Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

That is a really fair point. Such provision has not existed before and it is always dangerous when we start going down that route of bringing in new protocols specifically to deal with the challenges of sexual assault that we have here.

I plead with those on the Front Bench: the issue of the female experience in the military defines what we do. I note that the response, last week, was to double the number of females in the military. The only problem is that we have already missed our target for doing that in the first place. It is pointless to give strongly worded statements to the chiefs or to say that we are going to double the numbers if so many people—the young women we saw in the work from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham—simply do not come forward because they do not think they are going to have any fairness, any rigour or any real prospect of a conviction for their horrendous experience.

Members will find no one prouder of the military in this place than me but there is a singular problem. I do not buy this stuff about a culture problem—I am afraid I am on the other side of the fence on that: the military is the most wonderful life-chances machine this country has—but there is a problem with holding our people to account, whether in respect of lawfare or other issues. It is exactly the same here. If we do that and hold our people to account, we will get on top of this problem without losing good people like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, whose work I commend. I am incredibly proud of her; the Government should be as well and should implement all her recommendations.

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

It was certainly interesting to listen to the contribution from the former Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).

Over the past year, personnel have supported the vaccine roll-out, transported petrol to petrol stations and, most recently, aided those impacted by Storm Arwen. Overseas, members of our armed forces have put their lives on the line to evacuate those at risk in Afghanistan and are actively engaged in operations ranging from peacekeeping to combatting the international drugs trade. Our personnel are our greatest armed forces asset and we must do our best to ensure that any legislation that impacts the lives of serving personnel is evidence based, carefully considered and ultimately beneficial.

This Bill has presented a once-in-a-decade chance to improve treatment and conditions for serving personnel and their loved ones while also implementing desperately needed reforms to the service justice system, which is currently failing to deliver for many victims. Sadly, despite the efforts of those in the other place, the Bill is lacking in ambition and many of its provisions are tokenistic.

Lords amendment 1, which we will be supporting, removes the military from the handling of the most serious of crimes. Very recently, the Defence Secretary held a meeting with senior members of the Army to discuss allegations of sexual violence by members of the armed forces. This came after the Defence Committee report on women in the armed forces, which exposed the culture of sexism, intimidation and secrecy within the armed forces and the flawed systems that allow serious acts of misconduct to go unchallenged. Some 64% of the more than 4,000 servicewomen who submitted evidence to the report stated that they had experienced sexual harassment, rape, bullying or discrimination. That figure should cause all of us great discomfort.

Last week, the MOD’s response to the women in the armed forces report announced the introduction of new measures, including sexual consent training and the doubling of the number of female personnel. However, it is hard to see, with the current laddish culture that is being promoted, how women will be encouraged or attracted to join. More ambitious and swifter action is required.

Lords amendment 1 to clause 7 requires a protocol between the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would create a presumption that serious charges against serving personnel would be heard in civilian courts. There is good reason for this. In the five years until 2019, rape conviction rates in civilian courts were approximately 59% compared with the shockingly low 9% of those heard in military courts. The chances of seeing justice are “shockingly low”, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. We heard this evening from the Minister that the reason why these would continue to be held in military courts is that they could be held swiftly; it was for the welfare of the victims.

I would like to hear from those victims whether they think that their welfare is being looked after by the current system. The majority of these cases are currently prosecuted through court martial, where the boards have a largely, if not entirely, male majority who cannot possibly understand the lived experience of women. The Government have stated that female representation must be on the court martial board, but no quotas have been specified, so it is questionable whether this will make any difference.

Within the military, there is evidence of poor victim care and poor investigations, as military police have little experience of complex sexual violence cases. The evidence backing the amendment is clear: for justice to be delivered, these offences must be tried in civilian courts, as these courts have experience of dealing with complex cases, particularly in relation to rape and sexual assault.

The provisions within Lords amendment 1 are also recommended by the Lyons review and the Defence Committee report, which contended that

“service personnel remain citizens and in these serious cases when the civil courts are available to them, they should be tried in that forum.”

This move also has the backing of the Victims’ Commissioner, a former chief constable and, most importantly, many serving personnel and veterans.

Lords amendment 2, which we support, would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to the covenant. The Bill, as introduced, largely applies to local government. The UK Government should be subject to the same legal standard on the covenant that they are seeking to apply in the devolved context and to local councils. We know that many areas of policy in which serving personnel, veterans and their families face disadvantage—forces’ housing, pensions and employment to name but a few—are the direct responsibility of the UK Government. Disappointingly, many live issues are entirely ignored by the Bill, including: Commonwealth veteran immigration; justice for LGBT veterans; and forces’ housing, which continues to cause major issues for personnel.

