Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I wish to speak in support of the amendment. The issue was quite clearly looked at by Judge Lyons in his report. As has just been said, there is no rationale for why other rank 7 was seen as a particularly relevant cut-off point. The important thing is that we make the move to mirror the civilian justice system, although I certainly accept that there are differences between the two because of operational issues.

To be judged by one’s peers is a fundamental right. The provision would exclude large numbers of individuals, including some who may have many years of experience in the armed forces and of sitting on courts martial. I do not think that a good enough reason for excluding those individuals has been put forward in evidence. One possible justification was that people would not understand the procedures. Well, I find that rather patronising for non-commissioned officers, some of whom have been in the armed forces for many years. I would draw a parallel with civilian courts, where there is no qualification process or aptitude test for sitting on a civilian jury. It is for them to weigh up the evidence.

I think that Judge Lyons was basically saying in his report that the movement he outlined was all that he could get away with in the military legal system. I think that he was pushing for further change, but quite clearly did not want to offend or cause things not to go further. I think that he certainly saw this as a step towards, possibly, allowing other ranks to sit on courts martial.

The important point is to ensure that the individuals being tried feel that they get a fair hearing. In the hierarchical way that courts martial are judged at the moment, individuals might not perceive the process as fair because they are judged by more senior officers who determine promotion and other prospects for lower ranks, and might not only have limited understanding of the individual’s life experience, but could ultimately influence the outcome of the individual’s career, for example. I do not think a good enough reason has been put forward for why this cannot be extended, and I therefore support the amendment.

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

I will say just a couple of words in support of my colleague’s amendment. The Bill should be seen as an opportunity to modernise and to introduce some fairness—or perceived fairness—into service justice.

To include the NCOs and lower ranks is a step towards a more equitable method of delivering service justice, and how that is viewed by personnel is important. It is important that those sitting on a court martial board understand the experience of the people before them. Unfortunately, the experiences of commissioned and non-commissioned personnel can often be quite different. This is a real chance to build greater fairness, and perceived fairness, into the system. I urge the Government to consider the amendment carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

May I begin by thanking Justice Lyons for his review? In his evidence to the Committee, he clearly outlined why amendment 19 is needed. I am a veteran of the 2006 Bill Committee, and it is quite clear, as Judge Lyons said in evidence, that when this amendment was made to that Bill, the intention was not for the wholesale movement towards serious crimes being heard in courts martial in the UK. They were for exceptional circumstances in which, for example, one crime had been committed overseas and one in the UK, given the ability of the court martial to deal with such cases. That was a sensible way forward because the service police would clearly be the lead authority in the investigation of such serious crimes committed abroad as murder, rape or manslaughter,.

The problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West outlined eloquently, is to do with confidence in the system. When the system was outlined, I do not think courts martial were meant to deal with these serious crimes. I support the military justice system, and I do not think the amendment would do anything to damage it. I think it would boost confidence in it.

The problem with the current system has been outlined. The conviction rate for rape is not satisfactory—I accept there are problems not just in the military system but in civilian life as well—and one of the key issues is investigation. The Minister said he was confident that the service police have the capacity to investigate such serious crimes. I would not want to criticise professional individuals, but, as with anything, the more specialism someone has and the more cases they deal with, the more expertise they get in gathering evidence and in supporting victims.

Clearly, the service police deal with a limited number of serious cases, so I would have thought that, when such alleged crimes are committed in the UK, it would be important to involve the local civilian police, who deal with serious sexual assaults, rapes, manslaughter and murder more often. Because of that experience not only in gathering evidence but in dealing with victims, they should have primacy. I am old enough to remember the Deepcut inquiry undertaken by Lord Justice Blake and know those cases in detail. I accept that is going back a number of years, but the clear problem there was the way in which evidence was not gathered—in some cases it was ignored or destroyed—and the assumption, without rigorous investigation, that suicide was the main cause of death in all cases.

The amendment is really about the system’s integrity and getting confidence for victims as well. As we saw in evidence from Forward Assist and retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, there is an issue in ensuring that, first, those who complain think they will be listened to as victims, and secondly, the armed forces’ hierarchical structure is not an impediment to the proper investigation of serious accusations. I can see the reason for courts martial dealing with cases in exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the 2006 Act, such as those that take place overseas and in this country, but I cannot see why routine cases in the UK are not dealt with by the civilian courts. I therefore support the amendment.

