Armed Forces Bill
Monday 8th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a privilege to open this debate today on our Armed Forces Bill, not least because it carries with it such historical significance. Decades after the disaster of the English civil war, the Bill of Rights of 1688 required Parliament to pass an Act every five years to maintain a standing army. That landmark document states that
“the raising or keeping a standing army within the United Kingdom…in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law”.
Centuries on, that pivotal constitutional function still stands, and by reviewing what has evolved into the Armed Forces Act 2006 every five years, this Bill is the mechanism for ensuring that members of our armed forces obey lawful orders. It underpins military command, discipline and justice. Without it, our military would be unable to operate as a professional body beyond the end of 2021. In other words, this legislation is essential for our forces to act effectively, and a vital bulwark of our democracy.
The legislation we are discussing today is as much about our future as about our present and our past. This is a moment of renewal, as will become clear when I move on to discuss some of the Bill’s key measures. It will have far-reaching benefits for defence and for our broader service community, and it is fitting that we are reviving our pledge to our people at this time. Over the past 12 months they have been shoulder to shoulder in the thick of the struggle against covid, performing Herculean tasks in support of our excellent NHS doctors and nurses.
Perhaps no one sums up the enduring spirit of our armed forces through the ages better than the late great Captain Sir Tom Moore. Always humble, never entitled, ever using his unique experiences to help others, he was a special man, a true patriot and the perfect veteran. When I spoke to Captain Tom, I always thanked him not only for his generation’s service, which was the perfect example for mine to follow, but for the example he gave to us all, young and old, during this pandemic. Captain Tom was one of a disproportionate number of veterans who have stood up and served again during this time, and as the UK Government’s Veterans Minister, I pay tribute to them today. This Bill is designed to deliver for them.
The Bill has three main elements, and I will deal with each in turn. First, renewal. I start with clause 1. As previously mentioned, this legislation renews the Armed Forces Act 2006. The 2006 Act covers matters such as: the powers of commanding officers to punish disciplinary or low-level criminal misconduct; the powers of the court martial system; and the powers of the service police. This Bill provides for continuation of the 2006 Act for a year from the date on which it receives Royal Assent. It provides for its further renewal for up to a year at a time until the end of 2026, ensuring that Parliament has a regular opportunity to debate our nation’s armed forces.
Secondly, the Bill makes important changes to the service justice system. This Government are committed to achieving justice in all allegations of criminal offending by or against service personnel anywhere in the world, just as we are equally committed to supporting the victims and witnesses of the most serious crimes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I apologise for intervening so early, but I wanted to do so while the Minister was mentioning justice. In this Bill, he deals with justice to our armed services and forces, but we are still waiting for protection against vexatious allegations in cases from Northern Ireland where people have already been tried and found innocent. I served there back at that same time, and many people I know live in fear that they are going to be called for something that they thought was over, done and gone. When is that legislation going to come in front of the House?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I think it is appropriate that I deal with this matter now, although it may come up a number of times during the debate. Let me be absolutely clear: this Prime Minister, for the first time in this country’s history, has committed to ending the vexatious nature of repeat investigations of our veterans who served in Northern Ireland; this Northern Ireland Secretary has given the same commitments; and we are closer now than we have ever been to delivering on that promise. Those veterans are not left behind. I pay tribute to them for their service. Legislation will be coming in due course from the Northern Ireland Office. The Government are working and are committed to this issue like never before. I just urge a little more patience. Colleagues will know my commitment to the issue, and I am determined to see it through.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I certainly endorse everything that the Minister has said about his own commitment and the commitment of the Government to this issue. May I just make an appeal that, when he does bring forward the legislation for Northern Ireland veterans, it focuses not only on the question of prosecutions, but on the question of investigations, the vast majority of which never lead to prosecutions but are still terribly oppressive? That is what is missing from the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill; it is good on prosecutions, but has not yet done enough about repeated reinvestigation.
Johnny Mercer
My right hon. Friend is very knowledgeable and learned in this space. The issue is a lot more complicated than it is made out to be by a lot of people who contribute to this debate. There is no evidence, essentially, of vexatious prosecutions per se. It is the investigations that are the trouble. There are elements of this Bill that address how we investigate. There are elements not in this Bill that are being brought into the Department, such as a serious crime unit, to ensure that these things can never happen again.
Let me be clear that if we were to invent a system that essentially said, “We will not investigate”, that would be the equivalent of an amnesty, and this Government are not committed to going down that route either. This is a difficult area and it is a delicate balance, but the strategic objective has been set by the Prime Minister; it is one that I and many Members in the House have campaigned on for years, and we will deliver on it. It is a tough ask and a tough battle, but we will win it. I urge patience while we get to the end of this battle.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Minister is not the problem; the problem is the Northern Ireland Office, as everyone knows. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) chairs the veterans support group in this place; he has been followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), a previous Chairman of the Defence Committee and now Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee; and I am a member of the veterans support group. The Prime Minister promised 18 months ago that we would have this legislation before the next general election. Well, we have had the general election and we have had a year, so with the greatest of respect, will the Minister take back to the Northern Ireland Office the fact that our patience is now exhausted? We do not want words and we do not want to be patronised; we want a Bill. Where is it?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and it is a fair point. However, I would just say that we have had 18 months since that election, but this challenge has existed for 40 years—for 40 years—and our predecessors have not dealt with it. It is unrealistic to expect the Northern Ireland Office and the Prime Minister to have delivered on this by now, but they have made that commitment. I would slightly push back on this idea that the Northern Ireland Secretary is the roadblock, as my right hon. Friend has put to me before. That is not my experience, and I am engaged in this every day and I think on this matter every day. That is not fact; what is fact is that this is extremely difficult, but this Government will get it over the line. I am going to make progress now.
Johnny Mercer
No, I will not give way. I will make progress now.
The service justice system remains a fair and effective system, but no system, as we know, should remain static. The service justice system review underlined that we must do more to strengthen it so that our people and their families have confidence that they will receive fair treatment. That is why clauses 2 to 7, along with clause 11, implement important recommendations of the service justice system review. In the interests of time, I will focus today on only the most salient measures.
Clause 7 deals with the notion of concurrent jurisdiction. For offences committed by service personnel in the UK, justice can be delivered through the civilian criminal justice system or the service justice system. The service justice system review of 2020 found the system to be fair, robust and ECHR-compliant, but it also proposed that some of the most serious offences should not be prosecuted at court martial when they are committed by service personnel in the UK, except where the consent of the Attorney General is given. To be clear, the review was not saying that the service justice system should stop dealing with certain categories of cases that occur in the United Kingdom; it was saying that, when such cases come up, controls should be introduced if they are to be tried in the service justice system. Meanwhile, jurisdiction would remain to deal with such cases overseas.
The Government have considered this recommendation fully and carefully, but we have concluded that the concurrency of jurisdictions must remain. We are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur, though there are important improvements that can and should be made to ensure the system is as resilient, robust and transparent as it possibly can be. However, we do agree that the current non-statutory protocols and guidance about jurisdiction must be clearer, so clause 7 of the Bill places a duty on the heads of the service and civilian prosecutors in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to agree protocols regarding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction. We believe that such decisions on jurisdiction are best left to the independent service justice and UK civilian prosecutors, using guidance agreed between them. The Bill ensures that civilian prosecutors will have the final say should a disagreement on jurisdiction between the prosecutors remain unresolved. I want to be clear: this is not about seeking to direct more cases into the service justice system and away from the civilian criminal justice system, or vice versa; it is about guaranteeing that both systems can handle all offending and are equally equipped to deliver justice for victims.
Moving on from clause 7, clause 11 is the first step in creating an independent body to oversee complaints against the service police. To support our world-class armed forces, we need a highly skilled and capable service police, and we are always looking for improvements. Once again, the service justice system review has provided several important recommendations. These include the creation of a defence serious crime capability, something we are pursuing separately since it does not require legislation, but it is the report’s proposal for an independent service police complaints system, modelled on the system in place for civilian police in England and Wales, that we will take further today.
The rules governing oversight of the civilian constabulary are set out in part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is overseen by the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. We are, in essence, replicating that system, by establishing an independent service police complaints commissioner. They will have the power to investigate serious and sensitive matters involving the service police, including those relating to conduct, serious injury and death. They will also set the standards by which the service police should handle complaints. As in the case of civilian police, provision will be made to handle both whistleblowing and super-complaints—those issues raised by designated organisations on behalf of the public about harmful patterns or trends in policing.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I thank Justice Lyons for his contribution in putting together the service justice review, which happened on my watch, as my hon. Friend’s predecessor? I see that the Defence Secretary is in his place. Will he use the opportunity to clarify why certain types of offences—the most serious offences—could not, as per the recommendation, be moved across to the civilian courts which, it was argued, had better experience to deal with these matters?
Johnny Mercer
As I have said, the review was not saying that the service justice system should stop dealing with certain categories of cases. All it was saying was that, when cases came up, controls should be introduced if they are tried in the service justice system. The control that was recommended by the review was the Attorney General’s consent. Instead, we want something that is more transparent for both victims and those accused, that is more resilient and more robust, and that is the protocol that is agreed between civilian prosecutors and service prosecutors, which we think will lead to better outcomes for all users of the service justice system.
Clause 8 goes to the heart of the Bill. As the House is aware, the armed forces covenant was introduced a decade ago. During that time, we have seen an irreversible, strategic shift towards looking after our people. Veterans have found work, reservists have got the time off needed to deploy, and military spouses have received further help in their careers. If we analyse last year’s annual report, we will see how the scope and effectiveness of the armed forces covenant has continued to advance: 79,000 service children in the United Kingdom now benefit from £24.5 million of additional pupil funding; 22,200 service personnel have been helped on to the housing ladder by the Forces Help to Buy scheme; and 800 GP practices in England are now accredited as veteran-friendly with more joining their ranks every day.
Despite the pandemic, we have provided cash boosts for family accommodation, introduced free breakfast and after-school clubs for military children, brought in the veterans railcard and given millions to service charities. We have come far in recent times. As someone who beat a path to the door of this Parliament to force this place to honour the nation’s responsibilities to veterans, I can genuinely say that I can feel the sands shifting under my feet, but we have further to go. Today is an historic day, as we legislate to put the armed forces covenant—that promise between the nation and those who serve—into law. What is still evident is that some members of our armed forces community are still suffering disadvantage in accessing public services. Often the provision that they get is something of a postcode lottery. When disadvantage occurs, it is often because there is little understanding of the unique nature of service in the armed forces.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for giving way. I welcome what he says, and we on the Labour Benches indeed support the covenant. On the issue of the postcode lottery, which is really important for my constituents in Barnsley, may I push him further and ask whether he will be introducing measurable national standards in the covenant so that there is not that postcode lottery?
Johnny Mercer
We bring out a report every year that attempts to pull together everybody’s different experiences of the covenant. We are clear that we will not prescribe specific outcomes. We want local authorities to adhere to the principles of the armed forces covenant and, because of the way that local authorities deliver their services, to have a due regard in law to consider the covenant but not to prescribe outcomes. That is reflected in the covenant report, which gives us a good firm idea of how the covenant is going down in communities such as Barnsley.
In this clause, we tackle those problems head-on. We are placing a duty to have due regard to the covenant principles on public bodies responsible for the delivery of key functions in housing, education and healthcare. We have chosen those three areas because they are the bedrock of a stable and secure life. Unsurprisingly, they are also raised by members of the armed forces community as areas of greatest concern.
Johnny Mercer
Not at this time.
The legislation does not mandate specific delivery outcomes or advantageous treatment of the armed forces community, not least because it is important that relevant public bodies retain the flexibility required to tailor decisions on service delivery to local circumstances. But the Bill will legally oblige relevant public bodies to consider the principles of the covenant when carrying out specified functions in these three areas. To support its delivery, we are also making sure that public bodies are supported by statutory guidance explaining the principles of the covenant as well as, for example, how and why members of the armed forces may experience disadvantage as a result of their service. Some will say that we are going too far, others that we have not gone far enough, but my colleagues and I carefully weighed up a number of options before devising this response.
Critically, this is just the first step. This legislation will provide the Government with the power to widen the scope of the duty to apply to additional public bodies and include other functions should it be felt beneficial in future; in other words, we are turning the covenant into a minimum requirement—a tangible tool that our service personnel and veterans can use to hold their service providers to account, a tool that has the capacity to deliver today as well as evolve and adapt as society changes.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I think the whole House agrees with him on the need to enforce the armed forces covenant. Critical in any environment, whether the private sector or local authorities, is the role of the armed forces champion, a single person that anybody can go to, and it must be clear who they are. Will the Minister consider putting into the legislation that every local authority must have a designated armed forces champion?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. We carefully considered including such a measure, but local authorities were not supportive because they deliver the principles of the armed forces covenant through a variety of mechanisms and in different ways. They specifically mentioned to the Department and to me as the Minister that they did not want us to specify that sort of outcome, which is why we have put in the “due regard” to pay duty to the principles of the covenant and to bear them in mind when delivering public services. But, as I have said, this is legislation that we will review going forward to ensure that it is working and that it genuinely feels that it works for those who need it.