We will continue to work with the Minister to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for serving personnel and veterans, but, sadly, I do not think that this Bill is a vehicle through which we will do it.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

One group of veterans whom we talk about regularly in the House—I raised this subject with the hon. Gentleman when he was the Veterans Minister—are the nuclear test veterans. I have not heard him talk about them, and he did not speak much about them in his former role. Perhaps he would like to say a little about them now.

[Johnny Mercer]

With respect, I have spoken a lot about nuclear test veterans. I was the only Minister who met their group, and I have spoken about the fight to get some sort of medallic recognition. I reviewed the nuclear—

[Carol Monaghan]

indicated dissent.

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Lady can shake her head, but I did actually review the nuclear test programme medical settlement for them, and I improved it.

Nuclear test veterans are a part of this, but no one wants more than me to get away from the narrative that we do not treat veterans particularly well in this country. We are all incredibly proud of them, but this requires action and commitment. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs gave us the opportunity to do that, and I urge the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to do it. I know that he and everyone else on the Front Bench believe in this stuff, but we have to get away from giving money to military charities as though that will make us feel better. We have to develop a professional and profoundly different level of veterans’ care in this country, working with the third sector and others, to make people feel as though things are really changing for veterans in this country. I urge the Chief Secretary to take that forward.

Nuclear Test Veterans: Service Medal

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his speech. He has campaigned for a number of years on this and has worked tirelessly to see those who served their country get recognition for their service. I pay tribute to him for his huge efforts.

Ensuring that victims get the recognition they deserve is fundamental to supporting veterans in this country, as is recognised in the strategy for our veterans, and I am determined that we recognise our veterans in the correct way. The Government have committed to veterans in a way that none of our predecessors have, with more money now being spent on the veterans community than ever before. Establishing the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was a systemic change and an indication of the Government’s commitment to her veterans. Never before in previous Governments under previous Ministers has there been an Office for Veterans’ Affairs to take responsibility for these issues and to champion the needs of veterans across government.

I hope today to assure my hon. Friends that the contributions of those who participated in the nuclear testing programme are not unrecognised, and that the Government continue to acknowledge and thank all service personnel who participated. Importantly, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, they contributed to keeping our nation secure during the cold war and since by ensuring that the UK was equipped with an appropriate nuclear capability. We will never forget their service, and we continue to recognise all that they did for their country.

As hon. Members will be aware, the advisory military sub-committee, which has been mentioned, was established to reconsider historic medallic recognition cases. As has been mentioned, last year the committee considered this case and concluded that participation in it did not meet the committee’s criteria. It is important to get across to the House that this is an independent process. It operates to a strict criteria and is outwith ministerial control, and rightly so. It was not a decision that some campaign groups, veterans and their families hoped for. I understand their disappointment—of course I do.

[Carol Monaghan]

In 2012, David Cameron agreed to award medals—I cannot remember for which campaign; it may have been the Ebola campaign—so Prime Ministers can step in to let their feelings be known and to put pressure on the appropriate people to ensure that medals are awarded. There is a role for Ministers and for Government in this. This would be a very simple way to recognise the specific and dangerous situation that these veterans were put in.

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Member. She is not correct; there is no formal role for Ministers to play in this decision-making process. There never has been for medals. It is important that the AMSC is able to determine for itself which medal claims should be reviewed. The terms of the sub-committee are clearly laid out, and any new submissions that might have been provided have been passed to the sub-committee. The decision on whether the case will be reviewed will be shared with campaigners by the AMSC in due course. This is not the end of the line. Those reasons will be shared.

As I have said, the medallic system is outside the control of Ministers, and it always has been. It is rightly in that position, protecting the integrity of the medals system—this is important—and of those who have received honours in this country. However, I am determined to continue to do all I can to support this cohort of veterans. It is fundamental to me that there is no tiered approach to veterans in this country, that those who have served for any period, in any circumstance, are recognised and supported as veterans. Therefore, although there are no dedicated compensation arrangements for UK nuclear test veterans, all claims have been and continue to be considered under the war pension scheme.