The Minister said it is a policy decision, but I am not sure. The intention was there, and I do not think much has changed in the past 15 years. What we need to do now is to ensure that, as was outlined in evidence we heard from the Victims’ Commissioner and other witnesses, the victim is at the centre of any system we put in place.

[Carol Monaghan]

I will say a few words in support of the amendment. The Defence Sub-Committee has been taking evidence on the experience of women in the armed forces. We know there are a whole range of issues specific to female personnel. When we are looking at serious crimes such as rape, so many different issues have to be considered —we need to consider consent and whether there is a proper reporting structure—and those who make complaints must have confidence in the system.

We have already discussed the membership of the court martial board. How can someone have confidence in a trial when those who are deciding the outcomes are likely to be male and of higher ranks, and not likely to have any understanding of the woman or the victim’s experience? In other words, they will not have anything in common with the person who is bringing forward the complaint.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Clause 18 reflects the Government’s commitment to the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender armed forces personnel. The clause amends section 164 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to extend posthumous pardons for very old, abolished service offences.

Presently, section 164, in so far as it relates to the armed forces, refers only to historical service offences from before 1881 of men who served in the Navy, but not of those who served in the Army or the Royal Marines, the latter being when ashore. The amendment will ensure that those who served in the Army or Royal Marines before 1881 and were convicted at court martial for now abolished service offences can be pardoned for those offences. The RAF is not affected by the amendment because it was not constituted until 1917 and is already covered in the existing provisions of section 164. I am pleased that through this clause, we continue to address historic injustice and demonstrate that the military is a positive place to work for all who choose to serve.

LGBT personnel have made, and continue to make, significant contributions to the armed forces. I hope that the Committee has seen the work that we have done over the past 12 months to try to right the horrendous wrongs that were done to that community during their time in service.

[Carol Monaghan]

How will the Minister determine who is in that group? Many people in the LGBT community left the armed forces, but not because they were convicted of being LGBT. They left under other circumstances—in some ways, to make it easier for the military to get rid of them. Can he give a bit more detail on how he will identify those affected? That has to be done.

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Lady makes a really good point, and there is a lot to work through in that space. There is also the question of those who would have received the medal for long service and good conduct but were asked to leave because they were part of the LGBT community. I have been clear that the apology and medal restoration is a first step. We are working through the legal ramifications of addressing some of those historical wrongs. That is ongoing, but I am unable to comment on the progress at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 19

Power of British overseas territories to apply AFA 2006 etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I would be delighted to write to my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Age of Recruitment

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) Section 328, subsection 2(c): leave out “without the consent of prescribed persons.”—(Carol Monaghan.)

This new clause would raise the age of recruitment into the Armed Forces to 18, in line with NATO allies and UN standards.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Carol Monaghan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Equalising the Minimum Term for Service in the Army—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 329, subsection 2(c) substitute “or to transfer at a prescribed time to a reserve force” with “or to transfer to a reserve force after a prescribed number of years from the date of their enlistment without regard to his age on that date”.

This new clause ensures that service personnel aged under 18 are not required to serve for a longer period than adult service personnel.

[Carol Monaghan]

New clause 1 establishes age 18 as the minimum age for recruitment into the UK armed forces. Each year, the British armed forces enlist over 2,000 young people aged 16 and 17, mostly for the Army, and particularly for the infantry. It is notable that most Army recruits are 16, more than any other age. The United Kingdom is out of step with many of its allies in allowing enlistment at 16, and in a response to a written question from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), we find that underage recruits require longer training. We also know that they warrant more complicated duty of care plans and demonstrate a greater frequency of attrition.

