Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. There are spikes of interest from our constituents about the business of this place and my hon. Friend is right to mention that one. That was a busy, busy week for Members of Parliament. The other one, of course, was Barnard Castle. I do not think we have quite reached the heights of Barnard Castle yet in terms of the response from the public, but we are getting very close. As this matter goes on and we find it unresolved, we will start to get into that territory.

I listened very carefully to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire. I sense he is not listening very carefully to me, but I listened very carefully to him and I still do not know the Government’s position. Maybe he could help us. I do not know if there is summing up today, but we need to hear from the Government about what they are going to do now. What I think I heard was that they are sorry for this mess. Fair enough, they are sorry for this mess. That’s great, we will accept their apology. But now tell us what you are going to do.

The motion setting up the kangaroo court committee of corruption is still in place. That is the policy of this House. We need to hear the Government say clearly that they are removing it, and are finding some means and method to ensure it is no longer a part of the business of the House. We need to hear them say that they are prepared to accept independent investigation and that they will support the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, and his Committee in doing its work. We need to hear them say that. We also need to hear them say that they are going back to that moment just before the Division Bell rang last Wednesday and back to the position we were in before any of this nonsense started.

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

I have a concern about my hon. Friend’s proposition. Last week, regardless of whether one agreed with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), the Government utilised it as a motion of confidence in themselves. I therefore have no confidence, and I am sure my hon. Friend has no confidence, that any of this is going to change.

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. That is why we need clarity and we have to hear it today. The suggestion, I think from the Chair of the Committee, was that we need a motion to be tabled for tomorrow so that we can deal effectively with the former Member for North Shropshire. We have to have that before the House, so we are able to ensure our judgment is passed on what we believe are the consequences of his actions.

Another issue is the disgraceful attacks on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. They were co-ordinated—there is absolutely no way we can get around that. They came from the top. They were directed. You do not attack the credibility of the Standards Commissioner by saying disrespectful things about her if you do not have the permission to do that and say that. What they had in mind was a softening-up exercise, because they know that the Prime Minister is going to be investigated again. They know that a number of issues still have to be resolved about his personal behaviour and conduct. I think the undermining and neutering of the Standards Committee was a deliberate process and it has to stop—it has to end.

For the Prime Minister, it is almost like a revolving door of investigation, whether it is for breaking the ministerial code, acting unlawfully or soliciting dodgy donations for luxury holidays and home refurbishments. One thing we can commit to today is saying that this House has full faith and trust in our Standards Commissioner and that we will allow her to do her job. The undermining and disgraceful attacks must now end.

But the true shocker of the past couple of days is cash for honours 2.0. I really did not think, following Tony Blair being questioned under caution by the Metropolitan police 15 years ago, that we would be back to this place so quickly. It was only a couple of Parliaments ago that Tony Blair had to face questions about donations and the House of Lords. The only difference that I have seen in the course of the past couple of decades is that the price to get into the House of Lords has gone up from £1 million under new Labour to £3 million under the Conservatives. There is Tory inflation for you.

It now seems that nearly all the past treasurers of the Conservative party of later years are in that place, wearing their ermine and taking part in the legislative decisions of this country. The only characteristic they seem to have—the only defining feature that seems to get them a place in that House—is that they are able to give several million pounds to the Government. The Environment Secretary said yesterday that they were in the Lords for their philanthropy. I think the public will probably assess that the accounts of the Conservative party are just about the worst and least deserving good cause that there is in this land.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend, who is an old friend of mine; I have worked closely with him on London issues for many years. I know where Labour’s instincts are. It always wants to put taxes up, particularly on motorists, and I think a checkpoint Chigwell would hit working families. What the Labour Mayor of London needs to do is get a grip on TfL’s finances and stop whacking up the taxes on ordinary people in the capital city.

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

The Prime Minister is very much aware of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, who was abducted by plainclothes officers while shopping with his new wife in the city of Jalandhar, Punjab, on 4 November 2017. The intervening years have seen allegations of torture overlooked, and ostensibly strong words from the Prime Minister’s Government about the case overshadowed by excitement over a trade deal with the Republic of India.

As we approach the fourth anniversary of Jagtar’s arrest tomorrow with no charges having been brought in the case by the Government of India, can the Prime Minister’s Government grant the smallest of favours to Jagtar’s wife and his family in Dumbarton and declare his detention an arbitrary one?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the campaign that he has been running for Jagtar Singh for a long time. I say to him that the closeness of our relationship with India in no way diminishes our willingness to raise that case with the Government of India. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised it the last time she was in India.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I think the hon. Gentleman is requesting a meeting, and I would be happy to meet him. As he knows, the ferry service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge ran from 2002 to 2018, but from 2010 was not a passenger service. We would want any service that comes forward to be economically viable.

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

2. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effect of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on health outcomes in Scotland.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

9. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effect of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on health outcomes in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

The recent drug deaths in Scotland are an absolute tragedy. The majority of the levers to tackle drug misuse are devolved to the Scottish Government, including health, education, housing and the criminal justice system. We are keen to work with the Scottish Government to tackle this tragic issue and to share lessons throughout the United Kingdom.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I wonder why the Minister and the Government refuse to base their policy on evidence such as that from Portugal, Canada and Switzerland, where drug consumption rooms save lives. We cannot help people when they are dead; DCRs save lives.

[Iain Stewart]

There is not a unanimous view on the efficacy of drug consumption rooms. The Minister for Crime and Policing, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), recently had discussions with his counterpart in the Scottish Government and it was made clear that we are open to any new evidence about drug consumption rooms, but they are not the single solution to the problem. This requires a holistic approach. We are very happy to work with the Scottish Government to explore all the different options.

Elections Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is what it does, and that is important.

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

We discussed this matter in Westminster Hall back in 2019. As one of my colleagues reminded us, in 2019, the Conservative party received £400,000, with one donation coming from the household of a former Russian Minister under Vladimir Putin eight months after the Salisbury poisonings. There was also money from a personal friend of the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. Does the Minister not agree that this does not go far enough to stop this happening again?

[Chloe Smith]

I have three points. First, this Bill does the right thing, as I have just explained. Secondly, the Conservative party does the right thing with regard to our donations, as I am happy to explain and defend at any time. Thirdly, I am already having to pass through so many pages in my briefing to find the bit about the SNP because there are quite a few points about how it handles its donations as well. I do think it is important that a person gets their house in order before they accuse others.

Let me move on to the important matter of notional expenditure. We are talking here about measures that will deliver better transparency for voters and candidates. I am sure that many in this House will welcome the clarification of the law on notional expenditure that is included in the Bill, which will ensure that candidates and their agents can continue to conduct full campaigns without the fear, as found by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee,

“of falling foul of the law through no fault of their own”

and inadvertently causing candidates to exceed their spending limits.

