Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the adequacy of legal protections for veterans who served in Operation Banner.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

The veterans who served under Op Banner served to protect civilian lives and secure the peace in Northern Ireland. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s deep concern that many may now be caught up in investigations or litigation, and I am determined that we protect them further. I am working closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary, as are our officials, to ensure that we discharge our duty to the veterans as part of the necessary plans to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

[David Davis]

During Operation Banner, every single time a paramilitary was killed by a British soldier, it was subject to judicial investigation. The Director of Public Prosecutions went through the evidence at the time, interviewed people, looked at the planning documents and was able to talk to people contemporaneously while they could still remember it. It was not a rubber stamp; it was rigorous, as was proven by the fact that, where necessary, it led to prosecution. What is happening now is double jeopardy. Worse still, it is double jeopardy under new rules but with no new evidence. Indeed, there is a risk of lost evidence and lost memory, given the passage of time. I have heard what the Secretary of State has said, but will he commit to ensuring that soldiers who were subject to reviews at the time will not be subject to further risk of prosecution under the Government’s replacement for the legacy Act?

[John Healey]

Any incoming Government would have to repeal the legacy Act. It is unlawful legislation—it has been rejected by domestic courts, and rejected by communities across Northern Ireland, and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise. We owe it to those affected by the troubles, whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks about, including our armed forces communities and veterans, to be honest about the unworkability of that legacy Act and to get this legislation right. That is exactly what the Northern Ireland Secretary and I are working together to ensure we can do, taking full account of all the interested parties, in particular those veterans and armed forces communities that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about.

Armed Forces Day

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for sharing with us those powerful words by Kipling, which have sunk into our national consciousness. I appreciate the cordial nature of the debate between the Minister for the Armed Forces and the shadow Minister. We three were together earlier this week for a debate on recruitment in the north-east, which was also incredibly cordial. This is a great opportunity to continue that conversation.

In Stockton, we celebrated Armed Forces Day early, on Saturday, with a flag-raising ceremony, many celebrations on the high street, and a service led by Rev. Paul. I was pleased to see representatives of our local armed forces. Members of the Yorkshire Regiment, which largely serves my constituency, were there, although people in the north of my constituency might tend to join The Rifles, and we had representatives from our local cadet forces, including the Royal Marines Cadets, the Sea Cadets and the Royal Air Force Air Cadets, who are based in Norton, in my constituency. There were also representatives from the Royal Military Police Reserves, who I am proud to say are also based in Norton. Stockton has strong representation from the armed forces in our local community; I am pleased to say that one in 20 people in my constituency are either serving in the armed forces or veterans.

I mentioned the Royal Military Police. I wondered if they were not mentioned enough in the House, so I thought this would be a good opportunity to commend their work. They can claim to be the longest-established regiment or corps, with a history stretching all the way back to the 13th century and the appointment of the first sergeant of the peace. Today, they are a vital part of our armed forces, with around 2,200 soldiers and civilian staff. They support operations in conflict zones, peace- keeping missions and humanitarian efforts. This is perhaps a suitable moment to pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her service as a captain in the Royal Military Police, and for her continued advocacy for the armed forces community.

The Royal Military Police are much like other skilled units in the armed forces, but they have three main roles: the policing of the Army, special investigations and close protection. In policing the Army, they will be attached to a unit in the field, and will ensure that captured members of enemy forces are treated appropriately, legally and humanely, which is clearly an important role. They were recently deployed in Ukraine as close protection for staff of the Foreign Office. There are airborne RMP, based in Colchester; they were part of Operation Market Garden at Pegasus Bridge.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Would he accept that the actions of the Royal Military Police attached to fighting units are a direct reflection of the Army and of our national character in upholding the rule of law even in warfare?

[Chris McDonald]

I would. I may go on to develop this point, but that role creates for members of the Royal Military Police a unique duty and a serious responsibility that puts them in a slightly different position from their comrades, which must be quite difficult. That is why I wanted to highlight the role of the RMP.