This reform is also about our broader aspiration.
Johnny Mercer
Not at this time.
By cementing the covenant in the minds of the public, we are not lowering the ceiling but are raising the floor of our collective expectations. For example, my own constituency of Plymouth, Moor View has undertaken many good initiatives to support the local service community. I want others to view their efforts not as exceptional, but rather as a new normal, just as I want my constituents to see their successes merely as a springboard to better and bigger things.
In conclusion, I began by saying that an Armed Forces Bill is always an historic moment, but, by augmenting service justice, by improving our service police and by finally enshrining the covenant into law a decade on, we are cementing its standing further still. Our armed forces people are our nation’s first and last line of defence. We depend on them, but they also depend on us, and that is why it is incumbent not just on those of us in Government but on everyone in this House to work in partnership with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that this nation does right by those who serve, so that decades from now our future personnel will look back on this period and say, “This was the moment”—the moment when our nation finally awoke and delivered on its promise to the incredible men and women who serve our country without question or quibble and defend this proud nation and act on the will of this House; the moment when incremental strategic and irreversible change was delivered in law for our service personnel and veterans and their families. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, it will be obvious to anyone who has examined the call list that a very large number of Members wish to participate this afternoon, so there will be an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of four minutes.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I join the Minister in his tribute and thanks to the men and women of our armed forces—those deployed to standing commitments, from Cyprus to the Falklands; those serving as part of our NATO defences in Estonia or the UN peacekeeping in Mali; and of course those who are part of the largest ever peacetime deployment in this country, helping this country through the covid crisis. British forces are respected worldwide for their professionalism and for the values that we most admire: integrity, loyalty, discipline and service.
This Armed Forces Bill renews the legal basis for our armed forces and system of military law, and in turn also renews the nation’s commitment to our forces personnel through the covenant; and, with almost 70 speakers from all parts of the House, it is quite clear this afternoon that the House is determined, together, to do exactly that.
Labour supports this legislation. We share that aim, and we welcome the order that will follow this debate to extend the present Armed Forces Act from the end of May until the end of December, so that Parliament has the time to give the proper scrutiny to improving this Bill. As it stands, this Bill is a big missed opportunity—the opportunity to make good in full on the commitments in the armed forces covenant, so that Britain becomes the best country in the world to serve and to be a veteran; the opportunity to fix long-run problems for forces personnel, their families and veterans, which have become so clear over the last decade; and the opportunity to set a framework for the armed forces that is fit for the challenges and complex threats that Britain must face.
Let me make this point about the Armed Forces Bill, in particular to Government Members who are used to toeing the line on legislation. This Bill is different. This Bill is bipartisan and goes next to a Select Committee, not a Public Bill Committee. The Bill can be improved from all sides as it goes through Parliament. The Bill rests on the groundbreaking Armed Forces Act 2006, which consolidated half a century of service law. To stress the point, on Second Reading of that Bill, in 2005-06, a Government Back Bencher made a strong argument for a service complaints commissioner, which at first was knocked back by the Secretary of State, John Reid. However, by the time the Bill became an Act, the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) had been incorporated fully into the legislation. He will no doubt have fresh proposals for this Bill to put to this Secretary of State.
On clause 8, we stand fully behind the armed forces covenant and the aim to give it full legal force. In fact, in 2009 Labour in government consulted on introducing legally enforceable rights for the forces, their families and veterans, and our 2010 manifesto proposed to enshrine those rights in the armed forces charter. I am therefore pleased that the Secretary of State could say on publication of the Bill at the end of last month:
“For the first time ever we are putting into law the Armed Forces Covenant.”
The Secretary of State might just want to let David Cameron know that. In fact, he might be surprised to learn it, because he boasted in 2015 that he had already done so, saying:
“We are the first Government to put the military covenant properly into law”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 961.]
Mr Kevan Jones
I am sorry that the Minister did not want to take interventions. He said that the armed forces covenant is now 10 years old, but it is actually a lot older. It started in 2008 with the Command Paper under the last Labour Government, and the document he referred to, which came out in 2009, referred not only to putting the covenant into law but giving it teeth. The proposal in this Bill does not have teeth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit strange that the weakened version that we have now has none of the proposals in the 2009 Green Paper? Let us also remember that this is the same Government who, in 2011, opposed the motion tabled by me and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) to put the covenant into law.
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is right, of course. I want to stress, to the extent that I can, the cross-party, long-term and long-run support for many of these provisions. He is right that the covenant has its roots in the previous Labour Government—we called it a charter then, rather than a covenant—but over the past two decades, I believe we have made great strides in providing better services, support and opportunities for service personnel and veterans.
That is to the credit of Ministers who have made it their personal mission, of hon. Members on both sides who have championed the cause, of councils and local agencies that have delivered services to our veterans, and of service charities such as the Royal British Legion, Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, the RAF Families Federation, SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity and Help for Heroes, which have hugely improved Government policy, advanced public understanding and developed direct support for forces and veterans. Those charities welcome the Bill, as I do, but they are disappointed by the limitations of the legislation, as I am.
I must say to hon. Members that, if they read one background briefing for this Bill, they should make it the background briefing that the Royal British Legion has sent to us today. It rightly says that a decade’s experience of the covenant confirms that,
“the range of policy issues that have a significant impact on the Armed Forces community is wide and ever-changing: including health, housing, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, education, criminal justice and immigration”.
The Bill is too narrow. It covers only aspects of health, housing and education. The Bill creates a two-tier covenant. It applies only to local councils and local agencies, not to national Governments. The Government are letting themselves off the hook entirely when, as the Legion says, many of the areas in which forces personnel and veterans have problems are the responsibility of national Governments or are based on national guidance to delivery agencies.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the clauses relating to service justice and terms of service were ultimately requested by the armed forces. They should therefore be non-contentious, although I agree that perhaps clause 8 could be more prescriptive. However, to bring the armed forces covenant into statute, to do it equally and to make it deliverable across all local authorities, across all devolved nations and also Northern Ireland, where particular circumstances reign, will be no easy feat. My view therefore is that, far from being overly prescriptive in primary legislation, it may be better to be less prescriptive. Does he agree that we should commend the Bill for what it is, not attack it for what it cannot necessarily be?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this. I think there is potential, as he indicates, for cross- party support for doing more than is currently in the Bill on the implementation of the covenant. The problem is not that it is prescriptive, but that it is prescriptively narrow at present, directed only at local councils and local agencies and not the responsibilities or services of national Government, and that it is too narrow, in that it mentions three areas when the lived experience of armed forces and veterans quite clearly raises problems on a wide range of other fronts. That is the lesson of the experience of the past decade and more—that is the challenge we must meet. This is a once-in-five-years piece of legislation and I want to ensure that we on the Opposition side play a part in helping Parliament to meet that challenge.
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) read the Green Paper of 2009, which actually set out some real teeth there, including setting out a clear charter of what was in the covenant; the ombudsman’s role, so that people could have redress; armed forces champions, as already mentioned by the Chair of the Select Committee; and a five-yearly review to coincide with the Armed Forces Act, so that the disadvantage could be looked at. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is letting Government Departments and the MOD off the hook?
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is right. He mentions teeth, and I will come to that in a moment. Members on both sides of the House and the Select Committee can help the Minister with his personal mission to do best by forces personnel and veterans. We can make this stronger and better than the missed opportunity that the provision in clause 8 represents. It is too narrow. It creates a two-tier covenant, and it is too weak. It offers no definition of what “have due regard to” the covenant means, and it offers no enforcement for members of the armed forces community who feel they have been let down.
That makes the statutory guidance that the Minister promised at oral questions last week essential before the Bill’s Select Committee scrutiny stage. When only one in 10 judicial reviews succeed and the cost of unsuccessful judicial reviews is upwards of £80,000, proposals for easy, accessible redress beyond a judicial review are also essential before the Select Committee stage. I trust that all Members on the Select Committee will want to pursue those shortcomings with the Minister. Let us not allow this golden opportunity to reinforce the covenant remain a missed opportunity, as it is in the Bill.
I turn to the service justice system and clauses 1 to 7. In the five years since the last Armed Forces Act, the Government have extensively reviewed the service justice system, with his honour Shaun Lyons reporting early last year, backed by a service policing review carried out by Professor Sir Jon Murphy. Many of the recommendations from those reviews are in the Bill. Lyons rightly said:
“Independent oversight is a critical factor in bringing transparency and building confidence in policing.”
We welcome the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, modelled on the civilian police’s Independent Office for Police Conduct. We will want to ensure in the Select Committee that the Government get important details right on matters such as time limits for bringing complaints, protections for whistleblowers, scope to consider super-complaints and respective remits for the commissioner alongside the Service Complaints Ombudsman. We also welcome the expansion of the courts martial boards, with new rules on reaching qualified majority verdicts.
However, there are two big gaps. First, Ministers are missing the opportunity to improve confidence and results in cases of murder, manslaughter and rape committed by service personnel in the UK. As the Minister has conceded, Lyons recommended that those cases should be dealt with by the civilian justice system. He pointed out that the military courts secure convictions in only one in 10 cases of rape, while Crown Prosecution Service figures show that the civilian rate is around 50%. Such a move would restore the position that Parliament intended when the principle of concurrent jurisdiction was first introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Secretary of State has so far just said no but has offered no rationale for rejecting that recommendation, and the Minister this afternoon has again offered no justification for rejecting that recommendation.
Johnny Mercer
First, we cannot reject a recommendation that did not exist. That was not the recommendation of the Lyons review, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. Secondly, I have given a justification a number of times: this decision was made because we want to see more integrity and resilience in the system and agree a protocol between prosecuting jurisdictions to ensure that the system works better for everyone. What was advised was Attorney General’s consent. We have gone for better than that, and this will achieve better outcomes for our people.
John Healey
That is not an explanation of why; that is an explanation of what, and the protocol is about the what, not the why. The Government are missing the opportunity to improve the results and the confidence in how these very serious cases are dealt with. If the Minister thinks that this was not a recommendation in the Lyons report, I suggest that he re-reads it.
Secondly, and importantly, the Bill has little to say about fixing the biggest flaw in the service justice system—investigations—and it has nothing to say about investigations of overseas allegations, despite the Minister telling me on Third Reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill in November:
“The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 258.]
They are not. He also knows that 99% of the allegations against British troops from Iraq and Afghanistan did not make it to prosecution and would not have been affected by the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. The Government have already had three reviews in the past five years and have more than 80 recommendations on investigation, so I urge them to work with us and with a wide range of peers in the Lords on the changes needed to that Bill.
The Minister quite rightly said that this legislation is as much about our future as our past. This is indeed five-year legislation that will take our armed forces beyond the Government’s integrated review, when it is finally published, beyond its four-year funding plan and beyond the next general election. For it to function as the future framework for our armed forces to keep this country secure, the Bill must fix the flaws that have become so clear since the last Act in 2016.
On maintaining the strength of our armed forces, there is serious concern that Britain’s full-time armed forces remain 10,000 below the total strength Ministers said was needed in the 2015 strategic defence review, and an MOD report revealed over the weekend that all but one of 33 infantry battalions are seriously short of battle-ready personnel. The Minister responded on social media to that report, saying that it is not secret but a “routine update”. I want to see Parliament use the Armed Forces Bill to mandate Ministers to report to Parliament each year on the fighting strength of our armed forces.
On maintaining the pay of our armed forces, the decade of decline since 2010 has seen military pay fall behind and with it, by the way, morale and retention. For instance, last year an Army private was getting almost £2,000 a year less than they would have done if the pay had kept pace with inflation. I want to see Parliament use this Armed Forces Bill as the basis for a debate about making the recommendations of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body binding on Ministers.
On justice in our armed forces, more than 6,000 personnel serve in Britain’s armed forces from overseas, mainly from the Commonwealth. Their service to our country earns them the right to live in our country, yet the Government charges huge fees to apply for British citizenship, so someone leaving the forces now with a partner and two children has a bill of almost £10,000. It is unjust; it is un-British. I want to see Parliament use the Armed Forces Bill to get Ministers to scrap these unfair fees.
Finally, on the role of reservists in our armed forces, covid has made it clear that our military are essential to our national resilience, not just our national security, and that reservists will contribute more in future to our defence capabilities. While the Government’s moves to make reservist training more flexible are sensible and welcome, I want to see Parliament use the Armed Forces Bill to deal with other problems they face, especially with employers.
In conclusion, the Minister has said to the House that he is open to proposals to improve the Bill. We will take him at his word. We will at times test his word, but we will work with the Minister if he will work with us. We will work cross-party and with a range of interests beyond Parliament to build consensus so that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, really does make the most of this opportunity to strengthen the nation’s commitment to our forces, their families and veterans.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate. May I join the Minister in paying tribute to our armed forces and what they are doing? They watch our backs, they keep us safe at night and, as we have seen with the pandemic, they step forward when the country needs them the most. Perhaps that, if anything, is justification as to why armed forces numbers should not be cut.
