G7 and NATO Summits

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will manage to get everybody who is on the list in. I thank people for being succinct and the Prime Minister for also being brief. It is wonderful.

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

The Prime Minister delivered his statement on the Australian trade deal in his usual sunny, optimistic manner. Like all his statements, however, once we look at the detail, it comes with a nasty after-smell, the source of which will be familiar to many British farmers. May I ask him in detail how this deal will affect the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency of North Durham and across County Durham—particularly hill farmers, who not only produce good-quality British food, but are the custodians of some of the most beautiful land in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

Farmers in County Durham will have the opportunity to export their wonderful produce tariff-free to a market that is growing the whole time, and that includes the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is a huge opportunity for British produce—beef, dairy, the lot—and I hope that he will champion it.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Before turning to the amendments before us today, I want to place on record my thanks to all those who have worked so hard and so collaboratively on the Bill throughout its passage, although I have been dismayed at earlier stages when Ministers have tried to make the Bill a matter of party politics. I believed from the outset that Members on all sides in both Houses wanted the same thing from this legislation—that is, to protect British troops and British values.

The Lords have certainly approached the Bill in this constructive cross-party manner, and I want to thank in particular those on the Labour Lords Front Bench: Lords Tunnicliffe, Touhig and Falconer, and Lord Robertson for his tireless work on part 1 of the Bill, which the Minister has acknowledged. I also want to thank Lord Hope for his convincing arguments on the European convention on human rights, Lord Dannatt for his leadership of the duty of care amendment we are considering this afternoon, and Lords Stirrup and Boyce for their experience, their wisdom and their backing for all the Lords amendments that were sent to this House. I also want to thank the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Goldie, and indeed the new Minister himself for their similarly constructive approach.

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

I agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments about their lordships, but does he agree that if some of the amendments that were tabled in Committee had been adopted, the Lords would not have had to redo the work on the Bill? Is he as disappointed as I am that the Minister at the time would not take into consideration any amendments in Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I also say to my right hon. Friend that it will not in the future either, because it will not, as the Minister said, stop vexatious claims coming forward, because they will have to be investigated? There is a huge hole in this Bill, which the former Minister refused to accept in Committee, about trying to case manage investigations, so people will still be investigated. There is nothing in this Bill to say that they will not be investigated, so it does not do what it says on the tin and it would be dishonest to people to suggest otherwise.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. I have described it as the big gap in this legislation. It is a big flaw in the Bill. We may not succeed this time around, but we will certainly return to it in the Armed Forces Bill, which I will come on to. The proposals before us in this amendment are simple, flexible, tried and tested in civilian law, and backed by all the leading military and legal experts in the other place.

I urge the Minister this afternoon to confirm what he hinted at last week, and what his colleague, Baroness Goldie, said she would not stand in the way of yesterday. The Secretary of State made an offer to me in conversation last week to formally ask Sir Richard Henriques to examine this proposal as part of his current review so that it can be considered alongside other recommendations from that review for incorporation into the Armed Forces Bill. The Minister’s predecessor said at the very outset of this Bill’s proceedings in this House, on Second Reading back in November:

“The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 258.]

Of course, they are not, but we will ensure that they are. I say to the Minister that I hope we will be able to work together constructively on that, in a way that proved so difficult with his predecessor.

[Mr Jones]

But it was not for lack of trying. I moved three amendments in Committee, and not only were they fiercely resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), but there was no explanation of how and when in future legislation anything around investigations would be addressed, even though my right hon. Friend is right that the former Minister had given a commitment that investigations would be addressed in the Armed Forces Bill.

[John Healey]

Yes indeed. My right hon. Friend has worked as hard as anyone in this House on this Bill and I am really grateful to him for that. He has been part of what the Opposition, certainly, are now set to do, which is to forge a consensus on the changes needed to the Bill so that it better serves the interests of British troops, British justice and Britain’s standing in the world. I believe that we, as the official Opposition, and we as a House, have a duty to try to make this Bill fit for purpose as the new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas. It falls short of that test at present. We will not let those matters rest.

This is a classic case of a Government who will win their legislation but have lost the arguments. When that is the case, the Government will find that those arguments come back again, not just from the Opposition but from all parties, not just from this House but from both Houses, and not just from Parliament but from all the range of outside organisations that together have been the chorus of criticism about so much in this Bill that is still left undone but will be done in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will call the Minister at 4.27 pm, and the debate will finish at 4.32 pm.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that this was a good Bill—no, it is not. It is a bad Bill, and it is an unnecessary Bill. All of this could have been done within the Armed Forces Bill that is going through Parliament, but the Government chose, for their own reasons, to put forward this Bill. It does not get to the central point of the issue, which is around investigations. They are completely absent from this Bill and currently absent from the Armed Forces Bill. They were resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in this Bill and in the Armed Forces Bill. It galls me that yesterday he was standing outside a court in Northern Ireland, trumpeting the fact that he was on the side of trying to stop people being investigated, when he had been in a position to do something about it. I think of him as being a bit like an actor in a play who has been sat in the audience watching, rather than taking part.

Without investigation, the Bill is flawed. I have written to the Minister: he needs to ensure that investigations are put in the Armed Forces Bill, because without that, despite the protections that have been claimed today, servicemen and women will be watching our proceedings, thinking that they have more protection than they have. They will still be investigated if allegations are made. There is an opportunity now, with the Armed Forces Bill, to remedy that.

Part 2 of this Bill should simply have been scrapped. I am sorry, but the idea that we should all have Limitation Act rights and yet members of our armed forces should not—that we should take those away from them—is just not good enough. A Bill that is supposed to give things to our armed forces has been taking things away from them. Part 2 will be challenged in court; only the lawyers will benefit from it.

I welcome the change on war crimes because, like many across the House, I was concerned about our international reputation. I fully support Lord Dannatt’s amendment; I believe we should support anything that helps servicemen and women who are going through such a process.

The Bill claimed to do a lot but does very little. It is disappointing. It could have been vastly improved, or just ignored altogether and incorporated into the Armed Forces Bill. There is an opportunity to put right what is not in this Bill when the Armed Forces Bill passes through the House. I know that the Minister is open to discussions about that, but I urge him to ensure that that happens, because without that, people will still be investigated; they will still go through the agony that this Bill was intended to stop. We all sympathised with that intention. It clearly will not be achieved in the Bill’s present form.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I also warmly welcome the further concession that the Minister has announced. The Bill will now exclude all the offences for which service personnel could be summoned before the International Criminal Court. That has now fixed the worst of the problems that many have been anxious about during debates on the Bill.

It would be helpful to understand why it has proved so hard for the Government to realise how awful what they were proposing was. No Minister wants to give armed forces carte blanche to commit torture, genocide and war crimes, and yet it has required the most extraordinary struggle to stop the Government doing exactly that. The noble Lord Robertson—I welcome the Minister’s tribute to him—introducing his amendment in the other place, said:

“Maybe after a lifetime in politics I was affected by some uncharacteristic naivety in thinking that the Government, faced by almost universal and expert opposition on this aspect of the Bill, would by now have changed their mind.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1190.]

Yet they ploughed on until yesterday. Perhaps it was indeed the change of Minister that averted disaster, and with others I congratulate him on his achievement in a short time, but if he can, in winding up, shed some further light on what on earth has been going on, the House would be grateful.

I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said on duty of care and investigations. I hope that we will come back to them soon if the duty of care amendment is lost this afternoon. I warmly welcome the progress on the Bill in the past few days and would be grateful for any light the Minister can shed on what has been going on.

Ministerial Code

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That seems to be an important point and one for the House to consider.

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

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the Minister made a virtue of the Prime Minister having paid for the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat. There have been several weeks of speculation about this and it was only last Friday that Downing Street confirmed that he had. Will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister paid the original invoices for this work, or did he reimburse the donors who allegedly donated money to this fund or to the Conservative party?

[Michael Gove]

As I pointed out earlier, the Prime Minister paid for the renovation of the flat. All donations to the Prime Minister, to any other Member of Parliament, or indeed to political parties, will be declared appropriately and properly. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary also made clear in his hearing with the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs the background to this issue.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

Subsection (2) includes a requirement for referral of investigations to the service prosecuting authority and sets an arbitrary timeline for that. However, a referral threshold—the evidence sufficiency test—already exists in the Armed Forces Act 2006. Furthermore, section 116 of that Act contains a statutory obligation on the service police to consult the service prosecuting authority before deciding not to refer certain serious cases.

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

I welcome the Minister to his position—it is a long overdue promotion and a vast improvement on what went before. He said that the Henriques investigation will make recommendations. In Committee, I tabled a series of amendments that would get to the heart of the matter. The real issue in the Bill is the length of investigations. I accept that it should not be arbitrary. In Committee, I proposed that investigations would have to be brought before a judge to ensure that at least there were grounds for them to continue. If the idea is to let the Bill go through now and make changes later, surely we should make them in this Bill rather than miss that opportunity.

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and note his long-standing interest in the Bill and the issues more broadly. We must have confidence in the Henriques review. I do not believe that there is a tension between a good outcome for the review and the necessity of passing the Bill in good order. However, if the right hon. Gentleman writes to me with those concerns, I would be pleased to write to Justice Henriques to suggest that he include them in the scope of his inquiry.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to do that, but the problem, which I will address later, with the Bill is that it is being done ad hoc. The Minister’s predecessor promised that investigation would be in the Armed Forces Bill. Lo and behold, it is not and has been kicked into the review. If we are really to address the issue of veterans being reinvestigated, the problem is the length of the investigations, not whether there should be prosecutions at the end. That is a judicial test. That is the mess that the Government have got into with the entire process.

[Mr Davis]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister has said he does not want to discriminate against people, but with this measure he is discriminating against members of the armed forces. He refers to claims being brought against the MOD, but a lot of those cases are actually brought by members of the armed forces. He says that 6% will potentially be discriminated against, and we heard evidence about that in Committee.

I will give the Minister one practical example. The Snatch Land Rover case came before the courts way after the fact, because it came out in the Chilcot review. Families were able to take those cases forward outside of the limitation time. There is an idea that somehow people can get a case out of limitation times without very good arguments, but that is difficult. What this measure is doing is taking the rights that we all share as individuals under the Limitation Act 1980 and saying that they do not apply to people who have served in our armed forces. That is wrong.

[Leo Docherty]

I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We have to bear in mind the fact that 6% is a small number. However, it is still too high, and we will work to get it down to zero.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the limitation longstops will cover only a small subset of the personal injury claims brought by current and former service personnel against the Ministry of Defence—those connected with overseas operations. Additionally, personnel will continue to have access to the armed forces compensation scheme. Let me conclude by confirming that part 2 of the Bill will not breach the armed forces covenant, which states:

“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.”

The primary focus of the covenant is to help ensure that service personnel and veterans are not disadvantaged in comparison with civilians in the same position. Indeed, the longstops in part 2 will apply in the same way to all claimants bringing claims connected with overseas operations against the MOD, whether they are military personnel, civil servants, contractors or local nationals. Everyone, military or civilian, who is deployed on an overseas operation is treated equally in that respect. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.

Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standard for current and former service personnel and, where appropriate, their families, and would require the Secretary of State to provide an update in the armed forces covenant annual report. I would like to begin by saying that we take our responsibilities to our service personnel and veterans extremely seriously. On Tuesday 13 April, the Secretary of State published a written ministerial statement setting out as a matter of record the support that is, and will continue to be, available. First, that makes clear that service personnel are entitled to receive legal support where they face criminal allegations or civil claims that relate to actions taken during their service and where they were performing their duties. Legal advice and support are also available whenever people are required to give evidence at inquests and inquiries, and in litigation.

Secondly, a range of welfare support and mental health support is routinely offered to all service personnel. The potential impact of operations on a serviceperson’s mental health is well recognised, and there are provisions in place to help manage and mitigate those impacts as far as possible. Additionally, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs works closely with the MOD and Departments across Government, the devolved Administrations, charities and academia to ensure that veterans’ needs are met.

Significant progress has been made to ensure that our service personnel and veterans have access to a comprehensive package of legal, pastoral and mental health support, so we believe that it is unnecessary to establish a statutory duty of care. Not only is Lords amendment 5 unnecessary but it could result in unintended consequences, and would be likely to lead to an increase in litigation, which would mean more of our people being subject to potentially lengthy and stressful court proceedings, which is profoundly undesirable and contrary to the Bill’s objectives. Notions of moral and pastoral duties are extremely difficult to define adequately, and there is a real risk that attempting to do so in legislation would lead to more, rather than less, litigation and greater uncertainty. We are concerned that as allegations may occur in operational theatres involving commanding officers, the Royal Military Police and service personnel, the amendment might have unintended consequences that would undermine our operational effectiveness. The Government are clear about their responsibilities to provide the right support to our personnel, both serving and veterans, and to seek to improve and build on that wherever necessary. I do not believe that setting a standard duty of care in the Bill is necessary, so the Government cannot support Lords amendment 5.

Lords amendments 6 to 8 are minor and technical, and are simply drafting improvements. All in all, I urge the House to accept the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1, and to reject Lords amendments 2, 4 and 5 so that we can fulfil our solemn obligations for greater legal protection for our service personnel and our veteran community.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman consults Lords Hansard, he will see that Lord Mackay was speaking to another amendment. I am talking about the four main amendments that are before us today.

I know there has been a long-running problem. The Labour party accepts and recognises the problem of baseless allegations and legal claims arising from Iraq and Afghanistan under both Labour and Conservative Governments. But the Bill, unamended, is not the solution, even though we have worked hard from the outset to forge consensus on the changes needed to make the Bill into legislation that best serves the interests of British troops, British justice and British military standing in the world. I take a perhaps old-fashioned view that it is our duty in this House and the other place to make this legislation fit for purpose, and ensure that it is a new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas.

I thank and pay tribute to the work of the organisations that have been most active in helping parliamentarians in both Houses during the passage of this Bill with their expertise and views. Those organisations include Freedom from Torture, Reprieve, the Royal British Legion, the Centre for Military Justice and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. I also pay tribute to Members on both sides of this House, particularly the 15 who served with our Front-Bench colleagues on the Public Bill Committee and who have contributed so fully to the debates that we have had so far.

Let me turn to the Lords amendments on which I will concentrate. The reason that no Tory peers spoke in support of the Government on these amendments is because the Bill just does not do what it says on the tin—that is, protect British forces personnel serving overseas from vexatious legal claims and from repeat investigations.

I turn to Lords amendment 2. More than 99% of the 4,000-plus allegations against our troops arising from Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been affected at all by this Bill, because it relates only to the prosecution’s process and the prosecutorial system. That is why Lord Boyce, former Chief of the Defence Staff, said:

“The Bill’s significant emphasis on presumption against prosecution as a way of relieving some of the stress of legal proceedings”

is misplaced, and that,

“it is the investigation and reinvestigation process that…so…wears people down.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1170.]

I turn to Lords amendment 4. Part 2 of the Bill strips forces and forces’ families of their current rights to civil justice and compensation if they suffer injury or even death as a result of MOD negligence. That is why Lord Stirrup, also a former Chief of the Defence Staff, said:

“It seems strange to me that a Bill with the avowed purpose of providing government reassurance to service personnel seems intent on preventing those very personnel from seeking redress from that same Government.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1222.]

I turn to Lords amendment 1. The presumption against prosecution after five years increases the risk of British service personnel being dragged before the International Criminal Court. That is why the former Judge Advocate General—the military’s most senior legal figure—said in evidence to the Bill Committee itself:

“What it actually does is increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 117-18, Q234.]

Of course, the ICC’s chief prosecutor has indeed written to the Defence Secretary while the Bill has been in Parliament

“to ensure that the exemption clause extends to all crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court”.

Otherwise it would “render such cases admissible” before the International Criminal Court.

I turn to Lords amendment 3. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the case for removing clause 12, which would have required Ministers to consider derogating from the European convention on human rights before committing British troops to overseas conflicts. We challenged this with a Labour amendment at the very earliest stage of the Bill’s passage through the Commons. The decision to drop the clause reasserts the UK’s commitment to an important treaty that Britain played a leading role in drafting. It is important too in allowing an avenue of justice for both British forces personnel and for victims.

Let me turn to the core of the debate and concern in the House of Lords, which is Lords amendment 1 and the Government’s counter-proposals before the House this afternoon. The Secretary of State’s decision to accept parts of Lord Robertson’s amendment to exclude torture, genocide and war crimes from the presumptions is welcome, and it is testament to the efforts of Lord Robertson, many other groups and, indeed, Members of this House. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who together have banged the drum about the importance of torture not being carved out from provisions in the future.

