Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between James Sunderland and Bob Stewart

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland]

I spoke in support of the Bill on Second Reading, although I highlighted several frictions and concerns that may merit further work, which is where we are today.

The people of Northern Ireland, our veterans and those directly affected must be at the heart of this Bill, and I hope to offer a wider perspective that may be of use. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), said:

“Is the Bill perfect? No, of course it is not, and no legislation is, but let us not lose the good, or at least the intent to achieve the good, in pursuit of perfection.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 195.]

That is where I think we are today.

We know what the Bill does, as it has been covered a lot over the past few weeks and months: it establishes an independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery; it grants immunity from prosecution to those who engage with the commission—this is a key point—on a case-by-case basis; it ends, in theory, troubles-related criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings; it commissions a historical record of every troubles-related death; it covers memorialisation; and, importantly for me and for many others, it does not provide moral equivalence, which is an important improvement on the draft Bill.

The lingering concern of many I have spoken to, both here in England, Wales and Scotland and over the water in Northern Ireland, is that perpetrators may now never be brought to justice and the truth may never be known, notwithstanding what the Bill says it does on the tin.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. One thing the Bill might do, and I hope it does, is ensure the names of those who go before this reconciliation body are made public so that people know who they are and understand who carried out the deed, whatever the result for the person concerned. Victims and families may understand who did it, and I hope that will be considered in the Bill.

[James Sunderland]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister heeds his point.

Having looked at what the Bill does, and having discussed it on Second Reading, I ask: where can we go from here? Where do we need to go as a Committee? First, I would urge the Government to reconsider the exclusion of rape and sexual offences, which merits further work, although I fully understand the arguments that exist in law. It may be a political point as opposed to a legal point, or it might be both, but it requires extra work.

Secondly, clause 18 currently says that the ICRIR must grant a person immunity from prosecution if conditions A to C are met. Condition B states that a person needs to have engaged and stated the truth to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is a very low and subjective expectation of one individual’s account, for which the immunity panel is not required to seek corroboration. What if that individual is not telling the truth?

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Stability and Peace

Debate between James Sunderland and Bob Stewart

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I was a young captain in 1997, when I deployed on my very first tour to Bosnia. It was an amazing experience. I was a logistics officer based in Split in Croatia, but I spent most of my time in Gornji Vakuf, Šipovo, Kupres, and Tomislavgrad. I also spent time in Banja Luka, which was then the headquarters of the multinational division that was entrusted with enforcing the peace and the Dayton agreement. Enforcement is a theme to which I shall return.

As some may know, Bosnia is a beautiful country. I have been there many times, and I refer Members to my interests, having visited it recently. It is full of lovely people of all nationalities and religious beliefs. These are great people; these are humble people; these are hard-working people; and these are people who deserve the full support of the international community.

The awful war that lasted from 1992 until 1995 left an appalling legacy. An estimated 100,000 people were killed, 80% of whom were Bosniaks. In July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces killed as many as 8,000 Bosniak men and boys from the town of Srebrenica. I have been there a few times. Ethnic cleansing became part of our language at that time, which it had not been for many years. The legacy is pretty horrible, and it is a legacy of which we must remain mindful today.

The Dayton agreement was signed on 14 December 1995. It was signed by the Republic of Yugoslavia, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia, and the signatories in witness were the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and the EU. That means that the UK, as a signatory, also has an obligation to uphold the agreement. The commitment has been there since then. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) deployed in 1992, in the act of peacemaking. His tour was much more kinetic; it was called Operation Grapple. I deployed in 1997. My tour was peace enforcement, under the Dayton agreement. I served in support of that agreement, so I have skin in the game.

In a report delivered to the United Nations Security Council earlier this month, Christian Schmidt, the international community's high representative, suggested that Dodik had been persuaded by regional leaders to suspend his plans. That is very good news, but we cannot and must not take our foot off the gas. Why? Because Dodik’s rhetoric is separatist, and he has vowed to sever the legal and tax systems and the army in the Serb-run half of the country.

[Bob Stewart]

With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my hon. Friend’s wonderful words, may I point out to the House that, if Republika Srpska were to split from Bosnia, it would be a bit rich if Srebrenica—which is in Republika Srpska—stayed where it is, after what has happened there?

[James Sunderland]

My right hon. and gallant Friend speaks very wisely, and I could not disagree with what he has said. I urge the Minister to heed those words.

As for the future, we know there is a problem, but let us not admire the problem too greatly. For me, this is about the solution. It is clear to me that a calm de-escalation of the crisis must be the current political goal and that, as a signatory, we must stand by the Dayton agreement. As was mentioned earlier, we must also give the high representative our unequivocal support. He knows what he is talking about, so let us get behind him. I agree with the suggestion that we should support the current headquarters in Bosnia with NATO troops, or even troops of support of the EU; it does not really matter, but an enhanced British presence in the headquarters and possibly on the ground is necessary to give us the eyes and the ears that we need.