I will go on now to the new electoral sanction of intimidation. A free choice for voters means that anyone entitled to stand as a candidate must feel able to do so. Without a broad range of candidates for voters to choose from, we diminish representation in this country. I am sad to see a rising number of incidents of people trying to exclude others from the debate through violent or illegal behaviour. Voters do not expect violence in our elections. People should not be fearful of expressing their views or standing up in public service. That is why the Bill introduces an additional sanction that will bar an individual found guilty of intimidating a candidate, campaigner or elected representative from running or holding office for five years on top of their sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Can I first say to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution that I am glad to see them back at the Dispatch Box? I also commend them for their passion for the legislation they are bringing forward on behalf of the Government. I do not necessarily agree with the vast majority of it for very simple reasons, and I want to bring my words to three specific points on voter identification, assistance for excluded groups and the regulation of expenditure.

First, on voter identification, I am glad that the right hon. Member for—I can never remember his constituency. [Hon. Members: “Haltemprice and Howden.”] Exactly. It is double-barrelled and it always gets me. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is here on voter ID. I do not necessarily share the same opinion, for a very specific reason. One other hon. Member, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), has already mentioned the OSCE report on voter ID. There has been a failure to recognise in the debate so far not only that the vast majority of nations that use them have used them for a long period of time, but that some of them—for example, Estonia—not only use them to allow a citizen to go and vote, but to allow them full access to the vast majority of records the state owns on them. Therefore, your ID card—your digital ID card—will allow you to read your medical records, your police record and a vast swathe of public information held on you, the citizen. Their digital ID is yours; it is not the state’s.

The idea that also needs to be discussed and highlighted quickly is the idea that we do not have ID numbers in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The vast majority of us over the age of 15 have a national insurance number and the vast majority of us have an NHS number. Those of us representing Scottish constituencies also have our community health index—called the CHI. The issue about voter ID-specific cards is therefore a worry to me. Why are we duplicating a specific voter ID card when ID numbers already exist? Why go to the expense of creating and duplicating existing structures? I am afraid that I did not hear the answer to that in the Minister’s opening speech, and perhaps they will come back to it, if they wish, in their conclusion.

I think the onus in the legislation is on local government to provide the cards. Where does the ownership of the card reside: is it with the Government or with the local authority? The Minister mentioned the fact that it would not be connected to any databases, and that gives me the idea that it is owned not by the local authority, but by the Government. Therefore, there needs to be clarity about that ID in that it is not connected to any other single database other than someone’s voter number on the voter roll. That needs clarification.

On assisting those who are excluded, there has been no mention so far, for example, of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community. A proportion of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community still lead a nomadic lifestyle, and they will find it extremely difficult—moving from local authority to local authority or between the nations of the United Kingdom—to access a specific local authority to give them a specific voter ID. Perhaps the Minister can say a few words about that in summing up because the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community in recent months has found some of the legislation that has gone through this place very difficult.

Then we come to the regulation of expenditure, and I referred in my intervention on the Minister to unincorporated associations. Much has been made by Government Members about the independence of charities, for example. Not all charities that use the word “charity” are actually registered charities; they are usually unincorporated associations. They are the small organisations in each of our constituencies that go about their business doing civic duties and civic activity. But the unethical and unprincipled element of the unincorporated associations which needs to be clarified in this Bill is about how they are utilised to undermine democratic principles and fund political organisations by the back door.

There needs to be clarity in the Bill. The Minister needs to identify why we cannot use existing ID numbers that we already have, and how we can tackle the issue of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community and also make sure that unincorporated associations are not a back door to undermining the very principles of democracy across these islands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Much of the opposition to the Bill has been focused on concerns about voter ID, but there are broader concerns that I wish to address.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced a detailed report of the human rights implications of voter ID, and I commend it and our recommendations to the House. I believe in evidence-based policy making, and from the evidence the Committee heard we concluded that the voter ID measures risk making voting less accessible to some people and will have a discriminatory impact on some voters with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, including the disabled, certain ethnic minorities and Gypsy and Traveller communities.

We on the Committee want the Government to explain why they have concluded that a voter ID requirement is necessary and proportionate, given the very low number of reported cases of fraud at polling stations; the even lower number of convictions and cautions; the potential for the requirement to discriminate against voters with protected characteristics; and the lack of any clear measures to combat potential discrimination faced by those groups, including disabled people and older people. I hope that I might hear from the Minister the answers to those question, which were posed by a cross-party Committee of MPs and peers.

Many Members ask why the Government are focusing on voter ID, given the lack of evidence that it is a significant problem. I wonder whether perhaps it is in the Bill to distract us not just from what else is in the Bill that should not be there but from what is missing. Part 4 seeks further to regulate third-party campaigning in elections, but an opportunity to comprehensively update our rules on transparency in political finance has been missed. As other Members have said, the lack of transparency in respect of donations from unincorporated associations is a particular concern.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The Bill fails to understand the total degradation of democracy through unincorporated organisations. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government need to grasp that thorn and deal with it?

Armed Forces Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I find myself making a mental note to be fairly worried if the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) praises me, but we will gloss over that. I, too, would like to extend my thanks to the Minister. I was delighted to receive a telephone call from him to discuss this Bill a few days ago. I would have been much more surprised had I received a telephone call from his predecessor.

I will give credit where it is due. In our conversation, we discussed the fact that I would be very pleased, forgetting political boundaries, if the Minister or one of his colleagues would care to come to witness NATO’s Exercise Joint Warrior, which takes place off the north-west of my constituency and in other parts of Scotland. It would be a tremendous shot in the arm for our military personnel to see a ministerial presence. I do not think we have actually seen a Government Minister there—certainly not in the lifetime of this Government. I cannot speak for previous Governments; I was not here. It would also be churlish of me not to express my thanks to all the organisations that have been in touch with me during the whole process of this Bill.

We are rather short of time, so I will keep my comments very brief. I want to talk about two things. The first is to say that my party will be supporting amendments 1 and 2. Further to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham on amendment 1, the general public do not really understand why, if a member of the armed forces commits a truly terrible crime—murder or rape—they should be tried and dealt with differently from how someone not in uniform would be dealt with, in a civil court. As an MP, if I were to commit a crime, I would not have the right to be tried by my peers in this House. I would be up in court, in the dock, the same as any other citizen of this country. There seems to be an impeccable logic in amendment 1.

The right hon. Member for North Durham is correct, in that the military police do not have the resources to investigate in the depth that would get to the bottom of some of the most serious allegations that can be made in this land.

Finally on amendment 1, let me turn it around. If the Government cannot support the amendment, are they saying that, in fact, the civil courts are in some way inferior to military courts? Why would they not trust the civil courts and the civil police to get it right?

Secondly, I do not want to weary the Chamber on this, but it is a point I have made a number of times and, for the sake of the record, I repeat it. I have talked at some length about my concern that reducing the size of the Army will lead to the Army, and possibly the other armed services, being seen as not a terribly desirable career option for young people.

