Bill of Rights

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Could the Deputy Prime Minister look this way now and again? That would be helpful. If not, it is hard to hear him.

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

Two things do not surprise me today : the continuing utter disrespect shown to you, Mr Speaker, as Chair of this House, and the utter dearth of historical knowledge on the Government Front Bench and among their Back Benchers. I remind them that there is no such thing as UK law. There is the law of England and Wales, the law of Northern Ireland and the law of Scotland. On the point the Deputy Prime Minister made, I wonder whether, in his next discussion with the Justice Minister of Ukraine, which is a signatory to the convention and a defender of the convention against the Russian Federation, he will say which parts of the convention he thinks Ukraine should leave.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

May I give the hon. Member some reassurance? First, the Human Rights Act is a protected enactment and a precise example of UK-wide application. I have met the Justice Minister of Ukraine, and I will tell the hon. Member what he said. He said “Thank you” from the bottom of his heart for everything that this country has done on sanctions, for our support for Ukraine’s military and for the role that we are playing, alongside the Attorney General, in supporting the International Criminal Court prosecution and investigations on the ground in Ukraine to hold the commission of war crimes in Ukraine and hold those responsible to account.

Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests Resignation

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

It is kind of the right hon. Lady to ask that question. I think the Prime Minister has a lot of good luck in winning elections. He won elections in London, he won a general election in this country, and he will win more.

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

When questioned at the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on Tuesday, the now former ethics adviser described himself as

“an asset of the Prime Minister…rather than a free-orbiting adviser”.

Does the Minister not agree that it is time for the ethics adviser’s appointment to be truly independent of the Prime Minister and of politics, and for them to be appointed by the civil service board?

[Michael Ellis]

I think all our independent advisers since 2006 have been independent of politics. They have been people of the highest integrity and probity, as is Lord Geidt. It is a position that is increasingly put under considerable pressure, but we must have regard for that and ensure that the standards are maintained.

Foreign Lobbying

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Bob Seely]

Obtuse and obscure.

Together with lawyers, accountants, estate agents, public relations professionals and other enablers, lobbyists have formed a buffer around these people. I know that the case with Russia is clearly changing very dramatically—it has been rather forced on us by conflict—but China is another important case that concerns me. I say that as someone who knows that the Government are moving in the right direction, and who is incredibly grateful for the work that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary have done in this area.

It concerns me greatly that we have not yet made the link between China and Russia. The west has economic dependency on both, be it through trade or energy. Both those countries have dictators for life, and we know that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so do we really think that President Xi will turn out to be better than President Putin? I would be sceptical. Both covet territory outside their control, both have aggressively rearmed and, perhaps most importantly, both propagandise their people against us and are shaping their people for war in the information and narrative space. China is more sophisticated and richer, and it arguably treats some of its people, especially its Muslim people, worse. It is a rising power, whereas Russia is a declining power, but there are too many similarities between them to claim that China is not Russia. It is a more sophisticated version and, as people such as Clive Hamilton argue, many of its covert activities are just more sophisticated versions of the same thing.

Like the Kremlin, the Chinese Communist party uses state, non-state and quasi-state actors through the United Front Work Department and “cultural and ‘friendship’ associations”. It is alleged to spend some $10 billion a year on external propaganda efforts. The Chinese state also makes use—perhaps more than Russia does—of quasi-state entities, and Huawei is a case in point. It has provided trips, sports tickets and donations to all-party parliamentary groups, and has employed a former head of GCHQ and a former UK chief information officer. It has also used several lobbying firms, and has employed a former head of Ofcom and even a former head of the Foreign Office.

In September 2019, Huawei gave £150,000 to Jesus College, Cambridge, which later produced a White Paper that was favourable to Huawei’s inclusion in the UK’s 5G network. It has done many other things; what I have mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg. What concerns me is that, while this was happening, Ministers whom I respect very much were arguing that Huawei was a private entity—a private firm. I do not expect Ministers to be geniuses, but that situation was uncomfortable.

