Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with party leaders on the restoration of power sharing in Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

5. What recent progress he has made on the restoration of political institutions in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

It will not have escaped your notice, Mr Speaker, that four years ago, on 11 January, the Northern Ireland Assembly reformed. The First Minister effectively collapsed the institutions and power sharing by resigning on 3 February 2022.

Behind these questions is a desire for the return of power sharing and the Northern Ireland Executive—a desire that I very much share, hence my most recent discussions with the leaders of most of the political parties that took place in Hillsborough on Monday, when we discussed the very many matters relating to this goal.

[Stephen Morgan]

Negotiations with the Democratic Unionist party have been ongoing for quite some time, and they have not yet resulted in the restoration of the Executive. What does the Secretary of State think the DUP is looking for?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I cannot answer for the DUP, and would never seek to do so, but behind all this is the concern that it had about the Northern Ireland protocol as we left the European Union and how, as a consequence, goods were gradually being removed from Northern Ireland’s supermarket shelves—a visible sign that Northern Ireland was being pulled away from the United Kingdom’s sphere of influence and into the European sphere. I believe the Windsor framework set that straight.

Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the contents of the special advisers’ code, which sets out how special advisers should act in these circumstances. I am not in a position to talk about the specifics of this case in these circumstances. These are early days. The Prime Minister is gathering information regarding the overall picture and will take decisions in due course.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister believe that the Home Secretary acted entirely within the ministerial code while in office?

[Jeremy Quin]

I think that is for the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] As I said right at the start of my statement, the ministerial code is a matter for the Prime Minister. He is the ultimate arbiter on all questions regarding the ministerial code, and it is for individual Ministers to make certain that they adhere to it. Those are the facts of the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to support victims in the criminal justice system.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

20. What steps he is taking to support victims in the criminal justice system.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

In May, we published our landmark draft Victims Bill and a wider package of measures to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system. The Bill will enshrine the overarching principles of the victims code in primary legislation, increase oversight of criminal justice agencies’ treatment of victims and enable improvements in the quality and consistency of victim support services. The Bill will be introduced as swiftly as parliamentary time allows. Alongside those measures, we are more than quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady and I have worked together on previous cases. While I suspect that some elements of what she is referring to come under other Departments, hence her involving the Prime Minister and others, I am happy to meet with her to see if there is something I can do to assist.

[Stephen Morgan]

Only 1.5% of recorded rapes result in a charge, compared with 5.4% of all other crimes. Does the Minister accept responsibility for this, and for so badly letting down victims?

[Edward Argar]

We all have a shared desire to improve victims’ experiences, particularly in cases of rape and serious sexual offences. The rape review action plan set out the steps we are taking, and we are seeing continued increases and improvement in respect of total police referrals, receipts for a charge, CPS charges and Crown court receipts. There is more still to do. We are ambitious to go further, but we are making good progress and we will continue to focus on this.

Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Lord Lebedev’s case raises a wider question of the huge weaknesses that exist within our political donations system. For over a decade, foreign money has flooded our democracy. The Minister may like to claim, when he winds up this debate, that his party does not raise money from Russian oligarchs, but nearly £2 million in donations from Russia has found its way into either the Tory party or constituency association coffers since the Prime Minister took office.

A further £1.6 million has been donated to the party, its MPs and local associations by Aquind or its company directors. Recent investigations have revealed that one of its directors, Mr Fedotov, benefited from $4 billion alleged fraud in Putin’s Russia. Both Mr Fedotov and Mr Temerko have undertaken a co-ordinated effort to influence the Conservative party into support for their disastrous project, which would have caused untold disruption to my constituency. Since the project began, directors have bankrolled the equivalent of one in 10 Tory MPs, including the Paymaster General. That includes a string of current and former Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and a serving member of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

We are still not completely clear where the company’s money has come from or what the company’s owners expected in return for their cash, but, like the concern expressed in the motion, it does not take much to connect the dots. In 2018, the project was magically designated a national infrastructure project by the then Business Secretary, taking the planning decision away from the local authority and giving it to central Government. Until the Paterson fiasco, it seemed a nailed-on certainty that the project would go ahead, despite the dedicated and unified opposition from my city and, specifically, the #LetsStopAquind campaign group. The Business Secretary faced a choice between the people of Portsmouth and a billionaire Tory donor facing fraud allegations. After much dither and delay, and a concerted local campaign, he narrowly made the right choice. However, my constituents continue to ask how Conservative Ministers came so close to allowing party donors facing corruption allegations to control a national infrastructure project. Can those who receive the funds from Aquind or its directors be sure that they are not indirectly benefiting from fraud? Like the motion today, the answers are uncomfortable for the Conservatives and worrying for our country.

The case of Lord Lebedev and the Aquind fiasco threaten to undermine our democracy and our national security. Now more than ever, we should be taking every possible step to insulate ourselves from the threat posed by those with links to Putin’s political power, but for every second that the Conservatives are in power, their cronyism makes our whole country more vulnerable.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is talking about party political donations. When Unite, for example, donates £1 million to the Labour party and Labour Members of Parliament, or when many other trade unions make donations, what influence does that buy those trade unions? Do they write the manifesto, for example?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

15. What support he is providing to businesses and the voluntary sector to support key services affected by the omicron variant.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)]

The most important thing to support businesses in the voluntary sector is to come out of the covid restrictions and reopen our economy. Boosters remain the best way to save lives, reduce the pressure on our NHS and keep our country safe. It is a great tribute to those working in our NHS that almost eight out of 10 eligible adults in England are now boosted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

The reality as we meet today is that we continue to offer universal free testing. Actually, the UK is an outlier both in terms of the sheer quantum of testing that we have delivered—more than any other country in Europe—and the fact that we have not charged to do so. Testing has played a key role in our response, along with the booster campaign, but we need to balance that with value for money and the cost, which is very significant.

[Stephen Morgan]

MAKE, based in Fratton, is an amazing, award-winning service that is supporting men struggling with their mental health during the pandemic through its Breakfast OK project, which provides a safe space for them to share their experiences with others with similar issues. What specifically is the Minister doing to support Portsmouth social enterprises to flourish and succeed at a time of rising demand and lengthening waiting times for vital mental health services?

[Steve Barclay]

I will have to pick up on the specific organisation the hon. Member references, but as I said in my answer a moment ago, we have had a package of £750 million of support. We have worked with a number of organisations, including our school sector with holiday clubs and other support that has been offered. I am very happy to look at the specific case he highlights to the House.