We have a massive recruitment problem. Going around the highlands of Scotland, going to the Black Isle show, the Dornoch show and my local Tain highland games, in years gone by there would be a stall set up by the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, or perhaps two or three of them. The stalls were very popular, an attraction to the general public. They were one of the many reasons why people would go to these events, because people like to see the weapons on display and meet the armed forces personnel. Those events were excellent for recruitment.

I leave Members with a final thought. My thanks again to the Ministry of Defence, as I and others, including the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), went to the Ministry to be briefed on what we have been doing with the United Nations in Mali. It was a most interesting briefing. One message came out. When a young person in my constituency says they are thinking of joining the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, if I can say, “If you opt for that career, you might get yourself involved in something like the peacekeeping effort in Mali,” I guarantee it will be a tremendous attraction. It is very different from doing an ordinary job—I do not want to do down ordinary jobs—a non-services job. That is one way of augmenting recruitment.

All of us in this place, regardless of our political persuasion—if we care about the defence of the realm, if we care about our armed forces, which I am sure everyone here does—have a duty, as Members of Parliament, to do everything we can to encourage recruitment by talking to our constituents and talking to what we call modern studies students in Scottish schools, to say, “Here is a career option you might like to think about.”

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

I associate myself with some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), especially those about the work he and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) have been doing in the Defence Sub-Committee on women in the armed forces.

As we discuss the Bill’s remaining stages, it is unfortunate to reflect that at no point in its journey has it received the attention I would hope for such an important piece of legislation, especially in a week in which we see the inevitability of the external factors that always pop up and seem to push armed forces welfare down the pecking order.

Today, unfortunately, it is international aid. I often wonder whether there are some in the defence establishment who see the aid budget as a golden goose whose slaughter would provide some sort of bounty for the armed forces, solving any funding crisis in the equipment budget. Although I do not want to say it, even if we were to cut the entirety of the aid budget, defence would still need reform.

That is particularly pertinent when it comes to the lack of progress on service justice in the Bill. I have seen it throughout my time on the Defence Committee, especially each year when we hear from the ombudsperson for the armed forces about how their role is stymied by a lack of investment and interest, and by byzantine regulation. Although excellent work is being done across the board by a plethora of armed forces charities, I cannot help but feel each time that the hugely divergent range of lived experiences of the 170,000-odd people in uniform—their geographical spread and divergent socioeconomic circumstances—means that charity, however well intentioned, often does not reach those who need it most.

In the case of both service justice and access to services for those in need, which are included in amendments this afternoon, we see a continuation—at least from my perspective and that of my party—of a two-tier system that enshrines class and social privilege, and ensures that the organisation itself will be unable ever to realise its full potential. The deficit in both service justice and access to services brings us to the case of Lance Corporal Bernard Mongan. This week, the Army’s report into his death in January 2020 was brought to wider attention. It admitted

“failings in the proper management of personnel”,

meaning that Bernard lay dead—undiscovered, in his bed, in his room in his barracks—for three weeks. I wrote to the Secretary of State about this case last year, and I have no doubt that the Ministry and the Army feel that his death was unacceptable and profoundly regrettable. However, there are other unsettling aspects of the case that speak to some of the challenges that we face in this Bill.

Lance Corporal Mongan came from a Traveller background. Although I do not want to go into whether that was a contributing factor in the bullying that may or may not have led to Bernard’s death, we must ask ourselves why it is that, time and again, those from our most marginalised communities are failed in this appalling fashion. This is precisely the moment when we should be ensuring that equality of opportunity and an armed forces who are representative of all communities on these islands become a reality. I can only, sadly, come to the conclusion that that is an opportunity that has been missed.

Although enshrining the armed forces covenant into law is welcome progress, a real legislative framework for armed forces personnel in this political state is, quite simply, long overdue. We can call it a bill of rights for the armed forces or an armed forces representative body, as has been my party’s policy for many years. I could even call it a trade union; I do not have a problem with the words “trade union”. We could at least start by giving members of the armed forces a contract that clearly states the obligations that their employer has to them and vice versa. Until we do, it is unlikely that we will be able to address the underlying issues that so many armed forces personnel face.

Finally, I feel that I should touch on something that is in a way connected to this legislation and which illustrates the knots into which the UK Government tie themselves to keep up appearances. I am currently chairing the Defence Sub-Committee on the subcontracting of MOD staff, which held its first evidence session yesterday. We will hear Ministers and other Members today make references to things such as “defence family”, “defence people” and “whole force”, but the demonstratable experience of many of those who make up the whole force, including my own constituents, is one of worsening conditions, lack of security and increasing alienation with the picture that is painted, I am afraid, by those who come to the Government Dispatch Box, including the Minister. We will undoubtedly hear all about the increase in the capital budget from the Government Benches today. I only wish that we might hear more about the day-to-day spend that is to remain stagnant over the next five years and what the Government intend to do to ensure that it is not the poorest paid in the armed forces who bear the brunt of this fiscal restraint.

I have always believed that in life, just as in politics, the key measure of our character and our beliefs is how we treat those with the least power and agency. It is high time that we enshrined the rights and responsibilities of all members of the armed forces, and, indeed, all those who support them. I will never tire of saying in these debates, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us speak of them less as heroes and more like you and me, entitled to everything that you and I would expect. It is the very least that we can do.

Armed Forces Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly on Reserves Day and ahead of celebrating Armed Forces Day on Saturday. It is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches, particularly that by my Welsh colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones).

The passage of the Bill through Parliament this year is particularly important because it will put the armed forces covenant into legislation. Of course, the covenant is not new, but has been in operation in its current form for nearly 10 years. During that time, significant progress has been made to improve the lives of armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. More than 6,000 organisations and every local authority in the UK has pledged to support it.

However, the covenant is still just a pledge and individual members of the armed forces community still suffer disadvantage when accessing public services. This is often because of a lack of awareness of not just the covenant but the unique contributions that our service personnel make. The Bill will impose a legal duty on relevant bodies to have due regard to the three principles of the covenant. This is our promise to those who are serving or have served: they and their families will be treated fairly.

I come from a service family—my grandparents met in the RAF. I have RAF Valley in my constituency, and I am proud to be on the RAF section of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I understand that going into the armed forces is a unique career choice. People hand themselves and their family over to the service of their country, with all that that entails.

I am fortunate to work closely with RAF Valley. Group Captain Andy Turk’s whole force team at the base is a very close-knit and supportive community, and I hold regular meetings with the service personnel and the private sector organisations based there, including Babcock, BAE Systems and Affinity. I represent both civilian and service constituents and their concerns are my concerns. RAF Valley is one of the largest employers here on Ynys Môn and I am consistently pushing very strongly, both informally and formally, how important these skilled jobs are in my constituency. Indeed, I had a meeting today with the Minister for Defence Procurement, which included an invitation to visit RAF Valley over the summer.

