Afghan Resettlement Update

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Johnny Mercer

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

As I have said many times from the Dispatch Box, there is no reason why any of these individuals should be homeless at the end of the process given what is on offer. Clearly, we cannot march people into accommodation if they choose to present themselves as homeless in an attempt to secure themselves some sort of other accommodation. It is very difficult to affect that. There is no tangible reason why any Afghan family should present as homeless at the end of this process.

On my right hon. Friend’s remarks on Afghanistan and our right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), I am clear, as are the Government, that the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban was a tragedy of epic human proportions. I fought the Taliban myself. The Taliban murdered my friends. It is clear that the Taliban represent a serious threat to human rights, the treatment of women, and all the things that we fought for. That is the Government’s position. That remains unchanged, and I know that colleagues from across the House will join me in those sentiments.

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

Let me first clearly associate myself with the words of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I am sure that the former Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), would never have gone online and made the public statements that were made earlier today. I was dumbfounded by them. I see the former Chair of the Defence Committee present on the Government Benches.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I know from our time together on the Defence Committee that this subject is close to his heart, and that he has gone the extra mile to ensure that we do well by those who risked so much alongside the UK armed forces—he served in Afghanistan, as did my brother—and Government personnel. I am afraid, though, that while the Minister speaks warm words with good intentions, he has come up rather awkwardly against the fact, which he has studiously avoided, that according to Office for National Statistics figures, as I think was mentioned previously, only 54 people have been able to apply through his Government’s flagship Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Perhaps he could come back on that.

The scheme was meant to provide safe haven to the many thousands of Afghans who were eligible to come to the UK but had not been able to do so at the time of Operation Pitting. With the unacceptable backlog of Afghans currently in the country, along with the demonstrably obstructive barriers to those still suffering under the Taliban rule from coming here, does the Minister not agree that it is time for a “Homes for Afghans” scheme similar to the “Homes for Ukraine” scheme, which would give central Government and local authorities the impetus to ensure that permanent accommodation is found for all the Afghans whom he seeks to remove from hotels?

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the issue of ACRS and ARAP, I need to be transparent with him: my responsibility, which this statement is about, is for Afghans in bridging accommodation in the UK and getting them into accommodation. The Ministry of Defence still owns that ARAP pathway and I am sure will have heard his questions. There are many more than 54 recipients of the ACRS in this country and I am more than happy to write to him to outline where they are at the moment. His last point has slipped my mind—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Homes for Afghans.

[Johnny Mercer]

Yes. We are looking at a similar proposal on homes for Afghans as we had for Ukrainians, but they are a fundamentally different cohort. Ukrainians traditionally, and in our experience, tend to want to go back to Ukraine in the future. That is not the case with the Afghan population. We are certainly looking at all options; we have set up an Afghan housing portal where landlords can offer their properties and we can accept offers, but all those options are in play. It is a fundamentally different cohort, but we can get there in the end.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Johnny Mercer

Wednesday 31st March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[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.

--- 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 ---

[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)

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Johnny Mercer

Thursday 25th March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Johnny Mercer

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his relentless campaigning on this. The recent review by the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee into the case for medallic recognition concluded that it did not meet the level of risk and rigour. However, we are committed to ensuring that we have good wraparound care for those who suffered injury from these operations and exercises at the time.

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

The Minister will be aware of the negotiations for facility management contracts that are under way at Her Majesty’s naval base, Clyde, involving a significant number of my constituents. Unfortunately, what the Minister’s Government excitedly call “efficiency savings” often have a direct and deleterious effect on the terms and conditions of the most vulnerable defence people. Will the Minister advise what the Ministry of Defence is doing to ensure that these efficiency savings are not simply an excuse to drive down working conditions and increase profits for private companies?