Gurkha Pensions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for his comprehensive and compassionate introduction to this subject. At its heart, the issue is about how we treat those who have served our country. It is a long-running, complex and fraught issue, with understandably strong feelings among the armed forces communities and the British public at large. In the debate today, I hope that we make some progress—I look forward to the Minister’s summing up—for the sake of those who face the day-to-day reality of the challenges to this community.

We heard from a great range of speakers from all parts of the House, making powerful speeches and useful contributions, all of which recognised the distinction with which Gurkhas serve our country and armed forces and the fact that many continue to contribute significantly after leaving Her Majesty’s armed forces. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North about the details of the bilateral talks and how important those will be next month. On the important Commonwealth visa issues, it is worth pointing out that the Government proposals, which are out for consultation, will benefit only one in 10 veterans. He stressed the importance of waiving fees and said that he looks forward to the proposals.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) about the impact of universal credit on those already on low incomes. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who is not in her place, spoke passionately about the contribution of the Nepalese community in Basingstoke—an area I know well, being a former chief executive of Basingstoke Voluntary Action. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) made a number of points about the injustice that is faced by the community and about the day-to-day impact of that on their lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) is an active campaigner on this issue. I was privileged to meet him and a number of Gurkhas from his constituency this weekend. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always contributes to these important debates, put it powerfully when he said that it is time to step up and step in to help Gurkhas, and he spoke of the debt we owe them. I thank hon. Members for making those points.

To set the debate in its proper context, I will remind the Chamber of the contribution that Gurkhas have made to the British armed forces. Gurkhas have served in Her Majesty’s armed forces for more than 200 years, from the earliest recruits to the East India Company through two world wars, during which more than 238,000 enlisted in the brigade, to the Falklands, the Gulf wars and multiple tours of Afghanistan. They have made an outstanding contribution to the UK through centuries of service and sacrifice. They are rightly held in high esteem by the British Army itself and by the wider British public.

Recently, I had the great privilege to spend time with a Gurkha regiment, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, on a visit to Folkestone. I saw their unique skills and professionalism at first hand. We owe each and every one of them a debt of gratitude and of admiration, as we do all members of our armed forces. The Gurkhas’ contribution to our national security is no greater or lesser than that of anyone else who has served our country. That basic point—the issue of fairness—is what much of the debate hinges on.

The campaign for Gurkha pension equality has been a long-standing one. In 2007, it was the Labour Government who last sought to grasp the nettle of this difficult issue. The Gurkha offer to transfer was a landmark settlement at the time, and a bid for lasting equality for those who bravely served our country. Yet since then, it is easy to see that the situation has changed. The legacy of the Gurkha pension scheme, the GPS, was designed to provide a good standard of living for those who retired to Nepal, but many retired Gurkhas still live in the UK following their service, in particular since the 2009 changes to the immigration rules. Inevitably, that posed cost-of-living challenges and presented an issue of fundamental inequality.

The fact is, a pre-1997 veteran will receive up to £5,000 per year less through the Gurkha pension scheme than someone will through the armed forces pension service, to which those serving after 1997 transferred. However, it is important to point out that a direct comparison between annual payments does not take account of differences in structure and pay, or of the fact that the GPS begins to pay pensions earlier.

Nevertheless, I remain deeply concerned about ongoing reports of Gurkha veterans living in the UK on low incomes and in receipt of universal credit, as we have heard powerfully this evening. That will surely only have been exacerbated by the Government’s recent tax rises and the soaring cost of fuel this winter, with the resulting inflation. It can only be right that measures be considered to ensure that all Gurkha veterans have the opportunity to live securely in retirement, with the support and gratitude of the British Government if necessary.

As I heard in Reading at the weekend when meeting the veteran community, it is worth saying briefly that pension inequality is sadly not the only issue compounding the cost of living crisis for Gurkhas, and indeed all non-UK personnel. Labour has made efforts to end the shameful scandal of the eye-watering visa fees faced by non-UK personnel, including many Gurkhas. Sadly, the Government voted against our amendment to the Armed Forces Bill that would have waived extortionate costs for those who have served more than four years. Ministers cynically cite their own plans as proof of progress on this disgraceful injustice, but those plans would help just one in 10 of the non-UK veterans who left the armed forces last year. The truth is that Ministers are content to make those personnel pay twice to stay in the country that they have fought for. This is yet another instance of the Government’s promises to our veterans being broken.

When veterans come up against these issues, their local councillors and the voluntary sector often end up as the first line of defence. It would be remiss of me to not mention the work of councillors across the country who have provided pastoral support and a political voice to those affected by this issue. I pay particular tribute to Rushmoor Labour councillors Alex Crawford and Nadia Martin for their work on this issue, and for their engagement with service communities more broadly. I also take this opportunity to mention the UK-Nepal Friendship Society and the Gurkha Equal Rights group, which continue to highlight these issues and have kindly helped my engagement with them over the summer. The strength of feeling on this important issue is summarised neatly by the more than 100,000 people who have signed this petition. Fittingly, the constituency with the largest number of signatories is that of the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). I know that he has engaged with this issue, and I hope this petition serves to once again highlight its significance to his constituents and the wider British public.

As I mentioned earlier, this issue was given renewed urgency by events this summer. On 7 August, a group of three pre-1997 Gurkha veterans were forced to hunger strike outside Downing Street following the Government’s failure to engage with their concerns. No one, particularly not veterans of the British Army, should have to resort to a hunger strike in order to be heard. I went to visit them outside Downing Street to hear campaigners’ views directly, and what struck me most was their desire to be listened to: they just wanted to be heard by the country they had fought for. I visited on day four of their 13-day hunger strike, and had lobbied the Defence Secretary about this issue the previous day. At that time, Ministers were refusing to engage and hoping the issue would go away, but the dignified determination of the Gurkhas would not be denied, and 13 days later the Government committed to further talks.

I remain astonished by the stubbornness of Ministers on this issue, which is first and foremost one of health and safety. Although I do not condone the form of protest, and I am very pleased that the health of those protesting was not seriously affected, I cannot believe that a Government who claim to be so passionately supportive of the armed forces let this happen. It took years of talks and 13 days of hunger striking before a comprehensive response was received. It is the same arrogance we have seen too often from this Government in recent weeks, and those who serve our country deserve so much better.

