Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I rise primarily to talk about amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It was an honour to serve on the Bill Committee. I would have spoken to the amendment had it been tabled in Committee— I think a timetabling issue meant that it could not be.

There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner undertakes their reports, they will be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and their families. More specific thematic reports about issues faced by minorities in the armed forces ought to be a matter for the commissioner to decide.

As someone with a disability, I am perturbed by the absence of disabled people from the list of minorities that is cited. That is the problem when amendments are tabled with a prescriptive list of different minority groups: some can be missed out, and some can be made to feel that their concerns might be more valued than others. It is not completely incompatible with service in the armed forces to have a disability—clearly, some physical disabilities make service on the frontline difficult, but there are other roles that people legally defined or self-identifying as having a disability might be able to serve in. Indeed, the most famous admiral in the Royal Navy’s history was Horatio Nelson, who had two disabilities: he had one arm and one eye. It is unfortunate to have gone for a prescriptive listing, and unnecessary, for the reasons that I set out at the start of my remarks.

I will not detain the House with my take on the other amendments, as I am sure other hon. Members will wish to come in on them. However, my general assessment would be that the amendments that have been tabled are well intentioned but unnecessary, because the Bill already deals with the concerns they raise.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is good to see the Armed Forces Commissioner put on a statutory basis, and to see the functions set out and see how the staff, though perhaps not directly recruited, can be provided for the commissioner. All that is good, but it causes me to ask why, if we are making that provision for the serving members of our armed forces, are we not making a parallel statutory provision for our veterans? Why is it right to have a statutory basis for the Armed Forces Commissioner, but not for the various veterans commissioners? Surely, if it is right for serving members, it must equally be right to have a statutory basis setting out the functions and ensuring staff provision for the veterans commissioners. I take the case of the part of the United Kingdom that I know best: in Northern Ireland, we have a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner for two days a week, effectively, with two staff seconded from the Northern Ireland Office, who is charged with looking after all the interests of the very many thousands of veterans that we unsurprisingly have in Northern Ireland.

I ask again, if it is right to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving soldiers, why is that not the case for veterans? It would be not only a significant step forward in itself, but a significant nod to how we value our veterans community if we were to give them equality of treatment on this issue. I think that is very important. Without the role being on a statutory basis, a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner with seconded staff has his hands tied behind his back, frankly.

In Northern Ireland, because this Government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, we are moving back into a phase where we may see many veterans from incidents 50 years ago dragged through our courts. We have a veterans commissioner with no standing to intervene in the multiple judicial reviews that take place on those issues and no standing to take any official line on any of that. If we were to put the veterans commissioner on a statutory basis, with the available funding, there would be a role to be performed—and not just on that specific issue, but perhaps if there was a challenging judicial that touched on veterans’ issues. Why should the veterans commissioner not be a notified and intervening party in such proceedings? I think he should.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the concern that the staff of the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner are appointed by the Northern Ireland Office, as is the commissioner? Does he agree that the commissioner having the freedom, independence and ability to challenge the Government with force and vigour, and without having to continually look over their shoulder at what may be perceived as oversight from the NIO, would actually strengthen that role?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. It is one of the strengths of the Bill that it purports to give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but that means there is all the more need for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence. All the veterans commissioner has is two staff, whom he does not choose—not that there is anything wrong with those staff; they are very good. However, they are not appointed by his office; they are hand-picked by the NIO and seconded to him. If all he has is two staff he has not chosen, it creates the wrong perception, and very often that is enough to do damage to an office.

I therefore take the opportunity of this debate to say that what we are doing for the Armed Forces Commissioner is good, but let us mirror it in what we do for our veterans.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and veterans cropped up several times in Committee, and I commend new clause 2, on this subject, to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will know that the former Northern Ireland veterans commissioner recently resigned in part because he had concerns about the constraints on his independence to carry out his role, which concerns Members on the Conservative Benches. Does that concern the hon. and learned Gentleman as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

It does. When a former Member of this House with Army experience, Mr Danny Kinahan, was appointed veterans commissioner, great expectations were placed on his shoulders. Sadly, as the right hon. Gentleman says, among the reasons proffered for leaving his role, Mr Kinahan stated that he felt his freedom of action was impinged on by the Northern Ireland Office. Be that right or be that wrong, the perception that such an office holder would have those restraints placed on them does untold damage to that office.

As I have in the past, I pay tribute to Mr Kinahan for his service in that role. I also wish well his recently appointed successor, Mr David Johnstone, whom I had the privilege of meeting last week. I trust that as he takes forward the work of representing veterans, he will find himself unrestrained. However, this Government could put all that beyond doubt by putting the veterans commissioner on the same statutory footing as the Armed Forces Commissioner.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to Danny Kinahan; as a Minister who had some dealings with him, I would certainly say he did a very good job indeed. I wish his successor all the very best. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the previous Government actually went one step further by appointing a Minister for Veterans’ Affairs of Cabinet rank—a very experienced individual—which this Government have failed to replicate?