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

On the point about higher education selling its soul to the Chinese Communist party, surely it is not just the Government’s role to regulate their engagement with foreign actors. It is also for other entities in the country, such as higher education.

[Bob Seely]

The hon. Member makes a very important and valuable point. Cambridge University’s relationship with China is very unhealthy, and Professor Stephen Toope’s leadership of Cambridge has been pretty depressing and questionable. He is not here to defend himself, so I will be careful what I say, but I note that the more woke Cambridge has become, the more it seems to have sold itself to the Chinese state, which I do not think is necessarily a defence of the values that it should be standing up for.

I think that higher education would say it needs clear guidance from the Government. On the foreign agent registration process, it would be excellent if the Government had something to say on the need for universities to register and to explain why they are taking on some students, because we have had Chinese military students coming to study PhDs in sensitive dual-use areas. We need to question that to ensure that we are doing the right thing and that we are not aiding countries to develop technologies that will be used against us.

I will wrap up in the next five minutes, because I am aware that I have taken a long time—my apologies.

We need to improve lobbying laws. I suggest to the Government—I will write separately, but the Minister has the study I produced for them two years ago—five major reforms to tackle the issue of foreign lobbying in the UK, which I hope would create better law and a better National Security Bill when it comes up.

First, we must create laws to compel individuals and entities that lobby in the UK on behalf of hostile states and their proxies to record their activities on a national register. I hope the Minister will take this on board in the constructive way that it is intended. Consultant lobbyists are important, but they are only one part of the problem, as many of us know. Hostile or potentially adversarial states make use of non-lobbyist individuals and entities—cultural entities, educational entities, public relations consultants, research firms, reputation managers, law firms and banks. If someone does work that impacts on policymaking or the political world, they need to be registered. In this day and age we need a broad, not narrow, understanding of what that means for the public good, and for the honesty, integrity and transparency of the political system, which we all want to see improved and strengthened. Nobody wants to sleazify our political, economic or legal system, so we need a belt-and-braces approach, while understanding that the demands we put on the New Zealand tourism board would probably be very different from those we place on a foreign entity, such as Huawei or the Confucius institutes. I note that the normally rather left-wing country, Sweden, has banned Confucius institutes. Should we?

Secondly, we should create laws to force foreign Governments and their proxies to disclose when they spend money on political activities in the UK. Thirdly, we should create laws to bar foreign Governments and their proxies from providing political, financial and other support during election periods. As at least two hon. Members have said, there is a question mark about donations, and I know from previous debates that people with dual nationality are an issue. That debate is obviously not going to go away.

Fourthly, we should create laws to compel foreign Governments and their proxies to label and disclose materials and campaigns undertaken in the UK, including online, not only during election periods but more generally outside election periods, so that we know where advertising is coming from. People should be able to see those messages, which are perfectly legal, but they should understand their provenance. Fifthly, I would make those laws enforceable by significant criminal penalty, so that people who break the law and do not uphold high standards have an expectation that the punishment will be a bit more than a slap on the wrist.

There is a further series of options; they include the following. Should we have a one-tier or one-size-fits-all regime? Should we have a weak, moderate or strong regime? Should we have a two-tier system that either requires nothing of some foreign entities or has a low bar for the sort of information that is required? We have a laissez-faire approach, which is not entirely unhealthy; it is good for our economy. I recognise that we want people to be free to set up in business, and set up what they are doing in this country. My suggestions are not about creating layers of bureaucracy for the Swedish food producers association or the New Zealand tourism board, but every time Huawei hires a lobbyist, we should know. Every time Huawei approaches a Member of the House of Lords or the House of Commons, we should know. If people want to do work for these people, we should know.

People complain about MPs, but I do not think MPs are necessarily the biggest problem—I am not trying to do a mea culpa for us all. The biggest problem is the law firms and people with significant legal and financial power, who do not exist in as transparent a world as we do. Although clearly some of the most outrageous and obvious—how should one say it?—lapses of judgment are often seen in the political world, real power is also influenced by civil servants and Spads. It used to be influenced by the European Commission, though clearly no more in this country, and it is also influenced by significant legal and finance firms. If they are impacting, via lobbying, the business of politics and policy in this country, they should be covered.

