern Ireland Office. I really believe that very shortly we will have some good news—I hope so. When this Bill goes through, as I have mentioned already, we will have two grades of veterans: those who are better protected in the matter we are discussing today, and those who are not. Those who are not will broadly be classified as Northern Ireland veterans, which others here can classify themselves as, too. I think I have said enough. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.