[Jim Allister]

That is true. However, they failed to take the step I am now advocating of putting the veterans commissioner on a statutory footing. This Government can go one better and do the right thing for veterans, and I trust that they will. I do support new clause 2; I think it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We need to offer our retired servicemen the facilities we are offering our serving servicemen.

[Robin Swann]

The Ulster Unionist party would support new clause 2. I, too, pay tribute to my predecessor as Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim, Mr Kinahan, for the work that he did in this place and continued to do for veterans. I also wish David Johnstone well.

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a point about the position of Veterans Minister. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is an opportunity for the Veterans Minister to be responsible for appointing the veterans commissioner for Northern Ireland, rather than the NIO, and that there may be a segregation of perception with regard to some of the concerns that our veterans community would have?

[Jim Allister]

That is a fair point. In truth, our veterans community, as they see some of their brethren facing historic investigation, align the genesis and support for that investigation with the NIO. Therefore, it certainly would be better, both in presentation and in reality, if there was that distance between the veterans commissioner and the NIO.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is to the discredit of the Opposition that they do not even have a shadow Veterans Minister who could bring up the issues he is raising?

[Jim Allister]

If there is a failing on the Opposition Benches, then all the greater opportunity and need for the Government to make good on that. I trust that they will do that. I am not here to mediate between the two sides of this House!

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I am the shadow Veterans Minister. I am the shadow Armed Forces Minister and I do a bit of procurement on the side as well. We do take veterans very seriously on the Conservative Benches, but, as I will say later on, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure the Government do.

[Jim Allister]

I will leave the two sides of the House to sort out their differences. All I am interested in is that the veterans in my community have the best opportunity and the best service. With the best will in the world, yes, we have, and have had, good veterans commissioners, but they cannot do the job so long as their hands are tied behind their backs. Let us unleash them and see a basis on which they can properly perform their functions.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I would like to put forward my strongest support for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This legislation marks a significant step forward in ensuring that our armed forces personnel receive the care and support they deserve.

As the Member of Parliament for Stafford, I am acutely aware of the challenges faced by many of our service personnel and veterans. In my constituency, about 5.5% of residents are veterans, in addition to just under 1,000 serving personnel. For years, we have needed a national focus on the needs of serving personnel. By establishing an independent voice to investigate welfare matters, we can ensure that serving personnel have a dedicated champion who is able to bring their concerns to the forefront.

I am very pleased that the Bill will address long-standing issues in the current complaints process by transferring powers from the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces to the new commissioner. That will provide serving personnel and their families with a much-needed avenue to address their grievances. That will make a huge difference for some of my constituents. I know that the Government are laser-focused on supporting our serving personnel and their families, and that this is only one step in our plans to change the lives of those who serve and who have served, and of their families.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 2, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke earlier, which specifies that the commissioner must engage with certain groups. I would have thought that to be expected as part of the role, so specifying them, as he rightly pointed out, makes the mistake of sometimes missing groups. I suggest that there is no need to divide the House on this issue, as it would be expected of any commissioner.

The Bill is about much more than policies and procedures. It is about recognising the immense sacrifices made by our service personnel, and providing them with the support they deserve and a healthier culture in which to serve our country. I commend the Government for taking that step for all regiments across the country—not just those based in Stafford. I urge all Members to support this vital legislation for our serving soldiers and serving personnel. It is only by supporting them that we can support the veterans of the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

The charity has my full congratulations on the work it is doing. Having pets such as a dog provides psychological comfort and friends, especially for people healing from some of the psychological impacts of service or indeed combat, and I fully support it. If the hon. Member would like to discuss at a later date how we could push that forward, she should please reach out to me.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Just before Christmas, we had the welcome announcement of a new veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland, Mr David Johnstone. Although I am sure the Minister will join me in wishing him well in his new post, it is a part-time post, it has only two seconded staff and it is not on a statutory basis like elsewhere. Will the Government put that post on a statutory basis so that the many veterans in Northern Ireland can have the service they deserve?

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his important question. First, we must get the armed forces covenant into law, which should cover a large proportion of the veteran support mechanism. I congratulate David Johnstone on taking up his post; I phoned him just before the Christmas recess. I am excited and looking forward to working with him and ensuring that the unique attributes of veterans in Northern Ireland are accounted for and represented in the correct manner.

Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

That is an important question, and one that I responded to a few answers ago. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that safeguards in the treaty will detail that no foreign security forces will be able to set up on the outer islands, providing that security perimeter around Diego Garcia that we and our US allies have sought. This is a good deal because it secures not only the future operation of the base but the future security around the base. I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to see that for himself.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I return to a question asked but not answered this afternoon. If as a result of the review the Mauritian Government demand more money, will the Government pay up in order to save face?

