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

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

Before we move into the evidence session, are there any declarations of interest?

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I served with General Nick Parker in the same battalion.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q I have a supplementary question on that point. Everybody keeps talking about the longstop, but nobody brings in the one year from point of knowledge. That point of knowledge could be 25 years afterwards. We cannot have the longstop argument without that point. If there was no—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Just to explain it to you, General McColl, that bell is not a fire alarm or for a vote; it signals the fact that the House of Commons has suspended its sitting in the Chamber for three minutes. We will hear another bell shortly, so just be aware of that.

[Stuart Anderson]

If that one year from point of knowledge was not in there, I would get your argument. I believe that we are here to try and get the best for our service personnel and veterans. However, that one year from point of knowledge has to have the weight. That is why it has been put in there—it could be 20 to 30 years later. We heard the other day about asbestosis. That is not within a six-year period. There will be things that some in the veteran community experience in 20 years that we do not yet know exist.

Charles Byrne: We recognise and understand that there is that point of knowledge, which is a really powerful and important principle in there. Then we look at the recent sample survey of that limited pool of data and we find 19 cases where, even from point of knowledge, they would have fallen outside that six-month period. Even allowing for the point of knowledge, there are still 19 families and veterans who would not have been able to bring a case under the Bill.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q When I got involved in politics, I found out through Facebook about the armed forces covenant. When I was shot, I paid for all my own treatment. I did not get any support from the charities or anything else. I had fallen out of the system and I did not know about the covenant. I am now under the trauma unit in Birmingham, where they review me regularly. I think it was two years after that was formed, and I still did not know about it.

There has to be education about the Bill as well. I really respect the work your organisation does, but within and outside the military there is a need to educate our troops and let people know about this. How do we connect with people who are now 60 or 70 years of age and let them know about the point of knowledge? It is not all about the Bill. I believe we have a role to educate the community, which we know well, about the point of knowledge. At the armed forces breakfasts and through all the different routes of communication, we can try to reduce that number. There will always be people who fall through, but we should do everything to stop them and there is a role for education. Do you see that role?

Charles Byrne: The Legion was always the organisation that championed and brought the armed forces covenant into law, so education is part of that. In an ideal world, we would get all that is good in the Bill and we would also address this area of concern, because we would not want anybody to fall out of that. We are looking to make sure that no veteran or member of the armed forces community is disadvantaged by a six-year stop, even allowing for the point of knowledge. It does not exist today. If we were to introduce it, it would be a limit that does not exist today.

[Stuart Anderson]

I have another supplementary on that.

[The Chair]

If you have a short supplementary, you can ask it.

[Stuart Anderson]

I will come back to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Gibson]

Q How would you propose to improve the Bill, if we were to improve the Bill, to rectify that? How would that be done?

Charles Byrne: That is a good and fair question, which the Minister has also asked us, to which we say, in fairness, that we think that is your job. It is our job to try to point out where it can be improved, but not how. That is a bit unfair, but that is the way it works.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q This is the first Bill Committee that I have sat on as a new MP, and I have watched the process get to where it has got to already, notwithstanding the years it has taken to get to this stage. On Second Reading, and even in our last witness session, there were multiple calls to stop the Bill. If we produced a Bill that had everything in it that the British Legion has asked for, there would still be an organisation against the Bill. I saw on Tuesday that, broadly, veterans are in favour, legal firms are not. I am trying to figure that one out and I am sure I will get there in the end. What will the impact be for the veteran community if the Bill does not pass Third Reading and come into law? I ask that to General McColl first. If the Bill is stopped, what will the impact be on the veteran community?

General Sir John McColl: Both Charles and I started off this hearing by saying that we welcomed the intent of the Bill. What veterans want to see is the pernicious harassment of veterans following operations by the legal profession stopped. If the Bill achieves that, they would regret the fact that it had been stopped.

I accept that there may be some trade-offs in doing so. Whether or not it is a breach of the covenant, there will be roughly 6% of people who may have brought cases against the MOD or the Government who can do so now and who will not be able to do so in future. We would wish to see that ameliorated. We would wish to see that in some way worked around. It is up to the Government to see if they can do that. The bottom line—I think that is what your question is getting at—is that we want to see harassment stopped. There may be some compromises required in doing that.

[Stuart Anderson]

Thank you very much, General. I know I said veterans, but I also mean serving personnel.

Charles Byrne: Thank you for that response, John, which helps to lay it out. The point of this process, and the consultation and the debate that we had, is to produce a better Bill at the end of the day. As I said before, the Minister has always been very clear that he welcomes our constructive challenge and disagreement.

You said that if this Bill addresses everything the Legion is looking for, it might not get through. There is not everything in there; there is a single focus point. There is a restriction introduced by the Bill, and if it can be removed, the Bill will be better. It seems to me that that is a good thing to do. As Sir John says, everybody wishes vexatious, pernicious claims against veterans to be addressed and reduced, and we fully support that intent. We want to make this better, which is why we have contributed and have always been very clear about our concerns in this area. If the Bill can be made better, I am sure you and veterans would welcome that.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q To follow on from that and a point you made earlier, let us say that this Bill goes through the Committee and Parliament with no changes and becomes law. Would then a major campaign from the British Legion and others to educate about that one-year point of knowledge be a core focus of what you would be looking to do?

Charles Byrne: Is this the Government offering to pay for a massive campaign from the Legion?

[Stuart Anderson]

That is outside my remit.

Charles Byrne: We are just about to go into our poppy appeal in the most difficult time we have ever had, so I would not give a commitment to any campaign. We do a lot to drive awareness of the armed forces covenant as it is, and we always have done. We are trying to build the awareness of all our services. We would welcome any support and help that you are able to give us on that.