The acts that Lord Robertson and so many Members of the upper House were concerned about are illegal and immoral. Under all circumstances, they must be investigated and, if there are grounds for the allegations, there must be prosecutions and punishment. The Minister talked about rectifying an omission with the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1. However, the Government are still picking and choosing some of the crimes that are covered by the Geneva conventions. Today they have picked out torture and genocide, but they are excluding the more general case of war crimes.

Torture and genocide should never have been included as offences within this Bill. Like sexual offences, there is no justification—there can never be justification—for them, so the decision now to exclude them is certainly a good step forward, and we welcome it and will support the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1. But can I urge the Minister, in the time between the consideration of these Lords amendments in this House and their being discussed again in the other place, to accept in full those crimes specified in Lord Robertson’s amendment 1, including war crimes, as excluded offences?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Clearly those are the arguments we made in Committee, asking why sexual offences were excluded but these very serious crimes were not. If the Government have given way on two, I have not yet heard an explanation from the Minister as to why war crimes are not going to be excluded. It is not only right that they should be excluded but, in terms of the UK’s international reputation, it would save a lot of embarrassment. I want to avoid, and I think everyone wants to avoid, members of our armed forces ending up in the International Criminal Court.

[John Healey]

Indeed, my right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have touched already on the risk that this will undermine Britain’s international reputation for fully upholding and adhering to many of the international rules and laws that we were instrumental in drafting and creating after the second world war. The Minister describes torture and genocide as omissions from the provisions of the Bill, and he rectifies that with his proposed amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1, but it is not clear, as my right hon. Friend says, why other crimes covered by the Geneva conventions, particularly war crimes, are still omitted, because exactly the same arguments apply to those as to the ones the Government have rightly conceded on and reflected in their amendments in lieu.

Let me spell it out for the Minister. Article 8 of the Rome statute says that war crimes are:

“Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions”.

This dates back to 1949, just after the second world war. These grave breaches include:

“Wilful killing… Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury… Compelling a prisoner of war or other…to serve in the forces of a hostile Power”.

That is important because, as both the Judge Advocate General and the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and Members on both sides of the House this afternoon, have made clear, not excluding these offences makes it more likely that British soldiers risk being prosecuted and pursued in the ICC.

As my right hon. Friend rightly said, it is also about our adherence to and respect for international law. If we ourselves meet the highest standard of legal military conduct, we can hold other countries to account when their forces fall short. If we do otherwise, it compromises our country’s proud reputation for upholding the rules-based international order that Britain itself has helped to construct since the days of Churchill and Attlee.

I ask the Minister and his colleagues in the MOD, when the Bill returns to the other place, to include war crimes as excluded offences, along with the other exclusions that he lists in his amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has experience of conflict. I do not know whether a legal mind, which mine certainly is not, would regard that as wilful killing, but as such, it is probably an act that is beyond the categories of specific crimes cited in the Government’s amendment that excludes them from the provisions of the Bill. That underlines the case I am making, for which I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, that that category of Geneva convention-defined crimes, including war crimes, really must be excluded from the presumption in this Bill; otherwise, we face the risks that we are discussing this afternoon of exposing our forces to potential action from the International Criminal Court, which none of us wants to see, and of dragging down the reputation of this country for upholding in full and fully adhering to the international rules and standards of military legal conduct.

I turn to Lords amendment 2, on investigations. I said earlier that the Bill does not yet do what it says on the tin. We were told that this Bill would bring an end to the harassment of forces personnel through repeated legal claims, but because it deals only with prosecutions and not with investigations, it will not do that. Only 27 prosecutions arising from Iraq and Afghanistan have been registered, yet 3,400 allegations were considered by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and 670 from Operation Northmoor. Therefore, less than 1% of allegations were prosecuted. The problem here is investigations: the serious, consistent problems that lie in a system of investigation that has proved to be lacking in speed, soundness, openness and a duty of care to alleged victims or the troops involved. Those are all problems well before the point of decision about prosecution, which is the point at which the provisions of this Bill kick in.

The Minister describes the proposals in Lords amendment 2 as somehow premature and cites Henriques. I am aware, of course, that the Government have set up a review on this, but there have been three reviews already and he might want to ask his officials to dig them out for him. There have been three reviews in the past five years, with at least 80 recommendations on investigations that the Government could act on now. The Minister and his predecessor promised us that investigations reform would be a matter for the Armed Forces Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said, yet when that Bill was brought before the House nothing was included.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I have sympathy with the Lords amendment on investigations, but I think that the new clauses 6, 7 and 8 that I tabled in Committee would have been far better. My new clause 8—I think it was that one—sought to put a time limit on minor investigations; they could go before a judge and be dismissed, and that would reduce the numbers. The other thing is the need to have judicial oversight of the investigations. That is not saying that we do not investigate things; it is about having rigour in ensuring that investigations are being done in a timely way, and can carry on if more evidence needs collecting, and that, likewise, reinvestigations can be opened only where a judge determines that new and compounding evidence is brought forward. That is the gaping hole still in this Bill even if we agree to the Lords amendment, which I have sympathy with. Without that, my right hon. Friend is right: this Bill does not pass the Ronseal test, because it does not do what it says on the tin.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is a gaping hole. This is the gaping hole in this Bill, and it could be fixed. It could be fixed in the way that was proposed and passed to us by the Lords in their amendment 2. I guess the Minister might want to ask his officials to dig out my right hon. Friend’s new clauses 6, 7 and 8 from Committee, because, having served in this House for a long time with him, I can bet strongly that those new clauses will resurface in debate on the Armed Forces Bill, because once he gets his teeth into something, he is reluctant to let it go.

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend is correct, but the problem is that the previous Minister promised that investigations would be part of the Armed Forces Bill and, lo and behold, they were not there. The Government have therefore had two chances to put this right and clearly have still not done it.

[John Healey]

Indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to get tempted on to the Armed Forces Bill any further in case you call me to order. Let me address my remarks to this Bill and these Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 2.

I have to say to the Minister that I am pleased that the Secretary of State has now taken a personal interest in this Bill, because that is helpful all round and I hope it will ensure that we can see it go smoothly on to the statute book. Lords amendment 2 proposes a tried and tested mechanism to improve investigations. It is not arbitrary, as the Minister told the House earlier. It is not a time limit; it ensures timely, not time-limited investigations. It is not unrealistic, because it has been tried and tested in civilian law. This is one of the reasons why the former Judge Advocate General is so keen on it. I am conscious that the Secretary of State believes that the proposals in Lords amendment 2 are somehow novel or that they may prejudice independent investigations. So I say to the Minister, and I have communicated this today to the Secretary of State, that they are not novel and they will not prejudice the independence of investigations, for the following reasons.

In civilian law, which is the model and the principle that we take here, there is in section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 a six-month time limit on investigations for certain offences. It establishes the target, if we like, not a hard limit, and focuses the mind of the investigators. That is the principle that Lords amendment 2 seeks to establish.

On prejudicing independent investigations, the principle of judicial oversight of investigations has already been established, not just in civilian law but in military practice. I quote the former Judge Advocate General, who said in evidence to the Public Bill Committee:

“I introduced something called ‘Better Case Management in the Court Martial’, towards the end of my time as the Judge Advocate General. That puts time limits on investigations. The most important thing about it is that a case, early on, goes before a judge, and a judge then sets out a timetable of what various things should do.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 116, Q231.]

In other words, it is not novel and does not prejudice the independence of investigations. It is a principle that is already established in the military system and established in statute in the civilian system. I hope the Minister will therefore accept the intent of Lords amendment 2, and that it is workable, is certainly in scope, is implementable and gives us the opportunity to fix really long-standing problems. I hope that he and the Government will start to see our proposals in this area as being additional to the current content of the Bill, not a direct challenge to it.

Let me move on to Lords amendment 4 and part 2 of the Bill. I cannot for the life of me I understand why the Government are asking their Back-Bench Members to support something that will strip away the existing rights of forces personnel and their families. It seems to me to be simply wrong for those who put their life on the line serving Britain overseas to have less access to compensation and justice than the UK civilians whom they defend or, indeed, their comrades whose service is largely UK-based.

Lords amendment 4 to part 2 of the Bill was designed to ensure that claims by troops or former service personnel are not blocked in all circumstances after six years, as they would otherwise be under the Bill. There are already safeguards in the Limitation Act 1980—at not just six years but three years—but this Bill now penalises a group of people by applying to them a unique deviation from that Act. It clearly constitutes a disadvantage for those armed forces personnel, their families and the veterans affected, and it directly breaches the armed forces covenant, as the director general of the Royal British Legion confirmed himself in evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Frankly, it really does beggar belief that Ministers are looking to strip from forces personnel and their families their right to justice—to penalise them instead of protecting them.

Let me put this into perspective, because I have sometimes heard Ministers dismiss this issue as affecting such a marginal, small group of people that it does not matter. Some of the cases that have eventually secured justice are deeply moving, deeply troubling and would have been blocked by this Bill. Numbers matter, but they are not the only criteria. Nevertheless, in the most recent financial year, the number of claims by forces personnel against the MOD for injuries was 2,796—up 70% on five years previously. Almost nine in 10 of those claims were for noise-induced hearing loss.

In speaking of hearing loss in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the specialist forces solicitor Hilary Meredith said—and this points to the problem with the hard block after six years:

“In latent disease cases…it is not just about the diagnosis. Many people are diagnosed at death. It is about the connection to service. That connection to service may come much later down the line, and by that time they will be out of time to bring a claim.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 18, Q30.]

It is plain wrong, and I hope that the Government will, at this late stage, reconsider giving those who put their lives on the line for Britain overseas less access to compensation than the UK civilians they defend. Since 2007, there have been at least 195 cases of troops that would have been caught by the Bill and prevented from pursuing a successful claim.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only people who will benefit from this Bill are the lawyers? I cannot for the life of me think why a Government would want to put into statute something that will discriminate against former members of our armed forces. This will clearly be a test case in litigation, and I cannot see what justification the Government will use when that litigation goes ahead for why they have scooped out a certain section of our society away from the Limitation Act, as he outlined. It would be better if they gave up now, rather than spend a lot of time later on—which they will—when this gets tested in the courts.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend says that he cannot see why the Government are pursuing this, but the director general of the Royal British Legion could. When he spoke to the Public Bill Committee, he said:

“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]

He is right. When my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) pressed him and asked whether it would breach the armed forces covenant in his view, he said:

“That is what we think, yes.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 84, Q155.]

I turn to the last of the four main amendments at hand today, Lords amendment 5, which was moved in the other place by Lord Dannatt and is on the duty of care. One of the things that struck me most when talking to troops and their families who have been through the trauma of these long-running investigations is that they felt cut adrift—cut adrift from their chain of command and from the Ministry of Defence. The Public Bill Committee heard really clearly from Major Campbell. He gave dramatic evidence, and I am sure that the Minister has followed this; in fact, he was on the Committee, so he will have been there. When Major Campbell was asked what support the MOD gave him, he simply replied: “there was none.”

Of course, for veterans, it is even worse. For them, there is nothing—not even the chain of command—there for them. Although some of the previous decisions that the Government have taken—for instance, to cover the legal costs of those involved in the Iraq Historic Allegations Team investigations—were welcome, there should be and there can be a higher standard to reach for us in this regard.

When Lord Dannatt moved this amendment successfully in the Lords, he said:

“Defence priorities change; the fortunes of military charities fluctuate; Ministers come and go; but the law does not change. Amendment 14 would bring into law the good ideas and intentions of well-meaning Ministers and officials with whom we are currently united in common cause but who are strangely reluctant to enshrine the fruits of their endeavours in a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament and thus part of our law—a law to protect our people for all time from vexatious investigations and prosecutions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1244.]

The former Veterans Minister wrote in his resignation letter last night:

“I remain genuinely appalled by the experiences of some of the Nation's finest people who have served in the Armed Forces.”

I say to the Minister, we can do better than this duty of care, particularly when the MOD has forces personnel and veterans subject to investigation or prosecution. I hope he will now accept this, so that we can establish a new duty of care standard and that legal, pastoral and mental health support is made available as a matter of course and a matter of duty by the MOD for those who are put under pressure and under investigation or prosecution.

I am coming to my conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are now legislating for the future. The Bill is not a framework that is fit for that future point when we must again commit our forces to conflict overseas. The Government are still getting important parts of the Bill badly wrong. I continue to believe strongly that, ultimately, the Government, Labour and the armed forces all want the same thing: we want to protect British troops and we want to protect British values. That is not, and should not be, a matter of party politics.

I end today as I ended our debates on Report back in November by saying this: it is late, but it is still not too late for Ministers to think again about the best way both to protect service personnel from vexatious litigation and to ensure that those who do commit serious crimes on operations abroad are properly prosecuted and punished. I urge the Minister and the Government to do just that in the very final stages of this Bill in Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

The bishops often vote against the Government. This is something where the military securitat—as it were—do not vote against the Government. They are people whose patriotism is unquestionable and whose knowledge is unparalleled in this area, so the Minister should pay great attention to them and take notice.

The aim of the Bill, as we have heard several times, is to shield our military personnel from being pursued by vexatious claims—I was going to say something rude about lawyers. It is a proper and worthwhile ambition and one that we should fully support. The Government have rightly made it clear—and this is the point on which I support them—that torture and genocide can never be acceptable and have excluded them from a five-year presumption against prosecution.

However, even with these concessions, there remains a fundamental problem. The Government have failed to exclude war crimes from the list of offences, as has been made clear by the Opposition spokesman. I asked the Minister whether he would clarify for me how he distinguishes between war crimes, torture, and genocide as subjects properly excluded from the Bill. Although he made a very skilful response he could not do it and I do not think anybody could do it. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made plain, war crimes include wilful killing: in the case he raised, the wilful killing of prisoners; the wilful killing of innocent civilians; and wilfully putting people through miserable pain or suffering. All those things are, quite properly, war crimes. They are, quite properly, things we would be held to account for by the rest of the world, let alone our soldiers being held to account by our courts and our judicial procedure.

I firmly believe that we cannot protect our own soldiers without correcting that exclusion. That is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of many of our experienced military leaders. Take Lord Robertson, the former Labour Minister—he was both Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General—who authored the amendment. He argued that the Bill would create

“a two-tier justice system in which troops acting for us abroad would be treated differently from other civilians in society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1190.]

That cannot be right and that cannot be just. Indeed, it is not what our troops stand up for. It is not what they fight for. When they go abroad to fight, they do so because they stand up for our civilised values, and this is one of them. There is a certain quirk to that.

The Bill must give confidence to military personnel, complainants and other countries that the United Kingdom remains a stalwart upholder of the rule of law. There can be no greater test of our national character and no more important measure of our moral fibre than maintaining the highest of standards in this most difficult of tasks. We must get this right. If we get it wrong, we will be in the shameful position—this was made clear several times by the Labour party spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne—of putting our troops at risk of being summoned before the International Criminal Court. The chief prosecutor of that court wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence. When I saw the account of that, I wrote to the chief prosecutor and received a clarification. War crimes are plainly in the court’s sights. If somebody is alleged to have been guilty of a war crime and we exercise the presumption against prosecution as stated in the Bill, they will end up in front of the ICC. That is quite clear to me. That is not a risk, but a certainty.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

In Committee, we spoke at lot about the famous case of Marine A. Under this measure, that individual would not have been prosecuted after five years, but it is clear that he would have ended up in the International Criminal Court for what he did. He would not have been given the hearing he had in this country, not just in terms of the fairness of our judicial system but also on appeal, taking into account the specific nature of the reasons why that incident occurred. To me, it would be absolutely awful if such individuals were found before an international court, rather than a court in this country.

[Mr Davis]

For people watching who will not remember Marine A, he is a marine who effectively executed a wounded prisoner and went to prison for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—yes, of course. We heard evidence directly from Major Robert Campbell in the Bill Committee, who has gone through 17 years of hell, of repeated investigations. There is no doubt that people looking at that—serving personnel and potential serving personnel—will consider their future career.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Lady is right, but the missing point in this is investigations. It was heartbreaking to hear Robert Campbell’s evidence to the Committee, but if the Bill goes through as it stands, there will be nothing to stop another case like Campbell’s going forward in future. This has been sold as a way of stopping vexatious claims and investigations, but without change in investigations, it will not do that.

[Carol Monaghan]

And in fact could make it worse. If we throw the ICC into that as well, potentially, we could have a much worse situation for personnel who are facing prosecution.

On Lords amendment 3, any derogation from the European convention on human rights for future overseas operations would have set a damaging precedent for an international treaty—an international treaty that this country played a major role in drawing up. These proposals would have undermined the protections that the UK was so integral to establishing. We welcome Lords amendment 3 and are pleased that the Government have accepted it. It is one of those common-sense ones that should not have needed to come to this stage, but we have got there, so we are thankful for that.