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Johnny Mercer

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Johnny Mercer]

Some really important points have been made, particularly about mental health provision and the protection of those who operate these systems, but the Bill is clearly there to provide the additional protections that particularly apply to those who face the threat of violence and attack at the time, so I disagree on this point. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I take on board what the Minister says, but we may disagree on an overall element of the Bill. It is the Overseas Operations Bill, and the persons we are speaking of are involved in an overseas operation. Surely the security given to those in the physicality of the arena of military activity should not be just about geography or about those who are physically participating in the overall operations.

[Johnny Mercer]

The clauses that deal with special consideration for the circumstances of what is going on at the time are there precisely to take account of the unique physical and mental demands of being in close combat; that is what they are designed for. To suggest that drone operators operating from UK shores would face the same pressures is not the same thing. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I rise to speak to the amendment for a very specific reason. It concerns the word “alleged” in the Bill. The Government, in bringing forward the Bill, have sought to provide clarity to members of the armed forces and veterans against some elements of the legal profession, which is the constant narrative during our debates—although, I have to say that there are many members of the legal profession who are not only members of the armed forces, but veterans too. We need to be very much aware of the rule of law.

The clarity that I and my party require, which is why we have tabled this amendment, is to remove that word “alleged”, because it causes ambiguity, whereas I think the Government’s intention in introducing the Bill is to give clarity. Whether or not I disagree with various parts of it, if not the vast majority, we are seeking to work here in a coherent and collegiate fashion, because I think that, not only for the accused but for the accuser, we need to be clear about the point at which we start, which is the day on which the first investigation takes place. 

The word “alleged” creates ambiguity in the law and ambiguity for members of the armed forces and veterans, which is why we have brought forward this specific amendment.

[Johnny Mercer]

Mr Stringer, do you want me to speak only to amendment 14?

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

One of the main purposes of introducing the presumption against prosecution is to provide greater certainty for veterans in relation to the threat of repeat investigations and the possible prosecution for events that happened many years ago. Amendment 14 would undermine that objective by extending the starting point for the presumption and, in some cases, creating even more uncertainty. However, I want to reassure Members that the presumption measure is not an attempt to cover up past events as it does not prevent an investigation to credible allegations of wrongdoing in the past, and neither does it prevent the independent prosecutor from determining that a case should go forward to prosecution.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does the Minister not accept that the very word “alleged” creates ambiguity within the law and, if anything, creates a barrier? Our amendment would give the clarity that he and his Government are seeking.

[Johnny Mercer]

I do not accept that. The wording about the “alleged conduct” is clear. We have dealt with a number of allegations: 3,500 from the Iraq Historical Allegations Team alone, and another 1,000 from Afghanistan. They are alleged offences and it is right to leave those in there. I request that the amendment be withdrawn.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Johnny Mercer

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that pertinent question. Extensive efforts have gone down over the years to make sure our people understand the rules within which they should operate. There clearly have been challenges in some of the training regarding detentions and so on, as has been found out through various court cases. I have always talked, on Second Reading and even before the legislation came to the House, about how the it is one of a series of measures. One such measure is about investigatory standards, another is about education and how individuals’ lives are affected, because it is not in anybody’s interests for us to do the legislation and for people not to understand. I am more than happy to share with the hon. Gentleman how much work we have done in that space.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Go on, give way.

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not. Repeat investigations of alleged historical offences or the emergence of new allegations of criminal offences relating to operations many years ago can make the delivery of timely justice extremely difficult. It can also leave our service personnel with the stress and mental strain of the threat of potential prosecution hanging over them for far too long. The measures in part 1 of the Bill are key to providing reassurance to our service personnel and veterans about the threat of repeated criminal investigations and potential prosecution for alleged offences occurring many years ago on overseas operations. The purpose and effect of clause 1 is to set the conditions for when the measures in clause 2 and 3 must be applied by a prosecutor in deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case or to continue with the proceedings in a case. It should be noted with reference to clause 1(2) that the measures do not affect the prosecutor’s decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to justify prosecution. The first stage of the prosecutorial test will therefore remain unchanged. Clause 1 therefore details to whom and in what circumstances the measures will apply.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. When we consider his summing up, critically with reference to new clause 7(2)(a), does he not recognise that some of the evidence given by Judge Becket in response to his hon Friend the Member for Wrexham creates an ambiguity in terms of our partners in military activity? For example, Judge Becket referred to the murder of six Royal Military Police in Iraq and noted that if new evidence was brought forward, and the Government of Iraq had the same legislation, there is every possibility that the people responsible would not be prosecuted.

