Women in the Armed Forces

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I declare an interest as a patron of veterans’ charity Forward Assist.

I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), the only female bar myself on the Defence Committee. She has been steadfast in her efforts to get permission from the Secretary of State to make this inquiry possible. I also thank her for her excellent and sensitive chairing of our Sub-Committee, and for the subsequent publication of the report that we are now debating.

Before I make specific comments on our inquiry, I reiterate the point made in the report that the armed forces do and can provide women with fulfilling careers and opportunities. Indeed, 90% of women told us that they would recommend the forces to women. As our report noted, however, when things go wrong they go dramatically wrong, generally with dire consequences for the victim.

It is welcome that, of our 40 recommendations, the Government have accepted 37, but the rejection of our recommendations on complaints of sexual offences will come as a bitter and agonising blow to those women who shared with us their trauma. I want them to know that, despite the obstinacy of the Government, some of us will not stop fighting for them, to ensure that in the future no one suffers the same pain that they have.

As in many organisations that tend to police themselves, making a complaint in the armed forces becomes fraught with worries of being ostracised, stigmatised and shut out, and of career prospects being greatly diminished. Women have told us that it is well known that if they make a complaint there will be ramifications—not for the perpetrator, but for the complainant, the victim. Those statements are supported by the fact that the Service Complaints Ombudsman has never judged the military’s internal complaints system as efficient, effective and fair. Servicewomen are overrepresented in all complaints, but even more in complaints of bullying, harassment and discrimination.

Despite the MOD’s claim that women’s complaints are falling all the time, they remain at exactly the same level as in 2016. Of those who are brave enough to come forward to make a complaint, more than 90% said that they had suffered negative consequences, and that they felt uncomfortable and humiliated and wanted to leave the forces, such that in 2021, 89% of those who had suffered in that way did not make a complaint. We heard a litany of failings, from failure to investigate properly to witness statements not being taken; senior officers as perpetrators; loss of evidence; not being believed when making an allegation of sexual harassment or assault, or being pressured into not referring that to the police; and complaints taking up to a decade to be concluded and resulting in further bullying, harassment and discrimination.

I am not sure whether the Minister has—I sincerely hope he has not—had any direct experience of going through a complaints process, or spent time supporting someone close to him who has. If he had, he would understand the courage it takes to make a complaint in the first place, and how re-traumatising and utterly exhausting that in itself can be. For someone to find that no one believes them or, worse, that people believe them but are too scared, or too worried about self-preservation or protecting the organisation—above doing the right thing—is utterly soul-destroying. There can be no lonelier feeling.

When that takes place in a closed environment, away from a person’s home and loved ones, it can become utterly unbearable. If they are making a complaint about sexual assault or rape, it becomes intolerable. Every day is a sentence and filled with mental anguish and physical pain. Even though we always repeat the message—a true message—that it was not their fault, the shame and guilt will remain with the victim forever.

That is why I am deeply concerned that the Government have rejected our recommendation and our pleas throughout the passage of the Armed Forces Bill to remove cases of rape from the military courts, and that they refuse to accept the existence of military sexual trauma. That sends the wrong message and does not encourage the cultural change that we need. I am not sure what it is that the Government have against rape victims, but the figures for conviction in the civilian system are dire, at a record low of 34% between 2015 and 2020. In courts martial, that figure falls to 16%. It is clear that victims are being failed. While it is welcome that the Government have committed to service complaints of a sexual nature being outside the direction of command, it is simply not enough, as the hon. Member for Wrexham said.

The Government’s rejection, in their official delayed response to our report, was not convincing enough. The Minister’s response on Monday in the Chamber was equally unconvincing. I make a further plea to him today to make it crystal clear to victims, those serving and veterans why this Government do not think that when it comes to the most hideous of crimes, those serving in our forces can expect a lesser commitment to justice than civilians.

