Points of Order

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Northern Ireland Office questions, the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) made the extremely incendiary allegation that British troops went to his constituency in the ’70s with the express purpose of murdering the people who lived in Derry. We all have a responsibility in this place for the language we use. Legacy is extremely difficult to deal with. What guidance can you give me, Mr Speaker, so that when a Member repeatedly makes such claims—to generate whatever online presence he may have—that are clearly incendiary to people across the House and across the country, we can put a stop to that behaviour and behave in this place with the dignity that our offices demand?

[Mr Speaker]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. These are very sensitive issues and, as I set out in my opening remarks ahead of Northern Ireland questions, Members should exercise caution in referring to historical troubles-related deaths. In this case, the details of the case and the names of those involved have not been referred to and nothing disorderly has occurred, but Members’ views are now on the record. May I take this opportunity to remind the House that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language? Perhaps we can learn from this point of order.

Police Powers to Suspend Driving Licences

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for her clear précis of the case and her clear, direct questions to the Minister, which I want to add to. I will not speak for long, but I want to pick at a couple of key issues in this case that the family want to understand, as would I and any ordinary citizen who sees such a tragedy and the response from law enforcement, the law of the land or, indeed, Parliament to that loss.

We have heard about Tom and what a lovely man he was. I pay tribute to Christina, his partner, and Charlotte, his mother, who have campaigned long and hard in the two years since Tom’s death. I also pay tribute to the police and emergency workers involved that night and particularly to Jason Mullard, a police liaison officer for the family who has done an exceptional job.

There are a couple of key points that I want the Minister to explain. Although she might not be able to answer our questions this afternoon—I accept this broaches issues for different Departments, such as the Home Office, Justice and so on—I want to get these answers from Government. If you commit an offence with a firearm—unfortunately we had one of those in Plymouth this year as well—or are involved in a domestic abuse incident, orders can be put in place to preclude contact between the protagonists in the case. If you drive without insurance, your car can be seized, but it seems that if you commit an offence such as the one that we are talking about today, you can be taken in for the night, sober up and get everything come out of your system, then pick up your keys and just carry on driving.

In situations involving domestic violence, which are complicated, terrible events, it is often hard to understand what is really going on, but with the technology we have available now, drink-driving or drug-driving are binary. They are black and white: people either fail a test or they do not. So it is hard to understand how the scenario can present itself wherein police officers operationally decide—we have heard it is an operational decision—that an individual who has abused their privilege of driving can just crack on the following day as though nothing has happened. I have concerns that the family of the individual who has lost their life—in this case Tom—wherever it may be in this country, will see those individuals carrying on as though nothing has happened, waiting for a court appearance. They are not being served by the law, and I totally understand their pain and frustration. Where that is the case, we have a duty, as Government, Ministers and MPs, to represent them and address the problem.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just death caused by driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs that we are talking about here? Careless driving, rather than dangerous driving, with all the subtleties around that, can cause massive injuries. I had a constituent, Thomas Gill, who suffered massive injuries due to a drug-driver, but the nuances in that case were such that the driver ended up with a pathetically light sentence. This issue is important in more cases than those involving death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because there is a serious point here. I have heard it anecdotally, speaking to prison officers and others who spend their time in prison, that if is often said, “If you want to kill someone, run them over,” because the sentences are such as joke. We have known about that for such a long time in this country that it is hard to understand why it still exists.

Even police officers who have seen Christina’s campaigning in this case have said that they need this power. We have been working with the family and Government, with the to-ing and fro-ing that happens in this space, and the Government have said in response that the police have those powers. They may well have them, but when the figures requested by the hon. Member for Neath come out of the Government, we will see that they are hardly ever used, so there is clearly a problem. Either the police do not know about it, or the problem is with their training and understanding that seeing a perpetrator driving round for the next 12 months without any sanction whatever, having seriously injured or killed one of our constituents, is clearly not acceptable, and not only for us as MPs who represent these cases. Imagine being a family member seeing that. We clearly have to address something there.

I reiterate my request that the Minister meets the family. It is so important that these voices are heard. As MPs, we see a lot of injustices and so on, but this one appears particularly egregious. Think about your son or partner losing his life in the way Tom did, with the perpetrator leaving the scene of the accident, admitting perverting the course of justice, drink-driving and so on and going to prison for three and a half months for killing your son or fiancée. That is not right. We all know it is not right, but no one has quite been bold enough to grasp the nettle on this. I commend the Government for increasing sentences from 14 years to life for some crimes, but that needs to be broader. At the moment, there does not seem to be a clear delineation between the damage someone can cause by, for example, knocking off a wing mirror and failing to report it and actually killing a human being. It is pretty basic stuff, but we do not often see it until it is clearly painted by seeing one of the families, as we have here today.

What do I want on behalf of the family? I want the Government to take this issue seriously and really address that core point. Leaving the scene of an accident is not a normal reaction. In other instances, such as an athlete failing to take a drugs test, it will be pretty obvious why they have done that. We need to make the sanction for leaving the scene of an accident as bad as being done for the crime, so that people are actually honest and victims can actually get some sort of justice.

Ultimately, we are all accountable, and police officers are public servants too, and I am a huge fan of them, but where operational decisions cause this much pain and injustices of this scale, we have to intervene and ask what is going on with these sentencing provisions. A person can essentially kill someone, using a car as a weapon, leave the scene drunk or high on drugs, go and hide and then hand themselves in the next day and get away with three and a half months in prison. That is extraordinary. It reflects really poorly on all of us. Crucially, think about if that happened to your son, partner or fiancé. You would be absolutely livid if that was the price that we, as legislators, or the House of Commons or the police put on your son’s or fiancé’s life.

I urge the Minister to think about those things in her response. I reiterate the request that she meet the family. We will continue with this campaign. If someone fails a binary drugs or drink test at a roadside with calibrated equipment and is therefore clearly not fit to drive, they have not taken their privilege of driving responsibly enough, and I can honestly see no clear reason why they should not therefore lose their licence. If the judge decides afterwards to give it back, fine, but there should be some sort of mandate whereby someone loses that privilege—it is a privilege, not a right—to drive if they are caught over the limit for drink or drugs. That is a very low bar for a Government that is committed to victims and to upholding the rule of law to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He underlines the fact that, when a petition reaches 100,000 signatures, that does not happen by accident. It happens because there is an issue of concern. It normally happens because there is a campaign and passionate people behind it. The fact that we have signatures from all over the United Kingdom speaks volumes for the case that the family are making.

I do not intend to repeat everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View have said, but I will raise a number of aspects to highlight my concerns to the Minister. The rather brilliant Library brief that was put together for this debate put a stress on bail conditions. It is true that if someone is arrested for drink or drug-driving, bail conditions can be applied to the individual to ensure that they cannot drive. The difficulty in this case and many other cases is that bail conditions are not being applied to those individuals, because those individuals are released under investigation.

I have significant concerns about RUI and the effect that it has, not only in parking many crimes, but in not giving victims and their families justice or updates. It elongates the process. We know that there is a crisis in our courts, and our police are stretched, so RUI does give them with the ability to provide longer periods for investigation. That is certainly true, but justice delayed is justice denied. My fear about the increased use of released under investigation, especially in cases of drug and drink-driving, is that it is not giving the police and the authorities the pressure to deliver swifter prosecutions, nor is it delivering the important justice for the families to see someone charged for their crime and that crime brought forward to a court.

[Johnny Mercer]

I think the police would say that they have a certain period of time in which they can hold people, pre-charge, on bail, and that is why they use RUI. When it comes to the issue of drink and drug-driving, the technology is now so good that someone will have a test on the roadside and it will be clear whether they have failed. It is not like investigating an assault or something where there are two sides to the story. It is black and white, and there is no real reason why a bail condition cannot be imposed that someone is not allowed to drive, having abused that privilege by being caught drink-driving.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member raises a good point. One of the difficulties the Minister has in replying to this debate is that, as a Transport Minister, she will only be able to speak on behalf of the Department for Transport. However, this issue stretches across the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. The 11 months that Tom’s family had to wait for justice is far too long. That is because of pressures on the court service and the police. As much as I would love to put the responsibility on the Minister herself, it is the responsibility of other Departments. We need to see a joined-up approach to make this work.

Release under investigation is a particular problem that is delaying justice. It is delaying justice in cases like this and in many others. That is why the police and the authorities can attach those bail conditions to individuals. If someone is released under investigation for something that happens many times in the future, there are no such bail conditions attached to a release under investigation status. Therefore, the provisions that exist in law, quite correctly, to limit the behaviour of an individual—in this case, probably to ensure that another crime is not committed in that way—do not apply.

From my interpretation, that is effectively why Tom’s law is seeking to backfill and repair some of the legal fabric that has been changed by release under investigation. If the suspect in this case were bailed, I suspect those bail conditions would have been attached. That is one of the difficulties we have in this case. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet the family to discuss this, but I would also be grateful if she would put in a good case for a meeting with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I think there is a cross-Government approach that needs to be adopted here.

I mentioned the short sentence. I, too, welcome the increase in the tariff in the sentencing for those people who kill via drink-driving from 14 years to life. However, that did not apply in this case, and I think it is entirely legitimate for any family who have been robbed of the life of their loved one to look at the sentence that has been afforded and say, “Three months and three weeks is not justice.” I have sympathy with the family for the way in which they seek to pursue that aim through the courts, and now through politics as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath mentioned one of the remarks of the judge in this case: that “the surest thing” was that the offender would have to live with the consequences. No, the surest thing is that the family will have to live with the consequences for much longer, and with a much deeper sense of pain and loss, than the offender. That is why there is a real difficulty in relation to this issue.

My hon. Friend echoed the words of the family: driving is a privilege, not a right. One of the questions that we must ask ourselves in this place is, “To what extent does that privilege apply where a vehicle has been used to either kill or maim someone and the driver has been under the influence of drugs or alcohol?” At that point, it is reasonable for us as Parliament to take a view as to whether there should be a legal ability to prevent that person from driving. Indeed, to a certain extent, we have already taken that view: long before I or my neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, was in this place, Parliament passed legislation that put bail conditions on those individuals. There is precedent here, but that view has not been applied to release under investigation in the same way, so there is a sound argument for looking at whether RUI has changed the social contract—the deal—between the state and victims as to what applies in the event of someone being maimed or seriously hurt when a driver has been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It is important to look at that issue.

The challenge in this debate is not only how we can remember Tom, and give the family who have campaigned so thoroughly, professionally and compassionately in his memory the justice that the courts, through the low-bar sentencing, did not deliver. The challenge is also how we can we prevent this from happening in future. The responsibility and obligation that falls on parliamentarians is to ensure that no other family goes through what Tom’s family have gone through. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View has been pursuing that aim with the family for some time, and I act as his assistant in this respect to support the measures he has taken.

I would, however, like to add some words of caution. I am concerned that if we give extra responsibilities to the police or the courts system without adequately resourcing them, justice could be further delayed. If steps are to be taken, I would like them to be accompanied by the proper resources, to ensure that doing so does not elongate the process in relation to any cases and that we continue to reinforce the primacy of the courts in this matter. The ability of the police themselves to deliver restrictions on the kerbside or from the point of charge should always be tempered by the ability of a court to judge the person involved. Drink and drug-driving is one of those offences that is peculiar among cases in the criminal justice system, in that the courts see people from every single walk of life. It is important that when applications are put in, everyone can have justice when their cases are heard, but most importantly, that the victims and their families in those cases can have justice at the same time.

I would be grateful if the Minister could look at some of those aspects of this issue. I appreciate that, as a Minister in the Department for Transport, many of the aspects I have raised are not her responsibility. However, there is a need to join up with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the right questions are being asked of the competent Departments in relation to this issue, so that Tom’s family can truly have justice and the likelihood of something like this happening again can be reduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for the way in which she opened this debate on e-petitions relating to police powers to suspend driving licences. Those petitions raise specific concerns about allowing drivers who are suspected of committing road traffic offences to continue driving.

I also put on the record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for his effective and convincing portrayal of the situation and for his work with Tom’s family. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for noting that although Plymouth has been well covered in the debate, the issue affects the whole country. I thank all Members for the way in which they have contributed to the debate.

I reassure Members that the Government take road safety seriously; it is at the core of the agenda of the Department for Transport. Any death or serious injury is, of course, an absolute tragedy, and our deepest condolences go to Tom’s family, who are here today. My ministerial colleague with responsibility for roads, Minster Baroness Vere of Norbiton, has met the families of victims of similar incidents, and is aware of the devastating effect on the families involved. I am not the roads Minister, but I can confirm that Baroness Vere is willing to meet Tom’s family. I understand the tragic circumstances surrounding Tom’s death, and I extend my sympathy to all.

I recognise the concerns that in some cases the police should be able to issue a suspension notice with effect from the moment an offender is arrested at the roadside until they appear in court. Although we must do all we can to improve the safety of our roads, we must not, in an attempt to resolve perceived problems with the way in which the law operates, make a decision that could ultimately make things worse or have other unforeseen effects.

Let me turn to the current offence of failure to stop and report, and the calls for the suspension of driving licences. Currently, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police can impose bail conditions for particular purposes, as was mentioned earlier. One of those conditions is that no further offences are committed by the suspect while on bail. I asked the very question that the hon. Member for Neath raised, but I was unable to get the answers that she wants, so I will endeavour to write to her with that information. That might not be possible, because the information may not be collected in the first place, but I understand the need for more information, which it might be possible to seek through the courts. I assure Members that we will work with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

The criminal courts also have the power to impose an interim driving disqualification before sentencing in a case involving discretionary or obligatory disqualification from driving, or when transferring such a case to another court. I want to make it clear, however, that the Government do not dismiss at all the concerns that have been raised. We are, of course, aware of the traumatic effects of such incidents.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members appreciate that this is a complex issue that should fit within the current driving offences framework. Department for Transport officials have been exploring options that could be pursued, and they will consider with interest the points that have been raised in the debate as part of their consideration of road traffic matters. In respect of any potential law changes for road traffic offences, we will consider the triangulation of interests—those of the victim, the suspect and society. A call for evidence will enable issues to be fully explored, so as a next step, the Department will conduct a call for evidence on parts of the Road Traffic Act 1988. While details on its scope are being worked on, I am sure close attention is being paid to the points raised and to the campaign for Tom’s law.

[Johnny Mercer]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. She said that her officials will look at this debate and build it into a consultation. Will she ask her officials to write to me, as the constituents’ MP, with a reflection on today’s debate? The points raised are clear. I do not know if she has a reason, but there appears to be no clear reason why, with the technology available today, if someone fails a drink and drive test by the roadside, they should retain their licence. I would be interested to hear the Department’s position on that.

[Trudy Harrison]

I will endeavour to do just that. I will ensure that we write to my hon. Friend with that information as far as we can.

Most of all, I would like to thank Christina, Charlotte and Sandra for their bravery and courage campaigning for Tom’s law, and for being present for this debate. I expect the issue of police powers in serious road crime to form part of the call for evidence.

Non-UK Armed Forces Personnel: Immigration Requirements

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. These people have come here in good faith. They have risked all in the service of our country. They have exposed themselves to extraordinary risks. This is not the way to repay the extraordinary service they have offered our country. I hope that the Government in the near future will take the opportunity to close what is essentially a loophole. It would be relatively inexpensive to do so. Morally, it is the right thing to do.

I think it is only fair to say that I am aware of some of the efforts that are being made to update guidance and to increase the length of time that an application can be made in advance of discharge, as well as the ongoing work with the Joining Forces credit union, but we must ensure that the experiences of Taitusi, Filimone and countless others are not repeated.

It is also simply wrong for the Government to profit off the backs of the service of those men and women. Indefinite leave to remain costs each person who applies £2,389. However, the latest available Government data shows that the estimated cost of each application is only £243. That means that a soldier with a partner and two children will be asked to cough up nearly £10,000, £8,500 of which goes straight into the Treasury coffers.

In Afghanistan, foreign and Commonwealth-born soldiers, just like their UK-born comrades, spent months in check points in the blistering heat, surviving on minimal sleep. They were responsible for clearing safe routes with metal detectors. They were shot at while patrolling with back-breaking loads. All the while, families at home were hoping never to receive a knock at the door, though tragically some of them did. They have paid their dues 100 times over. Aged just 19, Pa Njie, a Gambian-born member of the Cheshires, was struck by an improvised explosive device and suffered terrible, life-changing injuries. Pa lost two limbs in the service of our country. Seemingly, that is not enough for the Home Office, which still wants its two grand.

It is worth remembering that this bill lands on the doorstep right at the moment that the person is transitioning to civilian life. It is much needed cash at a crucial time that could have gone on a deposit for a home or an education course.

Whenever this campaign is raised of late, Ministers are quick to highlight the consultation that was launched back in May, which is worth examining further. The response to it, I might add, is already more than three months overdue.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon Member on securing the debate, in which I hope to be called to speak. The consultation has been leaned on very heavily by the Government. Unfortunately for them, I was in the Department when the consultation started, so I know how it came about and what it is about, which is essentially people serving around 12 years before they get a right to remain. Does he agree that that is extraordinarily stingy to our foreign and Commonwealth personnel and totally out of sync with requirements around indefinite leave to remain, and that a serious, hard look needs to be taken at it if we are to tackle this problem?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for that intervention. He is exactly right: it is, at best, very stingy. I recall that in the debate before Christmas he said that the 12-year threshold

“was plucked out of the air.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 300.]

Whether it was, or whether it was designed to affect the minimum number of people possible, it cannot be the right way forward. We should also reflect on the fact that in addition to the 12-year proposal there was nothing for families or for the unknown number of veterans currently living in limbo, who have effectively been thrown under a bus. This was the Government’s chance to right a historical wrong; instead they chose to introduce something that is, as he just outlined, virtually pointless. Only meaningful reform will deliver the justice that our veterans and their families deserve.

Whatever metric is used, I think—at least, I hope—that the Minister is fully aware that the bar has been set so high that practically no one will benefit as a consequence. Surely a fairer option would be to look at the benchmarks at which service personnel qualify for settlement and citizenship: four and five years respectively. When Government Whips were convincing their MPs to vote down new clause 52, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and I tabled to the Nationality and Borders Bill last month, one of the arguments provided was around a lack of fairness.

That brings me neatly to the serious matter of consideration of families, because if we want to debate a lack of fairness, we should look no further than the minimum income requirement that our service personnel must meet before they can bring their loved ones to the UK. That is a cruel policy that has resulted in members of the armed forces either leaving their families thousands of miles away or taking second jobs to reach the affordability criteria. In return for their protecting our national security, the Government rip their families apart. That practice is immoral, indefensible and inexcusable.