[Johnny Mercer]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about Judge Blackett, who is the Judge Advocate General. He made some keen points. I have met Judge Blackett and we have tried to incorporate his work in the Bill, where appropriate. The idea that new evidence is presented and we do not prosecute is simply not the case. With reference to the six individuals killed at Majar al-Kabir in 2003, if new evidence is presented in that case, we would expect the Iraqis to prosecute. If new evidence emerges in cases against servicemen and women, they can still be prosecuted beyond these timelines. The legislation is simply bringing integrity and rigour to the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

No, because that would be to pre-empt the judge-led review of how we protect the Department, configure ourselves and develop the capability to deal with lawfare. Judge Blackett gave his view, but in our judgment it was better to engage the independent prosecutors, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Service Prosecuting Authority. That is what we have done—we engaged in a wide public consultation—and I believe that where we have arrived is fair and proportionate.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

If the Bill were not legislation relating to the armed forces, it would have been given prior oversight by either the Attorney General for England and Wales, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland or, for Scotland, the Lord Advocate or the Advocate General. Will the Minister tell the Committee why the Judge Advocate General was excluded from that process for this legislation?

[Johnny Mercer]

The Secretary of State wrote to the Judge Advocate General on 14 May 2020 acknowledging that, because of the 100-day election commitment to introduce the Bill, it was not possible for the legal protections team to complete the usual level of stakeholder engagement that we would usually seek to undertake post-public consultation.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

rose—

[Johnny Mercer]

I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, we welcomed the Judge Advocate General’s interest in the Bill: an offer was made for the project team to engage with him at a convenient time, and I subsequently met him. I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views on who would be consulted if the Bill were drafted in a civilian context, but I am entirely comfortable that the Department spoke to the right people to gauge their views on how we should deal with the current system, which is difficult and ultimately unfair to veterans.

I respect all the views that we heard last week—of course I do—but I am allowed to disagree with them. Having worked on this for seven years, it is possible to hear other people’s views on the matter and disagree with them. The Department has taken a balanced and proportionate view, and indeed, it has incorporated a lot of views from other stakeholders throughout the process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Johnny Mercer

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to his service. Veterans’ mental health care in this country is changing fundamentally, and the nation is finally realising its inherent responsibility to those who have served. We are rolling out a comprehensive NHS treatment programme through the complex treatment service and the transition, intervention and liaison service, which is the high-intensity service. Beyond that, there will be space for every brilliant third sector organisation to contribute. I am determined that this country will have the world’s best mental health care for veterans, and I look forward to updating my hon. Friend in due course.

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

I am sure that the Minister will recognise that veterans’ mental health also carries on into retirement. Does he agree that it is time to exempt the war disablement pension for veterans who access it in order to improve their income, opportunities and mental health in the long term?

[Johnny Mercer]

Pensions are a complex area that we are constantly examining. Several schemes over the years have advantaged certain groups and disadvantaged others. I am having continual conversations to ensure that the armed forces covenant means something in this country, that those who have served have a special place in this nation’s heart, and that we look after people in the way that they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Johnny Mercer

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I associate myself with the words of the Secretary of State about what happened yesterday; our thoughts and prayers are with the emergency services and those involved. I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) on an excellent question.

The Secretary of State will not know that I am the son of a coppersmith in what was the greatest yard in the Clyde, John Brown’s—my own constituency office now occupies that land. I am very much aware of the vagaries of shipbuilding and the skills involved in it across the UK. I am heartened to hear what the Minister said to his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but I want to ask about Fleet Solid Support Ships—

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

How long is this going to go on?