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

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 8th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Johnny Mercer]

Q Why do you think the MOD has not taken on your advice?

Judge Blackett: I think in terms of the six-month time limit, there were lawyers in the MOD who said that we did not put that in the Armed Forces Act 2006. There are commanding officers who do not want to be limited, because sometimes they need more time. In terms of better case management, I think that the MOD thinks that is a good idea, but I did not come to it until quite late in my time.

I will say one thing, though. In terms of IHAT and Northmoor, as the Judge Advocate General I wanted to be more involved, but I was kept out—properly, I suppose, because I might have to try the cases in the end. We expected a lot of cases to come out of those two matters, and as you know, not a single case came out of them, which tells its own story.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Judge Blackett, for being so willing to come before the Committee to hear our concerns and to help us improve the Bill. You described the Bill as ill conceived. Can you explain why you had that view?

Judge Blackett: Yes. Perhaps I can say this. I wondered why, in the face of all the opposition—there is huge opposition, from various bodies—the Government seemed intent to pursue this particular issue. I have three concerns about the Bill. One is the presumption against prosecution, one is the wording in clause 3(2)(a), and the other is the requirement for Attorney General consent.

I listened very carefully to what Johnny Mercer said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights a couple of days ago. He described a pathway that goes from civil claims for compensation. That becomes allegations of criminal behaviour. That leads to investigation. That leads to re-investigation. I think that is the pathway you described, Mr Mercer. He said the lock was a presumption against prosecution, and Attorney General consent. I can understand, looking back, how you might get to that, but I think that logic is flawed, because actually he agreed that the issue of concern is investigations, which is my concern as well, and the length of time they take. He accepted, as he would, that all allegations must be investigated. That acceptance and a presumption against prosecution just do not equate, in my terms.

Let us look at some statistics. In my time as JAG, we have had eight trials involving overseas operations, with 27 defendants, of whom 10 were convicted. There were obviously trials. I did the two murder trials. The first murder trial was about the murder of a chap called Nadhem Abdullah by 3 Para. That was a case called Evans. The events took place in 2003; the trial was in 2005. In the case of Blackman, Marine A, the unlawful killing took place in 2011; he and two others were tried in 2013. So the system worked and due process went along. There were eight trials.

At the same time, there were 3,400 allegations in IHAT and 675 allegations in Northmoor. We all know how long they took, and nothing came out of them. So I agree wholeheartedly with what the Minister is trying to do. I am absolutely behind protecting service personnel. I simply do not believe this Bill does it, because I cannot see that a bar on prosecution or—sorry—a presumption against prosecution is going to stop the ambulance chasing that the Government are so worried about.

My second concern, of course, was the International Criminal Court. Take a case like Blackman, for instance, where there was a video of him shooting somebody. Had that come to light over five years later and there was a presumption against prosecution, first of all, the investigation would have taken place. The prosecutor could have said, “The presumption exists. Therefore I am not going to prosecute.” That would lead to a victim right of review, perhaps. More importantly, it would lead the International Criminal Court to say, “You are unable or unwilling—article 17 of the Rome statute—to prosecute. Therefore we’ll take this and we’ll put him to The Hague.” That is a real concern of mine.

The prosecutor could decide there is a case to answer, but he would send it to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General says either, “Prosecute”—in which case, so what?—or no, and you have exactly the same thing: judicial review of his decision by all sorts of people, and the International Criminal Court saying, again, “You are unable or unwilling.”

In my view, what this Bill does is exactly the opposite of what it is trying to do. What it is trying to do is to stop ambulance-chasing solicitors and vexatious and unmeritorious claims. The Minister quite rightly said we want rigour and integrity. What it actually does is increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court. That is why I said it was ill conceived.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q Thank you for that thorough and comprehensive answer. You mentioned earlier being kept out of discussions. One theme that has come out from the witnesses over the last few days has been about more engagement and consultation on what the Bill is trying to do and its contents. Is it unusual for someone in your position not to be formally consulted on the Bill’s contents?

Judge Blackett: No. My office is nearly always consulted on legislation, particularly when I went through the 2006 Act. I was heavily involved in that and, subsequently, with the other quinquennial reviews. I do not understand why my office was not consulted. There have been occasions in the past where paperwork has got lost when we have been consulted. I personally was not, but my office dealt with it. That was not the case here—we simply were not consulted.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q So it was quite unusual?

Judge Blackett: It was unusual. Whether it was pressure of time or whether officials wondered what I was going to say and did not want to hear it, I do not know.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q What difference would that formal consultation have made?