Any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation under this scheme, and I encourage them to do so. War pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury as a result of service in the armed forces before 6 April 2005, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Decisions are medically certified and follow consideration of available service and medical evidence, and carry full rights of appeal to an independent tribunal.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Wednesday 31st March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Carol Monaghan]

I just want to add a couple of comments. Both these new clauses seem to worry the Government, and we have to wonder why. I think many personnel will wonder, “Why would the Government not wish to support these proposals?” A body that can speak for armed forces personnel on issues such as housing, terms and conditions, and pay would surely be a benefit. If personnel could raise these issues themselves, it could avoid situations such as those that we have seen recently through the National Audit Office report on the poor quality of single living accommodation.

It is important that we look at other bodies that work. The Police Federation would be a good example. In the Police Federation, individuals do not have the ability to strike and there is no threat to the chain of command. Despite us raising these issues time and again, the Government simply throw the same lazy arguments back at us. Those lazy arguments include, “We don’t want anything that undermines the chain of command.” This organisation would operate separately; it would be a body that personnel could go to without breaching the chain of command. All of us here understand the importance of that.

What arguments is the Minister going to come up with for opposing these new clauses? We have heard the same arguments time and again on strikes and chain of command, but we have said that these new clauses are no threat to those things. What can the Minister tell us other than that? Why would he not want to support personnel when they are looking for improvement? I do not think any of us would argue about what they want. They want decent housing, and decent terms and conditions; and we should not have any problem with that. I am really interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Johnny Mercer]

What we have seen there is the granularity of the problem when it comes to debating these issues. The Scottish nationalist party Members have put forward two things that are fundamentally and factually inaccurate to support their argument—

[Carol Monaghan]

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. Could you remind the Minister that the name of our party is the Scottish National party? He is using that other term deliberately and continues to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Colleagues have put forward two arguments that are factually not true. I just do not know how to respond when colleagues put forward points of view that they know to be untrue, which I correct on the record, yet they still advance them as though they are on some crusade for the benefit of the members of our armed forces. It really is sixth-form-debating-level behaviour and it means that I cannot respond to their points—

[Carol Monaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

No, I will not give way, because my hon. Friends even corrected each other when one said that the continuity of education allowance was only for officers, which it is not, and then split between commissioned—

[Carol Monaghan]

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. The Minister is now trying to rewrite the record. I was very careful in what I said and I pointed out to him that I agreed 100% with what he said about the education allowance being available for all. However, I did say that it was almost exclusively used by officers, and that is the case.

[Johnny Mercer]

It is not the case; it is about a 45%-55% split.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Hon. Members seek to amend section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by substituting the gender-specific words in that text with gender-neutral language. Clearly, gender-neutral drafting in legislation is important, and it has been deemed essential by successive Governments in recent times. The practice now is that new primary legislation is drafted in a gender-neutral way. On 8 March 2007, the then Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Jack Straw, announced that all future Government Bills would be gender neutral

“so far as it is practicable”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 143W.]

That approach is reflected in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel’s current drafting guidance. In accordance with that guidance, this Bill, including the amendments it makes to the Armed Forces Act 2006, has been drafted in a gender-neutral way.

However, the Armed Forces Act 2006 was drafted before the new approach of gender-neutral language was adopted, and it is not drafted in a gender-neutral way. While, as I say, the practice is now to draft in a gender-neutral way, it is not the Government’s practice to update language in all legislation that is not otherwise being amended. In short, it is one thing to insert gender-neutral legislation, as this Bill does; it is quite another to revise existing legislative text, as this new clause proposes.

Further, from a common-sense perspective, the proposed new clause is rather narrow, seeking only to amend one small part of the Armed Forces Act 2006 and leaving much of the Act in the old, gendered-pronoun style. Conversely, it would be rather impractical and time-consuming to revisit the entirety of the Act. The Government will, of course, continue to adopt gender-neutral drafting when amending the Armed Forces Act 2006 for other reasons. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will agree to withdraw her new clause.

[Carol Monaghan]

The Minister’s response is rather disappointing. Yes, this new clause does refer to just one part of the 2006 Act, but it was hoped that that would then permeate through all of the Act. It is disappointing, when we are talking about the importance of diversity in the armed forces, that the Minister is not willing to look at this proposal. It would not be a huge amount of work to amend the entire Act; it would simply involve updating these particular gender-specific words. I am not going to push this new clause to a vote, but I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders

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

(2) After section 20(2)(d) insert—

‘(e) the person is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, alcohol or drugs.’

(3) After section 20(3) insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State has a duty of care to offer a specific pathway for support and treatment for current and previously serving service personnel who experience—

(a) a propensity to misuse, alcohol and drugs,

(b) alcohol or drug dependency, and

(c) gambling disorder.

