Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am aware that Martin Docherty-Hughes wishes to speak to amendment 1, but I ask first whether the Labour spokesperson wishes to comment.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

[Stephen Morgan]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 8, page 9, line 16, after “subsection (3)” insert—

“or by regulations under subsection (3A)”.

This amendment, with Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 widens the scope of the Bill to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces Covenant including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 8, in clause 8, page 9, line 17, at end insert—

“(d) a relevant employment function,

(e) a relevant pensions function,

(f) a relevant compensation function,

(g) a relevant social care function,

(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or

(i) a relevant immigration function.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 9, line 19, at end insert—

“(aa) a relevant government department;”.

This amendment, with Amendments 4, 5 and 6 would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government and the Devolved Administrations as the current drafting requires of local authorities and other public bodies.

Amendment 12, in clause 8, page 9, line 24, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Welsh Ministers, make regulations by statutory instrument to—

(a) specify the person or body in relation to whom the relevant functions in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) apply, and

(b) define what each relevant function in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) means.

(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 9, in clause 8, page 9, line 29, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—

(a) specify the person or body in relation to whom the relevant functions in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) apply, and

(b) define what each relevant function in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) means.

(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 10, in clause 8, page 11, line 13, after “subsection (3)” insert—

“or by regulations under subsection (3A)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 11, in clause 8, page 11, line 16, at end insert—

“(d) a relevant employment function,

(e) a relevant pensions function,

(f) a relevant compensation function,

(g) a relevant social care function,

(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or

(i) a relevant immigration function.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 11, line 18, at end insert—

“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Wales;”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 13, in clause 8, page 12, line 27, after “subsection (3)” insert—

“or by regulations under subsection (3A)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 14, in clause 8, page 12, line 30, at end insert—

“(d) a relevant employment function,

(e) a relevant pensions function,

(f) a relevant compensation function,

(g) a relevant social care function,

(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or

(i) a relevant immigration function.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 12, line 32, at end insert—

“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Scotland;”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 15, in clause 8, page 13, line 1, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Scottish Ministers, make regulations by statutory instrument to—

(a) specify the person or body in relation to whom the relevant functions in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) apply, and

(b) define what each relevant function in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) means.

(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 16, in clause 8, page 13, line 43, after “subsection (3)” insert—

“or by regulations under subsection (3A)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 17, in clause 8, page 14, line 2, at end insert—

“(d) a relevant employment function,

(e) a relevant pensions function,

(f) a relevant compensation function,

(g) a relevant social care function,

(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or

(i) a relevant immigration function.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 14, line 4, at end insert—

“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Northern Ireland;”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 18, in clause 8, page 14, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the relevant department in the devolved administration in Northern Ireland make regulations by statutory instrument to—

(a) specify the person or body in relation to whom the relevant functions in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) apply, and

(b) define what each relevant function in paragraphs (d) to (i) of subsection (3) means.

(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.

Clause stand part.

[Stephen Morgan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sunderland. I rise to speak initially to amendments 3 to 6, which are in my name.

The amendments are designed to ensure that central Government and devolved Governments have the same due regard to the covenant that the Bill places on local authorities and other public bodies. The amendments go to the very heart of Labour’s prescription for a Bill that attempts to outsource Ministers’ responsibilities for delivering the armed forces covenant for all service personnel, veterans and their families. As drafted, the Bill places significant new legal responsibilities to deliver the covenant on everyone from local councils to NHS foundation trusts, clinical commissioning groups and school governors, but not to Departments or Ministers.

Over the past few months, I have met many groups named in the Bill, including council leaders and armed forces champions from across the country, and I have been repeatedly struck by the good work that they are doing in places such as North Tyneside, which in 2018 became the first local authority to fund an armed forces officer, and Rushmore, which is closer to home for me, in Hampshire, where the Labour council is pioneering innovative ways to reach armed forces communities to ensure that their views are heard. Their good work, however, is often limited by the lack of resource and direction from the centre. I have also spoken to forces families in my constituency and to organisations such as SCiP Alliance—the Service Children’s Progression Alliance—as well as service charities. They, too, are clear that there should be a consistent approach and that national Governments should be subject to the same duty as councils.

It is true that in some places there is low awareness of the covenant, but many of the policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are clearly the responsibility of national Government, or are based on national guidance provided to other delivery partners. Ministers say that they do not want to be too prescriptive about the outcomes, for fear of stifling innovation at local level, so let me provide some real-world examples of the ways in which that approach damages outcomes for veterans.

I have campaigned for some time to ensure that coroners record veterans’ suicides. In doing so, I saw answers from responsible Ministers and the coroners themselves. Each considered it to be the responsibility of the other to set policy on the issue. Such Catch-22s are allowed to persist and prevent us from making the well-meaning promises of the covenant a reality. The Minister has spoken of his desire to raise the floor of what is delivered by the Bill, which is a commendable aspiration, but that can only happen when central Government are responsible. Ministers could then set measurable, enforceable standards, which are ultimately responsible for delivering.

