Royal Naval Deployment: Mediterranean

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome this deployment and wish RFA Mounts Bay and her crew all the best. What is the legal status of immigrants if they are picked up by Mounts Bay, and particularly if they claim asylum? We faced that issue when we were in office and there were operations off the coast of Somalia.

[Michael Fallon]

The legal position is that people cannot claim asylum on board Mounts Bay if it is not in UK territorial waters, so that is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman might think. We are working with other Governments to develop a policy that will ensure that those who are picked up in international waters can be returned to Turkey. At present, those who are picked up in Turkish waters by the Turkish coastguard can be taken back to Turkey, but as I have said, if they are picked up in Greek or international waters—the boundary there is complex and indeed disputed around the islands of the eastern Aegean—at the moment they will be taken to a place of safety in Greece.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission: Pension Fund

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall come on to say more about the position of the scheme.

The news of the closure of the final salary scheme has come as a terrible shock to long-serving staff, with more than 50% of those affected within 10 years of normal retirement age, leaving little time to readjust. For some, that has meant completely changing retirement plans as they can no longer afford to retire or as key assumptions such as being able to pay off a mortgage are no longer the case. Staff feel betrayed that what was promised to them for years is suddenly being snatched away.

Let us consider the financial position. In the commission’s statement of accounts of March 2014, the key numbers show a surplus of £1.4 million on income of £67 million, with balance sheet reserves up from £4.3 million to £7.2 million and net current assets up from £1.5 million to £2.2 million. The balance sheet shows an improvement in reserves of £2.9 million, due largely to the improvement of £2.6 million in the pension deficit from £8.3 million to £5.7 million. In its 2015 accounts, the position had changed. The balance sheet showed a deficit of £6.1 million, having been in surplus by £6.7 million in March 2014. The reason was a sharp increase in the deficit shown in the pension scheme, a deterioration of £13 million in the year, taking the deficit to £18.6 million. The background is the effect of the recent three-yearly valuation, which reflected a collapse in the forecast interest rates for the pension fund investments.

My first question to the Minister is: what investments resulted in this change from 2014 to 2015? Despite the commission announcing its intention to close the pension scheme in December 2014, formal consultation with the three trade unions representing staff at the commission—PCS, Prospect and Unite—did not start until June 2015. During the consultation period, the trade unions took a reasoned and helpful approach, proposing numerous alternatives in an attempt to find a solution that both recognised the financial position of the commission and mitigated the most detrimental effects on staff. However, the commission rejected all the proposals, remaining resolute on closing the final salary scheme and moving to a defined contribution scheme.

Proposals were numerous and wide reaching and included increasing member contributions to enable the scheme to stay open. The initial proposal put forward by the trade union side, a proposal that directly addressed the commission’s concerns about the pension scheme deficit and about future risk in the scheme, was as follows. First, it proposed a cap on pensionable earnings for future service with effect from 1 April 2016, which would immediately address the pension scheme deficit by enabling a downward revision of the actuarial costs of the scheme. Secondly, it proposed to increase member contributions from 1.5% to 5%, phased in over the next two years. Thirdly, it suggested that the decision on the closure of the scheme should be postponed for three years, linked to a further valuation of the scheme during 2018. That would enable a considered and measured review of the scheme’s funding, taking account of the previous two proposed measures, both of which would have a positive impact on past service deficit and future service costs. These proposals were rejected almost immediately, with no costing done by the commission, leading the trade unions to believe that the consultation was hollow and the commission was intent on closing the final salary scheme regardless.

The final proposal from the trade unions was the option of CWGC UK-based staff transferring to the civil service Alpha pension scheme, as provided for under the Cabinet Office’s new fair deal. We are aware that many scheduled bodies including English Heritage, the Churches Conservation Trust, the Royal Botanic Gardens, the Imperial War Museum and the British Council have been permitted to join the new civil service pension scheme.

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

I declare an interest as a member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the Adjournment debate tonight and I hear what he says, but what he has just suggested was considered. It was not possible, and if people had been transferred to the civil service scheme, the terms offered to them would have been worse.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has spoken to me about that privately and I have asked questions about it. His comments are surprising because of the aggregate accrual rates in the Alpha scheme. One of the problems is that there has been no discussion of the actuarial variations between the trade unions and those representing the commission in the talks. I hope the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to put that right.

The commission’s response was to assert that CWGC staff are not civil servants, making them ineligible to join the Alpha scheme. However, the Office for National Statistics details the CWGC as part of the MOD accounts, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs also lists CWGC staff as civil servants. In fact, the CWGC tends to pick and choose when the civil service hat fits. For example, the 1% pay cap in the public sector is often cited in pay talks as a reason to keep down pay rises.

The trade unions believe that they were never given a satisfactory reason why the CWGC did not apply for admittance as a scheduled body under the Government’s new fair deal policy. Instead of putting forward a case for staff to join Alpha, the commission seemed to decide in advance that they were ineligible to join and then sought confirmation of this from the MOD. The commission’s unwillingness to engage and seek alternatives that would mitigate the financial impact on staff was demonstrated throughout the consultation.

Trade unions repeatedly asked for more information to inform the consultation and aid the consideration of alternatives. However, the commission declined to offer that information, and the trade unions had to conduct much of the consultation without key information. For example, they requested an anonymised breakdown of how the new scheme would financially affect each member of staff, crucial information that would allow unions to see the impact of the proposals and help them put forward alternatives. That request was declined, leaving the unions no option but to ask members to send in their individual statements and to piece them together to form an overall picture.

Staff representatives were denied access to key decision making meetings at which they had requested the opportunity to put forward the case to keep the scheme open. The unions wrote to the commission asking to attend the meeting on 9 December 2015 when the commission put forward its case for closing the scheme to the board of commissioners. The commission wrote back to say that the unions’ attendance would be “inappropriate”.

Despite the trade unions raising numerous concerns and offering reasonable alternatives, the decision to close the final salary scheme appears to have been a fait accompli. The commission made the final decision in December 2015 to go ahead and close the scheme in April 2016. As staff have mentioned, the pension scheme has always been a way of attracting and retaining staff in the commission, and it has featured strongly as part of the overall benefits package that staff have signed up to when joining. To take it away after years of service, when staff are so painfully near retirement, is just unfair. Long-serving staff have put up with great disturbance and sacrifice to their family lives, such as moving to foreign countries. Spouses and partners have often been unable to have careers as a result, and the pension that commission staff accrue should recognise that

Approximately 60% of those affected by the changes are 50 years old or more, so they could be retiring within the next 10 years. Staff within a few years of retirement now have little time to re-adjust their financial planning for retirement, as the alternative Group Pension Plan will not deliver anything like the benefits of the final salary scheme. When changes were made to the civil service pension schemes, protection was given to staff nearing retirement, in recognition of the fact that they would have made financial plans based on the assumption of their existing pension entitlement. That protection has not been offered to staff at the commission.

Closure of the scheme from 1 April 2016 will have a significant detrimental effect on the future pensions of UK-based staff and will cause considerable unrest among employees at a time when they are working hard to further enhance the reputation of the commission with the work on the 1914 to 1918 centenary commemorations. The changes also come at the exact time when workers currently contracted out of the state second pension, as staff in the commission are, will see national insurance contribution increases of 1.4%. From April 2016, staff transferring to the GPP scheme will therefore have the dual disadvantage of paying national insurance increases and pension contribution increases of up to 5% for the new scheme. Closing the final salary pension scheme will create financial difficulty for the commission’s longest-serving, loyal staff, who have sacrificed much for the commission over the years.

The trade unions believe that they have adopted a constructive approach to finding alternatives. However, the commission has refused to make any meaningful changes to its initial position to mitigate the financial impact on staff.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do not want to get into a dialogue about this, but I have to say that that is not true. The final scheme was changed, including to help lower-paid staff over the next three years, so changes have been made. I also have to say that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of the negotiations, because the trade unions did meet the vice-chair and the secretary-general.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure that is a discussion he and I can continue to have.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, has the decision to close the scheme already been made or is it the case that, in the words of the Leader of the House in a letter to me on 24 February 2016:

“The Commission has undertaken a consultation and is now considering in detail the range of responses received but no decision has yet been taken”?

Secondly, what is the current deficit of the scheme, as of today’s date? Lastly, given what I have outlined in relation to industrial and employee relations, does he not agree that we should ensure that talks begin between the commission and the trade unions—hopefully with ministerial involvement—to share information and actuarial evidence properly and to reach a solution that could be agreed by both sides?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of the deterrent to our national security. We have seen—I think he was referring to comments made in the past 24 hours—the most extraordinary contortion emerging from the champagne socialist salons of Islington. The idea of spending tens of billions of pounds to build but not arm a strategic deterrent betrays the new kind of politics from the Labour leadership: a lurch back to the discredited unilateralism of the 1970s and a breathtaking lack of understanding about how to keep this country safe, with consequent threats both to national security and to tens of thousands of jobs across the UK.

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

Does the Minister agree that the issue is about not just the number of jobs involved in the Successor programme, but the high-skill nature of those jobs? Despite ill-informed comments from my own party at the weekend with regard to those jobs, does he also agree that we cannot simply turn them on and off like a tap when we need them?

