Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Debate between John Healey and Jim Shannon

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

[John Healey]

I will come on to that matter in a moment, because the Bill does nothing for those troops who have served, as the hon. Gentleman describes, on the frontline overseas. It does nothing to deal with the past cases and the past problems.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

I will give way one more time, then I will make some progress.

[Jim Shannon]

On that point, the right hon. Gentleman is right about the armed forces covenant and the ability of members of the armed forces community to bring a claim for injury or death after six years. There is some concern about the unique deviation of the Limitation Act 1980 in the Bill that will place members of the armed forces community at a disadvantage compared with civilians. After six years, civilians can register a civil claim, whereas soldiers and Army, Navy and RAF personnel cannot.

[John Healey]

In his typical way, the hon. Member puts his finger on an important point. He understates his argument, as there is more than just some concern; there are, for instance, according to the Royal British Legion, very clear grounds for concern that the provision breaches the armed forces covenant, and I will come on to that point.

Let me deal with getting this problem, which does exist and must be fixed, in a proper perspective. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was absolutely right about how hard it is to get hard, clear information out of the Government. Over recent months, I have had to prise figures out of the MOD. There is a deep resistance to releasing full, open information. The first important figures to give a broad perspective are these: over the past 15 years, there have been 25 cases brought by injured British troops against the MOD for every one case brought by alleged victims against our troops. You can see why, Madam Deputy Speaker, some of the veterans I have talked to about this Bill reckon it is more about protecting the MOD than it is about protecting troops. Britain deployed 140,000 troops to Iraq over six years. The Government cite—the Secretary of State did so today—1,000 civil claims, all against the MOD, not individual service personnel, as evidence for the Bill to end vexatious legal claims. One third of those cases—330—have had the MOD pay compensation. Clearly, they were not vexatious as the MOD rightly insists on only settling cases in which it accepts liability. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, “No, we don’t,” but if he looks at the annual report on the cases that the Department publishes and takes, he will see exactly that commitment and clarification. It does not have the power to settle claims where it judges that it would not be found liable in a court. However, one fifth of the cases—217—have been withdrawn or struck out. They may well have been vexatious cases—they were certainly baseless. They may have taken too long, but the system, even as it stands, has dealt with them.

Two fifths of the cases—414—are ongoing, according to the MOD, although that definition could mean that those cases are settled and the MOD has agreed to pay compensation, but there may still be outstanding arguments over legal costs. Those cases may again be long-running, but they are hardly vexatious if they have not been struck out by now.

On the criminal side, the Government cite 3,400 allegations. The Secretary of State referred to the Iraq Historic Allegations Team that looked into them. Despite deep flaws in that investigation, 70% were ruled out as there was no case to answer or no proportionate grounds for a criminal investigation. In other words, those allegations did not warrant a full investigation so got nowhere near the point of decision about prosecution. They would have been wholly unaffected by the Bill if the measure had been in place because, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, it does not deal with investigations—as it should—but only with prosecutorial decisions and process. By the way, just seven prosecutions have been brought against British soldiers from the remaining allegations and investigations, and all but one have now been dropped.

On Afghanistan and criminal cases, the Operation Northmoor investigation in 2014 examined 675 criminal allegations from 159 people. The investigation closed and no charges have followed. Indeed, the investigation concluded a year before the MOD confirmed in public in June that it had closed.

On judicial review, the Government have cited 1,400 JRs of civil and criminal Iraq and Afghanistan cases as justification for the Bill. I can only find evidence that two judicial reviews are continuing. The court gave the MOD permission to strike many of the others out three years ago. Yet in April, the Minister told me in answer to a written parliamentary question that the MOD had still only notified fewer than half—630—of the court’s decision not to take the investigations further.

To put the matter in perspective, certainly some vexatious claims have been lodged and the current system has taken too long to weed them out, but the bigger, more serious, more consistent problems lie in the system of investigations, which lacks speed, soundness, openness and a duty of care to alleged victims and to the forces personnel who may be in the frame. Those are the problems, which occur well before the point of decision about prosecution, which is the point at which the Bill starts to operate. They are what the Bill should and can deal with. Our aim during its passage through Parliament is to help ensure that it does.

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), I must confess that when I first looked at the Bill, I thought that it was designed to draw a line under the cases still caught up in the problem of so-called lawfare. The first paragraph of the explanatory notes gives the same misleading impression. It says:

“This Bill aims to provide greater certainty for Service personnel and veterans in relation to vexatious claims and prosecution of historical events, that occurred in the uniquely complex environment of armed conflict overseas.”