I will give one example: Huawei. There is a case to argue that Huawei did not do that much direct lobbying for much of its existence in this country, but that it worked through BT, which effectively became the Huawei spokesman in this country and Huawei’s chief defender. BT may say, “It is rather more complicated than that,” but Huawei was, arguably, effectively influencing UK policy through UK firms that were in business with and economically aligned to Huawei. I think that became a significant problem in the last few years. I am delighted to have played a modest role in the campaign to ensure that Huawei was not part of the 5G network, which was absolutely the right decision. I thank the Government for listening to me and other Members on that issue, and indeed the US Administration as well.

To sum up—I thank hon. Members for giving me a little more time than I said I would take; my apologies—we need to substantially improve lobbying laws, because the laws we have are genuinely not fit for purpose. Do we really want to have these endless lobbying scandals in our legal and political culture, which come around like a carousel every few months, every couple of years? We have the chance to do something better; I very much hope that the National Security Bill will tighten that up. The Minister has been generous enough to say that she is sympathetic towards these arguments, and I thank her.

Within the domestic lobbying framework, there is a specific issue with foreign lobbying. As I said at the beginning, it is important to understand that, whether we think it and see it or not, other states see this action as part of a hybrid conflict model. It is almost the first line of attack—to try to shape our opinions, to try to separate us from the US and to try to get a narrative and message into our economic, legal, political and informational debates in this country. We want a free society, but we need to understand that we have to protect that free society. At the very least, people need to know where some of the messages and campaigns come from.

In this era, there is a battle between open and closed societies. We have seen that most recently from the Ukraine war, but we might see it in the future from China in a Taiwan war, or a confrontation with the wider world. We need to do what we can to defend the open society. The way we best do that is by ensuring transparency, honesty and integrity in our political system. Ensuring that we have strong and fair laws over lobbying and foreign lobbying is one of the critical ways we can do that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Dame Angela. As I sum up on behalf of my party, I cannot help but feel that this is a very British debate. I am unsure whether anyone here is particularly opposed to better rules for those lobbying on behalf of foreign Governments. The evidence—which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has alluded to on many occasions, not only in Westminster Hall but in the main Chamber—that it has damaged the fabric of our society, and of the national security risk, has been clear.

I fully expect the Minister to rise to their feet, acknowledge the issue and the pertinence of the rhetoric deployed by all of us here today, declare that something must be done, and, if they will forgive me, then do absolutely nothing about it. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but this type of action has been trailed for quite some time without any evidence that we are any closer to either the stricter regulation of lobbying or any sort of foreign agent registration.

Now, that is not to denigrate the quality of any of the contributions made here today—from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. Member for Rhondda and, indeed, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). We did at least agree, I think, on the issues of higher education across these islands. I would say to the higher education sector that it must not only look in the mirror and reflect on what it sees in its relationship with the Communist party of China, but change what it sees.

On my party’s position, our ask is simple: the UK Government must follow the example set by ourcolleagues in the Scottish Government and create a fit-for-purpose lobbying register to improve transparency and accountability. The Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016 came into full operation in 2018 and was designed to improve transparency of face-to-face lobbying contact between organisations and Members of the Scottish Parliament, members of the Scottish Government—including Scottish Law Officers and junior Scottish Ministers—special advisers, and the permanent secretary of the Scottish Government. Transparency International has called on the UK Government to replicate that and set up a comprehensive lobbying register for the United Kingdom Parliament that includes relevant information, and for the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments be replaced by a statutory body with sufficient authority and resources to regulate all that goes on here.

Members who pay attention to such things will know that my parliamentary group wrote to the Government’s anti-corruption tsar, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), asking him to rapidly reform lobbying rules following the second invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. When that secondary invasion began in February, as some Members have already intimated, we had a dismal roll-call—I will not mention any by name, Dame Angela—of the assorted MPs, Lords, former MPs, former civil servants, and the like, who had sold their expertise to firms linked to the Russian state. While it was certainly the most dismal example, anyone who had been paying attention—quite a few of them are in this room right now—had been warning about the dangers of allowing that sort of activity to go on unchecked.