On Lords amendment 4, I spoke on Second Reading and in Committee about the issue of the time limit on claims. One thing that was raised was that some personnel are told, while they are still serving, that they are unable to pursue a claim, which is false, or they are told by those higher up the chain of command that they do not have a valid claim. The nature of the armed forces is that, for many serving personnel, if they are told by their superiors that they are not able to do something, they will accept that. It is only when they find out years later that, actually, they do have a valid claim and they are able to pursue it, they will be able to take action, but with this six-year limit, that is problematic.

We very much welcome Lords amendment 4, but it does not go far enough. As has already been mentioned, it in effect creates an unfair two-tier system in which MOD civilian employees, or indeed the families of deceased personnel, will not be able to make claims beyond the six-year limit. So we will be supporting the amendment, but it is disappointing that it only applies to members of the armed forces.

The Government had the opportunity to strengthen Lords amendment 4 by widening it to apply to all, but instead they are rejecting it entirely so that everyone has the time limit applied. We have heard about those with hearing loss, and again I spoke in Committee about an individual whose significant hearing loss could not be pinpointed to one event and had got progressively worse. Certainly, the six-year limit would have caused problems for that individual to pursue a claim, as it would for claims relating to post-traumatic stress disorder, because that can manifest itself very differently in different people and it may be many years later.

I know the time limit is supposed to be from the point of diagnosis, not from the point of first symptoms, but even at the point of diagnosis the link would still need to be made to service, and if that was not done in a timely way, it would prevent further progress of a claim. Another such issue I have spoken about is that of the nuclear test veterans, who 60 or 70 years on are still looking for stuff, but they would be prevented from making any claims under this. It is notable that we should be making it easier for our personnel to make claims against the MOD when the MOD is seen to be negligent, but as has already been said, this legislation seems to be crafted specially to protect the MOD, not the personnel themselves. We should all be quite concerned about that, so we will be supporting Lords amendment 4 today.

Finally, on Lord Dannatt’s amendment—Lords amendment 5—which ensures care and support for personnel involved in investigations, I cannot see why every Member of this place should not be supporting it. I know the Minister has spoken about the reasons why the Government are not supporting this, but if all these structures are in place just now, why do we still have personnel who are not getting that support at the moment? If that support is already there and is not working, then we do need something, and if it has to be statutory, then it should be statutory.

I will finish my comments by saying that I hope, with the change of Minister, that we do see a change of attitude. I know it will surprise Government Members, but occasionally Opposition Members may have points that are worth consideration. We are not always out to get you, although I will not be putting that on social media. I think there has to be an acknowledgment and a recognition of the experience that Members across the House can bring to legislation, particularly legislation such as this. I will, finally, just thank the Minister for his input today, and we certainly look forward to working with him in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate.

First, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the birthday of the head of our armed forces, Her Majesty the Queen. When I put on the Ulster Defence Regiment uniform in Operation Banner, it was done to serve Queen and country, and I still honour her today, on the Floor of the House. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Her Majesty and the royal family on this very, very difficult milestone day.

This issue is difficult and complex. The obligation to fulfil our duty under article 2 of the ECHR is vital. Among the chatter I have heard, there seems to be confusion between a legal investigation following appropriate procedures and an investigation that gives what the family feel to be the right result or justice. This Bill is not designed to be the answer to every death involving a member of the armed forces; it is designed to ensure that the killing was unlawful and is still able to be prosecuted. At the same time, it protects against the sustained, erroneous and vexatious prosecution of service personnel such as those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan or Northern Ireland.

As DUP spokesperson on human rights, I welcome the Government changes to the provisions regarding torture as suggested in Lords amendment 1 to clauses 6 and 7. The Government’s acceptance of this in their own proposals is welcome, as is clarification as to why war crimes have continued to be exempted. I look to the Minister for some clarity on that. I have further questions on Lords amendment 4 regarding the ability of service personnel to make a claim against Government. I have been struck by the Royal British Legion’s reasoning in the briefing sent to me. The shadow Minister mentioned this, as did many others. We are all aware of new clause 13, “Restrictions on time limits: actions brought against the Crown by service personnel”. That amends part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitations on courts’ discretion that the part imposes in respect of actions relating to overseas operations. It could therefore potentially go some way to addressing the issues raised by the Royal British Legion, other external experts and members of both Houses in relation to the impact of part 2. Again, I seek clarity on this.

My next point will be of no surprise to anyone in this Chamber—equivalence of service personnel. For those who currently serve or who have served in the past, we have, as is the title of Lords amendment 5, a “duty of care to service personnel”. My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) both mentioned this. It is really important for those of us who have served in the armed forces and those who represent Northern Ireland in particular. It is so simple and yet so effective, and unfortunately patently untrue. There is a duty of care to service personnel, unless of course they were called to serve in Northern Ireland.

At this stage, I wish to personally thank the former Minister for Veterans and Defence People, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for his honourable actions, his passion and his commitment in the job that he had, and also for the help that he gave some of my constituents personally. I would not want to embarrass him by saying it here in the Chamber, but he really did reach out to some of my constituents in a very, very personal way. I really appreciate that and I want to put it on record.

We have today not parallel legislation where we are working through the kinks, but nothing for those brave personnel who served in Northern Ireland. I asked the Minister earlier about the legislation in respect of protection for Northern Ireland. I do not want to embarrass him but I am going to tell him what I saw as I was sitting here just before I was called. Tracey Magee says:

“NIO source tells me there are no plans to bring forward legislation in the Queens Speech on NI veterans ‘at this stage’.”

To be fair to the Minister, who I respect greatly and have affection for, if that is the case, then we really have to address this issue. If it is not in this Queen’s Speech, then when will it be? If he does not mind, I am going to hold his feet to the fire on this one and say that we really need to have a commitment on legislative time and a timescale to work towards. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is committed to this, but we need to have the involvement of Government and the Northern Ireland Office and to see it the Queen’s Speech. We need to be reassured. If there is a legislative programme, then we need it to be confirmed today and to be told what it is. That is breaking news in the past few minutes.

No matter how the republican agenda seeks to rewrite history to make it appear that there is no difference between a terrorist whose every action is a crime, and whose causing of loss of life can only be murder, and a serving member of the armed forces who may cause loss of life while legally carrying out duties, let me be quite clear: they are not the same. Legislation needs to be in place to ensure that that is not the case.

There is much in the Bill that is right and proper, but I find it harder and harder to understand and support those who persist in belittling and traducing the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. The passing of the Bill will not be complete, and will not have the full assurance and confidence of everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, unless those who served in Northern Ireland have very same rights—every soldier who served, every family who grieved. Across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, every MP no doubt has in their constituency families of those who served and died as a result of their service in Northern Ireland. For them, for the MPs in Northern Ireland, for my party and for the people of the Province, we want to be assured that legislative change will come in the House from this Government and that it will be forthcoming soonest. We want to hear about it right away.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Bill aims to address issues that rightly need to be addressed on potential vexatious investigations and litigations, but was the Bill needed? No, it was not needed. All those issues could have been addressed in the Armed Forces Bill, which is currently going through the House. The Bill was brought forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) said, as a clear piece of election gimmicking and as part of the worst aspects of what we have seen from the present Conservative party trying to get culture wars going.

We saw that on Second Reading in the wind-up from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Somehow, to criticise the Bill in any way meant that you were in favour of ambulance-chasing lawyers and against our brave servicemen and service- women. I take great exception to that. In June, I will have been in the House for 20 years. I think most people know that I have a long record in this House, like other Labour Members, of speaking up and arguing for members of our armed forces. It is worth reminding the House that many of the people who would be affected by the Bill are from northern constituencies—Liverpool and everywhere else. They are proud members of the armed forces and they need protection. The Bill is fundamentally dishonest, because it does not do what it claims to do.

Members have congratulated the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View today. Let me put this on the record. I have had my disagreements with him, but I do not for one minute question his integrity or passion in trying to get everything right for members of the armed forces. However, I have to say that the way he took this Bill and the Armed Forces Bill through was his way or no way. He was not prepared at all to countenance any view that was different from his, even when, on many occasions, it was completely wrong against the evidence we took.

Likewise, I understand what has been said about the hon. Gentleman’s campaign in Northern Ireland. It is one that I sympathise with, but he now tries to portray himself as a great champion of Northern Ireland veterans. He said last night, “Politics does this”. Well, I say to him, “Wake up. You are a politician. You were in a position to do something about it and you didn’t.” Not only did he stop the Armed Forces Bill taking written evidence from Northern Ireland veterans, but he voted against my amendment to look at Northern Ireland veterans in the Armed Forces Bill. So I shall take no lessons from him on that.

The key problem with the Bill is this: if we want to stop vexatious investigations and litigation the way to go about it is to address investigations, but the Bill is silent on that. In Committee I tabled new clauses 6, 7 and 8, which would have addressed investigations. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View told me that investigations would be not be considered in this Bill but that they would be included in the Armed Forces Bill. Lo and behold, when I was on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I found that investigations were not included because they are now part of the long-term review. That is a gaping hole in this Bill. That is why I welcome Lords amendment 2.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 31st March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

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

This new clause would place a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence in relation to finding a pathway to treatment for people suffering with addiction. We are familiar with the existing narrative that many of our armed forces community will, at some stage, struggle with their mental health. While there is agreement that we must prioritise the mental health and wellbeing of our armed forces, alcohol, drug and gambling use disorders—otherwise known as addiction—do not receive the same consideration, and serving personnel and veterans experiencing addiction are being failed by the current system.

In society, we should afford the same attention, resources and support to addiction as to any other mental health matter, because addiction is an illness—an illness with a higher prevalence across the services. The new clause would place a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence to ensure that it has a role to play in finding a pathway to treatment for those men and women who have given service. Combat Stress confirms that military personnel are more likely to suffer from substance misuse problems than civilians, yet there is only one veteran-specific addiction treatment facility in the whole of the UK—Tom Harrison House, in Anfield, in my constituency.

Turning to alcohol, drugs and gambling in times of uncertainty or hardship is normalised in the UK. The latest Office for National Statistics alcohol-specific deaths data show that this is now a national crisis. Our armed forces are a niche community with distinct values that make engagement with local services difficult. Many veterans and their families are isolated and do not receive the treatment they need and deserve. I have met many veterans visiting Tom Harrison House who felt completely let down by the MOD. I am yet to meet one who has received the support they need for their addiction through the Army, Navy or Air Force. Too often—in fact, it is the norm—people have to hit rock bottom to get picked up and offered support. Even then, treatment is not always available. One veteran told me:

“I gave my life to service, I was trained to lack empathy; conditioned to survive; asking for help was a weakness; encouraged to drink and when there was nothing left for me to give, I was discharged, without any re-conditioning, no support; completely alone.”

That experience is unacceptable.

We just do not know how many veterans experience substance use disorders, as there is such limited reporting. The new clause would address that lack of understanding. As it stands, the MOD plays no role in the pathway of support for veterans who require treatment for addiction and other mental health issues, even though we know that the effect of service is often a determining factor in a veteran’s illness. Once personnel have left service, they rely on the NHS and local authorities, and of course the UK’s third sector organisations provide help and support. I absolutely value their work, but the MOD has a responsibility to those men and women that it has shirked for too long. Veterans are expected to use the same pathway as civilians—through the NHS and local authority services—yet drug and alcohol services have been decimated in the past 10 years, with part one of Dame Carol Black’s review on drugs detailing that, in some local authorities, funding for these services has been cut by 40%. We expect veterans to navigate an underfunded system that does not cater for veteran- specific needs.

We know that addiction is often a symptom of deeper psychological problems. Substances are ways to escape and self-medicate. Although co-occurrence of substance use and mental health diagnoses is widely understood, to access mental health services the person must often address the substance use first. The Committee heard at first hand from Combat Stress just how obstructive that is to recovery. This fractured approach leaves too many in prolonged pain and suffering as they continue to fall between the cracks. While the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law, public bodies having that due regard will not help the many veterans who experience addiction.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is talking about veterans, but does he agree that there is a big issue with drug and alcohol misuse in the services? The services’ main response is usually to dismiss people with those issues. Does he think more should be done to get treatment for those individuals while they are in service?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I cannot accept the new clause because it would essentially give the MOD responsibility for civilian services, but I can try to achieve the same effect by making a joint visit to Tom Harrison House and really understanding where the points of pressure are in ensuring that care pathway for our people, and work together to make sure that we can look after such people, who—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton makes a really strong and valid point—have been quietly shielded out from other services that other people have had access to. It is something that I feel very strongly about.

[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.

[Mr Jones]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Duty to report—

“The Secretary of State 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.”

See explanatory statement for NC14.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

New clause 7 is designed to get a commitment on looking at Northern Ireland veterans. I was very disappointed that the Government voted down our proposal for the Committee to take evidence from Northern Ireland veterans. Even the compromise of asking for written evidence was voted down, which was a disappointing approach from the Government.

Operation Banner was the longest continuous operation for our armed forces in Northern Ireland, running from 1969 to 2007. During that time, 1,441 members of the armed forces lost their lives in the service of their country in Northern Ireland. It sadly began in 1971 with the death of a member of the Royal Artillery Regiment, Robert Curtis, who was 20 years old and is buried in the West Road Cemetery in Newcastle, and it ended with Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick, 23, when he was shot by a sniper at Bessbrook in County Armagh in February 1997.

Those two men are the bookends of the individuals who lost their lives, but many of those individuals serving in Northern Ireland had joined the armed forces mainly from communities such as the one I grew up in, from areas that they had left because of unemployment. They proudly served their country and were asked to take part in an operation that was vital for the security of our country, which exposed them to risk not only in Northern Ireland, but on the UK mainland, as we saw with the tragedies of the bomb attacks and deaths of service personnel. They paid a huge price—not only those who died, but those who served—and to a large extent they are the forgotten veterans.

We rightly honour the veterans of overseas campaigns who have lost their lives or suffered injury, but Northern Ireland and Operation Banner were slightly different. Because the operation took place in the UK, there is a tendency to think that somehow it is politically embarrassing for those individuals to be recognised, and because it went on for so long and did not retain public interest once it had ended, they were not kept in the headlines. There needs to be more research and focus on those individuals and on giving them recognition.

My amendment calls for a report to be commissioned by the Secretary of State specifically into the effects of Operation Banner on those individuals. Many will now be somewhere in their late 70s and possibly early 80s. While I accept that many will have gone on, as many members of the armed forces do, to successful civilian careers, the veterans I have spoken to over the years, and the individuals I knew growing up who had served in Northern Ireland, have suffered. There is a lack of research on that, although I commend recent reports from the Forces in Mind Trust, Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University, which were very good and specifically looked at Northern Ireland veterans.

There are two sides to this: there are the Northern Ireland veterans who are now resident in the UK, but I know from a number of visits I have made to Northern Ireland that there is also an ongoing problem with mental health support for those who served and live still in Northern Ireland. Some of the issues in the summary of the report that came out in 2017 were quite interesting.

One such issue was that those veterans felt there was a lack of trust, and another was a desire—quite rightly, I think—for some kind of public recognition for their service. I accept that they were awarded medals but, in the context of the broader question, because of the political nature of the Northern Ireland conflict, that recognition has not been given them. Also, in sections of certain communities, there is a social stigma against certain individuals who served in Northern Ireland. We need to do research and have the data and evidence to support the individuals who served. They were ordinary men, mainly, although there were also women. They came from communities across the UK, many in northern towns, and they served their country.

Added to that, we have the ongoing uncertainty on prosecutions, with 12 individuals still being investigated for crimes that allegedly took place throughout their service in Northern Ireland, some dating back over 50 years. In many cases, they have been investigated on numerous occasions. Obviously, a case that has been highlighted recently is that of Dennis Hutchings, who is 79 years of age. What strikes me about all the cases is that the individuals who are facing the torment—and I mean torment—of a prosecution hanging over their heads are mainly from the lower ranks.

I accept that things were done in Northern Ireland throughout the campaign that we would look back on and not agree with; the Army, and the way in which the armed forces operate, has changed radically in those 50 years, but the idea that young servicemen who were serving their country should be the target now of prosecution when those who made the decisions higher up, including politicians and those in higher ranks in the armed forces, were not held to account in any way for those actions is not acceptable.

I know that the Prime Minister and the Minister have said that legislation will be introduced to deal with those prosecutions, but it is like tomorrow; it never comes. The Prime Minister promised it. It was promised in the last Conservative manifesto. It was also promised in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Nothing came forward. The Minister then said that it would be in this Bill, but clearly it is not. It has now been parcelled off. I understand it is now said not to be a MOD matter, but a matter for the Northern Ireland Office.

