Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[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

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I begin by declaring an interest as a British Army veteran. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and welcome him to his important new post.

I rise to speak in a virtual sense in support of Lords amendment 1, which aims to remove torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes from the scope of the Bill. For the record, and I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for referencing it, the Lords amendment builds on the amendment that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and I tabled on Report in November. That amendment was roundly defeated by the Government.

I was genuinely relieved to read the comments coming out of the MOD yesterday stating that torture, genocide and crimes against humanity would join sexual offences in being excluded from the Bill. I recognise that the Government disagree with Lords amendment 1 and have tabled a suite of amendments in lieu. The Government’s alternative is not perfect, but it is a welcome concession for several reasons, not least because last month, the Government published their long-awaited integrated review, which under a section entitled, “Our force for good agenda”, states that the UK will ensure that the principles and values on which our legal system is built

“remain a global standard.”

It would have proved difficult, if not impossible, to square the ambition of those words with the original version of the Bill. It is worth reflecting on how we arrived at this point.

The relevant offences aspect of the Bill generated near-universal opposition—not quite to the level that we have seen with the European super league over the past 48 hours, but considerable opposition none the less. The amendment passed last week was moved by someone who had served as both Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary-General of NATO, and it was supported by an impressive cohort, several of whom have lifelong ties to defence and security. The group included no fewer than six former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, who between them have contributed more than 200 years of service. Supporters also included a former Chief of the General Staff and a First Sea Lord, a former director general of MI5 and a former national security adviser. We have also seen a former Commander, Land Forces and a Judge Advocate General publicly condemn this element of the Bill, as have the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and, perhaps most concerningly, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who warned that cases involving British troops might have been brought before the ICC. We should pause and consider what that might have meant. This is something I have been deeply worried about, and it has been raised on numerous occasions since the Bill was published. We are a proud signatory to the Rome statute, and Ministers should never risk our troops being dragged before the ICC alongside dictators and tyrants.

I know the strength of feeling and high regard that all Members of this House have for those who serve in our armed forces and, sadly, we are all too familiar with stories of our service personnel being hounded for years. No one is denying that there is a problem, and lives have undoubtedly been ruined as a result. I have said consistently throughout the Bill’s passage that we must address the deficiencies of the investigative process and provide those under investigation with our full support.

To conclude, Lords amendment 1 is the international standard. The Government’s counter falls short of that. For instance, torture is excluded, which is a welcome move, but mutilation and inhuman treatment are not. As a reminder, the ICC has warned that the exemption clause should extend to all crimes within the jurisdiction of the court, meaning that the possibility of British troops finding themselves before the court has not completely disappeared. While I still do not believe that the Bill will achieve its stated aim, I am pleased and relieved that concessions have been made. However, I urge Minsters to accept Lords amendment 1 in full, because we can never use deeply regrettable instances of failure to renege on our commitment to the rule of law.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). It would not be right to talk about the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill without mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). While the circumstances surrounding his departure are regrettable and sad to me, I wish to commend him for his fantastic contribution, hard work and passion. I cannot think of a single Minister who has given so much of himself, worn his heart on his sleeve or driven his cause harder. We now have legislation in place in an area where previously we had none, and I want to issue to my hon. Friend a public and heartfelt thank you on behalf of all the veterans community.

I would also like to welcome the new Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), to his place. As my friend and neighbour in Aldershot, he is perfectly placed to take on challenges ahead. He has done his time in the Whips Office, he has done his time in uniform and he is also a veteran. He is the perfect combination.

[Bob Stewart]

While my good friend is blowing smoke up the backside of the new, excellent Minister, I have to say that I have a real worry. In the Ministry of Defence, we are now stuck with two woodentops and one black mafia, with two officers from the Scots Guards and one from The Rifles. I am a bit worried about where the rest of us will fit in.

[James Sunderland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; he has stolen my thunder, because I have a similar theme. As a long-standing member of the new Minister’s association in Aldershot and a former commanding officer of a proud regiment in Aldershot, I will be keeping a close eye on him while supporting him as best I can. I know that Aldershot will be very proud of him.

I am a bit concerned that, as my good friend, the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), mentioned, the MOD has not two but three infantry officers at the helm. My admiration for Jeremy Quin, the procurement Minister, goes up by the day. [Interruption.] No, he is not an infantry officer. As the veritable quartermaster for the MOD, my good friend Jeremy will, I know, keep an eye on any daring adventures and keep them in check within the MOD.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the sake of good order, we refer to Members using their constituency.

