War Pensions Scheme Uprating

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Written Statements

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

The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2020 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2020 will take place from the week beginning 6 April. Rates for 2020 are increasing by 1.7% in line with the September 2019 consumer price index.

War Widows’ Pension Scheme

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who has been a source of strong counsel to me as I have worked my way through this House on the Select Committee. I congratulate him on securing this debate.

The subject of this debate was one of the first issues I looked at when I took over this role, and I have looked at it in detail. When I first came to this House, I did so with a clear mission. I mentioned at the time that I felt that the families of the bereaved had made the greatest sacrifice on the altar of this nation’s continuing freedom. I know that individuals in that position are here today, and I pay tribute to them for their sacrifice to this nation.

I think it is incumbent on Ministers to be honest about the challenges at hand. The situations that have been outlined in heart-rending detail today are clearly wrong. It was wrong to take that pension away, and in 2015 the Prime Minister reinstated it. It was corrected. This argument concerns a specific case of retrospection, and I will outline the challenges around that, fully conscious of the fact that the armed forces covenant speaks about special dispensations for the bereaved of those who have died in the service of their country.

I have a huge appreciation for our war widows. I am well aware that military partners do not have easy lives, and that they have to move around. Let me be clear about the issues at stake. War widows’ pension provision is a complex area, and it might be beneficial to the House if I clarified what we mean by some of the terms. For example, when we think of war widows, we tend to imagine we are referring to those whose husbands have died as a result of conflict. However, the term as used by the War Widows’ Association—members of which we are lucky to have joining us today—encompasses a much wider group of people who have lost their loved ones during service, and not necessarily in war. By the same token, I think it is also useful to be clear about what we mean by war widows’ pensions.

There are actually two schemes. The first is the war pension scheme, a legacy compensation scheme which is paid to a surviving partner where the service person’s death or injury was caused by their service in Her Majesty’s armed forces. While that death or injury must have been caused by service, it need not have been caused by combat. The second is the armed forces pensions scheme 1975, a traditional occupational pension scheme which pays out upon the death of the service person, regardless of whether his death was caused by service.

Under both schemes, in broad terms the original policy was that survivors’ benefits were permanently surrendered in the event of remarriage or cohabitation. This reflected social assumptions at the time, namely that a widow or widower’s pension provided for loss of financial support from the late husband or wife; and on remarriage, financial support would be provided by the new spouse. Over the decades, however, the rules on surrendering war pensions have changed—in my view, rightly.

First, in 1995 a change was made to allow widows who had surrendered their right to a war pension to apply for reinstatement if they became single again. However, upon a subsequent remarriage or cohabitation, it would again be surrendered. In other words, a war widow was entitled to a war pension only if she was single. However, in April 2005 a change was made to the war pensions schemes. This allowed those who became widows before 1973, or whose husbands had left service before then and who had not remarried and were therefore entitled to a war pension at the time of the change, or at any time in the future, to keep their war pension for life. Therefore, their entitlement was not affected by any future relationship. This was targeted at pre-1973 widows, because that cohort had not benefited from the significant improvements to occupational pensions that other groups had.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

If I may, I wish to raise the case of Mrs Gillies of Harrogate, who was widowed in 1984. If I write to the Minister with the details of her case, will he please give it some consideration?

[Johnny Mercer]

Of course. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will look at every single case. I am determined that we will get this right.

Ten years later, in April 2015, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, made the same pensions-for-life changes for all other widows or widowers who were, or who became, entitled to a pension from that date. We must be clear here: none of these changes reinstated war pensions that had already been foregone as a result of remarriage or cohabitation, which is what we are being urged to do today by the War Widows’ Association. These changes were forward looking, with no retrospective effect, meaning that if a widow was, or became, entitled to a pension in April 2015, it was a pension for life and we would never take it away.

The War Widows’ Association has argued that the changes created an anomaly, because a group of people —whose number, the War Widows’ Association claims, is in the hundreds—have not benefited from them. These are widows whose remarriage, civil partnership or cohabitation occurred before the rule changes and whose relationship remains intact. As that group of war widows have not had an entitlement to reinstate their war pensions, they have not benefited from the pensions-for-life changes.

I am certainly well aware of their concerns. One of the first things I did on becoming a Minister was meet the War Widows’ Association. The Ministry of Defence regularly receives representation from the War Widows’ Association, which is a member of the central advisory committee on compensation. Indeed, I have discussed these issues with war widow representatives recently.

