Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I give way to my fellow Committee member.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to the former Attorney General for giving way. He is right to say that the matter could have been—and still could be, as I think he will also want to confirm—brought to our Committee. If, even at this late juncture, an overture were made to our Committee—clearly, it would have to be discussed at Committee—it would be perfectly possible for the Government to set out in those terms the advice they received that legitimises the position that they have taken.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Although all our hearings are held within closed doors, he is right that until that happens, our door is open. There is an opportunity for the Minister, if he wishes to take it, to make that proposal.

Let me come back to the point that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made. His rejoinder and the rejoinders of his colleagues and Ministers have always been the same throughout this debate. They say, “The last Government began negotiations on this, so clearly the last Government accept the same logic that we accept.” That simply will not do. As Ministers and the Back Benchers behind them have been very keen to point out, the last Government had 11 rounds of negotiation on this question. If they had chosen to do the deal that this Government have done, they had ample opportunity to do it, but they did not. That can only be because they did not believe it was the right deal to do.

This Government are undoubtedly enthusiastic about getting swift resolution of disputes—it seems that they apply the same principles to labour disputes—but settling a negotiation fast is really very easy if we give the person with whom we are negotiating everything they want. What Mauritius wanted out of this negotiation was sovereignty over the entire Chagos archipelago, and that is what this Government have given them. I am afraid that we really cannot award any points for the fact that this Government have managed to resolve this issue more swiftly. The fact that the Government of which some of us Conservative Members were part did not resolve it that quickly is perhaps because they were not prepared to give ground on that particular issue.

We need an explanation of why the Government feel it is necessary to do this deal. We need an explanation on what precisely the legal jeopardy they face is and what its origin is, and we need to know what the binding legal judgment they fear is. Frankly, without those explanations, this House should not be asked to agree to this Bill or this treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what one of those red lines was: not paying £35 billion to another country. In case he wants to read his Labour party briefing again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that another red line for the last Foreign Secretary was that he clearly did not accept unilaterally that the sovereignty of the Chagos islands fell with Mauritius. That is a key difference between the last Government and this Government.

This is a bad deal for Britain: it will cost £35 billion, while the Government tax and spend and make people in this country poorer, and in an ever-changing international security situation, this country is unilaterally giving up a strategically important defence base, in an area of the world where we are seeing more geopolitical uncertainty. I cannot put into words how bad this Bill is, except to say that it is an act of self-sabotage that we have not seen in this House by a democratically elected Government for generations.

To reiterate, not only is this a bad deal, but it is backed by every nation that is malign to our national interest, including China, Russia and Iran. Last week, at an international summit, those countries were actively advocating some of the malign influences about which this Government and the last Government spoke about, and they are actively backing this deal. I challenge Labour Members to look Opposition Members or any of their constituents in the eye and say that a deal that is successful for this country should be backed by Iran, China and Russia.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to work within the confines of parliamentary etiquette, but I have to say that there is something deeply concerning about the way that this Government have chosen to negotiate the terms of the agreement. We have to look at the close links between the key people who negotiated this deal with the Mauritian Government and the links—private links—to the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said in the Mauritian Parliament that officials were asked to leave the room while private negotiations were going ahead. I have never known a responsible Government who are trying to hand over sovereignty of a British overseas territory to ask officials, who are there to protect the integrity and the transparency of the of decisions that Ministers take, to leave the room so that a negotiation can go on. Why have the Government hidden the cost of the deal? Why have they refused to give this House a solid and sustainable way to scrutinise the decisions of the Government? They have avoided scrutiny at every turn.

[Sir John Hayes]

Perhaps I can invite my hon. Friend to be helpful to the Minister. He clearly holds him in some regard, and he is right that he has got himself into something of a mess. By far the best way for the Government to proceed from hereon would be to make much more available either to this House or, as the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) suggested, to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would clarify the terms of this trade—why it happened and the assessments that were made that led up to it—in a way that the House would be able to either legitimise what the Minister claims or refute it. A lack of transparency is half the Minister’s problem.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I found it quite concerning earlier that the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), relied on the fact that American counterparts in an Administration that he does not scrutinise backed the deal, so there was no need for the Defence Committee to interrogate Ministers of the Government it is supposed to scrutinise. There have been two offers this afternoon, one by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the other by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, in his expert speech. There is a scrutiny structure in this House called the Intelligence and Security Committee to which the Minister could refer this decision, and he can rest assured in the knowledge that there are expert Members across the whole House who could offer their expert opinion on the deal. The Government have chosen not to do that. That is an indictment of the transparency and the drive the Government have shown in getting the deal very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

I believe that the hon. Member has had quite a lot of turns today, and I have been waiting a long time without intervening, so I will proceed. If we allowed a vacuum to be created, it would be filled by China or others in a region that is vital to our security. I will come back to China in a moment, because what China thinks about this treaty is important as well.

Turning to the first test, the treaty secures 99 years of guaranteed access, with the option to extend it by a further 40 years; 99 years was good enough for Lord Salisbury, so it is good enough for me. It gives us full operational control over installations, logistics, communications and the electromagnetic spectrum. It establishes a 24-nautical-mile buffer zone and bans any foreign military presence on the outer islands. We have talked about how it protects a unique maritime environment and provides tangible support through the trust fund for Chagossian communities. On the first test I am satisfied.

On the second test—whether the agreement commands the backing of allies and experts—other colleagues have spoken powerfully about this, but Lord Goldsmith, a former Attorney General, said it was

“consistent with our national security interests and with our respect for international law”.

The international support is equally strong. Australia’s Kevin Rudd called it a

“good outcome for Mauritius, for Australia, for the UK and for our collective security interests”.

Canada’s foreign ministry said that it ensures

“the long-term, secure and effective operation”

of the joint base, strengthening a free and open Indo-Pacific.

In the United States, where there is not much that gets bipartisan support, it is a bipartisan matter. Antony Blinken said that America “strongly supported” the negotiations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio commended the “leadership and vision” shown. The Democratic former Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said that the agreement will

“safeguard strategic security interests into the next century.”

I believe an hon. Member has already quoted President Trump, who described it as an amazing deal, a beautiful deal or whatever kind of deal—but a good deal, that is the main point.

The international consensus is clear. Our allies, partners and experts back the deal. I was very taken by the comments of Professor Benjamin Sacks of the RAND school of public policy in the United States. He said:

“I contend that Beijing privately views the agreement, even if modified to ameliorate some Chagossians’ outstanding demands, somewhat as a setback. In practical terms, it gains little if any advantage from it.”

He added:

“The Chagos issue constituted a perennial problem for British foreign policy; one that China could simultaneously exploit to demonstrate its supposed adherence to existing RBOs”—

rule-based orders—

“and undermine the UK’s traditionally important role in maintaining it.”

He also said that the deal deters Port Louis—Mauritius—from becoming an effective client state of Beijing. On the point of whether our allies support it, I believe that the treaty meets the test.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow an intervention?