[Stuart Anderson]

Thank you. I appreciate the comments.

[The Chair]

Are there any further questions for either witness? As there are no further questions, I thank you, General McColl for your appearance online, and thank you, Mr Byrne, for your appearance in the room. I am grateful for your forbearance with the logistical issues we are managing today. Thank you, on behalf of the Committee, for your evidence.

Examination of Witness

General (Retd) Sir Nick Parker gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

Q But if we engage in joint military operations with allies, is it not more important that we are aligned with what our military allies view as the legal framework, rather than anything else? Is that not the most important component of how we protect our servicemen and women, by all operating in the same framework—for example, if we are on a joint NATO operation overseas—and that all the countries engaged in that military operation share in the same framework?

General Sir Nick Parker: As I said, I believe that we need to be consistent with our coalition partners. All I would add is that you cannot predict who your coalition partner will be, because we do not know whom we will be fighting with in the future. Therefore, there has to be a certain consistency that is probably provided by international norms.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q General, it is good to see you. I was barely out of school when I came under your command in Dover, where you were the CO, the commanding officer. We were at very different ends of the spectrum of rank structure, but it is a pleasure to see you again.

A lot of what you discussed there is the chain of command. You talked about implementing different procedures within the chain of command. I would argue that that is an internal military adjustment, not for a Bill or other legislation, but I would then say, looking back, with your experience and what you know with hindsight—we always want to learn from the past to move forward—what would you have done differently, and what could be done differently by the chain of command, outside legislation, to protect our troops?

General Sir Nick Parker: The irony, then, is that I am now subordinate to you, an elected representative in the House, so congratulations, and—

[The Chair]

I am not sure that is how it works.

General Sir Nick Parker: I am now decaying in my shed at home.

I feel very conscious of the responsibility that I had at every level, and I am also acutely aware of the nature of the responsibility that you have as a platoon or section commander, which is different from the responsibilities you have as a company commanding officer and so on, but there is a critical connection between every level of the hierarchy that requires us to enact things like mission command effectively. So, if you are going to tell somebody what to do, you need either to resource them properly or, at least, to have a conversation with them about why are you not giving them sufficient resources, so you both understand and manage the risk. That is something that should be inherent in our training anyway.

To your point, why this is all nothing to do with the Bill, my answer is, I do not think it is. I think there is a worry that the Bill goes through Parliament and yet does not actually address the real issue. To go back to my experience, what I would have liked is to have had much more effective operational record keeping, a credible and properly resourced investigative organisation that one did not see as the dodgy people who came sweeping in to start testing you, but people who would be able to look at the records that you had been keeping, have a mature conversation with those who had given the orders, come to their conclusions and have the ability not to penalise those who are focused on the operation.

I acutely remember somebody being placed almost on the naughty step, because they were being investigated, and I think that was because of the culture that we were promoting. It might well not be the case today, but while I was always part of a transforming organisation, I am not sure that the chain of command was as good as it should be at balancing this duty of care with the need to ensure that you deal with those who behave badly quickly and efficiently.

You need resource to do it. What I can be accused of is worrying too much about wanting to spend money on tanks, when I should have been spending money on a really effective operational record-keeping system.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q Thank you for that. I think we had a saying in our regiment, “Once a rifleman, always a rifleman”, so we were always the same rank there. On that point, I am well aware of how well you are respected within the community. If you go back to Dover, when you were the CO, that era of the young riflemen—I went through my military career with many of them and some are still serving now, while others have retired and ended up warrant officers or officers—is a band of men with whom I am in communication. From the communication I have had, they very strongly want to see the Bill come through. I understand the points you raise. With the Bill in its current form—it is in Committee to be reviewed—is it better to have it or not to have it?

General Sir Nick Parker: That is a political question.

[Stuart Anderson]

That is why I am in this role.

General Sir Nick Parker: I am very prepared to give a view, but treat it with the contempt it deserves. As I said right at the beginning, I welcome the willingness of the Government to deal with this issue, and I welcome the fact that it was an election pledge and we are going to deal with it really quickly, but I am really concerned that that good intent could end up creating more challenges than we need and indeed not address the issue, which, as you said, may not need to be brought to Parliament at all.

Now, you have to decide how the Bill proceeds, and I am sure the Minister would expect it to proceed. What I would like is to try to mitigate against the risks of legitimacy that I perceive—you may not agree—and concurrently for much more energy and effort to be put into the business of how we investigate these things effectively so that the people who are guilty are dealt with quickly and the people who are not are properly protected.

I will just go back to Dover. I know you would believe that if somebody had done something that was genuinely illegal and outside the orders they were given, you would pray that they would be dealt with quickly and effectively.

[Stuart Anderson]

One hundred per cent.

General Sir Nick Parker: And I am not sure that we are able to do that if we are so vulnerable to malicious claims, because that is clogging the system up. We need to address that.

[Stuart Anderson]

Thank you. It is a pleasure to talk to you again, General.

General Sir Nick Parker: I am wearing a rifles tie, rather than—

[Stuart Anderson]

I had my green jackets one on yesterday.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank you very much, General Parker, for your evidence and for joining the Committee online. That brings us to the end of our morning session. The Committee will meet again in this room at 2.30 pm under the chairmanship of Graham Stringer to take further evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)

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

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

It is slightly different from that, I would argue, because it is presuming that you will not prosecute at the outset, which I think is difficult. Thank you very much.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Q Do you think the Bill will have a positive impact and protect armed forces personnel who serve on overseas operations? I will ask Mr Larkin first.

John Larkin: I possess no qualifications to judge the reputational effectiveness of the Bill and its impact on military operations. What I have said to Policy Exchange is that many of the criticisms of the Bill are quite misplaced. It is not a blanket amnesty; in fact, it might be regarded as a fairly modest, proportionate measure.