I will end by referring to the statement released by the War Widows’ Association after David Cameron’s announcement in 2015. It specifically said and accepted at the time that new legislation never has a retrospective effect, and that the change would apply only to those who were receiving the pension when the new legislation came into force that April.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

The Minister has not addressed their particular proposal, which is to say, “Reclassify this. It is not a pension. It is an award. It is something separate and special. It does not set a precedent.”

[Johnny Mercer]

The Treasury has looked at reclassifying it in the way that my right hon. Friend asks, but that would be retrospective and the war widows themselves have accepted that those who have already given up the pension as a result of remarriage or cohabitation will not have it reinstated.

[Dr Lewis]

They haven’t—they want it reinstated.

[Johnny Mercer]

Let me be clear with the House, the War Widows’ Association and my right hon. Friend. No one, least of all me, underestimates the sacrifice of these individuals who have lost their spouses on operations. I am determined to continue these conversations so that we can fulfil the part of the armed forces covenant that talks about the special recognition we give to the bereaved. I am happy to continue meeting my right hon. Friend to find a way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

7. What steps the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is taking to (a) support and (b) care for veterans.

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

No previous Government have been more committed to our armed forces, as shown by our creation of the new Office for Veterans’ Affairs. The Government are championing veterans and will ensure that the UK is the best place in the world to be a veteran. Today we are publishing our response to the consultation on the strategy for our veterans. This is the first stage of a step change in the nation’s relationship with her military and veterans community.

[Jason McCartney]

As a Royal Air Force veteran and president of the Huddersfield branch of the Royal Air Forces Association, I am delighted that the Government are cracking on in delivering the veterans’ railcard, which will leave more money in the pockets of those who have made a unique commitment to our country. Can the Minister confirm details of when the railcard will be available and confirm that discounted rail travel will also be available to veterans’ families?

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the support he gives to veterans in the House. The veterans’ railcard will be available by Armistice Day this year, and the support will extend to families so that they can enjoy the advantages of discounted travel as well.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

8. Whether he has plans to bring forward legislative proposals to implement the recommendations of the 2018 review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.

UK Special Forces: Iraq and Afghanistan

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate? He covered a lot of ground, but I want to try to stay within the remit of tonight’s debate. He has some very interesting ideas, and in me he has someone with a very contemporary view of defence. I think that we need to modernise some of the things that we do, but much of that is for another day.

What is hugely important is that Parliament and the public should have confidence in how our armed forces conduct overseas operations and in how allegations of criminal behaviour are investigated. This issue is highly topical in the wake of the recent allegations made by The Sunday Times and the BBC, which I will address in my reply, and as this Prime Minister has asked me to address the long-standing unacceptability of how we deal with historical prosecutions against servicemen and women, often decades after service.

I want to be clear with the House and with the country from the outset. Many words have been written and said about what I have tried to do, both previously from the Back Benches and now on behalf of the UK Government, when it comes to historical allegations against our servicemen and women. They are almost always inaccurate and usually simply seek to answer one side of the debate, or satisfy one party in the argument.

Let me be absolutely crystal clear: Members will not find any individual in this House more committed to prosecuting those who break the law while in uniform than I am. Many of my cohorts operated in harsh and chaotic circumstances over many years while remaining firmly within the boundaries of the law. Like all of us, I hold no truck whatever with those who were or who are unable to operate within the constraints placed on them as a professional member of the UK’s armed forces—armed forces that remain the envy of our peers. I am equally clear that there are few higher sins of Government than to expose those who volunteer to serve and ultimately to sacrifice themselves on this nation’s behalf and to subject them to years and years of interminable court processes, allegations and deep personal distress simply as a result of serving this nation on operations. Where there is clear evidence of crimes being committed, the Prime Minister and I are unequivocal that individuals must be held to account for their actions, irrespective of time passed. But we will not allow veterans in this country who have committed no crime to be exposed to endless legal processes well outside of the original intended scope of the laws under which they are brought—hounding some of the nation’s finest people years after service.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I hear what the Minister saying and I carry a lot of sympathy for it, but if he does not deal with this properly, quickly and appropriately, the problem will not be courts in the United Kingdom; the problem might well be in the International Criminal Court.

[Johnny Mercer]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have dealt with this issue for years now, including before I came here. The last individual who wants to see this country go to the ICC to deal with these allegations is me. However, I reiterate the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is no longer in his place, which is that these are allegations at this stage. I will come to that in a moment.