The Minister also paid tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore, quite rightly, too. Every so often, a kind, selfless character emerges who does something quite simple yet extraordinary, setting an example to us all. He left the world a better place and he was a soldier to the end. He will certainly be missed by the entire nation.
As the Minister has explained, Armed Forces Bills come around every five years, like buses, and we have put some bells and whistles on this one. I want to speak to two aspects of that, which he has mentioned: the first is to do with the armed forces covenant, and the second is the justice review itself.
The armed forces covenant is absolutely well intended, in order to make sure that our armed forces are looked after correctly. In practical terms, this means that regular personnel and their families receive the necessary support when they are moving from one part of the country to the other, whether that be education, housing or welfare. For reserve forces, it means the ability to take time off work given to them by their employers; for veterans, of course, it also means the support that we talk about on a regular basis, not least in the area of mental health. The bronze, silver and gold accolades, awarded to private companies large and small and public organisations to thank them for what they are doing and encouraging them to do more, are working well indeed. Over 4,000 companies across the nation, and every single local authority, have signed this covenant.
I therefore ask how we will actually enforce this. I appreciate that the Government have pledged that the covenant will become part of the law of the land, but there is no reference in this Bill to any enforcement mechanism for ensuring public bodies are held to account if a member of the armed forces community feels they have not been treated correctly. I made the point slightly earlier that this primary legislation is aimed at local authorities, yet the Minister is saying that we cannot create the obligation to have an armed forces champion. I would like him to show me any elected councillor in the nation who would not support such an amendment, were it to be added to the Bill in Committee. I absolutely believe that every single local authority that has signed up to the covenant will support an obligation to have an armed forces champion, making it much easier to identify who is the single point of contact in order to get that support for veterans, reservists and regular members of the armed forces, and indeed their families as well.
Turning to the issue of service justice, I have already made my points about the court martial and the serious offences, and we will endeavour to pursue those in Committee. I will end by saying that the things we will be concerned with are the things that are missing: the vexatious claims aspect has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I know the Minister is engaged with that issue, but we need that to be realised in this legislation.
When it comes to supporting this Bill, given that its function is to confirm that we can have a standing army for another five years, there is little prospect of Britain’s standing army having to stand down because the Bill does not pass. That is absolutely the case; however, a test for the Committee is how we can advance the Bill, improve it and build on it to make sure we do the best for our armed forces, and make sure that whether a person is a reservist, a regular soldier, part of the family or a veteran, we are there to help them.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
This Bill renews our commitment to our armed forces for another five years. As we signal our consent, we should reflect on the hard-won democratic freedoms that enable us to do so, and should recognise that many in the world do not have such liberties. I add my thanks to the members of the armed forces who are currently contributing to our fight against covid, and pay tribute to their service. In Scotland, our healthcare workers will receive a £500 thank you payment; it would be fitting to do likewise for members of the armed forces, and I hope the Minister will join the Scottish National party in calling for that payment.
Unlike the last Bill on the armed forces that we debated, there is nothing controversial in this Bill, and while we will be supporting its progress, that does not mean we are entirely satisfied with what has been presented. While our armed forces comprise some of our most dedicated and professional public servants, their lack of representation means they have little recourse or opportunity to raise issues of concern. The commitment to the armed forces covenant in the Bill falls far short of what it needs to be and ought to be. According to the Royal British Legion, the Bill can and should go further in strengthening the covenant in law.
The Bill is an opportunity to give power to the covenant, but too many areas fall outwith the scope of the Bill, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel. With the ongoing case of eight Fijian soldiers, it is both unfair and unjust that many of our veterans remain without legal status in the UK. The Bill does not hold the Home Office to account or, indeed, include any provisions to rectify that situation.
On housing, anyone who read last week’s National Audit Office report on improving single living accommodation cannot fail to be shocked by the litany of deliberate neglect. Will the Minister confirm whether forces’ housing is covered by the Bill? How can we expect local councils to provide veterans and their families with high-quality housing if the MOD cannot do the same for service personnel and their families? When will the Government lead by example?
Many of the veterans and families who contact me do so because of a lack of support from the DWP, but pension issues, including widow’s pensions, are out of scope of the Bill. Rectifying the situation that means payments awarded for injury or death as a result of service are treated as normal income for DWP calculations is out of scope of the Bill. In fact, the most pressing and difficult issues for veterans all seem to be out of scope.
The risk is that the Bill, according to the Legion, will create a “two-tier Covenant”, under which some matters may be pursued but others are covered only in an annual report. For local authorities, the Bill is supported by a promise of additional funding, which will be key when providing resources. Involved parties only having a duty “to give regard” to personnel and veterans means that there will be a lack of enforcement. The Bill does not put the armed forces covenant properly into law, nor does it guarantee no disadvantage in access to services. It has taken 10 years to get this far; surely we can do better.
The SNP supports a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look to the militaries of Germany, Norway, the USA, Belgium, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland, which all benefit from armed forces representative bodies. Such a body should be considered to ensure that our personnel can participate in services that cater for their needs. I have heard lazy arguments from the Government Benches that we could not possibly countenance such a body, as it would undermine the chain of command or could encourage strike action. However, we already have such a body in the Police Federation, which does not allow strikes and does not impact on the chain of command, but it gives voice to those it represents.
Such a federation for the armed forces could negotiate terms and conditions, including establishing a clear career progression structure, the expectation of options for flexible career paths, and guarantees on salary, conditions and pensions. It could be an advocate for personnel to have access to housing that is of a decent standard and is appropriate for their personal circumstance. Such an organisation would substantively fulfil the objectives of the covenant. Despite the lazy arguments, I believe the real reason for Government resistance is that it would give our forces and veterans a real voice.
The Scottish Government have taken their own initiatives in a number of areas. On housing, they offer funding from the affordable housing programme to deliver additional homes for disabled ex-service personnel. They have worked with stakeholders to develop a veterans homelessness prevention pathway. On recruitment and employability, the Scottish Government have sought to help personnel by encouraging skills development and putting military experience to use in the civilian world. They have offered service leavers fixed-term appointments in the Scottish Government. On education, Skills Development Scotland has established a pilot to retrain Scottish veterans and to address skills gaps in the nation’s cyber-security workforce. On health, the Scottish Government have committed to ensuring that all personnel and veterans can access the best possible care, and they have provided funding to Combat Stress and Legion Scotland for befriending and mental health first aid training.
There is always more we can do, but the UK Government should aim to mirror such examples of good practice. Although the Minister would not commit to armed forces champions in local authorities in England, it is notable that in Scotland every local authority already has a veterans champion.
Finally, getting back to the Bill, our issues lie in two areas: its lack of teeth and its lack of scope. There is no one in this place who does not want to improve our offerings to the armed forces, but without the ability to enforce, this Bill will sadly fall short. That said, we will support the Bill this evening, and we look forward to engaging with it as it progresses through Committee. I hope that this time the Minister will be open to accepting amendments.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
By way of a declaration of interests of sorts, my dad is a military historian, so when I was knee-high to a grasshopper, I was talking to veterans and learning about groups of medals. My brother served in the RAF for 18 years, finishing last year. His passing-out ceremony into the ranks, then into a commission years later, continue to be some of the proudest moments of my life. Family stuff aside, thankfully I do not need to be told to be patriotic and support our armed forces, unlike some on the Opposition Benches.
The thing is that our armed forces veterans are everywhere. They are quietly getting on with their day and not shouting about the years of putting themselves in harm’s way to protect us. Across Stroud, the valleys and vale, they are serving as councillors and school governors, working with the British Legion and charities and volunteering in our communities. From covid testing to vaccinations, flooding to border controls, our serving armed forces are deployed across the country to help us in addition to their normal day jobs.
I spoke to an Army veteran earlier. He impressed on me how important this Bill is to the armed forces communities. He asked me to support the Minister, not least given that on the 10th anniversary of our armed forces covenant, we are creating a legal obligation for public bodies. It is a promise by the nation to those who serve or have served, and it is part of a well-deserved thank you, but he reminded me that we cannot rest.
The focus on armed forces personnel is not always thorough and is not always joined up. Even dedicated services do not always recognise the particular experiences of a forces veteran. Tribunals, veterans’ support and other bodies do not always function as hoped, and sometimes there are chronic delays, making matters even worse. The Minister is kindly helping me with a wonderful constituent veteran, who gave his entire adult life to the Army family, only to find that he has since spent years battling to be heard on a range of issues. That is why this Bill is so important.
If our public bodies are to ensure that the principle of special provision for service personnel in connection with housing, education and healthcare is to be effective, there must be oversight. I hear what the Minister says about local authorities, and I am pleased to say that Stroud District Council has adopted the covenant and voted to put a councillor in charge of the work. I am however informed that there is no budget behind the role. Given its importance, I would like to see that happen.
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for strengthening couple relationships and a former family law solicitor, I praise my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and Professor Janet Walker for the superb work that they have done with the Ministry of Defence on the report, “Living in our Shoes”. It is not rocket science to work out that couples and families who spend their lives apart due to one person being on tour abroad or move from base to base with children in different schools will struggle more than most and will need help to stop family breakdown. I urge everyone to look at the recommendations of that report.
Finally, a word for our reservists. I received a letter recently from a colonel speaking up for the Gloucestershire Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. He was extremely concerned about the suspension of training, and I share his concern that there are times when reservists should receive more attention. They cannot be turned on and off like a tap, and if they are treated as a non-serious part of the national defence effort, many volunteers will take their energy and commitment elsewhere.
I know the Government care an awful lot about reservists. This Bill amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to replace the full-time service commitment and seeks to put them on par with their regular counterparts. I would like to hear more from the Minister about our crucial reservist forces and how training and other aspects of their roles will be treated going forward. Most of all, I think we are getting closer to the Americans with our love for the veterans.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate as the proud aunt of a serving Royal Marine Commando. My nephew Joseph is one of thousands of north-east men and women who for generations have made our region one of the top recruitment areas for the forces. We certainly owe them a great debt of gratitude.
The north-east’s strong connection to the armed forces is brought home by a number of the excellent armed forces charities based in our region. There are several armed forces charities in North Tyneside alone, and I am honoured to be a parliamentary patron for Forward Assist, an award-winning charity that supports military veterans adjusting to civilian life. It recognised that the needs of women veterans are more often than not hidden, and it established “salute her”, the only UK gender-specific support service to offer tri-service trauma-informed mental health therapy and interventions for survivors of in-service sexual abuse. Walking With The Wounded has its regional hub in North Shields and, only last summer, Operation Veteran opened its premises in the town centre, with a coffee shop for the public and, above that, a veterans’ centre offering support services and activities for veterans and their families.
The success of those charities in North Tyneside is in no small way due to the local authority’s commitment to the armed forces covenant. The council has an armed forces champion, Councillor Gary Bell, who served in the Royal Air Force and ensures that the covenant’s aims are considered in all council policies. In 2018, North Tyneside was the first local authority to fund an armed forces officer to strengthen support for the armed forces community across the borough, with a focus on advising and signposting serving and ex-serving personnel to services such as housing, benefits and health. The council’s Labour cabinet and our elected Mayor, Norma Redfearn, also approved a scheme to guarantee service personnel, veterans and reservists an interview for vacant posts if they met the requirements. In 2019, the authority was recognised for its outstanding support for the armed forces community when it was awarded the prestigious MOD employer recognition scheme gold award.
Local authorities must do all they can to honour the covenant but, as Labour has pointed out, one of the Bill’s weaknesses is that it places a legal responsibility on councils to deliver services such as housing, healthcare and education, but that is not matched by any extra funding from Government. Despite the good work going on in North Tyneside, some very real problems still exist, according to our armed forces champion. Veterans find it hard to access their benefit entitlements and often give up at the first hurdle; there are long waiting lists for access to mental health treatment; and there are not enough decent houses to meet need.
Our armed forces have shown their worth in peace as well as in war: just look at the role they have played during the pandemic. As Councillor Gary Bell said to me, let us get the Bill right and provide those who serve with a promise in law that the state will look after them as a debt of honour. I echo Labour’s demand that the Government must go further and deliver the armed forces covenant in full.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Let me begin, as a former Armed Forces Minister, by expressing my support for the Bill and what it is trying to achieve, and for the Minister who is carrying it through. Clause 8 strengthens the legislative basis of the armed forces covenant, including its two key principles of no disadvantage for the wider armed forces family and of special treatment, where appropriate, especially for those who have given the most. Those principles were articulated the Armed Forces Act 2011, but clause 8 gives them much stronger form, especially in encouraging public sector bodies such as local councils, education institutions and the NHS to adhere to them.
Clause 20 affects the ability to claim war pensions of those from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although that is important, it does little to address the burning injustice of the shameful treatment of those veterans of active service in Northern Ireland who bravely upheld the law against terrorists—both so-called loyalist and republican—for decades as part of Operation Banner. Without their courage and sacrifice, there undoubtedly would never have been a Good Friday agreement in the first place, and we should never forget them.
The Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, have repeatedly promised to introduce legislation to protect those Northern Ireland veterans from vexatious and politically motivated allegations, but still, even now, not even draft legislation has been published. When he stood for the leadership of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) published an open letter in The Sun newspaper, on 11 July 2019, that included a “veterans pledge” containing three key commitments.
The first was to
“create an Office of Veterans Affairs within the Cabinet Office”.
That has been done. The second was to
“enshrine the Military Covenant into law”,
which this Bill does. The third—I quote my right hon. Friend’s pledge directly—was:
“New legislation to end repeated and vexatious investigations into historical allegations against our servicemen and women—including in Northern Ireland—to be passed”—
passed—
“before the next General Election.”
That is completely unambiguous—it could not be clearer—and the Prime Minister very publicly signed the letter himself. However, over 18 months and a general election later, where is the Bill?
My friends and I in the Veterans’ Support Group do not doubt the Prime Minister’s sincerity on this; we simply want him to keep his promise. We want action now, not words. That is because some of these men, many of whom are now in their 70s or even their 80s, are being reinvestigated for allegations in relation to which they were previously exonerated, in some cases almost 50 years ago. Some of these men have died, and others are dying, with the sword of Damocles still hanging over them and their families. Unlike some others, our service veterans have no letters of comfort, while the Northern Ireland Office, whose Bill this is supposed to be, continues endlessly to drag its feet for fear of upsetting Sinn Féin. It makes Handforth parish council look efficient.
Tonight, a former leader of the Conservative party, the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and two former Armed Forces Ministers to boot, have all made the same call: bring forward the Bill. If everything we have heard this evening about honouring the covenant is true—if we mean it—the Prime Minister urgently needs to knock heads together in Whitehall to get this critical legislation on to the statute book. All we ask is that the Prime Minister fulfils his public solemn promise and thus defends those who defended us.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
Just as when I first took part in Armed Forces Bill debates, in 2016, I am afraid there is a feeling of a missed opportunity. While we will be back here tomorrow to talk about the integrated review, it always strikes me as odd that these changes either to the armed forces covenant or to the service justice system, while welcome and worthy, squander the opportunity that a Bill of this scope has to redefine what the armed forces mean for all of us in the 21st century, in the same way as the integrated review seeks to.
I am afraid we are at something of an inflection point with civil-military relations in the history of this political state. The confluence of two contemporary currents—namely, the politicisation of our armed forces by the Government of the day, and the need for armed forces to redefine their role in society—is, for my part, pushing us towards the creation of a discrete military class removed from the society it has vowed to protect, unrepresentative and poorly understood.
How can we better define what the armed forces are for and what they represent in the 21st century? I have spoken many times in the House about my military family, but it is undoubtedly the case that, with a shrinking armed forces and a move away from the overseas operations that defined the cold war, there is a diminishing number of people across these islands with first-hand knowledge of what military life means.
Let us turn to covid. The pandemic is undoubtedly a threat to the economic and health security of all who live in this political state. Those of us who read the MOD’s threat assessments and global trend papers know that the military have known that all along, so it is bit of a surprise to see such confusion, particularly among many of those sitting—virtually, at least—on the Government Benches, about what the armed forces’ role should be. Over the past year, I have felt myself to be something of a lonely voice in turning the question around: why does there always need to be a military solution to a wide-ranging public health emergency? On several occasions, Government Members have called for the military to take charge of the logistical challenge in some way or another, saying they are happy about the vital role that the military have been playing in support of the civilian uniformed services.
I recognise and am grateful, as we all are, for the service of many on the Government Benches, such as my friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), but I cannot help but conclude that the lived experience of those whom I represent and those in my family are increasingly at odds with the vision of service put forward by the Government. I began this speech by talking about fears of the creation of a military class because I see such differences between the way the armed forces are talked about in the House and the experiences of the predominantly working-class people who make up the ranks. These are people for whom the rather abstract way we talk about military justice makes it an impediment to their availing themselves of it, should that be required—people who often find it difficult to make their way through the alphabet soup of the military charity sector to access the rights to which they are entitled and that they should theoretically be given when the Bill is passed.
For many, muddling through is very much part of the charm and the bonds of forces life, but my almost four years with Defence Committees have shown me that an opaque and inconsistent military justice system, and an opaque and inconsistent application of the armed forces covenant, is the logical end point of a system that is in dire need of root-and-branch reform. Ever since the first Armed Forces Bill that I saw in 2016, there has been the assumption that such reform refers to the need to adapt the civilian sphere to the needs of the military—something that continues to baffle me. Why is it that we do not seek to address this imbalance the other way as well, by allowing the members of our armed forces as many rights that they had as civilians as possible?
As I often say, members of our armed forces should have the ability to form an armed forces representative body; the right to a contract that sets out not only their responsibilities as members of the armed forces but the obligations and responsibilities of their employer, the Government, to them; and the guarantee—
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore.
Our armed forces are, without doubt, one of this country’s foremost and most prestigious institutions. They are held in the highest regard throughout the world as a benchmark of military excellence to which other nations aspire. We should never forget the men and women of the armed forces who serve and have served us so well, wherever that is, at home or abroad. Yet again, during the coronavirus outbreak, our armed forces showed that they were able to offer support and professionalism in times of national need.
We owe so much to our armed forces. Their bravery, discipline and professionalism, and unflinching and steadfast loyalty to duty, are all too often tested in the most challenging and varied environments and circumstances. It is critical to ensure that our veterans’ healthcare needs are met, so I am delighted that the number of GP practices accredited as veteran friendly has recently more than tripled to over 800. I am also aware that the MOD has recently launched HeadFIT, an important tool to support mental health fitness among the armed forces and to promote the good management of mental health. Speaking about mental health is important, but making sure that support is there for those who need it is critical.
Ensuring that our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged by their service when accessing key public services is the very least we can do. That is why I welcome the fact that the Bill embeds the armed forces covenant into law. That was a 2019 manifesto commitment that I was delighted to make to my constituents. It introduces a legal duty for the relevant UK public bodies to ensure that our UK armed forces community is fairly treated. From housing to healthcare and from childcare to education and training, our armed forces families face unique challenges, and we must rise up to support them in the way that they support our nation. The Bill is a big step on the way to ensuring that the debt we owe our armed forces is honoured, and I am delighted to support it today.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
The story of the selfless actions and incredible bravery of Corporal Sukanaivalu, who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross, is but one example of the kind of sacrifices that were made and continue to be made by Commonwealth servicemen and women in our armed forces. It is therefore deeply regrettable that, despite that sacrifice, they are facing shameful treatment when gaining visas and regularising their immigration status. During their service, Commonwealth personnel are exempt from immigration controls, but within 28 days of their discharge they must either apply for some form of leave to remain or return to their country of origin. After serving four years, they are entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain but must pay the associated costs. As the shadow Secretary of State said, that means that a service leaver with a partner and two children would get a bill just shy of £10,000 to settle in the country that they have risked their life for, right at the moment they are transitioning to civilian life. Without leave to remain, they cannot legally live and work in the UK, claim benefits or access free NHS treatment.
This issue has gained media attention recently following the unsuccessful efforts of eight Fijian British Army veterans to bring legal action against the Government. One of the claimants, Taitusi Ratucaucau, a 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. These veterans may have lost their legal argument, but it is the Government who are now losing the moral one. These men fought for our country and are now living here in limbo, fearing destitution and deportation.
To their credit, the Government have acknowledged that there is a problem and have taken some steps to ameliorate the harm that is being done. The Home Secretary promised me that she was working to correct the situation, and the Veterans Minister has stated his intention to launch a public consultation to introduce a path to citizenship. These measures have my support, but it is time for the Government to stop tinkering and get on with making amends.
To be truly effective, any reforms must address three key areas. First, under current rules, service personnel can apply for indefinite leave to remain after four years, and naturalisation after five. These should be the benchmarks for any fee waiver scheme that is introduced. Secondly, the proposals must also incorporate dependants. Thirdly, the Government must bring forward a plan to help veterans and their families who have already been caught up in this mess. As a show of good faith, the eight veterans involved in that legal action should be granted emergency leave.
Ministers have committed to making the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. It is a lofty ambition, but one around which I hope we can all unite. However, if the Government want to ensure that their vision is realised, they must as a matter of urgency deliver justice for all our Commonwealth service personnel. We must never forget that we owe these men and women a huge debt. Telling them to pack their bags is not the manner in which to repay them.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) [V]
As a veteran and an advocate for our armed forces, I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate and to recognise this Conservative Government’s commitment to make the British military the best in the world and to make Britain the best place to be a veteran. I congratulate the Minister on the significant progress that has been made to improve the lived experiences of veterans and their families. I know that his determination to improve their support is matched by the progress he has made on the armed forces covenant.
This Bill enshrines in law the principles of the armed forces covenant. Local authorities will now need to demonstrate due regard to veterans to ensure that the principles of the covenant are upheld. It places a legal duty on councils to meet veterans’ needs, which can now be done in a locally responsive way. Some councils, including Wrexham County Borough Council, have appointed an armed forces champion and are proactive in identifying support services. However, some councils are not so focused, and a requirement in the Bill for councils to appoint a champion would be welcomed.
The scope of the Bill includes housing, health and education. For a veteran living under a devolved Administration, the ownership of these services lies with that Administration—in Wales, with the Welsh Labour Government. However, the Bill does not place a legal duty on the Welsh Government to make them accountable for what they do or do not deliver. The devolved Administrations should be involved, have ownership and be subject to scrutiny on how they support veterans, in line with the legal duty being placed on Welsh local authorities.
There are over 1,800 armed forces charities serving approximately 6.3 million personnel, veterans and families across the UK. A UK-wide charity called Blesma has supported limbless and blinded veterans since world war one. It is quietly doing excellent work. It has highlighted the trouble with veterans receiving timely service when they move between the charitable sector and NHS Wales, specifically around the issue of pain management. Some Welsh veterans find themselves with no other option than to travel from Wales to King Edward VII’s Hospital in London in order to receive adequate pain treatment. Surely this is not acceptable.
The Defence Committee currently has a sub-Committee looking at the experiences of women in the military and female veterans. Evidence sessions are running until Easter, and the Secretary of State for Defence has been supportive in allowing us to engage with serving personnel.
I would like to see more women recruited in our armed forces. Many women have a positive military career and recommend it to others, as do I. However, preliminary findings suggest that six out of 10 women who experience in-service harassment, bullying or intimidation, usually of a sexual nature, do not report their complaint because they have no faith in the service complaints system. They feel that it proves counter-productive to their careers and, in some cases, affects the rest of their civilian lives. This needs to change. The service justice system review—the Lyons review—has made a number of recommendations to improve this area, and I am pleased that they have been integrated within the Bill. However, there is still debate on the issues of murder, manslaughter and rape, and I take note of clause 7 on concurrent jurisdictions. I know that Ministers are working hard to address certain issues. I look forward to hearing that kit such as body armour will soon be designed to fit women and that the veteran ID cards are on their way, working on the back of the very successful veterans’ railcard.
I support this Bill, which, with the pending integrated review and corresponding defence White Paper, will set out a positive blueprint for our military and veterans, and defence sector, going forward.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Government have said that this Bill will help to prevent service personnel and veterans from being disadvantaged when accessing services such as healthcare, education and housing, but again the rhetoric does not match the reality, because clause 8 simply devolves the covenant’s responsibilities to local authorities and other public bodies away from the Government, it provides them with zero financial support to do so and simply states that they have a “duty” to give “due regard” to the covenant. I have been in this place long enough to know that every time “duty” and “due regard” are used as a substitute for “must”, the result is no real change at all. When services are strapped for cash, they adhere to what they have to do, not what they have to give due regard to. It will again fall to charities and local communities to support their serving personnel and veterans.
There are currently over 2,000 charities specifically aimed at supporting veterans and serving armed forces personnel. This alone is testament to the Government’s failures, because those charities are filling a very big gap left by the state. It is they, not the Government, who are providing for our armed forces and veterans, and thank God they are, because without them, the alternative does not bear thinking about.
The Government’s record has been abysmal. Just this year, the Royal British Legion highlighted how let down disabled forces felt by the Department for Work and Pensions. In my constituency pre-pandemic, veterans’ breakfast mornings were held by local charity Veterans Response on a regular basis. I remember the anger that I felt after repeated conversations with proud veterans, who told me that without this breakfast and local food banks, they would be going hungry. Some spoke about having to rely on charity for basic white goods, clothes and shoes. Veterans are yet another group of people who are not protected from the cruelty of the welfare state under this Government.
Let me turn to the mental health of our forces and veterans. The Defence Committee recently heard from Combat Stress and Help for Heroes that they have not really seen any tangible effect of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, nor an impact from any potential change in resources.