I take a very clear view on this issue, and it is already there in law. Is it in the public interest to persecute and chase down individuals for incidents that happened, in some cases—such as Dennis’s—50 years ago, when they have been investigated on several occasions? That cannot be a good and right way of treating people who were doing their duty by their country in horrendously difficult circumstances and keeping us all safe. At the end of the day, that is what they were there to do.

Veterans now think that the promises that have been made by the Government are pretty hollow, and unless legislation is introduced very quickly some individuals will face the courts. The terrible thing is the uncertainty hanging over those individuals—that at any time they could get a knock at the door and be asked to account for actions that took place in some cases, such as Dennis Hutchings’s, 50 years ago. That cannot be right.

As part of the efforts to highlight the plight of veterans, I welcome the Forces in Mind Trust research that has been done already, but we need the MOD, if it is really committed to these individuals, to do a wider piece of work looking at the effects of service in Northern Ireland, and to not forget those individuals, who were doing their duty by their country. I accept that a lot of things in this Armed Forces Bill might be problematic, but it is the only time we have as parliamentarians every five years to address issues that affect not only the veterans community, but members of our armed forces. I think if we were to do this, it would send a clear message that we are not forgetting these individuals and are trying not only to do the research, but to put in place policies that actually help them.

I plead with the Government to stop promising things that they are not going to deliver. If they are not going to deliver on the prosecutions, they should just say so. I think it is pretty dishonest to have a situation whereby these individuals are being promised something, including by the Prime Minister, that is not yet being achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

[Mr Jones]

If the Minister wants a lesson in the long list of things that both I and my predecessors did in the last Labour Government for veterans, I shall send it to him.

[The Chair]

Order. Mr Jones, thank you; Minister, thank you.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Due regard given to service personnel—

“(1) When preparing policy, public bodies must have regard to those matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in preparing an Armed Force covenant report, under section 359A (2A) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

(2) In preparing policy, public bodies must consider whether the making of special provision for service people or descriptions of service people would be justified.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, a report which sets out how decisions made by the relevant Departments have taken due regard to the Armed Forces Covenant into account.”

This new clause will ensure the Government fully enshrines the Armed Forces Covenant into law. It clarifies the duty to have ‘due regard’, meaning public bodies and ministers must consider the same issues that the Secretary of State does in preparing the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.

New clause 14—Statistics to be reported as part of the Armed Forces Covenant Report—

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

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

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

(a) veterans (or families of veterans) who have contacted the Office of Veteran Affairs or Veterans UK each year and an overview of the most commonly mentioned reasons for contact;

(b) veterans who have applied for a Veterans Railcard;

(c) veterans who have applied to the Civil Service Interviews Scheme, and the proportion of these who have been successful in a job offer;

(d) veterans in the street homeless population; and

(e) veterans who have died by suicide.’”

This new clause, with NC15, will improve the Government’s collection and reporting of data on veterans in the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report. It also places a duty on all public services to establish whether all new users are a veteran.

[Mr Jones]

First, may I put on the record for the Minister that my constituency is not Darlington North but North Durham, which I am proud to have represented for the past 20 years? Can I also just give him some advice? If he actually read around the subject and understood it, rather than just reading out the civil service brief, he might be able to think on his feet and answer the points. It is called preparation for Bill Committees—I am not sure he does a great deal of that.

New clause 8 gets to an issue that was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West—the ability of the armed forces to make representations on their terms and conditions of employment. That ability is limited, and the first issue that I will raise is pay. We have already heard about their limited ability to raise issues in other areas, but it is down to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to look at the way in which the armed forces are remunerated. I accept that it is not a straightforward situation, due to not just the different ranks and responsibilities, but the complexity. The three services are not always easy to understand.

Because the armed forces cannot make representations on their own pay, they rely on the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to do that intensive work. Anyone who cares to read its annual reports—sadly, I do—knows that it does an excellent job of trying to gauge opinion across the armed forces, and it has comparators with other sectors. I accept there is not a complete read-across to other, civilian areas, because, for example, there are issues around abatements of pensions and other things, but the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is expert in being able to do these things.

There was not a problem until 2010, because it was assumed that no Government would not accept the pay review body’s recommendations. We are talking about standing up for our armed forces, and I was proud to be a member of a Government who accepted those recommendations in full. However, that changed in 2010, when the coalition Government, and then the current Conservative Government, did not accept the pay recommendations. The MOD might accept them, but they are not implemented in terms of the Treasury recommendations. In 2010, an Army private was paid £17,014 per annum. Average inflation has been 2.7% over the period since then, which means a private should receive £22,338 today. However, a private earns only £20,400 today—an almost 10% cut in privates’ pay since 2010.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) said that the Tory party is the party that stands up for the armed forces. I can imagine the hue and cry there would have been if I had recommended that armed forces pay should be cut in such a way when I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence. This just shows how hollow those words are. One of the important things about a pay review body is the fact that it is independent. Clearly, in 2013, Downing Street did not like the recommendations from Alasdair Smith, who was then the chairman and whom the Government failed to reappoint, because he wanted to go beyond the 1% basic rise that had been recommended.

The Government cannot pick and choose when service personnel are treated as public servants. The wage cap in the public sector was argued for on the basis of austerity, but I would argue that members of the armed forces should be treated separately, because they have an independent body that looks at their pay. As has been raised already, they do not have the ability to make recommendations or to take any actions.

New Clause 8 is designed to ensure that the covenant report includes comparisons with the terms and conditions of service in the public sector. Many of those may well be issues that are raised by the pay review body, but I would certainly like to see that emphasis, so that we can judge what the Government are doing.

As I say, we have had a coalition Government and a Conservative Government who have cut armed forces pay, but they also made people compulsorily redundant in the early 2010s. Again, if I had recommended that as Minister for the Armed Forces, the newspaper headlines and Conservative Members would have said that it was an outrage. However, it has gone through very quietly, like the issue of armed forces pay. New clause 8 would ensure that armed forces pay is on the agenda and we have the ability to ensure that Governments of whichever colour do not renege—which this Government have done, and which the coalition Government did—on armed forces pay.

[The Chair]

Before I call Stephen Morgan to speak to new clause 10 and then Sharon Hodgson to speak to new clause 14, I remind Members that this sitting is being broadcast live. Members should therefore refrain from arguing in public. I remind everyone that they must formally intervene and then stay on mute when they are not speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister did not tell the Committee that since 2010 the fees charged have increased from £840 to £2,389, which has made a real difference in the burden? Those decisions were taken by the coalition and Conservative Governments.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

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

The new clause is designed to provide greater transparency on the strength of our fighting forces, following the Government’s broken promises on armed forces cuts. It would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each quarter on the fighting strength of our armed forces, including on the number of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.

As the Committee knows, the Prime Minister promised to end the era of retreat, and that no further cuts would be made to the Army. Instead, he has further eroded our fighting strength: 45,000 personnel have been cut since 2010, and the forces were 10,000 below target strength. Now the integrated review and the Command Paper have confirmed that the Army will be further reduced to just 72,500 by 2025—smaller than at any time since the 1700s. That has been compounded by a leaked MOD report suggesting that 32 to 33 infantry battalions are short of battle-ready personnel.

The Chief of the Defence Staff said in 2015 that the ability to yield a single war-fighting division was

“the standard whereby a credible army is judged”.

Recently retired British generals have said that further cuts to the Army would mean that the UK is no longer taken seriously as a military power and would damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO. The Royal United Services Institute recently reinforced that point, suggesting that the cuts mean that the UK can no longer be considered a tier 1 or full-spectrum military power.

These sweeping changes to our armed forces represent a huge gamble with our national security. Although the battlefield is undeniably changing, it remains to be seen whether the investments made in cyber, space and electronic warfare will be enough to keep us competitive on the world stage.

Government cuts to the conventional strength of our forces today, with the promise of jam tomorrow in the form of pioneering technology, are nothing new. Tory Ministers promised the same in the 2010 and 2015 reviews, but they failed to deliver. In 2010 they promised a future force by 2020, and in 2015 they promised a war-fighting division with a strike force by 2025. It is now being promised in 2030. A recent Defence Committee report on the Army’s armoured vehicle capability says that the division will be “hopelessly under-equipped” and overmatched by adversaries.

While we wait to see whether the Government finally deliver a coherent strategy for our national security, it is vital that we have a clear understanding of our fighting strength. Successive Conservative Governments have talked up their commitment to our armed forces, but they have broken their promises at every turn. Our adversaries will exploit continuing holes in our capability, and Labour is determined to ensure that our country can protect itself properly now and in the future.

[Mr Jones]

I rise to support this new clause because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South has outlined, promises have been broken not just by this Government but since 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party argued for a larger defence budget, an increase in numbers, more equipment, and a commitment to the armed forces of our country. Since then, we have not just seen the size of the Army reduced; we have seen cuts in numbers in the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, and in the Royal Air Force. Under the coalition, we had the terrible situation where brave members of our armed forces were made compulsorily redundant—again, something that was never promised in 2010. Certainly, if a Labour Government had implemented that policy, Members on the Tory Benches would have opposed it and would have been highly critical of the Government for doing so.

The overall size of our armed forces does matter, not only in terms of the Army being able to deploy individuals but to ensure that, for example, the Royal Navy has enough personnel to put ships to sea. We can have as much equipment as we want, but if we do not have the individual servicemen and servicewomen to support that equipment, it is useless. In the past few years, we have seen naval ships tied up because of a lack of trained strength, so it is important that we have this report annually and also that it talks about trained strength, because the Government do play fast and loose with the numbers.

It is not just a matter of the overall size, but what the overall capability is and how many members of the armed forces can actually deploy. There has been a decade of decline in the UK’s armed forces, and although the Minister and others champion the idea that they are supporting members of the armed forces, they have been part of a Government that have not only cut pay—as we have already spoken about this morning—but cut the actual numbers of the armed forces.

Another aspect I would like to raise is the lack of opportunity this will mean for many young people in constituencies such as mine, who proudly join the armed services to not only serve their country, but ensure they can have a career that they can be proud of and take those skills back into civilian life. The cuts will have an impact in constituencies across the country that provide men and women for the armed forces, because there will be a lack of opportunities. A lot of negative things are said about service in the armed forces, but I see service as a positive thing, where the people joining not only contribute to the safety that we all take for granted but, more importantly, get great career opportunities and opportunities that they would never have in civilian life. Once they leave, that expertise helps those individuals, and also helps local communities such as mine in North Durham. These cuts will limit the opportunities for those people, which saddens me, and is something we should bear in mind.

[Carol Monaghan]

I want to say a few words in support of this new clause. Again, it should be really straightforward. I cannot see any reason why the Government would oppose it; it simply asks for a report on numbers.

Both Members who have already spoken to this new clause have talked about the impact of reduced numbers. We must be clear that despite moves towards cyber-warfare and different types of platform, ultimately reduced numbers threatens our capability. When we are looking at operating in very difficult circumstances, the Government should take seriously any threat to our capability.

We must also think about the impact on the remaining personnel, because the burden on them increases as the numbers decrease, with fewer personnel having to do more. That has an impact on their lives, including their family life and interactions with those outside the military. It can also threaten their ability to take leave; it will be a serious issue if they have leave entitlement but are not able to take leave because there are insufficient personnel to cover. People cannot continue like that; perhaps they can for short periods, but not over months and certainly not over years or indeed their entire service. We need to think carefully about this.

To make a general point, I am concerned that we are in a Bill Committee and we are supposed to be discussing new clauses and amendments, with the Government looking at adopting those that are considered reasonable, but it seems to me at the moment that they have not taken on board a single one. That calls into question what we are all doing on a Wednesday morning participating in such a Committee. So I seek some advice on this from the Chair: surely the Government should seriously consider new clauses and amendments, particularly where there is consensus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

Not at this moment, no; I am making a very brief point.

I know what happened just after 2010, after the right hon. Member for North Durham left the MOD: a huge amount of programmes were massively over-budget and had to be axed at the last minute, at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds in some cases.

[Mr Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Holden]

Not at this stage, thank you.

We must be realistic, especially as we are looking at totally new threats from across the globe; our adversaries are operating in the grey zone, and we need to look at ways to counter them. If Opposition Members are going to propose different things, they need to explain how we can achieve them.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but say to him that that did not stop the Conservative party in 2009 and the 2010 general election, when it proposed a larger Army and an increase in the Defence budget. Yet the first thing they did was cut it. The hon. Gentleman should practise what he preaches. I do not know whether he was an adviser in 2010, but statements on the record and in the manifesto were completely turned over when the Conservatives entered the coalition Government; the first thing they did was cut the size of the armed forces and make people compulsorily redundant.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments, but, as he will know, immediately after the general election there was that lovely note left on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s desk by the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying that there was no money left. He will also know that a lot of the programmes that had to be axed following the 2010 general election had gone massively over-budget, which was only discovered in later years, due to obfuscation by members of the outgoing Labour Government about the actual state of the programmes. So I just say that it would be particularly helpful if, rather than trying to put more and more on the never-never as the last Labour Government did and the Opposition are proposing today, they were honest, straightforward and realistic with the British people about the choices that have to be taken.

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for moving the clause. I note the Government’s willingness to align the military judicial process so that it is more akin to a civil jury. The concern of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches is that, in the evidence recently given by Judge Lyons to the Committee, he stipulated:

“I believe, in the modern world, that the maintenance of discipline is in everyone’s interests, and as a first step I would wish to see it opened to OR-7. I think opening it further is a step too far at this stage.”

What concerns me and my SNP colleagues is that when pushed on the rationale for such an opinion, Judge Lyons was unable to substantiate why someone with substantial service under OR-7 should be excluded. Therefore, the judicial process, in terms of peer judicial decision, does not reflect the reality of military life.

I hope that the Government will consider accepting the amendment. There are those who have substantial service in the armed forces, not just in the sense of command but in lived experience of being in the Army. Some of the evidence given to the Defence Committee’s Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces, and the armed forces ombudsman’s evidence in recent Defence Committee meetings, reflected that the judicial processes of the armed forces are not held in high regard by many serving and former service personnel. The amendment would—at least in some sense—go some way to rectifying that, ensuring that the military process is reflective of the reality of military life. At this point, if the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment, I will press it to a vote.

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

I wish to speak in support of the amendment. The issue was quite clearly looked at by Judge Lyons in his report. As has just been said, there is no rationale for why other rank 7 was seen as a particularly relevant cut-off point. The important thing is that we make the move to mirror the civilian justice system, although I certainly accept that there are differences between the two because of operational issues.

To be judged by one’s peers is a fundamental right. The provision would exclude large numbers of individuals, including some who may have many years of experience in the armed forces and of sitting on courts martial. I do not think that a good enough reason for excluding those individuals has been put forward in evidence. One possible justification was that people would not understand the procedures. Well, I find that rather patronising for non-commissioned officers, some of whom have been in the armed forces for many years. I would draw a parallel with civilian courts, where there is no qualification process or aptitude test for sitting on a civilian jury. It is for them to weigh up the evidence.

I think that Judge Lyons was basically saying in his report that the movement he outlined was all that he could get away with in the military legal system. I think that he was pushing for further change, but quite clearly did not want to offend or cause things not to go further. I think that he certainly saw this as a step towards, possibly, allowing other ranks to sit on courts martial.

The important point is to ensure that the individuals being tried feel that they get a fair hearing. In the hierarchical way that courts martial are judged at the moment, individuals might not perceive the process as fair because they are judged by more senior officers who determine promotion and other prospects for lower ranks, and might not only have limited understanding of the individual’s life experience, but could ultimately influence the outcome of the individual’s career, for example. I do not think a good enough reason has been put forward for why this cannot be extended, and I therefore support the amendment.

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

I will say just a couple of words in support of my colleague’s amendment. The Bill should be seen as an opportunity to modernise and to introduce some fairness—or perceived fairness—into service justice.

To include the NCOs and lower ranks is a step towards a more equitable method of delivering service justice, and how that is viewed by personnel is important. It is important that those sitting on a court martial board understand the experience of the people before them. Unfortunately, the experiences of commissioned and non-commissioned personnel can often be quite different. This is a real chance to build greater fairness, and perceived fairness, into the system. I urge the Government to consider the amendment carefully.

--- 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.

[Carol Monaghan]

I will say a few words in support of the amendment. The Defence Sub-Committee has been taking evidence on the experience of women in the armed forces. We know there are a whole range of issues specific to female personnel. When we are looking at serious crimes such as rape, so many different issues have to be considered —we need to consider consent and whether there is a proper reporting structure—and those who make complaints must have confidence in the system.