(3B) The Secretary of State must include in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report—

(a) the number of people accessing treatment and support as set out in section (1), and

(b) the current provisions for rehabilitation facilities for Armed Forces personnel who are experiencing a propensity to misuse or have a dependency on alcohol, drugs and gambling.’”—(Dan Carden.)

This new clause places a duty of care onto the Ministry of Defence to provide treatment pathways to serving personnel and veterans who experience alcohol, drug and gambling disorders and will include the number of people accessing treatment and current rehabilitation provisions in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I do not think this is a Bill Committee to discuss the SNP’s manifesto, but we have been quite bit clear throughout that funding has to be found. If hon. Members want to discuss the SNP’s manifesto, we can get rid of Trident, which is an enormous and expensive vanity project, which, frankly, we cannot afford.

[Johnny Mercer]

I really welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham. He is right about the absolute disaster zone we were left with in 2010. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham obviously likes to remind us regularly of his experiences in the MOD, but the key would be to look at them in detail and to be more honest about them. Ultimately, people watching this do not really care what happened 10, 15 or 20 years ago. What they care about is sorting out these issues now and that is what this Government are looking to do.

We have to meet the threat as it is presented in the integrated review. We have had a good defence White Paper that looks at the new and emerging threats, and the way we want to change our integrated operating concept. It is a good review. I think that members of our armed forces would like to see people get behind that, rather than talking about issues that are quite significantly out of date.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South seeks to place an obligation on the Defence Secretary to

“report to Parliament quarterly on infantry battalion soldier strength, including the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.”

The Government already publish on gov.uk quarterly service personnel statistics, containing detailed information on the strength, intake, outflow and gains to trained strength for the UK armed forces overall and specifically for each of the three services, including the Army. Providing a further breakdown of those figures to include infantry battalion soldier strength and the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion would be highly likely to prejudice the security of the armed forces for three clear reasons.

First, it would expose any extant or potential vulnerabilities and capability gaps within the force structure—a threat that will be exacerbated over the next four years as the Army reconfigures and readjusts in line with the outcomes of the integrated reviewed. Secondly, it would risk exposing any nascent and emerging capability plan. Thirdly, it could reveal the size and strength of sensitive capabilities to our adversaries.

As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South will understand, the safety and security of our service personnel and the effectiveness of our force are among my highest priorities. He will therefore understand that I am not willing to put the security of our personnel at risk in this manner. There is also a real concern that focusing Parliament’s attention disproportionately on infantry strength would serve only to undermine the guiding principle of our nation’s future security.

As the Secretary of State wrote in his introduction to the defence Command Paper, it is essential that our future armed forces are

“integrated across all domains, joining up our people, equipment and information to increase their outputs and effectiveness.”

It goes without saying that providing quarterly updates on infantry strength alone would place an uncontextualised and unhelpful emphasis on one part of a large and integrated whole force that we value highly. That is why our current reporting, which is made available to all, covers that whole force.

In the light of these very real concerns, I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at this moment, no.

I cannot rewrite history, and I cannot promise every last penny that was lost out on because people did not achieve their long service and good conduct. There is no mechanism possible to make that happen. What I will do, and what we are doing at the moment as part of cross-Government activity involving the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Home Office, is find a mechanism, working with Fighting with Pride, Stonewall and others, to address the appalling injustice for this cohort of veterans.

I give a commitment today to write to the Prime Minister to ask him to reflect on my apology to the LGBT community last year, and to ask him to consider doing so at a national level. I know that will not correct it, but it will go some way towards alleviation. I saw the impact of my apology. It is easy for those who are not in that cohort to downplay an apology or not to want to do it, because of its ramifications, but apologies are important for the cohort that went through this experience. I will write to the Prime Minister on that issue today.

In light of those things, I do not want to duplicate the work that is going on at the moment, because I want to get a solution for all these people, like Fighting with Pride, with which I am in constant communication. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton will agree to withdraw his new clause and to work with me to get to a place where this cohort is properly looked after and some sort of restorative justice takes place, in line with what I have done already. I hope he has confidence in what I have done already and in my commitment to go much further in future.

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Thursday 25th March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

What criteria was used by the Advisory Military Sub-Committee to inform its decision not to recommend a service medal award for British nuclear test veterans.