[Stuart Anderson]

Mr Ekins?

Professor Ekins: I suppose the best case one can make for the positive benefit of the Bill is that it may provide some assurance to personnel. If no application has been made after five years, they are unlikely to be prosecuted. However, in one sense that is too strong, because if cogent evidence arises, it can be investigated. It probably will be—there is no bar to it in the Bill—and it may well result in a decision to prosecute.

Having said that, prosecution is the major risk for people who have been serving on operations abroad. It is a major problem in relation to Northern Ireland—we have been getting prosecutions 40 or 50 years after the fact, which are very difficult to conduct fairly, and which understandably cause an enormous amount of stress. In recent years, the problem in relation to people who have been serving abroad has been, in a sense, a seemingly never-ending cycle of investigation and reinvestigation. The Bill does not really do anything about that, so in that sense it will not provide much help.

[Stuart Anderson]

I should have referred to as “professor”—sorry, I did not want you to feel left out. Doctor Morgan?

Dr Morgan: The answer is, up to a point. It really depends on what kind of allegations we want to defend service personnel against. In the Second Reading debate, there were many references to Phil Shiner—we can take him as shorthand for spurious claims being brought. But you might say that if spurious claims are brought within six years, if it is a tort action, or within five years, if it is leading to a criminal prosecution, the Bill is not doing anything about those. It is not doing anything about promptly brought spurious claims. Indeed, it seems to me that the Shiner claims were actually brought promptly. There were many problems with them—namely, that people were making up the evidence—but they were not being brought many years later.

The Bill addresses one particular problem: very old and stale allegations being revived after a long period, which are either brought as a tort damages claim—that is part 2 of the Bill—or lead to criminal prosecutions, which is part 1. It seems to me to be part of a solution to what is actually quite a big and complex problem with a number of different strands in it. It is not the total solution, but it addresses that aspect of it.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q Mr Larkin, you did touch on it, but do any of you believe that the Bill provides a blanket amnesty in any way, shape or form for armed forces personnel?

John Larkin: I have given my view on that. The short answer is that it does not.

Professor Ekins: I agree with John.

Dr Morgan: I think “blanket amnesty” is a very overblown way of putting it, if we are talking of criminal prosecutions after the five years. It is establishing presumption, and that is what should be referred to. Having said that, the stronger the presumption is against prosecution, the closer it approaches that. The weaker the presumption is, the less protection it gives to the service personnel in question. So there is obviously a balancing act, but, as it stands, I do not see it as an amnesty; that is a misdescription.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Q If the Bill’s intent is to protect service personnel, what steps should be taken to improve the Bill as drafted?

Professor Ekins: To my mind, the major problem of the Bill—this is a major absence, but it would be quite a substantial policy change to introduce it—is that it does not really address the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act. That is the main driver behind some of the difficulties we have seen in the last 10 or more years in a whole range of ways. That includes requiring continued investigation and litigation—sometimes from enemy combatants relying on the Human Rights Act while UK forces have been in the field. The Bill could be improved—although, as I say, it would be a major change—by limiting the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act.

That would be, in a sense, restating the position that our senior judges understood before the European Court of Human Rights extended how jurisdiction was understood. I think that would also be much more consistent with the way in which Parliament understood the Human Rights Act when it was enacted in 1998. The ECHR and the Human Rights Act really have been extended by a series of problematic judgments, and a Bill on this subject could usefully roll that back. That might mean that the Human Rights Act simply applies in the United Kingdom, or alternatively—this may be more plausible as a prospect for enactment—it might allow for limited extraterritorial application, in the limited way that was understood to be possible in 2003 when the European Court of Human Rights gave a significant judgment on the point, as well as by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court in the years to follow. That would address the problem of being unable to stop investigations and being exposed to litigation that requires the continuation of investigations, when the Government think that that is unfair to the personnel. The Bill does not address that—save, perhaps, by encouraging Ministers to derogate from the ECHR.

John Larkin: There is a lack conceptual clarity in part 1—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist]

Q That picks up on my next question, which was about the principle of combat immunity. That is all my questions. Thank you very much.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q When we have listened to evidence today we have heard from veterans and from legal representatives like yourself. There is a disparity between veterans, who really want this Bill and say how let down they will be if it does not go through, and legal representatives, who say, “Stop.” As legal representatives are there to defend or to represent our troops, as you have done, where is that breakdown happening and why, Mr Al-Nahhas?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I am not going to comment on the criminal aspect, but from my perspective there is a need to protect service personnel from spurious criminal claims, which we are looking into. That brings forward a lot of people who want this Act in place. I am not sure whether that is the incentive behind part 2 of the Bill, which is the civil aspect.

I can share with you, as a representative of APIL, that many of our members have many hundreds of clients who are service personnel. I have been doing this for a long time. The people we act for come to us seriously injured and needing compensation. The tools that are available to us as lawyers are the civil claim route and the Human Rights Act. If you start taking those rights away from veterans and service personnel then you will be, in my view, doing them an injustice.

I do not envy you. I can see that this a fierce debate and there are different sides to the argument. I would caution that that should be a sign to all of us that there should be a pause to the Bill and further exploration. I wonder to what extent the confusion is caused by the fact that the Bill tries to do two things. It tries to resolve the issues in respect of criminal law and it also addresses civil issues, which are incredibly different. That is a cautionary word that I would pass to you.

Emma Norton: We heard some compelling and moving testimony this morning. I was particularly struck by the gentleman from the British Armed Forces Federation—in fact, both witnesses spoke about the fear in the veteran community about being dragged off to court and having knocks on the door at 3 o’clock in the morning. Both of them indicated that they felt that that fear was ill founded and based on misunderstandings of what is actually happening.