Armed Forces Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the Bill on behalf of my colleagues in the Labour party. I am conscious of the fact that the previous stages of the Armed Forces Bill were led by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who rightly enjoys tremendous respect across the House and will be a considerable loss to the Front-Bench team. I wish to place on record my thanks to him on behalf of the Labour party and of all those who know how important the armed forces are to the Labour party. As a new member of the team, I also wish to thank him for the help, assistance and wise counsel he has offered to me.

The Labour party has a strong tradition of supporting our armed forces both in Government and Opposition. The reason many of us feel so passionately that this Parliament should do right by our armed forces is that they step forward and answer the country’s call in the most dangerous situations imaginable. They risk life and limb daily to protect Britain’s interests around the world, often facing the prospect of mortal danger at just a moment’s notice. We also recognise that a significant proportion of serving servicemen and women are from Labour-supporting constituencies. As a result, the scale of the sacrifice required of our armed forces personnel and the importance of standing by them is very keenly felt by us all.

When we were in government, we ensured that forces’ pay increases were among the highest in the public sector. We also invested heavily in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities, and increased access to the NHS for service personnel injured in action. In Opposition, we have looked to build on that Labour tradition, ensuring that we do all we can in support of our armed forces and their families. We are proud of the role that we have played in campaigning successfully to have the military covenant enshrined in law.

Happily, the amendments before us today, which were argued for in Committee by my hon. Friend and by other Labour Members, now return to the House with the Government’s support. Labour is determined to continue to offer that support to everyone who chooses to serve in our armed forces. We will do that by developing policy around a commitment to the highest standards of welfare and well-being for all our service personnel. We will scrutinise any proposals brought forward by the Government and continue to make the arguments about the extent to which personnel cuts have stretched to the limit the capacity of our armed forces to respond. We will also work constructively with the Government to support legislation that will ultimately improve the welfare and security of the British armed forces.

On the specific amendments being discussed today, the Government have ultimately decided that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham was right in Committee when he promoted new clause 4. We also welcome proposed new clause 2, which has been tabled by the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) and for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan). It is reminiscent of the amendment that my hon. Friend proposed in Committee.

We welcome the opportunity to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006, which completely overhauled legislation relating to military and service discipline. It is encouraging to see that the Government have adopted new clause 4, which will bring the legislation up to date and remove the now superfluous references to homosexual acts within the Bill. Although it is 16 years since the ban on gay men and lesbians in the armed forces was lifted, the legislation still contained references to homosexual acts despite the fact that that is just one form of sexual activity that could lead to someone being dismissed under certain circumstances and does not need to be specifically singled out. As that has now quite rightly been superseded by more appropriate guidelines, there is no need to have such references in the current law. Removing them from the statute book is a welcome step forward so that the explicit refusal to discriminate against homosexual servicemen and women is expunged from the service book, just as it has in practice been outlawed. That is an important step forward, and we welcome it very strongly.

We will continue to support our armed forces and the invaluable contribution they make to ensure Britain’s security. This Bill and these amendments offer a further step forward in ensuring that support for our armed forces personnel, and we will continue to support them enthusiastically.

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

I support the amendment. Tomorrow will be the 16th anniversary of the Labour Government abolishing the draconian regulations that meant that someone who was gay or bisexual could be dismissed from the armed services, so it is apt that we are agreeing to the amendment today.

It is strange how things work out. I moved similar amendments in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I pay tribute to the Minister, whose approach to the Bill has been constructive, ensuring that practical measures such as this are taken forward. I accepted during earlier stages of the Bill that the measure should apply also to the merchant navy, and I look forward to the Government introducing legislation to mirror this provisions for the merchant navy.

I join the Minister in paying tribute to Professor Paul Johnson, professor of sociology at York University, who not only gave evidence to the Committee but in my conversations with him assisted me and ensured that I understood that the legislation currently on the statute books was discriminatory. As the Minister rightly said, it means nothing, but for lesbian, gay and bisexual potential members of the armed forces, the measure expunges those provisions from the law. That should be celebrated. I wholeheartedly support the new clause, which is a great step forward.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The SNP fully supports the Bill. We appreciate the requirement that Parliament’s consent is given, and we appreciate too the significant contribution made by members of our armed forces. We support progressive change in our armed forces and welcome the Government’s actions to address discrimination against LGBT personnel.

The SNP welcomes the new clause and the action from the Government, which is a step forward for better LGBT rights among our armed forces personnel. I am very pleased that the Minister has felt able, as he put it, to uncouple this from other legislation which was previously thought to hamper such progress. I echo the words of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in looking forward to the Government moving similar provisions forward in relation to the merchant navy.

It is scarcely credible that we are discussing this in 2016. The existing provision is discriminatory and it is offensive that it exists. Notwithstanding the fact that it has not been used for a number of years, we welcome the fact that the Government are finally removing the provision, as they should, because it has clearly infringed the rights of LGBT people over a number of years. I am pleased that this was the clear view of all members of the Committee and, as we have heard, of witnesses as well, who noted that the existing provisions were out of step with where our armed forces are now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I start by doing something I have done very rarely in this House, and that is to say “Thank you” to the Government. I thank them for the important steps they have taken in treating people who have served this country, in many years of war, in the way that they should be treated. Sadly, though, because of the potential effects of retrospective legislation, some people may be left behind, and I want to focus on them.

I spent a lifetime working in the trade union movement before I came here, including representing people in the mine works who had a variety of diseases such as vibration white finger as a result of being exposed to the damage caused by pneumatic tools, and pulmonary diseases caused by exposure to coal dust and stone dust. However, I had never heard of mesothelioma until about 15 years ago, when I was asked by a friend if I could do some fundraising on behalf of an organisation that was being set up by a woman called Chris Knighton—the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, of which I am very proud now to be a patron—and I asked them what it was about. I have been castigated in the past by a member of the public for the brutal way in which I have exposed this disease, but it is a brutal disease. I was told about it very bluntly by a solicitor from Thompsons some 15 years ago.

When someone is exposed to asbestos, the fibres lie dormant for decades, but one day they wake up, they suffer horribly, and then they die. There are no two ways about it. Once someone has full-blown mesothelioma, they have a death sentence. The only thing that is questionable is how long it takes to happen. In a small number of cases medication and drug treatments such as chemotherapy can help, but it only slightly extends the time in which people suffer and eventually die.

There is a huge moral issue for all of us regarding what happened. Asbestos was shown to be poisonous as far back as 1892—a long, long time ago. It was banned from 1965 onwards—50-plus years ago. It was seen as one of those wonderful things that did so many good things for people. In a huge number of different areas, it was seen as being something worth working with, so it was in lots of places that people would not even have thought about—when changing brake drums, lagging pipes, and all that sort of thing. I myself have worked with it. It is in schools and other buildings. It is in our own homes.

As long as asbestos is not disturbed, people are usually okay, but a lot of those who were exposed to it worked in places where it was in the air all the time, so they were working with it without knowing, and they should have known. Clearly, in some cases they were criminally exposed. I am not, by any means, saying that about the MOD. The history of fighting for justice for people with asbestos has been long, tortuous, and hard.

When my party was in government from 1997 to 2010, we would take two steps forward and one step back. There were challenges in the courts by insurance companies and £1.4 billion was handed back to them, because the Law Lords allowed them to no longer make payments for certain asbestos-related diseases. Thankfully, through the efforts of successive Governments, people with mesothelioma are treated much better now than they used to be, but the truth is that a significant group of people are still affected by that case. I am not going to argue about the numbers, because that case is so moronic that it overrules any discussion about numbers.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend is explaining very well the history behind how we have got to where we are today. Will he join me in paying tribute to the trade union movement? Without its expertise and campaigning zeal, the conversation taking place with regard to not just this Bill but others would not have started.

[Mr Anderson]

I appreciate the work my hon. Friend has done on behalf not just of the armed services, but of our part of the world, where he has been an MP for many years, and long may that continue. He is right to say that the trade union movement has been involved from the beginning, and without it we probably would not be where we are today in trying to right this wrong.

The issue is of interest to Members across the House. On 4 November 2015, in the lead-up to Remembrance Sunday, the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), asked the Prime Minister:

“Does the Prime Minister agree that everything must be done to deliver on the military covenant—both the spirt and the letter?”

The Prime Minister’s response was unequivocal:

“I certainly agree with both parts of the right hon. Gentleman’s question…We make a promise to our military that because of the sacrifices they make on our behalf they should not have less good treatment than other people in our country and indeed that, where we can, we should provide extra support.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 961.]

He did not say that we should support service people only up to a certain cut-off date or, “Well, I’m really sorry, but retrospective legislation doesn’t apply.”

There is absolutely no doubt that these people are a special case, because of what we ask them to do. By “we”, I mean us as a nation and, more pointedly, us as representatives of the state. We ask them to go to places where human beings should not usually be made to go. As part and parcel of them doing that on our behalf, they have been exposed to this horrible disease.

On the same day, I raised with the Prime Minister the specific issue of people who were exposed before 1987:

“Thousands of people who served our nation in the Royal Navy before 1987 are not entitled to full compensation. That means that people who have been exposed to asbestosis and have contracted the cancer disease mesothelioma stand to lose out massively when compared with people in civilian life.”