We have already discussed the membership of the court martial board. How can someone have confidence in a trial when those who are deciding the outcomes are likely to be male and of higher ranks, and not likely to have any understanding of the woman or the victim’s experience? In other words, they will not have anything in common with the person who is bringing forward the complaint.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 8 already includes a power in new section 343AF for the Secretary of State to widen the scope of the duty to additional public bodies and functions in the same or additional areas following a consultation. That renders unnecessary the suggested new clause to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to define which bodies and which specific functions in the new areas are covered by the duty. I therefore hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree not to press the amendments.

[Mr Jones]

I rise to support the amendments and to say to the Minister that he has read his civil service brief well—if he could do it a bit more slowly, we might be able to follow it. I do not think he addressed any of the points in the amendments. Again, like a lot of things that the Government do, the spin and presentation is very different from what will actually be put into practice. We should not be surprised by that, because we have a Prime Minister who is an expert at saying one thing and doing another.

The Bill would put the covenant into law, but there is very limited movement on that, with an emphasis on local authorities and the local level. I accept that the delivery of services is done at local or regional level, but we have to recognise that a lot of the policy areas are influenced by national decisions.

The Minister might care to read the 2008 Command Paper entitled “The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans,” which was the origin of the covenant report and was launched by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, Bob Ainsworth. Its key point is to ensure that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged because of their service to the nation. I implemented it, and we had armed forces champions across main Government Departments. The main emphasis was to try to hardwire support for the armed forces community, including veterans, serving personnel and their families, into policy making. By excluding Whitehall Departments, the Bill will make it very difficult, even with the best will in the world, to ensure that some Departments have due regard to those things when they consider policies. If it is good enough for local authorities and local health boards, it should be good enough for the national Departments.

The scope of the Bill needs extending if the covenant is to have teeth in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South has mentioned, that move would be supported by the Royal British Legion and the British Armed Forces Federation, because a lot of the issues that affect members of the armed forces are completely outside the scope of local authorities, the devolved Administrations and others. One issue that has been raised—I know a later amendment addresses this—is around foreign and Commonwealth soldiers. That is a Home Office policy in which due regard has clearly not been given to those brave servicemen and women who have loyally served this country, and who will be disadvantaged, because of their service, in getting leave to remain. I do not understand the idea that the main Government Departments should not be covered.

The Minister says that those Departments are scrutinised by Parliament and various Select Committees, and so on, but if we had “due regard” in law it would mean that when policy was being determined within Departments, they would have to have due regard to the effect on service personnel, their families and veterans. That would have a strengthening effect, which was certainly what was intended when the idea was launched in 2008. An opportunity is being missed to ensure that the main Departments will be covered by the legislation.

Another issue that has been raised is something that lets off the MOD. The Minister says that most of the areas in question concern things that are delivered locally by local authorities, but one of the biggest complaints that the service family federations have raised is armed forces housing. There are examples of local provision not being fit, so that it would not be accepted if was provided in the public sector. There are areas that fall within the remit of the MOD that are not covered by “due regard”, and so those things will continue.

An opportunity in the Bill is being missed and the publicity around it—that it will be a sea change—is not being lived up to. The onus is being put on local authorities and providers. I support that, but they are not the problem, to be honest. As with a lot of things in this country, the delivery of local services is often to be commended. The innovation in local authorities and the things we heard about in evidence from the devolved Administrations are light years ahead of what happens in Whitehall.

As to the importance of local delivery, I accept that it might be patchy and might vary, but that came out of the work of the MOD pilot on the welfare pathway, which I think worked very well. It was taken up by the coalition Government and renamed the armed forces covenant. There has been a willingness on the part of local authorities and local bodies to make change. However, if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for Departments, and I have not yet heard a good reason why those responsibilities should not fall to central Departments as well.

I understand how Whitehall works, and that civil servants might not like that to be part of the checklist that they have to check off when they develop policies. However, it would certainly strengthen the position with respect to making sure that armed services personnel and their families, and veterans, are not disadvantaged, and that they are at least taken into consideration and given due regard when new policies are brought forward.

The Minister talks about the statutory guidance, and I thank him for the draft that we have been sent. We will perhaps talk about it later, but it will only be as good as the enforceability for veterans, service personnel and their families, so that they actually get redress when things go wrong.

As I have said, I think that this is an opportunity missed, and I cannot yet see a good reason why what I have suggested should not be covered. If the amendments were accepted, the Government could quite rightly say that the armed forces covenant had been put into law. Without them, there will be very limited scope for the armed forces covenant to have any legal backing at all. With that, I conclude my remarks.

--- 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 ---

[Mr Jones]

I welcome this proposal, because I think it is a huge step forward in terms of having oversight of the service police. I support the idea of having a separate ombudsman or complaints procedure, rather than the current police complaints procedure. Obviously, it will be a learning curve for whoever is appointed and for the system.

I want to ask about the way in which it will be formed. Obviously, as the Minister has outlined, it will mirror some of the systems that are already in place for oversight of the civilian police force. It will be helpful in terms of understanding how service personnel can make complaints.

There are two aspects that I would like some clarification on. One is about how this is going to be communicated to service personnel. It will be a new departure, and an important point will be to ensure that service personnel know that this is open to them, in terms of making a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way in which service personnel deal with a complaint or any other concerns they have regarding issues relating to their service.

I would also like some clarity about complaints from civilians. In many cases, civilian contractors are employed on Army bases, RAF stations and naval facilities. Many civilian personnel also live at armed forces facilities if they are married to or are in a relationship with members of the armed forces. This is about whether or not they will be able to make complaints as well. Clearly, there may be situations involving civilians who are dissatisfied with the way in which service police investigate something or the way they are tret. I would be interested to know what the remit is.

The other area relates to families of service personnel. I accept that much has changed since Lord Justice Blake’s report on Deepcut, but I spoke to the families of the four young people who tragically lost their lives, and one of the issues was their huge criticism of the way in which the service police conducted those investigations. Will there be an option for the families of service personnel, especially in cases where someone loses their life, to make a complaint to the new ombudsman if they are not satisfied?

Overall, I welcome this proposal. I think it is a movement in the right direction. I think it will not only help service personnel, but help drive up standards in terms of the way in which service police operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

If he knew what he was talking about, it might help, Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Power of commanding officer to award service detention: Royal Marines

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I understand that there are individuals who wish to support a ban on those under 18 joining the Army. I know that that has been campaigned on for quite a while now. Those individuals draw an analogy between what the Army does and the situation of child soldiers around the world. I do not agree with that, and I must say I do not agree with the provisions of the new clause.

It is quite clear now that individuals under 18 cannot be sent into combat, which I totally support and think is right, but we must balance that against the opportunities that recruiting 16 to 17-year-olds gives those individuals. I suggest that anyone who wants to see the positive way individuals can and do improve their lives visits the Army Foundation College in Harrogate.

Many of those individuals, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West highlighted, come from deprived communities; many have been failed by the education system, so credit to the Army particularly for the work it does at the Foundation College, giving people a second chance, which the education system has failed to do. On my visits there, what appalled me was the fact that the education system had failed individuals, but the Army had given them a second chance with raising basic numeracy and literacy skills. Individuals who would possibly not have had an opportunity to have a fulfilled career were able to do so through the work undertaken at the Army Foundation College.

The other issue raised is the duty of care for those individuals, but we have come a long way on the duty of care for under-18s. There was a huge problem with the way under-18s were supervised and looked after, especially those who joined the armed forces who came from care, for example. Mr Justice Blake’s reforms following Deepcut had a huge amount to do with that.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

We will disagree, I am sure, on the age of recruitment, but on new clause 2 on minimum service terms, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, if under-18s who are recruited at 16 remain within the armed forces, that minimum service should be included? While we may disagree on the recruitment age, should that minimum service not be included within their service period?

[Mr Jones]

I will come on to that—I was going to address that in the second part of my contribution.

There has been change in terms of the duty of care of individuals. Ofsted, for example, now inspects places such as the Army Foundation College, and the practices that the Army has in place to ensure that there is a duty of care around those young people set an example that many other institutions could follow. In terms of the opportunity it gives people, I would not want, by banning under-18s, to stop many young people getting the positive move forward in their lives and the opportunities that the Army gives them.

There are two issues on which I do agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, relating to early service leavers. That is not just an issue for under-18s, but for those who join post 18. To be fair to the armed forces, they have done quite a lot on ensuring that early service leavers have support. That is an issue that I raised when I was in the Ministry of Defence, because some of those individuals end up in the social services network, homeless and so on.

The question is about when people leave, if they are under 18 and decide that the armed forces, or the Army in particular, are not for them. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I think there is a package around those who have left care and joined the armed forces. Anything that can be done to improve their experience is the right thing to do.

I am not against new clause 2, but we need to look at what happens in practice. There are quite good reasons why people have to sign on for a certain period of time, because of the commitment. From my experience, however, there is a mechanism to enable most people who do not want to stay in the Army and other armed forces to leave. I do not think it is such an onerous straitjacket as has it been described by some individuals.

I understand where the hon. Member for Glasgow North West is coming from, and I accept that there is a difference of opinion, but overall, my experience is that service in the armed forces gives great opportunities to many young people who would not get them if we did not recruit under-18s. The important thing to say is that many people who join at that age go on to have very good and fulfilling careers in the armed forces, and they also gain life skills and technical skills that they use when they leave the Army and move into civilian life. That is why I do not support the new clauses.

[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.

Armed Forces Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and it is a fair point. However, I would just say that we have had 18 months since that election, but this challenge has existed for 40 years—for 40 years—and our predecessors have not dealt with it. It is unrealistic to expect the Northern Ireland Office and the Prime Minister to have delivered on this by now, but they have made that commitment. I would slightly push back on this idea that the Northern Ireland Secretary is the roadblock, as my right hon. Friend has put to me before. That is not my experience, and I am engaged in this every day and I think on this matter every day. That is not fact; what is fact is that this is extremely difficult, but this Government will get it over the line. I am going to make progress now.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

No, I will not give way. I will make progress now.

The service justice system remains a fair and effective system, but no system, as we know, should remain static. The service justice system review underlined that we must do more to strengthen it so that our people and their families have confidence that they will receive fair treatment. That is why clauses 2 to 7, along with clause 11, implement important recommendations of the service justice system review. In the interests of time, I will focus today on only the most salient measures.

Clause 7 deals with the notion of concurrent jurisdiction. For offences committed by service personnel in the UK, justice can be delivered through the civilian criminal justice system or the service justice system. The service justice system review of 2020 found the system to be fair, robust and ECHR-compliant, but it also proposed that some of the most serious offences should not be prosecuted at court martial when they are committed by service personnel in the UK, except where the consent of the Attorney General is given. To be clear, the review was not saying that the service justice system should stop dealing with certain categories of cases that occur in the United Kingdom; it was saying that, when such cases come up, controls should be introduced if they are to be tried in the service justice system. Meanwhile, jurisdiction would remain to deal with such cases overseas.

The Government have considered this recommendation fully and carefully, but we have concluded that the concurrency of jurisdictions must remain. We are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur, though there are important improvements that can and should be made to ensure the system is as resilient, robust and transparent as it possibly can be. However, we do agree that the current non-statutory protocols and guidance about jurisdiction must be clearer, so clause 7 of the Bill places a duty on the heads of the service and civilian prosecutors in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to agree protocols regarding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction. We believe that such decisions on jurisdiction are best left to the independent service justice and UK civilian prosecutors, using guidance agreed between them. The Bill ensures that civilian prosecutors will have the final say should a disagreement on jurisdiction between the prosecutors remain unresolved. I want to be clear: this is not about seeking to direct more cases into the service justice system and away from the civilian criminal justice system, or vice versa; it is about guaranteeing that both systems can handle all offending and are equally equipped to deliver justice for victims.

Moving on from clause 7, clause 11 is the first step in creating an independent body to oversee complaints against the service police. To support our world-class armed forces, we need a highly skilled and capable service police, and we are always looking for improvements. Once again, the service justice system review has provided several important recommendations. These include the creation of a defence serious crime capability, something we are pursuing separately since it does not require legislation, but it is the report’s proposal for an independent service police complaints system, modelled on the system in place for civilian police in England and Wales, that we will take further today.

The rules governing oversight of the civilian constabulary are set out in part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is overseen by the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. We are, in essence, replicating that system, by establishing an independent service police complaints commissioner. They will have the power to investigate serious and sensitive matters involving the service police, including those relating to conduct, serious injury and death. They will also set the standards by which the service police should handle complaints. As in the case of civilian police, provision will be made to handle both whistleblowing and super-complaints—those issues raised by designated organisations on behalf of the public about harmful patterns or trends in policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

We bring out a report every year that attempts to pull together everybody’s different experiences of the covenant. We are clear that we will not prescribe specific outcomes. We want local authorities to adhere to the principles of the armed forces covenant and, because of the way that local authorities deliver their services, to have a due regard in law to consider the covenant but not to prescribe outcomes. That is reflected in the covenant report, which gives us a good firm idea of how the covenant is going down in communities such as Barnsley.

In this clause, we tackle those problems head-on. We are placing a duty to have due regard to the covenant principles on public bodies responsible for the delivery of key functions in housing, education and healthcare. We have chosen those three areas because they are the bedrock of a stable and secure life. Unsurprisingly, they are also raised by members of the armed forces community as areas of greatest concern.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at this time.

The legislation does not mandate specific delivery outcomes or advantageous treatment of the armed forces community, not least because it is important that relevant public bodies retain the flexibility required to tailor decisions on service delivery to local circumstances. But the Bill will legally oblige relevant public bodies to consider the principles of the covenant when carrying out specified functions in these three areas. To support its delivery, we are also making sure that public bodies are supported by statutory guidance explaining the principles of the covenant as well as, for example, how and why members of the armed forces may experience disadvantage as a result of their service. Some will say that we are going too far, others that we have not gone far enough, but my colleagues and I carefully weighed up a number of options before devising this response.

Critically, this is just the first step. This legislation will provide the Government with the power to widen the scope of the duty to apply to additional public bodies and include other functions should it be felt beneficial in future; in other words, we are turning the covenant into a minimum requirement—a tangible tool that our service personnel and veterans can use to hold their service providers to account, a tool that has the capacity to deliver today as well as evolve and adapt as society changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at this time.

By cementing the covenant in the minds of the public, we are not lowering the ceiling but are raising the floor of our collective expectations. For example, my own constituency of Plymouth, Moor View has undertaken many good initiatives to support the local service community. I want others to view their efforts not as exceptional, but rather as a new normal, just as I want my constituents to see their successes merely as a springboard to better and bigger things.

In conclusion, I began by saying that an Armed Forces Bill is always an historic moment, but, by augmenting service justice, by improving our service police and by finally enshrining the covenant into law a decade on, we are cementing its standing further still. Our armed forces people are our nation’s first and last line of defence. We depend on them, but they also depend on us, and that is why it is incumbent not just on those of us in Government but on everyone in this House to work in partnership with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that this nation does right by those who serve, so that decades from now our future personnel will look back on this period and say, “This was the moment”—the moment when our nation finally awoke and delivered on its promise to the incredible men and women who serve our country without question or quibble and defend this proud nation and act on the will of this House; the moment when incremental strategic and irreversible change was delivered in law for our service personnel and veterans and their families. I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I join the Minister in his tribute and thanks to the men and women of our armed forces—those deployed to standing commitments, from Cyprus to the Falklands; those serving as part of our NATO defences in Estonia or the UN peacekeeping in Mali; and of course those who are part of the largest ever peacetime deployment in this country, helping this country through the covid crisis. British forces are respected worldwide for their professionalism and for the values that we most admire: integrity, loyalty, discipline and service.

This Armed Forces Bill renews the legal basis for our armed forces and system of military law, and in turn also renews the nation’s commitment to our forces personnel through the covenant; and, with almost 70 speakers from all parts of the House, it is quite clear this afternoon that the House is determined, together, to do exactly that.

Labour supports this legislation. We share that aim, and we welcome the order that will follow this debate to extend the present Armed Forces Act from the end of May until the end of December, so that Parliament has the time to give the proper scrutiny to improving this Bill. As it stands, this Bill is a big missed opportunity—the opportunity to make good in full on the commitments in the armed forces covenant, so that Britain becomes the best country in the world to serve and to be a veteran; the opportunity to fix long-run problems for forces personnel, their families and veterans, which have become so clear over the last decade; and the opportunity to set a framework for the armed forces that is fit for the challenges and complex threats that Britain must face.

