Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Dan Carden and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 31st March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

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

This new clause would place a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence in relation to finding a pathway to treatment for people suffering with addiction. We are familiar with the existing narrative that many of our armed forces community will, at some stage, struggle with their mental health. While there is agreement that we must prioritise the mental health and wellbeing of our armed forces, alcohol, drug and gambling use disorders—otherwise known as addiction—do not receive the same consideration, and serving personnel and veterans experiencing addiction are being failed by the current system.

In society, we should afford the same attention, resources and support to addiction as to any other mental health matter, because addiction is an illness—an illness with a higher prevalence across the services. The new clause would place a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence to ensure that it has a role to play in finding a pathway to treatment for those men and women who have given service. Combat Stress confirms that military personnel are more likely to suffer from substance misuse problems than civilians, yet there is only one veteran-specific addiction treatment facility in the whole of the UK—Tom Harrison House, in Anfield, in my constituency.

Turning to alcohol, drugs and gambling in times of uncertainty or hardship is normalised in the UK. The latest Office for National Statistics alcohol-specific deaths data show that this is now a national crisis. Our armed forces are a niche community with distinct values that make engagement with local services difficult. Many veterans and their families are isolated and do not receive the treatment they need and deserve. I have met many veterans visiting Tom Harrison House who felt completely let down by the MOD. I am yet to meet one who has received the support they need for their addiction through the Army, Navy or Air Force. Too often—in fact, it is the norm—people have to hit rock bottom to get picked up and offered support. Even then, treatment is not always available. One veteran told me:

“I gave my life to service, I was trained to lack empathy; conditioned to survive; asking for help was a weakness; encouraged to drink and when there was nothing left for me to give, I was discharged, without any re-conditioning, no support; completely alone.”

That experience is unacceptable.

We just do not know how many veterans experience substance use disorders, as there is such limited reporting. The new clause would address that lack of understanding. As it stands, the MOD plays no role in the pathway of support for veterans who require treatment for addiction and other mental health issues, even though we know that the effect of service is often a determining factor in a veteran’s illness. Once personnel have left service, they rely on the NHS and local authorities, and of course the UK’s third sector organisations provide help and support. I absolutely value their work, but the MOD has a responsibility to those men and women that it has shirked for too long. Veterans are expected to use the same pathway as civilians—through the NHS and local authority services—yet drug and alcohol services have been decimated in the past 10 years, with part one of Dame Carol Black’s review on drugs detailing that, in some local authorities, funding for these services has been cut by 40%. We expect veterans to navigate an underfunded system that does not cater for veteran- specific needs.

We know that addiction is often a symptom of deeper psychological problems. Substances are ways to escape and self-medicate. Although co-occurrence of substance use and mental health diagnoses is widely understood, to access mental health services the person must often address the substance use first. The Committee heard at first hand from Combat Stress just how obstructive that is to recovery. This fractured approach leaves too many in prolonged pain and suffering as they continue to fall between the cracks. While the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law, public bodies having that due regard will not help the many veterans who experience addiction.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is talking about veterans, but does he agree that there is a big issue with drug and alcohol misuse in the services? The services’ main response is usually to dismiss people with those issues. Does he think more should be done to get treatment for those individuals while they are in service?

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We know that levels of treatment do not match the levels of addiction that we believe exist. I will finish on this point. Currently, there is a zero-tolerance approach to alcohol and drug misuse in the forces, and that approach lacks understanding and is outdated. Other professions, including our doctors, the police force, the fire service and pharmacists, provide occupational support for substance use, and our armed forces should follow suit. I hope the Minister will address that issue.

New clause 6 will ensure that these men and women have access to a pathway of support for problematic alcohol, drug and gambling use, and it will allow information on service personnel and veterans’ treatment, and the provision for it, to be included in the annual armed forces covenant report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden]

I thank the Minister for the way that he has engaged with these issues, and for the work that he has already done. One of the key problems that we have is the poor set of data, and I look forward to working with him to see what we can do in the Bill on those issues. In the light of the Minister’s commitments to meet and his offer to visit Tom Harrison House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Welfare of Operation Banner veterans

“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 the number of Operation Banner veterans who—

(a) have contacted the Office of Veteran Affairs,

(b) are accessing mental health treatment,

(c) are in the street homeless population, and

(d) are within the prison population.”—(Mr Jones.)