[Tim Roca]

I will not. I experienced the right hon. Gentleman defending the hereditary principle last week, and I do not think I have the strength in me this week to listen to another argument.

The final test was on costs and obligations. Again, Ministers have talked powerfully about the deal being less than 0.2% of the defence budget. Comparisons have been made with what the French are paying in Djibouti, and I am glad that we are getting a better deal than the French. Of course, Diego Garcia is 15 times larger than those bases and in a more strategic location. The treaty gives us immense operational freedom. It therefore seems to me that this is a modest investment for an irreplaceable asset. The risks from delay or abandonment—in this argument, we have to balance the treaty with the risks of what could happen—are vastly greater.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

I go back to the example of RAF Gan. The Maldivians refused the Soviet Union back in 1976, because the UK had a good reputation with them. We honoured our agreements and respected international law, and they felt that it was inappropriate for them to be seen to be supporting a country that had not done the same.

In the case of Diego Garcia, this is a situation that has been negotiated for many years. The Conservatives recognised that there was a threat to our sovereignty, because they started the negotiations. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, if we are unable to conclude a deal soon, there is a serious risk that our operations at the base would be thwarted. It would not be in 99 or 140 years after the deal; it would be in weeks or months.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will carry on for a moment, and then I will give way.

Despite the risks, the Conservatives have come out in opposition to this deal. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—the former Foreign Secretary, who is not in his place—has described the deal as “weak, weak, weak”, but it was he who started the negotiations back in 2023. He pledged that he would complete the deal in the same year, but he was unable to do so. Maybe it was his negotiating tactics that were “weak, weak, weak”, rather than anything else. For all the Conservatives’ complaining about this agreement, they have failed again to offer any insight into why they started the negotiations in the first place.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Questions about why the negotiations started have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), given that the national interest is the primary concern of all responsible Governments and could easily be compromised by this deal, but will the hon. Gentleman deal with this point? It has been made absolutely crystal clear in this debate that Lord Cameron, when he became Foreign Secretary, ended those negotiations. Lord Cameron is a man of immense experience, who has probably negotiated at a level beyond anyone present in this Chamber. He would have certainly taken legal advice within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before he closed those negotiations. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that Lord Cameron closed them down, and why does he think that this Government reopened them?

[Alex Ballinger]

We do not know why Lord Cameron closed them down, because the Conservatives have not released any details of the deal that they negotiated up to that point. Maybe the costs were too high because they had not negotiated a better deal, or maybe things like the 24-mile security zone were not included in the deal, but this Government have secured a better deal. It is important for us to secure our national security.

It is also worth pointing out that Conservative Governments have not looked after our national security over the last 14 years. I have served, and I have seen the damage that was caused by 14 years of under-investment and neglect of our armed forces. Our Army has been reduced to a size that has not been seen since the time of Napoleon. Service accommodation standards are scandalous, which our people do not deserve in the slightest, and the Conservatives cut the defence budget so deep that Russia felt that we were too weak to stop an invasion in Europe. I am pleased to see that this Labour Government are investing again in our armed forces and starting to fix the damage of those 14 years.

Since we are talking about investment, let me touch on the investment value of this deal. Diego Garcia’s location—far from major population centres—makes it the ultimate secure base. It is a deepwater port in a key staging area in the Indian ocean, and is vital for our submarine operations. It contains the longest runway in the entire Indian ocean, putting our aircraft in reach of Africa, the middle east and east Asia. In order to continue the operation of such a base for 99 years, we are looking at an average cost of £101 million a year. That is around 0.2% of our defence budget—less than the cost of a single aircraft carrier. As we heard from my hon. Friends, it is a better deal than the French have achieved in Djibouti for a base that is right next to the Chinese operations, and has a total cost that is less than the amount of money that the last Government wasted on faulty PPE during the pandemic.

Diego Garcia is vital for our national security—I think everybody in this place agrees with that. Two years ago, the Conservatives also agreed on the need for a deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly following some of the incredibly insightful speeches, certainly on the Opposition side of the House.

Today is a hugely consequential day. The House is not being asked to debate in abstract, and neither are we considering ordinary legislation that can be repealed should its effect turn out to be unfavourable. We are being asked to endorse the permanent and irrevocable surrender of British sovereign territory. There is no way back from this, and I cannot support such action. My opposition is shared by Members on this side of the House and, I suspect, by more Labour Members than may be prepared to say so publicly.

We have heard the point before, but it bears repeating: the British Indian Ocean Territory is of immense military, security and geopolitical importance, and this Bill will give it away forever. It does so at a time of heightened instability and threat around the world. It does not take an expert on defence or foreign affairs to know that this is a terrible decision. It is one that puts virtue signalling before the national interest, plays into the hands of our enemies and ultimately puts this country and our citizens at risk, which is unforgiveable of any Government.

If what we are presented with today is indeed to be the final settlement of the issue, it is a settlement that satisfies neither the strategic nor the political doubts that have been raised. My first concern is the implications of this handover for our defence and security. For decades, Diego Garcia has played a critical role in the collective security of the United Kingdom, the United States and our broader network of allies in the region. The base serves as a launchpad to defeat our enemies, to prevent threats to our nation and to protect our economic security. It directly contributes to Britain’s strength at home and abroad.

In practice, the facility, known as Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, fulfils multiple essential military roles. It supports approximately 15 key military tasks, including logistics, communications and intelligence gathering. The base acts as a prepositioning hub, hosting vessels carrying armoured vehicles, munitions, fuel and even mobile field hospitals for rapid deployment to wherever they are needed. It is equipped with a deep-water port capable of docking nuclear submarines and naval vessels, as well as runways accommodating strategic bombers, aerial refuelling operations and pre-launch operations across the Indian ocean.

Diego Garcia remains indispensable, but we are now being asked to jeopardise it. In truth, Parliament has been shown nothing of real substance that addresses the concerns that have been raised by Conservative Members. This House is being asked to vote blindfolded on the future of one of our most strategically important overseas territories.

This matters because, despite what Ministers seem to have convinced themselves to be true, the Republic of Mauritius is far from being a passive actor in the geopolitics of the region. Mauritius has repeatedly aligned itself with states hostile to our own strategic interests. It voted against the UK in the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice over the future of the Chagos islands in the first place. It maintains close diplomatic and economic ties with China, and China’s use of slave labour and expansionist agenda against Taiwan are well documented. More to the point, Mauritius has signed up to the global security initiative proposed by Beijing, which has been described by many regional experts as China’s attempt to displace US-led security partnerships. These concerns have repeatedly been brushed aside by Ministers keen to remind us that Mauritius is in fact an ally of New Delhi, not Beijing.

[Sir John Hayes]

The critical point here is that national security and the national interest are inseparable. Both depend on the sovereignty of this nation and the primacy of this Parliament, so although international treaties and agreements matter, of course, they can never matter more than that primacy. We cannot subcontract the national interest to an overseas place that in years to come might want to defend that interest, or might not, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend is describing.