Let me make this point about the Armed Forces Bill, in particular to Government Members who are used to toeing the line on legislation. This Bill is different. This Bill is bipartisan and goes next to a Select Committee, not a Public Bill Committee. The Bill can be improved from all sides as it goes through Parliament. The Bill rests on the groundbreaking Armed Forces Act 2006, which consolidated half a century of service law. To stress the point, on Second Reading of that Bill, in 2005-06, a Government Back Bencher made a strong argument for a service complaints commissioner, which at first was knocked back by the Secretary of State, John Reid. However, by the time the Bill became an Act, the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) had been incorporated fully into the legislation. He will no doubt have fresh proposals for this Bill to put to this Secretary of State.

On clause 8, we stand fully behind the armed forces covenant and the aim to give it full legal force. In fact, in 2009 Labour in government consulted on introducing legally enforceable rights for the forces, their families and veterans, and our 2010 manifesto proposed to enshrine those rights in the armed forces charter. I am therefore pleased that the Secretary of State could say on publication of the Bill at the end of last month:

“For the first time ever we are putting into law the Armed Forces Covenant.”

The Secretary of State might just want to let David Cameron know that. In fact, he might be surprised to learn it, because he boasted in 2015 that he had already done so, saying:

“We are the first Government to put the military covenant properly into law”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 961.]

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am sorry that the Minister did not want to take interventions. He said that the armed forces covenant is now 10 years old, but it is actually a lot older. It started in 2008 with the Command Paper under the last Labour Government, and the document he referred to, which came out in 2009, referred not only to putting the covenant into law but giving it teeth. The proposal in this Bill does not have teeth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit strange that the weakened version that we have now has none of the proposals in the 2009 Green Paper? Let us also remember that this is the same Government who, in 2011, opposed the motion tabled by me and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) to put the covenant into law.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course. I want to stress, to the extent that I can, the cross-party, long-term and long-run support for many of these provisions. He is right that the covenant has its roots in the previous Labour Government—we called it a charter then, rather than a covenant—but over the past two decades, I believe we have made great strides in providing better services, support and opportunities for service personnel and veterans.

That is to the credit of Ministers who have made it their personal mission, of hon. Members on both sides who have championed the cause, of councils and local agencies that have delivered services to our veterans, and of service charities such as the Royal British Legion, Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, the RAF Families Federation, SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity and Help for Heroes, which have hugely improved Government policy, advanced public understanding and developed direct support for forces and veterans. Those charities welcome the Bill, as I do, but they are disappointed by the limitations of the legislation, as I am.

I must say to hon. Members that, if they read one background briefing for this Bill, they should make it the background briefing that the Royal British Legion has sent to us today. It rightly says that a decade’s experience of the covenant confirms that,

“the range of policy issues that have a significant impact on the Armed Forces community is wide and ever-changing: including health, housing, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, education, criminal justice and immigration”.

The Bill is too narrow. It covers only aspects of health, housing and education. The Bill creates a two-tier covenant. It applies only to local councils and local agencies, not to national Governments. The Government are letting themselves off the hook entirely when, as the Legion says, many of the areas in which forces personnel and veterans have problems are the responsibility of national Governments or are based on national guidance to delivery agencies.

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this. I think there is potential, as he indicates, for cross- party support for doing more than is currently in the Bill on the implementation of the covenant. The problem is not that it is prescriptive, but that it is prescriptively narrow at present, directed only at local councils and local agencies and not the responsibilities or services of national Government, and that it is too narrow, in that it mentions three areas when the lived experience of armed forces and veterans quite clearly raises problems on a wide range of other fronts. That is the lesson of the experience of the past decade and more—that is the challenge we must meet. This is a once-in-five-years piece of legislation and I want to ensure that we on the Opposition side play a part in helping Parliament to meet that challenge.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) read the Green Paper of 2009, which actually set out some real teeth there, including setting out a clear charter of what was in the covenant; the ombudsman’s role, so that people could have redress; armed forces champions, as already mentioned by the Chair of the Select Committee; and a five-yearly review to coincide with the Armed Forces Act, so that the disadvantage could be looked at. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is letting Government Departments and the MOD off the hook?

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. He mentions teeth, and I will come to that in a moment. Members on both sides of the House and the Select Committee can help the Minister with his personal mission to do best by forces personnel and veterans. We can make this stronger and better than the missed opportunity that the provision in clause 8 represents. It is too narrow. It creates a two-tier covenant, and it is too weak. It offers no definition of what “have due regard to” the covenant means, and it offers no enforcement for members of the armed forces community who feel they have been let down.

That makes the statutory guidance that the Minister promised at oral questions last week essential before the Bill’s Select Committee scrutiny stage. When only one in 10 judicial reviews succeed and the cost of unsuccessful judicial reviews is upwards of £80,000, proposals for easy, accessible redress beyond a judicial review are also essential before the Select Committee stage. I trust that all Members on the Select Committee will want to pursue those shortcomings with the Minister. Let us not allow this golden opportunity to reinforce the covenant remain a missed opportunity, as it is in the Bill.

I turn to the service justice system and clauses 1 to 7. In the five years since the last Armed Forces Act, the Government have extensively reviewed the service justice system, with his honour Shaun Lyons reporting early last year, backed by a service policing review carried out by Professor Sir Jon Murphy. Many of the recommendations from those reviews are in the Bill. Lyons rightly said:

“Independent oversight is a critical factor in bringing transparency and building confidence in policing.”

We welcome the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, modelled on the civilian police’s Independent Office for Police Conduct. We will want to ensure in the Select Committee that the Government get important details right on matters such as time limits for bringing complaints, protections for whistleblowers, scope to consider super-complaints and respective remits for the commissioner alongside the Service Complaints Ombudsman. We also welcome the expansion of the courts martial boards, with new rules on reaching qualified majority verdicts.

However, there are two big gaps. First, Ministers are missing the opportunity to improve confidence and results in cases of murder, manslaughter and rape committed by service personnel in the UK. As the Minister has conceded, Lyons recommended that those cases should be dealt with by the civilian justice system. He pointed out that the military courts secure convictions in only one in 10 cases of rape, while Crown Prosecution Service figures show that the civilian rate is around 50%. Such a move would restore the position that Parliament intended when the principle of concurrent jurisdiction was first introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Secretary of State has so far just said no but has offered no rationale for rejecting that recommendation, and the Minister this afternoon has again offered no justification for rejecting that recommendation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the members of our armed forces for the work that they do.

The Minister for Defence People and Veterans said in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee that the Government would bring forward legislation in this Bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against servicemen and women and veterans; this Bill does nothing of the sort. It says that a limited number of public bodies, outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), must have “due regard” to

“the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages”.

The way some people talk, we would think the covenant was invented 10 years ago. It was not: it originated in the 2008 Command Paper published by Bob Ainsworth when he was Minister of State for Defence. We then implemented measures on no disadvantage, and the welfare pathway, with pilots in Hampshire, Wigan and Kent, implemented things like the armed forces champions. I am pleased that the coalition Government took on board those things, which have then gone forward. We produced a Green Paper in 2009 to get those parts of the covenant into law, and it was sad that the Government opposed that in respect of the 2011 Bill. The proposals in this Bill are limited and we need to make sure we strengthen them in Committee.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned an important omission from the Bill: Northern Ireland veterans, about whom I feel very strongly, like the right hon. Gentleman. This is the Bill in which to put that injustice right, but it is not there. Promises have been made and they need to be kept. The Bill should have done that. No doubt veterans will be pleased that their great, great-grandfathers who committed buggery 200 years ago will be given a pardon, but then they will ask the question, “Well why aren’t we being looked at in this Bill?” I therefore urge the Government to bring forward a proposal in the Bill for that.

The other area is the whole issue of investigations, which came up in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Reinvestigations are clearly an issue in relation to Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said. On 20 October, the Minister told the Public Bill Committee:

“We will see more stuff on investigations in the Armed Forces Bill.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2020; c. 220.]

However, there is nothing in this Bill about investigations and it needs to be there.

The other issue we need address is pay, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) raised, because the armed forces cannot go on strike and rely on the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to fight on their behalf. I was proud that the last Labour Government implemented that every year—this Government have not done that—but I would like to see that in the Bill.

There are many things in this Bill, around housing and other issues, that need to be improved. We need a co-operative approach, but I very much doubt that will happen, given the Minister’s attitude and approach to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. I have served on, I think, every Armed Forces Bill for the last 20 years, and I am sure he will be delighted to know that I will also be on this Bill Committee, pressing on the points in the Bill that need to be improved. However, if he takes the same attitude as he did to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, we will not get very far. I urge the Secretary of State to take on board what my right hon. Friend for Wentworth and Dearne said: there are things in the Bill that can be improved to actually make sure that life for both servicemen and women, and veterans is improved.

Public Health

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The Government’s response to the pandemic has been incompetent, shambolic, arrogant and, alas, corrupt. The centralised, top-down approach they have enacted would be the envy of any former Soviet bloc country during the cold war. Local directors of public health have been sidelined and ignored, making way for expensive management consultants and members of the Conservative party’s chumocracy. The £12 billion test and trace system has failed. The Prime Minister and Ministers keep trumpeting out figures saying that we have got more tests done, yet what is important is not the number of tests but what we do with them in terms of tracing people, and the rates for national test and tracing are below 60%, compared with local test and tracing rates of 90-odd per cent. Clearly, therefore, the system has failed.

The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked what the solution is. Well, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) gave the answer: what we need is locally based strategies for test and tracing. We do not need mass lateral flow testing, because there is no evidence at all from the Liverpool experiment that that has worked and the logistical exercise of implementing that across all the required tier 3 areas would prove impossible.

On the vaccine, the Government have put the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), in charge; well, nothing can go wrong there then, can it? What has he actually done? He has threatened people who do not have the vaccine with not being able to go to pubs and offered a supermarket voucher for people who have it, instead of doing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, which is to make the argument and work with local government to deliver it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) is right: people have lost faith in the tier system. The Prime Minister and Ministers said that science would dictate the agenda, but it is not doing so; politics is. That is why London is in tier 2 and the north-east is going to be put in tier 3. So much for the levelling up agenda of this Government. The north-east is this country’s poorest region; the idea that jobs there mean less to this Government than jobs in London speaks for itself. That is why I cannot support these measures tonight and will be voting against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

After much soul searching, I will vote with the Government tonight, but it has been a difficult decision. I will vote with the Government for the following reasons. First, I have always advocated a regional approach as opposed to a national approach, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Secondly, the vaccine is close—it is not certain, but it is close—so we should not jeopardise all our gains when we will potentially have the vaccine within a few months.

Thirdly, clearly we are coming out of lockdown, so although my constituency will be in tier 2 and I have lobbied for it to be in tier 1, the restrictions will be less. However, I will continue to lobby for my constituency’s tier to be reviewed and for us to come out in a lesser tier. Once we roll out the vaccine to the elderly and the vulnerable, I will ask for restrictions to go, because we need to get life back to normal.

We need to be able to manage risks. We have been absolute about our only focus being coronavirus. Clearly, we do not want anyone to die or suffer from coronavirus, but we need to think about the implications of what we are doing for not only the economy but non-covid health issues. There are parameters within which we can do that analysis, such as quality of life indicators.

I wish to make one final point. I have heard various Opposition Members saying that London in some way got special treatment to be in tier 2. That is absolutely not the case. If Members look at the 26 November NHS—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Look at the figures.

[Felicity Buchan]

That is exactly what I am looking at. The graph shows tier 1 at the bottom left, tier 2 in the middle and tier 3 at the top right, and London is around about the middle, so please do not misrepresent what is going on. This is way too important to be political. These are people’s lives and livelihoods.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted that outdoor sports are able to reopen. Like the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I have had significant representations from people who want to exercise, which of course is good for their health, so I am glad that we have been able to do that.

When it comes to the geography of the application of the tiers, of course we have to look at the areas in which people live and travel. Where it is clear that there is a genuine difference that is not represented by administrative boundaries, we will look at it and make a decision on that basis, as we did previously. For instance, with the previous tiers, we even split a borough in two in one example. Nevertheless, we do have to look at where people live and travel to get these decisions right.

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

Thousands of jobs have been lost and will be lost in the pub and hospitality sector. At the beginning of the crisis, the Prime Minister said that Government action would follow the science. At a recent meeting, the national health director was clear that there was no science behind the 10 o’clock—soon to be 11 o’clock—curfew and said that it was a policy decision. If there is no science behind this decision, what are the reasons for it?

[Matt Hancock]

We have put in place an enormous amount of support for the hospitality sector and we understand the challenges posed by the measures that were brought in. The reason behind the restrictions on hospitality is that in order to protect people’s ability to go to work and, in particular, to protect education, it is important, sadly, to reduce the social contact on which the virus thrives. It is upsetting and frustrating, but it is true. It is clear from the evidence that later in the evening and late at night, social distancing declines, and we know that when social distancing declines, transmission increases.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Limitation of time for minor offences—

“No proceedings shall be brought against any person in relation to a relevant offence, where—

(a) the condition set out in subsection 3 of section 1 is satisfied,

(b) the offence is subject to summary conviction only, or is one in the commission of which no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused, and

(c) a period of six months has passed from the time the offence was committed or discovered.”

This new clause would dispose of minor allegations of misconduct by imposing a time limit similar to that which exists in relation to summary only matters in Magistrates’ Courts.

New clause 3—Access to justice for service personnel—

“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation comparing—

(a) access to justice for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies, in relation to legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, with

(b) access to justice for asylum seekers and prisoners seeking to bring an action against the Crown.”

New clause 4—Ability to conduct a fair trial—

“The principle referred to in section 1(1) is that a relevant prosecutor making a decision to which that section applies may determine that proceedings should be brought against the person for the offence, or, as the case may be, that the proceedings against the person for the offence should be continued, only if the prosecutor has reasonable grounds for believing that the fair trial of the person has not been materially prejudiced by the time elapsed since the alleged conduct took place.”

This new clause is intended to replace Clause 2 of the Bill. It replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement on a prosecutor deciding whether to bring or continue a prosecution to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.

New clause 5—Restrictions on time limits: actions brought against the Crown by service personnel—

“Nothing in this Part applies to any action brought against the Crown by a person who is a member or former member of the regular or reserve forces, or of a British overseas territory force to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies.”

This new clause amends Part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitations on courts’ discretion that the Part imposes in respect of actions relating to overseas operations.

New clause 6—Duty of care to service personnel—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(3) The Secretary of State shall thereafter in each calendar year—

(a) prepare a duty of care report; and

(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(4) The duty of care report is a report about the continuous process of review and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—

(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;

(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;

(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;

(d) in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine.

(5) In preparing a duty of care report the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—

(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;

(b) complaints made by service personnel and, or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;

(c) complaints made by service personnel and, or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct;

(d) meeting national care standards and safeguarding to families of service personnel, where relevant.

(6) In section (1) “service personnel” means—

(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;

(b) members of British Overseas Territory forces who are subject to service law;

(c) former members of any of Her Majesty‘s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and

(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within (a), (b) or (c).

(7) In subsection (1) “Duty of Care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the well-being of service personnel.

(8) None of the provisions contained within this clause shall be used to alter the principle of Combat Immunity.”

This new clause will require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations, and to report annually on their application of this standard.

New clause 7—Duty of care to service personnel—

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person has been acquitted of an offence relating to conduct on overseas operations; or

(b) a determination has been made that an investigation into an offence relating to such conduct should cease under section (Judicial oversight of investigations).

(2) No further investigation into the alleged conduct shall be commenced unless—

(a) compelling new evidence has become available; and

(b) an allocated judge advocate determines that the totality of the evidence against the accused is sufficiently strong.”

This new clause would require a judge advocate of the armed services to determine if new evidence is sufficient to grant reinvestigation of armed forces personnel for alleged offences in which they have been acquitted or the original investigation was ceased.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.

Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “5” and insert “10”.

This amendment is one of two providing that the presumption against prosecution should apply after 10 years (instead of 5 years).

Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “5” and insert “10”.

This amendment is one of two providing that the presumption against prosecution should apply after 10 years (instead of 5 years).

Amendment 64, page 2, line 12, leave out clause 2.

This amendment, which would remove Clause 2 from the Bill, should be read together with NC4, which replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement on a prosecutor to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.

Amendment 13, page 2, line 18, leave out clause 3.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.

Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out

“(so far as they tend to reduce the person’s culpability or otherwise tend against prosecution)”.

This amendment would ensure that, in giving particular weight to the matters in subsection (2), a prosecutor may consider whether any matter tends to reduce or increase culpability, tending against or in favour of prosecution respectively.

Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 23 to 29.