What strikes me most about the whole force team at RAF Valley is not what they do for the country, but what they do quietly in the background for the local community. Yes, training our future fighter and helicopter pilots is what we shout about, but it is their commitment to Anglesey that makes them truly part of our island. The station is as much part of Anglesey life as Anglesey life is part of the station, so my message today is this: when people think of the armed forces covenant, they should not think only of the contribution that our forces make to our national security; they should remember also the huge contribution that they make to our everyday life.

With RAF Valley here on Anglesey, the community enjoys so many benefits. The team helped us to secure hosting of the 40th anniversary of the Island games. They have provided critical skilled volunteers for our Royal National Lifeboat Institution, mountain rescue and local first responder groups. They host award-winning youth outreach programmes such as the Jon Egging Trust, support the learning and mentoring Profi project and partner with Careers Wales and STEM Cymru projects. They provide local junior football and tennis camps, on-site science, technology, engineering and maths activities and events for local schools. Padre Michael Hall of the station charities committee raises vital funds for a range of north Wales charities and organises a Santa drop for the children staying in Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital over Christmas. They run beach cleans, they are custodians of a stretch of our beautiful coastal path, and they do so much more.

The armed forces covenant is our country’s thank you. It is a thank you for all that our armed forces do, and I take this opportunity to say personally diolch yn fawr—thank you—to RAF Valley for all that it does. I am proud that this Government are enshrining the armed forces covenant in legislation, so that our services personnel and their families receive the recognition that they deserve for their courage and years of commitment to us.

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

First, let me put on record that my thoughts are with the crew of HMS Defender as they go about their job with the usual dedication and skill today. Let me also say that despite what certain news agencies may have said today, Crimea is in Ukraine, and all on the Scottish National party Benches hope that the Russian Federation ends that illegal occupation as quickly as possible.

Today’s reminder that those members of our armed forces do a job like no other is pertinent and the opportunity that we in this House have through this legislation is a solemn duty, which I do not doubt all who are speaking today approach with the requisite seriousness. That does not mean, however, that we all share the same optimism about the Bill. While the idea of bringing the armed forces covenant into law is a welcome step forward, I still feel that there is going to be little in the Bill that will be genuinely transformative for the lived experience of armed forces personnel and veterans.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and constituency neighbour has already spoken about her amendment on armed forces housing and I will not add much to that, other than to say that it is the type of small change that could make a real difference to the home lives of personnel wherever they are on these islands. More substantively, it is an amendment that makes an important point about how we should see the armed forces personnel not as a special class or caste of a group of our societies that seeks to defend that societies’ values. They cannot do this in substandard housing. The very least we should offer them is that which is available to the rest of society and, in this case, make sure that they are housed safely and warmly. I am determined to say every time these sorts of debates come up that those of us here would do well to think of our serving personnel less as heroes, and more as human beings, with the same needs as the rest of us: fair pay and conditions, the right to private and family life and ready access to secure accommodation. That is taken for granted for every other type of public sector employee, so why is it not for armed forces personnel? In fact, come to think of it, despite being to the best of my knowledge the only group of public sector employees to have a dedicated legislative session every five years, armed forces personnel have demonstrably poorer outcomes on almost every scale. How can that be?

There may be a metaphor in here. We are told that the Armed Forces Bill meets by convention as a Committee of the whole House before Report and Third Reading. Given that the Bill Select Committee was rushed through in a few short weeks, I cannot understand why we are now inserting another stage or, indeed, why the amendments that the Government are bringing today could not have been brought to the Select Committee.

I note with particular puzzlement yesterday’s statement from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). He is a fellow Docherty, with roots in Donegal and Glasgow and with whom I enjoyed working on the Defence Committee. He stated that further scrutiny would

“delay the Bill’s passage, placing undue pressure on the deadline to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 27WS.]

I would certainly like to think that the next time an armed forces Bill whizzes through the House, we get a wee bit more time to discuss the really important issues at hand.

As the arcane workings of this place continue to baffle both Members and personnel alike, we avoid being able to discuss the type of wide-ranging changes that could make a real difference to the lives of personnel, although that is probably the way that the Government and the Ministry of Defence like it. Maybe I am just being cynical.

My final points are in regard to the Opposition amendments relating to the service justice system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) will be supporting. From my work on the Defence Committee, it is clear that the service justice system needs a radical and profound overhaul, and not just the modest changes proposed in the amendment. With the next armed forces Bill, it is time that we think about bringing together all the service police forces, streamlining the processes and ensuring a more robust service justice system that works for all.

I conclude by thanking all my colleagues on the Bill Select Committee for their work over the past few months —especially the Chair, the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), because I know it is the first time that a Bill has been considered in a hybrid way—and the Clerks and those in the Public Bill Office who have helped us navigate this legislation. We owe it to service personnel, in whose name the Bill will be enacted, to make it more straightforward in the future.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate on the armed forces, but particularly this week, as we recognise the huge contribution they make, today on Reserves Day and Saturday on Armed Forces Day. I also take this opportunity to thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. Through the scheme that it runs, I have been able to see almost every week the incredible work that our armed forces do day in, day out.

They say an organisation is only as good as its people, and nowhere is that more true than in the armed forces. Through the Bill, not only do we maintain our armed forces on paper, but it means that the hundreds of thousands of men and women who serve in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, the British Army and the Royal Marines can continue to serve Queen and country. They are the best, the brightest and the most courageous among us.

As we debate clause 1, we must consider why we need the armed forces and why they are still relevant in today’s world. In my view, the argument is stronger than ever before. Turning first to our domestic need, in the fight against covid-19, defence has supported literally hundreds of requests from citizens, the NHS, local authorities and Government Departments. In Lancashire, we have seen that through testing, vaccine deployment, planning, logistics and so much more. They have made a huge contribution, often behind the scenes and always without fanfare. However, this domestic demand has never come at the expense of their core activities. Only last month, we saw HMS Queen Elizabeth set sail as part of the carrier strike group—a huge tasking of personnel from all the services, not just those on board the carrier itself but on the frigates, destroyers and submarines, as well as the aircrew, that go with it.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

May I first take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on their new position? It is always good to see Dochertys in very lofty positions, even ones that are lofty in the wrong direction.

The Bill was supposed to tackle vexatious claims, yet the evidence received, both written and in Committee, pointed to the problems arising from flawed investigations. Nothing in the Bill improves service justice or tackles repeated investigations. The Bill was an opportunity to overhaul the system, but that is an opportunity now lost. Unless the Government establish proper structures and processes for investigations, including independent investigators, personnel will remain vulnerable to repeated investigations and indeed investigations by the International Criminal Court.