But this legislation will have no impact on any past or any continuing cases, and clause 15 on commencement makes that clear, so it offers no hope and no help of faster resolution either for the troops or for the alleged victims, who may still be involved in long-running litigation or in repeat investigations. I want to make sure that no one in this House and, much more importantly, in the armed forces and the veterans community is misled by what they may have heard or may have understood before now.

Similarly, nothing in this Bill applies to Northern Ireland, despite the same commitment in the Conservative manifesto, similar concerns on the Government side about drawing a line for British troops who served in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State’s letter to all MPs last week in which he confirmed his eagerness

“to ensure also the equivalent protections of our veterans who served in Northern Ireland.”

The Secretary of State’s speech looked back, but we now legislate for the future. The Bill is not a framework fit for the future point when Britain must again commit its forces to armed conflict overseas. The Government have got important parts of the Bill badly wrong, and I want to see Ministers work with all parties in both Houses and with groups beyond Parliament who have expertise to offer on this—from the British Legion to Liberty—to get this legislation right.

There are problems. The Bill is silent on the command responsibility and the role of commanders in some of these cases. There is a problem, I think, with the Attorney General’s consent, as it risks political factors coming into prosecutorial decisions. There is nothing on the disclosure rights, responsibilities and duties of the MOD. Let me summarise our biggest concerns about the Bill.

EU Funding

Debate between John Healey and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The allocations are made to the United Kingdom, whose Government then have a degree of discretion about the distribution of those funds within the UK. What was at stake in the Court challenge and is at stake in this debate is whether those decisions were fair, whether they were justifiable and whether they were lawful. That is the point at stake and it is where things have changed since the debate I introduced about eight months ago.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned Northern Ireland. Does he accept that Northern Ireland’s fuel costs are the highest in the whole UK, its levels of unemployment exceed those in other parts of the UK and its educational standards do not match those of some areas of the UK, and that allocations of EU moneys are based on the criteria of need and Northern Ireland falls into that category? I would be happy to see Yorkshire getting its true worth, but I would hate to see it happening at the expense of those in Northern Ireland.

[John Healey]

I understand that. Northern Ireland, South Yorkshire and Merseyside all face similar problems, and under this funding period arrangement they have all been designated as transition regions. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the GDP—the wealth, product and income—in Northern Ireland is in fact higher than it is in South Yorkshire and in Merseyside, yet the decisions the Government have taken mean that Northern Ireland will be protected, with its drop in funding for these seven years compared with the previous seven years being limited to just 5%, whereas we face a funding cut of more than 50%. I think he would agree that that simply is not fair.

EU Funding (Rotherham and Barnsley)

Debate between John Healey and Jim Shannon

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The Minister will have a chance to respond in full, but he is perfectly aware—I have had meetings with him and written to him on this point—that the comparison I make is regarding the special protection put in place for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has a GDP higher than that of South Yorkshire, Northern Ireland has a GDP higher than that of South Yorkshire and Wales has a GDP roughly on the same level. That is not fair, and it does not make good policy sense.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this very important issue before the House for consideration. Obviously, as an MP for Northern Ireland, I am concerned that Northern Ireland receives its full share. Unemployment is higher, youth unemployment is higher and job opportunities are even scarcer than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to see the same opportunity given to Rotherham and Barnsley as has been given to Northern Ireland?

[John Healey]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman sums up my full argument in a nutshell, and I am grateful to him for that.

0845 Phone Lines (DWP)

Debate between John Healey and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Some of the most important matters that MPs discuss in Parliament start with concerns that are raised with us by constituents, as is the case with this debate. People are routinely placed on hold for half an hour when calling the local jobcentre, or they are charged £40 in a single month for the cost of calls to Departments, when they simply try to report a change in circumstances. Such bills are run up because, as I established through freedom of information requests and parliamentary answers, the Department for Work and Pensions has 148 separate phone lines all using 0845 numbers that can cost up to 10p per minute from a landline and 41p per minute from mobile phones.

People who need to call those numbers are usually on a fixed, low income. They are elderly, vulnerable or unwell, and they are being charged rip-off rates to sort out problems or simply get information about sickness and disability benefits, carers support, jobs, pensions, child support, and even crisis loans.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the best way would be not to charge at all for such phone lines, which are used by the elderly, single parents, those on low incomes and those in poverty?