In the three-year timeframe from 2015 to 2018, the Army enlisted just under 5,300 16 and 17-year-olds, and of this cohort, nearly a third dropped out before they completed their phase 2 training. As the Army’s accredited educational requirements for under-age recruits are limited to basic literacy, numeracy, and information and communications technology courses, it is clear that many 16 and 17-year-olds who withdraw from their training will re-enter the civilian world without immediate access to further employment, training and education. Typically, it has been commonplace for the Army to recruit young people from economically deprived areas, and while military service is a fruitful and fulfilling career for many of our service personnel, it is undeniable that encouraging 16 and 17-year-olds to remain in full-time education generates considerable benefits. Full-time education until the age of 18 should be the norm for all young people, and the opportunities for professional and personal development are indisputable, alongside the invaluable psychological, emotional and social growth that full-time education facilitates.

On top of these considerations, it also makes clear economic sense to increase the age of recruitment to 18, as the large drop-out rate that I have previously mentioned is costly in terms of both resources and time spent on training. Finally, adopting such a policy stands to bring the UK into line with the vast majority of its international contemporaries. Three quarters of states worldwide now have armed forces personnel who are exclusively aged 18 and over, including most of our NATO allies. While 16 and 17-year-olds cannot serve on the frontline, recruitment at the ages of 16 and 17 is detrimental to international efforts to end the use of children in military settings. The UN convention on the rights of the child has urged the UK to increase its minimum recruitment age to 18. If, as this Government have often stressed, we are entering an era of a truly global Britain, it seems appropriate that the UK should align with its global partners in the international community.

Adopting an adults-only enlistment policy would also be welcome domestically. The Children’s Commissioners for the UK’s four nations, the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights and numerous trade unions and health professionals have expressed their support for adult-only recruitment. If we are to safeguard the wellbeing, development, educational opportunities and physical safety of our young people, it is crucial that we change the minimum age for armed forces recruitment to 18.

New clause 2 would ensure that service personnel aged under 18 would not be required to serve for a longer period than adult service personnel. Most of the Committee’s discussion up to now has centred on removing any disadvantage experienced by service personnel in relation to their civilian counterparts, but we have not yet discussed the age discrimination that exists within the armed forces. The Bill does nothing to ensure that personnel recruited under the age of 18 experience no disadvantage compared with those recruited as adults.

At present, Army regulations that define a minimum service period discriminate against younger recruits. An Army recruit has a right of discharge for a fixed period of time after enlistment, but, once that period has expired, a recruit who enlisted at age 18 or above must serve for at least four years from the date of their enlistment. However, for recruits who enlisted at age 16 or 17, the clock restarts at age 18, so they must serve until they turn 22 at least—another four years. That commits them to up to six years of service when they are still a minor. As result of that disparate treatment, young recruits have to serve longer to have the right to leave the Army.

That inconsistency on service relates solely to the Army; it does not exist in the Navy or RAF. Only due to an armed forces exemption in the Equality Act 2010 is that allowed to remain. Such age discrimination would be prohibited in the civilian workforce, and new clause 2 would correct that by equalising the minimum service period for all recruits across the Army, ensuring that recruits under 18 experience no disadvantage compared with their adult counterparts.

The new clause builds on comments in the Army’s 2019 review of its junior entry policy that considered new terms of service to align the minimum commitment length of recruits aged under 18 to those who joined over the age of 18. The review commented on how a change in this area could attract potential young recruits and their parents and

“would mitigate some external criticism and provide greater consistency.”

In addition, the review mentioned that the change could make the process of leaving the Army as an under-18 “more transparent” and easier to understand. As such, the new clause would be an entirely reasonable and straightforward addition to the Bill and bring a consistent and logical approach to the minimum length of service across the armed forces. I urge the Committee to consider it carefully.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I recognise that the Minister will oppose the new clauses, especially on the age of recruitment—I am sure we disagree on that principle—but I hope the Government and members of the Committee will recognise the age discrimination for those under 18 who remain in the armed forces and the detriment caused through their service not being recognised. I hope we can agree in a collegiate way that anyone who remains in the Army once they reach 18 must have that prior service calculated in their long-term service in the armed forces. Anything else is a detriment to them and also underscores our lack of commitment to them, with their military service not being counted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

My hon. Friend is right that passing-out parades are a huge part of the journey of our forces’ families through the system. He will be aware, though, that generally we align with Public Health England’s advice and the Government’s direction. We are looking to get those parades going as soon as possible, and I am acutely aware of the effect on families of not attending them. Guidance will be issued in due course in line with the Government’s expectations on a relaxation of restrictions.