A balance has to be struck and we will seek that in this Parliament, starting with primary legislation, which I will shortly be laying before Parliament. It is in this very careful space—which I encourage those who are deliberately ill-informed, or who simply want to politicise and rewrite history, not to enter; and that clearly does not include the hon. Member for Glasgow South—that I will answer some of the points raised about the conduct of UK armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last almost 20 years. I just want to expand on that very briefly, given that we have a little bit of time. I cannot overestimate the pain caused to the families of the victims of these situations by ill-informed debates in this space around amnesties and other options that are simply not considered. The Government are very clear that there can be no time bar on prosecutions, and I urge everyone who takes part in this debate to do so cognisant of the victims and of the people who are being hounded in this process.

The House will be aware of the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on the activities of our special forces. This “neither confirm, nor deny” policy is an essential element in enabling this strategic asset to operate effectively. I am therefore unable to speak in any detail about the vital role that our special forces played in Iraq and Afghanistan and will have to confine myself to making observations about the allegations more generally.

On the basis of five specific incidents—two from Iraq and three from Afghanistan—The Sunday Times and the BBC make four broad allegations: first, that we operated death squads in Afghanistan; secondly, that there has been a systematic attempt by the MOD not to investigate allegations; thirdly, that the MOD has applied pressure to terminate investigations prematurely; and fourthly, that the MOD has sought throughout to ensure that war crimes in Iraq go unpunished. The BBC wrote to the Ministry of Defence prior to broadcast setting out these and other allegations that were not repeated in its “Panorama” programme. The MOD promptly forwarded these letters to the service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority. The service police have reviewed the letters and the programme and have confirmed that The Sunday Times and the BBC have not produced any new allegations or any new evidence in relation to those five incidents that had not already been considered.

Let me repeat now from the Dispatch Box to the House and beyond that anyone who has any evidence—“evidence” is the key word—has a duty to come forward and let independent police officers examine that evidence. The allegations are deeply disturbing, and as perhaps the most prominent voice on increased legal protections for our armed forces, I wish personally to satisfy myself about them. These investigations are never closed. Any evidence will be looked at in an independent and professional manner, to this day. As the House would expect, the International Criminal Court is considering the BBC’s allegations as part of its preliminary examination into alleged war crimes in Iraq. The Government are continuing to co-operate fully with the ICC, and we expect to be able to satisfy it that the service police have appropriately investigated all allegations.

[Carol Monaghan]

We know that the UN has identified cases of 300 civilians who have been unlawfully killed. If there are 300 civilians who have been unlawfully killed, there are people who have done the unlawful killing. I would therefore like to know what steps are being taken to properly investigate these killings to ensure that we have the answers and there is scrutiny of the operations of the armed forces.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am about to come on to civilian casualties. Every civilian casualty is reported to the military police. I will cover that in detail in a moment.

First, though, let me deal with the allegation that our armed forces operated so-called death squads in Afghanistan. This is simply not true. Our armed forces did conduct many daring operations to capture Taliban insurgents. However, these were not “kill or capture” operations; rather, they were carefully planned “capture” operations with the object of capturing known Taliban insurgents and their associates. While every effort is taken to minimise the risk to any civilians who are present during such operations, it is simply an unfortunate fact that the risk of civilian casualties in war cannot be eliminated altogether.

Irrespective of the unit involved in any operation, civilian deaths were reported to, and have been independently investigated by, the Royal Military Police. All three of the incidents cited by The Sunday Times and the BBC have been investigated. The RMP referred one case—the shooting of Fazel Mohammed and three Afghan minors, to which the hon. Gentleman referred—to the Service Prosecuting Authority, which, having obtained independent legal advice outside the Ministry of Defence from senior external counsel, decided that the evidence did not establish a realistic prospect of conviction. In the other two cases, the RMP concluded that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing and did not refer any soldiers for any offence.

It is simply not credible to suggest, given the scale of resources expended by the MOD on investigating alleged criminal behaviour in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this demonstrates that there could have been a systematic cover-up. Over £40 million has been spent to date on the Iraq criminal investigations, while £10 million has been spent on Operation Northmoor, which is the RMP’s investigation into 675 allegations from Afghanistan. At their height, the Iraq Historical Allegations Team and Operation Northmoor each involved over 100 investigators who have collated and reviewed vast numbers of documents and interviewed large numbers of alleged victims, families, witnesses, service personnel and veterans.