[James Sunderland]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is well made and well taken.

I made it clear on Second Reading that the Bill is a good Bill. I voted it through because it was the right thing to do. My view has not changed, despite the Lords amendments that have been introduced. People would be amazed by the hysteria and shock in my inbox from people attacking the Bill from every angle. But I want to make something absolutely clear. The supposition in some quarters that British troops are predisposed to wantonly commit war crimes in operations, or that the UK has given them a green light or 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, and I can tell the House as someone who has served on eight operational tours that we have the best-led and best-trained soldiers in the world.

We have a great record in this area and nothing will change. That is why I am less worried about the exclusion of war crimes. The presumption against prosecution does not affect in any way the UK’s ability to conduct investigations or prosecutions. It is a higher threshold, not a bar. However, in deference to those who spoke so eloquently, both on Second Reading and on Lords amendment 1, and the views of many in this place, I note that the MOD is seeking to exclude more serious crimes such as torture, genocide and crimes against humanity from the five-year rule, which I welcome.

Lords amendment 2 sets out a new process for investigations. It introduces timelines for them and gives a direct role for prosecutors in investigations. Personally, I do not like the phrase, “artificial timelines for the progress of investigations”, or the power of the Judge Advocate General to intervene. Furthermore, the limitations in the amendment do not apply in civilian life to police force investigations, meaning this would create an anomaly. I am therefore comfortable with the Government’s position and I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Lords amendment 3 removes from the Bill the duty to consider derogation from the convention. The Government have noted that article 15 of the European convention on human rights provides that states may temporarily suspend relevant human rights obligations. The removal of clause 12 would not prevent the Government from making a conscious decision when committing armed forces to overseas operations. I am therefore comfortable, as we maintain the capability to deploy soldiers abroad and derogate, that we are in the right place. So, again, I support the Government’s position on Lords amendment 3.

Lords amendment 4 excludes action brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitation measures introduced by part 2 of the Bill. The impact of new limitation periods on the ability of service personnel to make claims will be minimal. The longstops in part 2 have been introduced to offer greater legal certainty, as well as greater certainty to service personnel. So I agree again that the amendment should be opposed.

Amendment 5 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations; it also requires an annual report. As someone who knows, I can tell the House that service personnel are entitled to legal support at public expense when they face criminal allegations and civil claims. Legal support is also available when people are required to give evidence at inquests, to inquiries and in litigation. In addition, the Armed Forces Bill is bringing the armed forces covenant into statute, and medical support available to all soldiers and veterans is unrivalled. And let us not forget mental health. The Government are now throwing money at this problem, and we are getting better all the time. I agree with the Government that the amendment is neither viable nor necessary.

This is a good Bill, and the Government’s concessions today make it even better, but the rest of the Lords amendments, in my view, should be rejected.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]]

It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who serves expertly as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans. It is appropriate that he has sought to recalibrate the dangerous notion that could arise from some of our considerations about the ongoing, genuine and sustained efforts that our armed forces make as they serve our country.

On behalf of my party, I congratulate the new Minister for Defence People and Veterans on his appointment. I know him well. We have served together in the Select Committee on Defence, and I know he will be a true champion for veterans. It would be inappropriate were I not to mention the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). He was elected at exactly the same time as me, I made my maiden speech immediately after he made his, and we served together on the Defence Committee. I do not think that anyone in this House would question his passion or his commitment to veterans. Yesterday was a difficult day for him, but he should take comfort from knowing that he has stood steadfast by the commitments he gave to veterans who served in Northern Ireland.

I was interested to hear the Minister, at the start of today’s proceedings, indicate that the Northern Ireland Office will bring forward a Bill that offers equivalent protection for veterans who served in Northern Ireland. Last night, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View wrote that the Government are good at saying the right thing, but perhaps not so good at delivering. We need to see action. That commitment to provide for veterans from Northern Ireland was given to the House in a written ministerial statement on 18 March last year—the day that this Bill, the Overseas Operations Bill, was introduced. Thirteen months later, we are still waiting, eager and interested to see the detail. There is genuine concern, Should there be an attempt to provide equivalence between those who served our country— those honourable service personnel who stood against tyranny and terrorism—and terrorists, I hope that it will not find favour in this House.