I end my comments by thanking all the women who came forward to share their trauma with us. It is their bravery that will drive me and others to keep pushing for change, because we owe it to them, every single woman serving, veterans and all who follow them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention. Of course, the jurisdiction is concurrent, so the choice of where these cases are best heard remains with the civilian prosecutor. I am not saying that we should have an absolute approach to this: my point is that we need to retain concurrency because of the essential expeditionary nature of our work. However, in simple terms, the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say, and it is quite right that that is the case.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It might be because I am no legal expert, or because it is the end of the week and we are all a bit tired, but I am still not really clear. For my benefit and the benefit of those listening, will the Minister explain whether he believes that by not removing rape from military courts, victims will have more or less access to justice, and could he explain how?

[Leo Docherty]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. It is conceivable that a case being tried in the courts martial may actually be a better outcome for the welfare needs of a victim, due to the constraints around career sustainability or location. Clearly, I am not saying that that is a given; I am saying that the civilian prosecutor should have the final say, but it is entirely conceivable that not having a case taken out of courts martial and into the civilian system may be a better outcome for the welfare interests of the victim.

[Leo Docherty]

I would remind the charity that that is why we have concurrent jurisdiction and why it is entirely plausible. If cases would be better heard in the civilian context, they will be. That is a decision for the civilian prosecutor.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he said that, ultimately, it can still be decided in civilian court, if that happens. Why are we keeping the courts martial if a case can ultimately be decided in a civilian court? Why do we have a two-tier system?

[Leo Docherty]

As I mentioned, and I think the hon. Member for Barnsley East agrees, it might conceivably be advantageous to the victim for a case to be heard in the courts martial, due to career considerations, geography or constraints about their career progression. It is conceivable that it might be better for their welfare. It is good to have that flexibility in case that scenario occurs. However, the bottom line is that the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What steps he is taking to consult with covid-19 bereaved families on the public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the covid-19 pandemic.

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

12. What steps he is taking to ensure that all ministerial correspondence relating to the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic will be made available to the public inquiry.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to consult with covid-19 bereaved families on the public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the covid-19 pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the hon. Member for her question, and may I take this opportunity to express my condolences and sympathy to all of the many bereaved families who have suffered as a result of the pandemic? The Prime Minister announced in Parliament as early as May this year—on 12 May—that the inquiry into the pandemic would be established on a formal statutory basis, with all the requisite powers that go with that, under the Inquiries Act 2005. A chair of the inquiry will be announced by the end of this year, and the Prime Minister told the bereaved families group that in a meeting he had with them on 28 September. It is important that formal powers will be attached to the inquiry, and everything will be done to make sure the relevant material and oral evidence, for example, is given under oath.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Prime Minister refused to meet bereaved families for nearly 400 days. When he eventually deigned to meet them in September, he promised them they would have a role in setting the terms of reference for the inquiry. Yesterday, these grieving families wrote to the Prime Minister asking why, yet again, they are being ignored. Can the Minister explain to them why they are being ignored?

[Michael Ellis]

As I just said, the Prime Minister met Bereaved Families for Justice on 28 September. He welcomed the opportunity to hear directly from them, and of course the areas they would like the inquiry to cover were mentioned. The importance of choosing the right chair was also mentioned. All commitments made to the Bereaved Families for Justice group will be met. The chair of the inquiry will be appointed by Christmas, and bereaved families and others will be consulted on the terms of reference before they are finalised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can think of nothing nicer than a trip to Weymouth, which I think was the favourite watering hole of George III—or so I am told by the Lord Chancellor. I will do my utmost to oblige my hon. Friend.

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

Q3. A constituent of mine spent hours waiting to get through to someone on the Government-issued telephone number for non-British nationals in Afghanistan. Distressed and fearful for his family, he was relieved when he eventually spoke to someone. However, when the person he spoke to thought he had hung up, he overheard them laughing and saying to a colleague, “We are having to lie to people; we are giving them false hope; the whole thing is a complete scam.” Is it the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister who is responsible for this scam?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the whole country should be proud of what we have done to welcome people from Afghanistan. Operation Warm Welcome continues, and as I speak, we have already received more than 15,000 people from the Kabul airlift, the biggest exercise that this country has undertaken. However, I am sorry to hear about the particular case that the hon. Lady has raised. May I ask her to send it directly to me, and I will take it up?