Looking at the number of prosecutions that have actually been brought, let alone the number of convictions, it is quite stark. It is a very small number, and it is not reflected in the level of fear and anxiety in the veteran community. I do not underestimate that, but I think the question becomes: what do we do to meet that fear and anxiety? How do we reduce it? We reduce it by being honest with them about the real extent of the problem and by addressing the causes of the problem, which were the failures, early in the day, which the Minister acknowledged—the early failures to investigate these allegations. Had that happened, the unfairly accused would have been exonerated years ago and the victims would have had justice as well.

That is my concern about the Bill: veterans think that they want it, and I understand that, but I am not entirely sure. Indeed, the previous witnesses all agreed that it does not address the issue of investigations—the Attorney General for Northern Ireland has said it does not address the issues of investigations.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q We are where we are now, and we need to protect troops moving forward. They will be serving in our overseas operations this year, next year and so on. We can keep saying it does not protect veterans from Northern Ireland. I served in Northern Ireland, and I know many hundreds of veterans who have served in such environments, and there is separate legislation for that. We need to put that to one side with this, but we need to do something moving forward.

You say these things amplify the fear. The veteran community is very small, so we all know someone who is expecting a knock on the door. That is really amplified, because there is a brotherhood and sisterhood that has gone through the forces. When one person is affected, everybody is affected. Nothing has been brought in so far, and now we are at the start point. A major fear I have is that I keep hearing people saying stop. It has taken decades to get here. I do not know how long I will be a politician, but if I have a long career, we could still be saying stop, because people will never find a perfect Bill.

I hear what you are saying, but I think it goes against what the veteran community wants and is crying out for. As you have heard today, and with the greatest respect—I value what you are saying—every person we are seeing has a different view on this. As politicians, we need to find the best way to get the Bill through. If the Bill were to be stopped, I know the absolute lack of trust and heartbreak that the veteran community would feel. We have to use what we have and move that forward. I respect what you have said, but I felt that it was important to express how the heart of the veteran community is feeling about this.

Emma Norton: I do understand that. You say that every person that has appeared before you has a different view; in fact, it has been a running thread throughout all of this. Everybody seems to agree that the problem is the lack of independence in those early investigations, and we still have a lot of questions, and need to have discussions, about how to improve that. If we addressed that, it would be a much safer basis to proceed and face the future. It would also be litigation-proof for the MOD; if you have investigations that are solid, independent and secure, they would be litigation-proof. That would be good for the victims, and it would be excellent for the soldiers.

[Carol Monaghan]

Q May I ask, following those last questions, whether part 2 has been brought in stealthily off the back of part 1?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Yes, I believe so. What you are giving veterans with one hand, you are taking away with the other. That is a confused approach to legislation, and I am very concerned about it. Does that answer your question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Atherton]

Yes, thank you.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q If they are successful, what percentage is taken from the soldier’s claim, on average, for the solicitors?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: It depends on the terms offered by the lawyers. They can vary, typically between 15% and 25% of the damages that are recovered. There are certain caps, but that is typically what you might find in the industry.

[Peter Gibson]

Q I have two quick questions for Ahmed. In terms of the claims that you have brought for veterans, how many times have you had to use the dispensation of limitation under section 33? And are you able to share with us your success rate in terms of the claims that you win and those that you lose for veterans?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: As I am representing APIL, I would not be able to share specific numbers, but I am very happy to share my experiences on section 33. I would say that it is a small fraction of cases that are pursued that will have to rely on section 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Gibson]

That would be welcome, thank you.

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Of course. I am sorry that I could not assist you immediately.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q I have a supplementary question about a no win, no fee where a young rifleman has a previous injury. If you or the other solicitors do not deem it to have a good chance of success—those were your words—how would a young rifleman fund his legal case?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I have no idea. They may need to rely on charity. They may need to rely on family. They have very limited options. Actually, they often have a big challenge: they need to find a specialist in this field to begin with, because it is not easy to sue the Ministry of Defence and it is not easy to understand the specialties and complexities of such cases. They will often go to another lawyer for a second opinion, and one hopes that that lawyer would take on their case, but there are no guarantees, and particularly on cases that are out of time. You may be going around the houses to tens of lawyers who will all say to you, “I’m really sorry, but you are out of time. There is nothing I can do for you.” That is one of my concerns with the Bill.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q How many cases have you turned down that have been over six years?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I would say, on average, in my own practice, probably between 70% and 80% of inquiries that come in will be rejected because they are out of time. Forgive me, that is anecdotal and off the top of my head. I was not expecting that question but, if it gives you an idea, the vast majority of the inquiries we get are from people who are frankly out of time.

[Mr Jones]

Q Does that not demonstrate the point made earlier about people being aware of their rights, in terms of taking cases forward? To answer Stuart’s point about cases, charities take test cases and cases that might not be seen as winners. Section 33, which this takes away from veterans, applies to me if I want to sue someone and it applies, as you said, to a prisoner wanting to sue the Ministry of Justice. Why should it be different for a prisoner and for a veteran?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: It should not—it definitely should not. You are taking away legal rights from service personnel who already have fewer legal rights as it is. You really are stripping the tree there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

Q There are two questions that come up there: first, in the light of what you just said, how could the Bill be improved? Secondly, as the likelihood of a prosecution is, as you said, not very high anyway but is now less likely with the Bill, what are the chances that the rule of the law of armed conflict could be pushed to the limit with the Bill?