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

The independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee first considers whether there are exceptional circumstances that merit a review. The criteria for historical recognition are the exposure of deployed personnel to a significant degree of risk to life and limb and to arduous conditions, in excess of what might be expected as part of normal service duties.

[Carol Monaghan [V]]

The UK is the only country that performed nuclear tests that has not formally recognised the contribution of its 20,000 nuclear test veterans. These elderly veterans, who were exposed to ionising radiation with no protection, have heard decades of rhetoric about their bravery, but without formal recognition, those are simply hollow words. Members on both sides of the House know that these veterans deserve a campaign medal, but his Department continues to refuse that modest request. Why does the Minister consider these veterans unworthy of a medal?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am afraid that there were a number of inaccuracies in the hon. Member’s question. It is not my Department, and we are not the only country in the world that has this view. Only this summer, I met the chairman of the veterans group concerned and asked Veterans UK—this is separate from the medallic recognition scheme—to revisit and redesign the support available to our nuclear test veterans. I understand the disappointment at this decision. It is not within my gift. My job is to make sure these people are looked after properly. I am confident we are doing that. Again, I am happy to meet campaign groups to see what more we can do.

--- Later in debate ---

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

In his previous response to me, the Minister talked about looking after the nuclear test veterans. Since they have not received compensation for their exposure to ionising radiation, this is frankly laughable. Is not the real reason these veterans have not received their medal that this would be an admission by the UK Government that they were placed in an extremely hazardous situation?

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

That is not the real reason at all. This is a very clear process that is rightly outwith the control of Ministers. There is an independent committee that looks at medallic recognition. They have looked at this again and come to the decision that they have. It would be worthwhile funnelling energies into how we look after this special cohort of people. This decision does not diminish their service in any way and, again, I am happy to meet both the hon. Lady and the chairmen of the campaign groups to make sure that we are doing all we can to look after those who have served.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect of frozen state pensions on veterans living overseas.

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

The Government have no plans to change their policy on overseas pensions uprating. It is long-standing Government policy that the state pension is not uprated annually for those not resident in the United Kingdom unless the pensioner resides in a country with which there is a reciprocal social security agreement requiring that uprating.

[Carol Monaghan [V]]

The Minister prides himself on standing up for veterans, so it is surprising to hear him say, as he just has, that he is not going to do anything for the estimated 60,000 veterans who have their pensions frozen, many of whom are living in poverty and relying on family handouts. These are pensioners such as world war two veteran Anne Puckridge, who, instead of receiving £134 a week, receives a mere £72 a week. When is the Minister going to stand up for veterans, as he should be doing as the Minister for veterans?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not take any lessons from the hon. Lady on standing up for veterans. State pensions are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, and she is well aware of that fact. This arrangement has been conducted by successive Governments for over 70 years, and questions about the policy should be directed to the Department for Work and Pensions.

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

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Mundell.

I appreciate the opportunity to address some of the points raised. My intention is not to disparage Members’ intentions, because I get it: people want to support our armed forces and do not want to disadvantage them. I do not want to disadvantage them. However, some things—the data is a good example—are being totally misused to promote these points. For example, on the statement that from 2014 to 2019 there were however many thousand claims, that number includes claims in the UK that people would bring under tort or civilian law against an employer. This Bill does not apply to that; it is called the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. In no way are those comparisons being made in a fair manner. This Bill applies only to those allegations and claims that affect our service personnel overseas.

[Carol Monaghan]

rose—

[Johnny Mercer]

I will get to my point. There were 552 employer liability claims from what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today’s Daily Mirror had sounded familiar to a couple of the speeches: it mentioned “21,000 claims”. It is total nonsense. That is the total number of claims that people have made against the MOD in the period from 2004 to 2017. They are claims in a civilian workplace environment, where there are civil liabilities claims, claims regarding exercises and so on in the UK, and breach of contract claims. In the Bill, we are talking specifically about overseas operations. Whoever is providing these figures is demonstrating a pretty basic misunderstanding of what is going on—or it is a deliberate attempt to mislead, but I am sure it is not. The two things are not comparable in any way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

The figures have been published in the impact assessment a number of times. The hon. Lady can shake her head, but again, we are in a space of alternative facts. The figures are in the impact assessment, which is before the House.

[Carol Monaghan]

The Minister is talking about overseas operations. We all understand that, and that the Bill applies to those serving overseas. However, if my employer sends me overseas, and I suffer an injury there due to the negligence of my employer here in the UK, I can sue the employer for the injury. The same should be the case for veterans. It is not about whether it is overseas or here; it is about having the same rights as civilian employees.