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

“Our greatest national asset”; “Best of this country”; “Record increase in funding”; “Saved my life—no question”; “My No.1 priority”—all things that the Prime Minister said about our NHS. Yet award-winning South Tyneside District Hospital has lost vital services and been told by his Government to make further cuts to remaining services. Later today, I am presenting a petition on behalf of more than 40,000 of my constituents who are against these cuts. Like me, they want him to help us save our hospital and ensure, for once, that he is able to match his rhetoric with some action. Will he?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and all the changes that the hon. Lady mentions will be consulted on in the usual way. I note that Dr Shahid Wahid, the executive medical director of the trust, was recently quoted in the Shields Gazette as saying:

“This is about improving surgical services…It is not about downgrading anything”.

The hon. Lady mentions cuts: this Government, this year alone, have given another £92 billion—£92 billion—to support our NHS, on top of the huge commitments that we have already made.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“hard to understand where it is”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I stated on Second Reading that this is a good Bill and my view remains exactly the same. As we know, the other place wanted torture, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity excluded from relevant offences. We disagreed initially, but amendments 1A to 1Q from the MOD, whereby breaches of the Geneva convention and genocide are excluded from the offences, are very welcome. This Government have sent the clear message that they stand against all breaches of human rights in conflict.

My stance throughout this whole process has been very clear. The supposition from some quarters that British troops are somehow predisposed to committing war crimes wantonly and that the UK has somehow given them a “get out of jail free” card is absurd. The MOD already has one of the most effective and robust service justice systems in the world. The presumption against prosecution also in no way affects the UK’s ability to conduct investigations and prosecutions into any crime, including war crimes; it is a high threshold, not a bar. However, as Baroness Goldie stated in the other place only yesterday, there was significant concern that through exclusion of serious crimes, such as sexual offences, this Bill would run the risk of undermining the work that the Government have put in to push the UK as a force for good around the world. I agree. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, I concede that this House should absolutely agree to Lords amendment 1R.

Lord Dannatt’s revision to Lords amendment 5, Lords amendment 5B, is also worthy of consideration, but I want to point out at this juncture that service personnel are entitled to legal support at public expense when they face criminal allegations and civil claims. The Armed Forces Bill brings the armed forces covenant into statute, and there is unrivalled medical support, including mental health support, available to all personnel and veterans. I agree, again, with the Government’s continuing stance that the amendment is not necessary, and I will vote with the Government on all occasions today.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While it is an absolute honour to follow the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), it is also a tough gig in defence debates, but I will do my absolute best in the time that I have.

I will speak to Lords amendments 4 and 5 and the new clauses they would insert into part 2 of the Bill. Many of our witnesses in the Public Bill Committee called for this section of the Bill to be scrapped altogether. Before I turn to the amendments, I also want to add my welcome to the Minister, who is no longer in his place. He will know the frustrations felt by many of us who sat on the Public Bill Committee at his predecessor’s obstinance in the face of expert evidence and personal testimonies. Like others, I sincerely hope for a change in approach, because our forces and veterans would have been better served by well considered and evidenced legislative changes, not this confused hash of a Bill. The Government have rightly identified that there is a problem and a need to provide greater legal protections to armed forces personnel and veterans serving overseas, but they have drafted legislation that makes the problem worse, all in a hurried effort to match the sweeping rhetoric of their 2019 general election campaign.

Lords amendment 4 inserts a new clause that would ensure that our armed forces retain the same rights as civilians in bringing civil claims against the Ministry of Defence. As drafted, the Bill, whose central aim we are told is to provide greater legal protections to armed forces personnel, includes provisions to do the exact opposite and disadvantage our personnel and veterans by introducing a hard six-year cut-off for any compensation claims, including for personal injury and death, all by amending the Limitation Act 1980. The Government claim that this will stop any baseless claims, yet there are already provisions in the Limitation Act to strike out any such baseless claims.