Clive Baldwin: To answer the second question on the law of armed conflict, you say “pushed to the limit”, and, as I said on one particular element, if it starts to look like or resemble a statute of limitations on war crimes, that does violate a basic principle of the law of armed conflict. If you are suggesting that anyone would then feel that they could push any other crimes, or commit crimes with impunity, that may or may not be the case, but it would certainly encourage people to delay investigations to cover up, which is something that we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, the UK has a fairly poor record in actually prosecuting crimes committed overseas, despite there being public inquiries and investigations. Only when you have some of the clear cases of torture being prosecuted do people become aware of what is or what is not torture. One example from Iraq relates to torture practices, such as sensory deprivation and hooding, that the UK said in Northern Ireland 40—then 40, now 50—years ago were unacceptable, and should not recur. They started recurring in Iraq. You might say that that was because there has not been a clear prosecution of such cases as torture. It took an English judge in one of those civil claims in the past few years to say that these practices should have no place in the 21st century. That is why you need some litigation. Of course, the innocent and the accused who have not committed any crimes also get tarred with the same brush if these investigations go on and nobody gets prosecuted. You need a prosecution to clearly identify the few people responsible for war crimes, and to make sure that those individuals are held responsible and not the armed forces as a whole.

Martha Spurrier: Clive has covered the second question, so I will take the first one. When you start with a Bill that does not deal with the problem you are trying to solve, it is quite difficult to answer the question of how to make it deal with that problem. There are lots of practical things that the Government could do to try to make investigations better. The recommendations from the Service Justice System review would be a good place to start: issues about things such as independence and fast pace, and doing basic investigative things like taking witness statements promptly, gathering forensic evidence effectively, and so on. All of those things can and should be done, and they should be a matter of priority. The Bill cannot and will not do any of those things.

You could amend the Bill to knock off some of its most egregious aspects. You could include torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the schedules. You could remove the triple lock by taking away Attorney General consent, by removing the presumption against prosecution in relation to the time limit, and by balancing out the factors that a prosecutor would have to consider before proceeding with a prosecution. That would not cure the Bill and would not make it a good piece of legislation, either from the perspective of accountability, justice and human rights, or from the perspective of trying to solve the problem that the Government purport to be wanting to solve.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q Mr Baldwin, you said that the legislation could encourage soldiers to commit crime with impunity. Will you clarify that it is a piece of legislation that you think will then encourage soldiers on operations to commit crimes?

Clive Baldwin: To clarify, I was not saying that it would encourage it. I am responding to the question that seemed to be saying, “Would it lead to anyone trying to stretch the law of armed conflict?”. If a law creates impunity for offences and makes sure no one gets prosecuted, it may make those offences more likely. I would repeat that torture was admitted but never prosecuted in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and the same techniques—the same type of torture—was repeated in Iraq in the 2000s. That is because you need prosecutions. You need people to be aware that they will face prosecutions for an offence. If they perceive that an offence will not be prosecuted after five years, it will make it more likely even for the investigations to be delayed to that moment and for offences not to be seen as, very clearly, “This is criminalised. This is unacceptable. These are crimes that will be prosecuted.”

[Stuart Anderson]

Q That is the bit I want to challenge. Every soldier going on operations knows the rules of engagement and knows the law—what they can and cannot do. That will be crystal clear. If you are saying that because of the Bill we would brief people to say “It’s five years and then you’re okay”—nothing in any military teaching or doctrine would say that that is the case. I think you could be doing what we would call in the military making the ground fit the map. You are taking something and adjusting it to fit a discussion. I cannot see any military personnel being briefed that they are immune from prosecution because of the Bill. Would you agree with that, or do you still think that they would be briefed that there is impunity?

Clive Baldwin: I do not think anyone would be briefed. When I was involved in training the armed forces in detention we were very clear, and everyone was very clear—these are the crimes. What has been interesting, as well, though, is that there are some elements which are just, traditionally, not being prosecuted in the United Kingdom. One of the keys is that senior people do not get prosecuted for war crimes in the United Kingdom—senior military people, even Government Ministers—under the principle of command responsibility, which is an international element of war crimes. It was put into the International Criminal Court Act 2001 in the UK, but to my knowledge and others’ no one has even been investigated under that.

It was only when I used to brief people in this country and other countries about that element, people sit up and take notice, because it makes people aware that as a commander you could be criminally liable if you fail to prevent war crimes or if you fail to prosecute them. It is elements like that—you only become aware of that when you actually see people being prosecuted for it and know that it is liable. Again, if it comes after five years it is much more difficult and there is a presumption against prosecution: that is why the words matter. Something like a presumption against prosecution—it sounds like it would be very difficult, it would be exceptional, to prosecute. That would send a very difficult message, both internally and externally in the rest of the world.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q Thank you. Ms Spurrier, to continue on your point, you have raised quite a lot of things that you would like to take out of the Bill, which would leave pretty much nothing in it, so my question to you is would you support any Bill that protected our service personnel overseas, and what would that look like?

Martha Spurrier: I absolutely would support a Bill that protected service personnel, because, as I am sure you know, Liberty has done a lot of work supporting military personnel and their families to find justice. What I think about this Bill, as I have said, is first that it is setting up a solution to a problem that is often mis-stated; and then the solution does not fit the actual problem.

In my view what service personnel need, to be protected, is to have an absolute assurance that any investigation that they face will be dealt with fairly and independently, and to an extremely high standard. One would hope, therefore, that that would mean that they do not have repeat investigations hanging over their heads for many years, which obviously is an unenviable and miserable situation for any human being to find themselves in—but that Bill will not deal with this.