[Rebecca Paul]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes his point well, and I completely agree.

The reality is that Mauritius is not a reliable or neutral guarantor of our security interests, and it is staggeringly naive for Ministers to suggest otherwise. To put it plainly, if the transfer proceeds, there can be no guarantee that our interests will be protected. As has already been raised multiple times, what will happen in 99 years is of significant concern.

On top of all that, we are not just giving away one of the centrepieces of our global security posture, but paying extortionately for the privilege. Hard-working taxpayers—my constituents—will be left footing the bill for the next 99 years, paying £35 billion or perhaps £47 billion for the lease that the Government have agreed. In Britian, we have faced cruel cuts, harmful tax rises and economic gloom under this Government. By contrast, the Mauritian Government have now begun celebrating their shrinking national debt and announcing a series of planned tax cuts, all as a result of the billions that we will send them.

Countries have lost wars and gone on to be offered treaties with more generous terms than this one, yet those on the Government Front Bench come to this House and call the deal a triumph. The UK will be weaker and poorer as a result, and it is shameful that the Government have brought such a damaging, insulting and senseless document to this House. By moving forward with this, the Government are failing in their first duty to ensure the safety and security of our citizens and nation. This day will go down in the history books as the day that the United Kingdom was diminished by dangerous fools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill. I do so as a proud former member of our armed forces, having devoted 24 years of my life in uniform to the safety and security of this nation, particularly in intelligence gathering, where UNCLOS is a tool of the trade. That experience shapes my view of the Bill. I find it rich to hear lectures on national security or faux patriotism from the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), whose party spent 14 years hollowing out our armed forces.

The Bill exemplifies the forward-looking, effective and patriotic approach that this Government have taken to our security and our place in the world. It is a major achievement to be implementing an agreement that will ensure that our base on Diego Garcia can operate securely in conjunction with our allies—notably the US—until at least 2124.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Not yet.

Allied naval, aviation and communications assets will be able to protect UK interests across a vast area of the western Indian ocean and beyond throughout the next century, no matter the change, turmoil or insecurity that the coming decades may bring.

The agreement provides the UK and our allies with the freedom of action necessary to guarantee the security of the base. This is detailed in a great many ways by the treaty, but I will highlight just three. First, we will have joint control over the electromagnetic spectrum communications and electronic systems. Secondly, we will have joint control over whether any security forces—military or civilian—will be permitted, except for our own and those of the United States and Mauritius. Finally, we will have joint control over any land development and any construction of sensors, structures or installations at sea. These are very broad and flexible rights; they apply not just to Diego Garcia, the 12-mile boundary within which territorial sovereignty extends or the 24-mile boundary surrounding it, but to the entire Chagos archipelago of 247,000 square miles.

What the Opposition have missed is that it is not what UNCLOS precludes but what it allows that is the threat. When it comes to the activities of third parties, control will be joint between the UK and Mauritius. This joint control will give us the ability to veto decisions if, after engaging fully with our Mauritian partners through the joint commission, we are ultimately unsatisfied about the security risks in a way that we cannot now. Within 12 miles of Diego Garcia, our control will be unrestricted, not joint; the same will apply to our rights, and those of US forces, to access Diego Garcia by air and sea. This will deliver the control that our armed forces need to keep the base secure over the decades to come.

In achieving the agreement, we have bolstered our relationships with key allies and partners, including India, as I will come to later, but first and foremost with the United States. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has left the Chamber, because I have some questions for him.

We need to be clear about the games that Opposition parties have been playing over this issue. Reform and the Conservatives have attempted to undermine this agreement at every stage, damaging UK interests and trying to drive a wedge between the UK and our allies. We saw the same approach from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in his anti-UK PR campaign on Capitol Hill last week, and I note that I can see none of the Reform party present.

As I have told this House from personal and professional experience, the United States military and its allies value written agreements and long-term guarantees. Our allies rely on the same kind of lease agreements to underwrite their own bases, so they see that this model can stand the test of time despite huge geopolitical shifts, and all of us can see that too.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge said that we should save the base for our unilateral action, but he did not once explain how we would pay for operating and maintaining a base unilaterally. Instead of recognising the benefit of these negotiations, as a way to bolster our cross-Atlantic alliances and increase the value of our contribution to Indo-Pacific security, the Conservatives have repeatedly tried to undermine the process that they themselves started. Thankfully, they have failed. Our international partners have welcomed this agreement, and it now falls to us to ensure that the necessary changes are made in law so that the treaty can come into force and we do not let down our allies.

By far the strongest international advocate for this treaty is India. India is, as we know, an utterly indispensable partner in ensuring that the region remains free and open for navigation and UK trade. India is already a geopolitical force to be reckoned with, and her power and importance as a balancer preventing Chinese domination will only grow over the decades to come. The continuation of the UK and US forces on Diego Garcia, while resolving the question of sovereignty, aligns our strategic interest more strongly with India’s and helps to counter anti-UK rhetoric from the likes of Russia, which can still have influence by playing on the legacy of the anti-colonial struggle. The Conservatives conceded that by starting negotiations about sovereignty. I have asked them all repeatedly about that, and not one of you—

Diego Garcia Military Base

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point very succinctly. I hope this House has heard it and I hope the Conservative party listens to it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the regard I have for him and for the Foreign Secretary. He knows, too, of my interest and involvement in national security matters. There is no debate across the House about the salience of Diego Garcia. It is absolutely critical to our national interest. The debate is about the legal advice. Will he, in the interests of scrutiny, provide, where it does not compromise national security, all the information and advice given to him and previous Ministers on the subject of that legal advice? We suspect that that advice could have been challenged, and I suspect that many previous holders of his office and others will have received similar, if not the same, legal advice and resisted it.

[John Healey]

This House will have plenty of opportunity to test and debate these issues, but the right hon. Gentleman might start by asking those of his right hon. Friends who were in government at the time. They started negotiations and judged at the time that negotiations on the deal were necessary to safeguard the future of Diego Garcia and the full operational control of the base.

Nuclear Test Veterans: Medical Records

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I want to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for securing this debate. This place is often at its best when we put aside partisanship and resist the temptation to parrot party political lines, and instead help to shape Government and Opposition thinking through both understanding and shared experience. The work that she has done on this issue—I have been pleased to work with her, as she knows—has been illustrative of exactly that spirit.

In that spirit, the Minister knows that on the basis of a cross-party campaign, which I began long ago when Labour were in government—that shows how long ago it was—we secured, as a result of the intervention by the then Prime Minister, the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, a medal for nuclear test veterans. Many were able to receive them before Remembrance Sunday, and this very day a reception is being held for veterans to recognise their contribution. But much, much more needs to be done.

It might be said that any age, including ours, will be gauged by how it perceives its inheritance—what it gained from those who came before us—and what it gives to the future—what we bequeath to those who will be born later. When we think of what the veterans did and the effect that it had on all who came later, including all of us, we can truly value their contribution. We have made progress, as I have said, and today the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is holding a reception to recognise the 22,000 nuclear test veterans who risked life and limb long ago in the course of their duties, facing a radioactive smog and searing nuclear heat that altered their lives forever and changed their DNA.

