Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps the British Army is taking in response to the proposal made in the 2019 Junior Entry Review to create new terms of service aligning the minimum commitment lengths of recruits aged under 18 with those of recruits who join over the age of 18.
Answered by James Heappey
Following the publication of the Integrated Review, the Army is taking time to refine and test its designs, capabilities and structures. As the Army moves towards workforce balance, the implementation of bespoke Terms of Service for U18 entrants may be considered within the context of wider analysis on engagements and length of service.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to ensure that army recruits enlisted under the age of 18 do not have to serve for a longer minimum period than recruits enlisted as adults.
Answered by James Heappey
Army recruits enlisted before their 18th birthday have Discharge As Of Right (DAOR) conferred upon them by The Armed Forces Terms of Service Regs 2007. This enables them to leave the Army before the age of 18.
At 18, they are able to make an informed choice to serve for four years in the same manner as any other joiner who is 18 or over.
Under The Armed Forces Terms of Service Regulations 2007 (as amended), a soldier has the right to terminate their Regular service either four years from their date of enlistment, or four years from the point at which they turn 18, whichever is later.
This means that soldiers who enlist before the age of 18 may serve longer than their counterparts who join as adults, should they choose not to exercise their right to apply for discharge prior to reaching 18.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the affordability of his Department's commitment to buy 48 F-35b Lightning jet fighters by the end of 2025.
Answered by Jeremy Quin
I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given in the House of Lords on 23 September 2020 by my right hon. Friend Baroness Goldie to Lord Campbell of Pittenweem to Question HL8176.
The UK's F-35B aircraft are procured using a 'Block Buy' approach through the US-led Joint Programme Office. The UK has ordered 35 aircraft to date, and procurement of the next 13 has already commenced, these will be delivered through the 'Block Buy 2' Programme (also referred to as Lot 15-17). This will take the UK to 48 F-35B aircraft. Further decisions on procurement beyond the 48 aircraft will follow the ongoing Integrated Review.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans his Department has to roll-out the deployment of military fighter pilots to fly drones to deliver (a) PPE and (b) covid-19 test results to support the NHS during the covid-19 outbreak.
Answered by James Heappey
The Ministry of Defence currently has no plans for the deployment or use of UK Armed Forces pilots for the purposes of flying drones to support the NHS.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the National Audit Office's report entitled Carrier Strike - Preparing for deployment, published in June 2020.
Answered by Jeremy Quin
The NAO report, Carrier Strike - Preparing for Deployment, highlighted progress made and the Department remains on track to achieve a successful Carrier Strike Deployment in 2021.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many (a) personal injury claims and (b) claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 were brought against his Department in each of the last five years; what proportion of those claims related to overseas operations; and how many of those claims were brought (i) less than three years, (ii) between three or six years or (iii) six or more years after the date of loss.
Answered by Johnny Mercer - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Minister for Veterans' Affairs)
The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. To locate, retrieve and extract the information requested would involve wide-ranging searches of a number of databases and liaison with the Government Legal Department.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many (a) civil and (b) criminal claims of abuse during interrogation in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 were subsequently made against the UK.
Answered by Johnny Mercer - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Minister for Veterans' Affairs)
Since 2003, Her Majesty's Government has received around 1,000 damages claims and approximately 1,400 judicial review claims in connection with operations in Iraq. The claims received focus predominately on alleged unlawful detention but many incorporate allegations of mistreatment at the hands of British military personnel. In addition, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team received over 3,400 allegations of criminal conduct - most incorporating allegations of mistreatment - by UK Armed Forces in Iraq.
We are unable to say with certainty how many of these allegations of ill-treatment specifically related to interrogation, as this would require cross-referencing with individual files.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of the number of reported complaints of racist incidents in the Armed Forces between (a) 2015 - 2016, (b) 2016 - 2017, (c) 2017 - 2018, (d) 2018 - 2019, and (e) 2019 - to 17 June 2020.
Answered by Johnny Mercer - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Minister for Veterans' Affairs)
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) recognises that unacceptable behaviour, including racism, still occurs. MOD and the UK Armed Forces are committed to taking action to eradicate it and have a zero-tolerance approach. Defence, like many other organisations, does not yet represent society and it is essential that it does. We recognise that the pace of change needs to quicken; that is why we are renewing our levels of ambition at the highest levels in Defence as we work to fulfil the key objective in our 2018-2030 Diversity and Inclusion Strategy to eliminate discrimination and improve diversity throughout Defence. We continue to implement all the recommendations made by Air Chief Marshal Wigston in his 2019 review into inappropriate behaviour.
All allegations of illegal or unacceptable behaviour are taken extremely seriously and investigated thoroughly; Service personnel have a number of routes to raise the issue, either with the police, within the Chain of Command or with Diversity and Inclusion Advisers. MOD is working to prevent unacceptable behaviour from occurring in the first place and has also designed an Active Bystander training so that personnel have the skills to challenge unacceptable behaviour effectively when it does occur.
The requested information is not available in the format requested and an answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Allegations of racism are captured through various mechanisms, including internal and external disciplinary proceedings, the Service Complaints system, informal complaints and the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey. Defence is working to improve its data capture of all unacceptable behaviour across the department.
The Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces (SCOAF)'s annual report does not provide a full picture for ascertaining levels of racism in the Armed Forces. The Ombudsman's report deals with issues of overrepresentation by BAME complainants, but these complaints do not only concern racial discrimination. However, information from the single Services' annual statistical returns on Service Complaints to the SCOAF indicates that in 2019, five per cent of all bullying, harassment or discrimination Service Complaints concerned racial discrimination.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of repainting RAF Voyager.
Answered by Jeremy Quin
The total forecast cost for completing the repaint of the RAF Voyager VIP aircraft (including related costs) is approximately £900,000. The project will be carried out by Marshall Aerospace Defence Group (MADG) in Cambridge.
The decision to repaint the VIP Voyager - and approval of a design that best projected Global Britain - was taken on a cross-Government basis, to be funded by the Ministry of Defence.
Asked by: Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether it is Government policy that the (a) prohibition of torture is absolute and (b) obligation to prosecute torture is absolute.
Answered by Johnny Mercer - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Minister for Veterans' Affairs)
The Government is committed to its obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). There is an absolute prohibition of torture under international law. The UNCAT requires each State Party to ensure that all acts of torture are listed as offences under its criminal law, however the prosecution of any crime is never automatic. The statutory presumption in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill does not act as a pardon, amnesty or statute of limitations. Prosecutors will continue to have discretion on whether to prosecute for criminal offences, including torture, taking into account factors such as sufficiency of evidence and public interest.