I thank the Government for their movement in the light of Lords amendment 1. We will support the amendment, as we think that, in totality, it captures the range of issues that were fairly outlined by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). It is important that we ensure there is no suggestion or no cause for concern that our armed forces personnel would be engaged in activities such as torture, crimes against humanity, or war crimes and genocide. That is where I differ from the Government. I hope that they will reflect honourably on the fears relating to war crimes in particular. Having moved on the other three issues, I ask that the Government do the same on war crimes as well.

I ask the Minister, when he sums up, to reflect again on the comments he made about Lords amendment 5. A duty of care on legal, pastoral and mental wellbeing is not something that Government should fear. I think I heard the Minister indicate that there was potential to impact upon the operational effectiveness of our armed forces should the amendment pass, but I cannot see that cause for concern. I ask him to give that renewed consideration and reflect on it in his closing remarks.

On the other Lords amendment, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, we will support the Government. We have welcomed this Bill. We recognise the need for it. We want to see an end to vexatious prosecutions. In supporting some of the amendments and in asking the Government to go a little farther, we will keenly work with the new Minister as he embarks on his role, not only on the concluding stages of this Bill, but on honouring the commitments that he and his colleagues made, in their manifesto and to this House, on protecting veterans from Northern Ireland.

Integrated Review

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have repeatedly told President Ghani of Afghanistan, our commitment is for the long term. He knows the difficulties of the current situation, and the decisions that the US Government have to take. The UK is working hard to ensure that there is a viable process, and that we do not see a return to the kind of civil war that I am afraid has bedevilled Afghanistan. I believe that the legacy of this Government and this country in Afghanistan—and the commitment of British troops, as well as the loss of life to which the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention—is a proud one. We must ensure that it is not betrayed, and that we leave a legacy in the education of women and the security of the people of Afghanistan that is lasting and that endures.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

As a former soldier, may I reassure the Prime Minister that taking the review back to first principles, and assessing the future capability requirements against the threat, is absolutely the right thing to do? Will he reassure me that where restructuring is needed—notably perhaps in my own service—our people will be looked after?

[The Prime Minister]

We are determined to look after all the wonderful men and women of our armed services, not just by protecting them after they have served, and by protecting veterans who may be at risk of vexatious litigation in the way I have described; we also have to ensure that we look after people during their service. In particular, we must look after families, who often bear the brunt of the commitments and sacrifices that our armed services make. That is why we have committed to wraparound childcare for those involved in our armed services.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is right that the civil society forum is one of a number of ways in which the UK and the EU can work together in the interests of all. She makes a very important point about the importance of involving not just the third sector but trade union participants in that work, which gives me an opportunity to thank the millions of trade unionists across the country who have contributed so much to our response to the pandemic.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I know that questions on the European Union have been done to death this morning, but they are important, not least to my constituents. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the glitches we are currently seeing are nothing more than teething problems and that the European Union can be convinced to honour all protocols to ensure seamless free trade?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. There are some specific issues that relate to our departure from the European Union that can be resolved in the next few weeks and months, as we adjust to a new situation, and they are a consequence of change. There are other aspects of our relationship that are a new normal, and the £20 million we have announced today is a way of ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises can be fully equipped for those challenges and also for all the opportunities that our departure from the EU brings.

Armed Forces Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

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

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course. I want to stress, to the extent that I can, the cross-party, long-term and long-run support for many of these provisions. He is right that the covenant has its roots in the previous Labour Government—we called it a charter then, rather than a covenant—but over the past two decades, I believe we have made great strides in providing better services, support and opportunities for service personnel and veterans.

That is to the credit of Ministers who have made it their personal mission, of hon. Members on both sides who have championed the cause, of councils and local agencies that have delivered services to our veterans, and of service charities such as the Royal British Legion, Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, the RAF Families Federation, SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity and Help for Heroes, which have hugely improved Government policy, advanced public understanding and developed direct support for forces and veterans. Those charities welcome the Bill, as I do, but they are disappointed by the limitations of the legislation, as I am.

I must say to hon. Members that, if they read one background briefing for this Bill, they should make it the background briefing that the Royal British Legion has sent to us today. It rightly says that a decade’s experience of the covenant confirms that,

“the range of policy issues that have a significant impact on the Armed Forces community is wide and ever-changing: including health, housing, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, education, criminal justice and immigration”.