Many have now passed, of course; this was a long time ago, before most of the people in this Chamber and I were born. We are dealing with a declining number of people, but of course their families were affected too because of the profound character of the effect that it had on them—it has been passed from generation to generation. That is why this issue of records is so salient. It is not just about the overdue recognition that I have described. It is about understanding our responsibility to those who this policy affected in the most dramatic of ways and dealing with—I hesitate to use the word—what looks to me like a cover-up.

By the way, no party in this House has not been involved in that because Governments have come and gone since the nuclear tests. One of the few things that has united them wholly is their unwillingness to play straight by nuclear test veterans. Indeed, I mentioned a moment ago that I first went to a Labour Defence Minister to raise the issue of the plight of nuclear test veterans when I was a Back Bencher in the late ’90s. After that—as you know, Mr Vickers—I served in government and was able to persuade the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, to grant an ex gratia payment to the test veterans, which I know was warmly received. He is now Lord Cameron of course, and so has gone from being the Prime Minister to David to Lord Cameron during the period of our campaign. I would be interested in the Minister’s view on whether it is time to refresh that payment by the way. It was £30 million and that was quite a while ago, so perhaps we could have the Minister’s view on how he intends to maintain that fund, given the effect on the veterans’ descendants.

The publication of records from 70 years ago is being withheld on what are, in my judgment, highly questionable grounds. I say that and I use the term “cover-up”, which is not one that I would deploy lightly, because the MOD, as the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles said, initially denied that there were records at all. For years, we were told that these tests were not done, or at least if they were done, the records were missing. Then it was revealed that there were records but they were not to be released. It has been only through freedom of information requests that we have discovered that blood records do indeed exist held at the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

FOI requests determined that those blood and urine samples were taken after the first bomb test and that the samples were analysed. We know too that these tests were flagged as missing as early as 1959. In more recent years, replies from the MOD have varied from stating that there was no information held about blood tests, to revealing the existence of hundreds of bloods tests, to claiming that no one who had a blood test was individually identifiable.

There are many questions for this very diligent, experienced and honourable Minister to answer. If there are tests, how many are there? Where are they held? Was the analysis done, and if so, does it still exist in a way that can be scrutinised? Were the records generic or particular—were they maintained and named to individuals? Those are all matters that I know the Minister will want to make this Chamber aware of without delay. If he cannot provide chapter and verse then, knowing him, I know that he will write to Members and answer those specific questions.

Repeated requests have revealed that many of the files have been closed using the Lord Chancellor’s instruction, citing national security exemptions. I would welcome a clarification on this from the Minister, including at what point, if any, Ministers have ever been made aware that blood tests exist for veterans, which may prove or disprove their claims of having been harmed by radiation.

My constituent Douglas Hern died recently. He was the person who first inspired me to take up the cause of nuclear test veterans 20 years ago. He was one such individual sent—in boyhood really, barely a man—out to the south Pacific, to journey close to nuclear explosions. He was told to turn his head and wear a hat and sunglasses. Can you imagine such a thing, Mr Vickers? Can you imagine the horror of that? It lasted with him forever, and it is why he campaigned so vigorously. I speak today not only as patron of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, but for Douglas, and for his family, whom I was happy to meet after his passing, despite the sad occasion. He had lost his wife, Sandie, about a year before; they were dear friends of mine. It was through Douglas that I learned of this injustice. It is why I took up the cause more than 20 years ago, and why I maintain faith that this Government and this Minister will finally make these records available, so that we can do right by those that did so much for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on the way she introduced the debate. I congratulate her on being persistent, calm and very clear about what justice looks like, what the veterans of those British nuclear tests deserve, and what can be done about it. This is not the only debate where she has done so; she has done that over many years. She speaks for many hon. Members, from Government and Opposition parties, when she makes the very simple case for justice, for transparency, and for an understanding that those people involved in the tests are currently being denied. I thank her for that effort.

I echo the thanks to the “Fleet Street Fox”, Susie Boniface of The Daily Mirror, for her persistent and dogged campaigning. If it were not for her arguing for the column inches, articles and time to investigate over many years, this issue would not be as loud or as prominent as it is today. Many people owe to her journalism the justice that I hope they will get in future.

[Sir John Hayes]

I entirely endorse that. I described my constituent Douglas Hern as having inspired me. Had that Mirror journalist not cajoled and informed me over such a long period, I do not think I would have maintained this campaign with quite so much vigour. He is entirely right to pay tribute to her.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I also echo the thanks to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for her time in the shadow Defence team, and welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is shortly taking over that role. I am merely a stand-in today, but I should like to add my thoughts and experience in Plymouth to those shared today.

Our nuclear test veterans served our country with pride and distinction. They made a vital contribution to the creation of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, which continues to keep us and our NATO allies safe today. It is a contribution that our nation should be proud of, and for which our nation owes a huge debt of gratitude and honour. That is not an abstract honour. When those words are used it is like a fog that descends, but I do not think it is. I think that debt of honour is a promise for action. Just as our Armed Forces Covenant says that no one who served should suffer disadvantage because of their service, it is clear that these veterans are suffering disadvantage because of their service.

Those of us who argued for the armed forces covenant and a sense of decency and respect for those who have served and serve today, should honour that with action. Defence Ministers should work to ensure that, as much as possible, transparency and respect are shown to those nuclear test veterans and the lasting consequences their families have suffered. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) put it clearly when she talked not only of the test veterans but their children and grandchildren. This is not a cohort that deserves justice before they die, although they do. This is a cohort whose experiences in the Pacific will last generations to come, if we do not provide that clarity and understanding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) described it as unfinished business, and he is right. It is business that this Minister and this House can do something about. As has already been referenced, there are reports that nuclear test veterans are considering suing the Government to access their medical records if they are not forthcoming. It should not take legal action to access the truth. Indeed, the words that some Ministers have used around this legal action suggest that that is the only way to get the truth, because there is nothing that Ministers can do in the meantime—or nothing that they want to do.

That does not sit well with me or Members of the House—that this group of veterans must be prepared to pay for lawyers to get at the truth. What does it say about our democracy that that is the only way for them to access the justice that they deserve? Reasonable questions have been asked of the Minister in this debate. I want to echo a few that have been put so far. What discussions have he and his colleagues had with the nuclear test veterans and affiliated veterans’ groups about access to the requested medical records? This is not just about parliamentarians on both sides of the House asking those questions. There are groups of determined individuals out there, making that case consistently, calmy and coolly.

When was the last time the Minister met that group, and when is he planning to meet them next? If those medical records are being withheld, is there a good reason for doing so? It was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) that it is around cost. If it is around cost, it is about money. All of us understand that money is about where we put our political priorities. It is clear that there is a political priority and an interest from Members on both sides of the House to resolve this. If it is about cost, can the Minister help to unblock that?