We welcome the independent scrutiny of Ofsted and the confirmation that it provides that we treat our young recruits well. Our armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people, as well as fulfilling and rewarding careers. Following those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West will agree to withdraw the amendment, but I thank her for her careful consideration. I know that her husband is a veteran, and I am extremely grateful for the thoughtful way in which she applies herself to these subjects. I look forward to engaging with her further on these important issues down the road.

[Carol Monaghan]

It is interesting to hear Members talking about the positive experiences of young people. Many Members will know that I am a teacher by profession. A number of the young pupils I taught went on to join the Army at age 16. Some of them had an extremely positive experience, as I highlighted in my comments; however, we need to look at the 30% who are dropping out. Why is there such a high drop-out rate?

For that 30% of 16 to 17-year-olds, some of whom do not have the strongest educational or family backgrounds, all they have from joining the Army is another failure under their belt. They have missed out on educational opportunities in the period they have been in the Army, and it is difficult to rejoin the education system after having dropped out of the Army. Also, there are under-18s who are on active service. They might not be on the frontline, but they serve in the Royal Navy on submarines.

On new clause 2, the Minister said that up to the age of 18, people can drop out. We understand that, but the problem is that once they turn 18 the clock starts again, and it is then four years beyond that before they can drop out. That is what they are signing up to. Their entire service is a six-year commitment, essentially, rather than a four-year one. If we were to equalise the opportunity for the youngsters who are joining up in comparison to adults who join aged 18, they should be able to leave sooner. They should simply be committing to another two years, not another four.

[Mr Holden]

I understand the spirit and the background that the hon. Member brings to this. I think everyone knows that because of the unique circumstances of someone who joins at 16, where they can drop out at any point until they are 18, it is very different from the situation of someone who formally joins at 18 for another four years. Those things are slightly conflated in the new clause.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the case in the Navy and the RAF, so there is already a disparity.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Carol Monaghan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Mental health report—

“(1) No later than 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report which must include—

(a) a definition of what constitutes ‘priority care’ as set out in Armed Forces Covenant and how the Secretary of State is working to ensure that it is being provided, and

(b) a review of waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans accessing mental health support.

(2) The first report published under this section must also include a resource plan to meet current Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service waiting time targets for the offer of an appointment in England and set new targets for mental health recovery through the veterans mental health pathway.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce a definition of ‘priority care’ to help primary care clinicians deliver the commitments in the Armed Forces Covenant, conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, and produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets.

[Carol Monaghan]

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to use the annual armed forces covenant report to assess the health and educational outcomes of personnel under the age of 18 and the service of personnel under the age of 18 in relation to article 3 of the convention on the rights of the child.

The time in a young person’s life from the ages of 16 to 18 is significant, and this transition to adulthood is typified by expanding opportunities and capabilities. These years also bring substantial risks and vulnerabilities. Research undertaken by UNICEF has shown that adolescents are more vulnerable to external pressure, influence and risk taking than adults are because of the processes of neurocognitive and psychological development. To ensure the transition between adolescence and adulthood as a time for healthy development and resilience building, 16 and 17-year olds must be in an environment that facilitates sustained learning, skills development, respect for individuality, social support and strong relationships. The UN convention on the rights of the child recognises the needs and vulnerabilities of adolescents and it consequently defines every person below the age of 18 as a child. This convention obliges all public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies to always consider the best interests of the child in any matter which concerns them.

I do not consider 16 and 17-year olds to be children; I would consider them as young people. However, the same applies here. For the reasons I have stated, we have a moral and legal duty to pay particular attention to the experiences and outcomes of those who join the armed forces before they turn 18. Those under 18 in the military take on risks and obligations just like their adult colleagues, which may put them at a disadvantage relative to their civilian peers in areas such as health and education.