I think the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the Russia report, but it is vital that we do not get somehow embarrassed about bringing it up. The findings of this report, from a cross-party Committee with a Conservative majority, were clear: the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers—individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for the Russian elite in the United Kingdom. Yet nothing—absolutely hee-haw, as I say in my part of the world—was done to implement it.

The biggest fear, especially when we are about to listen to a Minister smother—forgive me—an attempt at a proper legal framework for lobbyists with kindness, is that if we are unable to take full responsibility for those who lobby on behalf of a hostile regime such as the Russian Federation, then I wonder, really, who is going to take responsibility when this sort of thing happens again and again. Because we not just talking about Russia, as many here have alluded to today; plenty of people in debate have mentioned “communist” China. The resources and the global reach of Chinese Communist party-linked companies simply dwarf that of those from the Russian Federation. It might not be the most agreeable thing to say, but I think that one of them happens to be the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which the UK led in setting up. While China is not necessarily a hostile state—I agree with my friend the hon. Member for Strangford—we certainly know that it is a hostile, anti-democratic economic and political competitor.

My biggest worry about those who work on behalf of states that are also nominally neutral, which I think the hon. Member for Isle of Wight alluded to—

[Bob Seely]

Briefly, the hon. Member is right to point to a better definition. When I was talking about “hostile” states, probably I should have changed that to “hostile, adversarial and potentially highly competitive”, which I think is probably a better definition.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I will not disagree with the hon. Member on that, but I go back to the point I was about to make about states that are nominally neutral or even allied to the UK and how we hold them to account. I am thinking particularly about the Gulf states—nominally allies, yet ones whose Governments have shown themselves capable and willing to act in the most heinous ways on the territory of ostensible allies.

The jamboree for the real estate, legal and general enablers of Russian money might have ended, but let us be in no doubt: it is going to keep rolling on for all the rest of them, allies or not. The increasing gentrification and sterility of much of central London will become emblematic of the hollowing out of UK institutions on behalf of this global capital.

If that sounds bleak, that is because it is. But let me end with one final appeal to the Minister. It would give even this inveterate Scottish nationalist great joy to see our devolved Administrations lead the UK in implementing a proper system of lobbying regulation, which I alluded to earlier in my speech; but I am afraid, Dame Angela, that I will not be holding my breath.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela, I think for the first time, and I thank you for the timely opportunity to debate this important topic. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who introduced the debate, and express my gratitude to the good number of Members who are present today for their active participation in the debate.

As several Members have noted, the UK is a vibrant, international, open and welcoming country with which to do business. The Conservative Government will continue to welcome foreign investment and business to this country. However, in order to protect that openness and vibrancy, it is critical that we have robust measures to provide transparency on legitimate lobbying and have powerful tools to hand to deter illicit or harmful activity when that arises. To ensure transparency of legitimate lobbying activity, the Government regularly publish details of ministerial meetings with third parties, so everyone can see who Ministers meet with, and about what.

On illicit activity, let me first be clear that we have robust structures in place to identify foreign interference and, where necessary, take proportionate action to mitigate the threat. The recent Christine Lee case is an example of that.

We are going further. The Government have announced their plans to strengthen powers to tackle illicit finance, reduce economic crime and help businesses to grow. As noted in the Queen’s Speech, the Government will bring forward the economic crime and corporate transparency Bill, which will include measures to reform the role of Companies House and improve transparency over UK companies.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the Minister confirm whether there will be an additional commitment from the Government to reform Scottish limited partnerships, which are a valuable conduit for dark money coming into the UK to undermine our democratic process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We must work in close conjunction with the devolved Assemblies on anything that happens in the UK Parliament.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I hope that is reciprocated, and that things come from the devolved Administrations to this place. The Scottish Government already have the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016, which was implemented in 2018. I hope the Minister will listen to them on how that has impacted lobbying north of the border.