That brings us to the present day, and my asks of the Minister. The Government have two important opportunities to make progress on this issue. First, I am pleased that the Governments of the UK and of Nepal will soon convene a bilateral committee to discuss Gurkha welfare issues. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out the Government’s approach to those talks, including what he hopes to achieve on pensions. Secondly, as I speak, the Government are yet to respond to their own consultation on whether the Gurkha pension scheme should receive a further uplift. That consultation closed eight months ago, and I would like to think that the Minister is in a position today to finally give us a sense of the direction of travel. Will he commit to publishing the Government’s response before the start of the bilateral talks?

Labour Members understand that this is a complex issue without an easy answer. We understand and appreciate the significant costs involved in any remedy, but we cannot continue to ignore the fundamental lack of equity in this situation, or sweep it under a rug because it is not convenient. Labour has offered to help reach a cross-party agreement on a way forward, and I reiterate that offer today to the Minister. I hope that he will provide long-overdue leadership and accountability on this issue. That is exactly what the service of Gurkhas to our country demands.

Armed Forces Bill

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

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

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Labour has said from the start that this Bill offered a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to make meaningful changes to the day-to-day lives of our forces personnel, veterans and their families. During Armed Forces Week, I had the privilege to bring together veterans of D-day, the Falklands and the Gulf war with Royal Navy and Royal Marine cadets from across Portsmouth. This celebration of service past and present was a powerful reminder of our collective responsibility to keep society’s promises to our nation’s service personnel. That is why Labour worked with service charities, veterans and personnel, and colleagues from across the House, to get the very best for our armed forces from this legislation.

The increased scrutiny the Bill has received means the Government have had many opportunities to listen to the fundamental concerns raised, but Ministers have steadfastly refused to do so at every turn. The Government have let themselves off the hook in delivering for Her Majesty’s forces. The provisions in the Bill do not apply to Government Departments, including, laughably, the Ministry of Defence itself, so while the Government claim the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law the reality is that they have outsourced the delivery of its important promises to others, and without any extra resource with which to do it.

Service charities continue to raise concerns about the Bill’s narrow scope, which risks creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on standards in service areas left out. In practice, this means that long-standing issues facing forces communities, and frequently raised by service charities, will not be addressed. Employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration are all on the long list of areas we know will not be covered. Labour’s amendments forced Ministers to take responsibility and widen the scope of the Bill. Twelve of the UK’s largest service charities, including the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Cobseo and SSAFA, all wrote to Ministers last week backing these proposals, but the Government still voted them down.

On service justice, we welcome the creation of an independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner, and we hope to see Ministers get on with implementing this to ensure greater oversight and fairness in service justice cases. However, the Government refuse to improve access to justice for service personnel by trying rape and serious offences in civilian courts when they are committed in the UK. These proposals are backed by the Deepcut families, who have used their powerful and first-hand experiences of poor service justice investigations to call out the double standard of sudden deaths being handled by civilian police while rape and other serious offences are not.

Almost three quarters of sexual offences in the armed forces in 2020 took place in the UK, and between 2015 and 2020 the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%. The latest data available suggest the conviction rate was 59% in the civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. This issue is disproportionately affecting women of junior rank: more than three quarters of the victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private. Ministers refuse to recognise the weight of evidence from these figures, the experts and campaigners, and instead have relentlessly backed a fudge that will leave personnel vulnerable. That will be on their watch.

Finally, the Government have rejected the golden opportunity provided by Labour to end the shameful scandal of eye-watering visa fees for non-UK service personnel. Ministers cynically cite the long-awaited and underwhelming plans currently under consultation as proof of progress on this disgraceful injustice, but we know that they will help just one in 10 of those affected. The truth is that Ministers are content with making these decisions, but personnel will pay twice to stay in the country they have fought for.

In summary, this is an Armed Forces Bill that provides absolutely nothing for actively serving personnel. It fails to address long-standing and well-known issues facing service communities. It willingly ignores the recommendations of a judge-led review on the service justice system. It reduces appeal time limits for serving personnel brave enough to make a complaint, and it does nothing to end the shameful scandal at eye-watering visa fees for non-UK veterans. The Tories will talk this up as a manifesto promise fulfilled, but by any measure this Bill does not match the high standards our armed forces display in their service and in what they demand of themselves. Tonight, personnel, veterans and their families will rightly be questioning whether this Government really are on their side.

It is Labour that has been working in the interests of service communities. The Tories have dogmatically opposed these efforts, but we will continue to support this Bill, despite its many faults, as the intentions and principles underpinning it are positive. However, we will do so knowing that this Government have fallen far short of delivering the very best for service personnel. This will not be the end of Labour’s efforts to secure improvements for our armed forces communities. We will continue to champion them, and we will work with others in the other place to ensure that the Government deliver on the covenant and in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. They deserve nothing else.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will now suspend the House for two minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.

Armed Forces Bill

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

We have to do it the right way round. We totally acknowledge the central importance of getting investigations right in terms of delivering for our people. We will not seek to reverse-engineer the schedule of work that is before us; we will wait for Sir Richard Henriques to report, then we will calmly consider the best way forward. What I will commit to today is an absolute resolve to deliver a rigorous and sound investigation system, because it is the lack of such provision that has bedevilled our armed forces people over the last 20 years. We do take this very seriously indeed.

Moving now to new clause 2, the Government take very seriously their duty of care for service personnel and veterans under investigation. This was debated at length in the other House during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, and I have engaged with Lord Dannatt, who tabled the original amendment. I therefore wish to highlight two brief points. First, service personnel are entitled to receive comprehensive legal support; and secondly, a full range of welfare and mental health support is routinely offered to all our people. This support is available both while someone is serving and through the dedicated support to veterans through the NHS’s Op Courage in England and its devolved equivalents. We are striving for a gold standard of care and the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement on 13 April details the significant progress made.

In the case of veterans, we continue to deliver further improvements through the veterans’ strategy, so new clause 2 is unnecessary and could result in unintended consequences. A duty of care standard risks becoming a one-size-fits-all approach, leaving personnel without the right support at the right time. The difficulties of drafting such a duty of care would inevitably mean the involvement of the courts and additional litigation. We are clear on our duty to provide the correct support to our personnel, both serving and veterans, and I urge the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) to withdraw new clause 2.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak from the Dispatch Box on this important legislation ahead of Armed Forces Day on Saturday. This Armed Forces Week is a chance to recognise and celebrate the service of our nation’s forces at home and abroad, past and present. Up and down the country, physical and virtual events will be held while the Armed Forces Day flag is flying proudly on buildings and famous landmarks around the UK. I was delighted to attend the flag-raising ceremony here in the House on Monday, where Mr Speaker set an example by signing the covenant. I look forward to events this weekend in my home city of Portsmouth, the heart and home of the Royal Navy.