Still, the Government have been forced into significant concessions in other areas of the Bill because of the work of Members in the other place. The Government agreed last week that genocide, crimes against humanity and torture would be excluded from legal safeguards in the Bill. The threat of a further possible defeat at the hands of peers has, I am glad to hear, forced the Government also to exclude war crimes from the presumption against prosecution. Although we on the SNP Benches recognise this change, it should not have taken until the last gasp of this Bill for the Government to make it.

In their refusal to listen to evidence presented in Committee and to the calls of Members of this House, the Government, at least from our perspective, have profoundly damaged the UK and Parliament’s reputation internationally. We also see that the final version of the Bill retains the six-year longstop on civil claims against the MOD, denying members of the armed forces justice in valid civil claims. Indeed, it will significantly disadvantage those who have served abroad. The House should be making it easier for personnel to make claims when the MOD has been negligent, but this legislation seems to be crafted especially to protect the MOD and not the personnel themselves.

Lords amendment 5B ensures care and support for personnel involved in investigations, and every Member of this place should be supporting it. The House knows from discussions with personnel that the structures currently in place are not working for those facing prosecution, and we have seen that in evidence to the Armed Forces Bill Committee, of which I am a member. Finally, if that support is already there and it is not working, we need to strengthen it through statutory requirements. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government are willing to do that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The distinct purpose of the Bill is to provide legal protection to military personnel serving overseas on operations—that is what it is about. It is all about stopping vexatious prosecutions, often generated, for large sums, by unscrupulous lawyers. In short, lawfare, such as we saw a few years ago, should be a thing of the past, but is it totally gone? I wish to explain a little of the worries I have.

I am pleased that the Government have now decided to include war crimes alongside torture, crimes against humanity, genocide and sexual crimes, such as a rape, as being not subject to a statutory presumption against prosecution. That is good news, because, as others have said, it might stop our service personnel being dragged before the ICC in the future. So we must now prosecute war crimes like any other crime, but might I suggest a slight spanner in the works here?

I have seen such crimes in my time in Bosnia, in 1992-93—obviously, I should emphasise, they were not carried out by British soldiers. I have also given evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, where such crimes were tried—this is now done by the ICC. I gave evidence in trials where the guilty were sent to prison for between 15 and 45 years. I wonder exactly what crimes are not subject to a statute of limitation. What crimes creep through? As far as I can see, most of the definitions allow us to decide exactly what happens. I am quite worried that the Minister might not be able to identify a crime carried out that we could prosecute without a statute of limitation.

Sexual crimes can be prosecuted anyway under Navy, Army and Air Force Acts. Service personnel can never be ordered to carry out such acts by superior officers. Effectively, the Bill accepts and confirms crimes under the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 2003. The Bill states that unless there is compelling evidence, service personnel cannot be charged with crimes committed more than five years ago, unless of course they have taken part in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity or genocide, which are offences without a time limit. As I mentioned earlier, I am slightly worried about what is left. Of course I go along with what we have done, but I am slightly worried that many crimes can evade the provisions and that people could be done on these classifications.

On service personnel who have suffered some form of physical or mental injury, the limit is broadly six years after the event. In short, they must have started proceedings against, say, the Ministry of Defence within that period. However, the Bill allows for the possibility of someone bringing forward proceedings where, for example, they have PTSD but had not discovered it, even if they are affected 20 years later. In such as case, they will have six years from the point when they discover they are affected or when they are diagnosed to bring a claim against the MOD. I reckon that is fair enough. The MOD is certainly not trying to disadvantage its own.

I end by reminding everyone of a point the Minister made. The Government are still committed to bringing forward a Bill to protect veterans in Northern Ireland in the same way as those who have served overseas. If they do not, our servicemen and servicewomen will have two levels of protection: those like me who served in Northern Ireland will have a lesser degree of protection than those who have served overseas. To that end, I have always believed and supported the suggestion by the Defence Committee, on which I served several years ago, that the way forward in Northern Ireland is for there to be a qualified statute of limitations unless compelling new evidence has been produced. I therefore hope that very soon the Government will bring forward legislation to stop possible unequal treatment of our service personnel.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 31st March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could email your speaking notes to [e-mail]. As before, to indicate that you wish to speak, please raise your hand in front of the camera or use the “hand up” function in Zoom. To intervene or to make a point of order, please unmute and state that. Members being intervened on are reminded to repeat any part of their speech that may have been interrupted by the intervention.

Before we proceed, I will make a handful of short admin points. First, new clauses are being voted on in numerical order—so at the end, even if they are grouped. We agreed on day one that Members could intervene directly on the person speaking, or equally by putting their hand up. Spontaneity is important in the debate. We will go to the very end of all the new clauses and votes today. It may take longer or shorter than the allotted time. Once again, this is a brand new way of working for all of us, so please be patient.

New Clause 4

Armed Forces Representative Body

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

(2) After section 333 insert the following new clause—

‘333A Armed Forces Representative Body

In accordance with HM Government’s obligations under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there is to be an Armed Forces Representative Body, existing outside the rank structure, but accountable to members and to Parliament in order to:

(a) represent personnel in matters of discipline: summary hearings, courts martial and other disciplinary hearings;

(b) aid personnel in the redress of individual grievances, and through the service complaints process;

(c) negotiate on behalf of personnel on matters relating to, but not limited to pay, terms and conditions and terms of enlistment;

(d) act as an advocate for general welfare of personnel during and immediately after their enlistment.

This Representative Body shall not have the ability to strike.’”—(Martin Docherty-Hughes.)

This new clause would oblige the UK Government to legislate for the creation of an Armed Forces Representative Body similar to the Police Federation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19— Armed Forces Federation—

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

(2) After section 333, insert the following new clauses—

‘333A  Armed Forces Federation

(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency, except for—

(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and

(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.

(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.

(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.

(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.

333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or

(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—

(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;

(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;

(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and

(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.

(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.’”

This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Good morning to my colleagues in Committee. For a Bill that for some time tried to narrow in scope, the Armed Forces Bill has always had a way of getting us to debate some quite meaty and fundamental issues about who we want to be as a political state. If I say so myself, new clause 4, at least for the Opposition, brings together most of the threads that we have been talking about over the last month. Some on the Committee, including current and former members of the Defence Committee, will, I am sure, be bored stiff of my going on about an armed forces representative body, because I have been banging on about it before my private Member’s Bill in 2018 and since. I will try not to go over too many of the points that I made in that speech three years ago.

Since I became a member of the Defence Committee in 2017, I have lost count of the number of witnesses that we have had before us who have spoken about the difficulty in achieving institutional and organisational change in the Ministry of Defence, not just in personnel but in other areas such as procurement. The MOD has the fifth-largest budget in Whitehall, and if it were a city it would be bigger than Dundee or Brighton, so from my perspective, why on earth do we continue to create hideously complicated, bespoke personnel solutions when there exists a model of employer-employee relations that works for the rest of society? Is that not the very point of a whole-of-society approach to defence?