What support is in place for the war pension applications from nuclear test veterans who have not received their full service medical records so far? And how does the awarding of a medal—that medallic recognition—tie in with their campaign? Does the Minister regard the medal as a full stop at the end of the campaign, or does he regard it as a platform that shows how we, as a nation, recognise that service and must now do more to resolve the final issues with that group?

Labour is proud to give its full support to nuclear test veterans’ campaign for their medallic recognition. It is important, and has support from both sides of the House. As a party, we are proud that the Leader of the Opposition was the first political leader to meet the nuclear test veterans, back in 2021, as part of that campaign. However, it should not have taken decades for a medal to be awarded to the 22,000 veterans who served during Britain’s nuclear tests.

Everyone who served—those alive and those who have passed—deserves recognition for their service during the tests, but it is not just about receiving the medal; it is also about how those medals are received. At present, many nuclear test veterans receive their medal through their door in plain packaging in second-class post. They deserve better than second-class post. They deserve better than a medal arriving in the post. They deserve a proper ceremony.

I helped Mr Tony Carpanini, an 88-year-old constituent of mine, to receive his medal after he struggled to get it from the Ministry of Defence. He said, “If I had received the medal 60 years ago, it would have meant a lot more, but it is much better late than never.” Mr Carpanini is right about his medal, but so many people he served alongside will not be able to get that medal because they are no longer with us.

We must learn from the experience with medals and offer the experience of justice that many people are seeking in this debate. The strong sense of injustice with which Mr Carpanini left me is something that we have heard in interventions from both sides of Westminster Hall—from people standing up for their constituents. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) spoke about his constituents; the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), who is no longer in his place, spoke about his constituents; and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) spoke about a person in his constituency. This affects all our constituencies. If we divide 22,000 veterans by 650 Members of Parliament, there are enough in every constituency to make every single MP do something about this. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it very well when he asked for the doors to be opened and for that relationship with data to be published. “Make it clear; release all the records,” is how he put it. That is a strong ask, and I encourage the Minister to look at it.

Returning briefly to the medal ceremonies that have been so missing, I would like the Minister to join me in congratulating Councillor Alan Dowson in Peterborough —whom I met on a visit to Peterborough with Andrew Pakes—Fred Thomas in Plymouth and Catherine Atkinson in Derby, who have been organising medal ceremonies in their communities because the Government did not provide a medal ceremony for nuclear test veterans, notwithstanding a knees-up in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs today. There should be a ceremony for every veteran to receive their medal after so long being denied it. What Fred, Catherine and Alan are organising is a ceremony in their own communities, asking the mayor or lord mayor of their local council to present the medal to those veterans, to say thank you for their service on behalf not just of a grateful nation but of a grateful community.

The Minister could do something really quite special with that, even if he says no to many of the requests we have heard today. He could encourage every local authority to hold a medals ceremony to award those medals to nuclear test veterans in their community. Councils do not know how many nuclear test veterans there are in their community. I do not know how many there are in mine in Plymouth, but I know that they are everywhere. The census showed us that there are veterans in every one of our communities. The best thing about that, which will not get me in trouble with the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), with the Minister or with the Chancellor himself, is that it will not cost the Ministry of Defence a penny. We can encourage our friends in local authorities to do this; they want to do it to recognise the service of those people in their communities.

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course, the descendants too, because I hope that the medals can be awarded posthumously to descendants such as those of my constituent Douglas Hern. I will get that medal for his descendants—so the Minister had better agree it now, or we will have to have a disagreement.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: it should be about those people who are descendants of nuclear test veterans. I believe that the terms and conditions of the applications make provision for those people who are no longer with us to have that medal awarded posthumously. That in itself, though, provides a set of principles that we should apply equally to their service elsewhere. In this debate we have heard from Members across the House, just asking questions. We have heard fair questions asked today on behalf of constituents who just want to understand the truth about what happened to their blood and urine tests and why the “truth” in the statements from the Ministry of Defence has changed so often over time. If the Minister cannot give us answers to those questions today, will he set out a journey that he and his Department can go on which will provide comfort and confidence to the families and to Members from both Government and Opposition parties that the Ministry of Defence takes this seriously, and give a general sense that direction, clarity and understanding can be achieved even if all answers cannot be offered?

I conclude by going back to the start of what I said. I am proud that my party stands with our nuclear test veterans, but proud also that hon. Members from both sides of the House stand with those veterans. They served our country with pride and distinction, and we owe it to them to be transparent about the risks they faced and the lasting consequences that their families have suffered. The Minister could do more, and I hope that he will be able to give peace of mind and a sense of justice to those who are affected by our nuclear testing programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

It is difficult to prove a negative, but the overall conclusions of the researchers from Brunel University are clear. In the interests of transparency, it is worth pointing out that it was a fairly small study and also the first part of a series of reports that we anticipate from Brunel University. We will have to see what transpires, but the headline response published in July last year should be reassuring for those who believe that their exposure between 1952 and 1967 caused generational problems to their families.

I turn to the subject of compensation raised today, albeit fairly briefly. With respect to that matter, the Department published its policy on ionising radiation back in 2017. The statement was validated by the independent medical expert group, which provides evidence-based medical and scientific advice to the Ministry of Defence, ensuring that our decisions reflect both contemporary medical understanding on causation and the progress of disorders. In its sixth report, published in September 2022, IMEG again reviewed the evidence, including the findings of the fourth report of the longitudinal study. It concluded that no changes to the Department’s policy statement were required on the basis of the evidence available. 

However, nuclear test veterans who believe that they have suffered ill health due to service still have the right to apply for no-fault compensation under the war pensions scheme, which applies to anyone who served before 6 April 2005. War pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury as a result of military service, with a benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Decisions are medically certified and take account of available service and medical evidence, and they also carry full rights of appeal to an independent tribunal. Additionally, there is a range of supplementary pensions and allowances payable, including for dependants. Each case will be considered on its own merits.

Some specific concerns were raised about the handling of individual medical data. I can confirm that there is a formal complaints procedure under the Data Protection Act 2018. On requests made for medical data under the freedom of information legislation by relatives of deceased veterans, I hope hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment due to ongoing legislation.

[Sir John Hayes]

We now know that tests were done, presumably because there was a view that there might be an effect of the exposure to radiation, otherwise there would not have been blood and urine tests. Veterans’ inquiries about that were, as the Minister put it, “curiously” not answered on earlier occasions. So the question remains: why, who and when? Which Ministers—they may still be in this House or possibly the upper House—refused to provide that information, on what basis and when? The Government can presumably provide that information now with a degree of notice.