His response was:

“I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I understand that the Defence Secretary is looking at the matter. As I have said, since putting the military covenant into law, we have tried every year to make progress…I am happy to go away and look at the point that he makes.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 962-63.]

I am delighted with that response and, as I said earlier, with the fact that that the Secretary of State came back to us on this and moved some way when we debated the issue towards the end of last year.

The truth, however, is that while we are looking into this matter, people are dying, and they are dying without getting compensation equivalent to what they would get if they had not been in the armed services. That is quite simply wrong. I know that it asks a lot of the Government to go back and try to redress the issue, because there are always problems—unintended consequences—when we open up access to compensation, but this issue is far too important to ignore, and it would be wrong and, I believe, a breach of the military covenant if we do not address it.

The Prime Minister has said that we will go the extra mile for these people. I know that this is not part of the new clause, but I ask the Minister, please try to do more. Let us work together across the House to make this work in a way that delivers what these people deserve.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is a pleasure to follow my next-door constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).

I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for accepting amendments that I tabled in Committee, and for looking at this issue in a practical way. That has been his approach to the Bill: he has looked at where he can make a practical and real difference to people’s lives. In Committee, he announced that, from that date onwards, people would have a choice about whether to accept compensation as a lump sum payment or as a war pension.

My hon. Friend has just outlined the issues involved in retrospection. I am aware of them from my time as a Minister, when I had to deal with issues such as pensions, but will the Minister consider this point? Will he make an exception for individuals alive today who were diagnosed just before the cut-off date that he had to introduce? As my hon. Friend said, they are under a death sentence—in many cases, they will not live for very long—so can that specific group be looked at? From speaking with my hon. Friend, I understand the difficulties of retrospection, so I know that there is a broader issue, but could individuals who already have a diagnosis and may be in receipt of a war pension be looked at? I do not expect the Minister to come up with an instant solution and say yes, but it would be very much appreciated if he could go away and consider that point.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon—[Interruption.] I have dramatically moved him from the north to the south. I mean my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

The armed forces have no trade union or anyone to fight for them, except armed forces charities and Members of the House. It is very much the responsibility of Members of the House to be their champions, to fight their cause, to fight for what is right, and to fight for justice for them. I totally and utterly agree with my hon. Friend that people alive today who have received such a diagnosis are under a death sentence. The acknowledgment that their service in the armed forces has caused them to suffer from this most hideous of diseases would make a difference to them and their families. My brother-in-law died of mesothelioma, so I know how short but horrific such a death is, and how horrific it is for the family to watch as people struggle to breath and die inch by inch, day by day.

This subject is very emotive, but it is one that says what we are as a country and how seriously we take our responsibilities to the members of the armed forces who faced risk not in war, but in their place of work. As a country, we have accepted such a responsibility for people who worked in civilian life, and we have a moral responsibility to accept that we have a duty to meet the needs of those armed forces personnel currently diagnosed, who are dying now, and to give them access to the compensation scheme.

I hope that the Minister will take this matter very seriously. As Opposition Members have said, the Minister has been very active in this matter and supportive of making changes to the Bill. I hope that this is another change that he will accept, consider and bring forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I think this is my third Armed Forces Bill, and I have to say that it was a minnow, certainly compared with the 2006 Bill, which, as the Minister described, was a major piece of legislation reforming our armed forces law as it applied to the three services. However, this Bill is important because, as has been said, it is the means by which we maintain a standing Army and also—this is an important point for this House—a way to ensure clear scrutiny of our armed forces. That is something we take for granted in this country, but in many parts of the world people do not.

I join other colleagues in thanking the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for his chairing of the Committee. I also thank and pay tribute to the Clerks and civil servants who helped the Committee in its deliberations. This was a small Bill, but we took some major steps forward. Mesothelioma has already been mentioned, and I pay tribute to the Minister, because he has taken a pragmatic and consensual approach to the proposals that were put forward. It was his tenacity in taking these things forward that ensured that we secured the changes. The mesothelioma changes will make a real difference to the individuals affected. I also pay tribute to the Royal British Legion for its campaigning work on this issue.

There is also an historic issue, in that tonight we are finally removing from our statute book a piece of legislation that discriminated against the LGBT community. As I said earlier, that will send a clear message to young men and women who want to join our armed forces—that they are joining services that I know, certainly from working with them, are not prejudiced in any way against people because of their sexuality, and that goes right from the top through the ranks of the services. I pay tribute to General Nick Carter, who gave evidence to the Committee, who embodies that new approach in our armed forces. They want to be inclusive and welcoming. Not only do they want to be an effective fighting force when needed, but they want to give great opportunities to many of our young people throughout this nation of ours.

We also had many discussions about sexual assault. I do not quite want to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), but the Minister gave a clear commitment in Committee and on the Floor of the House that the sexual assault statistics would be published. That is a good and meaningful step forward, and I look forward to their being published in the next annual report.

I also welcome the changes made to the war pensions committees. I pay tribute to the individuals who volunteer for war pensions committees. They do not get paid; they are volunteers. They give advice free of charge, and a lot of their time is dedicated to ensuring that veterans get the advice they require. The changes made, which will ensure they can now cover not just war pensions but the other compensation Acts, are welcome.

Our armed forces do not have trade unions or representatives—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) who made this point earlier—so they are in a unique position. They rely on this House to ensure that, when this Bill comes forward, we make the changes that look after their interests. This Bill will not make major changes, as the 2006 Bill did, but it takes us a step forward and is a way of ensuring every five years that this House can scrutinise what our armed forces are doing in applying the law to themselves.

I would like to finish by paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. I had the privilege in government of working with them. They are dedicated to unselfishness. They are individuals we ask to do remarkable things—things that we would never do. I pay tribute to the men and women from my constituency who serve—not just now, but in the past. I also pay tribute to a group who sometimes do not get mentioned: the families, who support our servicemen and women. Without them, our servicemen and women could not do the job.

With that point, I would like to say one thing to my own party. These people are a very important part of our society. We value them; we entrust them with huge responsibility; we need them. They keep us safe when we are threatened. That is something my own party should never forget.

Armed Forces Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2016. Clause 1 provides for continuation of that Act for a year from the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. Thereafter it allows further renewal by Order in Council for up to a year at a time, but not beyond the end of 2021.

The 2006 Act provides nearly all the provisions for an armed forces system of command, discipline and justice. Crucially, it confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. The central effect of the expiry of the 2006 Act would be to end the powers and provisions to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

I think this is my third Armed Forces Bill, and it is a minnow compared, for example, with the 2006 Act. However, it covers important issues that affect not only the operation of Her Majesty’s armed forces, but the discipline needed to ensure their effectiveness. As the Minister has outlined, it is an important constitutional Bill because it reaffirms the need for a standing Army to protect the freedoms that we have all come to rely on in this country. I look forward to the progress of the Bill and of the amendments in my name.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The SNP fully supports the Bill. We appreciate the requirement that Parliament’s consent is given to maintain an Army, as well as the significant contribution made by members of our armed forces. As such, one of the Bill’s most important functions is to provide the legal basis for the armed forces to continue to exist as a disciplined force, and we must continue to develop and support our armed forces as they undertake their difficult jobs. We support progressive change such as that found in the amendment that calls for a review into compensation for veterans who are suffering from mesothelioma, and that on the publication of statistics on sexual assault and rape. We want robust legislation that is fit for our dedicated armed forces.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Commanding officer’s power to require preliminary alcohol and drugs tests

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

[Mark Lancaster]

Currently, a commanding officer may require a member of the armed forces, or a civilian subject to service discipline, to co-operate with a preliminary test for drugs or alcohol on suspicion of a relevant offence. Clause 2 extends the circumstances in which a commanding officer may require co-operation with such a test. It provides for post-accident preliminary testing without the need for suspicion that the person to be tested may have committed an offence. The new powers to require co-operation with such tests apply only after accidents involving aircraft or ships, or after other serious accidents.

The powers will apply in the event of any maritime or aviation accident and other serious accidents that result in, or have created the risk of death, serious injury to any person, serious damage to any property, or serious environmental harm involving prescribed or other safety critical functions. The results of preliminary tests can be used in support of any type of investigation arising from the accident. The new powers are similar to those provided to the civilian police by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 in relation to aviation and maritime accidents, and the Road Traffic Act 1998 in relation to road traffic accidents, but apply to a wider range of accidents.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We support clause 2. As the Minister has outlined, it brings into line the legislation that covers our armed forces and gives commanding officers the tools to investigate accidents in which drugs or alcohol may have played a part.

[Kirsten Oswald]

It is appropriate to enable commanding officers to require testing for drugs and/or alcohol after incidents associated with personnel carrying out safety critical duties. We support the ability of the commanding officer to deal with these matters. It is for them to consider and to proceed with the most appropriate action in relation to the requirement for testing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Duty of service policeman following investigation

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

As it is coming towards Christmas, we let the hon. Gentleman go back slightly to clause 2. [Hon. Members: “And forward!”]. And forward, yes. But we have been moving rapidly, and he was seeking advice as he went.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Thank you, Mr Bone. I will aim not to go backwards or forwards.