While I continue to be impressed by the knowledge, dedication and positivity of those who work in the military charity sector, I have no doubt that the multifarious nature of the sector is easily exploited by the Ministry of Defence to ensure that it keeps things exactly as it likes them. A proper representative body would be able to encompass the diversity of the armed forces family, and speak with one strong voice that Secretaries of State and the Government could not ignore when it was convenient.

Take the recent Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Although no one in the Opposition was likely to support it in principle, I understood the genuinely held beliefs of colleagues who wanted to see an end to repeated and vexatious prosecutions. The Ministry of Defence understood that also, and very astutely slipped in part 2 of the Bill, which put time limits on the ability of personnel to take action against the failings of the Ministry of Defence as an employer, cleverly packaging two unrelated issues together to ensure that the downside—the UK’s commitment to the international rule of law being watered down—was sweetened by giving more protection against actions by the very people that the Bill was supposed to protect.

I do not think that a proper representative body would have allowed that to pass, even if it supported the principles of the Bill, because it would have understood it to be the pig in the poke that it was. My final point is about the difference between the Scottish National party’s new clause 4 and our colleagues in the Labour party’s new clause 19 on an armed forces federation. I believe the principal difference between the two—I am happy to be corrected—is that new clause 19 seeks to create a federation that represents personnel in all matters except pay. From the conversations I have had with colleagues, I understand what provisions they would like to put in place to ensure that personnel are represented in pay negotiations, but I would like to hear more about why they think that the trade union-style model does not work in this specific instance.

In the week after the highest-ranking officer in the British Army for quite some time was convicted of a crime, the financial rewards for those in higher ranks come sharply into focus, with all the associated layers of class subtlety ingrained within the armed forces that this contains. We all know, even if we are afraid to say it, that there will not be many pongoes or matelots getting help to send their weans to private school, despite the fact that they undertake the most dangerous and demanding roles in the military.

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

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

[Johnny Mercer]

They have.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

We will move on.

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

The Minister is quite correct to say that a private school allowance or boarding school allowance is available across every rank, so we agree that that is factually correct. What is also factually correct is that it is almost exclusively utilised by commissioned officers rather than non-commissioned ranks.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

[Johnny Mercer]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

New clause 19 is designed to provide for the establishment of a federation for the armed forces. It owes much to the British Armed Forces Federation, which pioneered service representation. This issue has been close to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, and I am loth to let an Armed Forces Bill go without raising it. It has been clear for some time that the armed forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses that I have seen before this Committee have reinforced that point and we continue to hear shocking stories of abuse that takes place within units. We have also heard that continued delays discourage the use of the service complaints system, and of a concerning perception that someone’s career will be under threat if they complain persistently. Most members of the armed forces have also endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade.

Given the renewed emphasis that Ministers appear to be placing on the value of people as assets to national defence, the time may be right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay. I want to stress that this federation would not be equivalent to a trade union for the armed forces. It would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It would also recognise the importance of the chain of command. We can learn from positive forerunners such as the British Armed Forces Federation, which clearly reinforces the point that the chain of command is to be recognised, not overridden.

Although the proposal might be seen to be radical or dangerous by some, other nations, including the US and Australia, already have similar models embedded into existing military command structures. Given that Ministers in this Government have been so fond of looking to Australia for solutions, I hope that they will feel able to do so again. The nominally independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the service complaints ombudsman present a clear direction of travel towards independence.

Our armed forces give their lives for us. Ministers should seize this opportunity and also give them a voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I would be delighted to give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

[Johnny Mercer]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

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

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden]

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

This new clause seeks to right an historical wrong. Twenty-one years ago, the ban on LGBT+ personnel serving in the armed forces was lifted. During the years of the ban, it inflicted staggering cruelty on those men and women who had stepped forward to serve their country. This is a hidden history of the British military, so let me reveal some of the sorry tale.

Between the mid-1950s and 1996, men and women—predominantly men—of our armed forces who were thought to be gay were arrested, searched and questioned by officers trained for wartime interrogation. In many cases, this went on for days before they were charged, often without legal counsel or support. On many occasions, arrest was based on little evidence. It has emerged that many heterosexual personnel were falsely accused by service police officers, losing careers and, in some cases, homes and families. After harrowing investigations, these men and women were led away to military hospitals where they were subjected to degrading and shameful medical inspections, conducted in accordance with confidential Defence Council Instructions, held by every unit of the armed forces.

At court martial, in the moments before those convicted were sent down, operational medals and good conduct badges were ripped from their uniforms. They typically served six months in prison for the military criminal offence of being homosexual. It is staggering that this continued until 1996, and that administrative dismissal of LGBT+ personnel continued for a further four years, until January 2000.

As these members of our armed forces walked from prison, they were dismissed in disgrace, with criminal records as sex offenders, which from 1967 had no civilian equivalent. As they left through the main gate, they were commonly given letters instructing them to never again use their military ranks or wear items of uniform, for example in remembrance at the Cenotaph. With dignity, they continued to obey those letters. Their names were erased from the retired lists of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force as though they had never existed. These once-proud members of our military were cast out of the armed forces family and outed to their own family and friends. They lost their homes and their financial stability. Their service record cards had the top corner clipped and were marked in red pen with the annotation, “Dismissed in disgrace”, causing many a lifetime of employment issues.

In the past, in their moments of need, these personnel were shunned by military charities. I am pleased that has now changed. However, there has been no such remedy or reckoning from our Government or the Ministry of Defence. The Committee heard at first hand, from the charity Fighting with Pride, accounts of how those affected live today amidst the ashes of their former service careers. Our LGBT veterans are scattered across the United Kingdom, often away from military communities, living lives in stark contrast to those hoped for when they joined the forces. In the 21 years since the ban was lifted, nothing has been done to support those LGBT+ veterans. The impact endures amidst loneliness, isolation, shame and anger. As Canada, Germany, the United States and other nations prepare, assess and make reparations, putting right this shameful wrong is long overdue for the United Kingdom, which persisted with the ban for longer and implemented it more zealously than many others.

The Minister, I know, has offered his apology, for which many are grateful, and he and I have talked about this issue, but does he not agree that this community of veterans, who were treated with unique cruelty, deserve an apology on behalf of the nation from the Prime Minister in Parliament? They must be supported on the pathway to royal pardons, restored to the retired list and have their medals returned. Prohibitions on their use of rank and wearing of berets at the Cenotaph must be revoked. They need resettlement support, which we offer to all other members of our armed forces, and they must be fairly compensated and have their pensions reviewed in recognition of their service and the hardships they faced, then and now.