[Dr Murrison]

There is a list of 150 files of data that the Atomic Weapons Establishment said in September that it holds, and they contain reference to blood and urine. I have a list here; it is in the public domain and I am perfectly happy to give it to my right hon. Friend. What I am not clear about is what the bulk of those files actually say and what is in them. All I have are the subject headings. Some of them are pretty anodyne, to be honest—they are proceedings of various symposia, which presumably are available elsewhere—but some are tantalising and refer to test results. I would like to see what those documents look like. I have not seen them so far, and I certainly intend to examine them myself. More than that, I think it is reasonable for officials to trawl through them again to be absolutely clear why that which is not currently in the public domain—which I suspect is quite a lot of this—is not, and why it should not be.

There has to be a very good reason why this data is not in the public domain. Clearly, these tests happened overseas, and there may be very good reason why this material was not placed in the public domain, but it is now up to 71 years old, so given the level of public interest, it seems reasonable at least to ask why these documents, so tantalisingly put before us through the Freedom of Information Act in September this year, are not in the public domain in their entirety. I undertake to find out why that is. Wherever I can possibly do so, I will ensure that that material is placed in the public domain, with the usual caveats. For example, if there is personal information in them, which I do not expect from what I have been told, there are clearly some restrictions on the publication of that, but if it is simply sheets and sheets of dosimetry and urine and blood test results, I cannot see why that should not be available. I will certainly make it my business to examine that in the days ahead if that is of any help to my right hon. Friend.

The Government are committed to doing everything we reasonably can to support our nuclear veterans, as indeed we are for all our veterans. That includes acknowledging the profound contribution they have made through medallic recognition. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for majoring on that. He knows very well that last November the Prime Minister announced that all nuclear test veterans will be eligible for a commemorative medal. To date, some 1,600 veterans have received the medal, whose design features an atom surrounded by olive branches. I am delighted that, as he said, there will be a reception today at Admiralty House, which I will attend, co-hosted by the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. We will witness a further 15 nuclear test veterans receiving their honour.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport asked why the medals are not presented formally. I understand where he is coming from and note that lords lieutenant sometimes undertake medal presentation ceremonies, but I think that, in this case, there was an imperative to get medals out of the door so that veterans could have them by Remembrance Sunday, and we have achieved quite a lot of that. As far as we could make out, that was the wish for the bulk of the veteran community. In general, however, I would support the hon. Member’s contention that it adds to the expression of gratitude represented by a commemorative medal if it can be presented personally. That will not be the wish of every veteran—of course it will not—but it will be for many, and, in general, I support point made by the hon. Member.

Our appreciation of the contribution of nuclear test veterans does not stop there and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman rightly said so. We are also investing in projects to further our understanding of the experiences of all who were deployed between 1952 and 1967, which will include funding for academics to record the life stories of veterans across the UK. I hope that colleagues will join me in encouraging all members of that unique community who reside in their constituencies to come forward and share their front-row experience of one of the defining operations of our time.

NATO and International Security

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I would agree with the contention that possession has helped to hold the peace, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has just pointed out, possession is a necessary but insufficient component of effective deterrence. The communication that my right hon. Friend has just talked about is part of a picture of effective deterrence, alongside political leadership of countries and alliances.

If the House will allow me, I shall move on to the strategic concept and the weeks ahead. Next month, as the Secretary of State has said, member nations will set NATO’s strategy for the next decade, with all democracies now facing new threats to their security. NATO’s last strategic concept was agreed in 2010. It declared:

“Today, the Euro-Atlantic area is at peace”.

It sought a strategic partnership with Russia, it had limited reference to terrorism and it made no mention at all of China. The proximity and severity of the security threat in Europe now demand a clear break with the principles-based platitudes that have been the hallmark of NATO’s previous public strategic concept. The nature of the threat is both clear and urgent. Russia has attacked Ukraine, overridden the NATO-Russia Founding Act, breached the Geneva conventions, buried the Helsinki Final Act, made unilateral threats of nuclear attack against NATO and stands accused of crimes against humanity and genocide.

The Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said:

“Regardless of when, how, the war in Ukraine ends, the war has already had long-term consequences for our security. NATO needs to adapt to that new reality.”

Most importantly, NATO has to adapt its primary task of collective defence.

When the Labour leader and I visited Estonia in February to thank our British troops, they told us about NATO’s tripwire deterrent, which the Secretary of State mentioned, with forward forces giving ground when attacked before retaking it later with reinforcements. The horrific Russian destruction of Ukrainian cities and the brutal shelling of civilians makes it clear that such a strategy of deterrence by reinforcement is no longer conscionable. NATO must instead aim for deterrence by denial, which is the operational consequence of NATO leaders’ commitment to defending every inch of NATO territory.

I am not sure whether that is covered by the combat effectiveness the Defence Secretary spoke about, but it implies a very serious strengthening of military capability, with more advanced systems, more permanent basing, higher force readiness and more intense exercises.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not being here at the beginning of his speech but, when I saw him on the screen, I rushed to hear what he has to say.

Does not this reappraisal, which is the consequence of recent events, need to recognise that, contrary to predictions until very recently that all future warfare would be high tech and entirely different from what we knew before, we now see that much of what is happening in Ukraine is very conventional and rather old-fashioned in some ways? The horror of street-to-street and trench-to-trench fighting requires a reappraisal that might mean we need just as many, or more, troops on the ground, more tanks and more of the things that we were told, not very long ago, are redundant.

I might say the same of security more widely, particularly terrorism. Tragically and awfully, terrorism has adapted to use very ordinary, everyday things. We see cars used as weapons, for example. The recent terrorist attacks have been rather low tech, rather than high tech.

[John Healey]

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman means to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, but he makes several important points. His last point, on low tech, is right. In many ways, high tech can sometimes become low-tech weaponry. It is easy to conceive that, in the wrong hands, an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone could almost be a flying car bomb.

It is important that we continue to invest in and develop high-tech systems, which give us the edge and some of the deterrent effect we require. Like the right hon. Gentleman, one of the lessons I take from Ukraine is that, in the reality of battle, conflict and confrontation, we need “now tech” and not just high tech. That is one of the flaws in the procurement system, as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said in his intervention.

Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

The hon. Gentleman’s last point is self-evident. The use of sonic weapons is something that people have been exploring around Government. The Royal Navy is clear that they will not be used by the Royal Navy. As the operation will be under Royal Navy command, it will be down to the Royal Navy commander whether he wishes other agencies to use them.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The people who come here genuinely seeking sanctuary and who fear persecution deserve our compassionate care. The people traffickers and those rights lawyers who encourage, facilitate and give succour to people who know that they are not seeking asylum—who are economic migrants—deserve our condemnation. The Minister has made it clear that this proposal can be only part of the solution. Will he arrange for a Minister—possibly the Home Secretary—to come to the House to reassure us that offshore processing, the deportation of illegal immigrants and secure accommodation for those awaiting deportation form part of the policy? May I say in addition that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has just said, we must bring forward the reform of the Human Rights Act and other legislation as a matter of urgency?