[Johnny Mercer]

I disagree, and this is why. Operational service overseas is fundamentally different from life in the UK, and from what we ask our people to do. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we have a duty in this country to protect those overseas, whether it is against improvised explosive devices, bombs, electronic warfare, or indeed legal systems used to bring warfare by another means. That is what this Bill is trying to do.

I understand the assertion that if someone from the Royal British Legion was deployed on an operation, the six-year limit comes down. Viewed on its own, that is something that will happen to serviceperson, but not a civilian. Disadvantage is a comparable term. Disadvantage to who? The Government argue—this I am clear on—that these people are seriously disadvantaged by having no legal protection against these thousands of claims that we have seen come in over the last 15 or 20 years. What the Royal British Legion would like us to do is to put that to one side—[Interruption.] No, it is, because I have engaged with it extensively. It would like us to apply that to one side of the argument, which, again, is not legal. Under European human rights law, people are being disadvantaged and discriminated against based on the claimant, which is not legal. This cannot be brought in on one side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Thank you, Mr Mundell. I have to deal in the real world. I have to deal with real facts and figures—not made-up stuff—and how they apply to the battlefield. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition about whether the ECHR should be applied on the battlefield. I accept that. That is the point—that ability to continue these extensions is part of ECHR compliance. The Government do not agree that the battlefield is the right place, or that retrospective application of the ECHR to the battlefield is appropriate.

I have seen comparisons with convicted criminals a number of times in a lot of campaign items. Hon. Members are comparing convicted criminals to armed forces veterans. That comparison—prisoners to veterans—has been made a number of times. I can tell Members that that goes down like a cup of cold sick in the veterans community. It is not comparing the same things.

[Carol Monaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will give way in a moment.

The Bill has clearly been introduced to protect our servicemen and women when they conduct overseas operations. The purpose of the limitations is to stop large-scale out-of-time and often vexatious claims being brought against the military on overseas operations. I urge Members to think a bit more about comparing veterans with convicted criminals.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

This is embarrassing.

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

You are embarrassing.

British Overseas Troops: Civil Liability Claims

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

The objective of this Bill is very clear. It is to restore fairness in the system for veterans, service personnel and victims, for whom this process has not worked for many years. I am afraid that veterans and their families have not been considered in a lot of these processes, and some of their experiences have been totally unacceptable. This Government were elected to change this nation’s relationship with our veterans. I am very proud that we are doing that now, and the whole House should be supportive of what we are trying to do to get this right.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing this urgent question. I start by declaring my interest, as my husband is a veteran.

The Government are not short on rhetoric on the importance of our armed forces, but as usual the rhetoric does not match the reality. Part 2 of the Bill is yet another attack on our personnel and veterans. Those who have risked their lives in the service of our country will now have a limited period in which to pursue a claim. I know that the Minister said this morning that the six-year limit is from the point of diagnosis, but the culture in the military means that some personnel are told that they are unable to pursue a claim while they are serving, or told by those higher up the chain of command that they do not have a valid claim. Given that many conditions, such as deafness, asbestos poisoning and the impact of radiation exposure, can get worse over the years, what protections will be in place to enable such personnel to pursue their claims? According to the Government, the rationale for these proposals is that they will be beneficial to our armed forces personnel and veterans, so will the Minister give us some real evidence and examples of how personnel and veterans will benefit from this limit?

It is also unacceptable for the Government to introduce the Bill before publishing a formal response to their consultation, so when will that response be published? Why was an impact assessment not published alongside the Bill? The Government seem to be taking advantage of the fact that they are unique in their ability to legislate to restrict legal claims against them. Is it not in fact the case that, under the guise of benefiting service personnel and veterans, the Government are simply saving money from legal claims at the expense of injured veterans?

[Johnny Mercer]

I hope you will forgive me, Mr Speaker. I have an enormous amount of respect for many of my colleagues, but I have never heard such a load of rubbish in all my life. This Government have done more than any before them to improve the lot of veterans in this country, bar none.

UK Special Forces: Iraq and Afghanistan

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Johnny Mercer

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Carol Monaghan]

We know that the UN has identified cases of 300 civilians who have been unlawfully killed. If there are 300 civilians who have been unlawfully killed, there are people who have done the unlawful killing. I would therefore like to know what steps are being taken to properly investigate these killings to ensure that we have the answers and there is scrutiny of the operations of the armed forces.

[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.