[Mrs Wheeler]

Indeed. That is a very fair point, and I am sure the Home Office will have heard it. To conclude—

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I believe in truth and justice, and I believe that a Prime Minister who has misled the House should face the appropriate sanctions.

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

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) talks of contrition. Does my right hon. Friend think that, when the Conservative party attacks the very foundations of the Church of England—the Conservative party at prayer—we should take no lectures from them on being contrite or reconciled sinners?

[Ian Blackford]

We have had the usual deflection from the Prime Minister over the past few days. To see the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the established Church of their nation, being traduced in the way he was by the Prime Minister, my goodness. How utterly shameful.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. One of the systems that we are looking at, since he asks, is to see if we can mount some Brimstones on the back of technicals to see if that will do the job, but there are other options that I do not want to discuss.

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

Let me first wish the Prime Minister good luck in their trip to India, where I am sure they will raise the ongoing arbitrary detention of Jagtar Singh Johal with Prime Minister Modi. That said, if the Prime Minister believes that they inadvertently misled the House based on evidence given at the time, surely the Prime Minister would then agree with me and with Alex Massie of The Spectator that such an offence rests on the proposition that the Prime Minister is an idiot?

[The Prime Minister]

I have spoken in good faith and, of course, continue to raise the case of his constituent.

Ukraine

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

This is the final question.

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

Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that sanctions would

“come down like a steel trap in the event of the first Russian toecap crossing into more sovereign Ukrainian territory.”

I wonder whether he will answer me and the First Minister of Scotland, who believe that it appears that they will not. If this is the first tranche, there need to be further tranches with much tougher action soon.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accurately reciting what I said, because that is what we are doing. We are now sanctioning them very heavily for what they are doing in Donbas, where Russian activity has long been present. Together with our friends and partners, we are going to bring forward further measures that I think will hit the Russian economy very hard. I understand the House’s desire to do everything on day one, but we should make sure that we work in unison with our friends and partners, because what Putin wants above all is to divide us, and in that he must not succeed.

Ukraine

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, my hon. Friend is so right, because that is the misconception, whether witting or otherwise. Russia persists in the fiction that NATO is somehow an aggressive alliance and a threat to Russia. NATO is not an aggressive alliance; Russia is not encircled by threats. It is absolutely vital that we convey that to Vladimir Putin. If he can understand that, that is the route to progress and that is the diplomatic path that we have to follow.

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

The Prime Minister will get every support from the SNP Benches for defending national self-determination within Europe. Does he not agree that it is time that the UK Government sign a robust security and defence agreement with the European Union to replace that in the Lisbon treaty—most critically, article 42.7 of that treaty?

[The Prime Minister]

If we look at what is happening, the conversation I had last night was with European partners comprising the vast bulk of defence spending in the west; we work very closely with our European partners, as we do with all our NATO partners. NATO remains the primary vehicle for our defence. NATO is a very valuable interlocutor with Russia. The NATO-Russia Council has proved its worth in the last few months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Two years ago, Together Energy was providing 350 jobs in my constituency, leading on innovation for small and medium-sized utility companies. Yesterday, it went bust. While his Prime Minister and his Chancellor are missing in action doing other stuff, can the Minister tell me what his Government and Ofgem are doing to support small and medium-sized utility companies deliver zero emissions and deliver jobs in my constituency?

[Alok Sharma]

I am not going to take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman. He knows very well that the Government are working very closely with the sector. He knows that we have put in place a price cap, and he knows that, when it comes to jobs, this Government are investing, and we want to see 2 million green jobs created over the coming decades.

Defence Committee

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real privilege to be able to give this statement to the House today, on behalf of the Defence Committee. First, I wish to put on the record my interest as parliamentary patron for the veterans’ charity Forward Assist.

In July, the Defence Committee published a report on the lived experiences of women in the armed forces and female veterans. The intention was that, on publication of the report, we would come to the House and give a Select Committee statement on its findings and recommendations. However, as the report was released during recess, the decision was made to delay the statement to the House until the Ministry of Defence responded. Last week, we received a 40-page response from the MOD, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for this statement, which gives me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Defence Committee.