[James Heappey]

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that he can expect to hear exactly what he hopes for very soon. It is unfortunate that today I have been required to come and expose part of the plan early, but that is my duty to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House. There will be a wider exposition of the plan in due course, I am certain.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan]

There are two things: that is not unique to conflict—that happens in many things—and that is also why the original investigation must be carried out properly. If we want to minimise the opportunities for these vexatious claims, such investigations should be independent. They should be collecting accurate evidence, and without this we really do leave the door open.

If the conduct of our personnel is as we expect, why should anyone fear this transparency? This legislation undermines our international standard the more so because it includes, as Members have already mentioned, unlawful killing and torture. Judge Blackett, the Judge Advocate General of the armed forces, has warned:

“This increases the likelihood of UK service personnel appearing before the ICC in the future.”

Is this what any of us want?

Part 2 of the Bill has not had much mention this afternoon, and it should. It is ironic, when we have the Tory chest-thumping going on about protecting our brave soldiers, that part 2 is actually an attack on these very personnel. It removes many of the rights of those who have been injured through the negligence of the MOD to claim against it. Here is the nub of this Bill: it is about protecting the MOD, not personnel.

In the urgent question on 16 July, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans said:

“I will be honest that I cannot, off the top of my head, think why individuals would be diagnosed and choose not to do anything about it… I have not come across that in all my experience in the field, but I am happy to learn. If that is the case, I am happy to change the Bill”.—[Official Report, 16 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1675.]

Well, that is great, because it needs changing. There are many reasons why claims are not brought forward promptly, such as a culture in the military meaning that personnel may be told they cannot pursue a claim while serving or told by their chain of command they do not have a valid claim. If part 2 of the Bill becomes law, those injured through negligence will no longer have the full discretion of the court to allow a claim to proceed after the limitation period has expired.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carol Monaghan]

No, I am short of time.

Instead, those who have served overseas, potentially risking their lives, will have an absolute six-year time limit. Given that people can live with conditions such as deafness, asbestos poisoning and the impact of radiation exposure, with the severity increasing over years, how many personnel would pursue a claim within that time limit? The Government say this Bill will be beneficial to personnel and veterans, so perhaps the Minister can give us some real examples of how.

Personal injury claims are important not only in securing justice, but in holding the MOD to account. The unsuitability of Snatch Land Rovers would never have come to light if it had not been for bereaved families pursuing claims against the MOD. The Bill is contrary to the armed forces covenant, which is a promise by the nation to ensure that those who have served in the armed forces, and their families, are treated fairly. The removal of human rights protection is not treating armed forces personnel fairly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

I stand here as a veteran. Under current legislation, hypothetically, I could be investigated for spurious claims made against me for my service in the Army back in the ’80s. I therefore have a personal interest in the Bill. I have also spoken to many veterans at surgeries, breakfast clubs and legions, and I am acutely aware of the pressures our veterans are placed under and the injustices they feel right now. Many of the veterans I have spoken to were junior ranks, and I concur with the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson).

The Bill represents a huge milestone for military personnel. To be incorrectly accused of wrongdoing is an unacceptable burden. For our veterans and our veterans of the future, the Bill represents an opportunity to combat that cycle of reinvestigation and vexatious claims and to support our service personnel, who have risked their lives to defend our country and our freedoms overseas. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Defence People and Veterans for bringing the Bill to the House today.

I would like to address the first part of the Bill. For me, the triple lock is the most crucial part of the Bill. The presumption against prosecution for alleged offences committed more than five years ago will both curb the often baseless claims made against veterans and stop lawfare by those who seek to abuse the legal system. Critics of the Bill cite that that provision will protect service personnel from wrongdoing. The Bill does nothing of the sort. There is no debate in this House, nor should there ever be, about the fact that if service personnel commit a crime, they must be called to account. The Bill does not give service personnel de facto immunity from prosecution. There are still provisions to allow for prosecutions of historical cases where there is compelling evidence.

I have had conversations with veterans living life on the edge, with constant anxiety, thoughts and fears that engulf their post-service lives and the lives of their families. We have lost too many veterans to incapacity and suicide. I am committed to veterans’ health and wellbeing, and I know the veterans Minister is, too.

[Sir John Hayes]

I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend’s compelling and persuasive speech, except to say that she is absolutely right: the Bill is a huge leap forward and the Minister and the Government deserve great credit. As she may know, I am the champion of and have led the parliamentary campaign on behalf of the British nuclear test veterans. Will she ask the Minister to give an absolute assurance that those who fought a long time ago, if evidence emerges that they were damaged through that service, will not be disadvantaged by the provisions of part 2?

[Sarah Atherton]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I think the Minister heard it loud and clear.

I am passionate about veterans’ health and wellbeing, and the Bill goes a long way to offering security and peace of mind. The requirement for prosecutors to consider the circumstances of warfare is a welcome element. War is not black and white; it is grey and involves instant judgments and assessments under life-threatening pressure. It is right that the law reflects that reality. Although I am extremely supportive of the Bill, I accept that there are certain limitations. I would welcome further reassurance from Ministers on how we ensure that rogue lawyers do not bypass the legislation in favour of the international criminal courts to have claims heard. How will the Bill affect service personnel and veterans who are already subject to claims? The six-year longstop in part 2 has drawn criticism. Will the Minister assure me that that will not disadvantage the armed forces community compared with civilians?

We in this House are responsible for sending young men and women into harm’s way, and we rightly expect them to uphold the highest standards of the British armed forces. Despite limited reservations, the Bill will protect our service personnel in the future. It is wrong that servicemen and women we send into conflict should be hounded for years after their active service is over. I understand this legislation will not apply to Northern Ireland, but I am grateful for the Government’s commitment to pursue that separately in Northern Irish legislation. For the current and future service personnel and veterans of my Wrexham constituency, I will support the Bill today. To vote against it would be to deny our service personnel the support of their politicians and this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)]

This is the second piece of legislation that the Government have brought forward this week that is predicated on breaking international law. It is alarming that this is the global Britain that was promised in such glowing words by the Prime Minister and his allies over the last few years—a Britain that alienates itself on the world stage and is driven by bluster, tub-thumping and a form of nationalism that endangers both our armed forces and civilians around the globe.

The Defence Secretary has boasted about going to war on lawfare, but preventing acts of torture is not some burdensome red tape. The UK military has opposed torture for decades, and that principle is enshrined in the Army field manual and the Ministry of Defence doctrine, yet the Government wish to provide a triple lock amnesty which would ensure that acts of torture cannot be prosecuted if they took place more than five years ago. The Bill would also enshrine direct political interference from the Attorney General in such cases.

Many human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Freedom from Torture, Liberty, Reprieve and Rights Watch UK strongly oppose the Bill on the grounds that it contravenes international humanitarian and human rights law. The organisation Redress warns:

“The Bill risks creating impunity for serious offences including torture, and thus will result in the UK being in breach of its international treaty obligations… The Bill makes the mistake of assuming that all victims are fake, and that British soldiers are always in the right. That is not borne out by history.”