I appreciate the lens of saying that it will create a culture of impunity, in the sense that I do not think anyone is suggesting that you would go out to the battlefield and commit a crime in the hope that you could delay being noticed for five years; but the fact is that there are plenty of reasons why five years might elapse before an effective independent investigation can be undertaken, either to exonerate someone who has wrongfully been accused, or to convict them. That could go for torture survivors, for example, who are often not able to come forward for a number of years because of the trauma they have faced, and for serving military personnel, who often do not feel able to come forward, including if active hostilities have been continuing for that whole period of time.

I do not think it is about saying, “Well, let’s just bin the Bill, and then do nothing.” There are plenty of constructive things that one can and should do in order to support military personnel. I just do not think that this Bill achieves those things.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Shaun Bailey]

Before I start my comments, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). Obviously, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). When I saw his name on the call list, I was filled with excitement, and he has not disappointed. His remarks were an oratorical smorgasbord, with words I had not even thought of. Was it “slap a jack”, or whatever it was? To get that into Hansard is an achievement. While I disagree with pretty much everything he said, as always, in his usual way, he has not let us down, so it is always great to follow him.

I want to be a bit parochial in my comments today because, for me, clauses 46 and 47 of this Bill are, ultimately about our communities. That is the core of this, and I want to talk about my communities today because, like many people who have spoken and contributed ahead of me, I have real problems in my communities, which can be resolved and dealt with, I hope by utilising the provisions in clause 46 of this Bill.

Let us look at the deprivation element and how we can use the investment angle to tackle deprivation. In my constituency, Tipton—a town many Members have heard me talk about time and again; many call it the forgotten city—is in the lowest 20th percentile of deprivation in this country. People in that community have felt abandoned and ignored—by successive Governments of every colour—for years and years. Yes, they have benefited from the funding that had come from the EU, and it is this Government’s commitment to ensure, through the shared prosperity fund, that those communities still have a lifeline and still have a way in which we can ensure that we can truly level them up.

The reason people sent me here and the reason they voted to leave the European Union was a simple one: it was that they felt this place spoke at them. They felt they had been ignored. They had seen their communities degraded, they have not seen the benefits lauded by those who wished us to remain in it and they felt that their communities had been let down because they felt they did not matter. That is how they had been left to feel. So this is about ensuring that this Government, as we leave the EU, can fulfil that pledge on a UK basis.

In my communities, I still have parents coming to me in tears because they fear for their child’s future because of where they come from. I have people saying to me, “Ah, when you’re from Tipton, the police will stop you because of the community you come from”. That is why this matters. That is why I am surprised to a degree by the opposition to this, because surely the betterment and empowerment of our communities is why all of us are here. It is absolutely the core fundamental principle of being Members of Parliament. I think as well of what we can do and of the potential of clause 46, and again I am going to talk about my own community, because that is why I am here. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Evans, I am looking at clause 46 in terms of rejecting the amendments, and clause 46 does provide us with such an opportunity across the UK.

I get the points that have been raised about devolution and I have heard the points made by Opposition Members, but I would say that the elephant in the room, which we have missed actually, is English devolution and how that squares with this. I think of the West Midlands Combined Authority. That is an example of devolution and of a devolved administration engaging with the UK Government, through our Mayor Andy Street. It has lobbied for investment in infrastructure and is lobbying the UK Government to fulfil their pledge to ensure that the areas that require those benefits or require such funding do get it. It is by a proactive approach that the fears that Members are trying to combat with these amendments can be allayed. Surely it is about a proactive approach.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I have gladly worked with my hon. Friend across the Black Country. He will know that Andy Street has been very proactive in his approach and that we are seeing the benefits already. Does my hon. Friend think that he is key to our achieving a very bright future across the west midlands, and that we need to see him elected next May in order to see a prosperous future?

[Shaun Bailey]

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, but I want to focus my remarks on devolution and on this accusation of a power grab. Ultimately, the core of the opposition to these clauses today is that, actually, it is believed that this Government are taking away powers. As my hon. Friends have said, my communities do not mind where the money comes from as long as they see the benefits. I am sure that Members from all parts of the Committee will agree with that. Investment is investment. As I have said, we were sent to this place to ensure the better empowerment of our communities, especially for the vulnerable people in those communities. We have seen these back and forth arguments before, and I do not want get dragged into them and I do not want to be repetitious. I appreciate though that, at this point, it is difficult not to be repetitious, but what I would say is that the opportunities that come from this Bill will allow us, on a UK-wide level, to truly commit to levelling up to ensure that we can seize those opportunities as we go forward and to ensure that we can deliver, particularly in areas such as mine, on that election mandate and on what people believed they were voting for four years ago and in December last year. That is absolutely crucial.

I want to bring my remarks to a close because I am incredibly conscious that other Members want to get in, so I will simply say this: I disagree entirely with those who say that this is a power grab. I reject the amendments. We have so much potential with this Bill, particularly with clause 46, to ensure that we can hold feet to the fire. We should engage and work together. I know that Opposition Members are probably thinking, wahey, a new Member with his lovely naive approach, but we need to have that. We really do. Sometimes that little bit of naivety, that little bit of pushing forward and thinking that, yes, we can talk and put our covers aside means that we can actually bring about change. If we do that, then we will truly see the benefits of this Bill. That will happen through engagement with the institutions. There is still a respect for devolution. As I have said before, I want kids in Tipton to learn about Rabbie Burns as much as anywhere else. I want them to understand the shared culture that we have as members of this Union of nations and understand the cultures of every part of this Union of nations. Ultimately, what this Bill comes down to is engagement with those institutions. We have seen it in England through our combined authorities and the work that they have done to bring in investment using a model that is very similar to the one proposed in this Bill. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

It is, no doubt about it.