The Bill is too narrow. It covers only aspects of health, housing and education. The Bill creates a two-tier covenant. It applies only to local councils and local agencies, not to national Governments. The Government are letting themselves off the hook entirely when, as the Legion says, many of the areas in which forces personnel and veterans have problems are the responsibility of national Governments or are based on national guidance to delivery agencies.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the clauses relating to service justice and terms of service were ultimately requested by the armed forces. They should therefore be non-contentious, although I agree that perhaps clause 8 could be more prescriptive. However, to bring the armed forces covenant into statute, to do it equally and to make it deliverable across all local authorities, across all devolved nations and also Northern Ireland, where particular circumstances reign, will be no easy feat. My view therefore is that, far from being overly prescriptive in primary legislation, it may be better to be less prescriptive. Does he agree that we should commend the Bill for what it is, not attack it for what it cannot necessarily be?

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this. I think there is potential, as he indicates, for cross- party support for doing more than is currently in the Bill on the implementation of the covenant. The problem is not that it is prescriptive, but that it is prescriptively narrow at present, directed only at local councils and local agencies and not the responsibilities or services of national Government, and that it is too narrow, in that it mentions three areas when the lived experience of armed forces and veterans quite clearly raises problems on a wide range of other fronts. That is the lesson of the experience of the past decade and more—that is the challenge we must meet. This is a once-in-five-years piece of legislation and I want to ensure that we on the Opposition side play a part in helping Parliament to meet that challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

It is right to point out that what I am about to share is personally very hard for myself and my family, but it is also right for me to share this experience as we discuss this Bill.

As I have said before, I was only 17 when I was shot in training, during a live firing section attack. As the bullet entered my foot, it shattered and blew out the corner of my foot, taking several metatarsals and muscle with it. I was left with a clump of bone fragments and shrapnel—nothing like a working foot. Over the coming month, I had many major operations to try to fix my foot and lower leg. My foot could not be rebuilt, but it did not have to be amputated. My foot was saved, but I had no use of it and was told that my military career was over. In the Army’s infinite wisdom, after my foot had been saved they decided to send me to a military hospital to amputate it. It was not an option that I liked. My dad, who died when I was only young, had been in the SAS, so my mum contacted the SAS Regimental Association, which basically said to my regiment, “Give him to us and we’ll rehabilitate him.”

[James Sunderland]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s heart-wrenching story; his father would have been very proud of him today. May I quickly ask whether the armed forces covenant would have helped him at that early stage of life?

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In the next two minutes, the House will be able to hear what I went through and how the armed forces covenant would have helped me.

The SAS said to my regiment, “Give him to us. We’ll rehabilitate him.” I spent 10 months being rehabilitated by the SAS. I then returned to my unit, the Royal Green Jackets, and went straight on to the streets of the troubles in Northern Ireland. My foot was still part-paralysed, full of shrapnel and did not function, but I could walk, run and carry out the duties of an infantry soldier—very painfully, but I could do it.

What was getting worse was my head; as my physical aspects were recovering, my mental health was really impacted. In the evenings, I used to relive the time that I got shot and would wake up screaming, covered in sweat. It was hard, but I realised that alcohol subdued the pain and I could escape it for a short period of time. Violence was also a way of releasing the anger that I had inside me. I was on a slippery slope. I enjoyed and often excelled on different operational tours. I was fearless, because I did not care if I died. By that time, I did not enjoy life and I found ways to get through each day. When back in camp, I was always in trouble because I was always drinking and fighting. Despite all this going on and everybody telling me I had a problem, nobody gave me any support or help.

I needed to change. I was now married with a child, so I left the Army, and continued to work in security and defence in different conflict zones around the world. My foot got worse, and the shrapnel started working its way out, so I went to the MOD and said, “Can you help me?” It told me, “You are not our problem any more.” In the end, I raised the money myself to pay for private treatment to have an operation, or I would have had to walk with a walking stick for the rest of my life. If the Army took this approach to my foot, there was no way it was interested in my mental health. I did not even know where to look. I could not show love to my wife or my children. It was not only my foot that did not feel anything; for everything, I was in a darkest pit, more than most people can imagine.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The Armed Forces Bill fulfils the legal responsibility on the MOD to update the Armed Forces Act every five years, but it of course does much more. First, it honours the recommendations of the Lyons review, several of which I argued for as a serving officer. It delivers what the armed forces want, and it shows that the MOD is supportive of them. It delivers, too, on a commitment made in the 2019 manifesto to bring the armed forces covenant into statute and fulfil a long-standing promise to our service community. The Bill also shows that in this post-Brexit era, the British Government are able to pass laws that may have been more difficult under the EU. Our service justice system has long been in the sights of the EU courts, and the MOD has done well to preserve it for the good and benefit of our armed forces.