We support these common sense and proportionate clauses. As the 2006 Act beds in, they will improve the investigation and charging system by making it as efficient as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

The clause increases from 12 to 24 months the maximum period for which the sentence of service detention may be suspended by a court martial. The civilian courts and courts martial can already suspend sentences of imprisonment for up to 24 months, but service detention is a unique military system offering greater rehabilitation arrangements. This measure would provide a court martial with greater flexibility in appropriate circumstances. Guidance on sentencing in a court martial sets out the relevant factors for the award of suspended sentences: whether the offender can retrieve his or her good name without undergoing a committed sentence—for example, if there has been a significant delay between the offence and trial, during which period the offender has performed his or her duties well and effectively rehabilitated him or herself; whether the offender has shown genuine remorse and voluntarily made reparation for any damage caused; whether the offender is young and inexperienced and it is clear that the offence is an isolated occurrence; whether the offence does not involve serious violence or violence towards a superior officer; and whether the offender is required for more important operational duties.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Again, I think these are sensible proposals that give courts martial the flexibility to award suspended sentences where appropriate. It is a tidying-up exercise in terms of the 2006 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Immunity from prosecution

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

The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone): With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 8 to 12 stand part.

[Mark Lancaster]

For the convenience of the Committee, I shall discuss together clauses 7 to 12, which deal with offenders assisting investigations. In overview, clauses 7 and 8 allow the Director of Service Prosecutions, in return for assistance provided by a person to an investigation or prosecution, to enter into an agreement with the person giving them immunity from prosecution or an undertaking that information will not be used against them in proceedings. Clauses 9 to 12 make provision with respect to reduced sentences for those who provide such assistance.

The provisions closely follow those in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which apply to civilian prosecutors and courts. Under these provisions, an immunity notice or restricted use undertaking must be in writing and will normally include conditions, breach of which would lead to the immunity or undertaking being revoked.

The Director of Service Prosecutions will, as a matter of good practice, consult the Attorney General in relation to any offer of immunity. The DSP will engage with the Director of Public Prosecutions and devolved Administrations in the event of concurrent jurisdiction. Immunity notices and restricted use undertakings can be provided only if the DSP considers it appropriate in relation to the investigation or prosecution of a criminal conduct service offence, where the equivalent civilian offence is capable of being tried in the Crown Court, or a disciplinary offence, for which the maximum sentence is more than two years imprisonment.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

As a member of the Select Committee, let me add that when we looked into these provisions and interviewed the relevant official, I was impressed with two things. The first was the need to refer to the Attorney General. The link between the DSP and the Attorney General is a good one. I have to say that I have forgotten what the second one was, but let the first point stand as the major point I wanted to make.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

With the assurance that the Attorney General will be consulted only in very rare cases—I am not sure that the provisions will need to be used on many occasions—we support the clauses, which bring service law into line with best practice in civilian law.

[Mark Lancaster]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is anticipated that the provisions will be used only on very rare occasions and in the most serious cases. In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the process has not yet been tried, but it is hoped that there will not be any conflict between the various jurisdictions. If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with further detail in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

AFA 2006: Isle of Man and British overseas territories

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

The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone): With this it will be convenient to consider the schedule to the Bill.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that the 2006 Act will come into force in the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories, with the exception of Gibraltar, and that there will be the option of extending it to the Channel Islands. We too often forget those from the overseas territories and those who serve there. I am pleased to note that this is a truly British Bill which recognises our devoted armed services throughout the globe. This move is, I believe, long overdue.

I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he give us some idea what is meant by “the option of extending it to the Channel Islands”? Secondly, is he able to give a commitment—I am not sure whether he is—that, as I hope sincerely to be the case, the exemption of Gibraltar is not due to any Spanish intrusion or interference? The sovereignty of Gibraltar is down to its people, and we should firmly uphold their right to remain British, no matter what actions or words may come from Madrid.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We support clause 13 and the accompanying schedule. It makes sense to extend the Act to the overseas territories.

May I ask the Minister what the timescale is for the negotiations with Gibraltar? I realise that the elections there may have interfered with the process. May I also ask what mechanism would operate if Gibraltar accepted that the legislation should extend to it? Would we have to wait for the next Armed Forces Bill to introduce any changes that were necessary?

[Mark Lancaster]

Let me deal first with the question of Gibraltar. I can tell the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Spanish. In 2005 Gibraltar received a new constitution, which gives it wider legislative responsibilities. As I have said, we are discussing with its Government whether it would be best to provide for that through the 2006 Act or through its own legislation.

As the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, there has been a delay. That is simply because, as the House knows, Gibraltar was holding elections, which have now ended. I am keen to conclude the matter with Gibraltar as quickly as possible, and, if it wished to be included in the provisions of the Bill, the intention would be to introduce amendments in the other place at that point.

On the wider impact, the fact that the 2006 Act has not been in force in the British overseas territories—including the Isle of Man—since 2011 has not, to our knowledge, created any difficulties. The rationale for extending the Act to those jurisdictions includes ensuring that actions that might be taken by members of our armed forces would be lawful there, not only as a matter of United Kingdom law but as a matter of their own law. For example, service police would have powers of arrest, entry and search in those jurisdictions as well. Equally, the civilian authorities in those jurisdictions can do things that they might not otherwise have powers to do under the law there. Including them in the Act gives them extra powers as well.

All in all, we feel, having consulted, that this is a positive step.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Powers of Ministry of Defence fire-fighters in an emergency

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald]

We appreciate the work of MOD and other firefighters. It is important that we have in mind some of the concerns that the Fire Brigades Union has raised about the potential unintended consequences of the Bill. It has concerns about the impact of deploying MOD firefighters at fires and other incidents normally dealt with by local authority firefighters. However, there is clearly a need to deal with the issue that is at hand today and to streamline things. That is dealt with by the clause. We agree that it is important that we take the action suggested to close this loophole, as the clause does.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Again, this is a practical and sensible measure that closes a loophole that exists at present. Again, I pay tribute to MOD firefighters for the job that they do. I hope that these changes will ensure that they have the full protection of the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) about the work of the Chair of the Committee.

The new clauses contain sensible proposals. When I was a Minister, I had the pleasure of meeting many of the individuals involved in the war pensions committees, and the Minister is quite right to pay tribute to the work that they do. They do not get paid for it, but they are committed to ensuring that the veterans get advice and, on occasions, to highlighting issues that might not have been relevant when legislation was being passed but that came to light afterwards, and ensuring that practical action is taken. They provide an important mechanism for supporting veterans. Perhaps I should not say this, but I am sure that the Minister is already aware that many of them have already given advice on other compensation schemes, so it is sensible to make what they are doing legal, in effect. We will be supporting the new clause.

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is right, as he so often is. I am well aware that those people are already offering advice, but it would not be for me to condone from the Dispatch Box any activity that was technically illegal in any shape or form. However, they do fantastic work.

I also echo the comments of other hon. Members who have thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopreski) for his chairmanship of the Committee. We have not quite reached the end of these discussions, however, and I would not want to take it for granted that consensus is breaking out just yet. We still have a few more new clauses and amendments to go, but I hope that we will continue in the vein in which we have started.

In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), of course we want to see the military covenant progressed in Northern Ireland in the best possible way. Major progress has been made in recent months, not least when the first two local authorities signed the community covenant. I am looking forward to going to Northern Ireland shortly to do what I can to promote the covenant in the Province. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that these provisions are a major step in the right direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Extent in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories

Amendment made: 1, page 17, line 1, after “5(3),” insert—

“(War pensions committees and armed and reserve forces compensation schemes),”—(Mark Lancaster.)

This amendment provides that NC1 does not extend to the Isle of Man or the British overseas territories. Like section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989, NC1 is to extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (see clause 18).

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

War pensions committees and armed and reserve forces compensation schemes

‘(1) Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 (establishment and functions of war pensions committees) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The regulations may give the committees functions relating to one or more of the following—

(a) war pensions;

(b) war pensioners;

(c) AFCS benefits;

(d) AFCS benefit recipients.”

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) omit the words from the beginning to the second “and”,

(b) for “it shall be their function” substitute “it is a function of a committee”,

(c) n paragraph (a), for “connected with war pensions or affecting war pensioners in their area and, where they think” substitute “connected with war pensions or AFCS benefits or affecting people in its area who are war pensioners or AFCS benefit recipients and, where it thinks”,

(d) in paragraph (b), for “to them by persons receiving or claiming war pensions and, if they think” substitute “to it by people receiving or claiming war pensions or AFCS benefits and, if it thinks”,

(e) in paragraph (c)—

(i) for “them” substitute “it”, and

(ii) for “they” substitute “it”, and

(f) in paragraph (d), for “war pensioners in their area” substitute “people in its area who are war pensioners or AFCS benefit recipients”.

(4) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) The regulations may provide for the committees to have names specified in the regulations (as well as being known as war pensions committees).”

(5) In subsection (4), before the definition of “war pension” insert—

““AFCS benefit” means a benefit payable under an armed and reserve forces compensation scheme established by order under section 1(2) of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004;

“AFCS benefit recipient” means a person in receipt of an AFCS benefit, in the person’s capacity as such;”.” —(Mark Lancaster.)