Judge Blackett: I would have hoped that we could have influenced the Bill, because I think a Bill is a good idea, but it has to have the right contents. Had I been able to have an input, perhaps on the format as I have just described, I do not know whether it would all have made it into the Bill, but at least it could have been discussed.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q On a point of clarification, you said it is very unusual for you not to be consulted, but you started off by saying you were not consulted on any of the other investigations when they were set up. Is that correct?

Judge Blackett: That is a different matter. That is apples and pears. I am consulted on policy development, even though I am an independent judge. In terms of individual cases then clearly—and properly, at the time—I was not consulted. I was going to have to deal with the serious matters that came out of it, so I was not consulted. I was told that there might be a case—“There is possibly a case. Can you clear seven weeks in the diary to sit in a case, sometime in the future?”—but I was not consulted about how the investigations were going on.

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

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 8th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

For your information, in case you are not aware, we have a witness here in the room, Mr Charles Byrne, so we will be alternating between you and Mr Byrne. We have some logistical challenges, because we have to adhere to social distancing, so I am sure you will bear with us if those arise. We have until 12.15 for this session. I call on Stephen Morgan to begin the questioning.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Q 155 Thank you, Chair. May I place on the record our gratitude for the work of the British Legion and other charities in this challenging time for our country? It has been an important year for the nation. Charles, does any aspect of the Bill risk breaching the armed forces covenant?

Charles Byrne: Thank you for the question. We welcome and understand the good intent behind the Bill. However, we have raised concerns that the six-year longstop could be a breach of the armed forces covenant, because it restricts the ability of armed forces personnel to bring a civil claim against their employer. As far as I understand it, that longstop limit does not apply elsewhere. That is the concern we have exactly.

[Stephen Morgan]

So it would breach the armed forces covenant, in your view?

Charles Byrne: That is what we think, yes.

[Stephen Morgan]

Can I put the same question to the general?

General Sir John McColl: First, I absolutely agree with Charles’s support for the intent of the Bill. The pernicious harassment of servicemen by the legal profession following the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan was absolutely disgraceful. We commend the efforts of the Government in bringing forward this legislation to try to address that issue.

In terms of the advantages and disadvantages, we absolutely acknowledge that the six-year cut-off will disadvantage some elements of the community—we understand that it is about 6% of cases. Of course, there is a judgment to be made between that disadvantage and the disadvantage experienced by the 94%, or the significant number of people, who may be subject to harassment. That is the balance of advantage.

I just observe, sitting in front of you as the chairman of the Confederation of Service Charities, that we members of the service charity community are not experts in law, human rights or legislation. Those are the remit of politicians, officials and lawyers. We can talk in broad terms about the interests of our community. We cannot talk about the detail of how to achieve the laudable intent of trying to put a stop to this appalling harassment.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q Thank you for those answers, and for setting out your concerns about part 2 of the Bill. What do you want to see addressed? What would improve the legislation, based on the comments you have made?

Charles Byrne: Anything that can be done to address the fundamental concern about that six-year longstop. As I say, we support the intent behind the Bill and welcome that the impact on mental health is explicitly called out; that is very good. While there is good there, we think that the Bill could be improved if it is possible to address the six-year longstop that limits the ability to bring civil cases. There is some difficulty in the numbers as well—the 6% that Sir John refers to. We could look into the detail that sits behind that.

General Sir John McColl: We encourage continuing consultation to find ways of ameliorating the difficulties of the 6%. However, we observe that the overriding requirement is to ensure that this harassment ceases.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q I understand that the British Legion has seen a copy of the Bill’s impact assessment. Are there any concerns in there that you want to bring to the attention of the Committee?

Charles Byrne: No. To be honest, I have not been through it in detail.

[The Chair]

I think the Minister has a follow-up question, which he will have to deliver from the microphone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

No, because what we are looking to do is to protect, and to ensure that our servicemen are not disadvantaged.

Charles Byrne: I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel—that is the debate that we have had.

[Stephen Morgan]

Could we go back to constructive questions, rather than an interrogation?

[The Chair]

Indeed. I think we will have the opportunity for some of the issues that the Minister has raised in the parliamentary debate and in the subsequent discussion in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

Q There are proposals to put the armed forces covenant into law next year. Do you think a legally binding covenant and the Bill are compatible under English law?

Charles Byrne: Can you say that again?

[Stephen Morgan]

Do you think a legally binding covenant is compatible with what we see in the Bill, in terms of the proposals that will be brought before Parliament next year?