My constituent John Taylor is a nuclear veteran. Like other veterans, he has been repeatedly let down. Mr Taylor, who is now 83 years old, was sent to Maralinga in 1957 as part of Operation Antler, where he was involved in the testing of atomic bombs with no protection whatever. Along with others, he has long campaigned for proper recognition and compensation to acknowledge the effects that these atomic tests have had on his health and that of other families. Of those 20,000 nuclear veterans, less than 1,000 are believed to be alive now. Time for justice is running out for all of them.
The north-east, including South Shields, has an incredibly proud tradition of being a high recruitment area for our forces. Many families, including my own, are linked to someone who is serving or who has served. We in South Shields always have and always will take care of our forces and our veterans. We will always treat them with the utmost respect and honour that they deserve. I sincerely wish that this Government would do the same.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
It is right to point out that what I am about to share is personally very hard for myself and my family, but it is also right for me to share this experience as we discuss this Bill.
As I have said before, I was only 17 when I was shot in training, during a live firing section attack. As the bullet entered my foot, it shattered and blew out the corner of my foot, taking several metatarsals and muscle with it. I was left with a clump of bone fragments and shrapnel—nothing like a working foot. Over the coming month, I had many major operations to try to fix my foot and lower leg. My foot could not be rebuilt, but it did not have to be amputated. My foot was saved, but I had no use of it and was told that my military career was over. In the Army’s infinite wisdom, after my foot had been saved they decided to send me to a military hospital to amputate it. It was not an option that I liked. My dad, who died when I was only young, had been in the SAS, so my mum contacted the SAS Regimental Association, which basically said to my regiment, “Give him to us and we’ll rehabilitate him.”
James Sunderland
I am aware of my hon. Friend’s heart-wrenching story; his father would have been very proud of him today. May I quickly ask whether the armed forces covenant would have helped him at that early stage of life?
Stuart Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In the next two minutes, the House will be able to hear what I went through and how the armed forces covenant would have helped me.
The SAS said to my regiment, “Give him to us. We’ll rehabilitate him.” I spent 10 months being rehabilitated by the SAS. I then returned to my unit, the Royal Green Jackets, and went straight on to the streets of the troubles in Northern Ireland. My foot was still part-paralysed, full of shrapnel and did not function, but I could walk, run and carry out the duties of an infantry soldier—very painfully, but I could do it.
What was getting worse was my head; as my physical aspects were recovering, my mental health was really impacted. In the evenings, I used to relive the time that I got shot and would wake up screaming, covered in sweat. It was hard, but I realised that alcohol subdued the pain and I could escape it for a short period of time. Violence was also a way of releasing the anger that I had inside me. I was on a slippery slope. I enjoyed and often excelled on different operational tours. I was fearless, because I did not care if I died. By that time, I did not enjoy life and I found ways to get through each day. When back in camp, I was always in trouble because I was always drinking and fighting. Despite all this going on and everybody telling me I had a problem, nobody gave me any support or help.
I needed to change. I was now married with a child, so I left the Army, and continued to work in security and defence in different conflict zones around the world. My foot got worse, and the shrapnel started working its way out, so I went to the MOD and said, “Can you help me?” It told me, “You are not our problem any more.” In the end, I raised the money myself to pay for private treatment to have an operation, or I would have had to walk with a walking stick for the rest of my life. If the Army took this approach to my foot, there was no way it was interested in my mental health. I did not even know where to look. I could not show love to my wife or my children. It was not only my foot that did not feel anything; for everything, I was in a darkest pit, more than most people can imagine.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking incredibly movingly about his experience in the Army and as a veteran. Does he not agree that there must be care for those in service, but also as veterans, for as long as it is necessary to help those who have served their country?
Stuart Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend. I really appreciate everything that is being done, but we have to keep doing more and more, and that is why I am really championing this.
From that pit, my marriage broke down. We separated, and life for me was hell on earth. How did I ever get to this stage? This battle went on in my mind, and for 15 years I fought that battle. I would spend the evening drinking a litre of vodka, in a garage with the light off, trying to get rid of the pain. This was night after night, and in the end I realised, of the country I had fought for, that I had been abandoned by that country and by the people who sent me to those conflicts. I knew how to fight and I was good at it, but I was tired. There was nothing left in me. I went at that stage to take my life, but I could not do it, because I did not want my children to grow up, as I did, without a father. I had to face the reality that I had to live, and I hated the idea of it.
It was in this pit of despair, after many years of fighting that battle, that I found faith in God, and for the first time I had some hope. My wife and I started again, renewed our vows and sought help. For many years, we walked through a recovery of and reconciliation with what was a horrible life. I learned to love my wife, I love my children, and every day I made progress. I thank everybody who stood alongside me during this process. My life could have ended many times. Now I live life to the full, and I really appreciate it.
I want to use that experience to help the people who are going through what I did. When I delivered something similar in my maiden speech, somebody stopped committing suicide in the middle of the night because they had seen what I had said on Facebook, and we need to reach these people. I would never want anybody to go through what we did. We have truly been on a journey from death to life, but it is from this experience that I know this Bill will make changes to people’s lives. Some will say it does not go far enough and some will say it goes too far, but it is a massive positive step, and I also welcome the campaign the Minister has had to bring this Bill to the House.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), with that powerful and very personal contribution to the debate.
This Bill is an opportunity to ensure basic rights, support and care for every member of the armed forces, veterans and their families. I want to address access to mental health services and, in particular, the treatment of addiction in the armed forces and veteran community, where rates are higher than in the general UK population. That should be of no surprise, because the unique demands of life in the military too often include experiences of serious trauma, violence and loss; because the Army, in particular, recruits from deprived working-class communities, where incidences of alcohol and substance misuse are higher; and because, as the charities that work with service families and veterans attest, the culture, on which no judgment is needed, is one where harmful drinking rates are considered normal, vulnerability is considered a weakness and seeking help is seen as failing to meet the demands of service. All of this has to change if we are to see an end to the shameful number of veterans ending up in mental health crisis—homeless, in prison or committing suicide—and it can change. The number using MOD treatment services is alarmingly low, and the majority of veterans enrolled in treatment programmes left service many years earlier, which prompts the question: what more can be done to improve early intervention?
Tom Harrison House in Anfield in my constituency is a residential veteran-specific addiction treatment centre, and I have got to know veterans there and heard their stories and about their struggles to get the support and understanding they need. I have not met one who was referred by, or got the support they required, from the MOD or armed forces. If we truly want to honour these men and women, we can and should use this Bill to guarantee them the mental health services they deserve.
There remains stigma and intolerance towards addiction. For too long, substance misuse has been regarded as a moral affliction—a testament to someone’s character rather than a legitimate health issue. We have to defeat that stigma in order to make progress in society and in the forces. With addiction, the substance of choice is irrelevant: it is a route to escape, the way to cope, or the way to manage mental ill health and past trauma.
Last week, in a written answer, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans stated:
“Drug and alcohol abuse is incompatible with the standards we expect of those who Serve in the Armed Forces.”
I am afraid that such opinions are outdated, ignorant and a roadblock to effective treatment. Regardless of someone’s training or dedication to their duty, mental health disorders and addiction do not discriminate.
This Bill presents a chance to end the zero-tolerance approach, as other professions have rightly done, stop the perverse situation where the act of seeking help could itself lead to dismissal, deliver addiction treatment programmes for those serving in our armed forces, and fund the military-specific addiction treatment services veterans need and deserve.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
The Select Committee on the 2011 Bill considered whether the armed forces covenant should be codified and contractualised and, after taking lots of evidence, decided that would be unwise. This Bill continues in that vein but places further duties on public sector deliverers that will be of practical help to the service community, including people I have the honour and privilege to represent.
Like the 2011 Act, the Bill does not create rights, but does reaffirm society’s responsibilities. Others have said that the covenant is a contract with country not county, but local councils, schools, NHS trusts and housing associations control things that servicepeople might be disadvantaged in securing by virtue of their service. May I probe the Minister on where this new obligation to have regard to the covenant stands legally—who arbitrates on whether local bodies have discharged the duty placed upon them, and what penalties may ensue if they are judged to have fallen short?
There is increasing public scrutiny of the separateness and differentness of the armed forces. Defence reasonably points out that its distance is necessary, important and enduring by virtue of the extraordinary things its people do. Nevertheless, Defence is not the total institution of even 10 years ago; the trend is for confluence with society at large, and this Bill reflects that.
Justice is done differently in the military. Government are right to have tested that difference with a series of independent reviews, and they have reflected most of the recommendations in clauses 2 to 7 and 11. Servicepeople should not be dealt with any more or less harshly than civilians in relation to the criminal law, either as victims or perpetrators; otherwise the central “no disadvantage” plank of the covenant is merely rhetorical. That is why in the debate on the 2011 Act I said the powers of service police should not be extended unless there is demonstrable service need, and Sir Jon Murphy’s recent review appears to share my caution.
The same goes for setting up service structures that are separate from the civilian mainstream. Lyons recommended a new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, which is in the Bill, but it needs to be tested against the obvious alternative: handing the job to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
There will likely be detailed discussion in Committee and in the other place of the main Lyons recommendation that the MOD has, up to now, declined: that the most serious offences—murder, rape and manslaughter—should go to the civilian courts. We learn that a rape victim’s assailant tried at court martial is significantly less likely to be convicted than if the case had been heard in a civilian court. At the very least, that sits uncomfortably with “no disadvantage”. Service-necessary difference has to work hard to justify such a divergence of process, outcome and confidence in criminal justice from the civilian mainstream. I know that Ministers have worked really hard on this and considered it extremely carefully. It seems to me that the position adopted in the Bill was finely balanced. We learn that it is already under threat of judicial review.
I welcome the defence serious crime unit proposed in the Bill, which may well help to approximate service justice to the civilian mainstream in very serious cases. Nevertheless, one wonders where trials for serious crime will end up, if not in 2021 then in 2026 or 2030. Finally, as an active reservist and an ex-regular, may I say how helpful the Bill’s extension of the regulars’ part-time service opportunity to reservists will be to both individuals and defence?
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
Today’s debate provides us with a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to our nation’s armed forces and their families for the immense sacrifices they make. I would like to echo the sentiments of previous speakers in expressing my wholehearted appreciation for everything that Britain’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen do to keep our country safe both at home and abroad.
During the pandemic—undoubtedly our darkest hour since the second world war—our armed forces have once again stepped up to protect our communities and keep us safe from covid-19. Service personnel have played a leading role in supporting our health service to deliver mass testing and vaccine deployment. This is the largest peacetime resilience operation in history, and without it, we would undoubtedly be in a much darker place today.
In return, we owe it to our service communities that their hard work and tireless self-sacrifice do not go unrecognised. That means going beyond lofty rhetoric and taking meaningful action to ensure that our armed forces and their families are treated with the dignity and respect they rightly deserve. The Bill provides the Government with the chance to do just that. It represents a historic opportunity to step up support for our armed forces, veterans and their families and to correct some of the profound injustices that they continue to face.
While I applaud everything that local authorities and third sector organisations are doing to support service personnel and veterans, too many are simply not getting the support they need in the critical fields of housing, employment and mental health. Just last week, the National Audit Office found that the Ministry of Defence is failing in its duty to provide service personnel with high-quality subsidised accommodation. Nearly 80,000 people are living in single person accommodation, with less than half satisfied with the quality of their housing—a significant decline on recent years. Whatever happened to homes for heroes?
That is why I am so emphatic in my support for the armed forces covenant. The covenant reflects the immense depth of gratitude that is owed by us all to our armed forces, and it is a matter of deep regret that the Bill fails to implement its promises in full. In fact, on a number of points, the Bill simply does not go far enough. While it would oblige councils and other public bodies to deliver on the principles of the covenant, it fails to address the all-important issue of underfunding. It also does nothing to establish binding national standards that would end once and for all the postcode lottery faced by many veterans and service personnel. I therefore urge the Defence Secretary to go further and ensure that the Bill makes good on the principles of the armed forces covenant and on our country’s commitments to serving members of the armed forces, veterans and their families.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Printed at the beginning of every annual report on the armed forces covenant made by the Secretary of State for Defence is the following statement:
“The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Our Armed Forces fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the Government, sacrificing some civilian freedoms, facing danger and, sometimes, suffering serious injury or death as a result of their duty. Families also play a vital role in supporting the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. In return, the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the Naval Service, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families.”
Clause 8 places a duty on organisations throughout the UK to give what is termed “due regard” to the main principles of the armed forces covenant. The bodies affected include local authorities, health authorities, education authorities and housing authorities in particular. These principles—the unique obligations and sacrifices by the armed forces, the desirability of removing disadvantages arising from membership or former membership of the armed forces, and the special provision for servicepeople that may be justified by the effects of membership or former membership of the armed forces—already lie on the Secretary of State himself. It is interesting to see, in the short time available, what the reports that he makes every year on the armed forces covenant have said about issues such as the war-damaged, the war-widowed and the war-targeted for repeated reinvestigation.
On the question of the war widows, the issue of the 200 to 260 war widows who lost their war widow’s pension on cohabitation or remarriage has been raised many times by me. In these reports, the Government show again and again that they are well seized of the injustice and, indeed, impropriety of having been unable to restore those pensions to those widows. It is good that the reports show that the Government are persisting in this, and they should persist.