Until that is done, this will remain a matter of national disgrace, and it will stand in the way of this Government’s stated wish to be a global exemplar for both LGBT+ and veterans’ communities. This amendment places a duty on the Ministry of Defence to find our LGBT+ veterans, find out how they have fared and make recommendations to Parliament about what must be done to right this wrong. Remedy must not take years, and the Government will need to work closely with community leaders.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

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

[Johnny Mercer]

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

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

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

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

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

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

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

[Johnny Mercer]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Concurrent jurisdiction

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship throughout this Committee, Mr Sunderland, and to be able to participate virtually. I am aware that this is the first time that line-by-line has been done this way. We are pioneers, and I am sure we are doing a grand job for others who will no doubt follow. I hope the Minister will carefully consider all the amendments, which are based on the evidence we have heard and received from experts and stakeholders throughout the process.

Amendment 19 would ensure that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, sexual assault and rape, are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK. The first recommendation in His Honour Shaun Lyons’s 2020 service justice system review was:

“The Court Martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when these offences are committed in the UK, except when the consent of the Attorney General is given.”

Judge Lyons told the Committee in oral evidence that he felt it was not Parliament’s intention for murder, manslaughter and rape that happened in the UK to be tried in the service justice system. Indeed, in 2006, Lord Drayson, the then Government spokesperson in the Lords, said:

“I have already told the House that we do not propose that, under the Bill, murder, rape or treason alleged to have been committed by a serviceman in the United Kingdom will normally be investigated and tried within the service system.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2006; Vol. 686, c. 587.]

During the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill 2006, Major General Howell, head of the Army Prosecuting Authority, also said that he understood that courts martial would be used in exceptional situations. Despite that, the protocols do not reflect that intention or the Lyons review recommendation; the amendment takes account of that.

Throughout the evidence sessions we heard about the culture and archaic views around victims of sexual harassment and rape, with perpetrators being described as being of “good character” but had just had a bit too much to drink and made a mistake. We have to tackle that perception, and that is why I wholeheartedly agree with the written evidence that we received from Tony Wright from Forward Assist:

“Sexual assault…is sexual assault and rape…is rape, it should not be minimised by calling it unacceptable behaviour.”

That culture, coupled with low conviction rates for rape cases at court martial—at just 10% between 2015 and 2019—means that there is little trust in the system that should be there to provide justice. The civilian courts are not perfect but, during the same period, the conviction rate for rape was 59% in civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year in those courts. Yesterday, the Minister said to the Committee:

“I am comfortable, with that protocol in place”,

and that it provides

“a resilient route to justice for those who need it.”

A low conviction rate of 10% for rape, however, does not match the Minister’s words.

Trying the most serious offences that occur in the UK in the civilian courts would help to improve conviction rates and, as Professor Sir Jon Murphy told this Committee, it would put the victim “at the heart” of the system. The Government have an opportunity with the Bill and the amendment to do just that. They cannot continue to brush serious crimes under the carpet as an inconvenient truth not to be dealt with because it could affect the defendant’s career. Sexual assault and rape affect all aspects of a victim’s life for many, many years, and the victim must be the priority.

A judge-led inquiry, the Victims’ Commissioner, the founder of the Centre for Military Justice and Forward Assist all agree that murder, manslaughter and rape should not be tried in the military system, unless in exceptional circumstances. I hope the Minister will join us to make that happen with the amendment.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I fully support the hon. Lady and her amendment. If it comes to a Division, I and my SNP colleagues will vote with Labour.

On amendment 2, it is clear in the Bill that the judicial systems of these islands are included. For example, in proposed new chapter 3A, the “Guidance on exercise of criminal jurisdiction” for England and Wales includes the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. We then go to Northern Ireland, and the measure is clear about including the Northern Ireland judicial service. Within the process, the guidance mentions the criminal jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, which is the Secretary of State and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

When the Bill comes to the process in Scotland, however, with “Guidance on exercise of criminal jurisdiction” in Scotland, there is a glaring omission: we see the Secretary of State, but not the Justice Directorate of Scotland. Given that the directorate covers a completely different judicial process and system, that is a glaring omission. I hope that the Government are willing to include what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I have proposed, the insertion of the Justice Directorate of Scotland, to bring the clause into line with the rest of the Bill, as it is for England and Wales, and Northern Ireland.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of that small anomaly, to ensure clarity—he will forgive me for using the terminology—unity and unanimity across the process. I might be willing to consider what the Government say before pressing for a vote.

[Johnny Mercer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

--- Later in debate ---

It is far more likely that there will be clarity, diversity and understanding among members of the jury in a civilian court. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the measure. The amendment is important. If we hope to increase diversity in the armed forces and improve the experience of different groups, including women, we need to take it seriously.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I, too, support the shadow Veterans Minister and the Labour amendment. I sit on the Defence Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who represents the Government party. We are going through extraordinary evidence submitted by women who have served in the armed forces over many years, and the amendment would go some way towards tackling the profound issues they have faced.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and other hon. Members. I am minded to withdraw the amendment, while reserving the right to bring it back at a later stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire wish to press amendment 2 formally? It has just been debated.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Not at this stage, though we might bring the amendment back at a different stage of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Before we move on to deciding clause 7, I will make a couple of process announcements. We are feeling our way with this first ever virtual sitting of line-by-line scrutiny and I wish to make two points. First, for the avoidance of doubt, the decision on amendment 1 to schedule 1, which we debated earlier, will be made later, when we reach the schedules, which are on page 2 of the selection list. The amendment was grouped for debate, but the decision will be made separately, later in proceedings.

Secondly, I am very happy with how interventions have worked so far. Rather than coming through me as the Chair, I am happy for Members to intervene virtually, as Mr Martin Docherty-Hughes has already done successfully, directly on the person speaking.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Armed forces covenant

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The question is that the amendment be made.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. Could the Clerks advise whether we should make sure that Members turn their videos on when they are voting?

[The Chair]

Thank you. We have agreed that. Could all Members have their microphones and their videos turned on when voting? We have a few technical issues, so please bear with us.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

New clause 1 establishes age 18 as the minimum age for recruitment into the UK armed forces. Each year, the British armed forces enlist over 2,000 young people aged 16 and 17, mostly for the Army, and particularly for the infantry. It is notable that most Army recruits are 16, more than any other age. The United Kingdom is out of step with many of its allies in allowing enlistment at 16, and in a response to a written question from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), we find that underage recruits require longer training. We also know that they warrant more complicated duty of care plans and demonstrate a greater frequency of attrition.

In the three-year timeframe from 2015 to 2018, the Army enlisted just under 5,300 16 and 17-year-olds, and of this cohort, nearly a third dropped out before they completed their phase 2 training. As the Army’s accredited educational requirements for under-age recruits are limited to basic literacy, numeracy, and information and communications technology courses, it is clear that many 16 and 17-year-olds who withdraw from their training will re-enter the civilian world without immediate access to further employment, training and education. Typically, it has been commonplace for the Army to recruit young people from economically deprived areas, and while military service is a fruitful and fulfilling career for many of our service personnel, it is undeniable that encouraging 16 and 17-year-olds to remain in full-time education generates considerable benefits. Full-time education until the age of 18 should be the norm for all young people, and the opportunities for professional and personal development are indisputable, alongside the invaluable psychological, emotional and social growth that full-time education facilitates.