This new clause will ensure that the Government offers consideration to the overall welfare of those service personnel that served in Operation Banner.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Jones]

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

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Dan Carden and Kevan Jones

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

There was a time when I used to like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), when he was a young researcher here. There is nothing sinister happening—it was the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee sat this morning. I was going to move the amendment because the Committee was still sitting, and that is why it was done. It is nothing against the individual personally, and he knows I have a lot of respect for him.

I support the Bill, and obviously the new clause in the name of the ISC, because it gives a legal framework to cover this area of work. Having been on the ISC for a number of years, I have seen transcripts of some of the evidence from CHIS. Is it information that we could get in any other way? No, it is not. There is a misunderstanding that somehow now with modern technology, telecommunication intercepts and everything else, we can get all the information that we require. We cannot. The best is still from human sources. Certainly, with the cases I have seen and the transcripts for terrorism cases relating to Islamic terrorism and the ones for Northern Ireland, the work that the security services do to protect us all—including all communities, and that includes marginalised communities—could not be done without that CHIS involvement.

There has also been a misunderstanding—I think it gets crossed over in the Bill—between what is happening now and what happened in the past. I am no defender of what happened in the past, in terms of some of the things that were referred to in Northern Ireland or even the spy cops issue. Under this legislation, we will have the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s oversight of the situation, and there is a big difference between police officers, in terms of this authorisation, and civilians. Police officers will come under the Bill, but remember, more importantly, their conduct is also covered by other legislation.

I know that the spy cops case is cited, as though this would legitimise them. It would not because police officers would still have to come under the legislation that covers their conduct. They are more controlled than the civilians or individuals we will recruit both for organised crime or national security issues, who will have to commit crimes on occasions to ensure that their cover is not blown. I have seen the transcripts, and although I cannot refer to individual cases, I have seen one where an individual was part of a proscribed organisation for many years. His actions have not only led to a major disruption of that organisation, but, I think, saved lives. Therefore, is it right that this should be on a legal footing? Yes it can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said that this would give carte blanche for the security services and police to do what they want. I am sorry, but it does not. We have to look at the guidance, which many people have not looked at. I know that some Opposition Members have been saying that they will vote against the Bill on principle. Well, I am sorry, but I do not see anything principled in weakening the ability of our security services to protect us or of the police to protect trafficked women and children, or in the fact that it will make the situation worse for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are preyed upon not only by organised crime but terrorism groups.

All I say to Members is please read the Bill and read the guidance, because the guidance is important. I have some problems with the Bill in the sense that it could be improved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made a very good point that this is probably not the way to do it. We should have had more time, and perhaps debated it in Committee upstairs, which would have been far better. It is important that we get this right, but the idea that the security services do not have any oversight is not the case. In fact, they will have more oversight. May I just say this: the individuals who are running CHISs are not just the office boys in MI5; they are senior officials who not only have training on the guidance, but know the difficult situations that are being dealt with on the ground. I say to Members: please do not go for headlines; look at what happens in the Bill. The Bill can be improved, which is why I support the oversight proposed in new clause 3.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on one point—a point that was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in her contribution in which she made some other very legitimate points. The Bill would be strengthened if the guidance was actually in the Bill. I have no problems with the guidance as it is written at the moment, because it is both strong and robust. The right hon. Gentleman’s point was that if it were in the Bill, it could not be, as he said, tinkered with or changed afterwards.

I also ask Members to look at the present, rather than at what went on in the past. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is right: we cannot justify what some of the agencies did in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s without any scrutiny—whether for the police or the security services. As for blacklisting, the Bill will not lead to a situation in which blacklisting is not given a red light. If Members read the guidance, they will see that that would fall out of the scope of that guidance. Likewise, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will be able to look at those individual warrants. Moreover, as a former trade union official, I know that blacklisting existed, but certain members of trade unions do not have a great history in terms of their collusion, on some occasions, with employers in certain industries to blacklist trade unionists. I feel passionate about this in the sense that it is wrong, but it cannot all be necessarily put down to the employers.