The Government have committed to making the UK the best country in the world to be a veteran; that is a noble ambition, on which we can all unite. However, there is no better place to begin than with the treatment of our service people who are foreign or Commonwealth-born. Our campaign has huge support right across the board from the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, all Opposition MPs, many Conservative MPs, England rugby stars, and many more people and organisations besides. We do not need primary legislation; Ministers can fix this problem with the stroke of a pen by updating regulations. They just have to show some of their stated ambition.

We are not asking for the world; all we are asking for is a fair deal for service personnel, for families to be treated with dignity, and justice for those veterans who are living in limbo. That is because no matter where someone comes from or whatever their background is, once they choose to put on a uniform and protect our country, they have made a life-changing commitment. It should shame all of us that our people are being treated with such little respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

It is a delight, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship today.

I will certainly not take up eight minutes; I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say on this issue and I think that almost everything that can be said on this subject has been said. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his work on this issue over many years. It is one of the intricacies of this place that if one is not in government, such work can be pretty hard going at times, but he has striven over many years and through many debates on this issue, and I pay tribute to his relentless focus on it, not for himself but for the foreign and Commonwealth service personnel he served with, whom he has identified as suffering a serious injustice.

I will address just a couple of points before giving the floor to other people. The first is about the Government’s current position on this matter. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government do not do what we are asking them to do. It would not cost a lot of money, as the hon. Gentleman has identified. In the Committee considering the Armed Forces Act 2021, we worked with the Home Office to establish what the cost would be—the cost, not the profit—of taking this action for everyone who left the military in 2020. The cost was £30,000. When we consider what the Government and individual Ministers will spend on their own policies or whatever it may be, I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not do this.

Some of the reasons that Conservative colleagues gave in writing after that campaign to justify their vote against it—because this action was supported by everybody in this country, less the Conservative party, which breaks my heart a bit, considering how the Conservative party dresses itself up as the party of the armed forces—were just insane. They treated the hon. Gentleman and I as if we had just sailed up the Thames in a mess tin and had no idea what we were talking about. Clearly, if this action was in train and was about to happen, we would not waste our time conducting a campaign on it, including in Parliament, or finding out what can and cannot be done. But clearly it is not happening.

There was a consultation. Everybody in government knows that people have 12 weeks to respond to a consultation, but that has been missed as the consultation period finished 24 weeks ago and nothing has come out. So please do not tell me that there is a consultation and this will all be all right. The consultation itself was an absolute dog’s dinner.

I know how the figure of 12 years before people can settle came about; it was because one of the Secretaries of State went on a visit and met a Fijian chef, who said, “Yes, 12 years. Don’t let them come in under 12 years.” No work went into it at all. The figure should be around the same as the indefinite leave to remain requirements of four or five years, depending on status, which is in keeping with our peer nations.

The idea of splitting up families is atrocious. The idea is that at the end of a person’s service, they send their family back, like a sailor from Trinidad I met last year who was sending his wife and two kids back, so that he could work here and earn the money. We do not do that; we do not split families up. That is not the way we treat people in this country.

I urge Ministers and colleagues to get over the personalities involved here. I know that when some of us get campaigning on an issue it can be quite brutal and people do not want to be seen to go with it. I totally get that, but I urge hon. Members to be as professional as they can be, to park all that stuff and to think about individuals such as Pa, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, who lost two legs in Afghanistan. He is still in court fighting visa fees to stay in this country. That is appalling and shames each and every one of us in this place, not just those of us with military connections.

I cannot understand how veterans in this House, who broke bread with foreign and Commonwealth service personnel on operations, can come here and vote for the Government making an 80% profit out of service personnel who want a visa to stay in the UK. I cannot reconcile how they could possibly do that. There will be another chance to get this right, because the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and I will work with all the groups again to introduce a similar amendment. We have to right this wrong.

There is no point waiting further for consultations or excuses. The time is now, it does not cost a lot of money and it is a moral purpose that is not about politics. It is about the morality of how we treat people who serve in this nation’s military. We say that we want this to be the best country in the world to be a veteran, which is a noble ambition that I admire and that nobody would want more than me—I would love it because I could stop banging on about this stuff—but we are a million miles away from that.

If we were to ask individuals who have these problems, such as Pa, “Does this feel like the best country in the world in which to be a veteran?”, what would they say? That is how we will judge this, not by what we do here—announcing wonderful policies, having a consultation and saying further action is unnecessary because we have it all in hand. Go and ask Pa, or the foreign and Commonwealth soldier mentioned earlier who was given a £30,000 bill after using the NHS, “Does this feel like the best country in the world to be a veteran?”, and hon. Members might wake up and realise how much we have to do.

I look forward to the response from my hon. Friend the Minister, and he is a friend. I will not be indiscrete, but I know people’s views on this matter. Others have come up to me after debates—not this Minister—and said, “Johnny, I’m with you. This is the right thing do, but I want something for my town or city.” What does that do for the individual service personnel we have mentioned? Nothing. It is a coward’s way to do politics. We know the right thing to do. We need to get on and do it, and move on to other issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I note your instruction to make sure there is at least three minutes left at the end for the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I thank him for securing the debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. Although there may not have been a large quantity of contributions, there was certainly quality in the speeches that were made. It is good for us again to have an opportunity to discuss this issue.

The Government strongly value every member of our outstanding armed forces, and we are grateful and humbled when non-UK nationals choose to serve our country. It is right that they are rewarded for their bravery and commitment, which is why there are already several measures in place to support them both during and after their service, which I will outline in a few moments. I will briefly touch on some of the cases that have been mentioned. I hope Members will appreciate why I will not go into individual immigration records in a public forum, but in relation to the eight Fijian veterans, I can confirm that we have engaged directly with their legal representatives and they have all now regularised their immigration status here in the United Kingdom.

I will also say—this is a message that I give out regularly in relation to the settlement scheme for European economic area nationals who may have missed the deadline of 30 June last year—that if an armed forces veteran who is currently in the UK does not have regular immigration status, we genuinely encourage them to get in touch with the Home Office today. If they do not want to get in touch with us directly—if they have concerns about doing that—then I am sure that I speak for everyone present when I say that they can get in touch with their local Member of Parliament and ask them to get in touch with us.

Unless someone has committed serious or persistent criminal offences, our focus will be on supporting them to acquire status; we will not default to enforcement action. I hope people will have seen that in the way we dealt with vulnerable EEA nationals who missed the deadline last year. That is the approach that we will look to adopt with an armed forces veteran, unless, as I say, serious or persistent criminal offences have been committed. I am sure colleagues will appreciate why I add that caveat.

It should be noted that special immigration rules already apply to non-UK armed forces personnel, under which, as Members have referenced, they are granted full exemption from immigration control status for the duration of their service to allow them to come and go without restriction. They are free from any requirements to make visa applications or pay any fees while they serve, unlike almost every other category of person coming to work in the UK. On discharge, those who have completed at least four years’ service or have been medically discharged as a result of their service can choose to apply immediately for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Non-UK armed forces personnel applying for themselves do not have to meet an income requirement, be sponsored by an employer, or meet any of the other requirements regarding skills, knowledge of the English language or knowledge of life in the UK that others applying for certain statuses may be familiar with.

It is worth highlighting not just the issue around immigration status, but the provisions that apply with respect to British citizenship. On completion of five years’ service, Commonwealth citizens can choose to naturalise as British citizens while they are still serving. For clarity, as touched on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), they can use their time both in the UK and on overseas assignments towards the five-year UK residency criterion—a concession that is not offered to any other employment group. For reasons that will hopefully be obvious to Members present, applying to become a British citizen while serving removes any need to make an application for settlement.

Those provisions sit alongside the specific citizenship provisions for children born to serving armed forces personnel. Again, for clarity, there is a specific carve-out in relation to the rules. Members will be familiar with the concept that if a child is born in the UK and one of their parents is a British citizen or is permanently settled in the UK, they will become a British citizen automatically at birth. That goes further for members of the armed forces: a child born in the UK or qualifying territories acquires British citizenship automatically if, at the time of their birth, their mother or father is a member of the armed forces. It does not need to be both parents; it can be either.

Additionally, any individual born in the UK or qualifying territories on or after 13 January 2010 whose mother or father becomes a member of the armed forces while they are a minor is entitled to register as a British citizen. Finally, a person born outside the UK whose mother or father is a member of the armed forces at the time of their birth can also register as a British citizen. I hope that brings some clarity about the position of children born while someone is serving in the forces.

[Johnny Mercer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because I know he cares deeply about this issue. I have listened carefully to all the things he has said, but would he not agree that they are extraordinarily small beer for foreign and Commonwealth service personnel? One of the points that was raised was that if they come and serve in the military and they go on deployment to Afghanistan, we will not stop the clock. That is extraordinary. Of course we would never stop the clock—they are serving in the British Army. Would the Minister accept that, while there are small carve-outs for individuals, if we look at the greater picture, they are incredibly small beer? That is why we need to deal with the visa fees issue.

[Kevin Foster]

I would not class the automatic granting of UK nationality as small beer. The provisions I have just read out apply regardless of the nationality of the parent. Both parents can be non-UK nationals, and only one needs to be a serving member of the armed forces for their child born in the UK to automatically become a British citizen. I am struggling to think of any other such provision. The child becomes a citizen at birth, so all they need to do is apply for a passport. They are a British citizen. There is no settlement fee and, obviously, there is no visa fee for someone who is a UK national at birth. That is a large, real impact for children born to members of the armed forces, and it is unlike virtually any other walk of life, where, unless a parent already has indefinite leave to remain or one of the parents is a UK national, their children do not automatically become British. Of course, they may be naturalised later, when the parents naturalise themselves. I would not describe that provision as particularly small beer. It is quite long standing, and it is deliberately generous to children born to service personnel.

Family members of armed forces personnel enter the UK on a five-year limited leave to enter visa, whereas their civilian counterparts, such as those coming in under the family routes, are usually granted a 30-month visa, which they must then renew to complete the qualifying period. The family members of armed forces personnel can apply for settlement straightaway at the end of the five years, saving them the cost of making multiple applications. Again, unlike their civilian counterparts, they can count time overseas on accompanied assignments towards the five-year UK residency criterion.

We have several measures in place to support non-UK armed forces personnel, such as the particularly unique provision regarding their children and British citizenship that I have already touched on. We recognise their contribution and sacrifice and are determined to do more, hence the Home Office and Ministry of Defence ran a joint public consultation last year regarding a policy proposal to waive settlement fees for certain non-UK service personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces. I was pleased to work on that with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). The results of the consultation have now been analysed. The Government will publish our response shortly and make any associated fee changes through fees regulations at the earliest opportunity afterwards. While I am not in a position to confirm the final policy offer, I hope that provides some reassurance that the Government recognise the issue, have sought views from those affected on how best to address it, and will shortly announce our plans to do so.

There has been some focus in the debate on the proposal in the consultation to offer fee waivers to those who have served for a minimum of 12 years. That is in line with a service person’s initial engagement period and takes account of the investment in their skills and training.

[Johnny Mercer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Foster]

In a moment. I acknowledge the strong representations made in the debate—I suspect I am about to get some more—as well as during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill and in response to the consultation, recommending that that threshold should be reduced. As I say, we will publish our response to the consultation shortly, and that will set out the final policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I have to correct one of those pieces of information on the 12-year engagement point. I know it is not the Minister’s fault, as it comes from the MOD. This is a very recent policy and does not actually apply to anyone who has served for a long time. The idea that someone serves for 12 years is rubbish; they can leave after four or five years. I am afraid that the 12-year engagement point is a huge red herring. We have to be honest in this debate. I know it is definitely not the Home Office’s fault, but the idea that our foreign comrades sign up for 12 years and do not leave is garbage. I repeat that this is not the Minister’s fault at all.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend makes his point strongly on the record. I will move on to the treatment of family members of non-UK service personnel and particularly whether any fee waivers should apply to them as well as to the principal applicant. As I said, I am not in a position to announce the revised policy, but the consultation did not include proposals to waive fees for family members. Offering fee waivers to family members of non-UK service personnel would put them in a more favourable position than UK nationals serving in the armed forces. While we could debate what the provisions for family members should be, we do not believe it is sensible to have a difference in this area, or for it to be an advantage to serve in the armed forces as a non-UK national rather than as a UK national.

Colleagues will be aware that the minimum income requirement is standard across immigration routes for settled persons wishing to sponsor family members and is mostly set at levels at which people would not generally be eligible for income-related benefits. Most armed forces personnel, regardless of their nationality, are single when they enlist. The salary in all three services once basic training is completed would enable them to sponsor a partner to come to, or remain in, the UK. Where personnel have children who are subject to immigration control, noting the provisions I outlined earlier, we recognise that it may take longer for junior-ranked personnel to meet the higher thresholds that apply. That is why the Home Secretary agrees with the recommendations of the review by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), “Living in our shoes”, published in June 2020, and has committed to a medium-term review of the impact of the minimum income requirement on armed forces personnel and their families.

In previous debates, the issue of Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans has been raised. It is probably worth putting on the record again what I confirmed during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill. We have identified a potential solution to this issue and are currently investigating proposals that could see that cohort treated similarly to other non-UK service personnel with potential links to the former colony. That would be in addition to other pathways that they may already be eligible for, such as the British national overseas visa, which provides a path to settlement. There is considerable work to be done to fully scope the ramifications and impacts of this policy. However, I aim to provide further details to the House later this year.

Let me again offer my thanks to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central for securing this debate. As we have seen today and in the debate last month on the proposed amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill, this issue rightly arouses strong feelings among individual Members and across the House—understandably so, given that it covers those who have served our nation. The hon. Members present are committed and passionate advocates for this topic, and I commend them and others for raising this hugely important issue. The discussion that we have had today has exposed the significant and understandable strength of feeling that there is about it.

[Johnny Mercer]

Will my hon. Friend take one last intervention?

[Kevin Foster]

Go on, then.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am sorry; I am only making up for the fact that there are not many people here. If we applied the consultation proposal retrospectively to 2020, how many foreign and Commonwealth service personnel would benefit from it, as a percentage? Does my hon. Friend know? I am trying desperately not to catch him out, because I think that we did this work together.

[Kevin Foster]

The Government will publish their response to the consultation shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate that this is a complex issue, and I will be very clear about this. We want to ensure that we are delivering for the people and the whole of Northern Ireland, for the victims, and obviously for all those who served in Northern Ireland as well. This is a complex area, and our programme and the work we are seeking to deliver will deliver for victims. Victims are consistently saying that they want to get to the truth of what happened. The current system is not delivering that. Our Command Paper sets out a plan for a way to do that. We need to be honest about the current system’s failures and look at a new way forward. The Command Paper sets that out. We will look into the feedback we had over the summer and autumn, and we will do that very soon.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

On the weekend, I received another call from the media with a briefing from the Northern Ireland Office saying that legislation and a statement would be coming out this week, and so on. This is the seventh deadline to produce this legislation—self-set by the Secretary of State—that he has missed. Does he have any intention at all of honouring his word?

[Brandon Lewis]

I do not recognise what my hon. Friend just outlined. I said that I would set out to Parliament our intended direction of travel and what we wanted to do before the summer recess, and we did that with the Command Paper. We did have an ambition to legislate this autumn, and I was determined to do that, but we have to ensure that we are delivering and focusing on the work that we have seen over the summer and autumn in the ongoing conversations with victims groups and veterans groups, the Irish Government and the parties in Northern Ireland. This is a complex area, and we have to make sure that when we deliver legislation on this, it is legislation that works for the people of Northern Ireland and for those who served in Northern Ireland as well.

Armed Forces Bill

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s personal and political expertise in this area. He is absolutely right that this was an opportunity to right the wrong he has so eloquently set out. There will be an opportunity tomorrow—our Front Bench has tabled an amendment—and there will be other opportunities, but it is a moral point of principle, and I hope the Government will listen and do the right thing in the vote tomorrow.

Without this amendment, the Bill’s principles will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated single living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water, the veteran struggling with their mental health who has to endure waiting times for treatment more than twice as long as Government targets, or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting in to work. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for the delivery of the covenant to cash-strapped local authorities and other overstretched public bodies. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable, national standards as local authorities and agencies. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.

The Government are set to reject these amendments. Their majority means they may well win the votes, but in so doing the Conservatives will lose any credible claim to be the party of the armed forces. Service personnel will be asking why this Government’s manifesto pledge to put the covenant further into law delivers no improvements to their day-to-day lives. Veterans will be asking why they still face uneven access to services. Women will be wondering whether a career in the services is for them. These arguments will come back to the Government again and again—from this House, including from Government Back Benchers, from service charities, from armed forces communities and from the Opposition Benches, because Labour will always stand up for our armed forces.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

As I rise to speak in this debate, I first pay tribute to the officials in the Department. I know this is a complex Bill and that with legislation such as this we must operate within the art of the possible. There are clearly areas where everybody would like to go further, but I understand the constraints and the dynamics at play, particularly around legislating for the armed forces covenant and so on.

However, there is one thing I am afraid I will not let pass without shining a spotlight on it: the issue of violence and sexual offences staying in the military justice system. I rise to speak with one purpose, and that is to resolutely support my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in the work that she has done in this space. She has worked tirelessly, initially against the current but then with some support, to highlight the totally unacceptable experience of females in the military.

Today is a really difficult day for my hon. Friend, and unnecessarily so. I understand differences of opinion, particularly in this space, but where the evidence does not point to the decisions being made by those on the Front Bench, I am afraid I will speak up time and again.

Unfortunately, I was in the room when this decision was made. The evidence did not support the Secretary of State at the time and the evidence does not support the Secretary of State today. I cannot vote against the Lords amendment; it is not the right thing to do. Let me be clear: when the Secretary of State made that decision it was against the advice of the officials in the Department and against the advice of his Ministers.

Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact. We can pull up the facts at different times and during different processes on the journey to a sexual conviction, but the reality is that the conviction rates for rape are lower. Over the past five years, the average conviction rate for rape in civilian courts, when using Ministry of Justice data, is 34%; over the same five years, using the same data—the MOD’s data—the average conviction rate for rape is just 16% in military courts. Using Crown Prosecution Service data, the figures are even worse. In practice, this means that a military woman is far less likely to get justice than she would in civilian life. We cannot accept that. We cannot accept that on the Government Benches.

The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court. The Department suggests that, because the numbers involved in the service justice system are relatively so much smaller, the comparison is of little value. That does not make sense—it is ridiculous and illogical. We have to be honest: there is no point coming to this place and railroading through legislation that we all know to be the wrong decision simply because one individual has his course set and refuses to back out of that alley.