Today is also Reserves Day, so I would like to take the opportunity to celebrate their contribution to our national defence and resilience. This year in particular has seen reservists contribute to the covid support force, providing medical and logistical support, as well as deploying skills from their professional lives. They remain a unique asset, the hidden heroes among us, balancing work and training. It is vital that they are better integrated into our forces.

It is timely that the Bill comes back before the House today. Labour supports our armed forces and welcomes the principles behind the Bill, which provides a rare opportunity for the Government to deliver meaningful improvements to the day-to-day lives of our forces’ personnel, veterans and their families. Its unusual legislative journey means that we have had a chance to consider it in detail and have a genuine cross-party discussion on how improvements can be made. That is the spirit in which Labour has approached the Bill. We have worked with service personnel, veterans, service charities and colleagues from across the House to get the very best for our forces in this once-in-a-Parliament piece of legislation.

I want to pay tribute to the local authorities, service providers, charities and voluntary organisations that are working hard to make the covenant a reality across the United Kingdom. I also want to thank those who served alongside me on the Bill Select Committee and the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for his leadership in the Chair. Despite that considered and expert input, however, the Government have consistently refused to hear and address fundamental concerns about the Bill. In doing so, they are missing an opportunity to deliver real improvements to the day-to-day lives of service personnel, veterans and their families. Labour’s amendments offer Ministers a fresh opportunity to get that right.

Turning to amendments 1 to 4 and 6, first, evidence from charities such as the Royal British Legion and those delivering services for veterans on the ground has reinforced Labour’s concerns that the Bill is too weak and too narrow. The Bill piles new and vague legal responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, but mysteriously they do not apply to central Government. In practice, this would create a farcical reality where a chair of school governors has a legal responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, do not. As the Legion itself has pointed out, many of the policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national Government or based on national guidance. Ministers must not be allowed to outsource the delivery of important promises in the armed forces covenant. Also, the Bill’s limited focus on housing, healthcare and education risks creating a two-tier covenant. This could start a race to the bottom on standards in other areas and will bake in the existing postcode lottery on access to services. Social care, pensions, employment and immigration are among the long list of areas we know will not be covered by this once-in-a-Parliament piece of legislation as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that provision is vital? In the evidence sessions for the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act we heard moving testimony from Major Bob Campbell, who was reinvestigated over many years. One stark thing that he said was that he felt abandoned by the MOD. Supporting individuals who are going through these investigations is vital, and without what is being proposed, individuals such as Major Campbell will continue not to get the support that they deserve.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. He was a tireless advocate for the points that he raised in the Bill Committee and I know that we will continue to work together to make sure that the Government listen to our demands.

[Ian Paisley]

I am delighted that the shadow Minister will continue to pursue that matter. Will he ensure that the principle then extends to those who have served at home, to make sure that the commitments that have been made about resolving the legacy issues and addressing these vexatious issues that have arisen from some very contemptible people will be addressed expeditiously? Will he join me in encouraging the Government to get that matter on to the Floor of the House before the summer recess?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. I know that he has also been expressing these concerns for quite some time. It is unsatisfactory that we are still hearing from Government that they are thinking about this. We need certainty for those affected, and I hope the Government bring forward proposals as soon as possible.

New clause 4 would begin to repair the damage done by the previous treatment of LGBT+ veterans. The Committee will know that the ban on homosexuality in the British armed forces was lifted in January 2000 by the then Labour Government. During the ban, many were dishonourably discharged or forced from service, losing access to pensions and benefits. Some were also stripped of medals that they had earned during their service.

There are practical impacts from that discrimination, such as the loss of pension and the inability to wear ceremonial uniforms or medals. Those are all humiliations that should not be endured by anyone who has served our country. Some may still be on the sex offenders register, which is simply outrageous, but there will also be untold challenges for mental health and wellbeing. I therefore take this opportunity to thank Fighting With Pride for its compassion and courageous work to support those impacted by this issue and for working with us on the new clause. I also place on record my appreciation for the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on this issue.

In February 2020, the Government announced that former armed forces personnel who were dismissed from service on the basis of their sexuality could apply to have their medals restored. That is an important first step towards justice for those who were thrown out of the armed forces simply because of their sexuality. New clause 4 encourages Ministers to continue that work first by setting out the numbers affected, and then by considering the restoration of ranks, pensions and other forms of compensation that would be appropriate. Only then can we be appropriately honouring those who have served our country with courage and distinction.

Finally, new clause 8, titled “Armed Forces Federation”, would establish a representative body for the armed forces akin to the Police Federation. It would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. It has been clear for some time now that the armed forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses that came before us on the Bill Select Committee have reinforced that, and we continue to hear shocking stories of abuse within units. We have also heard that continued delays discourage the use of the service complaints system and concerns persist that careers will be under threat if personnel complain.

Most members of the armed forces have 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 our national defence, the time has come to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay. The federation would not be equivalent to a trade union for the armed forces, in that it would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination with 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. Although the proposal might be seen as radical or dangerous by some, other nations including the United States and Australia already have similar models embedded in existing command structures. Our armed forces give their lives for us. Ministers should seize this opportunity to give them a real voice.

In conclusion, taken together, Labour’s amendments would truly deliver improvements for our forces personnel, veterans and their families. It would be the height of hypocrisy if the Government were to heap well-deserved praise on service communities to mark Armed Forces Week while voting against their interests in the Commons today. Labour continues to stand squarely behind our armed forces, and we take the delivery of the promises made in the covenant seriously. For us it is not about a performative show of support at a politically convenient moment, but an enduring commitment to honour the promises our society has made to those who serve. The Tories like to talk up their commitment to our armed forces, but it is Labour that is working with colleagues across the House to make sure we get the very best for them, for today and tomorrow.

During Armed Forces Week, this Government should not just celebrate and thank, they must also deliver for our forces communities.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 31st March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Carol Monaghan]

I just want to add a couple of comments. Both these new clauses seem to worry the Government, and we have to wonder why. I think many personnel will wonder, “Why would the Government not wish to support these proposals?” A body that can speak for armed forces personnel on issues such as housing, terms and conditions, and pay would surely be a benefit. If personnel could raise these issues themselves, it could avoid situations such as those that we have seen recently through the National Audit Office report on the poor quality of single living accommodation.