Throughout, the MOD has wanted investigations and prosecution decisions to be conducted efficiently and effectively. But the reality is that the nature of warfare has changed. So-called lawfare has become a tool for extending conflicts by other means or attempting to actually rewrite history itself.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

If I may take the Minister back just slightly, the investigators he mentions who looked at many of these allegations are the same people who have now blown the whistle to the BBC and The Sunday Times. They are the same people who have come forward and said that things have been shut down. He rightly says that he will bring forward primary legislation in the near future. Does he envisage that by that time there will be greater or less resource to investigate as a result of his legislation?

[Johnny Mercer]

Let me be very clear with the hon. Gentleman. There have been allegations made by individuals, a very small number of whom worked within the investigative teams. There have been allegations made by a small number of people associated with operational units involved in the incidents that have been alleged. They have made allegations, and investigators who have interviewed them have been persuaded by their case. Those allegations are then investigated and presented to the independent Service Prosecuting Authority, which makes a decision on whether the threshold of evidence has been breached and a conviction, or even a prosecution, is likely. That decision has been made in a clear-eyed, professional manner without fear or favour, to bring this matter to a close. It is in nobody’s interests that this has continued as long as it has. In terms of resource and how we address this, I will come to that towards the end of my remarks, but Members can pick me up if I do not.

In the case of Iraq, the investigative challenges were compounded by the behaviour of some of the legal firms involved. Public Interest Lawyers waged a long-running campaign challenging the ability of the service police to conduct independent and effective investigations. Having lost that argument, PIL notified approximately 1,200 new allegations, many of which were found upon examination to be seriously misplaced or extremely flimsy.

I am clear that IHAT could have handled matters much better—I have not changed my view on that since I personally ran the campaign to expose its practices—but I want to make it absolutely clear that there has been no strategic interference whatsoever in individual cases or in the overall Iraq or Afghanistan case loads. That would be completely pointless. Allegations that are not fully investigated will only contrive to extend the process for our servicemen and women. All investigative and prosecution decisions have been made independently by the service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority without reference to the MOD, the chain of command or Ministers. They have also been subject to independent external and periodic independent reviews by subject matter experts.

The Iraq investigations have been subject to unprecedented court oversight, with extensive, transparent reporting obligations to a designated judge of the High Court. Operation Northmoor has been subject to independent assurance by an experienced senior criminal barrister and a retired chief constable. The allegation that IHAT and Op Northmoor investigations were closed down for political reasons in 2017 is, I am afraid, simply wrong and self-defeating. IHAT’s case load was transferred to Service Police Legacy Investigations, which stood up on 1 July 2017 and is still conducting a small number of investigations. Investigations under Operation Northmoor continued with independent external assurance into 2019.

The assertion that the Ministry of Defence exploited the taint that resulted from Phil Shiner’s misconduct to close investigations is also incorrect. The evidence that PIL had paid an undisclosed number of Iraqis, apparently by way of inducement, to bring allegations against our armed forces emerged only after IHAT and the Service Prosecuting Authority had started reviewing the Iraq case load to decide in accordance with the High Court’s direction whether further investigation was warranted in individual cases. IHAT and the SPA informed the High Court of their approach and the rationale for it. The High Court did not express any concern about this review process. None of the investigations under Op Northmoor was affected by Phil Shiner being struck off, as the BBC and The Sunday Times assert, because none of the investigations involved allegations notified by Phil Shiner.

The Sunday Times and the BBC assert that the closure of IHAT was intended to ensure that the alleged war crimes in Iraq went unpunished. I have outlined why that is simply not credible to the UK’s armed forces, as an institution that prides itself on its ethos and values that set it apart from this nation’s enemies. Factually, they cite two cases in support of this wholly untenable position: the shooting of an off-duty Iraqi policeman and the deaths of Radhi Nama and Abdul Jabar Mousa Ali at Camp Stephen. In fact, both cases were taken over by SPLI when IHAT closed. SPLI’s investigations into both cases only finished in early 2019. This means that the information that forms the basis of comments by former IHAT investigators and by Lord Macdonald, to whom the hon. Member for Glasgow South referred, was incomplete and at least two years out of date. While it has not been possible to attribute the deaths of Mr Nama and Mr Mousa Ali to any individuals, SPLI referred three people to the Service Prosecuting Authority for having committed or failed to prevent, punish or report outrages upon personal dignity. In coming to a decision in this case, the director of service prosecutions obtained independent legal advice from senior external counsel.

It is a matter of deep personal regret that the original RMP investigations were flawed and that opportunities to hold those responsible to account may now have been lost. For this, I unreservedly apologise to those who suffered treatment at the hands of UK forces that was simply unacceptable, and I apologise to our servicemen and women who have, as a result, had years of investigations foisted upon them, having more often than not had nothing to do with the incidents in question.