[Alicia Kearns]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it takes enormous courage for anyone to go to court in cases of child abuse, domestic abuse or rape—the issues we are talking about? I worked in the victims department at the Ministry of Justice, supporting people to go forward and get prosecutions, and one in seven Rutland residents is a veteran. Does my hon. Friend also agree that an insidious silence is forced on victims, gagging them and preventing them from going out to get justice in the first place, let alone once they get to a court?

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I do agree with those observations. To be honest, when I came into my role as the Veterans Minister, I knew that the experience of females in the military was totally unacceptable. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham published her report, a lot of what she wrote was not a surprise to me. I have daughters who want to join the military. It is something that we absolutely have to sort out.

I wish the Secretary of State was in his place. He has clearly laid his position on the line on this issue. Last week, he said that in 2020 1.6% of rapes reported to the civilian police made it to court, compared with 50% of those reported to military police. I cannot see how that can possibly be true, unless the numbers are so incomparably small as to be totally misleading. The trouble is that our lack of honesty in this place tonight—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not in here but in what is coming forward from the Department. It places my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in an absolutely invidious position. It is a straightforward integrity check for her.

[Mr Jones]

Unbelievable.

[Johnny Mercer]

Sorry—does the right hon. Gentleman have an intervention to make?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman was the Minister who took the Bill through Committee; if he felt so strongly about this, what did he do about it? He is saying that since he is no longer a Minister he is now passionate about these issues, but he did nothing when he was a Minister.

[Johnny Mercer]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that he was nowhere near the Department when I was a Minister. He has absolutely not a clue as to what I did to try to change this. He has no clue whatever.

[Mr Jones]

You are just rewriting history.

[Johnny Mercer]

The right hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to make a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Defence and go and look at all the ministerial submissions on this issue, but that would require his dealing in the realms of fact rather than his rather pointless rhetoric. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him outside this place but this is a serious issue that frankly deserves better contributions than that—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Johnny Mercer]

I am not going to give way. I am absolutely not going to give way for another interlude like that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has done her work on this issue. It is a serious point. She has found the evidence and that evidence has been backed up by professionals, but in the Department there is one individual who is refusing to back down from the alleyway he has found himself in. My hon. Friend’s is a really valuable voice: she is the first female from the ranks to make it to this place. She has an extraordinarily valuable and powerful voice. For her to lose her position tonight because she has that integrity is not what we do. It is not teamwork and it is not the way this Government should operate. I support her wholeheartedly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

That is a really fair point. Such provision has not existed before and it is always dangerous when we start going down that route of bringing in new protocols specifically to deal with the challenges of sexual assault that we have here.

I plead with those on the Front Bench: the issue of the female experience in the military defines what we do. I note that the response, last week, was to double the number of females in the military. The only problem is that we have already missed our target for doing that in the first place. It is pointless to give strongly worded statements to the chiefs or to say that we are going to double the numbers if so many people—the young women we saw in the work from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham—simply do not come forward because they do not think they are going to have any fairness, any rigour or any real prospect of a conviction for their horrendous experience.

Members will find no one prouder of the military in this place than me but there is a singular problem. I do not buy this stuff about a culture problem—I am afraid I am on the other side of the fence on that: the military is the most wonderful life-chances machine this country has—but there is a problem with holding our people to account, whether in respect of lawfare or other issues. It is exactly the same here. If we do that and hold our people to account, we will get on top of this problem without losing good people like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, whose work I commend. I am incredibly proud of her; the Government should be as well and should implement all her recommendations.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It was certainly interesting to listen to the contribution from the former Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).

Over the past year, personnel have supported the vaccine roll-out, transported petrol to petrol stations and, most recently, aided those impacted by Storm Arwen. Overseas, members of our armed forces have put their lives on the line to evacuate those at risk in Afghanistan and are actively engaged in operations ranging from peacekeeping to combatting the international drugs trade. Our personnel are our greatest armed forces asset and we must do our best to ensure that any legislation that impacts the lives of serving personnel is evidence based, carefully considered and ultimately beneficial.

This Bill has presented a once-in-a-decade chance to improve treatment and conditions for serving personnel and their loved ones while also implementing desperately needed reforms to the service justice system, which is currently failing to deliver for many victims. Sadly, despite the efforts of those in the other place, the Bill is lacking in ambition and many of its provisions are tokenistic.

Lords amendment 1, which we will be supporting, removes the military from the handling of the most serious of crimes. Very recently, the Defence Secretary held a meeting with senior members of the Army to discuss allegations of sexual violence by members of the armed forces. This came after the Defence Committee report on women in the armed forces, which exposed the culture of sexism, intimidation and secrecy within the armed forces and the flawed systems that allow serious acts of misconduct to go unchallenged. Some 64% of the more than 4,000 servicewomen who submitted evidence to the report stated that they had experienced sexual harassment, rape, bullying or discrimination. That figure should cause all of us great discomfort.

Last week, the MOD’s response to the women in the armed forces report announced the introduction of new measures, including sexual consent training and the doubling of the number of female personnel. However, it is hard to see, with the current laddish culture that is being promoted, how women will be encouraged or attracted to join. More ambitious and swifter action is required.

Lords amendment 1 to clause 7 requires a protocol between the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would create a presumption that serious charges against serving personnel would be heard in civilian courts. There is good reason for this. In the five years until 2019, rape conviction rates in civilian courts were approximately 59% compared with the shockingly low 9% of those heard in military courts. The chances of seeing justice are “shockingly low”, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. We heard this evening from the Minister that the reason why these would continue to be held in military courts is that they could be held swiftly; it was for the welfare of the victims.

I would like to hear from those victims whether they think that their welfare is being looked after by the current system. The majority of these cases are currently prosecuted through court martial, where the boards have a largely, if not entirely, male majority who cannot possibly understand the lived experience of women. The Government have stated that female representation must be on the court martial board, but no quotas have been specified, so it is questionable whether this will make any difference.

Within the military, there is evidence of poor victim care and poor investigations, as military police have little experience of complex sexual violence cases. The evidence backing the amendment is clear: for justice to be delivered, these offences must be tried in civilian courts, as these courts have experience of dealing with complex cases, particularly in relation to rape and sexual assault.

The provisions within Lords amendment 1 are also recommended by the Lyons review and the Defence Committee report, which contended that

“service personnel remain citizens and in these serious cases when the civil courts are available to them, they should be tried in that forum.”

This move also has the backing of the Victims’ Commissioner, a former chief constable and, most importantly, many serving personnel and veterans.

Lords amendment 2, which we support, would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to the covenant. The Bill, as introduced, largely applies to local government. The UK Government should be subject to the same legal standard on the covenant that they are seeking to apply in the devolved context and to local councils. We know that many areas of policy in which serving personnel, veterans and their families face disadvantage—forces’ housing, pensions and employment to name but a few—are the direct responsibility of the UK Government. Disappointingly, many live issues are entirely ignored by the Bill, including: Commonwealth veteran immigration; justice for LGBT veterans; and forces’ housing, which continues to cause major issues for personnel.

We will continue to work with the Minister to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for serving personnel and veterans, but, sadly, I do not think that this Bill is a vehicle through which we will do it.

Afghanistan

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to the service of the hon. Gentleman and, in addition, to the service of the Afghan special forces. He is absolutely right to draw attention to what they did. I believe that the 333—the Triples—were incredibly important. We will do whatever we can, as I have said, to ensure that those who have not yet come out do get the safe passage they need.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

The Prime Minister just said from the Dispatch Box that no veterans’ call for help will go unanswered, and I totally support that ambition. In fact, that was a central aim with the establishment of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs when he started it, but he and I know that he has consistently failed to take the measures required to make that a reality for veterans in communities like mine. What is he going to do differently to make veterans feel this has changed, rather than just reading about it in the newspapers or hearing about it from Westminster?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he did as Minister for veterans’ affairs and for his service in Afghanistan. I believe that he gravely underestimates what this country has done. Just today, on veterans’ mental health, the House will have heard the further support we are offering. This is a Government who are absolutely determined to support our veterans, and that is why we passed the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and will continue to take steps to protect the veterans of this country.

Afghanistan

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I want to make three broad points about what has gone on over the past week. I want to talk about this place’s responsibility towards those who serve, and our Afghan friends and partners. I also want to speak, if I can, for veterans of the conflict to whom I have spoken over the past week.

When it comes to responsibility, I urge Ministers to be very careful about talking exclusively about the Americans. We are very clear, and it is well understood, that the US is, or was, the framework nation in Afghanistan, but people who join the military from council estates in Plymouth, Newcastle, Stoke or Birmingham do not serve the American flag; they serve the British flag. They are proud to do so, and they do it at the behest of Ministers in this place. It dishonours their service simply to say, “The Americans have left—we are leaving.” We do not spend £40 billion a year on a tier 1 military for it to be unable to go out the door without the Americans, and the taxpayer does not expect that. I urge Ministers to take responsibility for the decisions that they make, particularly when talking with the families.

I wish to talk about our Afghan friends and partners. I am pleased with the announcement today on refugees; it is a good start. People can talk numbers; they can say that they want more or that they want fewer, but the reality is—this is basic maths—that we will not get out of Afghanistan all those whom we promised to get out. We can say that we want more, or that we want fewer, but that is the reality. The truth is as well that we have to be honest in this place. For many, many years, people have campaigned against this relocation scheme and the previous intimidation scheme and said that it was not good enough. Decisions made by Ministers in this House have made this situation harder, so, although I welcome this change today and our onward progression, let us not kid ourselves about what has happened in the past and let us treat with a little more respect those who, with no self-interest, campaign for these people.

Finally, I want to speak to veterans and for veterans. Over the past few days, it has become clear to me that we are dealing with new feelings—Help for Heroes put out something on this yesterday. We are not trained to lose and we are not trained to deal with the way that Ministers are choosing to be defeated by the Taliban. Was it all for nothing? Of course, it was not for nothing, and we must get away from that narrative. Whether we like this or not it is a fact that, for a period of time, Afghans—the average age in Afghanistan is 18 years old—will have experienced the freedom and privileges that we enjoy here, and no one will ever take that away from them, which is incredibly important. What are we here to do if it is not to be good, honourable people, to fight for the oppressed, to keep our families safe and to live to a higher calling? Our veterans did this over many years in some of the hardest conditions and against as dark an enemy as this nation has ever faced. We often look to our forefathers for inspiration. They emulated them. They did them proud, not in scale but in the same amphitheatre, They can be forever proud of what they did when the nation called. I say to them, “You played your role, but you cannot control what is happening now—remember that. What folk like me saw you do—the courage, the sacrifice and the humanity—will never die and it has defined us as human beings. You did that and nobody will ever take that away. I will never forget you. Every day the sun comes up, I will make sure that this place and this country do not forget you and your sacrifice on the altar of this nation’s continuing freedom.”

The Government must now step up and support this group of bereaved families and veterans. We will see a bow wave of mental health challenges. We are not trained to cope with the feelings that we have now. I have done everything that I possibly could to support all the brilliant staff at the Ministry of Defence, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, and the NHS, which works tirelessly supporting veterans up and down this country, but I must say to the House with a heavy heart that the Prime Minister has consistently failed to honour what he said that he would do when he was trying to become Prime Minister. He must not wriggle out of his commitments on this issue. He knows that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is nothing like it was designed to be: the paltry £5 million funding was slashed after less than a year, there was a lack of staff, and there was not even an office from which to work. Even today, the brilliant staff at the Office for Veterans’ Affairs simply cannot cope with the scale of the demand. While his predecessors may get away with a certain degree of ignorance in this space, I am afraid that the Prime Minister has no excuse on this issue; it is a political choice. The ambivalence needs to end, and he needs to step up and listen to the charities and to the veterans, not to those whom he chooses to employ around him who do not believe veterans’ issues are worth the political capital required. The nation cares, and we will make this Government care. The scale of the challenge of dealing with this Afghan generation is only just beginning. I pay tribute to everybody who has spoken up in this debate, but particularly to those who do not have a vested interest in Afghanistan and can see the inherent injustice of what is happening now. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for recalling the House today.

Nuclear Test Veterans: Service Medal

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his speech. He has campaigned for a number of years on this and has worked tirelessly to see those who served their country get recognition for their service. I pay tribute to him for his huge efforts.

Ensuring that victims get the recognition they deserve is fundamental to supporting veterans in this country, as is recognised in the strategy for our veterans, and I am determined that we recognise our veterans in the correct way. The Government have committed to veterans in a way that none of our predecessors have, with more money now being spent on the veterans community than ever before. Establishing the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was a systemic change and an indication of the Government’s commitment to her veterans. Never before in previous Governments under previous Ministers has there been an Office for Veterans’ Affairs to take responsibility for these issues and to champion the needs of veterans across government.

I hope today to assure my hon. Friends that the contributions of those who participated in the nuclear testing programme are not unrecognised, and that the Government continue to acknowledge and thank all service personnel who participated. Importantly, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, they contributed to keeping our nation secure during the cold war and since by ensuring that the UK was equipped with an appropriate nuclear capability. We will never forget their service, and we continue to recognise all that they did for their country.

As hon. Members will be aware, the advisory military sub-committee, which has been mentioned, was established to reconsider historic medallic recognition cases. As has been mentioned, last year the committee considered this case and concluded that participation in it did not meet the committee’s criteria. It is important to get across to the House that this is an independent process. It operates to a strict criteria and is outwith ministerial control, and rightly so. It was not a decision that some campaign groups, veterans and their families hoped for. I understand their disappointment—of course I do.

[Carol Monaghan]

In 2012, David Cameron agreed to award medals—I cannot remember for which campaign; it may have been the Ebola campaign—so Prime Ministers can step in to let their feelings be known and to put pressure on the appropriate people to ensure that medals are awarded. There is a role for Ministers and for Government in this. This would be a very simple way to recognise the specific and dangerous situation that these veterans were put in.

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Member. She is not correct; there is no formal role for Ministers to play in this decision-making process. There never has been for medals. It is important that the AMSC is able to determine for itself which medal claims should be reviewed. The terms of the sub-committee are clearly laid out, and any new submissions that might have been provided have been passed to the sub-committee. The decision on whether the case will be reviewed will be shared with campaigners by the AMSC in due course. This is not the end of the line. Those reasons will be shared.

As I have said, the medallic system is outside the control of Ministers, and it always has been. It is rightly in that position, protecting the integrity of the medals system—this is important—and of those who have received honours in this country. However, I am determined to continue to do all I can to support this cohort of veterans. It is fundamental to me that there is no tiered approach to veterans in this country, that those who have served for any period, in any circumstance, are recognised and supported as veterans. Therefore, although there are no dedicated compensation arrangements for UK nuclear test veterans, all claims have been and continue to be considered under the war pension scheme.

Any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation under this scheme, and I encourage them to do so. War pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury as a result of service in the armed forces before 6 April 2005, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Decisions are medically certified and follow consideration of available service and medical evidence, and carry full rights of appeal to an independent tribunal.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the risk. I am not sure whether everybody here watches “Call the Midwife”, but on Sunday night past they had an article in the paper and it was about this very thing. I know that it was a drama, but it illustrated the effect on not only the soldiers, airmen and navy personnel, but the families. When it comes down to risk, is there not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, an obligation to deliver?

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Gentleman gets to the nub of the problem. I have seen some of the drama on Sunday night in “Call the Midwife”, and it is clearly a good and emotive production. The difficulty the Government have is that the evidential basis linking conditions such as that to these tests is with the scientific community and in its opinion it is not of the standard whereby we can draw clear evidential proof. That is the problem we have. That is not a decision for a Minister—that is not a decision for me. I have my own views on medals, and I have worked hard to support this cohort in other ways. That is the nub of the problem, and it is a difficult one, because I know it is frustrating for the families and for campaigners. That is the situation we are in, and work continues to identify the links between illnesses that people think they received from nuclear tests and the actual radiation exposure itself.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way, so I am grateful to him. I understand the argument about compensation, which is why of course the then Chancellor George Osborne made an ex gratia payment—I did emphasise that—but the medal is a bang to rights case. The fact that this committee suggested an absence of risk and rigour is extraordinary. There can be no greater risk than going into a radiation cloud. Surely the Minister, with his expertise, recognises that. Can he commit tonight to refer this back to that committee and at least ask it to take evidence from the veterans and their representatives, which it failed to do last time?

[Johnny Mercer]

There is an appeal going into this process, and I will write to the AMSC and ask it to make sure that it has seen veterans and their groups when making the decision in that appeal process.

In addition to maintaining access to compensation for all veterans who have suffered ill health due to service, I am committed to ensuring the provision of excellent wraparound care. That includes access to free confidential advice and support on a wide range of issues through the Veterans Welfare Service; maintaining access to bespoke services such as the veterans trauma network in England; and levelling up veterans’ mental health provision through the launch of Op Courage.

I also recognise that veterans are civilians and most access support through regular NHS services wherever they live in the UK. I am rolling out a veteran-awareness accreditation programme for GP surgeries and hospital trusts, with over 800 GP surgeries and nearly 60 trusts signed up. Let me be clear: there should be no reason in this country today why any GP surgery or NHS trust is not veteran-aware accredited. This is a duty we have to the nation; it is something we all have a responsibility in. I will be relentlessly campaigning for every NHS trust and GP surgery to become veteran-aware.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for his tireless efforts. Anybody who tirelessly campaigns for veterans is clearly an ally of mine. We are committed as a Government, more than any Government before us, to getting the veterans’ case right, and that includes those who participated in the nuclear test programme. Those veterans made a huge contribution to ensuring the security of each and every one of us by ensuring that we had a capable and resilient nuclear deterrent during the height of the cold war. I reiterate my absolute support for those service people and I pay tribute to their service.

This idea that veterans who served in the nuclear tests are not worthy is completely wrong. There is no hierarchy of veterans in this country. The challenge in this particular case is the causal link between exposure to radiation and the illnesses that then present in individuals—and their families, because this goes on for some time. I am committed to making sure that we achieve fairness. I will make sure that the views of veterans’ groups and their representatives are portrayed to the AMSC. But I also have a duty to maintain the rigour of the system. Awards and medals always have been inherently difficult and at times divisive, but I am sure we will get there in the end—we will arrive at the right answer—and I urge my right hon. Friend to keep going with his campaign.