It is important that we look at other bodies that work. The Police Federation would be a good example. In the Police Federation, individuals do not have the ability to strike and there is no threat to the chain of command. Despite us raising these issues time and again, the Government simply throw the same lazy arguments back at us. Those lazy arguments include, “We don’t want anything that undermines the chain of command.” This organisation would operate separately; it would be a body that personnel could go to without breaching the chain of command. All of us here understand the importance of that.

What arguments is the Minister going to come up with for opposing these new clauses? We have heard the same arguments time and again on strikes and chain of command, but we have said that these new clauses are no threat to those things. What can the Minister tell us other than that? Why would he not want to support personnel when they are looking for improvement? I do not think any of us would argue about what they want. They want decent housing, and decent terms and conditions; and we should not have any problem with that. I am really interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 10, taken together with amendments 3 to 6, is designed to ensure that the Government fulfil their commitment to fully enshrine the armed forces covenant into law, and that it is delivered to all service personnel, veterans and their families. As I previously noted on amendments 3 to 6, the Bill as drafted attempts to absolve central Government of the responsibility to deliver the armed forces covenant. Instead, it places the burden on cash-strapped local authorities and other public bodies, and provides no new resources with which to deliver it.

The new clause would strengthen the duty of due regard. It would build a conscious commitment to all aspects of the covenant into the framework of Government public policy, and mandate Ministers to provide evidence of where they have done that. Serving personnel, veterans and their families access a great range of services from across Government Departments, local authorities and other public bodies, but the Royal British Legion has pointed out that policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are often ultimately the responsibility of national Government or based on national guidance provided to other delivery partners.

Placing the burden entirely on local authorities and other public bodies conveniently leaves out the responsibilities that the Government have to veterans in areas such as pensions, compensation and even social care, where central Government set the policy that is delivered by local authorities. It also means that serving personnel who rely on the MOD for most services are not currently included in scope. At the moment, the Bill does little to reinforce and support the welfare of those who are actively serving. After a year in which they have been bolstering our frontline efforts to tackle coronavirus, in addition to carrying out continued deployments overseas, nothing is more illustrative of the low ambition with which the Government have approached the Bill.

The operation of the new clause is similar to that of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which ensures that relevant new legislation and guidance pass a climate change litmus test. Why would we not require the same standards for our armed forces communities? The covenant contains laudable commitments that should be delivered to those who have served our country with courage and distinction, but for many in service communities it is a well-meaning but nebulous document that cannot be relied on to make any tangible difference to their day-to-day lives, as we have heard from witnesses and seen in successive reports. A practical example is the debate around priority care for veterans. That is guaranteed by the covenant, but as Cobseo pointed out in the armed forces covenant annual report, it is implemented in an inconsistent manner, and its ambiguity can cause problems on the ground.

We know that the statutory guidance that will give meaning to the legislation will not be published in full until Royal Assent. That means that politicians, service charities and, most importantly, service communities will not understand whether the Bill actually delivers until it has passed. Why are the Government happy to take that chance? The new clause is an antidote to the ambiguity and fragmentation of the current system of covenant delivery. It consciously builds the concept of “no disadvantage” into policy making across public bodies and offers an opportunity to give actionable meaning to the laudable but sometimes ambiguous commitments in the covenant. Taken together withother proposals, it will clarify the promises in the covenant and ensure that all aspects are deliverable in practice for service personnel, veterans and their families.

[Mrs Hodgson]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South. I rise to speak to new clause 14, which calls on the Government to record and then report the following: first, the number of veterans, or families of veterans, who have contacted the Office for Veterans’ Affairs or Veterans UK each year, with an overview of the most commonly mentioned reasons for that contact; secondly, the number of veterans who have applied for a veterans’ railcard, as well as the number of veterans who have applied to the civil service interview scheme, and the proportion who have been successful; thirdly, the number of veterans in the street homeless population; and, finally, the number of veterans who have died by suicide.

I know that the Minister is working on all those areas, but the reality is that without the data we cannot establish what more may need to be done. He is right to celebrate having the veterans’ question on the census for the first time. I look forward to seeing the data published as a result of that. He also often celebrates the veterans’ railcard and the civil service interview scheme, which is why we are keen to hear how they are doing. I have tabled some written questions to find out, and it looks like both are going really well.

New clause 14 relates to my previous speech on public services asking if someone is a veteran or reservist. Such a measure would improve services and help government—at a local and national level—to make policies to address shortfalls. For example, in July to September 2020, 460 households were reported as having additional support needs due to a member having served in the armed forces. But not all local authorities ask, or consistently record and report this data.

We have only a small insight into the number of veterans represented in the street homeless population in London. In 2019-20, 376 people seen sleeping rough in London were recorded as having served in the armed forces; 129 of them were UK nationals. That is an increase from 2018-19, when 322 people seen sleeping rough in London—115 of whom were UK nationals—were recorded as having served in the armed forces. But, again, not all rough sleepers are assessed on their armed forces history, so we cannot say for certain whether these trends reflect what is happening in the whole population of rough sleepers.

Similarly, we do not know the scale of veterans’ suicide. I know that this is a complex issue that the MOD is working on, alongside a further study by Professor Nav Kapur from the University of Manchester, who is looking into the causes of veteran suicide. However, if coroners were mandated to record the service history of the person who has died by suicide, we would be a step closer to understanding the scale of veteran suicide and whether being a veteran played any part in a suicide, as it is not always a contributing factor. New clause 14 seeks to measure the scale of the issue so that we can understand and address it.

I hope that the Minister will see merit in recording and reporting this data to better improve our understanding of veterans’ lives and the challenges they face, and therefore to improve the Government’s response to the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

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

This clause is designed to take long-overdue comprehensive action to tackle the low standard of accommodation that our service personnel face. It will require the Government to report annually on the standard of service accommodation, including the number below minimum standards and where they are located. It will also place a duty on Ministers to provide a service housing charter, which will set and enforce a common minimum standard across all service housing.

As I have said when speaking to previous amendments, as currently drafted the duty to have due regard does not apply to Government Departments. This means that service accommodation, which is the responsibility of the MOD, is not currently included in the Bill. This new clause seeks to change that, and to respond to the widespread concerns raised repeatedly by service charities, service personnel, the Select Committee on Defence and the National Audit Office.