May I touch on two other points? The first is the issue around amendment 7 in the names of those on the Labour Front Bench. I have problems with it. I accept that, as the Bill is written, it is looking backwards at these cases. Operationally, from the cases that I have seen, the idea that we could get a judge to cover the scope of potential criminality in certain areas would be difficult. Let us say, as an example, that we have someone who has been authorised to get involved in the drugs trade, but then they are asked to carry out a burglary. A very broad warrant would have to be issued to cover quite large things. I think that it is perhaps better leaving it in the guidance and with the officer. I have seen evidence that there are occasions when the security services will withdraw authorisation from a CHIS, and they do so because people are getting involved in things that are quite clearly not in the public interest and are not followed by the guidance. That does happen.

I have one final point, which again has been raised and which I still struggle with. Why have other organisations been lumped into the Bill? I am quite content for the police and the security services to be covered by this legislation, but I am less at ease with the Food Standards Agency and others being given authorisation. There is a level of expertise now, both in the police and in the security services, in terms of being able to authorise, train and run CHISs, which might not be there in the other organisations when, perhaps, they are dealing with very small numbers of cases over a period.

The Bill is an improvement on what we have at the moment, because it will bring in a legal framework. Can it be improved? I think that it can be, but, again, I urge people to read the Bill and read the guidance and to look at them in terms of what is happening today rather than what has happened historically.

[Dan Carden]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Right hon.

[Dan Carden]

My right hon. Friend. I think that was one of the briefest speeches he has ever made in this House.

This Bill is about the power of the state, and it is also about the rights of citizens. What we have today is a book of amendments, almost each and every one of which would improve the Bill, but unfortunately, it feels to me like a fait accompli by the Government. I am not surprised that the Government are not listening to civil liberties organisations, but I am pretty surprised that they are not even listening to the Intelligence and Security Committee of this House. The way in which the House is being led down the garden path is something worth speaking up against.

I would not be in this House if it was not for my experiences growing up with a dad involved in an industrial dispute for over two years—the experience of workers taking action and the challenges they faced. That was an unofficial dispute, opposing casualisation and insecurity, and it lasted two years. It is relevant because there is a real worry that these powers could be misused. What matters is what is in the Bill. Of course we all want appropriate powers to deal with criminality and the most serious crimes. However, the scope in the Bill for organising criminal conduct by the state is wide open to abuse, and it comes down to a triple-whammy attack on our civil liberties.

First, the Bill permits secret agents of the state to commit any crime to prevent what they consider to be disorder or harm to the economic wellbeing of the UK. Secondly, it does not include the necessary independent judicial oversight, so the agencies concerned will act alone in that decision making. Finally, the Bill does not limit those crimes at all. We have heard that the Human Rights Act will be applied to this legislation, but the Human Rights Act does not create crimes like other legislation does. Rather, it means that a Government can be found in breach of that Act, so the crimes in this Bill are simply not limited.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the contribution that he is making, and I forgive him his earlier remarks. He says that the scope is unlimited, but it is not, because the guidance that goes alongside the Bill—which I accept should be in the Bill—makes it clear that it will not lead to the free-for-all that he is suggesting.

[Dan Carden]

I think my right hon. Friend has far more trust in the words of the Government and the guidance than I do.

What would stop an agency deciding that an unofficial dispute constituted disorder or harm to the economy that it was worth taking action against? The Bill is written so badly and broadly that it is effectively a licence to criminally disrupt working people taking action to support themselves, their co-workers and their families, and we have seen this all too often in the past. The Bill paves the way for gross abuses of state power against citizens.

In Liverpool, we have a healthy suspicion of state power, because we have felt its damaging force too often in the past. We have experienced the 30-year fight of the Hillsborough families and survivors for truth and justice. We have had striking workers targeted by state violence, and trade unionists blacklisted and spied on for representing their members, and we are not alone. Campaigners fighting miscarriages of justice across our country, such as Orgreave, the Shrewsbury 24 and now Grenfell Tower, oppose this dangerous Bill.

I fear that my own party is being taken for a ride by this Government, because I will tell you what happens. You start with the idea that legislating for something that operates in the shadows must be a good thing. You then engage in good faith with a morally bankrupt Government arguing for vital safeguards, and once that Government finish stringing you along, you end up in the perverse situation of condoning laws that ride a coach and horses through our nation’s civil liberties and could even be used against the labour movement itself.

I am sent here by my constituents to stand up for their rights, freedoms and well-being, and that is what forces me to vote against the Bill tonight.