On top of these considerations, it also makes clear economic sense to increase the age of recruitment to 18, as the large drop-out rate that I have previously mentioned is costly in terms of both resources and time spent on training. Finally, adopting such a policy stands to bring the UK into line with the vast majority of its international contemporaries. Three quarters of states worldwide now have armed forces personnel who are exclusively aged 18 and over, including most of our NATO allies. While 16 and 17-year-olds cannot serve on the frontline, recruitment at the ages of 16 and 17 is detrimental to international efforts to end the use of children in military settings. The UN convention on the rights of the child has urged the UK to increase its minimum recruitment age to 18. If, as this Government have often stressed, we are entering an era of a truly global Britain, it seems appropriate that the UK should align with its global partners in the international community.

Adopting an adults-only enlistment policy would also be welcome domestically. The Children’s Commissioners for the UK’s four nations, the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights and numerous trade unions and health professionals have expressed their support for adult-only recruitment. If we are to safeguard the wellbeing, development, educational opportunities and physical safety of our young people, it is crucial that we change the minimum age for armed forces recruitment to 18.

New clause 2 would ensure that service personnel aged under 18 would not be required to serve for a longer period than adult service personnel. Most of the Committee’s discussion up to now has centred on removing any disadvantage experienced by service personnel in relation to their civilian counterparts, but we have not yet discussed the age discrimination that exists within the armed forces. The Bill does nothing to ensure that personnel recruited under the age of 18 experience no disadvantage compared with those recruited as adults.

At present, Army regulations that define a minimum service period discriminate against younger recruits. An Army recruit has a right of discharge for a fixed period of time after enlistment, but, once that period has expired, a recruit who enlisted at age 18 or above must serve for at least four years from the date of their enlistment. However, for recruits who enlisted at age 16 or 17, the clock restarts at age 18, so they must serve until they turn 22 at least—another four years. That commits them to up to six years of service when they are still a minor. As result of that disparate treatment, young recruits have to serve longer to have the right to leave the Army.

That inconsistency on service relates solely to the Army; it does not exist in the Navy or RAF. Only due to an armed forces exemption in the Equality Act 2010 is that allowed to remain. Such age discrimination would be prohibited in the civilian workforce, and new clause 2 would correct that by equalising the minimum service period for all recruits across the Army, ensuring that recruits under 18 experience no disadvantage compared with their adult counterparts.

The new clause builds on comments in the Army’s 2019 review of its junior entry policy that considered new terms of service to align the minimum commitment length of recruits aged under 18 to those who joined over the age of 18. The review commented on how a change in this area could attract potential young recruits and their parents and

“would mitigate some external criticism and provide greater consistency.”

In addition, the review mentioned that the change could make the process of leaving the Army as an under-18 “more transparent” and easier to understand. As such, the new clause would be an entirely reasonable and straightforward addition to the Bill and bring a consistent and logical approach to the minimum length of service across the armed forces. I urge the Committee to consider it carefully.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I recognise that the Minister will oppose the new clauses, especially on the age of recruitment—I am sure we disagree on that principle—but I hope the Government and members of the Committee will recognise the age discrimination for those under 18 who remain in the armed forces and the detriment caused through their service not being recognised. I hope we can agree in a collegiate way that anyone who remains in the Army once they reach 18 must have that prior service calculated in their long-term service in the armed forces. Anything else is a detriment to them and also underscores our lack of commitment to them, with their military service not being counted.

[Mr Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

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

[Mr Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armed Forces Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

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

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

Just as when I first took part in Armed Forces Bill debates, in 2016, I am afraid there is a feeling of a missed opportunity. While we will be back here tomorrow to talk about the integrated review, it always strikes me as odd that these changes either to the armed forces covenant or to the service justice system, while welcome and worthy, squander the opportunity that a Bill of this scope has to redefine what the armed forces mean for all of us in the 21st century, in the same way as the integrated review seeks to.

I am afraid we are at something of an inflection point with civil-military relations in the history of this political state. The confluence of two contemporary currents—namely, the politicisation of our armed forces by the Government of the day, and the need for armed forces to redefine their role in society—is, for my part, pushing us towards the creation of a discrete military class removed from the society it has vowed to protect, unrepresentative and poorly understood.

How can we better define what the armed forces are for and what they represent in the 21st century? I have spoken many times in the House about my military family, but it is undoubtedly the case that, with a shrinking armed forces and a move away from the overseas operations that defined the cold war, there is a diminishing number of people across these islands with first-hand knowledge of what military life means.

Let us turn to covid. The pandemic is undoubtedly a threat to the economic and health security of all who live in this political state. Those of us who read the MOD’s threat assessments and global trend papers know that the military have known that all along, so it is bit of a surprise to see such confusion, particularly among many of those sitting—virtually, at least—on the Government Benches, about what the armed forces’ role should be. Over the past year, I have felt myself to be something of a lonely voice in turning the question around: why does there always need to be a military solution to a wide-ranging public health emergency? On several occasions, Government Members have called for the military to take charge of the logistical challenge in some way or another, saying they are happy about the vital role that the military have been playing in support of the civilian uniformed services.

I recognise and am grateful, as we all are, for the service of many on the Government Benches, such as my friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), but I cannot help but conclude that the lived experience of those whom I represent and those in my family are increasingly at odds with the vision of service put forward by the Government. I began this speech by talking about fears of the creation of a military class because I see such differences between the way the armed forces are talked about in the House and the experiences of the predominantly working-class people who make up the ranks. These are people for whom the rather abstract way we talk about military justice makes it an impediment to their availing themselves of it, should that be required—people who often find it difficult to make their way through the alphabet soup of the military charity sector to access the rights to which they are entitled and that they should theoretically be given when the Bill is passed.

For many, muddling through is very much part of the charm and the bonds of forces life, but my almost four years with Defence Committees have shown me that an opaque and inconsistent military justice system, and an opaque and inconsistent application of the armed forces covenant, is the logical end point of a system that is in dire need of root-and-branch reform. Ever since the first Armed Forces Bill that I saw in 2016, there has been the assumption that such reform refers to the need to adapt the civilian sphere to the needs of the military—something that continues to baffle me. Why is it that we do not seek to address this imbalance the other way as well, by allowing the members of our armed forces as many rights that they had as civilians as possible?

As I often say, members of our armed forces should have the ability to form an armed forces representative body; the right to a contract that sets out not only their responsibilities as members of the armed forces but the obligations and responsibilities of their employer, the Government, to them; and the guarantee—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need to move on now.