Question put and agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Wednesday 31st March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

I just thought that I would factually correct a couple of issues. The stuff around the education allowance is cross-ranks, so playing to class divisions is just a load of nonsense, as was the rest about leveraging in pieces to another Bill. Does my hon. Friend understand the causal link between civilian claims and part 2 of the Bill, leading to part 1 and criminal prosecutions, or is this just some sort of diatribe against the whole thing?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

It seems as though the Minister has woken up rather grumpy this morning. I do not think we see the lower ranks being found guilty of manipulating their position to pay for their weans to go to private school.

[Johnny Mercer]

They have.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

We will move on.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the Minister of his own policy.

[Johnny Mercer]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am not giving way any further. The Minister has had enough time; he has had plenty of time. I am afraid the Minister will just need to sit down and mute himself.

Negotiating pay and conditions was essential to the betterment of working-class people in the shipbuilding and associated industries that many of my forebears served in. I cannot imagine why that would not be the case for those members of my family and for my constituents serving in the armed forces today.

As with all the other new clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I have tabled, I do not expect new clause 4 to pass, but I ask Members of the governing party to reflect on the fact that this may be the way things have always been done or part of the charm of serving in the armed forces, but young people today will increasingly ask themselves why working in the NHS comes with a framework of obligations that people can expect from their employers and a host of independent advice that they can rely on, whereas public service in the armed forces does not. No amount of effusive praise that we give them in the House of Commons makes up for that.

One Armed Forces Day or Week each year does not make up for the 365-days-a-year protection that would be created by an organisation that allowed them all to speak with one strong voice. That is why I think an armed forces representative body gets to the very heart of everything we have been talking about on this Bill Committee—to the heart of what kind of country we want to live in, and how the social contract between the Government, the people and their armed forces should work.

[Carol Monaghan]

I just want to add a couple of comments. Both these new clauses seem to worry the Government, and we have to wonder why. I think many personnel will wonder, “Why would the Government not wish to support these proposals?” A body that can speak for armed forces personnel on issues such as housing, terms and conditions, and pay would surely be a benefit. If personnel could raise these issues themselves, it could avoid situations such as those that we have seen recently through the National Audit Office report on the poor quality of single living accommodation.

It is important that we look at other bodies that work. The Police Federation would be a good example. In the Police Federation, individuals do not have the ability to strike and there is no threat to the chain of command. Despite us raising these issues time and again, the Government simply throw the same lazy arguments back at us. Those lazy arguments include, “We don’t want anything that undermines the chain of command.” This organisation would operate separately; it would be a body that personnel could go to without breaching the chain of command. All of us here understand the importance of that.

What arguments is the Minister going to come up with for opposing these new clauses? We have heard the same arguments time and again on strikes and chain of command, but we have said that these new clauses are no threat to those things. What can the Minister tell us other than that? Why would he not want to support personnel when they are looking for improvement? I do not think any of us would argue about what they want. They want decent housing, and decent terms and conditions; and we should not have any problem with that. I am really interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Johnny Mercer]

What we have seen there is the granularity of the problem when it comes to debating these issues. The Scottish nationalist party Members have put forward two things that are fundamentally and factually inaccurate to support their argument—

[Carol Monaghan]

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. Could you remind the Minister that the name of our party is the Scottish National party? He is using that other term deliberately and continues to do so.

[The Chair]

The point of order has been noted; I have no doubt that the Minister is aware.

[Johnny Mercer]

Colleagues have put forward two arguments that are factually not true. I just do not know how to respond when colleagues put forward points of view that they know to be untrue, which I correct on the record, yet they still advance them as though they are on some crusade for the benefit of the members of our armed forces. It really is sixth-form-debating-level behaviour and it means that I cannot respond to their points—

[Carol Monaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

No, I will not give way, because my hon. Friends even corrected each other when one said that the continuity of education allowance was only for officers, which it is not, and then split between commissioned—

[Carol Monaghan]

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. The Minister is now trying to rewrite the record. I was very careful in what I said and I pointed out to him that I agreed 100% with what he said about the education allowance being available for all. However, I did say that it was almost exclusively used by officers, and that is the case.

[Johnny Mercer]

It is not the case; it is about a 45%-55% split.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I would be delighted to give way.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am concerned that the Minister is trying to rewrite the record, because all I said—I will remind myself of what I said—was that the most senior member of the armed forces, or of the Army at that point, was found guilty of misusing that fund. I never said anything about anybody not being able to access it.

[Johnny Mercer]

No, the hon. Gentleman said that matelots and pongoes, the lower ranks, do not get to use the fund, which is factually incorrect. I am sorry; I do not mean to be obtuse with Members, but I have come into this role to serve members of the armed forces and I will not stand idly by if people make things up. If someone is going to debate these issues and bring forward things that are not true, which I am afraid largely emanate from the Scottish nationalist party, it will be very difficult to engage. However, I will address the other points.

The new clauses seek to create through primary legislation a representative body for the armed forces that is similar in many respects to the Police Federation. New clause 19 proposes that details of how such a federation would operate would be set out in regulations. Of course the Government understand that Members from all parties in the House wish to support our armed forces and protect their interests; that is at the heart of what we do and I believe our actions show that. However, we are not persuaded that there is a requirement or indeed a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested. The interests of our armed forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command.

On matters of pay, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body provide annual recommendations on pay for the armed forces to the Prime Minister. Evidence is gathered from a number of sources, including the bodies commissioning their own independent analysis of pay comparability and taking written and oral evidence from the MOD and from service families federations, as well as spending a significant amount of time visiting military establishments within the UK and overseas.

Staying on the subject of pay, I should highlight that the X-Factor addition to basic military pay, which is currently at 14.5%, recognises the special conditions of military life, including limits on the ability of service personnel to negotiate on this issue.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I would be delighted to give way.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister is making various claims about the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and he is correct that it does great work in assessing the different effects of armed forces life, but it depends on Ministers and the Treasury accepting its recommendations. There was not a problem until 2010, but there has been since. How do ordinary members of the armed forces ensure that their pay issues are taken into account if the Government, who have ignored the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body on numerous occasions since 2010, ignore those recommendations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

They have not ignored them. I sat on the last one, and I advocated for the pay of the armed forces. The Government have a clear role when it comes to pay across the public sector. They work hard to maintain the independence of these bodies, which are robust in challenging the Government to make sure our people are paid fairly. My right hon. Friend will have seen that the integrated review talks about a new way of operating, which will have to be reflected in a new reward and recognition scheme that looks at pay across the ranks, across the trades and across employment, to make sure that people are remunerated and recognised in line with what we are asking them to do. I understand the point he is making, but I do not accept that the Government have turned down these recommendations and are cracking on willy-nilly with pay.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that the Minister might accept the pay review body’s recommendations, but he does not implement them. In 2013 the Government refused to reappoint Professor Alasdair Smith when he recommended things they did not like. There was not a problem until 2010, but since 2010, although the Conservative party says it stands for the armed forces, the Government have not implemented the pay review body’s recommendations. As we heard earlier, it would be okay not to have a representative body if the Government automatically accepted the pay review body’s recommendations, which I am proud that the last Labour Government did, but this Government have not done that.

[Johnny Mercer]

Okay. Staying with the subject of pay, I should highlight that the X-factor addition to basic military pay, which is currently at 14.5%, recognises the special conditions of military life, including limits on the ability of service personnel to negotiate on this issue.

Importantly, the service complaints ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of the handling of service complaints made by members of the UK armed forces regarding any aspect of their service life. Improvements to the service complaints process are being progressed, and those do not require primary legislation, although there is one small measure in the Bill that seeks to change the legislation in certain circumstances.

I should also mention that there are provisions in the service complaints system and the service justice system for support to be provided to those who make complaints or allegations, and to those who are the subject of such actions. There is also legal aid for those facing charges in the service courts, and there are assisting officers at summary hearings.

The Committee can be assured that individuals are not left without support and assistance. On many other issues, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the Royal Naval Association, the Royal Air Forces Association, Veterans UK and a great many more regimental associations and groups throughout the country have regular access to the chain of command and Ministers to represent their members’ interests. As I mentioned, the chain of command remains an important route through which personnel can make representations about matters of interest and concern.

In addition, there are a range of other mechanisms for service personnel to have a voice on matters that concern them. The annual armed forces continuous attitude survey asks personnel about all aspects of their service life, and the results are used to inform the development of policy and to measure the impact of decisions affecting personnel, including major programmes and the armed forces covenant. The survey results are published. I should add that service personnel play an active role in the development of policies that affect them, and I see that every day in the work that goes on under the Chief of Defence People, Lieutenant General James Swift.

The Committee might not be aware that the Chiefs of Staff Committee, chaired by the Chief of the Defence Staff, has a WO1, Mr Haughton, as its senior enlisted adviser, and he has a voice on all the matters that come before that committee. As a further example of our commitment to improving diversity, all Army officers at two-star and above have a reverse mentor, which supports diversity of thought across all areas of the service.

Finally, Ministers and senior officers hold regular town hall meetings for all staff—service and civilians—to brief them on developments and issues and provide an opportunity for everyone to ask questions about those developments.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I hope the Minister enjoys his virtual visit to Gower. Has that already taken place?

[Johnny Mercer]

I have not been to Gower.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Sorry, I thought the Minister was paying a visit—a virtual one.

Anyway, in written evidence, Forward Assist said:

“Survivors need military leaders to both hear them and protect them when they make complaints. Sadly, in many cases the current system allows victims to remain hidden, silenced and unacknowledged whilst perpetrators are free to offend again.”

Does the Minister agree with that? What he is saying goes against that.

[Johnny Mercer]

May I ask my hon. Friend to repeat that? I did not understand the question.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

We had written evidence, and I wonder if the Minister agrees with it. He says that there is a sufficient system in place, but Forward Assist said:

“Survivors need military leaders to both hear them and protect them when they make complaints. Sadly, in many cases the current system allows victims to remain hidden, silenced and unacknowledged whilst perpetrators are free to offend again.”

That really concerns me.

[Johnny Mercer]

Yes, it really concerns me. Forward Assist does a load of brilliant work in this area, and I have been clear on the record before that too many incidents of unacceptable behaviour go on. The female experience in the military is nowhere near where I want it to be. We are contributing to the Defence Sub-Committee inquiry on the female experience, and I will be the Minister answering that. That is all acknowledged. I think that is a separate matter from a representative body.

I hope that I have clearly explained the rationale for the Government’s approach and the provisions that do exist and that, following those assurances, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will agree to withdraw the new clause.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am afraid that I will not withdraw the new clause but press it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Hon. Members seek to amend section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by substituting the gender-specific words in that text with gender-neutral language. Clearly, gender-neutral drafting in legislation is important, and it has been deemed essential by successive Governments in recent times. The practice now is that new primary legislation is drafted in a gender-neutral way. On 8 March 2007, the then Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Jack Straw, announced that all future Government Bills would be gender neutral

“so far as it is practicable”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 143W.]

That approach is reflected in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel’s current drafting guidance. In accordance with that guidance, this Bill, including the amendments it makes to the Armed Forces Act 2006, has been drafted in a gender-neutral way.

However, the Armed Forces Act 2006 was drafted before the new approach of gender-neutral language was adopted, and it is not drafted in a gender-neutral way. While, as I say, the practice is now to draft in a gender-neutral way, it is not the Government’s practice to update language in all legislation that is not otherwise being amended. In short, it is one thing to insert gender-neutral legislation, as this Bill does; it is quite another to revise existing legislative text, as this new clause proposes.

Further, from a common-sense perspective, the proposed new clause is rather narrow, seeking only to amend one small part of the Armed Forces Act 2006 and leaving much of the Act in the old, gendered-pronoun style. Conversely, it would be rather impractical and time-consuming to revisit the entirety of the Act. The Government will, of course, continue to adopt gender-neutral drafting when amending the Armed Forces Act 2006 for other reasons. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will agree to withdraw her new clause.

[Carol Monaghan]

The Minister’s response is rather disappointing. Yes, this new clause does refer to just one part of the 2006 Act, but it was hoped that that would then permeate through all of the Act. It is disappointing, when we are talking about the importance of diversity in the armed forces, that the Minister is not willing to look at this proposal. It would not be a huge amount of work to amend the entire Act; it would simply involve updating these particular gender-specific words. I am not going to push this new clause to a vote, but I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 20(2)(d) insert—

‘(e) the person is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, alcohol or drugs.’

(3) After section 20(3) insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State has a duty of care to offer a specific pathway for support and treatment for current and previously serving service personnel who experience—

(a) a propensity to misuse, alcohol and drugs,

(b) alcohol or drug dependency, and

(c) gambling disorder.

(3B) The Secretary of State must include in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report—

(a) the number of people accessing treatment and support as set out in section (1), and

(b) the current provisions for rehabilitation facilities for Armed Forces personnel who are experiencing a propensity to misuse or have a dependency on alcohol, drugs and gambling.’”—(Dan Carden.)

This new clause places a duty of care onto the Ministry of Defence to provide treatment pathways to serving personnel and veterans who experience alcohol, drug and gambling disorders and will include the number of people accessing treatment and current rehabilitation provisions in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We know that levels of treatment do not match the levels of addiction that we believe exist. I will finish on this point. Currently, there is a zero-tolerance approach to alcohol and drug misuse in the forces, and that approach lacks understanding and is outdated. Other professions, including our doctors, the police force, the fire service and pharmacists, provide occupational support for substance use, and our armed forces should follow suit. I hope the Minister will address that issue.

New clause 6 will ensure that these men and women have access to a pathway of support for problematic alcohol, drug and gambling use, and it will allow information on service personnel and veterans’ treatment, and the provision for it, to be included in the annual armed forces covenant report.

[Johnny Mercer]

This is a really important new clause, and there are some really good points in there. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton for raising these issues, because addiction is something that is particularly close to my heart, and we as a society and a Government need to do more on it. He raised some important issues. I will not just read him the blurb of what is available, because he knows about that. I will address a couple of the points that he made. I cannot accept the new clause, but I will talk about what we can do to address some of these issues.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his lobbying in this cause. I know he has worked hard on it over a number of years. Tom Harrison House is a real beacon of support for those enduring substance abuse and addiction challenges, and I pay tribute to its work. When it comes to the responsibility for providing pathways for veterans, the difficulty that we have with the new clause is that, in this country, veterans are not an individual cohort on their own; they are civilians who have served, who were picked from society and will return to society. So, along the lines of what I have done with Operation Courage to ensure that there is a single front door and clear pathways that people can navigate, we must ensure that there are addiction pathways through these treatment services.

I ask my hon. Friend to come and see me in the Department, and perhaps we can visit Tom Harrison House. This has long been an issue for me. The third sector does amazing stuff in this field, but some organisations will not treat people until they have finished drinking, or whatever the addiction challenge may be, and we have to do more on that. I would like to visit Tom Harrison House and really listen to hear what the people there would do with the current situation. We have a sort of trailblazer going on in the NHS with Op Courage, and I do not see why we cannot do that with addiction services.

My hon. Friend talked about having a zero-tolerance approach in terms of people who have served. We do not have a zero-tolerance approach to those who are using drug and alcohol services; we provide support. I have seen that in units down in Plymouth, where people have received support for alcohol abuse. There certainly used to be a zero-tolerance approach to drugs, but there is not one now. We do what we can, cognisant of the way that society has changed. However, we are very clear that drug use is not compatible with service life, and that position has been upheld and proved time and again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My experience, like the Minister’s, is that there is support within the military for individuals; I think I was the one who changed the policy around zero tolerance of drug use. May I ask about the support for such individuals? There will be individuals who have to leave the armed services because of drug and alcohol issues. What support is given to them? Transition for those individuals to get support in civilian life is important. Is there a specific pathway for people who have to leave because of drug and alcohol problems in the armed services, or are they just left to their own devices? That would be a way to stop some of those individuals falling further into the addictions that have grasped them.

[Johnny Mercer]

They are not left to their own devices. There is now something called the Defence Transition Services, which were set up last year. They are specifically tailored to put our arms around all those individuals who are leaving service. They are not specifically tailored to those who suffer from addiction. The service is agile enough to deal with all our vulnerable service leavers, particularly those coming out of care and things like that. They can now access Defence Medical Services up to six months after they leave, but there is always more to do in this space. That is why I am keen to see my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton at Tom Harrison House.

[Mr Jones]

I welcome what the Minister says, but if he is looking at the broader issue around veterans, could he perhaps also look at the support that he has given to individuals who have to leave because of addiction problems? I accept that there is a transition process, but some more work could be done to look at specific support for those who have to leave because of drug and alcohol-related issues.

[Johnny Mercer]

Yes, of course I will. I give a commitment to the Committee to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton to design the pathways and report back in future on what we can do better. With those assurances, I hope he will agree to withdraw the motion.

[Dan Carden]

I thank the Minister for the way that he has engaged with these issues, and for the work that he has already done. One of the key problems that we have is the poor set of data, and I look forward to working with him to see what we can do in the Bill on those issues. In the light of the Minister’s commitments to meet and his offer to visit Tom Harrison House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Welfare of Operation Banner veterans

“No later than 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report which must include the number of Operation Banner veterans who—

(a) have contacted the Office of Veteran Affairs,

(b) are accessing mental health treatment,

(c) are in the street homeless population, and

(d) are within the prison population.”—(Mr Jones.)

This new clause will ensure that the Government offers consideration to the overall welfare of those service personnel that served in Operation Banner.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. He is not only a fellow north-east MP, but a highly regarded Member of this House and an expert on these issues, having served not only as an armed forces Minister, but on every one of these Bills since he was elected in 2001. I am therefore very proud to serve on this Committee alongside him.

I rise to speak to new clause 15, which would mean the Secretary of State had to place a duty on all public services to ask new service users a question about whether the respondent is a veteran, has previously served in the armed forces or is a reservist. I know that some services do this already, but this new clause would ensure that all public services ask the question and record the answer. I will come on to reporting when we discuss new clause 14.

Since taking on the role of shadow Minister for Veterans last year, I have heard that veterans and reservists are, more often than not, not asked about their service history and may not feel that it is relevant to the service they are accessing. They could therefore access a public service without anyone ever knowing of their service history. While this may be fine on some occasions, on others it could be a huge barrier to a veteran or reservist receiving the services they really need. That is why the Opposition tabled new clause 15.

In written evidence, the Local Government Association recognised the challenge of identifying veterans in their communities, and went on to say:

“More information about the number of veterans in our communities would help councils better plan their local services to make sure we have the right services in place.”

This new clause would therefore ensure that the majority of veterans and reservists are captured by public services when they access one for the first time. This will, I hope, improve the experiences of veterans and reservists, and allow public services to tailor their offering to the veteran and reservist population in their local area.