I wish to acknowledge the people who, over the past 18 months, made the report happen: first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who graciously relinquished his chairmanship of the Sub-Committee, allowing me to chair the inquiry; secondly, my colleagues on the Defence Committee, who showed continual commitment and support throughout the inquiry; thirdly, the Committee staff, including the chief Clerk Mark Etherton and the Committee specialist Lucy Arora, who have been a pleasure to work with; and, finally, Rachel Varley, my parliamentary researcher, who spent many days at my side reading and listening to some very sobering evidence.

I thank the Secretary of State for lifting the defence instruction notice to allow servicewomen to speak to the Committee, which is normally forbidden. That illustrates the Secretary of State’s dedication to our endeavour. Thanks to that decision, just short of 10% of the female serving population came forward to give their accounts. I put on the record my most sincere thanks to the 4,106 women and veterans who completed our survey, in addition to the 76 pieces of oral and written evidence that we received. The inquiry happened thanks to all who contributed, and the credit is theirs.

Let me quickly outline the report, its scope and our recommendations before I address the response from the Ministry of Defence. The inquiry looked at the whole military life cycle of a servicewoman, from recruitment and retention to the transition to civilian life. The scope of the inquiry was therefore vast. I have limited time so I shall focus on four main themes: recruitment and retention, especially in respect of those with families; the role of the chain of command in overseeing complaints; the service justice system; and, finally, the issues that female veterans face when they transition to civilian life.

Incredibly, 90% of women would recommend a career in the military, as I would. However, when things go wrong, they go dramatically wrong. I and the rest of the Committee were shocked to discover the volume of women who told us that they had experienced bullying, harassment, intimidation, discrimination and worse: serious sexual assault and rape. In fact, 62% of the women surveyed said that they had experienced abuse while serving. One of the big issues was how the lodging of a complaint coloured their military careers going forward and how the complaint had a legacy that impacted on the rest of their lives.

The Committee made 35 recommendations; I will not run through them all, but I will explain a few of the key areas. First, we recommended that for complaints of a sexual nature, the chain of command should be entirely removed from the complaints process. The reason for that recommendation was that in some extremely harrowing cases the perpetrator was also the commanding officer, with servicewomen unable to escape the environment where the assault took place or avoid the perpetrator.

We also recommended an increase in the independence of the complaints and investigations processes, which should move away from being managed within the unit where the alleged incident occurred; a central defence authority, which should sit outside the single services, to deal with complaints; that the decisions of the service ombudsman be binding; and that cases of serious sexual assault, rape, murder and manslaughter be removed from court martial jurisdiction and heard in civilian courts.

Servicewomen reported to us failings in kit, uniform and equipment—including body armour made for men, helmets falling below their eyes and no sanitary products available on operations—that have huge impacts on operational effectiveness. We recommended that be rectified so that women have suitable kit that enhances rather than inhibits their combat ability.

On retention, most women who leave the Army do so after returning from having children. We recommended policies to improve family and personal life, including the swift roll-out of wraparound childcare to all bases and all services by the end of 2022, and a more flexible working environment.

On veterans, we recommended more recognition for women who have served. Of all the veterans and armed forces charities in the UK, there is only one that deals solely with women veterans: Salute Her in Newcastle. I wish personally to thank Paula Edwards, who runs the charity, for giving evidence to the inquiry and then supporting the extra 147 new referrals—in addition to the 1,800 women she currently supports—as a result of the inquiry.

Let me outline the MOD’s response. First, I put it on the record that the Secretary of State was two months late in issuing the reply. However, I forgive him as he has agreed to most of our recommendations. Crucially, the MOD has agreed to remove the chain of command’s remit from complaints of a sexual nature. That is hugely transformative and will improve the service for women currently serving and for those who serve in future. One question that I have for the Minister and hope to address in this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate is how it will all work in practice. The devil is in the detail. I need confirmation that if a servicewoman is sexually assaulted, there will be a reporting and investigating process that is completely outside the chain of command, so that she can continue to work without fear of repercussion.