Remembrance and Veterans

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I join in the tributes to our gallant security forces who, through their sacrifice, have brought us all the liberty that we enjoy. When our soldiers fall in foreign fields, we feel it very deeply. When they fall on home ground, there is an added poignancy to it. As a Member for Northern Ireland, representing the constituency of North Antrim, tonight I want to place on record the appreciation of so many people in Northern Ireland for the willing sacrifice of our gallant security forces from across this United Kingdom who paid with their lives in defending Northern Ireland from the ravages of terrorism. That debt is much appreciated by many of us.

In thinking of that debt, and of our affirmation that “We will remember them”, I wanted just to give an illustration. Today is 28 October, so let me share with the House the number and names of the soldiers who died on 28 October in various years on home soil in the United Kingdom.

On 28 October 1972, Lance Sergeant Thomas McKay from Edinburgh, a married man with two children, was shot from behind in Londonderry. On 28 October 1973, Private Stephen Hall, 1st Light Infantry, from Bristol, was shot in Crossmaglen. In 1974, Private Michael Swanick and Private Alan Coughlan were both murdered by a bomb attack on the Sandes home where they stayed at Ballykinler camp. On 28 October 1976, off-duty Ulster Defence Regiment soldier—this reminds us that so many local soldiers also paid the price—Stanley Desmond Adams was shot doing his rounds as a postman. On 28 October 1979, Warrant Officer David Bellamy was shot in a Land Rover as he left a police station.

Those are reminders of names we have all forgotten, but names of those to whom we in Northern Ireland and elsewhere owe so much. I place on record our appreciation tonight. I say one final thing to the Government: we have a veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland, but it has never been put on a statutory basis. That needs to be done to give it lasting effect.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

Jim Allister Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The other new Members who have spoken today have set a very high bar with their maiden speeches, and I commend them on their delivery and the very cogent construction of their speeches.

I come to this place representing the constituency of North Antrim. Therefore, my first privilege is to thank the electors of North Antrim for placing their confidence in me—and, of course, I commend their wisdom. The North Antrim constituency is a magnificent blend of urban and rural. We have the county town of Ballymena; we have other main towns, such as Ballymoney and Ballycastle; and we have a great patchwork of villages and small towns, including Bushmills, whose famous products some in this House may be familiar with. Others in that patchwork of villages have excelled in national competitions—Britain in Bloom and all of that—such as Broughshane, Ahoghill and Cullybackey.

It is a wonderful place to represent; it is also a place of fantastic scenery, because we have the world-famous north coast. The crowning glory of that, of course, is the Giant’s Causeway, as well as Carrick-a-Rede bridge and all those magnificent places. We also have iconic inland tourist attractions such as the Dark Hedges, so I say to Members of this House, “If you’ve never been to North Antrim, it’s time to put that right. What’s been keeping you?”

What was keeping me from representing North Antrim in this House was a 54-year dynasty of family and party. From June 1970, North Antrim was represented in this House by Ian Paisley, father and son. Today, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor for the considerable work that he did for his constituents in North Antrim, but it is a new era—it is a new start—and I am here with a very distinctive and particular message in regard to the future of Northern Ireland. There was not much in the King’s Speech about Northern Ireland, apart from a couple of fleeting references. It was a disappointment to me that there was nothing to address the disenfranchising of the people of Northern Ireland.

Let me explain. Those Members who come from England, Scotland or Wales come to this House as a Parliament that, in tandem with devolved institutions—if they have them—can collectively legislate for all the laws that govern their constituents. Sadly, we cannot say that about my constituents or any constituent in Northern Ireland, because in 300 areas of law, sovereignty over making those laws has been surrendered to a foreign Parliament. We are now subject to the last Government’s protocol and Windsor framework arrangements—subject to laws governing our trade, our agrifood industry, much of our economy and much of our environment that this House cannot make and that Stormont cannot make. Those laws are made in a foreign Parliament and then, colony-like, are imposed on Northern Ireland.

The Labour movement has a very proud history of opposition to colonialism, but this Government inherit a position whereby they are presiding over a colonial situation of a foreign jurisdiction administering laws, and decreeing and legislating laws, in part of this kingdom. That is something that this Government need to address, and I am not talking about trifling incidental laws. I am talking about many laws that cut to the very heart of what it means to be a United Kingdom and to be a part of that United Kingdom. I refer to just one, but Members will find the 300 listed, if they are interested, in annex 2 to the protocol that was foisted upon us.

I refer to only one, which is the subjection of Northern Ireland to the EU’s customs code. What that means in practice is that when Great Britain sends goods—and it is our main source of supply—to our manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland, it is sending them, according to the EU customs code, from a foreign country, because Northern Ireland is decreed to be EU territory. That is an unbearable constitutional and economic affront, and that is something I say to this Government. The Secretary of State talked today about democracy, and the Foreign Secretary will go around the world advancing the cause of democracy, yet in Northern Ireland we have a situation where there are laws governing so many vital aspects that we cannot make and cannot change. That has to change, and it has to be changed by this House.

That is the fundamental message that I bring from my constituents, and that is why I am here—because my constituents will not, cannot, should not put up with it, just as the constituents of any Member of this House would not put up with it.