According to the armed forces continuous attitude survey, 40% of tri-service personnel live in single living accommodation, and 31% live in service families accommodation. A third of both these groups are dissatisfied with the overall quality of their accommodation. Roughly half of both these groups are dissatisfied with the response to maintenance requests, and a further 45% of personnel are dissatisfied with the quality of that work. This has been reinforced by the recent NAO report on SLA, which detailed a £1.5 billion backlog of repairs and an appalling prevalence of issues with heating and hot water. Even the chief operating officer of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation has conceded that the current quality-grading system for single living accommodation is complex. Yet it finds that 36% of personnel live in grade 4 or below, which is the lowest of the categories, and there is no minimum standard. Problems with heating and hot water are widespread.

The Government have committed funds to the modernisation programme, which is welcome, but it will take significant time to come to fruition. In the meantime, it is essential that we have a transparent picture of standards for which Ministers and civil servants are accountable. When we look at service family accommodation, it is the fix-on-fail contracts that cause so much trouble. Although Ministers say that Amey is meeting its key performance indicators, I suggest that these need to be reviewed, as the reality for service families is very different.

Last week, I spoke to naval families living in SFA in Portsmouth. They described huge waits for maintenance appointments and botched jobs that exacerbate problems and leave homes in shameful states of repair. I understand that service family accommodation is subject to a decent homes standard, but this in itself should be reviewed and the Government should aspire to far better for our service personnel.

Although the provision of service accommodation is split, with some being provided directly by the MOD and the rest being outsourced, it does not prevent a clear minimum standard from being applied across the board. This is simply a question of creating the homes fit for heroes that our service personnel deserve, and it should be a top priority.

It also poses a fundamental risk to recruitment, retention and morale. The 2020 armed forces continuous attitude survey found that 29% of personnel say that accommodation actively increases their propensity to leave. The Committee was due to visit service housing as part of its consideration of the Bill, but the Secretary of State mysteriously vetoed it at the last minute. Perhaps he was embarrassed by the unacceptable standards that our service personnel too often endure.

I would like to ask the Minister some very specific questions, and I look forward to his answers today. How does he justify the omission of the MOD among those responsible for having due regard to the covenant? Does he acknowledge the need for greater transparency on the overall quality of service accommodation? Will he undertake a review of Amey’s KPIs, and how will the Government incentivise a move from fix-on-fail? Will he consider establishing a minimum standard across all service accommodation?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South for so clearly setting out the arguments for this new clause. For years, service personnel have had to put up with accommodation that is not up to scratch, and this Bill would have been a perfect opportunity to make some real, positive changes to rectify that.

When we heard from David Brewer and Tim Redfern a couple of weeks ago they were very keen to promote their successes but, as we all know and as recent surveys have shown, nearly half of our service personnel remain dissatisfied with their living arrangements.

I am sure we have all heard from constituents about acceptable housing, so today I would like to hear from the Minister about how exactly he is going to improve conditions for those who serve and their families. The state of accommodation has a big impact on the retention of staff. When more than a quarter of personnel are saying that accommodation is one reason for leaving the services, we know something just is not right. The loss of experienced, trained service personnel is not cost-effective, nor does it contribute to the state of readiness of our armed forces. Clarity and transparency are vital to improving conditions for our tri-service personnel, and I will be supporting the introduction of new clause 11 as it would go some way towards improving the current situation.

[Johnny Mercer]

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South seeks to place an obligation on the Ministry of Defence to commission an annual report to evaluate what constitutes the minimum quality standards for service accommodation and how many service personnel reside in accommodation that does not meet those criteria.

Our armed forces personnel are the heart of everything we do. As a condition of service and in recognition of their inherently mobile lifestyle, frequently remote bases and terms of service, regular service personnel are provided with high-quality, subsidised accommodation. Defence already operates a quality standard for all service family accommodation properties and is in the process of developing accommodation standards for single living accommodation. The Department has made a commitment to service personnel and their families to provide decent living standards through the service family accommodation customer service charter. The charter formally commits the Department to improve the condition and standard of the service family accommodation estate, sustaining improved levels of maintenance and repair performance and enhancing the customer service delivery that they receive from Amey Defence Services.

Defence has invested £1.2 billion over the last decade on construction and upgrades of our single living accommodation, and we continue to invest in a range of new build and renovation projects. My Department currently plans to invest a further £1.5 billion in single living accommodation, new build and upgrade projects over the next 10 to 12 years. That is more money going into SLA. As part of the wider £200 million upgrade programme for service family accommodation and single living accommodation that was announced by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence in July 2020, an additional £78 million will be invested in single living accommodation and transit accommodation by 2022.

With regard to applying a minimum standard of accommodation, I am pleased to report that service family accommodation already adheres to the decent homes standard, as defined by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Currently, 96.9% of SFA properties meet or exceed the standard, with work ongoing to modernise internal features across the estate. The standard of available housing is monitored on a monthly basis, and housing that does not meet the decent homes standard is not allocated to service personnel. The decent homes standard is currently being reviewed by MHCLG, and I look forward to considering the findings of the review and the impact that has on defence.

Work is ongoing through the SLA expert group to define an agreed minimum standard for SLA premises across all services. This work will also be supported by the roll-out of the SLA management information system, which will enable an evidence-based approach to the application of future funding through the analysis and exploitation of veracious accommodation data. The system has proved to be both complex and multifaceted, but it is now on track to go live in September 2021.

We conduct the armed forces continuous attitude survey annually, and it allows service personnel the opportunity to provide feedback on all aspects of service life, including accommodation. The results of the survey are used to identify particular aspects of the service accommodation package that require improvement. The publication of the defence accommodation strategy by the end of 2021 will formalise the Department’s vision for our standards for such accommodation to meet the lived experience and expectations of our personnel now and in the future.

Given the scale of ongoing work to improve the standard of accommodation offered to service personnel, backed by significant investment in infrastructure and the existing procedures to monitor standards, it would be premature to require the Department to report on standards and produce a charter at this stage. The review of the decent homes standard is currently ongoing in MHCLG and is due to report in summer 2022. Following those assurances, I hope my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the motion.

[Stephen Morgan]

This is perhaps the most fundamental standards issue. I posed a number of questions to the Minister, and it is regrettable that he has not answered those today. The Bill is a missed opportunity to tackle this issue, which the Government need to take further action on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion, but we may return to it on Report.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Mental health report

“(1) No later than 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report which must include—

(a) a definition of what constitutes ‘priority care’ as set out in Armed Forces Covenant and how the Secretary of State is working to ensure that it is being provided, and

(b) a review of waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans accessing mental health support.