This amendment is one of two that together would delete the requirement for a prosecutor to give “particular weight” in a prosecution decision after 5 years to the adverse effect on a person of the conditions the person was exposed to during deployment.

Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(ba) the thoroughness, promptness and efficacy of any ongoing investigation into the alleged conduct or any relevant previous investigation, and the reasons for any delays in such investigations;”.

This amendment would ensure that the adequacy of any investigative process to date is given particular weight by a relevant prosecutor.

Amendment 26, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(bb) the public interest in maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces;”.

This amendment would ensure that a relevant prosecutor gives particular weight to maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces.

Amendment 27, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(bc) the nature of the alleged conduct, in particular whether it engaged the obligations of the United Kingdom under Articles 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights;”.

This amendment would ensure that particular weight is given by a prosecutor where the alleged conduct engages the UK’s obligations under Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) or Article 5 (prohibition of arbitrary detention) ECHR.

Amendment 28, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(bd) whether the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct, and to what extent;”.

This amendment would ensure that particular weight is given by a relevant prosecutor where the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct.

Amendment 38, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, after subsection (2)(b), insert—

“(c) the quality and duration of relevant investigations.”

This amendment would require prosecutors to give weight to the quality and duration of relevant investigations when deciding whether to bring or continue proceedings against a person relating to alleged conduct during overseas operations.

Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 34 to 43.

This amendment is one of two that together would delete the requirement for a prosecutor to give “particular weight” in a prosecution decision after 5 years to the adverse effect on a person of the conditions the person was exposed to during deployment.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 1, leave out clause 4.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.

Amendment 15, page 3, line 15, leave out clause 5.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.

Amendment 31, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert—

“(c) where the offence is punishable with a criminal penalty by the law of Scotland, except with the consent of the Lord Advocate.”

Amendment 39, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert—

“(3A) Where the consent of the Attorney General is sought under subsection (2) or (3) above, the Attorney General must prepare a report containing his reasons for granting or withholding consent, as the case may be, with reference to sections 1 to 3 of this Act, and must lay a copy of this report before Parliament.”

This amendment requires the Attorney General to lay out their evidence and assessment as to why they granted or refused consent to prosecute.

Amendment 16, page 3, line 40, leave out clause 6.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.

Amendment 20, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) An offence is not a “relevant offence” if it amounts to—

(a) torture, within the meaning of section 134 Criminal Justice Act 1988; or

(b) genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime as defined in section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.”

This amendment provides that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture.

Amendment 32, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) A service offence is not a “relevant offence” if it is an offence whose prosecution is required under the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations.”

This amendment would exclude the prosecution of serious international crimes (such as torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and certain war crimes) from the limitations otherwise imposed by the Bill.

Amendment 17, page 4, line 27, leave out clause 7.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.

Amendment 33, page 6, line 4, leave out clause 8.

Amendment 34, page 6, line 15, leave out clause 9.

Amendment 35, page 6, line 26, leave out clause 10.

Amendment 23, page 6, line 38, leave out clause 11.

This clause would introduce a hard deadline for human rights claims and also includes detailed provision around the impact of proceedings on the mental health of Armed Forces witnesses. This amendment deletes this clause from the bill.

Amendment 60, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”

This amendment adds a further consideration to which UK courts must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard HRA limitation period of one year so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their claim proceed is not subordinated.

Amendment 46, in clause 11, page 7, line 30, leave out from “before” to the end of line 34 and insert

“the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the date of knowledge.”

This amendment is one of a series that change the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing claims under the HRA arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 41, in clause 11, page 7, line 34, at end insert—

“(4A) The court may disapply the rule in subsection (1) (b) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”

This amendment introduces a discretion for UK courts to allow a Human Rights Act claim arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 7, line 36, leave out

“first ought to have known”.

Amendment 47, in clause 11, page 7, line 40, at end insert—

“(c) of the manifestation of the harm resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim; and

(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment is one of a series that change the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing claims under the HRA arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 40, page 8, line 14, leave out clause 12.

Clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to consider making a derogation under Article 15(1) ECHR in respect of any significant overseas operations. This amendment would remove this requirement.

Amendment 37, in clause 12, page 8, line 20, at end, insert—

“(1A) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under section 14 following consideration under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the European Convention on Human Rights to be approved by Parliament before being made.

Amendment 66, page 11, line 1, leave out schedule 1.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.

Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 12, line 6, at end insert—

“(13A) An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).”

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 12, line 40, leave out “or” and insert—

“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),

(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i)

(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 12, line 42, leave out “or” and insert—

“(ii) article 8.2(a)(ii) (which relates to international conflict),

(iii) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 13, line 2, at end insert “, or

(iv) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture,

(v) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 13, line 14, leave out “or” and insert—

“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),

(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i),

(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 13, line 16, leave out “or” and insert—

“(ii) article 8.2(a)(ii) ((which relates to international conflict),

(iii) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 13, line 18, at end insert—

“(iii) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture,

(iv) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 14, line 8, leave out “or” and insert—

“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),

(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i),

(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 14, line 10, leave out “or” and insert—

“(iii) article 8.2(a)(ii) ((which relates to international conflict),

(iv) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 14, line 12, at end insert—

“(iii) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture, or

(iv) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”

This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.

Amendment 67, page 15, line 33, leave out schedule 2.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.

Amendment 48, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, leave out

“the section 11 relevant date”

and insert “the date of knowledge”.

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 30, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, at end insert

“save for exceptional cases where the overriding interest of justice should be served.”

Amendment 42, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, at end insert—

“(1ZAi) The court may disapply the rule in subsection (1ZA) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”

This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of England and Wales to allow a civil claim for personal injury arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Amendment 49, in schedule 2, page 16, line 30, leave out

“the section 11 relevant date (ignoring, for this purpose, the reference to section 11 (5) in paragraph (a) of the definition of that term)”

and insert “the date of knowledge.”

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 50, in schedule 2, page 16, line 35, leave out

“the section 12 relevant date”

and insert “the date of knowledge”.

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 43, schedule 2, page 16, line 36, at end insert—

“(2Bi) The court may disapply the rules in subsections (2A) and (2B) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”

This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of England and Wales to allow a civil claim for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Amendment 61, in schedule 2, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) the court must also have particular regard to the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”

This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of England and Wales must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not illegitimately subordinated.

Amendment 51, in schedule 2, page 17, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 5 on page 18, and insert—

“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—

(a) of the act complained of;

(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;

(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and

(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 68, page 20, line 1, leave out schedule 3.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34.

Amendment 62, in schedule 3, page 20, line 32, at end insert—

“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”

This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of Scotland must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.

Amendment 52, in schedule 3, page 20, line 41, leave out

“the section 17 relevant date”

and insert

“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 53, in schedule 3, page 21, line 4, leave out

“the section 18 relevant date”

and insert

“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 54, in schedule 3, page 21, line 9, leave out

“the section 17 relevant date”

and insert

“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 44, in schedule 3, page 21, line 9, at end insert—

“(7A) The court may disapply the rules in subsections (5) to (7) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”

This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of Scotland to allow a civil claim for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Amendment 55, in schedule 3, page 22, leave out lines 12 to 17 and insert—

“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—

(a) of the act complained of;

(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;

(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and

(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 69, page 23, line 38, leave out schedule 4.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 35.

Amendment 56, in schedule 4, page 24, line 5, leave out

“the Article 7 relevant date”

and insert “the date of knowledge”.

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 45, in schedule 4, page 24, line 5, at end insert—

“(1Ai) The court may disapply the rule in paragraph (1A) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”

This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of Northern Ireland to allow a civil claim for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Amendment 57, in schedule 4, page 24, line 29, leave out

“the Article 7 relevant date (ignoring, for this purpose, the reference to Article 7(5) in paragraph (a) of the definition of that term)”

and insert “the date of knowledge”.

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury out of overseas operations.

Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 24, line 34, leave out

“the Article 9 relevant date”

and insert “the date of knowledge”.

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.

Amendment 63, in schedule 4, page 25, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) the court must also have particular regard to the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”

This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of Northern Ireland must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.

Amendment 59, in schedule 4, page 25, leave out lines 25 to 43 and insert—

“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—

(a) of the act complained of;

(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;

(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and

(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.

[Mr Jones]

For the sake of time, I will not speak to every single amendment.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Go on!

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend says, “Please do,” but I am sure that other Members want to contribute to this debate.

Since speaking on Second Reading and in Committee, it has been my aim, and that of the Labour Front-Bench team, to try to improve the Bill. In my nearly 19 years in this House, I have been someone who is proud of our armed forces, considers myself a friend to them and wants to help them in any way I can. I stand up for them, and I speak passionately, I think, in defending not just them but the case for defence.

It has therefore been disappointing that the Government have not really engaged to amend the Bill. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said to the Defence Secretary that he wished to work with the Government to try to improve the Bill today, and he got a single-word reply: “No.” We then had the reply from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans in response to a question on the Bill when he said that he would be

“happy to work with anybody to improve this Bill, but we must operate in the real world.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 13.]

The only problem with that is that it is the real world according to the Minister, and that world obviously has a different colour sky from the one that we all live in. The idea that, somehow, as long as he is saying it, it has to be true, even when his evidence is counter to that put forward by various witnesses in Committee, is telling. What was sad in Committee was that all the Minister did was read out his civil service brief to us in response to the various amendments. He was reluctant to accept any interventions, even from rottweilers such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). When it comes to the Government Members on the Committee, I must congratulate the Whips Office on selecting so well, because those Members must have taken a collective vow of silence, which would have been admired by any silent ecclesiastical order. We had no contribution whatever from them, so it has been very difficult trying to engage with the Government on this Bill. The line is, clearly, that this is the answer, irrespective of what has been raised in Committee. We had some very good witnesses before us in Committee, but the Government are just not interested in changing the Bill, because the world and this Bill are perfect, according to the Minister and the Government.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I concur with much of what my right hon. Friend is saying. He has always been a champion of the armed forces, both in his time in Government and, indeed, during the course of this Bill. Does he share my surprise that even the Government witnesses were saying things that disagreed with the Government’s account of this Bill? Professor Richard Ekins said that the Bill certainly does not stop investigations. He said:

“In fact, if one were to make a criticism of the Bill, one might say that it places no obstacle on continuing investigations”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 35, Q63.]

Does he not find it surprising that even Government witnesses did not agree with the Government?

[Mr Jones]

Indeed. Time and again, supposed Government witnesses went against the Government. My hon. Friend raises a good point with the example that he has just provided.

The other thing that came out, which relates to my new clause, was about investigations. Investigations, or the problems that lead to these issues around investigations, were the thread that ran throughout the evidence. In spite of that, what we had at the weekend—this was a really dangerous move on the part of the Ministry of Defence—was tweets promoting this Bill from the MOD and saying that it would stop investigations. It will do nothing of the sort. As a former Defence Minister myself, using the MOD’s website and tweets to politicise things would not have been allowed in my day. What was put out is just not going to happen. Let us look at the evidence that we heard in Committee from a number of witnesses. The first one I will mention, again a Government witness, is Hilary Meredith, solicitor. She was very good and concentrated on the issue around investigations. She said:

“It is the procedure and investigation in the UK that need to be reviewed and overhauled, and not necessarily a time limit placed on…prosecutions.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 16, Q24.]

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman has a long track record of supporting the armed services here. Is he concerned by the expression of doubt that has been put by members of the Royal British Legion? They have put in writing to all Members of Parliament the fact that they believe that part 2 of this Bill should be improved and that the time limit really gravely concerns them.

[Mr Jones]

I am, and I will come onto part 2 in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has hit on an issue relating to the Government’s approach to this Bill. The Minister is saying that it is standing up for members of the armed forces. It is doing nothing of the sort. In part 2, it is actually taking away rights.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will let the Minister intervene, even though he is very reluctant to give way to me. I asked him if I could intervene on numerous occasions in Committee, but he would not tear himself away from the civil service briefing in front of him.

[Johnny Mercer]

I just wish to intervene briefly. It is a litany of accusations and they are complete rubbish. Where have I ever said that I wanted to stop investigations in this Bill? That is what I would like the right hon. Gentleman to indicate to me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That is a perfectly reasonable question, but, although it is not exactly unparliamentary language, perhaps the Minister, speaking as he does with dignity from the Front Bench, might use a different phrase than “complete rubbish”—just something a little bit different.

[Mr Jones]

It is better than he did in Committee when he called me a hypocrite, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if he listens to what I am saying, he will know that I am not saying that. I know that his attention span is not very good, and he does not tend to listen. What he tends to do is just stick to what he has in front of him and his view of the world, rather than hearing what people are saying. The issue is—[Interruption.] Well, he can say “brilliant” and chunter as much as he likes, but this is the issue—the delays that are taking place because of the investigations.

I have referred to Judge Blackett, and the Minister was there when the evidence was taken. Judge Blackett is a just-retired senior judge of the service justice system, and he said:

“The Bill is effectively looking at the wrong end of the telescope. It is looking at the prosecution end, and you have got to remember that you do not prosecute until you investigate—and you have got to investigate. This will not stop people being investigated and it will not stop people being re-investigated and investigated again. Lots of investigations do not go anywhere, but the people who are investigated do not see that.”—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 120.]

That came up when we took evidence from Major Campbell. I will put it on record again that his case was a disgrace, because it took 17 years, but this Bill will do nothing to speed up such cases or to ensure that reinvestigations do not occur. That is the key problem. The problem is not the prosecutions, because their number is very small.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)]

I have put in three written questions about this Bill, and yesterday I had answers to them. Two of the answers were helpful, but one, on the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, was not. I was trying to establish how many investigations had not resulted in prosecutions, and I could not seem to get an answer, yet that is central to the whole problem. The core of the problem is not the small number who get prosecuted but the large number who get investigated.

[Mr Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That came out in evidence that we took throughout the Committee. The issue is not the number of prosecutions but the number of investigations and how we can speed up the length of time they take.

The problem is that the Ministry seems to have a deaf ear when it comes to recognising that we need to address the issue around investigations, which is what new clause 1 would do. It would ensure that we had judicial oversight of the investigations. We can see what we have at the moment from the example of Major Campbell’s case, which went on and on. New clause 1 states that after a certain period of time, the evidence should be put before a judge to see whether there was a case to answer. Clearly, if the evidence did not meet the test and the case was going nowhere, it would get thrown out there and then. Alternatively, it could be decided that the case needed further investigation, but at least that would ensure that, after six months, there was some judicial oversight of the investigation. That would be a way of ensuring that these investigations did not go on for a long time.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has always been a strong supporter of the armed forces. Does he agree that, while drafting the Bill, the Government, who claim to be champions of our armed forces, continued to ignore the impartial advice of the Royal British Legion, which has stated again and again that it breaches the armed forces covenant?

[Mr Jones]

But it really does not matter, because if my hon. Friend wants to see the attitude of the Minister to the Royal British Legion, he has only to read the evidence that came before the Committee.

New clause 2 would provide a way of ensuring that minor offences were dealt with speedily. As Judge Blackett said, this could be done in a magistrates court, where, after a period of time had passed, the cases could be looked at judicially and ticked off and dismissed on the basis that the there was no evidence to go forward. That would deal with a lot of the smaller issues. People ask why that is important, but if we look at the Iraq Historic Allegations Team—IHAT—and Northmoor, some of those cases involved assault and other things that in normal circumstances could be dealt with very quickly in a magistrates court. At least if we had a judge looking at them, he or she could make a decision as to whether or not those cases had any merit. It is amazing that the Government fail to recognise that the problem is not prosecutions but actually the investigatory process.

Then, halfway through the Bill Committee, the MOD announced it was coming forward with a review of investigations, to feed into next year’s Armed Forces Act, when the obvious place to have put that would have been in this Bill. The reason for doing that was given away by the Minister in the evidence session: this Bill has nothing to do with making sure of these matters. There is no reason why what I am suggesting and other issues around investigations could not be put in the Bill now and improve it, yet for reasons of tidiness the MOD wants to do it next year.

I have some sympathy with the MOD on that, because perhaps the best way to do this is in those five-yearly reviews of the Armed Forces Acts—and I think I have been on the Committee for every single one for the past nearly 20 years as either a Minister or Back Bencher. But the reason this Bill is before us has nothing to do with that; the Minister let the cat out of the bag in Committee when he said he had to get this through now, because one of his general election pledges was to do it within 100 days. I am sorry, but that is not a good way of bringing in legislation—just trying to press it forward irrespective of whether or not it is flawed.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I have a lot of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I drag him away from his politics for a second? Would it not be very simple to incorporate the recommendation in a 1960s magistrates Act of a judge advocate general, as that would deal with exactly what he is talking about?