War pensions committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 may be given functions by the Secretary of State by regulations. This new clause provides that the functions include functions relating to armed and reserve forces compensation schemes established under the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Voluntary discharge of under-18s

‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 329 (Terms and conditions of enlistment and service), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

“(3A) The regulations shall make provision that any person under the age of 18 shall be entitled to end their service with a regular force by giving not less than 14 days’ notice in writing to their commanding officer, and shall ensure that any person enlisting under the age of 18 is informed of this right when they enlist.”” —(Liz Saville Roberts.)

This amendment ensures that those under 18 years of age are to discharge themselves from the Armed Forces should they so wish.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald]

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) makes her points regarding service personnel aged under 18 well. However, my hon. Friends and I think it important that young people have the opportunity to have as many career options and life choices as possible at that stage in their lives.

I echo the hon. Lady’s words when she said that it is our responsibility to remember the duty of care for service personnel young and old. In particular, we have a duty of care for younger members of our armed forces. We do not support the new clause, which would prohibit those who are under 18 from joining the armed services, and we note that they are not deployed at that age.

Young people who join the armed services have the opportunity to change career paths, and it does not seem unreasonable for them to do so by giving less notice, so we support the hon. Lady’s suggestion of their having additional opportunities to change their career paths if they so wish after a short period of notice.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) rightly raises recruitment to the armed forces at 16, and, as she says, this is not the first time that the issue has been addressed. It was discussed when I served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Act 2006. Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I think that it does us no service trying to draw an analogy between the recruitment of youngsters in the UK at 16 and those who are forced to join up to fight in wars, for example, in west Africa and other parts of the world. The contrast could not be starker, and, as my hon. Friend said, it does no good to our cause of trying to eradicate the practices that take place in other parts of the world.

Youngsters recruited from the age of 16 cannot be deployed until they are 18, and the activities that those individuals undertake are a force for good. I have visited Harrogate, and one of my most inspiring days as a Minister was spent at HMS Raleigh, taking a passing out parade. When talking to the individuals who had completed their basic training there, the changes that had taken place were clear, as was not only their pride but that of their families who attended the event. Some of the parents told me afterwards that the changes that they saw in the short time—10 weeks—that those individuals had been in the Navy was nothing short of remarkable.

On the tragic circumstances at Deepcut, I served on the Defence Committee, along with you, Mr Crausby, when we did a major investigation into the duty of care. Not only the last Government but this Government are committed to the changes proposed not only in the Select Committee report but in that of Mr Nicholas Blake QC on the tragic events at Deepcut. Is it right to say that there were problems? Yes, there were problems, and we referred to them in our report. Many of them have been addressed, including guard duty, which was used to occupy people’s time between phase 1 and phase 2 training.

The work that all three services do with the individuals who join up at 16 is certainly important. All three services do remarkable work correcting the problems that some of those individuals have had in the education system. Work such as that done at Harrogate and Catterick with Darlington college, for example, to try to raise literacy rates is not only helpful to the individual, but remarkably successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Requirement to publish statistics on sexual assault and rape

‘(1) Each service police force must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of allegations of sexual assault and rape made by and against members of the armed forces.

(2) The Director of Service Prosecutions must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of cases involving allegations of sexual assault and rape made by and against members of the armed forces, including but not necessarily limited to—

(a) the number of cases referred from the service police forces;

(b) how many of these cases were prosecuted; and

(c) how many convictions were secured.”—(Mr Kevan Jones.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Removal of Commanding Officer’s discretion to investigate allegations of sexual assault—

‘(1) Schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 [Schedule 2 offences] is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (12)(at), leave out “3, 66, 67 or”

New clause 7—Civilian investigations and prosecutions relating to murder, sexual assault, and rape—

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

(2) After section 118 [Duty of service policeman to notify CO of referral to DSP] insert—

“118A Civilian investigations and prosecutions relating to murder, sexual assault, and rape

(1) Criminal investigations into allegations of murder, sexual assault, and rape by and against members of the Armed Forces shall be undertaken by the relevant civilian police authorities.

(2) Criminal prosecutions of charges involving murder, sexual assault, and rape by and against members of the Armed Forces shall be undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service.””

[Mr Jones]

It gives me great pleasure to speak to new clauses 5, 6 and 7. I apologise to members of the Select Committee who are here, because they have heard many of these issues discussed before. In the replies that we got in Committee, undertakings were given that some of those issues would be looked at. These are mainly probing amendments, but I will wait to see what the Minister brings forward.

New clause 5 is about the service police gathering statistics on serious sexual assaults and rapes. For the civilian police, there is no statutory obligation to do this, but it is now best practice, and individuals are able to look at trends in different police forces. In Committee, we were told by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) that the service police already collect such statistics and that they can be obtained through the use of parliamentary questions or freedom of information requests.

I give credit both to the Ministry of Defence and to General Sir Nick Carter, who gave evidence to the Select Committee. I think he is genuinely committed to changing attitudes in the Army, to ensure not only openness and transparency, but, as he has outlined in his introductory leadership guide, zero tolerance of anyone who steps outside of the law. He has also been commended for his efforts not only to recruit more women to the Army, but to ensure that they progress through the armed forces to more senior positions.

Evidence in the 2005 report shows that 39% of servicewomen questioned said that they had faced harassment, and that cannot be right. It also notes that 33% said that they had faced unwelcome attempts to talk about sexual matters or had felt uncomfortable in some conversations. Why is it important to publish such statistics? Clearly, they have already been collated. I know that the Ministry of Defence moves at a snail’s pace and occasionally needs a push to come up with best practice, but I cannot see any reason why the statistics should not be produced annually, given that they are already available. Doing so would enable us to look at trends—that has been important in civilian police forces—and at whether the initiatives to bear down on unacceptable behaviour in all three services are actually having an effect.

Members should not have to ask a parliamentary question or have to make a freedom of information request in order to get that information. I cannot for the life of me understand the reluctance towards making it available, apart from the usual conservativism—with a small “c”—and snail’s pace of the Ministry of Defence. Let us be honest: if the statistics are published annually, I assure anyone who is watching that the sky will not fall in. I think it would send a proper and clear message. It is important that what General Carter and others are saying about advancing and promoting women, and about bearing down on unacceptable behaviour, is scrutinised properly.

New clause 6 relates to the commanding officer, who is in the unique position of being able to decide whether an allegation of sexual assault should be referred to the military police or to the civil police for investigation. The Select Committee had a long discussion about this issue and I certainly feel that it puts a commanding officer in the position of making judgments when he or she might not be in full cognisance of the facts, so a referral to the police would be a better approach. However, General Carter indicated to the Select Committee that commanding officers are recommended to take legal advice before deciding how to deal with such cases. One way to reach a compromise would be to codify an obligation on commanding officers to take legal advice in all instances before taking such a decision.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe that the service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority have the necessary expertise and independence to investigate effectively and prosecute the full range of offences. It is crucial to remember that, given that service personnel are subject to the provisions of the Armed Forces Act wherever they serve in the world, service police remain able to investigate in these areas where their civilian counterparts may not. This ensures that our personnel are dealt with fairly and consistently. I am confident that we do not need to legislate further on these matters. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for North Durham will withdraw his amendments.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I was not wanting to question the independence of the military service police, but there is ongoing concern about its capacity and expertise. One way forward, on which the Ministry of Defence is moving very slowly, is the independent inspection of that force.

On the commanding officer, I hear what the Minister says. When General Carter came before the Committee, people were reassured that in practice allegations are taken very seriously and that when victims come forward legal advice is not only available but referred to. In saying that, if it is not going to be in the Bill that commanding officers should take legal advice before deciding on whether to take forward or dismiss a complaint, the services perhaps need to consider whether it should be codified through some kind of internal process.

On the publication of statistics, it is welcome that common sense has finally blossomed. The Minister is right that statistics are available. I cannot think he has anything to hide by not publishing them. I respect his commitment to come up with a system to publish them annually. I accept that perhaps more work needs to be done on the format and where they are produced. With the passage of the Bill I will be looking, as I am sure will fellow members of the Committee, to see how that advances. If I may give him a word of advice, in my experience he should insist on a timeline. Otherwise—no disrespect to some very able civil servants in the MOD—it might get pushed off into a siding and, if he leaves his post, might not be picked up by his successor. This is important. Neither the military nor the MOD has anything to fear from producing these figures, and it would add to the good work being done by the MOD and the three services to address these issues. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Review of compensation available to veterans suffering from mesothelioma

Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission a review of how former members of the armed forces who have contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in the course of their military service are compensated, and must lay the report of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Mr Kevan Jones.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

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

The new clause, which is similar to one I moved at an earlier stage, would affect veterans who have the misfortune to suffer from mesothelioma. You will know, Mr Crausby, from your engineering background, how debilitating this terrible condition is and the death sentence it imposes.

In 2014, the Government set up the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme under the Mesothelioma Act 2014 to pay lump sum compensation to civilians who contracted mesothelioma in cases where former employers or insurance companies could not be traced. Under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, many veterans are not covered by the scheme and so do not have the option to sue the MOD over this death sentence.

Great strides have been made to improve health and safety in handling asbestos, not just in civilian life but within the MOD, but we are talking here about cases that go back 30 or 40 years, if not further. Mesothelioma is one of those terrible conditions that affects people at random. In a previous life, when I was legal officer for the GMB, I saw old shipyard workers with asbestos scars on their hands who did not suffer from any other conditions, while some people exposed to quite low levels of asbestos developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related cancers.