I know that some people may not identify themselves as a veteran, perhaps thinking that that term refers to someone older or from one of the world wars or someone having seen active service, which is why the new clause includes asking if the person has previously served in the armed forces. I hope that the Minister will consider this new clause, which will help improve the experience of veterans and reservists when accessing public services for the first time and assist public services in tailoring their offer to the local population. As I mentioned, I will raise reporting when we come to new clause 14.

[Johnny Mercer]

I will address new clauses 7 and 15 together. I enjoyed the contributions.

There are some serious points here about the recognition of veterans—particularly our Northern Ireland veterans—which I have worked very hard on over the last couple of years. There is no tiered system of veterans. We are as proud of our Northern Ireland veterans as we are of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Operation Banner was a deeply challenging environment. When I came to this House, I came here with a mandate to improve veterans’ care and the experiences of those who serve. There is perhaps no greater symptom of the betrayal of our veterans by Governments over the past 40 years than prosecuting or going after those who served in Northern Ireland when no new evidence exists and it is simply a question of the politics having changed. There is no other country in the world that endures these issues among its veteran population. The more people who speak on this matter and who become aware of it, the more that the individuals going through these processes will feel support.

The Prime Minister has made commitments to end this disgrace. I have made commitments to end this disgrace. Those commitments stand. It is an incredibly difficult environment and space in which to operate. At no stage have I just cast this matter off to the Northern Ireland Office, as has been alleged by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I work on this every day in the Department. Unlike my predecessors, I will achieve a result for those people who served in Northern Ireland. We will slowly make progress towards that.

Let me turn to the matter of welfare for those who supported on Op Banner. The creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs in 2019 is a marker of this Government’s commitment to her veterans. That never existed before; in previous Governments, under previous Ministers, there was never an Office for Veterans’ Affairs that took responsibility for these issues. We continue to demonstrate our commitment to supporting veterans and making the United Kingdom the best place in the world to be a veteran.

In the strategy for our veterans, the Government committed to improve the collection and analysis of data on veterans’ needs and experiences to inform future policy. I accept that we have poor data on veterans. If we had changed that—perhaps 10 years ago—we would be in a far better position now to calibrate programmes and understand the nuanced challenges in the transition from service life into the community. But we did not do that 10 years ago. We are doing it now. The first money that came into the Office for Veterans’ Affairs went into data and studies to try to understand the scale of the problem, so that we can implement evidence-based policies that genuinely affect and improve the lives of our veterans.

We are going to publish an annual veterans report, which will set out the progress made each year on delivering these objectives so that we can be held to account. As part of this data strategy that will improve collection and analysis of information across a wide range of topics—including veterans’ health and wellbeing; mental health; the frequency of the tragedy that is suicide; employment; housing; and relationships—we are working with stakeholders, other Departments and the devolved Administrations to understand what data already exists, where there are gaps in knowledge and how the gaps could be mitigated, including, where relevant, by adding new veteran markers to datasets. That is happening.

The 2021 census in England and Wales also represented a key opportunity. Using the expertise of the Office for National Statistics, we will be able to use anonymised data provided by the census to better understand the veteran population in England and Wales as a whole, and the huge range of topics affecting their lives, including their health and wellbeing.

New clause 15 seeks to

“place a duty on all public services to include a question on whether the respondent is a veteran, has previously served in the Armed Forces or is a reservist to all new service users.”

This would place an undue and unnecessary burden on public bodies. In keeping with the initial action plan of the January 2020 UK Government’s strategy for our veterans and the New Decade, New Approach agreement, my Department is currently conducting a review of welfare services provided to all veterans living in Northern Ireland.

The Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service) Aftercare Service was established in 2007 to provide welfare support for Op Banner veterans and their families from within an established service delivery network. My Department recognises that the delivery of veterans’ welfare support in Northern Ireland has grown in a specific way. However, I can provide assurance that a review of the aftercare service has commenced and will establish the potential of the aftercare service to support better our veterans UK-wide in the welfare structure. For that reason, it is imperative that, before further commitments are made, the review is allowed to conclude and bring forward its recommendations on long-term service delivery for veterans in Northern Ireland.

To support our veterans living in Northern Ireland further, we have, for the first time, appointed a Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner to act as an independent voice and point of contact to support and enhance outcomes for all veterans. I hope that, following those assurances, the right hon. Member for North Durham will agree not to press the new clause.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that the Minister does not see veterans in tiers, but he should read the Forces in Mind Trust’s research on the way in which Northern Ireland veterans are perceived by the public. I do not accept that somehow because people served in Northern Ireland they are less of a veteran than those who served in any other sphere. I agree with the Minister that they should be treated similarly, but they are a unique group of individuals who need more attention.

The Minister talks about the aftercare service in Northern Ireland. I have visited that service and accept that it is good, but most Northern Ireland veterans do not live in Northern Ireland. I certainly commend the aftercare service’s work with not only veterans, but their families on the ongoing psychological problems that many family members experience. However, in terms of progress and getting the research, although the Minister says that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was a first, I am sorry, but it was not. The last Labour Government started the Veterans Agency and had a veterans Minister. I could go on at length about what was put in place for veterans. It is all right for him to champion the new Office for Veterans’ Affairs, but he is cutting its budget at present, which cannot be right.

This area does need more research. Those facing prosecutions do not receive the recognition they deserve. I think that, in the way in which they are being dealt with, they are going through torture. In addition, other Northern Ireland veterans who are not currently being pursued for prosecutions fear that they may well be in future. That must be an awful feeling for those individuals who, if they committed a crime, it was serving bravely their Queen and country and being asked to do a very difficult job on behalf of us all. That is totally unacceptable.

Given the concentration on these veterans, commissioning the report would give a clear indication that we are taking them seriously. I understand what the Minister says about his commitment to the issue of Northern Ireland prosecutions, but frankly those are words that we have heard from both him and the Prime Minister. What the veterans need now is firm action. Without that, they will continue to feel let down. I would therefore like to press the new clause to a vote to ensure that the MOD does the research and gives the recognition and support to those brave servicemen and women who served on behalf of our country in Operation Banner.

[Johnny Mercer]

I recognise what happened last time on the Armed Forces Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham attempts to leverage this in and follows it up with a press release to make out that he is standing up for Northern Ireland veterans. I want to place on the record that, yes, I am the first veterans Minister and this is the first Prime Minister to commit to end this intolerable process for our veterans. There was a time when I stood alone on this issue and although I welcome his support now, people are not as forgetful or as dim as he would like to think. He was the armed forces Minister. He was in Government for a considerable period of time when absolutely nothing was done on this issue.

[Mr Jones]

That is not true and the Minister knows it.

[Johnny Mercer]

This issue has been put on the political spectrum by myself and by this Prime Minister. We will bring forward legislation to protect these people. I will not accept lessons from people for whom I served—right? I was a veteran when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department and I know exactly what it was like, so—

[Mr Jones]

The Minister should be proud of what the last Labour Government did; we did not cut armed forces numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

It is a total joke, because I would not be here if veteran support was as good as the right hon. Gentleman likes to think. So he can push the new clause to a vote, he can do his press release, but ultimately he will never change anything unless he actually contributes—

[Mr Jones]

Well, I think that if the Minister looked at my record and the record of the last Labour Government in office, we did—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. Can I ask whether it is Kevan Jones’s intention to proceed with pressing the new clause to a vote?

[Johnny Mercer]

Of course it is—he has got his press release ready to go.

[Mr Jones]

Can I just respond to that, Chair? No, I do not do press releases on this. And if the Minister actually cares to look and do some research instead of doing his lazy thing of just reading out civil service briefs, he might know that I have been committed to this issue for a long time. And in terms of the last Labour Government—

[Johnny Mercer]

Why didn’t you do anything about it?

[The Chair]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 4

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

[Johnny Mercer]

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. I seek your guidance on what I should do as the Minister when I am sat here and facts are presented to the Committee that are fundamentally untrue. The officials from the Department have just come back to me on the continuity of education allowance, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West raised. The allegation is that it is predominantly used by officers, but the figures do not show that. I have informed her that that is the case, but she still does not wish to correct the record. What do you suggest that I do when dealing with misinformation on this scale?

[Mr Jones]

Know your subject, rather than just read the brief out.

[Johnny Mercer]

There seems to be some distortion on the line, Mr Sunderland. I can’t quite hear you.

[The Chair]

Thank you for the point of order. My response is quite clear on this. First, Minister, you have the right to respond on all the amendments and new clauses that we are discussing. The second part of my advice is that if you are not happy with being interjected on, or if a statement that is incorrect is made after you have spoken, you have the right to make a point of order.

[Johnny Mercer]

Further to that point of order, Mr Sunderland. Is there any way to reduce the heckling from the right hon. Member for Darlington North so that I can get through my speech without this persistent barrack-room heckling?

[The Chair]

Thank you once again, Minister. I urge all Members to stay on mute unless they are formally requested to speak or wish to intervene.

[Johnny Mercer]

Thank you.

New Clause 8

Terms and Conditions of Service

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) Section 343A, after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) An armed forces covenant report must include—

(a) a comparison of the terms and conditions of service for service people with other public sector employees, and

(b) an assessment as to whether service personnel face no financial disadvantage through their employment.’”—(Mr Jones.)

This new clause will ensure that the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant extend to matters relating to the financial disadvantages subjected to UK serving personnel and veterans, as a result of their time in the Armed Forces.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South. I rise to speak to new clause 14, which calls on the Government to record and then report the following: first, the number of veterans, or families of veterans, who have contacted the Office for Veterans’ Affairs or Veterans UK each year, with an overview of the most commonly mentioned reasons for that contact; secondly, the number of veterans who have applied for a veterans’ railcard, as well as the number of veterans who have applied to the civil service interview scheme, and the proportion who have been successful; thirdly, the number of veterans in the street homeless population; and, finally, the number of veterans who have died by suicide.

I know that the Minister is working on all those areas, but the reality is that without the data we cannot establish what more may need to be done. He is right to celebrate having the veterans’ question on the census for the first time. I look forward to seeing the data published as a result of that. He also often celebrates the veterans’ railcard and the civil service interview scheme, which is why we are keen to hear how they are doing. I have tabled some written questions to find out, and it looks like both are going really well.

New clause 14 relates to my previous speech on public services asking if someone is a veteran or reservist. Such a measure would improve services and help government—at a local and national level—to make policies to address shortfalls. For example, in July to September 2020, 460 households were reported as having additional support needs due to a member having served in the armed forces. But not all local authorities ask, or consistently record and report this data.

We have only a small insight into the number of veterans represented in the street homeless population in London. In 2019-20, 376 people seen sleeping rough in London were recorded as having served in the armed forces; 129 of them were UK nationals. That is an increase from 2018-19, when 322 people seen sleeping rough in London—115 of whom were UK nationals—were recorded as having served in the armed forces. But, again, not all rough sleepers are assessed on their armed forces history, so we cannot say for certain whether these trends reflect what is happening in the whole population of rough sleepers.

Similarly, we do not know the scale of veterans’ suicide. I know that this is a complex issue that the MOD is working on, alongside a further study by Professor Nav Kapur from the University of Manchester, who is looking into the causes of veteran suicide. However, if coroners were mandated to record the service history of the person who has died by suicide, we would be a step closer to understanding the scale of veteran suicide and whether being a veteran played any part in a suicide, as it is not always a contributing factor. New clause 14 seeks to measure the scale of the issue so that we can understand and address it.

I hope that the Minister will see merit in recording and reporting this data to better improve our understanding of veterans’ lives and the challenges they face, and therefore to improve the Government’s response to the issue.

[Johnny Mercer]

These new clauses, as I understand them, are linked by a desire to broaden the kinds of issues that the Government are required to report on annually to Parliament in respect of delivery against the armed forces covenant. I will take each new clause in turn and explain why the Government do not believe that proposed additional reporting obligations will work.

New clause 8 would require the armed forces covenant annual report to include comparative data on the terms and conditions of service personnel versus other public sector employees, and an assessment of whether service personnel experience financial disadvantage because of their service. I assure the right hon. Member for North Durham that the Government are committed to ensuring that the terms and conditions of service personnel remain attractive and competitive, and that service personnel do not face financial disadvantage.

The overall remuneration package for service personnel ensures that they are compensated for the additional costs of service life. Whether based in the UK or deployed overseas, service personnel receive additional pay enhancements that recognise the unique challenges of service life, and they are further rewarded with annual pay increments, recognising their development and commitment. On top of that, service personnel continue to be rewarded with one of the most generous non-contributory pension schemes in the country.

I recognise the importance of ensuring that terms and conditions are reviewed regularly. That is the role of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which we have talked about already this morning. It provides advice to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on the remuneration of service personnel, and its remit compels it to consider the need for armed forces pay to be broadly comparable with pay levels in civilian life. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body already submits an annual report on its work to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, who then present it to Parliament for the Government to respond to. The recommendations of the AFPRB have always been accepted by the Government. We therefore consider that the additional reporting requirement proposed by this new clause would not provide to Parliament any information that is not already received in the annual AFPRB report.

I move on to new clause 10. I interpret subsections (1) and (2) as requiring all public bodies, particularly Government Departments and Ministers, to have due regard to the principle of the covenant when making policy. If my interpretation is correct, I refer my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham to answers that I have given elsewhere about extending the scope of the duty to include central Government Departments. Broadly, central Government are already held to account in our delivery of the covenant by the statutory requirement to report annually to Parliament on progress against the covenant. I reiterate that this will remain a legal obligation.

Clause 3 would appear to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on how other Government Departments have demonstrated due regard to the covenant principles when making policy. Quite apart from the fact that that would impose a disproportionately large administrative burden on Departments—especially the MOD in having to write such a report—the Government consider that the salient information required by Parliament to monitor Government Departments’ progress in delivering the covenant is already contained in the covenant annual report.

Finally, new clause 14 would require the covenant annual report to include new statistics on veterans in several areas, including the number of veterans contacting the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and Veterans UK each year. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of measuring the progress we are making in delivering support for veterans and remain committed to continuous improvement. In terms of both the number and quality of the metrics reported against annually in the covenant report to Parliament, the OVA is working across Government to develop a framework of measures to track progress against the outcomes set out in the strategy for our veterans. We already intend to publish an annual veterans report, setting out our progress in delivering against our objectives. We anticipate that that would also include statistics reflecting the key initiatives, such as the veterans railcard, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West mentioned.

In the light of our plans for an annual veterans report, the Government are of the view that these additional reporting requirements for the covenant and the report are not necessary. I hope that, following these assurances, Members will agree to withdraw, or will not press, their new clauses.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister says that the Government are committed to armed forces personnel facing no financial disadvantage, but they will if the Government accept the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s recommendations but do not actually implement them. It is important to notice that although the armed forces do have good pensions—they are an outlier in that respect—armed forces personnel do pay for them, because those pensions are taken into account when service pay is calculated by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

I would accept what the Minister says, and we would have no problem with this, if we had a Government who implemented the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s recommendations, but we have not; since 2010 we have had a Government who have not implemented those. I will therefore press the new clause to a vote, because I think an extra level of reporting is needed to show that armed forces personnel are not being disadvantaged in this case by a Government who do not implement the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South for so clearly setting out the arguments for this new clause. For years, service personnel have had to put up with accommodation that is not up to scratch, and this Bill would have been a perfect opportunity to make some real, positive changes to rectify that.

When we heard from David Brewer and Tim Redfern a couple of weeks ago they were very keen to promote their successes but, as we all know and as recent surveys have shown, nearly half of our service personnel remain dissatisfied with their living arrangements.

I am sure we have all heard from constituents about acceptable housing, so today I would like to hear from the Minister about how exactly he is going to improve conditions for those who serve and their families. The state of accommodation has a big impact on the retention of staff. When more than a quarter of personnel are saying that accommodation is one reason for leaving the services, we know something just is not right. The loss of experienced, trained service personnel is not cost-effective, nor does it contribute to the state of readiness of our armed forces. Clarity and transparency are vital to improving conditions for our tri-service personnel, and I will be supporting the introduction of new clause 11 as it would go some way towards improving the current situation.

[Johnny Mercer]

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South seeks to place an obligation on the Ministry of Defence to commission an annual report to evaluate what constitutes the minimum quality standards for service accommodation and how many service personnel reside in accommodation that does not meet those criteria.

Our armed forces personnel are the heart of everything we do. As a condition of service and in recognition of their inherently mobile lifestyle, frequently remote bases and terms of service, regular service personnel are provided with high-quality, subsidised accommodation. Defence already operates a quality standard for all service family accommodation properties and is in the process of developing accommodation standards for single living accommodation. The Department has made a commitment to service personnel and their families to provide decent living standards through the service family accommodation customer service charter. The charter formally commits the Department to improve the condition and standard of the service family accommodation estate, sustaining improved levels of maintenance and repair performance and enhancing the customer service delivery that they receive from Amey Defence Services.

Defence has invested £1.2 billion over the last decade on construction and upgrades of our single living accommodation, and we continue to invest in a range of new build and renovation projects. My Department currently plans to invest a further £1.5 billion in single living accommodation, new build and upgrade projects over the next 10 to 12 years. That is more money going into SLA. As part of the wider £200 million upgrade programme for service family accommodation and single living accommodation that was announced by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence in July 2020, an additional £78 million will be invested in single living accommodation and transit accommodation by 2022.

With regard to applying a minimum standard of accommodation, I am pleased to report that service family accommodation already adheres to the decent homes standard, as defined by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Currently, 96.9% of SFA properties meet or exceed the standard, with work ongoing to modernise internal features across the estate. The standard of available housing is monitored on a monthly basis, and housing that does not meet the decent homes standard is not allocated to service personnel. The decent homes standard is currently being reviewed by MHCLG, and I look forward to considering the findings of the review and the impact that has on defence.

Work is ongoing through the SLA expert group to define an agreed minimum standard for SLA premises across all services. This work will also be supported by the roll-out of the SLA management information system, which will enable an evidence-based approach to the application of future funding through the analysis and exploitation of veracious accommodation data. The system has proved to be both complex and multifaceted, but it is now on track to go live in September 2021.

We conduct the armed forces continuous attitude survey annually, and it allows service personnel the opportunity to provide feedback on all aspects of service life, including accommodation. The results of the survey are used to identify particular aspects of the service accommodation package that require improvement. The publication of the defence accommodation strategy by the end of 2021 will formalise the Department’s vision for our standards for such accommodation to meet the lived experience and expectations of our personnel now and in the future.