The MOD has also agreed to make the complaints system for non-sexual offences more independent by employing an outsourced investigations service. However, ambiguity remains over the alternative reporting mechanism and just how involved the chain of command will be in complaints relating to harassment, bullying and discrimination.

The service chiefs will be commissioning a six-month sprint to look at women’s health needs and uniforms. In fact, some months ago, prior to the publication of the report, the MOD announced the roll out of sanitary products for all those on operations and more choice on hairstyles—I am reliable informed that one style is called “battle braids”. I am pleased that the MOD is already making changes in those areas. Such changes have huge impacts on the day-to-day living of women and their sense of being valued, recognised and listened to.

I was disappointed that the MOD refused to accept the recommendation to remove rape from military jurisdiction and to place it into civilian courts. The Secretary of State and Ministers know the strength of feeling on this issue and the evidence to support the recommendation is clear for all to see.

In many ways, the Secretary of State went further in his response to our report, which is most welcome. I am pleased about the aspirational target of having 30% women in the armed forces by 2030, showing ongoing commitment to our servicewomen. Having liaised with our equivalent committee in the United States, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has committed to scoping an international conference next year, to look at best practice and progress as the world is waking up to the issues faced by women serving in the military.

This report has taken almost 18 months of work and is the first time that the issues faced by women in the armed forces and female veterans have been examined in this way. The inquiry gave them a platform and their voices have been heard. As a veteran, it has been an honour to chair the inquiry. I commend this special report to the House.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) on chairing a most extraordinary exposition of some of the most profoundly disturbing issues that women face not only in modern life but specifically in the armed forces. They are a credit not only to their constituents and to the Committee but to women who seek a role in the armed forces.

On the cultural change that is required across the forces, which is mentioned in the report, does my hon. Friend agree that cultural change is also required specifically among the officer corps and that that should not be based on gender? Critically, around the Army Servicewomen’s Network, we should ensure equity of representation for younger women and for Black and minority ethnic women in the armed forces, and not only reflect the upper ranks who, frankly, seem in the report to be part of the cultural problem at the heart of this devastating investigation.

[Sarah Atherton]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He has been extremely supportive throughout this work, and, like me, sits on the Defence Committee. He is quite right: we both identified that we needed to make sure that the voice of the junior ranks was equal to that of the senior ranks. I know that the Ministry of Defence has referred back to the women’s defence network, and I have assurances from the Secretary of State that there was junior rank representation on that Committee. As far as leadership is concerned, the MOD has introduced a raft of initiatives around leadership. Performance assessments have been adapted to make sure that underperforming officers are sanctioned with a process that makes it easier to get them removed from their positions, but we, the Defence Committee, will keep a watching brief on this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I agree with my hon. Friend that hydrogen is a fuel of the future. As he will know, the idea of a hydrogen village trial was proposed in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, and gas network companies are working with local partners to develop proposals for the trial. I suggest that he speaks to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary to make the case for Redcar.

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

6. What plans he has to promote the voices of indigenous people in climate change discussions during the UK’s presidency of the COP.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

Indigenous peoples’ voices were represented throughout COP26, and of course the UK Government funded the indigenous peoples’ pavilion in the blue zone. We will continue to amplify indigenous peoples’ voices during our presidency year.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful to the COP26 President for his response. The territories of the world’s 370 million indigenous people cover 24% of the world’s land and contain 80% of the world’s biodiversity, including sites of precious natural resources. It is they who protect forests vulnerable to the encroachment of modernity, which has caused climate change. Given that indigenous communities are successful in maintaining control of their territories and traditions against the onslaught of man-made climate change, does the COP26 President agree that it is time for them to be treated as equal partners in decision-making processes, including at the United Nations?

[Alok Sharma]

As I said, we will absolutely amplify the voices of indigenous peoples, but as the hon. Member will also know, the UK worked with others to mobilise a pledge of at least $1.7 billion over the next five years to ensure that there is support for indigenous peoples, particularly when it comes to forest tenure rights.