No doubt the legislation will get attacked for what it is not, but from experience the Bill is a good one. The technical term for it is “no-brainer”, and I will be supporting the Government today. At its simplest level, the legislation provides the framework for the excellent work conducted for many years by councils and health and education providers across the UK, and I pay my own tribute to the many councils and armed forces champions who have done so much. Why not legislate, too, to establish armed forces champions in law? Having reinforced the covenant myself for so many years, not least among our brilliant champions in Surrey and Berkshire, I can say that with complete confidence.

Moving on to the clauses, the Armed Forces Act operates on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt, so it is entirely correct that under clauses 4 to 7, commanding officers in courts martial are provided with a means of rectifying errors of judgment. To be worthy of their pre-eminence, the ability to admonish or even overturn outcomes, notably when new evidence comes to light, is welcome.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my good friend for giving way. He was a commanding officer, as I was, and will have sent people to courts martial when he did not really want to. The Bill brings in the ability for commanding officers to give their men and women additional support when they have to send them to a court martial, and will mean they can involve themselves more in the court martial by saying, for example, “Please can this man or woman come back to my unit rather than be discharged from the service, because they are a good person?”.

[James Sunderland]

I thank my good friend for his intervention and agree completely. It is really important that commanding officers have some input into the service-law process, not only by providing mitigation and character references but by influencing court outcomes. The ability for soldiers to continue to serve, on the recommendation of the commanding officer, is really important.

Clause 8, which brings the armed forces covenant into statute, is long overdue. I welcome the clarification that provisions for housing, health and education will be mandated in law. Further guidance on exactly what councils will be asked to do will be welcome. I would also welcome confirmation of when the Secretary of State might present his annual report on the covenant at the Dispatch Box.

On clause 9, I welcome the increased flexibility that will be available to our reserve forces through the provisions on the new continuous service engagement. Part-time work rightly augments full-time work.

On clauses 10 and 11, I agree that the MOD wishes to speed up the complaints process, but I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to remain cognisant of just how busy most senior officers are. I welcome the creation of the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, for all the reasons we heard earlier from my good and hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), as long as a mechanism is built in to ensure that clearly vexatious complaints are filtered out early. That needs to happen for all service complaints: the chain of command must have the ability to filter them amount if they are clearly vexatious.

Lastly, I really welcome the enhanced powers given to commanding officers and courts martial in clauses 13 to 17. Not only is it right that the service justice system can now preside over offences that previously could be heard only in a civil court, but as a former commanding officer I am positively salivating at the prospect of deprivation orders. The proceeds of or means of executing crime can now be confiscated from errant soldiers—what a brilliant way, perhaps, to offset the costs of the regimental Christmas party.

The Bill reflects what our armed forces have asked for. It brings them up to date with what they need and I will vote for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the Peace Plus programme in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

Mr Speaker, before I begin, I hope you will not mind, but I just want to send my very best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and to Minister Edwin Poots from the Northern Ireland Executive for a full and speedy recovery for both of them.

I would also like to send best wishes to President-elect Joe Biden on the inauguration later today. He is a man who has a strong personal connection with the island of Ireland. We all know that the US has been a huge supporter of the peace process in Northern Ireland for many decades.

I am pleased that the UK Government are the majority contributor to the Peace Plus programme. We have committed to providing over £500 million between now and 2027, which will fund activities that promote peace and reconciliation. The framework for Peace Plus is in development now, but we remain as a Government committed to that Peace Plus programme and to engaging with key partners to ensure that, once agreed, it will have maximum impact for all the people of Northern Ireland.

[James Sunderland]

As we enter the centenary year for Northern Ireland, it would of course be easy to reflect upon a history that has been characterised at times by division. Given the possibilities of the new EU trade deal, of dual trade in Northern Ireland and relative peace and prosperity, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be looking forward with confidence as one Union?