Worse still, the Bill allows the MOD to strike out not just baseless claims, but rightful ones, too. When it comes to dates of diagnosis and knowledge, such as with PTSD or hearing loss, or when it is difficult to establish facts in the context of armed conflict, claims cannot always be made within six years. The Government’s own impact assessment from last year shows that at a minimum, 19 injured or bereaved members of the forces community who made claims from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been blocked from doing so had this legislation been in place. One member of our brave forces being blocked from a claim is completely out of order, never mind 19.

Crucially, we do not know what will happen in the future, but it is likely that there will be drastic unintended consequences, and we do know that with this Bill, our forces will have less protection than civilians. There is simply no justification for introducing this time limit when such a measure currently does not exist.

Unamended, this part of the Bill will only benefit the Ministry of Defence, yet the Ministry of Defence will be the defendant in all these claims. That is a clear conflict. The Government have shamefully created legislation that protects them from legitimate legal claims while preventing forces personnel from access to justice.

The new clause under Lords amendment 5 would introduce a duty of care for service personnel. I am completely at a loss as to why the Government would reject and oppose care standards for service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations. Anyone who has experience of being under prolonged or repeated investigation, especially when they are innocent, will know how utterly career-ruining, life-ruining and crushing it can be to be in that position. The defence that the Armed Forces Bill is the best place to address the issue simply does not cut it, because that legislation is not yet in place. This Bill will be soon. It is a dereliction of duty for MPs to accept glaring gaps in legislation on the promise that the issue may or may not be rectified in future legislation.

As we have heard from other Members, there remains nothing in the Bill that will solve the problem of repeated investigations. Without the Lords amendment, there is nothing in the Bill that will afford our forces and veterans a duty of care when undergoing such investigations. I would appreciate it if the Minister fully explained why the Government feel that, after our forces personnel and veterans have put themselves in harm’s way for all our sakes, they do not deserve legal, pastoral or mental health support at a time of heightened stress and worry.

Finally, as I did on Report, I urge all Government Members to look beyond the rhetoric and political spin, read the legislation and consider the noble Lords’ amendments and new clauses carefully, before they vote with their Whip and put our armed forces and our veterans at a gross disadvantage.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on what must have been a massive overnight essay crisis or the worst sort of Sandhurst show parade. I will be amazed if he can keep his eyes open for the next couple of minutes, but my contribution will be short.

I welcome the Government’s sincere efforts, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), to deal with these vexatious legal actions. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), it strikes me that there is now an opportunity to listen to the bishops, the former Secretary-General of NATO, the admirals, the air marshals, the generals, the right hon. Opposition Members, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and a former Attorney General. We must renew our efforts in support of Northern Ireland veterans, including some soldiers with whom I served elsewhere.

More generally, on these crimes—about which, I regret to say, I very, very nearly know rather a lot—no British soldier should ever be any doubt whatever that if they commit these crimes, they will be liable for prosecution by our courts for the rest of their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

My constituents Ronald and Julia Sheriff’s daughter Danielle currently lives in Gran Canaria. Last year, aged just 33, she suffered an aneurysm. Danielle remains deeply unwell and her family are crowdfunding to bring her back home to live. They have been advised that when she does return home, she will not be eligible for the treatment that she needs on the NHS. Please can the Prime Minister support the crowdfund for Dani, and give his personal assurance that she will receive the care that she needs from our NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case. My deepest sympathies are with Danielle and her family. I will make sure that the relevant Health Minister meets her to discuss the case as fast as possible.

Integrated Review

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We will certainly take Lancashire, even if the Prime Minister cannot say whereabouts.

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

The review and the Prime Minister’s statement are typically big on words, but scant on detail or strategy. It was a mass of contradictions steeped in a lack of realism when it comes to affordability and scope, and there was zero acknowledgement of the harm that years of underinvestment in our nation’s defence have caused. Ultimately, the world will judge him and his Government on their actions, so can he explain how breaching article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty fits with his commitment to international law?