(2) The first report published under this section must also include a resource plan to meet current Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service waiting time targets for the offer of an appointment in England and set new targets for mental health recovery through the veterans mental health pathway.”—(Mrs Hodgson.)

This new clause would require the Government to produce a definition of ‘priority care’ to help primary care clinicians deliver the commitments in the Armed Forces Covenant, conduct a review of mental health waiting time targets for service personnel and veterans, and produce a resource plan to meet current waiting time targets.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

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

The new clause is designed to address the frankly extortionate visa fees that Commonwealth veterans face to remain in the country that they fought for following their service. This is a long-standing and shameful practice, and I am pleased that Labour is bringing forward a solution. The clause proposes to ensure that Commonwealth veterans pay only the unit cost of an indefinite leave to remain application, currently set at £243.

It is a source of immense pride that those from across the world have served in our armed forces—from the 1.3 million Indians who volunteered to join the British Army in the first world war, to those who took part in operational tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, more than 6,000 personnel serve in the forces from overseas, many from the Commonwealth. Alongside servicemen and women from this country, they continue to make extraordinary sacrifices and display incredible bravery, risking their lives overseas and more recently bolstering our frontline response to the coronavirus crisis, but the Government are shamefully letting them down.

Following four years of service, Commonwealth service personnel earn the right to live in Britain, but in recent years the Government have increased the fees for service personnel to apply. A service leaver with a partner and two children will be presented with a bill of almost £10,000 to continue to live in the UK after they have served. That is an increase from just £155 in 2003. To add further insult, they are given just 48 days following the discharge in which to pay it. That is dishonourable, unfair and certainly no way to repay the bravery and sacrifice of Commonwealth service personnel.

This is not just a moral argument about appropriately recognising their service; it is an issue of basic humanity. Those eye-watering fees represent a huge part of applicants’ wages, and many are not expecting them. The Royal British Legion, which has campaigned strongly on this issue for several years, suggests that around 300 Commonwealth personnel leave service and are faced with those fees. The fees leave Commonwealth veterans facing huge uncertainty and financial hardship, and feeling abandoned by the country that they have served.

Citizenship for Soldiers is doing fantastic work, as we heard in an evidence session, to advocate for those affected by this injustice. One of the claimants it represents, a 12-year veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, was given a bill in the region of £30,000 following an emergency operation, after he was deemed ineligible for free NHS care. As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, without leave to remain, Commonwealth veterans are cut off from being able to access employment or state support. That often leads veterans reliant on their families or charitable funds, or facing repatriation to their country of origin.

That is a breach of not only the armed forces covenant but the moral obligation that this country has to them. Successive armed forces covenant annual reports have pointed that out. The Royal British Legion and other service charities have explicitly called for this injustice to end. It should bring shame to us all. I know that many on the Committee sympathise with the new cause—including you, Mr Sunderland—and I hope that we will find the courage to support the amendment when it comes to a vote. Even the Minister has repeatedly said that this is an injustice, yet the Bill misses a crucial opportunity to end it.

Commonwealth veterans have already paid for their citizenship once, through their service to our country. I hope that colleagues from across the political spectrum will support Labour’s new clause to ensure that no one has to pay twice.

[Johnny Mercer]

Let us be absolutely clear: Labour has done absolutely nothing on this issue since visa fees came in, and it offers nothing for our armed forces, so we should drop the doe-eyed “Labour care about humanity” stuff. Only one Government have come in and promised to do something on visa fees, and that is this Government, not one before. I am proud of that. We will provide a pathway to residency and we are looking to start a public consultation on that in the next month.

The Government highly value the service of all members of the armed forces, including Commonwealth nationals and Gurkhas from Nepal, who have a long and distinguished history of service to the UK both here and overseas. Commonwealth citizens and Gurkhas who have served at least four years or have been medically discharged as a result of their service can choose to settle in the UK after their service and pay the relevant fee.

The time before discharge that such settlement applications can be submitted has recently been extended from 10 to 18 weeks. We recognise, however, that settlement fees place a financial burden on service personnel wishing to remain in the UK after their discharge, and we recognise the strength of feeling from service charities and the public about this issue. The Defence Secretary has met the Home Secretary to consider how we could offer greater flexibility in future. We will launch a public consultation in the next month. I urge all those with an interest in the issue to respond to that consultation so that we may correct this injustice.

It is right and proper that we seek views on any change to the immigration fees policy through public consultation. In the meantime, the MOD makes clear to Commonwealth and Gurkha recruits the process by which they and their families can attain settlement in the UK, and the costs involved. The MOD is also working with the Joining Forces credit union to provide financial education, savings packages and loan packages to help non-UK personnel pay for visa costs, should they wish to remain and settle in the UK after their service. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member will agree not to press the new clause.

[Stephen Morgan]

We do not believe that is a satisfactory response from the Minister. Ministers from successive Conservative Governments have promised a solution on this forever and a day. Commonwealth veterans should not have to wait until some time never for a consultation to kick off.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister did not tell the Committee that since 2010 the fees charged have increased from £840 to £2,389, which has made a real difference in the burden? Those decisions were taken by the coalition and Conservative Governments.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. I alluded to some of the figures in my speech. Regrettably, the Minister did not cover that in his response. That is why—

[Johnny Mercer]

I am happy to respond.

[Stephen Morgan]

I will carry on, because I am near to the end of my speech. I will not press the new clause for now, but I put Ministers on notice that we will return to this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Sharon Hodgson, do you wish to move new clause 14?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

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

The new clause is designed to provide greater transparency on the strength of our fighting forces, following the Government’s broken promises on armed forces cuts. It would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each quarter on the fighting strength of our armed forces, including on the number of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.

As the Committee knows, the Prime Minister promised to end the era of retreat, and that no further cuts would be made to the Army. Instead, he has further eroded our fighting strength: 45,000 personnel have been cut since 2010, and the forces were 10,000 below target strength. Now the integrated review and the Command Paper have confirmed that the Army will be further reduced to just 72,500 by 2025—smaller than at any time since the 1700s. That has been compounded by a leaked MOD report suggesting that 32 to 33 infantry battalions are short of battle-ready personnel.

The Chief of the Defence Staff said in 2015 that the ability to yield a single war-fighting division was

“the standard whereby a credible army is judged”.