Indeed, it is believed that thousands of allegations of torture and mistreatment from Iraqis and Afghanis have been lodged against British soldiers serving in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, the International Criminal Court prosecutor determined that there was a basis to allegations that the UK armed forces committed war crimes against detainees in Iraq. Rather than face up to any wrongdoing, the Government now wish to silence victims by introducing time limits for civil claims in connection with overseas operations.

The Bill would also place a duty on all future Governments to consider deviation from the European convention on human rights in relation to significant overseas military operations. That reveals what this legislation is truly about: slashing away crucial protections on human rights under the guise of macho patriotism. Even if we agree with the Government’s argument that those involved in controversial overseas operations should not be left in uncertainty for years, the solution is not to issue a blanket amnesty for potential war crimes.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Claudia Webbe]

We have 70 people speaking in this debate.

The solution is for the Government to reverse their severe budget cuts to criminal investigations and to increase accountability and scrutiny of their military interventions.

The Government claim to be standing up for British troops, yet the erosion of global rules against torture would put UK personnel at risk by endangering British soldiers who are detained by foreign forces overseas. Not only that, but the Bill breaches the armed forces convention by preventing British armed forces personnel from holding the Ministry of Defence to account for negligence, personal injury or death. Therefore, despite all the Government’s bluster, this legislation does much more to protect the Ministry of Defence than it does service personnel.

[Sir John Hayes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady may have inadvertently misled the House, and I would not want her to do that. She made the point just now that the Bill meant that serving personnel could not be prosecuted for war crimes. That is fundamentally untrue, as the Minister no doubt will confirm. If she withdrew that remark, we could all make some progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but he knows that it is not a point of order for the Chair but the very point that we are debating. The hon. Lady thinks one thing, the right hon. Gentleman thinks another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill, as it delivers on our election manifesto promise to deal with a long-standing injustice. It paves the way to a new framework that puts justice at its heart.

I have always been proud of our armed forces. My late father was in the Royal Scots Greys and the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, and my husband, my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), is an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan. I am also very proud of how my constituency supports our veterans, especially the Royal British Legion in Morley, where Gail and her team of volunteers raise tens of thousands of pounds per year for our veterans. Veterans are part of all our communities and it is crucial that we value their contribution to this country. We must seek to protect them as they put their lives on the line to protect us and our country.

The Bill finally finds a solution to end the injustice of vexatious claims. For too long, veterans have been the victims of lawyers’ profiteering ventures, in which profits were made from the constant threat of reprosecution. A new five-year limit on the time in which our troops can be subject to legal claims, apart from in exceptional circumstances, will help to stop unfounded allegations.

We ask much of our armed forces, yet, as things stand, they face an unending trauma from persistent reinvestigation. In essence, the Bill acts to remove that injustice and creates a new legal framework that puts justice at its core. The Bill will achieve that with a triple lock to protect and secure the welfare of our armed forces personnel.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a strong case. Will she confirm that, far from the irresponsible, scurrilous and unpatriotic claims of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), the Bill does not mean that soldiers can do as they please? It simply protects them from those very malicious and vexatious charges long after they have served, which they have been plagued by for too long.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comment. That trauma has been inflicted on veterans by disgraced lawyers should be a source of shame to us all. Many veterans’ lives have been put into a state of unending misery.

The Bill will require that prosecutors take into account the adverse effect that overseas operations can have on service personnel. It recognises that, in the interests of justice, there should be reasonable and swift resolution of cases that have already been investigated and in which there is no compelling new evidence. There is justice in having certainty about the future for our armed forces—they deserve that. This is a legal framework that provides clarity in dealing with these allegations. I welcome the Bill not only for removing the injustice of repeated investigations, but for being a measured step—

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

Once again, we appreciate the work done on that report and are taking it seriously—it is being considered as part of the modernising defence programme—but we state again very clearly that the MOD does not recognise as likely outcomes some of the worst-case scenarios.

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Time is against us, but my judgment is that proceedings would be incomplete and the House sorely deprived without an intervention from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), which I trust will be of its usual poetic quality.

[Mr Hayes]

I was thinking exactly the same, Mr Speaker.

On behalf of the British nuclear test veterans, and as their patron, I welcome the Minister’s warm words earlier. It is right that we finally remember those who gave so much. Nevertheless, I want a little more. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the veterans to further the case that they should be awarded a medal? Some 1,500 of the 22,000 are left. This generation, by recognising and rewarding those brave people, would be doing a service to theirs—something of which we can be proud.

[Gavin Williamson]

I would be honoured to meet my right hon. Friend and the test veterans at the earliest opportunity.

Ministry of Defence

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sweeney]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has made an excellent and salient point. He and I are both members of the all-party parliamentary group on shipbuilding and ship repair, which is currently undertaking a study of that issue. According to another study, conducted by the Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde, the overall benefit to the UK economy per annum from the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde alone is £366 million a year, in purely multiplier effects. As for the idea that we can competitively tender programmes overseas, we are losing the opportunity of industrial benefit as well. We are not just talking about the loss of core capabilities; we are talking about the loss of revenue and economic potential for our country.

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has no intention of being churlish or unhelpful. He will, I am sure, acknowledge that having a shipbuilding strategy, together with a maritime growth strategy, is a particular feature of this Government, which marks them out from their predecessors of all political persuasions.

[Mr Sweeney]

I do not accept that point. It was a Labour Government who, in 2005, introduced the first defence industrial strategy, which defined a far more robust way of delivering shipbuilding capability in the UK. It defined key industrial capabilities, and that is sorely lacking from the Government’s current shipbuilding strategy. I hope that there will be some improvement as a result of the ongoing discussions on the matter.

[Mr Hayes]

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. Perhaps I did not explain myself carefully enough. I commissioned the maritime growth study, and it was the first for donkeys’ years, so I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means.

[Mr Sweeney]

That may have been a discrete maritime growth strategy, but the overall defence industrial strategy encompassed maritime aspects. However, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts in that regard, and I hope that we can work constructively to improve the strategy in the manner that I suggested.

The funding of large-scale equipment programmes must be revisited as a matter of urgency, because it is not sustainable. The annual limits on key programmes that are multi-generational cannot be allowed to continue. When we were looking at the programme for the construction of the Type 26, we wanted to invest potentially half a billion pounds in reinvigorating the infrastructure that would support it, but because of the arbitrary in-year spending profile we could not invest in the infrastructure and facilities that would have benefited the programme throughout its life cycle, and we therefore lost that long-term benefit. For the sake of short-term savings, we are losing long-term efficiency in the generation of defence capability. That may be an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Gainsborough about whether we were receiving the maximum benefit. Perhaps if we sow the seeds of the maximum capability at the start of programmes, we will reap the benefits of efficiencies through the manufactures that result from those highly complex programmes.

Defence inflation and the need to pump-prime programmes at the start to ensure that they meet world-class standards are just a couple of the issues that we need to challenge if we are to get the most out of our industrial capability. I hope that the Secretary of State will take those comments on board.