I am pretty enthused by the progress so far. We are having this debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing it. Baroness Goldie of the Ministry of Defence was in Sarajevo yesterday for the Bosnian Armed Forces Day. It was recently announced that Sir Stuart Peach would become the special envoy to the western Balkans. Let us recognise the good work that has been done so far. Let us recognise the senior engagement that is happening, and let us also recognise the need for a much broader unity of purpose within NATO and the United Nations, so that all signatories can come together and do what is necessary.

I will end with three points. First, I have mentioned the military presence, and it is very important to get military planners on the ground. Secondly, I believe that new Balkans policy is needed, perhaps amending the structures of the current Dayton agreement and perhaps even creating something called Dayton II, encompassing the changes and the cultural developments. The divides are still there in that fantastic country.

My last point is a simple one. I deployed in 1997 to do peace enforcement; I think we now need to do political enforcement.

Armed Forces Bill: Special Report

Debate between James Sunderland and Bob Stewart

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland]

For me, achieving this outcome was about consensus; it was about all members of the Committee coming together. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that in the Command Paper of 2008 the covenant was first mooted; it is a combination of Conservative, Labour, Scottish National party and other MPs who have made it happen today, although of course a Conservative Government have brought it in. I am happy that the report, as it stands, provides some solid recommendations for the future. I agree that a more consensual approach to a Bill such as this in the future might pay dividends.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), a good friend of mine, on the way he chaired this Committee, which was a difficult one to chair. May I ask him why the Committee did not feel it fit to look at health problems and care problems with regard to Northern Ireland, and at vexatious claims made against Northern Ireland veterans?

[James Sunderland]

I thank my very good right hon. Friend for his question. The simple answer relating to Northern Ireland is that the legacy issues, very much in the news at the moment, are subject to separate work being led by the Northern Ireland Office, and the Ministry of Defence made it clear to me and the other members of the Committee that that would not be within the scope of this Bill. We divided on that at the beginning of the session. For me personally, the wider issues relating to Northern Ireland and care, and the provisions of the covenant, are catered for in this Bill. I am pleased that the implementation of the armed forces covenant in statute is very much the core feature of this Bill and will happen, for the benefit of all those in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

Debate between James Sunderland and Bob Stewart

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland]

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

[James Sunderland]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between James Sunderland and Bob Stewart

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

Debate between James Sunderland and Bob Stewart

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this key debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, although the concept of strength of the armed forces happens to be a misnomer. First, military force will only ever be as good as the way in which it is deployed. The long asymmetric campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, were indicative of attrition, force protection and technology, more so than outright military power, but times have changed, even over this short period, and as the integrated review has made clear, we are now fighting in an era of “persistent engagement” against multiple threats, on multiple fronts and in new domains. It might be that conventional force, far from being the historical solution it was, is now just a solution.

Secondly, the word “strength” is in itself confusing. It is often used to describe disposition or size, so I would agree with the Opposition’s argument that our UK armed forces have shrunk, but that ignores the fact that “strength” can also mean availability of force, utility and, above all, potency. So, I would argue that reducing the size of our armed forces does not necessarily mean that the application of military force is any less credible. Let us be clear that the vast reduction in our armed forces since the second world war is not just a Conservative problem. It is something for which successive Governments must take responsibility.

I shall outline some facts if I may. In 2009, after over a decade of Labour government, there were 46,000 fewer service personnel than in 1997. Over the same period, the three services ended up 6,500 personnel short of the MOD’s trained requirement, a figure that is larger than the delta today. The reality is that HM forces fell in size by at least a fifth under Blair and Brown.

Before I am accused of being blindly partisan, let us not forget that the Conservatives did something similar in 2010. I spent a miserable two years in Andover doing my bit to cut the size of the Army from 102,000 to 82,000, and there were sweeping cuts, too, in the RAF and Navy.

[Bob Stewart]

I remember that in 2010 we cut the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers hugely, and said we would do the job through civilian personnel. Then, in 2015, we cut those civilian personnel. Who will keep all these highly technical things going if we do not have the people?

[James Sunderland]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, as a Corps man myself. It is imperative that we retain these specialist capabilities so that we can prosecute force using the logistical and engineering support we need.

A decade on, there is no doubt that the Government are serious about investing in defence in a way that has not been seen for years. The massive £24 billion boost over the next four years brings the total to over £188 billion before 2025. This is about military power and strength, particularly in the prosecution of force at range, and when the risks of becoming embroiled in another attritional campaign on land can be mitigated, whereby striking at the heart of enemy command and control is so important.

I am concerned about the 72,000 figure for the Regular Army. Every unit has its challenges with under-manning, the training margin, wider commitments and absence from work due to sickness, compassionate leave or maternity, and my sense is that the Army probably needs an establishment of 82,000 to mobilise a strength of 72,000. I am not convinced that the Army can generate a deployable division with those numbers, and I urge the Minister to do his estimate. However, that is the only note of real caution for me and I welcome the publication of the integrated review—an excellent bit of work.

The dilemma for me and for all of us in this place is whether our focus on coalition operations, higher dependence on technology and the perceived peace dividend since the second world war justify the risks of ever smaller armed forces. But none of us can predict the future—not even politicians—and only time will tell whether this is again a bridge too far.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between James Sunderland and Bob Stewart

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

[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.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between James Sunderland and Bob Stewart

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

[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.