Recently retired British generals have said that further cuts to the Army would mean that the UK is no longer taken seriously as a military power and would damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO. The Royal United Services Institute recently reinforced that point, suggesting that the cuts mean that the UK can no longer be considered a tier 1 or full-spectrum military power.

These sweeping changes to our armed forces represent a huge gamble with our national security. Although the battlefield is undeniably changing, it remains to be seen whether the investments made in cyber, space and electronic warfare will be enough to keep us competitive on the world stage.

Government cuts to the conventional strength of our forces today, with the promise of jam tomorrow in the form of pioneering technology, are nothing new. Tory Ministers promised the same in the 2010 and 2015 reviews, but they failed to deliver. In 2010 they promised a future force by 2020, and in 2015 they promised a war-fighting division with a strike force by 2025. It is now being promised in 2030. A recent Defence Committee report on the Army’s armoured vehicle capability says that the division will be “hopelessly under-equipped” and overmatched by adversaries.

While we wait to see whether the Government finally deliver a coherent strategy for our national security, it is vital that we have a clear understanding of our fighting strength. Successive Conservative Governments have talked up their commitment to our armed forces, but they have broken their promises at every turn. Our adversaries will exploit continuing holes in our capability, and Labour is determined to ensure that our country can protect itself properly now and in the future.

[Mr Jones]

I rise to support this new clause because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South has outlined, promises have been broken not just by this Government but since 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party argued for a larger defence budget, an increase in numbers, more equipment, and a commitment to the armed forces of our country. Since then, we have not just seen the size of the Army reduced; we have seen cuts in numbers in the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, and in the Royal Air Force. Under the coalition, we had the terrible situation where brave members of our armed forces were made compulsorily redundant—again, something that was never promised in 2010. Certainly, if a Labour Government had implemented that policy, Members on the Tory Benches would have opposed it and would have been highly critical of the Government for doing so.

The overall size of our armed forces does matter, not only in terms of the Army being able to deploy individuals but to ensure that, for example, the Royal Navy has enough personnel to put ships to sea. We can have as much equipment as we want, but if we do not have the individual servicemen and servicewomen to support that equipment, it is useless. In the past few years, we have seen naval ships tied up because of a lack of trained strength, so it is important that we have this report annually and also that it talks about trained strength, because the Government do play fast and loose with the numbers.

It is not just a matter of the overall size, but what the overall capability is and how many members of the armed forces can actually deploy. There has been a decade of decline in the UK’s armed forces, and although the Minister and others champion the idea that they are supporting members of the armed forces, they have been part of a Government that have not only cut pay—as we have already spoken about this morning—but cut the actual numbers of the armed forces.

Another aspect I would like to raise is the lack of opportunity this will mean for many young people in constituencies such as mine, who proudly join the armed services to not only serve their country, but ensure they can have a career that they can be proud of and take those skills back into civilian life. The cuts will have an impact in constituencies across the country that provide men and women for the armed forces, because there will be a lack of opportunities. A lot of negative things are said about service in the armed forces, but I see service as a positive thing, where the people joining not only contribute to the safety that we all take for granted but, more importantly, get great career opportunities and opportunities that they would never have in civilian life. Once they leave, that expertise helps those individuals, and also helps local communities such as mine in North Durham. These cuts will limit the opportunities for those people, which saddens me, and is something we should bear in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I really welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham. He is right about the absolute disaster zone we were left with in 2010. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham obviously likes to remind us regularly of his experiences in the MOD, but the key would be to look at them in detail and to be more honest about them. Ultimately, people watching this do not really care what happened 10, 15 or 20 years ago. What they care about is sorting out these issues now and that is what this Government are looking to do.

We have to meet the threat as it is presented in the integrated review. We have had a good defence White Paper that looks at the new and emerging threats, and the way we want to change our integrated operating concept. It is a good review. I think that members of our armed forces would like to see people get behind that, rather than talking about issues that are quite significantly out of date.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South seeks to place an obligation on the Defence Secretary to

“report to Parliament quarterly on infantry battalion soldier strength, including the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.”

The Government already publish on gov.uk quarterly service personnel statistics, containing detailed information on the strength, intake, outflow and gains to trained strength for the UK armed forces overall and specifically for each of the three services, including the Army. Providing a further breakdown of those figures to include infantry battalion soldier strength and the percentage of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion would be highly likely to prejudice the security of the armed forces for three clear reasons.

First, it would expose any extant or potential vulnerabilities and capability gaps within the force structure—a threat that will be exacerbated over the next four years as the Army reconfigures and readjusts in line with the outcomes of the integrated reviewed. Secondly, it would risk exposing any nascent and emerging capability plan. Thirdly, it could reveal the size and strength of sensitive capabilities to our adversaries.

As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South will understand, the safety and security of our service personnel and the effectiveness of our force are among my highest priorities. He will therefore understand that I am not willing to put the security of our personnel at risk in this manner. There is also a real concern that focusing Parliament’s attention disproportionately on infantry strength would serve only to undermine the guiding principle of our nation’s future security.

As the Secretary of State wrote in his introduction to the defence Command Paper, it is essential that our future armed forces are

“integrated across all domains, joining up our people, equipment and information to increase their outputs and effectiveness.”

It goes without saying that providing quarterly updates on infantry strength alone would place an uncontextualised and unhelpful emphasis on one part of a large and integrated whole force that we value highly. That is why our current reporting, which is made available to all, covers that whole force.

In the light of these very real concerns, I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the new clause.

[Stephen Morgan]

National security is the first duty of any Government. Following the publication of the integrated review and Command Paper, it is clear that this Government have not only broken their promises on fighting strength, but taken a significant gamble with our national security in the medium term. I will withdraw this clause for now, but reserve the right to return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament reports on the number of people who have been dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, this includes—

(a) formal documentation citing sexuality as the reason for their dismissal; or

(b) there is evidence of sexuality or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.

(c) in this section, ‘sexuality or gender identity’ includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.

(2) The report shall include recommendation of the sort of compensation which may be appropriate, including but not limited to—

(a) the restoration of ranks,

(b) pensions, and

(c) other forms of financial compensation.

(3) The report shall include a review of those service personnel who as a result of their sexuality have criminal convictions for sex offences and/or who are on the Sex Offenders register.

(4) The report shall include discharges and forced resignations at least back to 1955.

(5) The first report must be laid no later than six months after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Dan Carden.)

This new clause requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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.

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.