The current drafting also means that serving personnel, for whom many services are the responsibility of the MOD, will not benefit from the Bill. Government will therefore continue to evade any real responsibility to raise the standard of service accommodation, which we have heard from witnesses is in an appalling state. That will create a two-tier covenant that applies to some in forces communities, but not others, and will risk reinforcing the postcode lottery that the Minister himself concedes is the experience of many veterans.

The Minister also let the cat out of the bag that the Government are not serious about delivering for our armed forces with this Bill. At Defence questions in February, the Minister said that

“the legislation is very clear that it does not specify outcomes, but simply ensures that a set of principles is adhered to.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 668.]

Without the statutory guidance that will underpin the legislation, our armed forces are without the principles and without the outcomes, and this Government will be allowed to get away from responsibility for delivering.

Amendments 7 and 18 are also in my name. Amendment 7, as grouped with amendments 8 to 18, is designed to widen the scope of the Bill to include all areas of potential disadvantage for service communities. The Minister has previously said that the narrow focus of the Bill on housing, healthcare and education is because they are the areas of greatest concern for armed forces communities. Although those are undoubtedly critical areas for the armed forces community, the Bill does not fully cover them, and many areas of disadvantage are totally left out, including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. We heard from the witnesses who came before the Committee what, in practice, that omission will mean: nothing on social care, where service charities continue to highlight fundamental problems with the availability and cost of care; nothing on the shameful scandal of Commonwealth veterans forced to pay eye-watering fees for UK citizenship, despite their service to our country; and nothing for the cohort of war widow pensioners who, according to the Defence Committee, continue to endure a “grotesque injustice”.

In short, Ministers risk creating a two-tier armed forces covenant and a race to the bottom on standards in those areas that have been omitted. The amendments seek to ensure that areas of disadvantage that have been persistently highlighted in armed forces covenant annual reports will be finally addressed. We are challenging the Government to deliver on their promise to enshrine all of the covenant into law, not just pick and choose based on their opinion. Given that the statutory guidance, which will give real meaning to the Bill, will not be published until after Royal Assent, it is still unclear to what extent the limited areas included in the Bill will be addressed.

As I noted earlier, functions that sit within the MOD, such as service accommodation, are also out of scope. Section 343 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 contains powers for the Secretary of State to add bodies and functions. That rare oversight is welcome, but it is not clear in what circumstances those powers would be used. With Ministers suggesting that the Bill will not have prescribed outcomes, there seems to be no review mechanism that would trigger or consider the addition of new public bodies. Service charities such as the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes would be keen to see some clarity on that, so perhaps the Minister can speak to that in his response.

I strongly expect that the Minister will reject the amendment, but both he and I know that in doing so he will be concealing that he has not truly fulfilled his party’s manifesto commitment to enshrine the armed forces covenant into law.

[Johnny Mercer]

I think some of that speech was written before my evidence session yesterday, where I promised to ensure that statutory guidance is available as soon as possible. I will try to accelerate that, because I want Members to have a copy. We need to look at how it has been done before and what the regulations are around this stuff, but I am keen that we all work as a team to try to get this done.

Clause 8 amends part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by inserting six new sections, which will impose on certain public bodies across the UK a duty to have due regard to the three principles of the armed forces covenant, and provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance and widen the scope of the new duty.

The principles of the armed forces covenant are: the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces; that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces; and that special provision for servicepeople may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces.

Proposed new sections 343AA to 343AD to the 2006 Act impose the duty in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. The new duty will apply where particular types of public body are exercising certain of their public functions in key areas of health, housing and education that are vital to the day-to-day life of our community. The bodies and functions specified in each of those sections are different because they reflect the different systems in place in each of our four nations. However, they aim to cover those bodies that are responsible for developing housing allocation policy for social housing, homelessness policy and the administration of disabled facilities grants, which can be vital for injured veterans.

In education, we know that our service families face difficulties, due to their mobility, in getting children into schools and, more troublingly, in ensuring access to the necessary assessments and support when they have children with special educational needs or disabilities, as it is described in England. We know that service children have specific wellbeing needs. The duty will target those who are responsible for that, ensuring that they understand and consider the very specific needs of our community’s children.

In healthcare, again, much has already been achieved, but service families and veterans still experience disadvantages, often as a result of their mobility and other healthcare requirements caused by military service. This duty will apply to all bodies that are responsible for commissioning and delivering healthcare services across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I respect him and the points he has made, but I disagree with him.

[Stephen Morgan]

I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I think it is clear that the Government cannot do half a job in fulfilling their manifesto commitment to enshrine the covenant in law. Nor should Ministers be allowed to outsource the delivery to cash-strapped local authorities and other stretched public bodies, especially during a pandemic. They must take responsibility themselves. I will not press amendments 3 to 6 and 7 to 18 now, but I give notice that we may return to them on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Reserve forces: flexibility of commitments

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.