Under the current provisions, affected veterans can apply for a 100% war pension, if it is agreed that their diagnosis is related to their service. The Royal British Legion, which has campaigned on this, estimates that the option to claim compensation would affect 2,500 personnel, mainly—not surprisingly—naval veterans who handled asbestos in the course of their work. It tells me that asbestos has some peculiar effects for single individuals and widowers. The proposal is that the Secretary of State come forward with a scheme for veterans similar to the one outlined by the Government in 2014. It would also continue their work of supporting veterans, irrespective of where they served, and bring the law for veterans suffering from mesothelioma into line with that for civilians, who are covered by the 2014 Act. That is what organisations such as the Royal British Legion have been campaigning for.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I support the view of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that this matter must be dealt with. There is an urgency to it, because veterans suffering from mesothelioma simply do not have time for us to delay any further. We have heard about the campaign of the Royal British Legion, which calls on the Government to find fairer ways of compensating veterans suffering from this devastating condition. It has been an effective campaign, and it is right to highlight what a terrible disease mesothelioma is.

It is an unimaginable tragedy for veterans and their families to receive this diagnosis. We cannot imagine the enormous impact it has on their lives. To be clear, rectifying this unfair treatment will not make anybody suffering from the disease any better, but it might improve the quality of the period of life they have left and it might mean less anxiety about those they leave behind them.

Thousands of people serving in our armed forces prior to 1987 were exposed to asbestos while under military orders and have subsequently been diagnosed with mesothelioma. As the hon. Member for North Durham said, approximately 2,500 ex-service personnel are affected in this way. They clearly lose out very significantly when compared with civilians in the same position. For instance, while the civilian population suffering from mesothelioma is eligible for up to £180,000 in compensation, our ex-service personnel are eligible for only £31,000. Our veterans are clearly being treated less well than their civilian counterparts. This is a very significant difference, and it is no way to support our service personnel. I hope to hear some positive words from the Minister about this.

The military covenant commits the Government to removing disadvantages to service personnel—and this is most certainly a disadvantage at a very difficult time in people’s lives. We need to be able to deal with this—and quickly. The Royal British Legion summarises the situation very well when it says that it is

“unfair and has to change!”.

It is unacceptable to treat our terminally ill veterans in this way; the hon. Member for North Durham is correct in his call for urgency.

My concern is that this matter was already being discussed and highlighted as urgent when the Mesothelioma Act 2014 was being reviewed as a Bill in July 2013, yet so far this issue has not been resolved—despite assurances on many occasions that action was imminent. It is our duty to deal with it now before other ex-service personnel have their final months blighted by this financial worry and inequity. I hope that the Minister can allay these concerns today, so that we can see some positive progress made and deal with our veterans as we should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

The new clause would impose an obligation on the Defence Secretary to instigate a review of compensation for veterans with mesothelioma. My view is that such a step would not require legislation, and has been overtaken by events.

As I said on 19 November during the Adjournment debate on compensation for our military veterans who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, we recognise that it is a devastating disease that changes the lives not only of the people who are diagnosed with it but of those who care about them: their families and loved ones.

Veterans with mesothelioma caused by their military service are entitled to make a claim for no-fault compensation from the Ministry of Defence. The war pensions scheme provides a tax-free pension and supplementary allowances, along with dependants’ benefits. The Government ascribe great importance to the health and well-being of our veterans, and we are clear about the fact that they should not be disadvantaged as a result of their service. We are absolutely committed to supporting them and the wider armed forces community.

Mesothelioma is a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, and 40 years or more can often pass before it manifests itself and an individual is diagnosed, tragically with a short life expectancy thereafter. That is why it is so important to ensure that we provide the right support for those who are affected by the disease. We owe them all a debt of profound gratitude. I am therefore pleased to announce that any veteran who is diagnosed from mesothelioma from today will be offered a choice between receiving a lump sum of £140,000 and receiving the traditional war pension payments. It is currently proposed that the necessary legislative changes will come into force on 11 April 2016, but I am keen to consider options for bringing the date forward. Claimants choosing the option of a lump sum will continue to receive a monthly payment until the lump sum is paid. The Veterans Welfare Service will be on hand to help claimants to understand the new option.

As my hon. Friends will know, the policy of no retrospection has been maintained by successive Governments. Whether it should be applied to this group is a complex issue that has been the subject of much discussion within the Government. However, I have directed my Department to continue to review the options to support these claimants in a similar manner. I have received a great deal of correspondence, and I intend to write to the Members who have contacted my Department with a full update.

On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for North Durham to withdraw his motion.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I think it would be rather churlish if I did not! I thank the Minister. What he has said shows his determination to put this wrong right, and, as with many issues, he approaches it not only with compassion but with the aim of ensuring that we do the right thing. This is doing the right thing by these veterans, to whom we owe a huge debt. I congratulate him on his stance and I will look with hope at the other work he is doing on retrospection. I accept that there are difficulties with that and I would not expect solutions tomorrow, but I take his commitment at least to look at retrospection. On the happy note that this is moving in the right direction, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



New Clause 9

Homosexual acts no longer to constitute grounds for discharging a member of HM armed forces (No. 2)

‘(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 146(4), omit the words “discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or” and the words “or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,”.

(3) In section 147(3), omit the words “discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or” and the words “or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,”.’—(Mr Kevan Jones.)

This amendment removes the provisions applying to the armed forces from sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

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

New clause 9 attempts—I referred to this in the Select Committee—to remove redundant legislation from the statute book. Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contain provisions relating to a homosexual act constituting grounds for discharge from the armed services. The Act repealed a provision relating to male homosexual acts and the armed forces in the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

Clearly, that has been superseded by the fact that homosexuality in itself is not now grounds, thankfully, for being dismissed from the armed services, but the legislation referring to the armed forces remains on the statute book. I am not for one minute suggesting that anyone involved in a homosexual or heterosexual act in the course of their service should not be disciplined or could not be dismissed, but people think that it is discriminatory, and I agree, that the Act refers to homosexual acts, and not heterosexual acts in any way.

That legislation is redundant because we have moved, rightly, to ensure that members of our armed forces are not judged by their sexuality. My aim in the Select Committee and today is to find a mechanism—and I accept what the Minister said about the way forward—to take the provision off the statute book. It clearly discriminates against homosexuality, has no place on the statute book and serves no useful purpose.

[Martin John Docherty]

I associate SNP Members with the comments of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about the redundancy of this provision. On a personal level, I am shocked that it is still there and that homosexual members of the armed forces should be seen differently from heterosexual members of the armed forces who might be having sexual relations. Strangely enough, that seems to be a human element of sexual relations: they happen to people, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, and no law is going to prohibit that. I want to ensure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that those on the SNP Benches fully support the new clause. We hope that the Minister will again reflect on what has been said and seek a way to take this forward.

[Mark Lancaster]

I have much sympathy with the basis for this new clause. Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are clearly redundant. They have no practical effect and their existence is inconsistent with the Department’s policy on homosexuality within Her Majesty’s armed forces and the Government’s equality and discrimination policies more generally. We are very proud in the MOD of the significant progress that has been made over a comparatively short time in respect of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender staff. Since changes were made to the law in 2000 to allow homosexual men, lesbians and transgender personnel to serve openly in the armed forces, we have taken many positive steps. All three services now feature in Stonewall’s top 100 employers list.

We continue to engage widely to benchmark our activities in support of our LGBT staff, to ensure that we are doing as much as we can. In celebration of this year’s London Pride, the rainbow flag was flown over the MOD main building for the first time, while over 200 service personnel and MOD civil servants marched together.

It is clear, therefore, that this redundant piece of legislation in no way reflects the position of today’s armed forces, or indeed the position of the merchant navy, which is also included in those provisions. We would wish to repeal the legislation for both groups, but that is not possible in this Bill as the merchant navy falls under the auspices of the Department for Transport.

I am keen to repeal this legislation as soon as possible, and will undertake to update the House on this matter on Report. I have also discussed this with my colleagues in the Department for Transport, who echo the intent to review this legislation with regard to the merchant navy as soon as possible. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) to withdraw his new clause.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What we have had today is what we had in the Select Committee: universal agreement that this is not only redundant legislation, but is discriminatory and should not be on the statute book. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to look at finding a way to remove this. He has said he will report back on Report, and that will stop people pushing it off into a siding. I look forward to the Minister coming back with a way of changing this not only for the armed forces but, through the Department for Transport, for members of the merchant navy. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Title

Amendment made: 2, line 2, after “discipline;” insert

“to make provision about war pensions committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989;”.—(Mark Lancaster.)

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Armed Drones

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this debate. We have had contributions from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty).

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden explained the use of UAVs. We must recognise that they are a new technology in a long list. The history of development goes back to Zeppelins and other types of weapons. He highlighted the issue of how UAVs are used. In my experience, for the majority of the time, they are a valuable tool in surveillance and intelligence gathering. However, as he rightly says, in some cases they have a capacity to deliver weapons to a target. He highlighted the issue of Baghdad, the defeat of al-Qaeda and the use of UAVs in operations, but he then made a very important point that we should not forget. That battle was won not only through the use of UAVs but by the brave servicemen of the US and the UK, and also—the important point he made—by the use of good intelligence. Much of it was secured not through UAVs but from other sources.