I have been here for the guts of four hours during this debate, which has been going for four hours and 45 minutes, and at times I felt I had entered a parallel universe. For Government Members, this Bill is an important and necessary step: it is a safety net; it respects the internal market of the UK; and it is something prudent and expedient to do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in the current negotiations. From Opposition Members I hear that it is the most egregious and outrageous power grab, driving a coach and horses through everywhere—England, Scotland and Wales. This coach and horses is very tired. Yet I find it difficult to get Members on both sides to focus on some of the fundamentals that affect us in Northern Ireland.

I have heard Members from across the Chamber say in all sincerity that they believe there are elements in this Bill that protect the single market of the United Kingdom, that talk about the customs union of the UK. Let us be under no illusion: the single market of the UK, as we know it, was gifted away at the time this House passed the withdrawal agreement and the associated Northern Ireland protocol. Let us reflect on the financial assistance provisions in this Bill and clause 46 in particular. When I raise this with the Government, they say clearly that this is a power that extends right throughout the UK. That in itself is true, but there is no recognition in this debate, save in the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), that that unrestricted power to offer financial assistance is hugely curtailed. It is curtailed by article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol associated with the withdrawal agreement.

Article 10 says that we in Northern Ireland remain under the single market regime of the EU; that the state aid rules, no matter what this financial assistance provision says, will apply to Northern Ireland; and that any decision on financial assistance from this Government to businesses in Northern Ireland that fall within the EU state aid rules will not only be subject to challenge by EU member states, but will bring with it the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I struggle when I hear Members in this House say that this Bill protects the integrity of the UK single market—it does not. That is why I ask that people sincerely look at amendment 22, because it would allow the people of Northern Ireland to benefit and would mean that the provisions on direct and indirect discrimination actually mean something to businesses in Northern Ireland. We will spend a lot of time on Monday considering the things we can do that will appropriately protect businesses in Northern Ireland to trade with their biggest market in Great Britain, but we also need Members of this House to consider the implications of the regime passed at the start of this year, the restrictions that there will be on trade from GB to NI, and the costs associated with the regimes in place through GB and NI. I know that those negotiations have not concluded and that we do not have a full picture of how that will be, but here we are, three and a half months from the end of the transition period, and yet businesses in Northern Ireland have no clarity as to how they are going to trade with their main market.

I struggle fundamentally with the arguments advanced by some Members about the Good Friday agreement. I listened very carefully to the contributions of the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), neither of whom are here now, and I make no criticism of that at this stage. Throughout the course of Brexit, there have been claims ad nauseam—in this Chamber, within the Northern Ireland political context, in the United States of America, which has been referred to today, and elsewhere—that taking sovereign decisions within a political entity is in some way injurious to peace in Northern Ireland. That is wrong.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman speaks very wisely. I have listened to the debates this week. I served for 18 months in Northern Ireland during the troubles. My regiment, the Royal Green Jackets, probably lost more than any other regiment throughout the whole process. To use this as a political football is an offence to me and every veteran around the country. It is a tagline that has been thrown away and I think will land very badly.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have great regard for him. We served on the Defence Committee together. I commend him for his service to this country and to our Province of Northern Ireland.

The arguments advanced are fundamentally wrong. They never point to who is going to engage in violence. They never condemn the threat of violence that would frustrate a legitimate political decision being made—they never reach that far. They never point to which part of the Belfast agreement they take issue with. They say, “This drives a coach and horses through the Belfast agreement”—you will hear it and read it in Hansard day in, day out. I say, show me the clause—show me the provision that it breaches. When we ask that question, then we get to the next stage—“Ah, but it is the spirit of the Belfast agreement that you are interfering with.”

I caution Members, particularly those who are not from Northern Ireland and who want to be saying and doing the right thing, and advocating the right position, but perhaps do not have the full picture: when you hear that argument related to European Union matters and to Brexit issues in this Bill, you are hearing it through a one-dimensional prism. I am not saying that nationalists are not entitled to their nationalism just as I am entitled to my Unionism—we are all entitled to our perspectives—but they present this injury to the Belfast agreement in a way that suggests it is a one-dimensional document. They suggest that the only concern within the fragility of peace in Northern Ireland is the satisfaction of those who look to Dublin—those who have an aspiration of unity in the island of Ireland—without reflecting on the fact that the document itself is a balance that brings communities together and allows them to co-operate with one another. And that has to include Unionism too. It has to include Unionists in Northern Ireland who look to London and believe that the Union is best for us all. For as long as we hear and listen to those arguments, never proven, and for as long as we say, “I’m sorry, we can’t make a legitimate political decision because of the fear—the fantasy—of something that may go wrong in future”, we see this only through the prism of one perspective, and we will end up making the wrong choice.

I say that not to attack Members, who are entitled to their own views, but to say careful and look a bit beyond some of the arguments. This Bill does not protect the internal market of the United Kingdom. It is a very good move for those who are concerned about ECJ application and state aid rules affecting businesses in GB. That is the intended purpose of clause 46 and some of the other clauses around state aid. There is nothing in clause 46 or clause 47 without our amendment, or indeed anything, that turns back the clock on the agreements around state aid rules of the European Union applying to Northern Ireland, and nor will there be. That is not an aspiration of the Government. The Government’s perspective is that those issues have been resolved.

In speaking to amendment 22, which I do not believe will be pushed to a vote, I hope that Members who are present this evening and respectfully listening to what I have to say will be here on Monday, when we consider and thoughtfully focus on the Northern Ireland aspects of trade from GB to NI and NI to GB. Those are two different propositions because of the protocol. They are fundamentally different. When we talk about access to the UK’s single market, we are only talking about selling to GB, not buying from it.