Members of the RMP can also find themselves in incredibly dangerous situations. A friend of mine, who is a member of the RMP reserves, highlighted to me the role of Royal Military Police officers during the second world war and in other conflicts in managing traffic points. Those fixed grid reference points are vital in managing the traffic flow of equipment and personnel appropriately for our logistics, but they also mean that RMP personnel are easy to target by artillery and aircraft. They carry out that role with great bravery; I commend them for that.

As I have mentioned, policing puts individuals in a difficult and unique position. That is also true for the civilian police force, but I think there is a particular additional burden on members of the Royal Military Police in how they discharge their duty. I was struck by the story of Royal Military Police veteran Kate Green, which she told 20 years after the lifting of the LGBT military ban. When she served in the Royal Military Police, the thing that she feared most was being asked to investigate those suspected of hiding their sexuality from the Army. If an LGBT serviceperson admitted their sexuality, they were out and that was the end of their military career. Eventually, Kate decided that she could not continue with her service anymore and that she did not want to continue to live a lie herself, so she handed in her one-year notice. The LGBT ban was lifted on 12 January 2000, just a short time after her career ended. Kate now works with the Royal British Legion and maintains a strong connection with the Army, despite no longer serving. This is an opportunity for us all to welcome the lifting of the LGBT ban and to recognise the service of LGBT veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

It is an honour to speak today ahead of Armed Forces Day—a day not just of pageantry, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, but of principle. I congratulate the Government on reinstating the pageantry as well—it is a good thing. It is a day to recognise the men and women who serve, or who have served, in His Majesty’s armed forces: the quiet professionals who carry the weight of our security, often in silence and too often without thanks. As we have heard, we owe them and their families a debt of gratitude that we can never really pay, but gratitude alone is not enough. As the Minister said, only a quarter of veterans feel that their service is properly recognised, and there is a reason for that. I will speak plainly about it, and I hope the Minister will not take it as partisan. I hope he will take what I have to say, in what will be a difficult five minutes of listening for him, as a call for action and assistance—or, if he likes, a call for help.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, there is a shadow that hangs over our armed forces: the political and legal vendetta targeting the veterans of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. Those men answered their country’s call in one of our country’s darkest hours. Without hesitation, they stood between the innocent and the terrorists, often literally—they were often in the way of the bullets. Now, decades later, they are treated not as heroes but as suspects. The frankly inadequately informed inquest into the SAS-IRA conflict at Clonoe is just one incident in which elderly veterans are being persecuted; there will be many more.

We should never forget that terrorists killed 722 British soldiers during the troubles. The people who carried out those murders have effectively been exonerated by the British state. I do not blame the state for that—it was necessary at the time—but today, we witness a legal crusade against the men who risked everything in the service of peace. This is not justice; it is an attempt to rewrite history. It is prosecution driven by politics, not facts. While the killers walk free, authorities hound the soldiers who stopped them from killing and treat those soldiers like criminals. The legacy Act—forgive my shorthand —was designed to put an end to this travesty. For their own reasons, the Government have decided to repeal that Act, but if they do not properly replace it with effective legislation, they will hand the initiative back to those who spent decades glorifying violence. I hope the Minister will pay attention to every detail of the paragraph I have just spoken, because it is important.

The Government must decide whose side they are on in this exercise. Our veterans, who are now in their 70s or even older, deserve peace in retirement, not a knock on the door and questions about battles they fought to defend the public half a lifetime ago. Those battles were fought under orders, under supervision and under yellow card rules, and immediately afterwards, everybody faced close judicial examination of their behaviour to ensure they had obeyed the law in every respect. To refer back to the speech made by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), the military police were often involved in those investigations—it did not always make them popular, but it was a necessary part of the process. Not one of the conditions I have described applied to the psychopathic murderers those soldiers were up against.