A number of speakers mentioned the legal framework for the use of UAVs, which is important. It is no different—nor should it be—from the framework for an attack by a conventional aircraft or, for that matter, UK forces on the ground. It is important that that legal framework is in place. If someone joins Her Majesty’s armed forces, one of the first things they are taught in basic training is the rules of engagement for self-defence. It is clear that even the most junior members of the armed forces know when they can and cannot use force by, for example, discharging their weapons. Whether delivered by a UAV or a conventional aircraft, the use of weapons is covered by a legal framework.

As a former Ministry of Defence Minister, I know that the same rules of engagement are used whether we are talking about a UAV or a Tornado using conventional weapons against a target. I accept that there is a lot of misinformation, and perhaps some ignorance, which the MOD needs to address. The idea is out there that the people operating UAVs are somehow isolated from the decision-making process. They are not. As I understand it, they are just as much part of that process as someone flying a Tornado would be. There are suggestions that they do not know the legal ramifications of what they are doing or about the intelligence around it, but that is not the case.

I know from my experience in the MOD that on a number of occasions in both Afghanistan and Iraq legal authority was given, whether in the form of advice given to the chain of command or an agreement by Ministers, but even when the missions had been agreed they were aborted. That was not because of an intervention in the chain of command, but because the operator saw that the situation on the ground was such that they would have to abort to avoid civilian casualties, or for some other reason. We need to be clear that UAV operators are not sitting in isolation. They have not just been given a set of instructions to carry out without any thought process; they are clearly thinking, which is important.

The hon. Members for Strangford and for West Dunbartonshire mentioned the idea of the autonomous use of UAVs. That is an entirely different situation from the current one. I agree that if technology goes down that route, we will require a new set of laws for how we set rules of engagement. An important point about the legal framework is that the MOD needs to do more to explain the rules of engagement.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden spoke about the legality of using the rules of engagement outside a conflict zone, which is a legitimate point to address. During my time in the MOD, the use of UAVs was confined to Afghanistan and Iraq, and the main bulk of their work was in surveillance and intelligence gathering—vital tools for the fight in Syria.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West made an interesting point about the fact that the threshold for access to UAV technology is getting lower. There is, I think, already some information about terrorist groups acquiring the technology, which means that we will need to develop ways to counteract it—for example, through jamming.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire made an interesting point about mental health. A lot of anecdotal evidence has come forward, some of which she mentioned. Perhaps the MOD needs to look at that, because we have new technology. For example, the defence medicine department at King’s College might want to consider doing a longer-term study of the effects on those who are operating UAV systems.

In closing, I am confident in the legal framework around the people who operate these systems. Is it important to have this debate? Yes, it is. Should the MOD do more, not only by explaining the rules of engagement but by actually answering questions when challenged? I think it should.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

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

One of the many things briefed officially to The Times and The Daily Telegraph this morning was that the MOD will only purchase five fewer frigates than planned. Does the Minister share my concern about needing enough frigates to protect our carriers on operations, with any reduction to this fleet meaning that the capability to operate the carriers will be impaired?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, whom I am delighted to see in his place, that we will have enough frigates to protect the carriers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making the frigate replacement programme very clear in just a few minutes’ time.

Reserve Forces

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate. I start by paying tribute to the contribution of both our regular forces and our reserve forces. As a former Defence Minister, I have seen at first hand the contribution of both, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, the contribution that reservists made, not just in medical services but on the frontline, was sometimes overlooked. We ought to pay tribute to them.

The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of ensuring that we monitor the Army 2020 process. He welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an extra £2 billion for special forces, but I ask him to look closely at the details, because as usual what the Treasury announces is not what it seems. If it includes the £1.5 billion that was already announced in the Budget, and if the extra equipment for the SAS is coming out of the 1% that has already been announced, it does not appear that there is any new money at all, so I ask that the hon. Gentleman look more carefully at that.

Importantly, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, as he always does, the contribution made not only to the regular forces but to the reserve forces by people from his part of the world—Northern Ireland. We also had contributions from the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), and for Stirling (Steven Paterson); the latter highlighted the important role of the reserves and the contribution that his constituency makes to recruitment to the reserve forces.

I was sad to see the Scottish National party then revert to its usual victim mentality; it argued that Scotland was not getting a fair share of its resources. As for the idea that the Royal Navy is not present in Scotland, I was the Minister who oversaw the relocation of the submarine force to Scotland, and I think that it has a large footprint in, and makes a large contribution to, Scotland.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) argued that the non-replacement of the nuclear deterrent would free up resources. That is a myth, and she needs to explain to her constituents and voters in Scotland the economic black hole that would occur in the defence budget and the economic contribution to Scotland if that decision was taken. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling is chuntering from a sedentary position, but unfortunately the Scottish National party does not want to address the real issue of the contribution that defence already makes, not only to Scotland but to the entire UK.

The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) has been consistent in his criticism of Army 2020. He put his finger on the problem with Army 2020, which is that it was not conceived from strategic need and thought; budgetary considerations and the Treasury were in the driving seat. In 2010, the strategic defence review argued for a reduction in the Army from 102,000 to 95,000. To meet budgetary restrictions, it was announced in July 2011 that the Army would be reduced to 82,000, with an increase in the number of reservists from 19,000 to 30,000. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the then Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), said that the reduction in the regular Army would take place only if reservists filled that gap, but that has not been the case.

It is clear from the National Audit Office report of 2014 that the future size of the Army was determined not by strategic needs but by financial savings. The comments by General Sir Peter Wall, the former Chief of the General Staff, were quite revealing:

“I remember the genesis very clearly. It was a financially driven plan. We had to design a new structure that included the run-down of the 102,000 Regular Army to 82,000, which is pretty well advanced now, to follow a funding line that was driven by the austerity with which everybody is very familiar...It triggered the complete redesign of the Army”.

As he has told the Defence Committee on several occasions, the head of the Army was informed by the permanent secretary at the MOD what the future size of the Army would be. The former Defence Secretary made the point that the cost envelope was the driving force behind the proposal, not any strategic needs, and I believe that is the problem.

I do not in any way criticise the Minister for his determination or his enthusiasm for reservists, but we come back to the fundamental question of where the 82,000 figure came from. Unfortunately, it is being reinforced in the present defence and security review, and the fact that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force will have to take the bulk of the cuts seems to have been overlooked. There is an opportunity now to review not only Army 2020 but the entire strategic defence review process. Unfortunately, the Conservative party, having nailed the figure of 82,000 to the mast with its other electoral colours during the general election, will find it difficult to withdraw from that, but that fundamental review needs to take place.

Despite the valiant efforts of the Minister and those who are working hard in the MOD, there are still serious problems, as highlighted by the NAO. One of the most damning points highlighted in the report is the fact that recruitment targets are not underpinned by robust planning. Likewise, the IT fiasco has wasted some £70 million. I accept that some of those problems have been resolved, but it does not fill people with a great deal of confidence that the process will result in the targets outlined in today’s debate being met.

Another telling point comes from the MOD’s continuous attitude survey, which shows that among personnel who have been made redundant or left the forces, there is little appetite for joining the reserves; the figure was less than 17%. The hon. Members for Kettering and for Basildon and Billericay both made the point that the important thing is not numbers, but what we have in our reserve. If this is simply made into a numbers game, it will not necessarily translate into the capabilities that we need in the infantry, or tackle the severe shortages in Defence Medical Services that have been mentioned. I know from my time in the Ministry of Defence that those skills were vital to our deployment in Afghanistan. We need to think about not just numbers but the kinds of individual that we are recruiting.

An important point was made about the retention of reservists once they have been recruited. The hon. Members for Basildon and Billericay, and for Kettering, made the good point that if people do not feel challenged and do not feel as though they are making a contribution, they will not necessarily stay in and continue to contribute to the reserves. It is a waste of the resources put into the training and recruitment of those individuals if we retain them for only a short time, which is not cost-effective for the taxpayer.

There is an opportunity in the security and defence review to look at the 82,000 figure and ask whether the reserve recruitment targets—realistically, they are not going to be achieved—should be revisited. The Navy and RAF numbers will come under pressure, because for some unexplained reason the Conservative party in its election manifesto set the figure of 82,000 on a tablet of stone, not to be changed. That needs revisiting. Events over the weekend show that the threats we face change quickly, and that some of the skills that we need—in cyber, intelligence and other capabilities—must be procured in the regular forces, but the reserve forces can also make a contribution.

Defence Implementation Road Map

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 General Committees

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

But if we are to have an internal market, does that not begin to bring in the single market rules? It may well be in the interests of this nation to support an uneconomic defence manufacturing industry because of the need for certainty of supply at a time of war which may be unpredictable. I seem to remember that during the first Gulf war, Belgium would not supply bullets—

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

Hand grenades.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is as helpful as ever. Belgium would not provide hand grenades to British forces. Can we really risk being in a situation where these decisions are in any way constrained?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I stand before the Committee as a pro-European and I will be arguing for this country to remain a member of the EU, but the document before us today demonstrates how the EU is extending itself into areas that mean that it tests the patience even of Europhiles such as myself.