[Mr Jones]

It would. That and judicial oversight would improve the Bill tremendously. It would then actually do what it is supposed to do, which is stop reinvestigation and stop the worry that these individuals have, but it does not do that; that is the big hole in the Bill.

It is not as though the Minister has not had a chance to look at this. I have raised it with him—I tabled amendments in Committee, which he pushed aside, and we are going to go ahead with what we have now, which will be a flawed Bill. Once it has passed, it will lead to a situation whereby a lot of people think that as a result they have protections when, frankly, it will do nothing of the sort, because it will not stop investigations and reinvestigations. One of the worst things we can do in politics is promise people things and give them the impression that we have done something when actually we have not, because once the penny drops and they see it is not actually the case, they rightly feel very bitter.

As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has just said, there is time to put this in the Bill. If Ministers are not going to do it in this place, they should do it in the other place, because it will improve the situation.

There is another dishonesty with this process. From, again, using the MOD website, which I do not think is appropriate for political reasons, we see there is a promise about Northern Ireland. The Minister is on record as saying that similar legislation will be brought in to cover historical cases in Northern Ireland. Well, I am sorry, but it will not do so if it is like this Bill; if it is like this Bill then, frankly, it will do nothing at all on investigations. If it is a mirror image of this Bill, all those people who think that somehow they are going to get protection will find that they do not, and that is just not fair.

[Ian Paisley]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the officers who served under Operation Banner have been completely jettisoned and abandoned. That is the bottom line, and that is the crying shame of this—and I do not trust anyone in the Northern Ireland Office to bring forward a Bill that will help those ex-servicemen in the years to come.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a clear point: do I feel it right that, frankly, people in their 70s or 80s and even younger are worried about this happening? No, I think that is appalling, frankly, because there is an evidence test: is it in the public interest for those individuals to be now dragged before the courts? No, it is not. Here we have another promise that will not be delivered. I must say he is right in terms of the Northern Ireland Office. I have looked at the matter in detail—I have met all parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin, along with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—and I think that finding a mechanism is going to be virtually impossible.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. The fact is this will end up in Northern Ireland Operation Banner officers being a trade-off between what the NIO finds politically helpful to buy off bartering with the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin.

[Mr Jones]

I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of Northern Ireland politics, but I will say that this will not be solved by the promise that has been made. That again is not the issue.

I turn to new clause 3. It relates to the point that was raised on part 2 and is covered by an amendment tabled by Members on the Labour Front Bench. The issue is the stripping away of rights from veterans. I find it absolutely astonishing that, in this week of remembrance, we have a Government who have introduced a Bill that will actually take rights away from veterans. The longstop of six years will mean that veterans—and families—will not have access to section 33 of the Limitation Act, which allows people to bring cases out of time.

In Committee there was a lot of discussion about how many people would be affected. The Royal British Legion was very clear in its opposition to part 2 because, as Charles Byrne said in response to the Minister:

“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]

He said that the Royal British Legion thought it did breach the armed forces covenant. I agree, because the covenant states:

“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public…services”

and so on. I agree with that, but this strips away their rights under section 33, which means that if somebody brings forward a case after the six-year longstop, they cannot have recourse to section 33 of the Limitation Act, because the Bill will take those rights away. Those rights are open to every single Member in the House today, and to prisoners and asylum seekers—anybody who wants to bring a case.

The Minister said that 94% of cases were brought within the time limits anyway. That is irrelevant to me, because 6% clearly are not, and it is those 6% that will then possibly use the Limitation Act.

May I put this on record, as I did in Committee? Bringing forward a section 33 case is by no means easy. It pertains to a very small number of individuals who could not bring their case within the time limit because their circumstances were unique; and they have to go before a court and argue out the reasons. I have done it myself when I worked for a trade union on injury or disease cases that were out of time—although you would not take on such a case in the first instance if you thought you would not get anywhere. However, there are those important cases that you can take, and which do make a difference.

The case that was mentioned time and again in Committee was the Snatch Land Rover decision in 2016. The families took forward the case under the Human Rights Act, which I will come on to in a minute, on the basis that their loved ones had been killed and injured in Iraq because of negligence on behalf of the MOD.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just for clarification, in the silent exchange that the right hon. Gentleman and I have just had, I was trying to indicate to him that it would be helpful to the House if he concluded his remarks quite soon. I know it seems that he has not been speaking for very long, but it has been 22 minutes. I appreciate that he has taken a lot of interventions and this is important. I am requiring not that he finishes now but that he takes into consideration that there are many points of view on this Bill and that there are many people who wish to speak and, although we have a long time, we do not have long enough for everyone to take more than 20 minutes. He has some serious points to make, and I trust he will make them as quickly as possible.

[Mr Jones]

On one occasion, I spoke in Committee for an hour and 10 minutes.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Could the right hon. Gentleman take a moment to reflect on what he said in his opening remarks, when he said there was near silence from Conservative Members in Committee? I was there, and I did not hear silence, but his contributions probably put us to sleep. With respect, could he think about it again for one moment?

On our side, we had valuable contributions from Members of Parliament who have served this great country of ours, like my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). They know what they are talking about. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to think again about saying they were silent?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us get this straight. Interventions will also be brief this afternoon. We want interventions because there is a serious debate to be had. As I look around the Chamber, I see experienced parliamentarians and others who understand that this is a very important Bill, and much of it is very sensitive, so let us try to behave with sensitivity and consideration for others.

[Mr Jones]

I made a mistake this morning, because I was going to count the number of interventions. There were no speeches from Conservative Members in Committee, although I think there were six interventions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do not care how many interventions there were in Committee. This debate is not about Committee; it is about the important matters before us, and that is what we will stick to.

[Mr Jones]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was being polite in replying to the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines).

The families took the case against the MOD on the basis that they did not know about the Snatch Land Rovers until the Chilcot inquiry reported. That was way past any time limit.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that the proposed six-year time limit applies from the point of knowledge or the point of diagnosis, so it is not clear what point he is trying to get across.

[Mr Jones]

He who waits it all comes to. I was going to answer that point in a minute.

The MOD argued two things in that case. First, it argued that the case was out of time, and the families won the limitation hearing to take the case forward. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) has just said it would be within the six-year limit. No, it would not. Let us suppose they had taken the case not in 2016 but six years later. They would not be able to take a limitation hearing at all. The Minister does not quite understand that problem.

The case I raised in Committee was of an aircraft engineer who developed a very serious nerve condition from paint. The only reason he was able to take forward his case was because the technology had changed and research had shown that the paint actually damages people’s nervous system.

The Minister said in Committee that, somehow, he is on record in The Sun as guaranteeing that no one will lose out, but he cannot because that will not happen: as I said to him in Committee, using the Robin Day analogy, we are all here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians. Frankly, what will happen is that MOD lawyers will use this to stop people making claims.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jones]

If I must.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My right hon. Friend does not have to if he does not want to.

Will the passing of the Bill mean that civilians working for the MOD down the road will end up having, in effect, more rights than Army service personnel who have served in operations overseas? Does that not bring us back to the fundamental issue of the breaking of the armed forces covenant, on which the Government really must think again?

[Mr Jones]

It does. The Bill’s provisions will also mean that prisoners will have more right to sue the MOJ, for example, than armed forces personnel. The Minister said in Committee, “That’s terrible because you’re comparing armed service personnel with veterans”; no, I am not. I am saying that if the Bill goes through, prisoners will have more rights than armed forces personnel. That cannot be right. The Minister mentioned the 6%; I am sorry, but if even one veteran loses their rights under this Bill, I am not prepared to support that.

My next point is about the Human Rights Act. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), because it is about how this looks in terms of our international reputation. There is derogation in the Bill; I accept that there cannot be derogation for torture, but it can and will be used to stop claims by MOD personnel against the MOD itself. The Snatch Land Rover case was brought under the Human Rights Act. Some people have the idea that the Human Rights Act is there to protect nasty foreigners and people we do not like; no, it is not. It is there to protect us all, including armed forces personnel. I am sure that that derogation will be used again by the MOD to deny the rights of individuals to take cases.

People should look at the Smith judgment on that case. What were the Government arguing? They were arguing that combat immunity, which is covered and was reinforced by the Supreme Court judgment, applied in that case because it happened in Iraq. No, that was not the case; the case was actually about the design and the decision to procure those Land Rovers and put them into theatre. The derogation will clearly be used in such a way.

I wish to make one final point, about our standing in the world. I am a supporter of the service justice system—it works well and we should be proud of it—but the problem with the Bill is this: do I want to see British servicemen and women tried in the International Criminal Court? No, I do not. I want them to be tried by their peers in a court in this country. As the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, said in Committee, under this Bill there is a danger that if we have a presumption against prosecution and the issue around torture, we will get a situation whereby individuals will be tried not here but elsewhere. That would be terrible, not just for those individuals but for this country’s international reputation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I had been hoping to manage this afternoon’s proceedings without a time limit, but I do not think that is going to work; therefore, I am now obliged, in order to try to get a fair and equitable debate, to start with a time limit of eight minutes, but that will be significantly reduced later in the debate. If hon. Members who have eight minutes choose in an honourable way to speak for less than eight minutes, that would be remarkable.

--- Later in debate ---

We can absolutely see the possibility that a Russian hand will use the Human Rights Act, which is currently being deployed in various other ways, to stop our forces from deploying by arguing that kit is inappropriate and that operations are therefore too dangerous for soldiers to be deployed. It may be true that the operation is too dangerous or that the risk is not appropriate, but it is the job of this House, of Ministers, of generals and officers to decide. It is not the job of lawyers.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I like the hon. Member, but he is talking complete nonsense. If he has read the Smith case, which went before the Supreme Court, he will know that combat immunity is completely covered under the Human Rights Act. It did not change that one iota, so what he suggests just will not happen. That case reiterated the point about combat immunity under the Human Rights Act.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am sorry, but the right hon. Member is completely wrong. If he reads “The Fog of Law” written by—oh—me in 2013, a paper for Policy Exchange written alongside actual lawyers, rather than me, such as Richard Ekins, with a foreword written by Lord Moses of the Supreme Court, he will see exactly what I am talking about. If he reads “Clearing the Fog of Law”, which explains the situation, he will see clearly why this is a problem. This is absolutely an issue.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

It was indeed an honour to serve on the Committee, because I myself, although not serving in the military, had two brothers who were veterans, and I saw the way that war and conflict tore their lives and our family apart.

I have spoken to many veterans who have said that they were at the point of wanting to kill themselves—some attempted it—for the fear of being prosecuted through these kinds of claims. The Bill protects the men and women who have risked their lives and fought to keep us safe and free. It allows our brave servicemen and women to go overseas to fight and represent us, and then come back and safely carry on their lives. That is what the Bill was intended to do, and I believe that that is what it will do.

I appreciate the plethora of amendments presented by the right hon. Member for North Durham. I am grateful for his studious nature in making sure that we have covered every aspect of these clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned, the investigative system is out of control. The Bill goes some way towards mitigating that, and we could perhaps have gone even further. The issue of derogation, which was raised at the start, was not further discussed, but we could have done so with a greater level of debate.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Joy Morrissey]

Not at the moment.

The issue of derogation before an overseas conflict or an overseas mission is started might go a long way in any claims made retrospectively after the mission and whatever conflict we have engaged in is completed.

Those are small things that we could have looked at in further detail, but I appreciate and support the Bill. I am grateful to all those who have contributed, and I hope that we will be able to do what we promised in our manifesto commitment, which is to take care of veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Well, we will go through some of that evidence, shall we? We will go through some of the comments made by senior military, legal and political opinion that make it quite clear that what I have said is correct. I accept, of course, that there are differences of opinion within those fields, but it is the case, I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister chuntering at me from the sidelines, that senior military, legal and political opinion believes that the Bill is farcical in several respects. I will go through them in turn.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We cannot get more distinguished than the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, who was firmly of that opinion. The Minister did not perhaps listen, but the judge made his position about the Bill very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) of being disingenuous. Is that actually parliamentary?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am sure the Minister meant “unintentionally disingenuous”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

No, I am not giving way—I have suffered enough. The House has suffered enough at the hands of the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to all the points about the amendments, but I did not ,write them. I wrote the Bill and the Bill as it stands deals with the problem that we are trying to fix, and hon. Members fully know that. Imagine my surprise—the Al-Sweady inquiry has been picked out by Opposition Members, but they would not believe who was the Minister at the time of the Al-Sweady inquiry: the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). If Members are really going to contribute honestly with a debate that they know the answers to, it has to be done with the sort of standards, values and ethos that we expect our people to adhere to.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Actually, it was the Minister of State who was dealing with the Al-Sweady inquiry. As I told the Minister in Committee, it was not the Labour party that set up the IHAT committee or Northmoor—it was his Government—so he should not start lecturing people when Members on the Government Benches at the time were calling for investigations.

[Johnny Mercer]

I appreciate the intervention, but the fact is that when the Al-Sweady inquiry took place, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department. The claimants in the Al-Sweady case were supported by Leigh Day. Leigh Day gave £18,000 to the Labour party. This stuff is quite transparent ,and it is all on the record.

Look, at some point, hon. Members have to make a decision as to whether they are just going to speak very warm words, feel very strongly and think that our armed forces are the best of us, or actually do something that will change their lives, improve their lives, protect them from this new pernicious nature of lawfare and vote with the Government to get things done. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and others have tried to improve this Bill. The Minister is just not listening. He throws cheap shots. I am sorry, but I stand up for members of our armed forces and veterans. I do not need to get paid £85,000 a year, as he did as a Back Bencher, to support veterans. I do it for nothing because I believe in them, so do not give us lectures about people who take money to support veterans for their own pockets, rather than just supporting our veterans.

The problem is that the Bill has gone through Committee and today’s debate and it is not going to be amended. The Minister is not listening at all. He said that actions are what matter. Yes, they do, because what we are going to have is a Bill passed here tonight that does not address the main issue, which is investigations, because the Minister will just not accept it. Part 2 means that veterans and members of the armed forces will have fewer rights than anybody in this House—fewer rights than prisoners—and he cannot say, in the lead-up to Remembrance Sunday, that taking fundamental rights away from members of our armed forces is right. But that is exactly what he is—

[Johnny Mercer]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, I am not going to take an intervention. I am sorry; the Minister, both in Committee and tonight, is one thing if one thing only—consistent. He sits there, chunters from a sedentary position, never takes interventions, reads his civil service brief and will just not listen to anyone because he thinks he is right. I am sorry; he is wrong on this.

I will not press my new clauses and amendments to a vote, but I will end with this point. The Bill is flawed. It could have been improved in Committee and it could be improved here tonight. It will not be, because the Minister stubbornly refuses to accept it. He will then use the parliamentary majority in this House to ram it through. This Bill will do nothing to protect veterans. They will still be investigated. They will still be prosecuted, possibly before the International Criminal Court, and their basic rights, which we should all have under section 33 of the Limitation Act, will be taken away from them. That is shameful.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Wallace]

No, I will not. It is a bit rich for them to come here today and condemn the legislation. On the other hand, it is we who have commissioned—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman has had plenty to say on the Bill; I will not give way. We do not have time to conclude these exchanges. On the other hand—[Interruption.] They can shout me down, but I will just continue to use up Third Reading time, and I will then listen to other speeches. I will not give way; I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has now added mind-reading to his many skills. The Minister, who is actually a good friend of mine, has just made an accusation against me and has not given me the right to reply to it. It was his Government, in 2010, who set up IHAT and Northmoor, not the Labour Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I do not want the point of order to become a subject of debate, but obviously—[Interruption.] Thank you; I can cope. Obviously, the Secretary of State has referred to the right hon. Gentleman, and he may feel it appropriate to give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I too thank the Bill Committee Clerks, who worked very hard? I congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans on his excellent reading of his briefs in Committee and today.

This is sad, because the Bill is fatally flawed. It will take rights away from veterans, which cannot be right, and it will lead to our international reputation being at stake. It does not solve the problem, which is investigations. That could have been put right in the Bill, but unfortunately, the Minister is not prepared to listen. He says that he is prepared to work with people; the exact opposite has been the truth throughout the passage of the Bill.

As for the Secretary of State trying to blame all this on a wicked Labour Government, it was a Labour Government who met the armed forces pay review every year and ensured that defence expenditure kept pace with inflation. It was his Government who, in coalition, put IHAT and Northmoor in place in 2010. When these cases were going on when I was a Minister, it was Conservative Members who were asking why we were not investigating them more. There is selective memory on the Government Benches. We had an opportunity to get a good Bill that would address the issues and improve the situation for veterans, and that has been missed because of the arrogance of the Minister who has led it through the House.