Given the scale of ongoing work to improve the standard of accommodation offered to service personnel, backed by significant investment in infrastructure and the existing procedures to monitor standards, it would be premature to require the Department to report on standards and produce a charter at this stage. The review of the decent homes standard is currently ongoing in MHCLG and is due to report in summer 2022. Following those assurances, I hope my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the motion.

[Stephen Morgan]

This is perhaps the most fundamental standards issue. I posed a number of questions to the Minister, and it is regrettable that he has not answered those today. The Bill is a missed opportunity to tackle this issue, which the Government need to take further action on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion, but we may return to it on Report.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Mental health report

“(1) No later than 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report which must include—

(a) a definition of what constitutes ‘priority care’ as set out in Armed Forces Covenant and how the Secretary of State is working to ensure that it is being provided, and

(b) a review of waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans accessing mental health support.

(2) The first report published under this section must also include a resource plan to meet current Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service waiting time targets for the offer of an appointment in England and set new targets for mental health recovery through the veterans mental health pathway.”—(Mrs Hodgson.)

This new clause would require the Government to produce a definition of ‘priority care’ to help primary care clinicians deliver the commitments in the Armed Forces Covenant, conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, and produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second Time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is designed to address the frankly extortionate visa fees that Commonwealth veterans face to remain in the country that they fought for following their service. This is a long-standing and shameful practice, and I am pleased that Labour is bringing forward a solution. The clause proposes to ensure that Commonwealth veterans pay only the unit cost of an indefinite leave to remain application, currently set at £243.

It is a source of immense pride that those from across the world have served in our armed forces—from the 1.3 million Indians who volunteered to join the British Army in the first world war, to those who took part in operational tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, more than 6,000 personnel serve in the forces from overseas, many from the Commonwealth. Alongside servicemen and women from this country, they continue to make extraordinary sacrifices and display incredible bravery, risking their lives overseas and more recently bolstering our frontline response to the coronavirus crisis, but the Government are shamefully letting them down.

Following four years of service, Commonwealth service personnel earn the right to live in Britain, but in recent years the Government have increased the fees for service personnel to apply. A service leaver with a partner and two children will be presented with a bill of almost £10,000 to continue to live in the UK after they have served. That is an increase from just £155 in 2003. To add further insult, they are given just 48 days following the discharge in which to pay it. That is dishonourable, unfair and certainly no way to repay the bravery and sacrifice of Commonwealth service personnel.

This is not just a moral argument about appropriately recognising their service; it is an issue of basic humanity. Those eye-watering fees represent a huge part of applicants’ wages, and many are not expecting them. The Royal British Legion, which has campaigned strongly on this issue for several years, suggests that around 300 Commonwealth personnel leave service and are faced with those fees. The fees leave Commonwealth veterans facing huge uncertainty and financial hardship, and feeling abandoned by the country that they have served.

Citizenship for Soldiers is doing fantastic work, as we heard in an evidence session, to advocate for those affected by this injustice. One of the claimants it represents, a 12-year veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, was given a bill in the region of £30,000 following an emergency operation, after he was deemed ineligible for free NHS care. As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, without leave to remain, Commonwealth veterans are cut off from being able to access employment or state support. That often leads veterans reliant on their families or charitable funds, or facing repatriation to their country of origin.

That is a breach of not only the armed forces covenant but the moral obligation that this country has to them. Successive armed forces covenant annual reports have pointed that out. The Royal British Legion and other service charities have explicitly called for this injustice to end. It should bring shame to us all. I know that many on the Committee sympathise with the new cause—including you, Mr Sunderland—and I hope that we will find the courage to support the amendment when it comes to a vote. Even the Minister has repeatedly said that this is an injustice, yet the Bill misses a crucial opportunity to end it.

Commonwealth veterans have already paid for their citizenship once, through their service to our country. I hope that colleagues from across the political spectrum will support Labour’s new clause to ensure that no one has to pay twice.

[Johnny Mercer]

Let us be absolutely clear: Labour has done absolutely nothing on this issue since visa fees came in, and it offers nothing for our armed forces, so we should drop the doe-eyed “Labour care about humanity” stuff. Only one Government have come in and promised to do something on visa fees, and that is this Government, not one before. I am proud of that. We will provide a pathway to residency and we are looking to start a public consultation on that in the next month.

The Government highly value the service of all members of the armed forces, including Commonwealth nationals and Gurkhas from Nepal, who have a long and distinguished history of service to the UK both here and overseas. Commonwealth citizens and Gurkhas who have served at least four years or have been medically discharged as a result of their service can choose to settle in the UK after their service and pay the relevant fee.

The time before discharge that such settlement applications can be submitted has recently been extended from 10 to 18 weeks. We recognise, however, that settlement fees place a financial burden on service personnel wishing to remain in the UK after their discharge, and we recognise the strength of feeling from service charities and the public about this issue. The Defence Secretary has met the Home Secretary to consider how we could offer greater flexibility in future. We will launch a public consultation in the next month. I urge all those with an interest in the issue to respond to that consultation so that we may correct this injustice.

It is right and proper that we seek views on any change to the immigration fees policy through public consultation. In the meantime, the MOD makes clear to Commonwealth and Gurkha recruits the process by which they and their families can attain settlement in the UK, and the costs involved. The MOD is also working with the Joining Forces credit union to provide financial education, savings packages and loan packages to help non-UK personnel pay for visa costs, should they wish to remain and settle in the UK after their service. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member will agree not to press the new clause.

[Stephen Morgan]

We do not believe that is a satisfactory response from the Minister. Ministers from successive Conservative Governments have promised a solution on this forever and a day. Commonwealth veterans should not have to wait until some time never for a consultation to kick off.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. I alluded to some of the figures in my speech. Regrettably, the Minister did not cover that in his response. That is why—

[Johnny Mercer]

I am happy to respond.

[Stephen Morgan]

I will carry on, because I am near to the end of my speech. I will not press the new clause for now, but I put Ministers on notice that we will return to this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I do not think this is a Bill Committee to discuss the SNP’s manifesto, but we have been quite bit clear throughout that funding has to be found. If hon. Members want to discuss the SNP’s manifesto, we can get rid of Trident, which is an enormous and expensive vanity project, which, frankly, we cannot afford.

[Johnny Mercer]

I really welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham. He is right about the absolute disaster zone we were left with in 2010. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham obviously likes to remind us regularly of his experiences in the MOD, but the key would be to look at them in detail and to be more honest about them. Ultimately, people watching this do not really care what happened 10, 15 or 20 years ago. What they care about is sorting out these issues now and that is what this Government are looking to do.

We have to meet the threat as it is presented in the integrated review. We have had a good defence White Paper that looks at the new and emerging threats, and the way we want to change our integrated operating concept. It is a good review. I think that members of our armed forces would like to see people get behind that, rather than talking about issues that are quite significantly out of date.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South seeks to place an obligation on the Defence Secretary to

“report to Parliament quarterly on infantry battalion soldier strength, including the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.”

The Government already publish on gov.uk quarterly service personnel statistics, containing detailed information on the strength, intake, outflow and gains to trained strength for the UK armed forces overall and specifically for each of the three services, including the Army. Providing a further breakdown of those figures to include infantry battalion soldier strength and the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion would be highly likely to prejudice the security of the armed forces for three clear reasons.

First, it would expose any extant or potential vulnerabilities and capability gaps within the force structure—a threat that will be exacerbated over the next four years as the Army reconfigures and readjusts in line with the outcomes of the integrated reviewed. Secondly, it would risk exposing any nascent and emerging capability plan. Thirdly, it could reveal the size and strength of sensitive capabilities to our adversaries.

As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South will understand, the safety and security of our service personnel and the effectiveness of our force are among my highest priorities. He will therefore understand that I am not willing to put the security of our personnel at risk in this manner. There is also a real concern that focusing Parliament’s attention disproportionately on infantry strength would serve only to undermine the guiding principle of our nation’s future security.

As the Secretary of State wrote in his introduction to the defence Command Paper, it is essential that our future armed forces are

“integrated across all domains, joining up our people, equipment and information to increase their outputs and effectiveness.”

It goes without saying that providing quarterly updates on infantry strength alone would place an uncontextualised and unhelpful emphasis on one part of a large and integrated whole force that we value highly. That is why our current reporting, which is made available to all, covers that whole force.

In the light of these very real concerns, I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the new clause.

[Stephen Morgan]

National security is the first duty of any Government. Following the publication of the integrated review and Command Paper, it is clear that this Government have not only broken their promises on fighting strength, but taken a significant gamble with our national security in the medium term. I will withdraw this clause for now, but reserve the right to return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament reports on the number of people who have been dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, this includes—

(a) formal documentation citing sexuality as the reason for their dismissal; or

(b) there is evidence of sexuality or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.

(c) in this section, ‘sexuality or gender identity’ includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.

(2) The report shall include recommendation of the sort of compensation which may be appropriate, including but not limited to—

(a) the restoration of ranks,

(b) pensions, and

(c) other forms of financial compensation.

(3) The report shall include a review of those service personnel who as a result of their sexuality have criminal convictions for sex offences and/or who are on the Sex Offenders register.

(4) The report shall include discharges and forced resignations at least back to 1955.

(5) The first report must be laid no later than six months after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Dan Carden.)

This new clause requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on tabling this new clause; if he does press it to a vote, both of us on the SNP Benches will support it in its entirety.

In setting out the premise for the hon. Gentleman’s proposition, it is clear why there should be consensus on the many issues he has raised and that we should take this as an opportunity to move forward. Both the Opposition and the Government should fully support ensuring that the lived experience of the LGBT community, especially those who have been forced out of the armed forces, is reflected in our deliberations and seek to remedy as best as possible their lived experience at this time—especially if that requires investigations into their financial position, access to pensions or the ability, on Remembrance Sunday, to march with their comrades, wearing the badges that should never have been taken away from them. That, at least, is basic; the other issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised will require serious investigation and deliberation by the Government.

[Johnny Mercer]

Again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for raising this issue and for the manner in which he has raised it. I have a series of things to read out about what we are doing, and I am sure he is aware of that, but I want to answer some of his points in turn.

I am clear, and so are the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, that the experiences of those individuals that the hon. Gentleman mentions were totally unacceptable. The military got it wrong. The military are now better for recruiting from the whole of society, and I am very clear on that. I know people will be watching this today, and I will receive messages disagreeing with that—“You are saying that the military wasn’t any good because they discriminated against homosexuals.” The reality is that the wider the pool we pick from, when it comes to diversity, sexuality and things like that, the better and more professional our military are in reflecting the society from which they are drawn. I make no apology for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at this moment, no.

I cannot rewrite history, and I cannot promise every last penny that was lost out on because people did not achieve their long service and good conduct. There is no mechanism possible to make that happen. What I will do, and what we are doing at the moment as part of cross-Government activity involving the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Home Office, is find a mechanism, working with Fighting with Pride, Stonewall and others, to address the appalling injustice for this cohort of veterans.

I give a commitment today to write to the Prime Minister to ask him to reflect on my apology to the LGBT community last year, and to ask him to consider doing so at a national level. I know that will not correct it, but it will go some way towards alleviation. I saw the impact of my apology. It is easy for those who are not in that cohort to downplay an apology or not to want to do it, because of its ramifications, but apologies are important for the cohort that went through this experience. I will write to the Prime Minister on that issue today.

In light of those things, I do not want to duplicate the work that is going on at the moment, because I want to get a solution for all these people, like Fighting with Pride, with which I am in constant communication. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton will agree to withdraw his new clause and to work with me to get to a place where this cohort is properly looked after and some sort of restorative justice takes place, in line with what I have done already. I hope he has confidence in what I have done already and in my commitment to go much further in future.

[Dan Carden]

I thank the Minister for his considered response and for committing to write to the Prime Minister. I will withdraw the new clause at this time. There is a long way to go in the Bill, and I look forward to working with the Minister. The fact that he is working with Fighting with Pride and Stonewall is very positive. This is an issue of such importance that I would like to see it dealt with on a cross-party basis, with some agreement, so that restorative justice is finally done for these servicemen and women. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

Constitution of the Court Martial

Amendment proposed: 1, in schedule 1, page 38, line 11, at end insert

“or lower ranks after a minimum service of 3 years”.—(Martin Docherty-Hughes.)

This amendment would extend Common Law rights for people to be tried by a jury of their peers to be extended to those in the Armed Forces.

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail].

To indicate that you wish to speak next, please raise your hand in front of the camera or use the “hand up” function in Zoom. To intervene or to make a point of order, please unmute and state that. Members being intervened on are reminded to repeat any part of their speech that may have been interrupted by the intervention.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Armed Forces Bill. The grouping list for today’s sitting has been circulated to Members and is available on the Committee’s web page. It shows how the amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue.

Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.

As a reminder and perhaps for those watching, this is the first time that Parliament has conducted virtual line-by-line scrutiny of any Bill. This is the first time for all of us. We will go carefully. We will make sure that we are slow and deliberate.

Clause 1

Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

Thank you, Mr Sunderland, and for all the comments—I have watched the sessions, which have been very interesting. I am more than happy to engage in debate on any of the amendments that have been tabled.

May I get some guidance from you, Mr Sunderland, and the Clerks? Clearly, I think the clause should stand part of the Bill, but we will then go through the amendments, as I understand it. Is that right, or would you like me to speak to the amendments straight up?

[The Chair]

Minister, I urge you to speak to clause 1. The order will be: Minister to lead, then Labour spokesperson, SNP spokesperson, anyone else to come in at will, and the Minister to wrap up. We might cover each of the clauses quickly, but people might wish to speak to them. Certainly, Minister to open and to move clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces Bill is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2021. The clause provides for the continuation of the Act for a year from the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent and allows further renewal thereafter by Order in Council for up to a year at a time, but not beyond the end of 2026. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. The central effect of the expiry of the Armed Forces Act would be to end the powers and provisions to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. That is all I have to say on clause 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Constitution of the Court Martial

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 38, line 11, at end insert

“or lower ranks after a minimum service of 3 years”.

This amendment would extend Common Law rights for people to be tried by a jury of their peers to be extended to those in the Armed Forces.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 3 to 6 stand part.

[Johnny Mercer]

Following the recommendations of the Service Justice System review, changes are being introduced in the Bill to allow more senior non-commissioned officers to sit as lay members, to change the number of lay members to six or three, and to introduce qualified majority voting. Those changes will have the effect of aligning the court martial system more closely with a civilian jury.

Currently, only officers and warrant officers can be lay members of a court martial. The clause will allow OR-7 ranks to be lay members—that is, chief petty officers, colour sergeants, staff sergeants and flight sergeants. That broadens the pool from which court martial lay members can be drawn, while preserving the seniority of lay members to fulfil the disciplinary role needed by the court martial.

Currently, there can be anywhere between three and seven lay members sitting on a court martial to decide on the verdict and then, if appropriate, on sentencing with the judge advocate. The clause will fix the numbers to either six or three lay members sitting on a court martial board. The intention is that serious cases will be dealt with by boards of six lay members, which is half the usual number on a civilian jury. The intention is that court martial rules will provide that six-member boards are needed where the defendant could be sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment.

The clause would also introduce qualified majority voting on verdicts where there is a board of six lay members. At least five lay members must agree if there are six lay members, or four if the board reduces to five due to illness or another reason. Those numbers are roughly in proportion to the way in which qualified majority verdicts work in the civilian jury system.

[The Chair]

I am aware that Martin Docherty-Hughes wishes to speak to amendment 1, but I ask first whether the Labour spokesperson wishes to comment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

The evidence on this point was interesting. It was clear from the judge’s comments that we are moving a step in the right direction. However, it is only just a step. A review of this measure in five years’ time, at the next opportunity, is the right thing to do. The Committee heard evidence, and I questioned the judge, on the essential nature of this being different to a civilian court and the idea of discipline in the forces. The judge’s recommendations and the expansion, but not total movement, on this point, provide a sensible level. I urge Committee Members to oppose the amendment.

[Johnny Mercer]

I have read the amendment. It seeks to increase lay membership of court martial boards beyond the rank of OR-7 and the changes we are making, as set out in the clause, apply to all service personnel, irrespective of rank, after serving for a period of three years.

The amendment seeks to bring the court martial board closer to the membership of a jury of a civilian Crown court in England and Wales, entitling all ranks to be tried by their peers. The amendment does not, however, take account of the key difference between the civilian courts and the court martial board. It is only the latter that has a part to play in determining the sentence with the judge.

I should first make it clear that we very much welcome the recommendation on this matter in the service justice review. Increasing the range of ranks from warrant officer to chief petty officer staff sergeant who can sit on a board as recommended is the right thing to do. It increases diversity of experience and also increases the pool of personnel eligible to sit on a board. Very careful consideration was given as to where we should draw the line on eligibility. A key factor in that was the role that the board has in determining the appropriate sentence to be awarded.

As I have already explained, the court martial board deliberates with the judge on the sentence to be awarded and the judge is relying on the collective service experience of those board members to assist in deciding the appropriate sentence. The sentence in the court martial fulfils a number of purposes, including punishment, the maintenance of discipline and deterrence. It must also take into account what is in the best interests of the service and the maintenance of operational effectiveness.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I recognise the move to include at least OR-7, but for the benefit of those watching our proceedings today, by going no further than OR-7, we are not just excluding privates, we are excluding lance corporals, corporals and sergeants, who probably have substantial life experience and military experience. While we are taking a step forward, there is substantial evidence from the ombudsman and the Defence Committee over the last 10 years that we are not going forward fast enough. Does the Minister not recognise that some of the profound issues the military justice system faces would be assisted by the amendment?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am afraid I do not agree. We need to take this sequentially. It is an important move down to OR-7, and it will be reviewed again in due course. We want to make this the fairest justice system available, and if that includes moving beyond OR-7, we will do so in future, but at this time I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. An appreciation of these factors comes with experience and, to a certain extent, with rank and the exercise of leadership and command over others. That is not the same as having served a specific period of time in the armed forces, as proposed in the amendment. In the light of that, we concluded that those at the rank of OR-7 and above are most likely to have the breadth of experience necessary to undertake the required role in sentencing. I have considered and answered the hon. Gentleman’s points. I hope, following these assurances, he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Concurrent jurisdiction

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—

‘(4A) Guidance under (3)(a) must provide that murder, manslaughter and rape must be tried in civilian court when offences are committed in the UK.’.

This amendment will ensure that the most serious crimes – including murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I will deal with the amendments in reverse order. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the most serious crimes—murder, manslaughter and rape—are tried in the civilian courts when committed by a service person in the UK. It seeks, through statutory guidance, to undermine the current legal position, which is that there is full jurisdictional concurrency between the service and civilian justice systems. I want to take this opportunity to explain clearly why the Government do not consider that to be the right approach.