The debate around European defence is a long one. It goes back to the end of the second world war, the foundation of the Western European Union and the treaty of Brussels. We had arguments then about standardisation of equipment and pooling of defence capabilities across Europe. I agree that a cornerstone of our defence should be NATO, but even though this document reflects that, there is a way—I suspect that some Conservative Members will see this as another wicked plot from across the sea—of influencing the sovereign capability and decision making of this country. It is clear that defence matters should be for individual nation states in Europe to decide, and I understand that that is what the Government are arguing in their response to the document, but I have a problem with some of the things that are coming forward.

The first item in the document is that the Commission’s aim is to have an internal market for the defence industry. Thanks to the actions of the previous Labour Government, of which you were a member, Mr Hanson, we have one of the most open and competitive defence markets anywhere in the world. We have only to look at the companies that have now based themselves here or worked with existing capacity here to see why we have that open and competitive market. Finmeccanica, Thalys, Boeing and General Dynamics are just a few of them, and that is because the Labour Government’s approach was that our market should be open not just to Europe, but to the world. I argue strongly that this country, in terms of defence capability, has benefited from that process. The danger with the approach taken in this document is that we look at defence or defence manufacturing as though a fence can be put around it in terms of just Europe. That is not the case. It is a global, international market these days.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend rightly identifies some of the benefits from engaging with the wider defence industry. However, there has to be some payback for that—some degree of equity. Does he therefore share my frustration at the failure of the United States in this regard? Despite the fact that Brimstone is far and away the most effective weapon—it is favoured, actually, by the United States air force—it is being blocked within the system because of narrow industrial interests. Does that not cast a slight shadow over the wider co-operation that my hon. Friend rightly identified and welcomed?

[Mr Jones]

It does. My right hon. Friend and I spent a week in Washington trying to persuade US Congressmen and Senators to make sure that there was nothing wrong in ensuring that technology transfers should be a two-way street. The problem is that although a lot of claims are made about the US defence market being open and transparent, anyone with experience of it knows that protection is clear.

Such protection, however, comes up in Europe. The document talks about overcapacity in the European defence industries, but there is a reason for that: the protectionist policies of certain members, including France, Germany and others. They have not opened up their markets, not only not to US and international competitors, but also not to UK companies. There have been some good examples, as the Minister rightly pointed out, of good defence co-operation and manufacture between European nations and our own, which have been of benefit to not only those nations, but ours.

The objective, according to the document, of

“an Internal Market for Defence where European companies can operate freely and without discrimination in all Member States”,

is frankly pie in the sky. The idea that the French defence market or shipbuilding industry, for example, will be open to competition throughout Europe is unrealistic. A few years ago in Paris, when I was a member of the Defence Committee, I asked the Member for Brest whether she envisaged a French aircraft carrier being built anywhere other than Brest. She looked at me quizzically and said, “I don’t understand the question.”

The Commission is pressing forward in that area, and that has real dangers for our defence industries. It is not, frankly, an area in which the Commission should be getting involved. I fully support, as the Minister does, existing co-operation in the EU for operations that lie outside NATO or involving other countries, but that is where it should stay. If the market comes into our defence industries, that will block off a lot of the opportunities that this country has for co-operation not only with the United States, which is an important market, but with other growing markets around the world. For example, in the south-east Asian market, the easy transfer between civilian technologies and defence ones brings capabilities that could benefit our defence industries. If they are somehow locked out, because our procurement is restricted to Europe, not only will our defence industries suffer, but so could what is on offer to the men and women of our armed forces.

[Martin John Docherty]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in counterbalancing our defence relationship with the United States, we should continue to build relationships with European partners such as the Netherlands? I am sure he agrees that building those relationships can only benefit our security.

[Mr Jones]

I do, but it is naive to think that we are talking only about Europe. Increasingly as the lines between the development of civilian technologies and defence get blurred, defence industries and technologies are a global market. The idea that we can somehow restrict that to within Europe, or give Europe some preference, would be a great disadvantage to our defence industries. As I said, because of the open approach that we took in government, we have benefited from open markets, which have certainly added to investment from overseas into this country, but also to transfers of technologies and expertise, not only ensuring that the kit and capabilities of our armed forces are leading edge, but adding to jobs and prosperity in this country.

My other issue comes under the second point about security of supply. We have already talked about hand grenade shells in connection with security of supply within Europe. I am not quite sure how this would fit in with technology such as the joint strike fighter, which we are involved in developing and building, and which contains both UK and US technology. Perhaps that is a bad example, but there are other technologies. If we have to ensure that technologies are supplied within Europe, that would limit the ability of some of our partners to co-operate with us. I do not think—how can I put it gently?—that the trust we have in the US defence community, for example, is the same as the trust we have when we export technology to France or any of our other European allies. Does security of supply mean that the onus is on us to supply certain technologies if a European country demanded it? That would put real constraints on us.

[Mr Brazier]

I agree with quite a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It will not surprise him that we share concerns, and I hope I made it clear that we are heading off many of them. However, on the issue he just raised, I am puzzled about his reasoning. I cannot see anything that would enable that. Can he explain what he means?

[Mr Jones]

It is not clear from the document. However, if we are saying that there has got to be security of supply for a certain piece of technology, we would have to ensure that widget A is available to all European nations. If widget A contains technology that is procured from a third country with which we have a partnership, will we, because we are part of this process, have to export it or send it to a third country in Europe that needs it? That is the danger. At the moment, we have a choice about whether we do that, based on the relationship we entered into in the first place. As the Minister knows, we have certain technologies that we would not export, even to some of our allies in Europe. That is my concern.

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. The short answer is no, we would not agree to that. Nothing that we are agreeing to could ever put us in that position.

[Mr Jones]

The other point I would like to touch on is the reference to third markets and the idea that the European Commission has a role in promoting defence exports. It is very strange that the document again misses the entire point when it says:

“With defence budgets shrinking in Europe in recent years, exports to third markets have become increasingly important for European industry to compensate for reduced demand on home markets.”

It completely ignores the fact that it is not that the defence industry cannot produce. It does not question the fact that many countries do not meet the NATO 2% and that budgets have continued to be cut across Europe. I am concerned about the idea that the Commission has a role in exporting to third markets. The Commission is living in a fantasy world if it is trying to suggest that this will put a brake on the bargaining between, for example, French and UK defence exporters, and that one would export something and the other would not.

Look at the current competition for fast jets in the middle east and elsewhere. It is not the case that the French are not acting in their national self-interest, as they always do. What is being said here, and why does the Commission want to get involved in something it does not need to? Is it trying to create a level playing field, and will the inducements and other things that are put forward not be allowable to ensure that two European nations competing for a defence contract in the middle east, for example, do so on the same basis? I do not think that is the Commission’s role, and, frankly, if that is what is being suggested, it would be very difficult to implement.

The other side to that, which is also completely missed, is that purchaser nations increasingly require and want some development of technologies within their country as part of defence and export contracts, which is only right. That takes me to my final point, which is that I do not accept that offsets are a bad thing. If a sovereign nation is to procure equipment from overseas or another competitor, it is quite right that it should be able to demand some offset for taxpayers’ money either being spent in their country or benefiting the home nation.

In conclusion, I worry about the document, because it has clearly taken the time of many a Brussels bureaucrat to draw it up, but to what end? It would be strange if we ever saw the French open up their defence markets to true competition. There is no evidence for that, and it just will not happen. The Opposition support such operations in terms of co-operation across Europe, but we need to be wary about the Commission getting into areas in which it should not be, and about our defence industry, which has been good at adapting and changing over the past few years, being put at a disadvantage. There would be nothing to gain in both jobs and technology. The important thing that we must always bear in mind is that the equipment and kit that we provide to our armed forces is not only fit for purpose, but the best available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

May I suggest that there is another way that the EU nation states combine very effectively, which is on a commercial basis—an example being Thales and Finmeccanica?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with that, although I think that the Government should have the right to be protectionist in relation to defence procurement. I am not sure it is always wise to be protectionist. I am a supporter of having bought ships from South Korea. That was a sensible thing to have done in the broader context. I am in favour of maintaining freedom of activity rather than saying that it is always wrong to buy from overseas.

The final point I am making is that intergovernmental co-operation is admirable. When we are dealing with issues that NATO does not want to deal with, it makes complete sense to co-operate with our nearest neighbours and to use that projection of force where it can be used. I absolutely agree with the Minister that on the issue of Ukraine, a variety of agencies needed to be involved, but what never needed to happen was for defence to come under the auspices of the EU, formally or informally. It is a great protection from the general ratchet effect of what happens in the EU if the Minister is robust. I am reassured that we have one of the most robust Ministers before the Committee today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

I was pleased to meet local conveners when I was in the yard in Govan earlier this month, and I would be happy to meet them again if the hon. Gentleman chose to bring them to Parliament any time soon.

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

The Government have brought us aircraft carriers without aircraft, but even for them, warships without sailors would be going a bit too far. Can the Minister outline how the personnel requirements for the new Type 26 will be met? Will there be a reliance, as we have recently seen in the press, on overseas recruits to fill those capability gaps?

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Type 26 global combat ship programme is designed to replace the existing frigate fleet—the Type 23. We generally find when updating naval capability that ships with more power and capability can be manned with fewer men, so we do not see any particular challenge with this programme, apart from the natural challenge of recruiting to the armed forces during periods of economic growth.