While Army recruits are not sent to the frontline until they turn 18, the impact of military employment at such a young age, particularly on recruits from a stressful childhood background, has raised numerous human rights and public health concerns. Among those who have raised concerns have been the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Children’s Commissioners for the four jurisdictions of the UK, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Ministry of Defence does not collect information about the socioeconomic profile of armed forces personnel. However, other research has found that Army recruits under the age of 18 generally come from England’s poorest constituencies, with recruitment concentrated in urban fringe areas in the north of England.

Official data from the MOD shows that the youngest recruits tend to have underdeveloped literacy. Education for the youngest Army recruits is largely restricted to basic literacy, numeracy and IT. As I have already mentioned, with 30% of 16 and 17-year-old recruits leaving before finishing phase two training, that presents an immediate risk to their employment, education, training and social mobility prospects, and it certainly puts them at a disadvantage compared with their civilian peers.

As for health, those recruited under the age of 18 are more likely to die or be injured in action over the course of their military career, and they are at greater risk of mental health-related problems, such as alcohol abuse and self-harm. The additional rights and protections of 16 and 17-year-olds under the law and the need to ensure positive health and educational outcomes for this age group is a clear justification for the MOD to consider the impact of military service on personnel aged under 18.

As such, new clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to use the annual armed forces covenant report to assess the health and educational outcomes of personnel under the age of 18 and to consider whether service is in their best interest. Such annual reporting carries no risk to the effectiveness of the armed forces, rather it would solely ensure that those entering the armed forces under the age of 18 are given the consideration they require.

When we are considering the issue of no disadvantage in health and education, this should include proper consideration of the disadvantage that young recruits may experience compared with other 16 and 17-year olds. As these years are crucial in shaping life outcomes, it is important that the Ministry of Defence treats the welfare of service personnel under the age of 18 with the highest priority and comes forward freely to report on their outcomes.

[Mrs Hodgson]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. New clause 12 would require the Government to do three things: first, to produce a definition of “priority care” to help primary care clinicians to deliver on the commitments in the armed forces covenant; secondly, to conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans; and, finally, to produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets. I shall address each in turn.

“The Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2020” acknowledges the confusion about what priority care means. It says that

“in practice this remains inconsistent, and there is a lack of clarity about the interpretation of the policy by government, clinicians, and the NHS.”

During oral evidence to this Committee, Ray Lock, from the Forces in Mind Trust, said that

“anything you can do to provide greater certainty would be helpful.”

The first part of this new clause therefore seeks to do just that and provide a definition as to what the Government really mean when they talk about priority care and treatment.

Moving to the second part of the new clause, on a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, I have already written to the Minister regarding waiting times under TILS—the veterans’ mental health transition, intervention and liaison service—which have not been met. The average waiting time to be offered a face-to-face appointment for TILS in 2019-20 was 37 days, which misses the target of 14 days. Conducting a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans would establish why they are not being met and—to move to the final part of the new clause—what action needs to be taken to address that gap.

I know that the Minister is proud of the launch of Operation Courage, but I urge him to continue to seize this moment to make real and measurable change to the mental health services for serving personnel and veterans. This new clause would bring much-needed clarity to the priority care promised through the covenant and is designed to address the issue of waiting times not being met. I know that the Minister will want to resolve those issues and I therefore hope that he takes the opportunity offered by the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

I obviously reject the implication in the proposed new clauses that an armed forces career results in any disadvantage to our under-18 service personnel. The reality is that the armed forces provide a compelling and high-quality career, founded on superb training and the highest standards of care for each and every one of them. I hope, given these assurances, the hon. Members for Glasgow North West and for Washington and Sunderland West will agree to withdraw their new clauses.

[Carol Monaghan]

For the reasons I have already stated, we have a moral and legal duty to pay particular attention to the experiences and outcomes of those who join the armed forces before they turn 18—both for those who remain in service and those who choose to leave early. While the Minister highlighted some of the work that has been done in this area with Ofsted and the MOD, surely it would not be difficult to make a specific report on the outcomes of the 16 and 17-year-old recruits? They have very specific needs and requirements. I cannot see any reason why there cannot be a statement on the health and educational outcomes of these personnel in the annual report. At the moment, however, I am happy to withdraw the new clause. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I hope he will consider my contribution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Order. We are drawing today’s session to a close. We meet again on 31 March.