To begin with, it is important to be clear that the amendment goes further even than the service justice system review recommended. It would mean that murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the UK could never be dealt with in the service justice system. The Lyons review recommended that such cases could continue to be tried in the service justice system with the consent of the Attorney General. Even some of those who were critical of such offences being retained in the service justice system seemed to accept at least some ongoing role for the service justice system. For example, there is general consensus that cases including cross-jurisdiction elements—offending both overseas and in the UK—would be appropriately tried in the service justice system.

The Government resist the amendment on that basis alone; however, as is now well known, the Government are also unable to accept the Lyons review recommendation directly, and have instead opted for an alternative and improved approach. As explained on Second Reading, the decision to retain jurisdictional concurrency was taken after full and careful consideration. The Government are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur, bolstered by the improvements recommended by the Lyons review.

One of the most detailed examinations of the way the service police deal with cases of domestic abuse and serious sexual offences was contained in an audit by retired Detective Superintendent Mark Guinness in 2018 as part of the Lyons review. That audit found that service police have the necessary training, skills and experience to carry out investigations into such cases. The service prosecutors and judiciary are trained, skilled and experienced. Victims and witnesses receive support that is comparable to that received in the civilian system, for example through the armed forces code of practice for victims of crime.

Members have referred to statements by Ministers to Parliament during debates on what became the Armed Forces Act 2006. Ministers at the time said that murder, manslaughter or rape committed in the UK would normally continue to be tried in the civilian system; however, those were policy statements made nearly 15 years ago by Ministers in a different Government. Those policy statements did not alter the legal position set out in the Act: that of concurrent jurisdiction. We are considering what the position should be today and for the future, not what the position was 15 years ago.

In the light of that, the Government have concluded that it is right that the current legal position of jurisdictional concurrency is maintained in principle. The service justice system exists to support operational effectiveness and discipline, and to do that effectively it needs flexibility. That is why the Government have concluded that decisions on where cases should be tried should be taken on a case-by-case basis by independent prosecutors.

Clause 7 places a duty on the heads of the service and civilian prosecution authorities to agree guidance relating to how decisions are made where there is concurrent jurisdiction. That will bring much needed clarity on how decisions on jurisdiction are made, and will ensure that decisions on jurisdiction are transparent and independent of the chain of command and Government. The director of service prosecutions in his evidence to the Committee stated that in cases of murder, manslaughter or rape, service and civilian prosecutors will need to consult on where the proper jurisdiction lies. The Bill makes it clear that where a disagreement over jurisdiction cannot be resolved the civilian prosecutors will have the final say.

To be clear, the aim of that approach is not to increase the number of serious crimes being tried in the court martial; it is to ensure that the service justice system is able to deal with those offences in principle when committed by a service person in the UK, and that there is a transparent, robust and independent way of resolving where jurisdiction lies. I hope that that explains the rationale for the Government’s approach and the safeguards that exist, and that, following those assurances, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 2 seeks to include the Justice Directorate in Scotland as one of the statutory consultees that must be consulted by the issuing authorities of the protocol regarding the exercising of concurrent jurisdiction in Scotland. The hon. Members for Glasgow North West and for West Dunbartonshire have stated that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that devolved Administrations are appropriately consulted.

New section 320B of the 2006 Acts provides for the Lord Advocate and Director of Service Prosecutions to agree a protocol for the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction in Scotland. Subsection (8) requires them to consult all authorities listed there before agreeing the protocol or any revision to it. Those listed for Scotland are the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland, or any other person whom the issuing authorities think appropriate. Corresponding provision is made for England and Wales in new section 320A, and for Northern Ireland in new section 320C.

The constitutional frameworks for criminal justice are different between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a result, the office holders responsible for agreeing the three protocols with the DSPs and the list of consultees are designed to reflect those differing arrangement in each jurisdiction. In relation to Scotland, the clause was drafted in consultation with the Scottish Government and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The role of the Lord Advocate agreeing the protocol and the list of Scottish consultees reflects those comments prior to introduction. On the involvement of the Scottish Government in developing the protocol, it is of course the case that the Lord Advocate is a member—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman’s last intervention simply reiterated his point. I accept that, but I will take interventions only if they add to the point something that we have not already covered.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I do hope so. The Minister mentioned the Scottish Government. My amendment relates to the civil service through the Justice Directorate, so there is a clear differentiation, and it is not necessarily an engagement with the Government, but with the civil service and differing legal system of Scotland. That is why it is clear that it is about the Justice Directorate and not, for example, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I appreciate that point, but the outcome that we are trying to achieve will be similar. The clause was drafted in consultation with the Scottish Government and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The role of the Lord Advocate in agreeing the protocol reflects those comments prior to its introduction. We have been around the houses and got those people’s views.

On the involvement of the Scottish Government in developing the protocol, the Lord Advocate is of course a member of the Scottish Government, so there is no question of the Scottish Government not being involved in the creation of the protocol in Scotland. In addition, new section 320B(8) of the 2006 Act provides that the Lord Advocate and the Director of Public Prosecutions may also consult anyone else thought appropriate.

I hope that helps to explain how we have designed the clause in a way that is sympathetic to the differing constitutional arrangements across the UK, and I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.

[Mr Jones]

May I begin by thanking Justice Lyons for his review? In his evidence to the Committee, he clearly outlined why amendment 19 is needed. I am a veteran of the 2006 Bill Committee, and it is quite clear, as Judge Lyons said in evidence, that when this amendment was made to that Bill, the intention was not for the wholesale movement towards serious crimes being heard in courts martial in the UK. They were for exceptional circumstances in which, for example, one crime had been committed overseas and one in the UK, given the ability of the court martial to deal with such cases. That was a sensible way forward because the service police would clearly be the lead authority in the investigation of such serious crimes committed abroad as murder, rape or manslaughter,.

The problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West outlined eloquently, is to do with confidence in the system. When the system was outlined, I do not think courts martial were meant to deal with these serious crimes. I support the military justice system, and I do not think the amendment would do anything to damage it. I think it would boost confidence in it.

The problem with the current system has been outlined. The conviction rate for rape is not satisfactory—I accept there are problems not just in the military system but in civilian life as well—and one of the key issues is investigation. The Minister said he was confident that the service police have the capacity to investigate such serious crimes. I would not want to criticise professional individuals, but, as with anything, the more specialism someone has and the more cases they deal with, the more expertise they get in gathering evidence and in supporting victims.

Clearly, the service police deal with a limited number of serious cases, so I would have thought that, when such alleged crimes are committed in the UK, it would be important to involve the local civilian police, who deal with serious sexual assaults, rapes, manslaughter and murder more often. Because of that experience not only in gathering evidence but in dealing with victims, they should have primacy. I am old enough to remember the Deepcut inquiry undertaken by Lord Justice Blake and know those cases in detail. I accept that is going back a number of years, but the clear problem there was the way in which evidence was not gathered—in some cases it was ignored or destroyed—and the assumption, without rigorous investigation, that suicide was the main cause of death in all cases.

The amendment is really about the system’s integrity and getting confidence for victims as well. As we saw in evidence from Forward Assist and retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, there is an issue in ensuring that, first, those who complain think they will be listened to as victims, and secondly, the armed forces’ hierarchical structure is not an impediment to the proper investigation of serious accusations. I can see the reason for courts martial dealing with cases in exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the 2006 Act, such as those that take place overseas and in this country, but I cannot see why routine cases in the UK are not dealt with by the civilian courts. I therefore support the amendment.

The Minister said it is a policy decision, but I am not sure. The intention was there, and I do not think much has changed in the past 15 years. What we need to do now is to ensure that, as was outlined in evidence we heard from the Victims’ Commissioner and other witnesses, the victim is at the centre of any system we put in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sunderland. I rise to speak initially to amendments 3 to 6, which are in my name.

The amendments are designed to ensure that central Government and devolved Governments have the same due regard to the covenant that the Bill places on local authorities and other public bodies. The amendments go to the very heart of Labour’s prescription for a Bill that attempts to outsource Ministers’ responsibilities for delivering the armed forces covenant for all service personnel, veterans and their families. As drafted, the Bill places significant new legal responsibilities to deliver the covenant on everyone from local councils to NHS foundation trusts, clinical commissioning groups and school governors, but not to Departments or Ministers.

Over the past few months, I have met many groups named in the Bill, including council leaders and armed forces champions from across the country, and I have been repeatedly struck by the good work that they are doing in places such as North Tyneside, which in 2018 became the first local authority to fund an armed forces officer, and Rushmore, which is closer to home for me, in Hampshire, where the Labour council is pioneering innovative ways to reach armed forces communities to ensure that their views are heard. Their good work, however, is often limited by the lack of resource and direction from the centre. I have also spoken to forces families in my constituency and to organisations such as SCiP Alliance—the Service Children’s Progression Alliance—as well as service charities. They, too, are clear that there should be a consistent approach and that national Governments should be subject to the same duty as councils.

It is true that in some places there is low awareness of the covenant, but many of the policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are clearly the responsibility of national Government, or are based on national guidance provided to other delivery partners. Ministers say that they do not want to be too prescriptive about the outcomes, for fear of stifling innovation at local level, so let me provide some real-world examples of the ways in which that approach damages outcomes for veterans.

I have campaigned for some time to ensure that coroners record veterans’ suicides. In doing so, I saw answers from responsible Ministers and the coroners themselves. Each considered it to be the responsibility of the other to set policy on the issue. Such Catch-22s are allowed to persist and prevent us from making the well-meaning promises of the covenant a reality. The Minister has spoken of his desire to raise the floor of what is delivered by the Bill, which is a commendable aspiration, but that can only happen when central Government are responsible. Ministers could then set measurable, enforceable standards, which are ultimately responsible for delivering.

The current drafting also means that serving personnel, for whom many services are the responsibility of the MOD, will not benefit from the Bill. Government will therefore continue to evade any real responsibility to raise the standard of service accommodation, which we have heard from witnesses is in an appalling state. That will create a two-tier covenant that applies to some in forces communities, but not others, and will risk reinforcing the postcode lottery that the Minister himself concedes is the experience of many veterans.

The Minister also let the cat out of the bag that the Government are not serious about delivering for our armed forces with this Bill. At Defence questions in February, the Minister said that

“the legislation is very clear that it does not specify outcomes, but simply ensures that a set of principles is adhered to.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 668.]

Without the statutory guidance that will underpin the legislation, our armed forces are without the principles and without the outcomes, and this Government will be allowed to get away from responsibility for delivering.

Amendments 7 and 18 are also in my name. Amendment 7, as grouped with amendments 8 to 18, is designed to widen the scope of the Bill to include all areas of potential disadvantage for service communities. The Minister has previously said that the narrow focus of the Bill on housing, healthcare and education is because they are the areas of greatest concern for armed forces communities. Although those are undoubtedly critical areas for the armed forces community, the Bill does not fully cover them, and many areas of disadvantage are totally left out, including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. We heard from the witnesses who came before the Committee what, in practice, that omission will mean: nothing on social care, where service charities continue to highlight fundamental problems with the availability and cost of care; nothing on the shameful scandal of Commonwealth veterans forced to pay eye-watering fees for UK citizenship, despite their service to our country; and nothing for the cohort of war widow pensioners who, according to the Defence Committee, continue to endure a “grotesque injustice”.

In short, Ministers risk creating a two-tier armed forces covenant and a race to the bottom on standards in those areas that have been omitted. The amendments seek to ensure that areas of disadvantage that have been persistently highlighted in armed forces covenant annual reports will be finally addressed. We are challenging the Government to deliver on their promise to enshrine all of the covenant into law, not just pick and choose based on their opinion. Given that the statutory guidance, which will give real meaning to the Bill, will not be published until after Royal Assent, it is still unclear to what extent the limited areas included in the Bill will be addressed.

As I noted earlier, functions that sit within the MOD, such as service accommodation, are also out of scope. Section 343 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 contains powers for the Secretary of State to add bodies and functions. That rare oversight is welcome, but it is not clear in what circumstances those powers would be used. With Ministers suggesting that the Bill will not have prescribed outcomes, there seems to be no review mechanism that would trigger or consider the addition of new public bodies. Service charities such as the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes would be keen to see some clarity on that, so perhaps the Minister can speak to that in his response.

I strongly expect that the Minister will reject the amendment, but both he and I know that in doing so he will be concealing that he has not truly fulfilled his party’s manifesto commitment to enshrine the armed forces covenant into law.

[Johnny Mercer]

I think some of that speech was written before my evidence session yesterday, where I promised to ensure that statutory guidance is available as soon as possible. I will try to accelerate that, because I want Members to have a copy. We need to look at how it has been done before and what the regulations are around this stuff, but I am keen that we all work as a team to try to get this done.

Clause 8 amends part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by inserting six new sections, which will impose on certain public bodies across the UK a duty to have due regard to the three principles of the armed forces covenant, and provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance and widen the scope of the new duty.

The principles of the armed forces covenant are: the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces; that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces; and that special provision for servicepeople may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces.

Proposed new sections 343AA to 343AD to the 2006 Act impose the duty in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. The new duty will apply where particular types of public body are exercising certain of their public functions in key areas of health, housing and education that are vital to the day-to-day life of our community. The bodies and functions specified in each of those sections are different because they reflect the different systems in place in each of our four nations. However, they aim to cover those bodies that are responsible for developing housing allocation policy for social housing, homelessness policy and the administration of disabled facilities grants, which can be vital for injured veterans.

In education, we know that our service families face difficulties, due to their mobility, in getting children into schools and, more troublingly, in ensuring access to the necessary assessments and support when they have children with special educational needs or disabilities, as it is described in England. We know that service children have specific wellbeing needs. The duty will target those who are responsible for that, ensuring that they understand and consider the very specific needs of our community’s children.

In healthcare, again, much has already been achieved, but service families and veterans still experience disadvantages, often as a result of their mobility and other healthcare requirements caused by military service. This duty will apply to all bodies that are responsible for commissioning and delivering healthcare services across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I respect him and the points he has made, but I disagree with him.

[Stephen Morgan]

I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I think it is clear that the Government cannot do half a job in fulfilling their manifesto commitment to enshrine the covenant in law. Nor should Ministers be allowed to outsource the delivery to cash-strapped local authorities and other stretched public bodies, especially during a pandemic. They must take responsibility themselves. I will not press amendments 3 to 6 and 7 to 18 now, but I give notice that we may return to them on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Reserve forces: flexibility of commitments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

[Johnny Mercer]

Clause 9 amends sections 24 and 25 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to replace the existing full-time service commitment, which enables members of a reserve force to volunteer to undertake a period of full-time service, with a new continuous service commitment. The amendment will also clarify the basis on which a reservist can perform additional duties.

The new continuous service commitment will in future enable members of a reserve force to volunteer to undertake a period of full-time service or part-time service, or a combination of both, under one commitment, allowing for the first time seamless movement between full and part-time service. These important modernising steps will help to attract and retain people who have the key skills that Defence needs and who want to serve in a way that better suits their personal circumstances. The measures will also allow Defence greater freedom in how it generates military capability, by utilising reservists in a more effective and agile way.

Failure to implement these measures and increase the utility of reservists would be a counterproductive step. It would risk sending a message that Defence does not wish to achieve its goal of a whole-force approach, and that it is not listening to the people who serve our nation so well. It would restrict Defence’s ability to improve the offer to reserve personnel in tandem with the offer to regular personnel. It would delay the introduction of important modernising changes that will bring benefits both for reservists and their families and for Defence.

[Mr Holden]

I support exactly what the Minister has said. After spending time in the MoD as a special adviser myself, I know that it is vital that we do everything possible to ensure that our reserve forces are part of the whole force approach. This clause is in that category, so I support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Service complaints appeals

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

In answer to the Opposition’s veterans spokesperson, I can say that that option is being considered as well as judicial review, not instead of. But these options are being considered at the moment as we try to find a way forward. Clause 10 and schedule 3 are part of wider reforms to support service personnel through the complaints system and to increase efficiency and reduce delays within the service complaints process.

This clause will be complemented by a programme of other changes that do not require primary legislation. The Wigston review into inappropriate behaviours highlighted a lack of confidence in the current system. The previous service complaints ombudsman for the armed forces has also made an assessment in her annual reports that the service complaints system is not yet efficient, effective or fair. It is crucial that our service personnel feel confident that complaining will not adversely impact them. Therefore, complaints must be dealt with appropriately and in a timely fashion to build that trust further.

It is key then that legislative changes are implemented to ensure that the service complaints system is more efficient. Ensuring that complaints are resolved in an appropriate timescale is part of a wider package of reform to increase trust. Clause 10 changes the minimum time limit that can be set out in regulations for submitting an appeal against a first level decision or for making an application to the service complaints ombudsman to two weeks. I should point out that bringing the minimum time limit down to two weeks does not mean that all appeal applications will be limited to two weeks regardless of the circumstance. Where a serviceperson’s duties mean that this will not be appropriate, additional time will be provided.

Clause 10 also provides the ability to set out in regulations the grounds on which appeals can be brought, for example where correct process has not been followed or where new evidence has come to light which may have had a significant impact on the original decision. At present, an appeal can be brought against a decision body where the complainant does not agree with its decision for any reason, with no limits on what that reason can be. This legislation will ensure that an appeal can be brought only where there are procedural errors or where new evidence is provided.

Schedule 3 makes a consequential amendment to equality legislation to make sure that procedural requirements remain consistent with the changes in this clause. Service personnel will not be penalised by this clause and mechanisms will be in place to ensure that individuals requiring extra time to submit an appeal will be able to do so where appropriate. We must ensure that we modernise and reduce delay in the service complaints system, creating, where we can, a consistent experience across defence and following best practice from other parts of the public sector.

[Mr Jones]

The important thing to say is that everyone wants the complaints system to be efficient. It is in the interest of the complainant. It is in the interest of someone who is accused that they get a swift resolution. The evidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West highlighted, is that the delay does not help anyone. Part of it is due to not only the complexity of some of the cases but, in some cases, the inefficient way in which the armed services, particularly the Army, deal with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[Johnny Mercer]

The service police are members of the armed forces who perform for the armed forces, wherever they are in the world, broadly the same role as their civilian counterparts in police forces across the UK. The recent service justice system review recommended that the MOD set up an independent complaints system to deal with complaints against the service police.

Each of the provost-marshals operates complaints procedures, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Currently, only MOD policy requires that, which leaves those who are unhappy about the actions of the service police without a legal right for their complaint to be dealt with. It also means that there is no one independent of the service police who can investigate serious complaints about them.