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Certainly furlough is available for women and, indeed, men who have childcare responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the employer whether to give that, but if women feel unduly disadvantaged, they can approach ACAS.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to ensure that her policies take a broad approach to equality beyond a focus on protected characteristics.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to ensure that her policies take a broad approach to equality beyond a focus on protected characteristics.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)]

I want to make sure that the equality agenda moves beyond just protected characteristics. Instead, we will make sure that we are focused on every individual in Britain having a fair chance in life and fair access to public services.

[James Sunderland]

I really welcome the Government’s agenda on women and equalities, and I commend my right hon. Friend for her outstanding leadership, but could I please also ask her to reassure me that we will never bow to those who suggest that white people should feel guilty for being white or to those who peddle the notion of white privilege? We are in this together, so will she please undertake today to write to other Government Departments to reinforce that?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Britain is one of the best places in the world to live, no matter what a person’s skin colour, sexuality, religion or anything else is. We need to be positively empowering people in Britain to succeed so that everyone has access to opportunity, and not using positive discrimination. That is the approach we are taking right across Government.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

No, I do not think that it is Honda; I think that there is a global problem with container traffic. That point has been well made by those who are leading our major ports.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Is the recent removal of clauses from the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill a sweetener for the European Union or an indicator that early white smoke might be forthcoming on a wider trade deal?

[Michael Gove]

We made that decision as a Government because we believed that we had satisfied all our aims in the discussions on the protocol. It was a sovereign decision, but I hope that it will help to ensure that we get a free trade agreement.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly study the hon. Member’s suggestion, but the best way forward is for care homes to take advantage of the testing system we have in place: not just lateral flow, but PCR—polymerase chain reaction—testing, too. That is the way to check that employees are not spreading it and of course to stop employees going from care home to care home. As has been pointed out throughout the pandemic, very often, it is not the visitors or family members who are importing the disease. Alas, I am afraid that sometimes it is the disease moving from care home to care home through employees and we have to stop that as well.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

International travel is vital for our recovery, not least in the aviation, hospitality, leisure and business sectors. Has the Prime Minister given any thought to the utility of having vaccination stamps in passports, or an equivalent scheme, to get our planes off the ground?

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Transport is looking at all such schemes. I am sure he will have heard what my hon. Friend has said loud and clear. He will be making some announcements very shortly.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in this debate.

My colleagues and I support the good intention of this Bill. It is the right thing to do to protect those who have protected us and this nation, and indeed many other innocents, in the face of the threat to life and the oppression of fundamental rights.

The Bill is not drafted perfectly, but tonight we have an opportunity to address and debate its deficiencies. One area of significant concern is torture. Amendments 1 to 10 seek to address that deficiency and, indeed, go a long way towards addressing this matter of grave public concern. That is the right thing to do. Like sexual offences, torture must fall outside the provisions of this Bill. Let us do nothing to undermine the values we hold dear as a nation. Where no investigation has taken place, it is absolutely right that the provisions of this Bill do not apply.

Cognisant of the purposes of today’s proceedings, I still wish to raise once again the plight of veterans of Operation Banner. I represent many such veterans who live in my constituency, and indeed hon. Members right across this House do so as well. While the operation was in Northern Ireland, those who served came from right across our United Kingdom and beyond. In the previous debate on this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I asked the Minister to state that the provisions of this Bill will not become law until the assurances made in the House on 18 March regarding Northern Ireland are fulfilled. The Minister said in response:

“We are clear that we will deliver our commitments to Northern Ireland. In a written ministerial statement on 18 March, we committed to equal treatment for those who served on Op Banner. We will not resile from that position.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1049.]

That is a good intention—it is the right intention—but there is no guarantee. I know from our conversations with veterans that the longer this delay continues the more suspicious they get. This is wrong, and I need to know that the Minister believes it is wrong as well, so what is the cause of the delay? Those who await the knock at the door for standing up to terrorism deserve answers, and I urge the Minister to give those answers today.

The Bill is welcome and delivers on promises made by the Government, but we must no longer leave some veterans behind as prey to vexatious prosecutions. That is wrong, especially if, as suspected, it is for no other reason than to give a sop to the political front of the very people who killed and maimed many of those they served beside.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Having been spared the commitment of serving on the Bill Committee, I am fortunate also to have been spared some of the polarisation that has affected this Bill, so I talk today from a position of complete objectivity. Having also tracked this important journey very carefully for many years, both professionally and personally, I believe this is an essentially good piece of work that deserves a fair passage through Parliament.