I ask that, over the next number of days, Members reflect on some of those issues and that when we meet on Monday to consider the Northern Ireland implications of the Bill and the wider underpinning agreements that already exist and are not intended to change, they reflect on the amendments that we put forward and proceed on that basis.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

In the short time available to me, I want to focus on the aspects most relevant to Scotland. This Bill is about protecting those who work or do business across the four nations of our United Kingdom. That single internal UK market has served us well for centuries, creating a barrier-free internal market that was one of the core purposes of the Acts of Union. Until we joined the European Communities in 1973, that internal market was regulated by this Parliament. From the point that we joined the European Economic Community, the crucial aspect of market control passed to the European level. Europe took those powers for pragmatic reasons, because they were simply needed to operate its single market. That is the spirit behind this Bill too.

We have heard a lot about devolution in the context of the Bill, including from a number of Members during the debate. The devolution settlements were made in the late 1990s, when there was virtually no thought that the UK would leave the EU. EU law was binding on the devolved Assemblies, and the UK Government, acting on behalf of the whole UK, represented all four nations at the Council of Ministers, including in devolved areas.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill strengthens the Union rather than weakens it as Opposition Members are saying?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point and completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill not only protects jobs but strengthens the bonds of the Union that ties the United Kingdom together. As well as remembering the history, we must understand what devolution is in the United Kingdom. It is a means of giving people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the freedom to craft policies and take decisions on matters that affect them, while continuing to derive all the benefits of membership of a unitary United Kingdom. Right from the very beginning, it has been a central assumption of devolution that matters essential to the operation of the United Kingdom would be decided at UK level.

This Parliament is the democratic embodiment of the United Kingdom, and it contains Members who have been elected on an equal basis and who represent every square inch of the United Kingdom. It is here that decisions affecting the UK as a whole should be taken, just as those that affect the whole of the European Union are taken in Brussels—a fact with which very few Opposition Members had any problems at the time. That inconsistency speaks volumes, especially when the net effect of Brexit will be a massive increase in devolved powers, including those on air quality, energy efficiency and elements of employment law. It is a further irony that SNP policy is to hand those new powers straight back to Brussels at the first available opportunity.

British Overseas Troops: Civil Liability Claims

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I believe that those who operate in our armed forces are entitled to the protection they deserve. This Bill protects them. That is why I struggle to understand the context, because this is all about protecting our servicemen and women from an abhorrent process that has ruined some of our finest people over the years. I am happy to look again at all aspects of the Bill, but I want to build a collegiate approach in this House to get the Bill through. We agree that this must happen—let us get it done.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

As a Northern Ireland veteran who served during the troubles, it would be remiss of me not to say this: I am very grateful for everything my hon. Friend has done to get us to this point, but now that he is the Minister, will he apologise on behalf of the MOD for the decades of harassment that our troops and veterans have faced?

[Johnny Mercer]

Look, there is no doubt that the prominent protagonists in this have been human rights lawyers, who have abused that system in order to make money, abusing some of the poorest people in the world in the process. But what I would say is that, yes, there are elements that the MOD could and should have done better and for some of our people, those experiences have been unacceptable—and for those, yes, I do apologise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Because I think the British public, with their overwhelming common sense, have ignored some of the propaganda that we have been hearing from the Opposition about our advice. They have ignored the negativity and the attempts to confuse and they are overwhelmingly following advice, and indeed, they are complying with NHS Test and Trace—which is the way forward—which will enable us to defeat this virus both locally and nationally.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Pre-covid, the Prime Minister made a firm commitment to reaching out to some of the most deprived areas and levelling up the country. This is needed now more than ever. Will he make a firm commitment—and re-commit—to Whitmore Reans, Chapel Ash, Penn Fields and the rest of Wolverhampton, so that they will not just survive but thrive?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I certainly will. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way he represents Wolverhampton and the many campaigns he fights for that great city. I can tell him just for starters that Wolverhampton will benefit from around £217 million of the growth deal funding across the Black Country, which aims to create 5,000 jobs, 1,400 new homes and £310 million in public and private investment—just for starters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

It will be of no surprise that I am a huge fan of the CSBA, which does incredible work in my Plymouth constituency. We must be careful about this idea of homeless veterans. In my experience of extensive studies, the situation is not quite as it is represented in the media, but one is one too many. Along with the rough sleeping initiative that is being announced today, I am determined to zero in on the issue. No veterans should be sleeping rough on this country’s streets, and we are determined to get there.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I am aware that suicide is normally lower among veterans than among their civilian cohorts. However, I have noticed that that has changed in the past six months, as the Minister will be aware, with my old platoon commander and several other people I served with having committed suicide. What is the Minister doing to support veterans in this area?

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his service. Suicide is an immensely complex area, and I work on it every single day. He is right that, traditionally, someone is less likely to take their life if they have served in the military, but we are experiencing a cluster of events, and we are working every day to understand why they are happening. I meet with the families of those who have been through this journey, and we are determined to ensure that we have done everything possible in every situation. Each one is a tragedy not only for the family and the individual, but for the military as an institution. I assure my hon. Friend that we are spending every waking moment trying to deal with this current series of events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman raises a thoughtful point. He will be aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury has led a review of those rules. I think that we all agree that we want to see employees treated accurately and fairly, whichever category they fall into, and of course that the public purse is protected by taxes being brought in and made available for public services. I am happy to look at the matter in slightly more detail if he thinks there is something beyond that.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend tell me what he is doing at the moment about the current Combat Stress situation?

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

I pay tribute to Combat Stress for the immense work it has done over many years for those who suffer with mental health challenges when they return from operations. The situation is difficult. There is no doubt that the model of healthcare for our veterans is fundamentally changing, to a realisation of the responsibility that the NHS has towards those who serve. Within that model of care, there is a role for everybody. As we undergo that transition, services are available and their uptake is being monitoring every single day.