The clause therefore amends the Armed Forces Act 2006 to create a new regime for complaints against the service police and related matters. It does so by establishing the service police complaints commissioner and enabling the creation of a regime for complaints, conduct matters, and death or serious injury matters, which is modelled on the regime for the civilian police in England and Wales. That regime is overseen by the director-general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

The clause also contains provisions in relation to recent changes to the England and Wales regime that allow for super-complaints and whistleblowing to be made. Those will enable us to replicate the civilian regime here, too. [Interruption.] Sorry, Chair, would you mind putting yourself on mute? I keep thinking someone is trying to intervene, and I do want to let people intervene.

The new independent service police complaints commissioner will oversee the new complaints regime, and in particular will carry out investigations into the most serious allegations against the service police. The commissioner will also have overall responsibility for securing the maintenance of suitable arrangements for making complaints and dealing with other serious matters. The creation of that new oversight regime brings the service police into line with their civilian counterparts.

In making its recommendation, the service justice system review did not set out what the new regime should look like. However, it did suggest some areas for consideration. First, the service justice system review considered who would be able to make a complaint and when. It proposed that people who are able to make a complaint should include all those subject to the Armed Forces Act and all those who have been subject to that Act. Under the new regime, anyone will be able to make a complaint so long as they have been adversely affected by the matter complained of.

With regards to time limits, the service justice review suggested that the MOD should consider a time limit to be set on bringing complaints. The new regime will aim to replicate the civilian one wherever possible, and so there will be no time limit for complaints that occur after the SPCC is established. For historical matters, which will apply to incidents that may happen today, in addition to something that may have occurred in the 1970s, for example, we will look at the Police Reform Act 2002 model, but need to give greater consideration as to how that will work. Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise that in detail when we bring forward regulations under new section 340P of the Armed Forces Act, which is proposed in this clause.

Finally, the service justice system review suggested that a clear distinction should be drawn between which complaints fall to the SPCC and which to the service complaints ombudsman. Further details as to how the new regime will operate will be set out in regulations under proposed new section 340P, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure, with full parliamentary scrutiny.

Forgive me if I missed any interventions, Mr Sunderland. You might have had to keep your line open. I do not mean to ignore everyone, and I am sorry if I have.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Minister. We are having mute problems here and are just going to bear with it as best we can. Just to reiterate, if any Member wishes to intervene on anybody who is speaking, please do so directly. Can you hear me okay now?

[Johnny Mercer]

I can hear you okay. It was just that I could hear someone talking and I thought they might have been trying to intervene. I then realised that it was you and asked you to mute, but you were not able to do so. Then I heard the noise again and assumed it was you, so I carried on. If it was someone trying to intervene, I am sorry.

[The Chair]

It was probably us here. I think the mute button here is not working, or we have an issue with it. We are doing our best to stay very quiet, but there is lots of movement in the room. Please bear with us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Minister to wrap up.

[Johnny Mercer]

I have nothing further to add at this stage.

[The Chair]

The question is—

[Mr Jones]

Chair, wait a minute. I asked some questions —I’d expect the Minister to reply to at least some of them.

[Johnny Mercer]

I think that the questions you asked have been answered in the speaking note that I just went through.

[Mr Jones]

With the greatest of respect, they haven’t.

[Johnny Mercer]

Which one do you feel hasn’t been answered?

[Mr Jones]

The issue around civilians, in terms of the jurisdiction and families being able to complain. I know you’re just reading the notes out, but it might be worthwhile just thinking, when you’re reading them, that some people might want to scrutinise this, rather than have to listen to you reading what the civil servants have told you.

[Johnny Mercer]

The reality is that that question around jurisdiction has been answered. I am happy to repeat the answer, but it has been answered already.

[Mr Jones]

I don’t think it has.

[Johnny Mercer]

Okay. Would the Clerks like to come in and confirm whether or not it has been answered?

[Mr Jones]

It is not for the Clerks to do that.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

Beg to move formally.

[Johnny Mercer]

I beg to move formally, Chair.

[Mr Jones]

No—could I have an answer?

[The Chair]

Minister, are you happy to wrap up?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am happy to wrap up.

[The Chair]

It is your prerogative to wrap up.

[Johnny Mercer]

I will wrap up there. Thank you very much.

[Mr Jones]

Chair, can I make a suggestion to help the Minister? If he does not know the answer to that question now, could he possibly write to Committee members to answer the points that I have raised? They are perfectly legitimate points. We are not hostile in any way; it is just that the Minister is clearly not on top of his brief.

[Johnny Mercer]

As ever, I am hugely appreciative of the advice from Mr Jones. I am more than happy to write another letter on any of these issues. I am more than happy for him to have a copy of everything I have said today, and if he still has questions, I would be more than happy to sit down with him and go through them.

[The Chair]

Mr Jones, I thank you for your intervention, but it is the Minister’s prerogative to wrap up and he has done so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to consider clauses 13 to 17 stand part, and that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

[Johnny Mercer]

A discrepancy currently exists within the Armed Forces Act when it comes to the sentencing of personnel of equivalent rank in the Royal Navy. Under the current law, commanding officers are empowered at summary hearing to award a sentence of detention to personnel up to and including the rank of leading hand. However, this does not apply to the Royal Marine rank of corporal, a position that is equivalent to that of a leading hand. Should a commanding officer decide at summary hearing that an offence, if proven, might attract a sentence of detention for a Royal Marine corporal, that individual would have to be referred to the court martial, where such a punishment could be imposed.

As a result of this discrepancy, there is a lack of clarity in how discipline is administered for all equivalent ranks within the Royal Navy under the terms of the Armed Forces Act. This clause seeks simply to remove that disparity by aligning sentencing powers available to commanding officers of leading hands and Royal Marine corporals at summary hearing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Johnny Mercer]

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. Clearly, I want to answer everybody’s questions. I have checked with my team and there was no question from the right hon. Member for North Durham, but we will go over Hansard again, and if I have missed anything, I will go back to him to ensure that he has the answers he requires.

[The Chair]

Thank you for that point of order, Minister, which is on the record.

[Mr Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Sunderland. If the Minister had listened to the speeches, he might have got the questions.

[Johnny Mercer]

I do not think that is a point of order; it is a personal opinion.

[Mr Jones]

It’s not for you but for the Chair to decide that.

[The Chair]

Order.

Clause 18

Posthumous pardons in relation to certain abolished service offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Johnny Mercer]

Clause 18 reflects the Government’s commitment to the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender armed forces personnel. The clause amends section 164 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to extend posthumous pardons for very old, abolished service offences.

Presently, section 164, in so far as it relates to the armed forces, refers only to historical service offences from before 1881 of men who served in the Navy, but not of those who served in the Army or the Royal Marines, the latter being when ashore. The amendment will ensure that those who served in the Army or Royal Marines before 1881 and were convicted at court martial for now abolished service offences can be pardoned for those offences. The RAF is not affected by the amendment because it was not constituted until 1917 and is already covered in the existing provisions of section 164. I am pleased that through this clause, we continue to address historic injustice and demonstrate that the military is a positive place to work for all who choose to serve.

LGBT personnel have made, and continue to make, significant contributions to the armed forces. I hope that the Committee has seen the work that we have done over the past 12 months to try to right the horrendous wrongs that were done to that community during their time in service.

[Carol Monaghan]

How will the Minister determine who is in that group? Many people in the LGBT community left the armed forces, but not because they were convicted of being LGBT. They left under other circumstances—in some ways, to make it easier for the military to get rid of them. Can he give a bit more detail on how he will identify those affected? That has to be done.

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Lady makes a really good point, and there is a lot to work through in that space. There is also the question of those who would have received the medal for long service and good conduct but were asked to leave because they were part of the LGBT community. I have been clear that the apology and medal restoration is a first step. We are working through the legal ramifications of addressing some of those historical wrongs. That is ongoing, but I am unable to comment on the progress at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 19

Power of British overseas territories to apply AFA 2006 etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 20 and 21 stand part.

[Johnny Mercer]

Clause 19 confirms that a British overseas territory can rely on section 357 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to apply the UK service justice system to a British overseas territory force even if the section does not extend to that territory. The clause is necessary as the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar have been working on Gibraltar legislation, which would bring the Royal Gibraltar Regiment into the UK service justice system in reliance on section 357.

[Mr Jones]

Chair, can the Minister slow down? He is going at a rate of knots here.

[Johnny Mercer]

Sorry—was that an intervention, or a complaint?

[Mr Jones]

It is a complaint to the Chair, asking the Minister to slow down; he is rabbiting on at such a rapid rate of knots that I cannot hear a word.

[Johnny Mercer]

I do not think that is rabbiting on. I think that is a very personal insult, Chair. Is there a point of order or an intervention, or shall I carry on?

[The Chair]

Order. Minister, please carry on. I urge you to slow down in accordance with the Member’s wishes.

[Johnny Mercer]

I will of course slow down my speaking to make sure my hon. Friend can clearly understand what I am saying.

[Mr Jones]

Right hon. Friend, actually.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am terribly sorry—my right hon. Friend, with emphasis on the friend.

The clause is necessary because the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar have been working on Gibraltar legislation, which would bring the Royal Gibraltar Regiment into the UK service justice system in reliance on section 357. This is the first time that a British overseas territory has made use of section 357.

Unlike other British overseas territories, as a result of amendments made in 2011 and 2016, the Armed Forces Act 2006 no longer extends to Gibraltar. This clause therefore confirms that the Government of Gibraltar can make use of section 357 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to apply the service justice system contained in the Act, with or without amendment, to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.

[Mr Jones]

I have a question about the circumstances under which the Royal Gibraltar Regiment would use the powers and on what occasions. How many times is it envisaged that it will do so?

[Johnny Mercer]

Is my right hon. Friend asking me to predict the future? Is he asking how many times they are going to use this power?

[Mr Jones]

I want to know on what type of occasions they will use the power and whether the Department has done any estimates of how often it will be used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

The clause simply brings the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the use of section 357 of the Armed Forces Act into line with our other overseas territories. It is simply about aligning what happened when the 2006 Act came in. The amendments that were made in 2011 and 2016 no longer extend to Gibraltar, because of changes in the overseas territory. We are simply realigning Gibraltar with the rest of the overseas territories at this time.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister write and explain on what occasions it would be applied and if any number of cases have been envisaged?

[Johnny Mercer]

I would be delighted to write to my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Age of Recruitment

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) Section 328, subsection 2(c): leave out “without the consent of prescribed persons.”—(Carol Monaghan.)

This new clause would raise the age of recruitment into the Armed Forces to 18, in line with NATO allies and UN standards.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Carol Monaghan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have had constituency cases of young people who have really benefited from going to Harrogate at age 16, who are thoroughly enjoying and making the most of their time in the armed forces, and who have been joining up with our local regiment, the Rifles, as part of that. I urge hon. Members to think properly about the new clauses and the impact that they will have on some young people who have found a real path in the Army, with the extra training and support that it can provide both educationally and more broadly.

[Johnny Mercer]

The new clauses seek to raise the age of recruitment to the armed forces to 18, and to ensure that recruits under 18 serve the same period of time as those who enlisted at the age of 18. We remain clear that junior entry offers a range of benefits to the individual, the armed forces and society, providing a highly valuable vocational training opportunity for those wishing to follow a career in the armed forces.

We take our duty of care to entrants aged under 18 extremely seriously. Close attention has been given to this subject in recent years, especially after the tragic deaths at Deepcut. We have robust, effective and independently verified safeguards in place to ensure that under-18s are cared for properly. The provision of education and training for 16-year-old school leavers provides a route into the armed forces that complies with Government policy on education while also providing a significant foundation for emotional, physical and educational development throughout an individual’s career.

There is no compulsory recruitment into the armed forces. Our recruiting policy is absolutely clear: no one under the age of 18 can join the armed forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process. Additionally, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to engage with the recruiting staff during the process. Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on hostile operations outside the UK, or indeed on operations where they may be exposed to hostilities.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West is concerned that people who join the armed forces before their 18th birthday serve longer than those who join after their 18th birthday. However, this is not a matter of length of service, but a matter of discharge. The rules on statutory discharge as of right—DAOR—allow all new recruits, regardless of age, to discharge within their first three to six months of service if they decide that the armed forces is not a career for them. Additionally, service personnel have a statutory right to claim discharge up to their 18th birthday, subject to a maximum three-month cooling-off period. These rights are made clear to all on enlistment.

Ultimately, service personnel under the age of 18 have a statutory right to leave the armed forces up until their 18th birthday and without the liability to serve in the reserve, as an adult would. However, the benefits of an armed forces career, including for under-18s, are very clear. The armed forces remain one of the UK’s largest apprenticeship providers, equipping young people with valuable transferrable skills for life. Irrespective of age, all recruits who need it receive education in the key skills of literacy and numeracy; and, also irrespective of age, over 80% of all recruits enrol in an apprenticeship programme, equipping them with the skills that they need to succeed and which they will continue to build on throughout their careers, serving them well when they leave.

The armed forces offer apprenticeships across a broad range of specialisations, including the engineering disciplines, digital and communication technologies, construction, catering, human resources and administration. Ofsted regularly inspects our initial training establishment, and we are very proud of the standards that we achieve. Indeed, over the last 10 years, Ofsted has documented significant improvements in, among other things, support with English and maths, under-18s and care leavers, injury reduction, retention rates, communication with parents and staff selection, training and development.

Despite that record, we guard against complacency and recognise that there is always more that we can do. One example is the new inspection framework that we have agreed with Ofsted to align more closely with the unique challenges of initial military training.

[Mr Holden]

I recognise what the Minister says about Ofsted, but I want to highlight a concern of a family in my constituency, whose son, Dan Bravington, was at Harrogate and has gone through basic training. As part of parental buy-in, one of the great things that they like to see is the passing-out parades at the end. When will those parades restart? They are an important way of binding families, especially those of young people, into the broader military family.

[Johnny Mercer]

My hon. Friend is right that passing-out parades are a huge part of the journey of our forces’ families through the system. He will be aware, though, that generally we align with Public Health England’s advice and the Government’s direction. We are looking to get those parades going as soon as possible, and I am acutely aware of the effect on families of not attending them. Guidance will be issued in due course in line with the Government’s expectations on a relaxation of restrictions.

We welcome the independent scrutiny of Ofsted and the confirmation that it provides that we treat our young recruits well. Our armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people, as well as fulfilling and rewarding careers. Following those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West will agree to withdraw the amendment, but I thank her for her careful consideration. I know that her husband is a veteran, and I am extremely grateful for the thoughtful way in which she applies herself to these subjects. I look forward to engaging with her further on these important issues down the road.

[Carol Monaghan]

It is interesting to hear Members talking about the positive experiences of young people. Many Members will know that I am a teacher by profession. A number of the young pupils I taught went on to join the Army at age 16. Some of them had an extremely positive experience, as I highlighted in my comments; however, we need to look at the 30% who are dropping out. Why is there such a high drop-out rate?

For that 30% of 16 to 17-year-olds, some of whom do not have the strongest educational or family backgrounds, all they have from joining the Army is another failure under their belt. They have missed out on educational opportunities in the period they have been in the Army, and it is difficult to rejoin the education system after having dropped out of the Army. Also, there are under-18s who are on active service. They might not be on the frontline, but they serve in the Royal Navy on submarines.

On new clause 2, the Minister said that up to the age of 18, people can drop out. We understand that, but the problem is that once they turn 18 the clock starts again, and it is then four years beyond that before they can drop out. That is what they are signing up to. Their entire service is a six-year commitment, essentially, rather than a four-year one. If we were to equalise the opportunity for the youngsters who are joining up in comparison to adults who join aged 18, they should be able to leave sooner. They should simply be committing to another two years, not another four.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. New clause 12 would require the Government to do three things: first, to produce a definition of “priority care” to help primary care clinicians to deliver on the commitments in the armed forces covenant; secondly, to conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans; and, finally, to produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets. I shall address each in turn.

“The Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2020” acknowledges the confusion about what priority care means. It says that

“in practice this remains inconsistent, and there is a lack of clarity about the interpretation of the policy by government, clinicians, and the NHS.”

During oral evidence to this Committee, Ray Lock, from the Forces in Mind Trust, said that

“anything you can do to provide greater certainty would be helpful.”

The first part of this new clause therefore seeks to do just that and provide a definition as to what the Government really mean when they talk about priority care and treatment.

Moving to the second part of the new clause, on a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, I have already written to the Minister regarding waiting times under TILS—the veterans’ mental health transition, intervention and liaison service—which have not been met. The average waiting time to be offered a face-to-face appointment for TILS in 2019-20 was 37 days, which misses the target of 14 days. Conducting a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans would establish why they are not being met and—to move to the final part of the new clause—what action needs to be taken to address that gap.

I know that the Minister is proud of the launch of Operation Courage, but I urge him to continue to seize this moment to make real and measurable change to the mental health services for serving personnel and veterans. This new clause would bring much-needed clarity to the priority care promised through the covenant and is designed to address the issue of waiting times not being met. I know that the Minister will want to resolve those issues and I therefore hope that he takes the opportunity offered by the new clause.

[Johnny Mercer]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West and her dogged support for these issues. The problem that the Government have with new clause 12 is the fact that this stuff is already covered in the annual covenant report, as required by the Armed Forces Act 2006. On the issue of waiting time targets and resource plans, I refer hon. Members to the armed forces covenant report, which contains that suite of metrics concerning physical and mental health service provision.

I recognise that the hon. Lady has written to me, and I am investigating the figures that were presented in the House. I have a dashboard that shows me waiting times in TILS, the CTS, which is the complex treatment service, and HIS, the high intensity service, across the country. If it is wrong, I will write to her and correct the record, but above that, I will do everything I possibly can to drive down those waiting times.

The metrics assessing health service performance are kept under constant review to ensure that they continue to usefully measure the state of health service provision in England. Separate reporting in this case would be disproportionate. Although I appreciate the desire to pin down in general terms the definition of “priority care”, we must be circumspect in doing so or risk the possibility of unduly binding those public bodies that are in scope to a model that would not necessarily meet the needs of the local population. It is for that reason that we designed the legislation around a duty to have due regard. That ensures that service deliverers have the flexibility to cater for local requirements, while ensuring an increased awareness and understanding of the armed forces covenant.

The Department will be developing guidance with a wide range of stakeholders over the next year. It will include an explanation of the unique features of service life and the sacrifices made by the armed forces community. It will explain how these obligations and sacrifices can cause disadvantage for the armed forces community in respect of their ability to access goods and services.