I have repeatedly asked the Government to end this shameful campaign of retrospective injustice, and I will continue to ask until I get a meaningful answer and a resolution to this running sore of injustice. That is why I support the petition that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford referred to, with its 145,000 signatures—an astonishing number in such a short time. However, this is just the start. This issue is not just massively important to our veterans; if this rewriting of history succeeds, this weapon of lawfare can be used against soldiers in any future conflict, destroying the effectiveness of our troops in future operations.

This morning’s edition of the Daily Mail carried a powerful headline announcing the start of a campaign to highlight that very problem. When we look at that headline, though, we should remember that this is not just about our special forces; it is about the whole of the armed forces. There are at least 20 inquests into actions by Government agencies and forces that could potentially be restarted by the Government after the end of the legacy legislation. Only a minority of those inquests are about special forces; most are about conventional forces, or about the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment.

If we continue down this path, not only will we betray our past; we will jeopardise our future. This campaign of persecution sends a chilling message to the next generation: “Serve your country, risk your life, and face prosecution in your old age.” Why would any young man or woman sign up for that? The truth is that many will not. I know that the Minister referred to better recruitment and retention figures, but that will not last if this battle is lost by the British state.

This challenge has been most high-profile when it has struck at our elite units, such as the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment—the Det, as it was once known—but it applies to every rifleman, soldier and member of the military who carries and wields a weapon in defence of his country. Those soldiers, who operate in conditions of extreme danger and uncertainty, are required to make impossible decisions at great speed while under fire, or in terror of being under fire. They expect neither recognition nor reward, but just one thing: the support of their Government. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line for our country, but why would they do that if their country will abandon them after their service? Instead, they face doubt—doubt that creeps into the field, into the command and into mission planning.

If soldiers must weigh every trigger pull against a future court case, we cripple their ability to act. What is the point of the armed forces if we render them useless through legal ambiguity? I am the last person to tolerate unnecessary killing or misbehaviour by our troops. Those who were in the House at the time will know of my past campaigns on torture and rendition. I will not stand for that, but we must balance properly the rule of law as it applies to each environment. We already have thought-through rules of lawfare established in the Geneva convention, and that is where we must look first when conducting a war.

From 2005 to 2007, during the operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, our military achieved, along with the Americans, spectacular results in saving lives. I reiterate that that was about saving lives. In Baghdad, the number of vehicle-borne suicide bombings fell from 100 a month to just one after we engaged. Sectarian assassinations—once rife—all but ceased, care of our military. That was not the work of indiscriminate bombing or division-level assaults; it was achieved through precise, controlled and surgical raids into some of the most hostile environments, generally by elite forces, and backed by careful planning.

The impact was staggering. Even a hostile “Panorama” programme showed that 95% of terrorist neutralisations were captures, not kills. That was under unbelievable circumstances, and thousands of innocent lives were saved. That was a matter not just of operational skill, but of moral discipline. In the midst of close-quarters combat against some of the most dangerous men on earth, our forces showed a restraint few could match.

I have no doubt that mistakes are made from time to time, and those should be answered for, but if we allow our opponents to use lawfare to destroy these capabilities, we are left with blunt instruments—the bomb, the missile and the drone—with which, instead of capturing or killing just the guilty, we kill every innocent civilian on a bus or every guest at a wedding party. Our military has been brilliant at doing the opposite—at being targeted, lawful and effective. Dismantling that capacity would be not only militarily reckless, but a betrayal of the principles that the Minister said we stand for, which distinguish us from those whom we fight.

Let us today do rather more than clap politely at a parade. Let us act. Let us end the relentless hounding of our veterans. Let us give our serving forces the legal protection and political support they deserve. Let us recognise that if we find it difficult to recruit, it is a consequence of a state that too often turns its back on its defenders. This Armed Forces Day, let us make one promise: that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the very nation they have so bravely protected.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We made an election commitment to put the armed forces covenant fully into law, and we will do that. The Minister for Veterans and People is working across Government to ensure that veterans receive the support they need from all services, including Op Nova, which provides for ex-forces people who become caught up in the criminal justice system. I know that I can speak for my hon. Friend the Minister while he is on Everest in saying that he would welcome a meeting with my hon. Friend, and I will ensure that it takes place.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I take it that the meeting will not be on Everest.