Less attention is given in the reports to the problems arising for so many veterans from having been injured by blast on active service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something called traumatic brain injury, and in particular the blast variant, has been mentioned only once in the annual reports, yet it has been shown time and again that more attention needs to be paid to it, because the resulting symptoms can sometimes be mistaken for post-traumatic stress disorder and, as a result, gravely incorrect treatment can be given. More attention needs to be paid to that.
On the question of prosecutions, it is fascinating to see successive comments in the Secretary of State’s annual reports, starting with one in 2018 that noted, quite rightly, that
“There is a growing strength of feeling within Parliament and elsewhere that our Service Personnel and Veterans should be afforded greater legal protection from prosecutions related to historical operations than they currently receive.”
Time and again, the Secretary of State makes it perfectly clear that he totally agrees with that. The only point that needs to be expressed, and which cannot be emphasised too strongly to Ministers, who I know are determined to protect our servicemen, is that they must not only protect them from prosecution; they must protect them from vexatious reinvestigation.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who is always worth listening to on these matters.
In referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, may I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust for the experience that they have given me on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, where I have seen the resilience, adaptability, dedication and expertise of our servicemen and women? I am really grateful for what has been a fantastic opportunity.
Our armed forces’ primary role is the protection of the realm and of our allies. The threats we face are constantly evolving, and now is not the time to be putting distance between ourselves and countries that share our democratic values. I also pay tribute to the services for their military assistance to civilian authorities. This week in the north-west, we saw military crews supporting the North West Ambulance Service when it was overstretched. I am grateful for that.
In Chester, we have a long history of association with the services, as a military headquarters, as home to the nearby RAF Sealand, as a garrison city and as a sponsor city for HMS Albion. Now we are also home to the University of Chester’s Westminster centre for veteran affairs, led by Professor Alan Finnegan, himself a former colonel in the Royal Army Medical Corps. Professor Finnegan reminds me of the demands that we place on our servicemen and women and how this specifically affects their pensions and the pensions of their families. During a military career, a veteran and his or her family face regular moves, including having to live overseas. In addition, service personnel spend long periods away from their home due to operational tours and training exercises. The longer the soldier serves, the greater the number of moves and the greater the level of separation. As a result, the spouse’s education and employment profile is negatively impacted on and their ability to build a career and a pension is reduced. For the service person, the longer they serve, the better their pension, but when the veteran dies, the spouse is entitled to only 50% of that figure. Service personnel are approximately 90% men, and males tend to die in the UK around four years younger than women, so women generally outlive their partner and have to try to survive on half of the pension. For a veteran on end-of-life care, the knowledge and distress that his death may lead to financial hardship for his wife or partner is clear.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants this to be the best place in the world in which to be a veteran, it should also be, as Professor Finnegan reminds me, the best place in the world in which to be a veteran’s spouse. Providing these elderly women with their husband’s full pension would go a long way to achieving that.
Finally, I would like to talk about the Army in Chester. We are a proud garrison city, but the Government’s plans to close our last remaining barracks—the Dale barracks—are still in place, even if they have been delayed. I am clear that this is based solely on the mistaken view of the land value of the barracks. In other words, it is seen as somewhere easy to sell and make money quickly. The quality of the accommodation is good at the Dale. It is popular with the servicemen and their families. When we are discussing the importance of retaining our experienced soldiers and the importance of providing them and their families with decent quarters, it seems absurd to sell off one of the best sites. The plan is to move every military site in the north-west to a new super barracks north of Preston. The plan is flawed. As I say, Chester is popular with servicemen and with their families, which is important when considering attrition rates. It also reduces the social and operational footprint of the Army in the region. Chester can serve operationally across the southern part of the north-west, the north Midlands and north-east Wales. I simply float the example that the bomb disposal team based at Chester is required for emergency call-outs. If the explosive ordinance disposal team based at Weeton in Preston had to get down the M6 on a Friday afternoon, I would have to wish them all the luck in trying to do that.
I am calling on the Government to abandon plans to close the Dale barracks, which make no sense other than perhaps the short-term financial gain. I am proud to represent a garrison city with a large ex-services contingent. May that long continue.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is absolutely right that military personnel should get special recognition for housing, education and medical treatment. I particularly like clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill, with the powers to rectify mistakes. As an ex- commanding officer, I sometimes had to send people to district court martials when I did not want to. I would have liked to have had some influence on what happened subsequently and this Bill will help that.
In particular, I want to talk about the Service Police Complaints Commission—this is the point of my speech really. I think that is a great idea, and let me give an example of why I feel that way. Just after I left the Army, I was involved in the case of an officer grievously wronged by the service police. His name was Major Milos Stankovic of the Parachute Regiment. He was of Serbian-British background. Members might think that, with a name like that, he would be more Serbian, but, actually, his father fought against Tito in the war and his mother manned an ambulance at El Alamein. He was a liaison officer for me, then Brigadier Andrew Cumming, then General Rose, and then General Smith. For about four years, he was in Bosnia. For his service there and his gallantry, he was awarded an MBE. Then in 1997, when he was a student at the Army staff college, he was arrested by the Ministry of Defence police on what I consider to be a trumped up charge, implying that he had been spying for the Bosnian Serbs. He was isolated and not allowed to talk to any of his friends, and I was interviewed by the MOD police in my office, which was in Mayfair at the time. They tried to bribe me by saying something he had put in his diary against me. I said, “That is totally unacceptable”, and I threw them out of my office.
Stankovic was in limbo for three years. At the end of three years without any support, he resigned his commission. His career had been trashed by the MOD police. There was nobody in the system who could help him. Then the Crown Prosecution Service announced that there was absolutely no case to answer. He was innocent, but he had lost his career and the chance of advancing in the military. There was no rectification whatsoever and, indeed, to this day they have not returned his war diary, which they used to try to turn me and, I understand, other senior officers such as General Rose against him.
If the Service Police Complaints Commissioner had existed when Milos Stankovic needed help, perhaps he might not have suffered the torment that he went through for three years. I fully support this Bill.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and to hear his story of Milos Stankovic. It is also an honour to speak in this debate on a Bill that we welcome, but that we believe has limitations and could do more.
In Croydon, our armed forces play a huge part across the community, and I want to begin by thanking them. I pay tribute particularly to the role of reservists, who we all want to see play an even greater role in future. There are five reserve units in Croydon, embedded in our community and playing vital roles to keep us safe, including during these covid times.
The Royal Yeomanry are currently deployed to Operation Cabrit in Estonia and Poland, and we send them our best wishes and our thanks. We have the Corps of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Parachute Regiment, with its strong links between Arnhem and Croydon. The Royal Logistics Corps in my constituency has been very active during covid, moving personal protective equipment and ensuring people are safe. The Royal Corps of Signals unit in Croydon actually set up its own manufacturing to produce NHS-grade visors, which it donated to local care homes and the St John Ambulance.
Crucially, every one of our reserve locations has a cadet unit—young people who will thrive on the benefits of being part of the cadets. We only have to look at the evidence from the University of Northampton, which quantified the social value of cadets services: reducing truancy, improving health and qualifications, embedded in our community, vital for our safety and training our young people.
I will touch on the importance of supporting our veterans, who we still so often let down, through the covenant. I know the success of the covenant is a bit of a lottery and the reality does not always match the rhetoric. It is clear that, although everyone has signed up to the covenant, because there are no sanctions, the implementation of it varies. Where local authorities have strong armed forces champions, the covenant has worked best.
Croydon is lucky to have a fantastic armed forces champion in Councillor Toni Letts, an active role model. In Croydon, where the council signed the covenant in 2011, a number of our community groups also ensure that they play their part. We have a variety of local charity partners, such as the Royal British Legion, the Croydon BME forum and Croydon Commitment, which support our serving personnel veterans and their families.
Croydon Council has been recognised for its excellent work, particularly its housing allocation policy, in the Royal British Legion’s “Best Practice Guide to Community Covenants”. It has gone beyond the central Government guidance on the covenant in a number of ways, including giving serving or former members of the reserve forces the same rights as serving or former members of the armed forces, having nominated housing officers to handle inquiries from the armed forces community and allowing some discretion in ensuring eligibility on the housing register.
I am sure the Government want every part of the country to be as committed to the covenant as Croydon is. That is why we suggest that the Bill should set measurable national standards that would end the postcode lottery, why we want to see the statutory guidance now and why we agree with the service charities that are rightly concerned that the scope of the Bill is too narrow, containing nothing specific on issues such as employment. The scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed, and we know that the wider welfare and healthcare systems let our veterans down too often. All MPs in the House will have spoken to food banks that have provided food for veterans. Wider reform is necessary. The nation’s safety, and the safety and wellbeing of those we ask to risk harm on our behalf, should always be the Government’s first concern.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) [V]
We live in an uncertain world, and given this uncertainty, it is vital that we have a strong military. That is why it was so critical that in November, the Prime Minister announced the biggest programme of investment in British defence since the cold war. So much has changed since the end of that cold war, not least the fact that the threat from our adversaries is no longer confined to the traditional battlefield, but now exists throughout our digital network too.
Just as the threat has evolved, so too must our capabilities for protecting our citizens. That is why the creation of a national cyber-force and a new space command are no longer optional, and why evolving our capability has also led to the growing importance of our reservists to our national defence. I am pleased that this Bill allows for flexible working for our more than 35,000 reserve personnel, allowing reservists—such as those who are trained at the Prince William of Gloucester barracks in Grantham, in my constituency—the opportunity to serve on a full-time or a part-time basis. Making up one sixth of our armed forces personnel, reservists bring specialist outside knowledge, expertise and experience that enriches our military capability. Whether regular or reservist, we should praise everyone who serves our country in uniform.
However, of course, praise is not enough. We must ensure that no veteran or any of their family faces unfair obstacles or discrimination as they enter civilian life after service. That is why the armed forces covenant has been so important over the past 10 years, and I look back with pride on the fact that my home county of Lincolnshire has played a prominent part in its success so far. All of our local authorities are signatories, and South Kesteven District Council has gone even further by appointing a dedicated armed forces champion in Councillor Dean Ward, who is himself a veteran. We also have a wide range of other local organisations that have signed the covenant, such as Grantham College, RecruitME, and Stamford Endowed Schools.
I am confident that with this Bill and this Government, our nation is in safe hands as we seek to protect our country, enhance our capabilities, and honour those who have served this United Kingdom.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s important Armed Forces Bill debate. Currently, over 5,000 members of our armed forces are on the frontline battling the coronavirus pandemic, in what has been described as the biggest homeland operation in peacetime. The vaccination roll-out, lateral flow testing site support, and community testing are just some of the 70 different tasks undertaken across the UK by service personnel in response to this deadly virus. My Slough constituents and I are extremely grateful for our armed forces’ work during this time. Their commitment to protecting our nation continues to be proven through their invaluable service, further proving the need for the Government to fully commit to the armed forces covenant. This Bill presents a real opportunity—a chance to practise what the Ministry of Defence preaches, and ensure legislation reflects our armed forces covenant.
I support this Bill, but I encourage the Government to widen its scope to ensure that it makes a real difference for our armed forces, veterans and their families. As we know, generally, the covenant covers a pledge that service personnel will not be at any disadvantage compared with civilians with equal circumstances, and that there will be special consideration in specific circumstances—sadly, often due to injury or bereavement—as is right. I am proud to have had family members in the armed forces, and to have had the privilege of being involved in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, meeting inspirational people along the way and learning about their essential roles. Having also served as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and headed up the national Sikh war memorial campaign, I fully appreciate the immense dedication of and sacrifices made by our brave servicemen and women. With service to our nation must come lifelong recognition of those things, but as things stand the promises made to them are not being delivered and it is clear that the Government must do more.
Last year, the Government said that they were
“concerned that the current legislation is not enough in itself to ensure the future of the Covenant and the support it offers our Armed Forces Community.”
Yet as the Bill comes to the House today, it is clear that those concerns have not been fully addressed. It also appears as though the Government, as with many other matters, want to outsource their covenant commitments but without giving adequate resources, leaving the service community with a postcode lottery of potential support based on local authority budgets that have already been squeezed by Tory austerity and this pandemic. There are too many barriers to accessing the services people need and these must be addressed rather than allowed to proliferate.
Whether in housing, healthcare or education, there is a serious risk that setting a legal standard below the current voluntary level could mean a race to the bottom. Even the assurances that the flawed investigations process introduced in the overseas operations Bill would be remedied by this Bill have yet to be seen. These are real lives, and real consequences. I am extremely disappointed that Ministers have not taken the opportunity to go further in improving the support for service protection and access to justice for our service community.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Two and a quarter years ago, I attended the armed forces covenant debate in this House and spoke about service family accommodation. There were many warm words said then about the standard of our armed forces, the bravery that they show on a daily basis and the need for us as lawmakers to value them. However, there was very little of legal substance.