[The Prime Minister]

I never saw such a seething mass of contradictions as the Opposition Front Bench, because we only have to go a few yards from the Leader of the Opposition to the shadow Foreign Secretary to find a complete gulf in their view on the very matter that the hon. Lady raises. The Leader of the Opposition claims to be in favour of the nuclear deterrent, and the shadow Foreign Secretary voted against it. The most consistent thing that our friends and allies, as well as our foes around the world need to know is that the UK is committed to the defence of this country and to our nuclear defence.

Covid-19: Road Map

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is quite right to vent his frustration. I share his frustration; as somebody who yearns to go out and play sport myself, I understand completely how he feels. We must face the fact that, by comparison with any period last year, the virus remains very prevalent in our country, and we have to continue to keep it under control. What we are trying to do is a cautious but irreversible approach, and he only has to wait for another three weeks beyond 8 March to be able to hit a golf ball with a friend.

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

The Prime Minister’s handling of this pandemic has been marked by false promises and inconsistent messaging. Hospitality was covid-secure, yet it had an arbitrary curfew imposed on it and it was then closed down. Today, that industry, which is the lifeblood of coastal tourist towns such as mine, has heard that people can meet outside in a park, yet outdoor areas of safe, regulated pubs, bars and restaurants cannot open until April. It simply cannot see the logic behind that. Can the Prime Minister explain where he found it?

[The Prime Minister]

The logic lies in containing a pandemic, and I think people in this country understand that. I deeply sympathise with the businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The wonderful hospitality sector across the country now has a date to work for—to look forward to—for outdoor hospitality and for indoor hospitality, and I think people would rather have certainty than anything else.

Armed Forces Bill

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Government have said that this Bill will help to prevent service personnel and veterans from being disadvantaged when accessing services such as healthcare, education and housing, but again the rhetoric does not match the reality, because clause 8 simply devolves the covenant’s responsibilities to local authorities and other public bodies away from the Government, it provides them with zero financial support to do so and simply states that they have a “duty” to give “due regard” to the covenant. I have been in this place long enough to know that every time “duty” and “due regard” are used as a substitute for “must”, the result is no real change at all. When services are strapped for cash, they adhere to what they have to do, not what they have to give due regard to. It will again fall to charities and local communities to support their serving personnel and veterans.

There are currently over 2,000 charities specifically aimed at supporting veterans and serving armed forces personnel. This alone is testament to the Government’s failures, because those charities are filling a very big gap left by the state. It is they, not the Government, who are providing for our armed forces and veterans, and thank God they are, because without them, the alternative does not bear thinking about.

The Government’s record has been abysmal. Just this year, the Royal British Legion highlighted how let down disabled forces felt by the Department for Work and Pensions. In my constituency pre-pandemic, veterans’ breakfast mornings were held by local charity Veterans Response on a regular basis. I remember the anger that I felt after repeated conversations with proud veterans, who told me that without this breakfast and local food banks, they would be going hungry. Some spoke about having to rely on charity for basic white goods, clothes and shoes. Veterans are yet another group of people who are not protected from the cruelty of the welfare state under this Government.

Let me turn to the mental health of our forces and veterans. The Defence Committee recently heard from Combat Stress and Help for Heroes that they have not really seen any tangible effect of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, nor an impact from any potential change in resources.

My constituent John Taylor is a nuclear veteran. Like other veterans, he has been repeatedly let down. Mr Taylor, who is now 83 years old, was sent to Maralinga in 1957 as part of Operation Antler, where he was involved in the testing of atomic bombs with no protection whatever. Along with others, he has long campaigned for proper recognition and compensation to acknowledge the effects that these atomic tests have had on his health and that of other families. Of those 20,000 nuclear veterans, less than 1,000 are believed to be alive now. Time for justice is running out for all of them.

The north-east, including South Shields, has an incredibly proud tradition of being a high recruitment area for our forces. Many families, including my own, are linked to someone who is serving or who has served. We in South Shields always have and always will take care of our forces and our veterans. We will always treat them with the utmost respect and honour that they deserve. I sincerely wish that this Government would do the same.