The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that one of the most distressing experiences for our veterans today is the fear of being dragged into court in the face of politically motivated prosecutions after the Clonoe and Coagh inquiries, which opened a month ago. Some action will obviously have to be taken to protect them. Is the MOD currently researching the legal, judicial and legislative requirements that are necessary to protect our veterans from this appalling treatment?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. We owe the Operation Banner veterans a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and, in many cases, sacrifices of their lives saved civilian lives and helped to bring about the peace that Northern Ireland now enjoys. In respect of Clonoe, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the MOD is seeking a judicial review of the coroner’s findings, and he will also know that I am working closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that the welfare and legal support that we have provided for veterans who are caught up in any investigations is reinforced further so that we can protect this special group of veterans from the impact of such investigations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

It is absolutely vital that we support veterans who encounter difficulties in transitioning from military service to civilian life. The vast majority transition successfully, but support schemes are available nationwide for people who have served in our armed forces, especially through Operation Valour, which was announced by the Minister for Veterans and People last week. There is more to do in this space. I would be happy to arrange a conversation between my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and that Minister very soon, when he is down from operation mountain goat on Everest.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, as there is no question from Jim Shannon.

[David Davis]

I do apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am glad that the Secretary of State is here. As we have heard today, a very successful parliamentary petition was put up by a member of the public just over a week ago, and was supported by a large number of regimental associations. In the middle of last week, an email was sent from the Directorate of Infantry to regimental headquarters. It said:

“With immediate effect”—

that bit is highlighted in red—

“please ensure that all of your communication channels (including Twitter/X etc) remove any feeds related to the Northern Ireland Troubles Act announcement and any associated petitions.”

Regimental associations are there to defend and look after the interests of, and to support, veterans. It is not for the MOD hierarchy to dictate what they can or cannot promote, particularly through legitimate parliamentary engagement. Veterans’ voices must not be silenced by bureaucratic interference. Is it appropriate, Mr Speaker, to pressurise regimental associations to remove content that supports democratic participation?

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps someone on the Front Bench would like to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

That is a great question. The Royal Marine band service is the best band service in our armed forces, and it is absolutely safe under our watch. It provides a fantastic influence opportunity, as well as essential military services outside the musical profession.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary should know that the whole House supports the Government’s actions to preserve peace in Ukraine, but that was not the point that the shadow Secretary of State was making. He was asking whether the Ministry of Defence recognises that it has a duty of care towards soldiers who fight for their country and then face decades of lawfare and the misuse of the European convention on human rights. Will the Ministry do something to protect those soldiers?

[John Healey]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to our duty of care and to standing by our forces. We also recognise that the previous Government put in place legislation—the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021—to deal with any concerns in this place.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

It is vital that we seek to invest in Defence Medical Services, especially as we live in more difficult and contested times where we may need to use its expertise and that of the national health service across the UK to support a warfighting effort. I know the Minister for Veterans and People is looking forward to visiting Whittington later this year. I hope that when the strategic defence review comes out, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) will see the path to investment and support that we are offering Defence Medical Services as we look to create a whole-of-society approach to our defence.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Soldiers will be leaving the Army, rather than being recruited, if we continue to allow the persecution of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. Last week’s coroner’s report into the Clonoe and Coalisland shootings was 51 pages of facts and eight pages of naïve speculation, which led right into the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland. Without the Northern Ireland legacy legislation, how will the Secretary of State prevent that, because if he fails, what should be a process of peace and reconciliation will turn into a vindictive, vengeful pursuit of men whose only sin was to serve their country with honour, heroism and skill, and in the most terrifying conditions? If we cannot prevent that, all the recruiting efforts will fail.

[Luke Pollard]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his passion is also felt on the Government Benches, and the ministerial team want to support all our veterans. The issue that he raises is difficult for me to comment on as it is subject to ongoing legal matters, and he will appreciate that it is hard for a Minister to comment in such circumstances—