Charles Byrne: It is an interesting question. On the general principle of strengthening the force of the armed forces covenant, I welcome that. In all honesty, on the considerations of how this might play out in that situation, I cannot give you an answer now.

[Stephen Morgan]

Can I put the same question to the general?

[The Chair]

Perhaps you could repeat your question, Mr Morgan.

[Stephen Morgan]

The proposals for next year are to bring the armed forces covenant into law. Do you believe that a legally binding covenant and this Bill would be compatible under English law?

General Sir John McColl: We are in consultation with the Government at the moment in relation to bringing the covenant into law. We have raised a number of issues with them, which the Minister who is sitting with you is very well aware of. Charles can support me here in terms of the concerns we have.

The first concern is that initially there was no mention of special consideration, in other words, for those who had given the most—those who had suffered bereavement or very serious injury. I understand that may now be in it. There was also a concern that it was limited, in that it dealt with three specific areas rather than the totality of the covenant. We continue to have concerns in that area, and we also have concerns that it seems to focus the effort on local government rather than central Government. Those are our major concerns. I am not sure whether I have answered your question, but those are the concerns that we have. We will be watching the consultation and participating in it.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

Q Charles, on Second Reading, three times I heard Opposition Members say that the British Legion is categorically against the Bill. I have heard it once in this Committee already. Can you confirm? Are you against the Bill?

Charles Byrne: No, we are not opposing the Bill. We think the Bill can be improved, which is why we are focusing on this particular element in the second part of the Bill. To be categorical, no, we are not opposing the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

What steps her Department has taken to help tackle the disproportionate effect of the covid-19 outbreak on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

What steps the Equality Hub is taking to better understand the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on black and minority ethnic people.

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

We are concerned that covid-19 is disproportionately impacting ethnic minority communities, which is why the Government have put in place measures to reduce the spread of the virus, especially for people who may be at higher risk. In addition to a raft of specific targeted interventions, I am working with the Race Disparity Unit and the Department of Health and Social Care to act on the findings of the Public Health England review into disparities in risks and outcomes of covid-19. That work will enable us to take appropriate, evidence-based action to address the highlighted disparities.

[Stephen Morgan]

In the light of the latest evidence from the TUC on racism and risk in the workplace, what steps will the Minister take to tackle the entrenched discrimination faced by black, Asian and minority ethnic people at work?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government are doing all they can to address racial disparities across all sectors. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the commission that the Prime Minister has set up, with the commissioners announced last week, which will look at continued disparities across the board, including in the workplace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I hope it is the case that Cabinet Office Ministers—the team here today—have accounted for ourselves and our responsibilities adequately. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I, and all the Ministers, look forward to coming here to do exactly that, and ensuring that all our correspondence, parliamentary questions and all sorts of other things are properly answered. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members can use the contact details that are already available and those that have been updated during covid to ensure that Parliament can rightly get the information that it requires from our Department.

On the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman refers to on transparency and freedom of information, of course the Cabinet Office proudly leads the way in assisting the rest of Government in our duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and other proactive transparency measures that we have put in place over the years to ensure that citizens can get the information that they need and deserve. We intend to continue leading the way, and we think it is very important to do so.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the recent political appointment of the National Security Adviser on their ability to carry out the full functions of that role.

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

As with previous National Security Advisers, David Frost will be the principal adviser to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on national security strategy, policy, capability and civil contingencies. He will be supported by the civil service in the same way as any other political appointee, with openness, honesty, integrity and impartiality.

[Stephen Morgan]

Yesterday, MPs stopped someone clearly unsuitable becoming Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Sadly, no such mechanism exists to prevent an ill-judged political appointment to the post of National Security Adviser. When will the Government stop putting the Prime Minister’s political fortunes before our national security?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I think that is very unfair to one of our colleagues, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. I know that following last night’s events he tweeted that national security should always be placed ahead of politics, and he is right. On that basis, I urge him, as a fellow Portsmouth MP representing that great garrison and naval city, and as a shadow Defence Minister, to work to build a constructive relationship with the new National Security Adviser. If he actually met him, he might be pleasantly surprised. For the sake of our city and our armed forces, he owes them the opportunity to build that constructive relationship with the person who will lead the independent review.

Veterans’ Mental Health

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement.

First, I would like to take a moment to also express our sincere condolences to the loved ones of the service person from the Royal Army Medical Corps who so tragically died at Camp Taji in Iraq last night, and with the loved ones of Private Joseph Berry, who died last week due to a non-battle injury in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and sympathies are with them today.