As I stated on Second Reading, any new legislation needs to be set in the context of the prevailing macro-conditions and previous legislation. This Bill fills a void where little has previously existed, so I commend the Minister for his vision, resilience and fortitude to date.

The bottom line is that this Bill delivers on the Conservative manifesto commitment to address the issue of vexatious claims and makes the first substantial amendments of their kind to the Human Rights Act by limiting the time during which claims can be brought. I can say from experience that this is what our armed forces want. They aspire to better protected in law. They want to know that the country values their service. They need to know that they will be supported if they pull the trigger lawfully and, after the misery of the ambulance-chasing years, they want the threshold for prosecution to be raised so that the endless knocks at the door finally stop. This is a no-brainer.

[Bob Stewart]

Not only the ambulance-chasing lawyers, but it is really good that we will not ever see the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which really made our soldiers’ lives hell when it investigated them. That will not happen again either.

[James Sunderland]

I could not agree more.

I am aware that several amendments were tabled in Committee, but none was agreed to. The Bill is hence essentially unaltered from Second Reading, so perhaps it is no surprise that such a large list is being considered today. I will admit that some of the amendments have merit. Having been contacted over the weekend by the eminent hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I have looked in particular at amendments 1 to 10. My view, however, is that this Bill will not prevent the UK from rightly prosecuting acts of torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, and that the Bill does not need to exclude these from its triple lock because existing provisions already exist in law.

I also struggle with the notion that the MOD would somehow fail to investigate or prosecute, because the bad apples will always face justice, as indeed they did during my time in uniform. Regarding torture, the Government’s position is that the presumption against prosecution will not prevent any prosecutor from considering the severity of the crime or the unique circumstances in which it was committed. Indeed, war is a nasty business, so I do not believe that a court should somehow be prevented from giving weight to the mental health of the individual or the prevailing conditions. Hence I am minded against amendments 21 and 22. I agree with the Minister that this would be nonsensical, as prosecutors should give recognition to the difficulty, the trauma and the acute stress of military operations, as any member of HM forces will testify.

In addition, the Bill confirms that on a case-by-case basis, a prosecutor can determine that a crime is exceptional, so there is no collision course here with the UN convention against torture, the Geneva convention, the Hague or even NATO, as nothing will be swept under the carpet. As for the five-year time limit, this is correct, as the clock will start ticking from the point at which matters come to light, not from the time of the alleged incident. That was also the overwhelming preference during the public consultation. Not only should it be possible for all the evidence to be gathered within a five-year period, but I concur with the Minister that memories do fade, that evidence does deteriorate and that it remains in the interests of everyone involved to deliver justice quickly. I do not therefore support amendments 18 and 19, which seek to lengthen the period to 10 years. This is ultimately about taking pressure off our people, not prolonging it.

Part 2 of the Bill relates to claims by service personnel against the MOD. As 94% of all employer liability claims against the MOD since May 2007 have been brought within the limitation longstop of six years, I agree that there should be a time limit here, too. To be fair, I have considered the suggestion that this Bill is more about protecting the MOD than it is about protecting HM forces, but that, too, is ridiculous. I note that the time limit extends here, too, from the point at which the issue first came to light. There is more than enough time here for any complaint to be submitted, and the MOD cannot simply write a cheque for yesteryear. I will be voting against new clauses 5 and 6 and amendment 23 if they are divided on.

Lastly, I am aware that this Bill has attracted lots of interest in the media in recent months, so I want to set the record straight: I am not convinced that the criticism from the Royal United Services Institute, the Royal British Legion, the Joint Committee on Human Rights or other senior figures is necessarily fair, as the Bill delivers what it says on the tin. Having read it in detail, I am clear, too, that any new presumption against prosecution is not a statute of limitations and does not in any way create a bar to either investigations or prosecutions. Unlike some, I have complete faith in both our legal system and our armed forces, so I commend this Bill to the House.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

We all agree that the aims of the Bill are noble, and that the idea of revolving investigations or a life in investigatory purgatory, never knowing when a vexatious investigator will come knocking at the door, is wrong and must end. The mental stress of that legal uncertainty needs clarity. The loopholes need to be closed and fixed, but this Bill does not do that. It does not even come close. In fact, in a number of areas, it makes things worse.