I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to speak on a Bill that will finally give the armed forces covenant a firm base in law, but like my colleagues I have deep concerns about the weight of the legislation. As others have said, the phrase “to give due regard” to the principles of the covenant is too vague and does not provide any real legal recourse to the families living in service family accommodation. We need measurable, national standards set at a higher level than the existing voluntary commitments.
In my speech two years ago, I highlighted the deep structural problems caused by the decision in 1996 to sell off 55,000 service family homes on a 999-year lease to Annington Homes. That not only left a black hole in the MOD finances but caused a huge selling off of housing stock to the private sector as well as to desperate local authorities who were under pressure to acquire low-cost social housing to tackle their ever-increasing waiting lists.
Those issues prevail, but today I want to highlight the human impact of the low standards that are common in our accommodation, particularly in respect of cheap outsourcing to Amey, formerly Carillion Amey. In preparation for the debate, my office contacted and spoke with many service families. It is beyond vital that we hear those voices. Our service families have made huge sacrifices in their commitment to our country. Military children are vulnerable to inequalities in health, education, and wellbeing because they move so regularly. The family unit is vulnerable to stresses that most of us are not. Most of us do not have to worry about one parent being absent for weeks or months or sacrifice our own career because of the transient nature of our partner’s. The least that we can provide for these families is dependable adequate housing that is subject to few faults. When problems do occur, we owe it to them to ensure they are dealt with promptly and properly.
We spoke with Rushmoor Borough Councillor Nadia Martin, herself living in an SFA. She has been working for years to highlight these issues and has herself experienced huge problems with Amey, including a poor-quality repair causing injury to her child. She produced a report from a survey she undertook with military families living in SFAs. I am grateful to her for sharing that with me. Sixty-six per cent. of respondents said that the SFA was not in full working order upon march in; 69% said that faults had to be reported at least every quarter; 60% of the contractors do not always turn up; and an astonishing 68% have to call Amey back to redo the same job. That reflects not only the national picture—three in 10 said that they were satisfied with the work done—but countless stories, a couple of which I will relate in the time remaining.
Cathryn, whose husband has been in the Royal Navy for 12 years said:
“It’s very frustrating. I’ve been told a number of times ‘well its cheap housing. should be grateful that you have somewhere to live it’s not meant to be a luxury.’ We don’t expect to live in a castle or in a life of luxury. However I would love to come home from frontline work myself and be able to enjoy relaxing in my bathroom or having a shower without wondering if my boiler works today! I’d love to have the security of coming home and…not have an indoor water feature…every time it rains! We should be entitled to the same as everyone else”.
Another SFA resident, Emma, was scathing:
“We are treated like the lowest of the low, like absolute idiots, made to wait an unreasonable time for fixes, told to live in housing I wouldn’t put my dog in let alone my family. In short there is a nationwide problem with”
service families accommodation.
If I had more time, I could read out many more stories, but I am happy to share those testimonies with the Minister. These families are losing faith in the Government, and in all of us in this House, to help them and improve their situation. They see neighbouring houses sold off to the private sector and their communities lost. They feel as though they are being forced out of SFAs and into the private sector, with all the noted problems that brings. They are seeing their already complicated lives made harder. Is it not time for us to end the scandal of poor service families accommodation and to build, repair and maintain decent service families housing?
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to be called in this debate on the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
I must declare my interests as a member of the Royal British Legion; my father was a second world war navigator in the RAF; and my most prized possession is my grandfather’s annotated Bible from his time in a prisoner of war camp in the first world war. The debt of gratitude we owe our armed forces is something I never forget.
I will focus my remarks on two aspects of the Bill: clause 8, “Armed forces covenant”; and clause 9, “Reserve forces: flexibility of commitments”. As the previous leader of a council, I always thought that we should pay more than just lip service to the armed forces covenant. We had a named councillor who was our champion. We introduced priority help for housing, and financial incentives for leisure activities. I am pleased that clause 8 strengthens the covenant by imposing a legal duty on authorities, removing the disadvantages arising from either serving or former personnel. That is particularly necessary in the matter of not just housing but education.
We have all heard stories of how the education of the children of serving personnel has been disrupted. Even when families have chosen to stay put, it is not always clear that the school has made every effort to receive the pupil premium that is allocated for children of serving personnel. The silos of the different government authorities are affected. Those authorities have a tendency not to look outside their own boundaries and proactively see how to ensure that the service provided for serving and former personnel is as wide-reaching as possible. I therefore welcome that clause.
On clause 9, like many other MPs, I have had constituents contact me to say that they would like to do more as part of the volunteer force to support the full-time services. This clause amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996, replacing the full-time service commitment with a new continuous service commitment that can be part-time. That will enable members of the reserve forces to undertake further work in a period of full-time or new part-time service, putting them on a par with their regular counterparts. The clause is an excellent and pragmatic way of enhancing the strength of the regular forces, in particular with specialists, who can do more as part-time volunteer forces.
To finish, I am always struck by the depth of loyalty felt by our volunteer reserve forces. Some have finished as permanent members of the armed services and some have joined as new volunteers. Indeed, we are blessed that so many of our colleagues in both Houses are reservists. That new clause will enable those reservists to do even more for our forces. I have no hesitation in confirming that I will vote for this Bill later and, as my father always says, “We never know when we might need them again.”
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
It is an enormous privilege not only to contribute to the debate but to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). As a member of the Defence Committee and, indeed, as the only Northern Ireland parliamentarian contributing to the debate, I think it is important to reflect on Northern Ireland’s role and contribution to our armed forces. Although we make up just less than 3% of the population of the United Kingdom, we contribute far greater not only to our regular forces but to the reserve forces across the United Kingdom, yet at times we have to remind colleagues in Parliament that implementation of the armed forces covenant has not been as smooth in Northern Ireland, where frustrating barriers and, at times, inappropriate political ideology have blocked the full implementation of the covenant. It is in that vein that I wish to contribute to the debate on the covenant provisions in the Armed Forces Bill.
I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence for the fortitude they have shown in recognising that we can do more for veterans who live in Northern Ireland. We should always remember that those veterans who live in Northern Ireland often live in what was their theatre of war. That brings with it added challenges and added complexities. We know—it has been referred to —that our former Health Minister and now Deputy First Minister once wrote to a colleague of mine to say that the armed forces covenant does not apply here. She was wrong, and we have the opportunity here in the Bill to bring forward a statutory duty to have due regard on public bodies throughout the United Kingdom.
I tabled a private Member’s Bill on this issue back in February 2019, and the Democratic Unionist party secured from the Government a commitment in the “New Decade, New Approach” document that we needed such a statutory duty. I am therefore delighted that tonight the Government are bringing forward this commitment and that it is UK-wide, appropriately specifying the bodies involved with the delivery operationally of health, education and housing in the Province of Northern Ireland.
At the conclusion of the debate, the Minister will have the opportunity to reflect on contributions to the debate. I ask him to respond to questions raised by the Royal British Legion on why we have confined the provisions of the Bill to health, education and housing. Is this not an opportunity to include other aspects such as pensions, employment, social care and immigration issues for those serving from Commonwealth countries? The Secretary of State retains a power in the Bill to introduce further aspects. Should there be a more comprehensive trigger mechanism for introducing such aspects to the Bill and the covenant commitments?
There is no requirement in the Armed Forces Bill for Ministers, whether in Whitehall or devolved institutions, to have due regard. I am keen to hear from the Minister why, when such a due regard clause is present in the Environment Bill, as highlighted by the House of Commons Library, it was not considered appropriate here. Finally, will we see the statutory guidance published before the conclusion of the parliamentary process? That would greatly aid our understanding of the operational impact.
Let us not forget that the Bill is a great stride forward for veterans in this country. I commend the Government for bringing it forward, and I will support them through its passage.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
I am very proud to declare my interest in that my partner is currently on overseas deployment with the army, and his mother is the chief executive of the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. The Conservative party is the party of the armed forces and the Union, and it is with immense pride that I represent a community of both active and retired service personnel. Brecon and Radnorshire is home to the Infantry Battle School, the Sennybridge training area and, of course, the barracks in Brecon, which is the home of the army in Wales.
Since my election, I have been banging on the door of the Ministry of Defence to get the Secretary of State to change his mind on the decision to close the barracks in 2027. While I have not quite won that battle yet, I am so grateful that the Ministry of Defence last week confirmed that the headquarters of the Army will remain in Brecon, even if the closure goes ahead. That is a huge step forward, and a resounding acknowledgement of the vital work that is carried out in the barracks. I extend my heartfelt thanks to every member of the armed forces based there and all those supporting the coronavirus response.
Ten years ago, we made a promise to those who have served, through the armed forces covenant, that military personnel should never face disadvantage as a result of their military career. It is not enough to recognise serving personnel with medals and good service accommodation; we need to recognise the lifelong sacrifice that serving your country asks of you. This Bill is another step forward in that direction, but I want to highlight one area where I feel that veterans in Wales are being short-changed.
Wales is the only nation in the UK not to have a veterans commissioner—somebody who has the sole focus of supporting our veteran community. Vital public services in Wales are controlled by the Welsh Government and, without a veterans commissioner, the voice of former military personnel in Wales is not being heard. Rather than being used for a photo opportunity to boost the Labour party’s public image, veterans in my constituency want to see a comprehensive approach to veterans’ affairs, focusing on welfare, mental and physical health, education and employment.
This afternoon, I spoke to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, which is based in my constituency. I know the Minister is working with it as it seeks to close the gap, both in our history and in our recognition of those veterans’ service, but I encourage him to consider attending the celebration event it is holding later this year ahead of the 70th anniversary of Operation Hurricane. There are only 2,500 nuclear veterans still with us, and despite it being a little known part of our history, their immense service should be recognised.
Finally, I close with an important point: we must never forget that we would not have a military without military families. Navy wives, soldiers’ husbands and RAF children have all paid a price they themselves never incurred—something I have come to learn very keenly in the past six months. The armed forces covenant should wrap its arms around every military family and ensure that gaps in coverage are ironed out at every level. I commend the Minister for his dedication in bringing this Bill to the House, and I hope he will join me in ensuring that veterans in Wales get the same level of support from the Welsh Government that he is willing to offer their comrades in England.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Armed Forces Bill fulfils the legal responsibility on the MOD to update the Armed Forces Act every five years, but it of course does much more. First, it honours the recommendations of the Lyons review, several of which I argued for as a serving officer. It delivers what the armed forces want, and it shows that the MOD is supportive of them. It delivers, too, on a commitment made in the 2019 manifesto to bring the armed forces covenant into statute and fulfil a long-standing promise to our service community. The Bill also shows that in this post-Brexit era, the British Government are able to pass laws that may have been more difficult under the EU. Our service justice system has long been in the sights of the EU courts, and the MOD has done well to preserve it for the good and benefit of our armed forces.
No doubt the legislation will get attacked for what it is not, but from experience the Bill is a good one. The technical term for it is “no-brainer”, and I will be supporting the Government today. At its simplest level, the legislation provides the framework for the excellent work conducted for many years by councils and health and education providers across the UK, and I pay my own tribute to the many councils and armed forces champions who have done so much. Why not legislate, too, to establish armed forces champions in law? Having reinforced the covenant myself for so many years, not least among our brilliant champions in Surrey and Berkshire, I can say that with complete confidence.
Moving on to the clauses, the Armed Forces Act operates on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt, so it is entirely correct that under clauses 4 to 7, commanding officers in courts martial are provided with a means of rectifying errors of judgment. To be worthy of their pre-eminence, the ability to admonish or even overturn outcomes, notably when new evidence comes to light, is welcome.
Bob Stewart
I thank my good friend for giving way. He was a commanding officer, as I was, and will have sent people to courts martial when he did not really want to. The Bill brings in the ability for commanding officers to give their men and women additional support when they have to send them to a court martial, and will mean they can involve themselves more in the court martial by saying, for example, “Please can this man or woman come back to my unit rather than be discharged from the service, because they are a good person?”.
James Sunderland
I thank my good friend for his intervention and agree completely. It is really important that commanding officers have some input into the service-law process, not only by providing mitigation and character references but by influencing court outcomes. The ability for soldiers to continue to serve, on the recommendation of the commanding officer, is really important.
Clause 8, which brings the armed forces covenant into statute, is long overdue. I welcome the clarification that provisions for housing, health and education will be mandated in law. Further guidance on exactly what councils will be asked to do will be welcome. I would also welcome confirmation of when the Secretary of State might present his annual report on the covenant at the Dispatch Box.
On clause 9, I welcome the increased flexibility that will be available to our reserve forces through the provisions on the new continuous service engagement. Part-time work rightly augments full-time work.
On clauses 10 and 11, I agree that the MOD wishes to speed up the complaints process, but I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to remain cognisant of just how busy most senior officers are. I welcome the creation of the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, for all the reasons we heard earlier from my good and hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), as long as a mechanism is built in to ensure that clearly vexatious complaints are filtered out early. That needs to happen for all service complaints: the chain of command must have the ability to filter them amount if they are clearly vexatious.