We know that most service personnel transition successfully back to civilian life. However, there are some who struggle and need our continued support. I welcome the Minister’s statement, but nevertheless there is still much more that needs to be done.

We know that some veterans who struggle ultimately, and tragically, end up taking their own lives. Indeed, there are reports that 14 former and current serving personnel have committed suicide in the past two months alone, many of them having served in Afghanistan.

The Minister has raised the point about data collection for serving personnel. However, we do not know the full scale of this crisis for veterans, because unlike our major allies, such as Canada, New Zealand and the US, coroners in the UK do not record veterans’ suicides. This lack of data makes it extremely difficult to know the full scale of the problem, but it also makes it difficult to provide better, more targeted interventions. I and others, including the former head of the armed forces and several military charities, have raised that issue before. Will the Minister update the House on what action is being taken by the MOD and the Ministry of Justice to improve the situation of recording veterans’ suicides?

The Minister’s statement also raised the huge issue of stigma around mental health. I appreciate that he is working to improve the situation, but some reports suggest that approximately 60% of military personnel who experience mental health problems do not seek help. The Minister mentions “through life” psychological resilience training, but it is important to ensure that the MOD continues to work with our civilian services to support our personnel once they have left the forces. Indeed, armed forces charities have found that it can take four years on average before Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seek help for mental health issues. Despite this, the MOD follow-up period for writing to veterans is only one year after discharge. Will the Minister update us on the steps being taken to expand and improve transition support for veterans post-service?

Finally, I closely followed the Chancellor’s Budget speech yesterday and was disappointed to find out that only £10 million extra was going to veterans’ mental health services, through the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. That is 0.007% of the NHS budget—a minuscule amount. What extra funding will the Minister be seeking for veterans’ mental health in this autumn’s comprehensive spending review, to ensure that veterans’ mental health is treated on an equal platform to physical health?

Our armed forces work hard to keep us safe so that we can live our lives to the full without fear. Day in, day out, they do things that cross the line into the remarkable. It is only just, fair and right that we have veterans’ mental health care provision worthy of these men and women.

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising clear and pertinent points in this fight to understand this issue. I will cover them in turn.

We are in conversation with the coroner service about coroner data. The hon. Gentleman will understand that suicide is a very complex and difficult issue. When it comes to data, Governments of all colours over the years have started from a very low point. That is why some of the earliest funds of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs have gone into gathering the data—so that we can lead the way with evidence-based, research-based, genuine solutions to provide outcomes to our servicemen and women. A number of studies are under way. I mentioned the cohort study and our “through life” study of three quarters of a million veterans. Conversations are ongoing with the coroner service and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with an update.

I believe that this place has made serious progress on stigma. When I first came here in 2015 and talked about the issue, we were in a very different place with mental health. Sterling work has been done by other people and I believe we are beginning to win the battle on stigma. The critical ground now is not stigma but the need to ensure that when people have the courage to come forward, the services and provision are there to meet their needs. I am fully focused on that.

On resilience training, the military now is a fundamentally different experience from five or 10 years ago. Op Smart and other service applications are doing brilliant work. We take the issue very seriously. Mental fitness and mental wellbeing are embedded in training, in phase 1 and throughout a person’s career. Indeed, we are looking to launch an enhanced programme later this year, with the Royal Foundation.

There is a challenge in tracing people who have left the forces, as we do not have a veterans’ administration like our colleagues in the United States, and nor would I seek to create one. But there is work that we can do. Three months ago, I tasked the Department to come up with options for tracing individuals as they go back into civilian life. There are mechanisms through which to do this already, such as writing to people to remind them of their reserve service. I am looking to couple that with a requirement for a GP appointment or similar—even if people feel well and do not want to go—so that we can get a better handle on outcomes.

I warmly welcome the commitment in yesterday’s Budget to funding for mental health. That funding is going to a specific area, but in no way is that the total amount going into veterans’ health. I have asked the Department to do a study outlining what we are actually doing. We are investing more than £200 million in veterans’ mental health over the next 10 years, but I accept that it can be hard to see where some of this stuff goes and what we are doing with it, which is why I have tasked the Department with making clear what we are spending where. It is not fair on the professionals who are working so hard in this arena day to day for politicians to try to score points on money when there is a whole load of money going into this project, but I accept that we need to do better to get that message out there. The shadow Minister makes a fair point. This is a challenge for the Department, but we will meet it. I look forward to meetings with him in due course. This is not a party political issue. We have to meet this challenge and, under this Prime Minister, we will.