As the al-Sweady inquiry has already highlighted, the RMP elements deployed to Iraq were simply insufficient to cope with the unexpectedly high number of incidents requiring investigation. This is what led the Provost Marshal (Army) in 2010 to direct IHAT to review nine RMP investigations, including those into the deaths of Mr Nama and Mr Mousa Ali, to ascertain whether all lines of enquiry had been followed. The considerable obstacles to obtaining sufficient evidence to prosecute in historical cases have been recognised by the High Court, which in 2013 ordered the MOD to establish a process of non-criminal quasi-inquests, which have become known as Iraq fatality investigations, to satisfy fully our obligations under the European convention on human rights. These IFIs are similar in form to a coroner’s inquest and are conducted by an independent, retired judge. They are designed to provide the families of the deceased with answers and to help the armed forces learn lessons for the future.

While the fact that the 2003 report into Mr al-Musawi’s death contains inaccurate information is deeply concerning, there is insufficient evidence to refer anyone for an offence in relation to this incident. Having exhausted all reasonable and proportionate lines of enquiry, SPLI has uncovered no evidence that conclusively refutes the soldier’s assertion that he acted in self-defence. Indeed, two of the deceased’s brothers told investigations that Mr al-Musawi fired several shots into the air immediately prior to this shooting.

Today’s debate and previous debates on historical investigations have shown the strength of feeling on this vital issue. I am considering some key policy interventions to learn lessons from over 15 years of investigations and litigation arising from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not of the opinion that any organisation the size of the UK’s armed forces will not have its challenging individuals. There is no doubt that some of the experiences of those who came into contact with the UK’s armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were completely unacceptable.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Sensing that the Minister is about to close, may I take him back, because he did ask me to remind him: does he think that after he brings forward his legislation there will be greater resource to investigate these affairs or not? In addition, is the Royal Military Police, in his view, in its current form fit for purpose?

[Johnny Mercer]

What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that, in my view, no option is off the table in reflecting, with respect to the past 15 years, on how we never end up in this position again. Resource in this investigation has not been a determining factor: over £50 million has gone into investigating these crimes—or alleged crimes—in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, this is not going to be some sort of paper exercise. It is a defining issue for many of us, and we will of course do this properly. I hope he will have seen from my comments this evening that there is absolutely no intention to cover anything up, to let anybody who sees uniform as a place where they can commit crimes to do so or to enable any of that behaviour, which is totally out of kilter with 99% of people’s experiences in the military. However, I am equally firm that the experience of too many of those who have served this nation in operations in subsequent years has been totally unacceptable, and in that respect this Prime Minister and this Government are going to redefine the debate.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The Minister is making an excellent point. I declare an interest in that my husband is a veteran himself—from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. For those who have been subject to investigation after investigation, are we providing enough psychological support and support in terms of their mental health? No matter the circumstances, one cannot help thinking that this must be a very stressful situation for them and their families, and as much as possible must be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I restate that the experiences of some of our finest people have been unacceptable. I speak to the process that they have been subjected to and to the way that my Department has looked after them through that process. Since 2015 or 2016, when a few of us started working on this—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Leo Docherty.)

[Johnny Mercer]

Having interrogated those processes, I am confident that we are now in a much better place to support those individuals. There are challenges in reaching out to those who served a longer time ago, but we are acutely aware of them, and the MOD now exists to support with the provision of legal costs and pastoral care and to get those individuals through a very difficult situation.

A key function of a modern military force is the ability to document and evidence sensitive operations in a highly complex and challenging battlespace. We expect a relentless pursuit of excellence from all our armed forces, and particularly from the specialist units involved in these allegations. If we are to manufacture the political space to introduce increased legal protection for our armed forces, I am conscious that we must demonstrate the ability to hold our people firmly to account, which has not always been the case.

I hope that tonight the House and the country will have noted my determination to get this right. Those who break the law must and will be held to account where the evidence exists—that evidential point is paramount—and we cannot do so without evidence that breaches the threshold required for prosecution. I am equally firm, however, that this Government will simply not allow our legal processes to be exploited in an attempt to hound servicemen and women or to rewrite history. Most fair-minded men and women in this country understand that war is a supremely chaotic, dangerous, frightening and confused environment. This is not a cover for criminal behaviour; it is a tribute to the incredible standards and sacrifices of our armed forces, to which I again pay tribute tonight. Uniform is no place for those who cannot operate within the boundaries we ask them to, and we find that that view is most strongly shared by those who make up that community.

Question put and agreed to.