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for my argument. He is right that thousands of people in his constituency, in mine and in the Minister’s will be affected by those premium-rate lines and the rip-off call charges that people can suffer. The cost of the call takes a big chunk out of already stretched budgets. That can put people off making calls to get the help they need.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between John Healey and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Sadly, Ruth Murphy’s experience is more and more common. By the end of last year, the number of people having to wait more than 18 weeks to get into hospital for the operation they needed was up 13% since the previous year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Like many in the House, the right hon. Gentleman will have received a lot of correspondence from professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and many, many others, and they all say that these changes will lead to an unsafe foundation for the NHS. Does he feel that they all want change, but the right change, and the right change is not what will be delivered by the Government here?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the great tragedies here is that the Government have squandered the good will and confidence of NHS staff that is necessary to make the changes to the NHS that it must make. This health Bill will make making those changes more difficult, not easier.

The Government could have built on the golden legacy and the great improvements that patients saw under 13 years of Labour investment and reform: hundreds of new hospitals and health centres; thousands more doctors, nurses and specialist staff; and millions of patients with the shortest ever waits for tests and treatments. Instead, we have a Tory-led Government, backed by its Lib Dem coalition partners, who have brought in the chaos of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history; wasted billions of pounds on new bureaucracy; and betrayed our NHS with a health Bill that will, in the long run, break up the NHS as a national health service and set it up as a full-blown market ruled, in time—for the first time—by the full force of competition law.

Everything about this NHS reorganisation has been rushed and reckless. This has been a master class in misjudged and mishandled reform—implementing before legislating, and legislating before being forced to call a pause to listen and consult on the plans already in hand. This health Bill was introduced last January. What was a very bad Bill is still a bad Bill. Make no mistake: this legislation will leave the NHS facing more complex bureaucracy and more confusion about who decides what and who accounts for what, and mired in more cuts and wasted costs for years to come.

Risk has been at the heart of the concern about these changes from the outset. There has been a lack of confidence and a lack of evidence, yet the Government are ready to manage the risks of introducing the biggest ever reorganisation in NHS history at the same time as the biggest financial squeeze since the 1950s. These risks were the reason for the growing alarm among the public, professionals and Parliament in the autumn of 2010, when I made my freedom of information request for the release of the transition risk register.

Last Friday the courts dismissed the Government’s efforts to keep secret the risks of their NHS reforms. Apocalyptic arguments were made in court, in defence of the Government, about how releasing the register would lead to the collapse of the Government’s system for managing risk. That did not happen when the Labour Government were forced to release the risk register for the third runway at Heathrow. Nor will it lead to the routine disclosure of Government risk registers, because the tribunal’s decision, like the Information Commissioner’s decision before it—both saw the transition risk register—was based on my argument that the scale and speed of these changes was unprecedented, and therefore that the public interest in their being disclosed was exceptional.

The Government have dragged out their refusal to release this information for 15 months. That is wrong. They have now lost in law twice. This is not a political argument but a legal and constitutional argument. It is about the public’s right to know the risk that the Government are running with our NHS, and about Parliament’s right to know, as we are asked to legislate for these changes.

Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between John Healey and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I give way for the last time to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Committee had 28 meetings, 100 Divisions and hour upon hour of debate. That has been reflected in public opinion. The electorate who put us all in the House to represent their views are clear about what they want: a full debate in Committee, not a short-term Committee. They want it to sit until 18 October, not until 14 July.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman served on the Public Bill Committee. I hope he will continue to serve when the Bill is recommitted. He is right. The public and NHS patients expect us to do our best to get the legislation right. To do that, we require the detail, we require the time, and we require the whole Bill to be recommitted.

The House cannot do its proper job without an impact assessment. The current assessment says that

“the full benefits of these changes will not be realised unless there is a change to regulation to promote competition”.

The Government now say that this policy will be altered. There will also be greater bureaucracy, longer time scales and more bodies with more complex accountabilities. Both the supposed benefits and the stated costs have changed, yet the Government tell us that the new impact assessment will not be published until the Bill reaches the Lords.

How much will this reorganisation now cost? How much can the Government now claim this will save? What are the risks? Why has the Health Secretary being blocking my freedom of information requests to release the official risk register since November? Why will the Government not welcome and allow full scrutiny of the Bill in view of the significant policy changes they say they are making? Why are they preventing this elected House from doing its proper job of fully scrutinising the legislation?

If the programme motion is passed, more will need to be done on Report in this House and during the Bill’s passage through the other place. We will continue to oppose this reckless and needless NHS reorganisation, lead the detailed scrutiny this legislation requires and speak up as patients start to see their NHS services suffer again under the Tories. We will oppose the motion.