Lastly, I really welcome the enhanced powers given to commanding officers and courts martial in clauses 13 to 17. Not only is it right that the service justice system can now preside over offences that previously could be heard only in a civil court, but as a former commanding officer I am positively salivating at the prospect of deprivation orders. The proceeds of or means of executing crime can now be confiscated from errant soldiers—what a brilliant way, perhaps, to offset the costs of the regimental Christmas party.
The Bill reflects what our armed forces have asked for. It brings them up to date with what they need and I will vote for it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the members of our armed forces for the work that they do.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans said in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee that the Government would bring forward legislation in this Bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against servicemen and women and veterans; this Bill does nothing of the sort. It says that a limited number of public bodies, outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), must have “due regard” to
“the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages”.
The way some people talk, we would think the covenant was invented 10 years ago. It was not: it originated in the 2008 Command Paper published by Bob Ainsworth when he was Minister of State for Defence. We then implemented measures on no disadvantage, and the welfare pathway, with pilots in Hampshire, Wigan and Kent, implemented things like the armed forces champions. I am pleased that the coalition Government took on board those things, which have then gone forward. We produced a Green Paper in 2009 to get those parts of the covenant into law, and it was sad that the Government opposed that in respect of the 2011 Bill. The proposals in this Bill are limited and we need to make sure we strengthen them in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned an important omission from the Bill: Northern Ireland veterans, about whom I feel very strongly, like the right hon. Gentleman. This is the Bill in which to put that injustice right, but it is not there. Promises have been made and they need to be kept. The Bill should have done that. No doubt veterans will be pleased that their great, great-grandfathers who committed buggery 200 years ago will be given a pardon, but then they will ask the question, “Well why aren’t we being looked at in this Bill?” I therefore urge the Government to bring forward a proposal in the Bill for that.
The other area is the whole issue of investigations, which came up in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Reinvestigations are clearly an issue in relation to Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said. On 20 October, the Minister told the Public Bill Committee:
“We will see more stuff on investigations in the Armed Forces Bill.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2020; c. 220.]
However, there is nothing in this Bill about investigations and it needs to be there.
The other issue we need address is pay, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) raised, because the armed forces cannot go on strike and rely on the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to fight on their behalf. I was proud that the last Labour Government implemented that every year—this Government have not done that—but I would like to see that in the Bill.
There are many things in this Bill, around housing and other issues, that need to be improved. We need a co-operative approach, but I very much doubt that will happen, given the Minister’s attitude and approach to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. I have served on, I think, every Armed Forces Bill for the last 20 years, and I am sure he will be delighted to know that I will also be on this Bill Committee, pressing on the points in the Bill that need to be improved. However, if he takes the same attitude as he did to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, we will not get very far. I urge the Secretary of State to take on board what my right hon. Friend for Wentworth and Dearne said: there are things in the Bill that can be improved to actually make sure that life for both servicemen and women, and veterans is improved.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for all his work in introducing this Armed Forces Bill, and also thank him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) for their work over many years on the armed forces covenant.
The Minister will not remember, but he and I made our maiden speeches in the same debate. His contribution was powerful, talking about his time in Afghanistan and how he was in this place to change things for veterans and the armed forces. It was impactful at the time, and I am pleased that he has had the opportunity to follow his dreams and put that into reality. This is a start, but I know there is much more to do, and I hope we will continue to improve the offer for those in the armed forces and those who have left.
During my time away from this House, I took on a public appointment role as chair of the south-east region for the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee, which was set up 100 years ago, in 1921. Its original aim was to help armed forces widows with their pension claims. It has branched out into helping veterans and their families in a number of areas, including informally monitoring the armed forces covenant. I was able to see that at first hand and how the covenant works on the ground.
I cover four councils: Hampshire County Council, and Winchester, East Hampshire and Havant Councils, all of which have armed forces champions and good procedures in place to support armed forces personnel and their families. We are lucky. Not every council is the same, so this Bill is much welcomed. However, I hope we can find the right way of monitoring how each council adopts and puts in place the education, housing and health requirements for their local armed forces personnel. We need to be clear on what it entitles them to and to hold each council to account when they fail to support our brave servicemen and women. The Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee is already in place and is UK-wide. It is in a perfect position to have an important role in monitoring the armed forces covenant. I hope that the MOD will put its role on a statutory basis, as the eyes and the ears on the ground for this purpose.
My other point is that complaints have been taking far too long to settle, to the extent that many people do not think it is worth complaining. The armed forces must not be frightened of complaints. An open and transparent organisation is a much happier one. Complaints must be taken seriously and dealt with quickly. Again, my time at the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee has shown that this is not always the case, and it is causing mental health issues, which affect not only the person concerned, but their families too. That is why I welcome the service justice system clauses, but urge that once the complainant has put in their complaint to appeal, the service should respond equally quickly. It would be good if the same six-week limit also applied to the response time from whichever authority has received the complaint. I hope that the Minister has considered that.
I look forward to the passage of this Bill and I will be supporting it.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
It is probably prudent for me to remind the Chamber that one of my children is a serving officer in the armed forces.
Like the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), through the armed forces parliamentary scheme I have learned a great deal about the education of armed forces personnel. I also recognise the excellent contribution that our service personnel are making to fighting the pandemic and want to express my personal thanks to the Secretary of State for several exchanges we have had in recent times about armed forces personnel coming to help Scotland, which has been lagging behind in the vaccination roll-out; I am grateful to him for that.
The armed forces covenant is about making sure that no service personnel past or present are disadvantaged in society compared with those in other walks of life or other citizens. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and several other Members asked why the duty is being extended only to local government and not a little further into some of the devolved institutions or, indeed, some of the ministerial functions of Her Majesty’s Government.
The Highland Council, of which I was formerly a member, has a joint armed forces champions system. It is shared between Councillor Major Carolyn Caddick, who is also honorary colonel of the 1st Battalion Highlanders Army Cadet Force, and Councillor Major Roddy Balfour, who once upon a time was my company commander. I should imagine the House would probably be quite interested in what he might have to say about the service record of Private Stone some years ago—and I suspect he might also quite enjoy telling the House about that. I have an agreement with them that I will take back to them what is proposed tonight and as the Bill progresses through Parliament in order to see how we might improve it. As armed forces champions, Councillors Caddick and Balfour know probably better than anyone where the gaps are, and I hope to relay that information back to the House and am grateful to them for agreeing to do this.
I want to make two short points before concluding. First, it has been raised with me that we are the only country in Europe, NATO and indeed among permanent membership of the UN Security Council that has this16-year-old system, and that perhaps we should be looking at a slightly different system in future, perhaps an armed forces education offer for 16 to 17-year-olds with an option to enlist at 18.
Finally, I absolutely associate myself with the remarks made about our excellent services personnel from the Commonwealth. It is wretched that after four years they can apply and that, as has been pointed out, a family of four will have to pay almost £10,000. That is deeply unfair and we owe it to them to put it right.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) [V]
It gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I want to pay particular tribute to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans who, along with the Secretary of State, has steered this Bill with a marvellous passion; he is a true advocate of whom all Members, especially on this side of the House, can be very proud. I also refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone); he alluded to the armed forces parliamentary scheme, on which I have served for two years, and I pay particular tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Longbottom MBE who I think can be personally singled out for helping to improve the quality of this debate, along with the scheme more broadly.
This is truly an historic moment; these debates have taking place every five years since 1689, after the Bill of Rights made it necessary for us to have them and a Bill every five years in order to have armed forces. I take particular pleasure in participating in the debate this year, from Montgomeryshire, with the armed forces deployed across our country supporting the effort against the pandemic.
I welcome many measures in the Bill, but I want to highlight a few of them, including the service justice system, introduced in 2006, with updates and reviews since 2017. I very much welcome the independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner established by the Bill, to ensure that there is an independent route for redress. I also welcome the clearer guidance for prosecutors on the way that service personnel are handled in the United Kingdom.
As a Government Member, I very much welcome the armed forces covenant being enshrined in law. That was in our manifesto, and we welcome it wholeheartedly. I welcome particularly the focus on healthcare, housing and education. As somebody who served on a local authority, I pay tribute to the 6,000 organisations that have signed up to the covenant since 2011. I look forward to the Secretary of State’s update on the covenant and, particularly, how the Bill will help to advance it. We have seen the strong provisions on wraparound childcare and the pilots on service family accommodation. Through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have, like other Members, talked to members of our armed forces about how these provisions help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) commented on the need for the devolved Administrations to step up, particularly in Wales. I echo the call for a veterans commissioner. Many of the levers in the Bill would be improved in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A veterans commissioner would give the power to push veterans’ causes, and I would like to work with Russell George, my Member of the Senedd for Montgomeryshire, to ensure that that happens.
I pay tribute to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. As she said, we have recently been told that the headquarters of the Army will remain in Brecon, in Powys—in the heart of Wales. I very much welcome that, and I will continue to champion, alongside her, that role in Brecon and Powys. I look forward to expressing my support for the Bill through the Deputy Chief Whip.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I speak today on behalf of everyone across my constituency who has served in, supported or contributed to the fantastic work of our armed forces both here at home and abroad. I pay particular tribute to the incredible work of our armed forces in supporting frontline efforts to tackle the coronavirus pandemic here in Wales and across the UK. From working with our fantastic ambulance crews to supporting the delivery of the vaccine, I know that our armed forces are playing a unique and crucial role in the fight against this virus.
Last Friday, we celebrated the 80th birthday of the Air Training Corps. As a very proud former air cadet, I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic work of our cadet forces in my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf and that of our armed forces champion, Councillor Maureen Webber. Our city council was one of the first local authorities in Wales to sign up to the armed forces covenant, and it was also the first Welsh local authority to receive the Ministry of Defence’s prestigious gold award in recognition of the council’s approach to supporting the armed forces community locally.
Only a year ago, I attended an event in my very first weeks as a Member of the House that sought to commemorate the remarkable work of the Welsh regiments. While I am sad not to be able to speak to those serving in the Welsh Guards, the Royal Welsh and the 1st the Queen’s Dragoon Guards in person, I recognise now more than ever the vital role that they provide to the armed forces and to the Union.
With that in mind, I welcome the Bill, as it represents a real and meaningful opportunity to improve the lives of our armed forces, veterans and their families. But the Government’s focus remains too narrow, and the Bill, as currently drafted, is a missed opportunity to deliver real and meaningful improvements for our service communities. I welcome the provision in the Bill to allow flexible working for Army reservists, allowing them the opportunity to serve on a part-time basis if they so choose. That is an all-important step to enable people with a wide range of responsibilities and from a wider range of backgrounds than ever before to consider joining the reserves.
However, there are still important questions that must be answered. First, why have the Government stopped short of adopting the recommendation in the Lyons review that civilian courts should have jurisdiction in matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK? Surely if justice is to be done in such serious cases, independence is crucial.
I have a number of comments to make on clause 8. The armed forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between the Government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. The Bill would place a legal responsibility on services such as local authorities to deliver on the covenant in areas of housing, healthcare and education, but in setting this legal standard—below existing voluntary commitments in some areas—the Minister and his Government risk creating a race to the bottom on services for our forces and their communities. This Government talk a good game about support, but are again failing to deliver the real change that service personnel and their families are crying out for.
All three principal Welsh regiments have a long and distinguished history, and retain a significant footprint across Wales, but in recent years we have sadly seen a significant decline in the number of Ministry of Defence personnel in Wales. Now, with key Welsh regiments located across the UK, our Welsh soldiers with families and partners in Wales find the cost of commuting prohibitive. We need to do all we can to encourage new recruits to join, rather than creating barriers to prevent new starters. As ever, this Government are light on details. They have promised statutory guidance to support local authorities and other bodies in meeting these responsibilities, but I have real concerns that the Government are trying to outsource their responsibility without providing the clarity and funding to local authorities to deliver these all-important services.
Beyond housing, healthcare and education, the scope of the Bill is simply too narrow. I urge the Minister to take action now to provide meaningful change to armed forces personnel, veterans and their families here in Pontypridd and across the UK by widening the scope of the Bill and providing the necessary funding to put these words directly into action.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, just a week after my family welcomed to the world my new great-niece Lyla Mae, who was born on a British military base in Cyprus.
Our armed forces, and especially our veterans, do not always get the recognition and support that they deserve. I welcome the Government reaffirming their commitment to the armed forces covenant. The armed forces and veterans community in Hartlepool forms a strong support network, and many want to see all parties in this House working together constructively to get the best from this Bill for our forces and to ensure that the covenant is delivered in full. However, as was evidenced in the review of the service justice system by Shaun Lyons, there are gaps in the system that have left some of our servicemen and women, and some of our veterans, high and dry.
Many Members will be familiar with the case of my constituent Mr Richard Lee, who is a veteran of the King’s Royal Hussars. His daughter, Katrice, went missing from the NAAFI in Paderborn, Germany in 1981. The search for Katrice is ongoing, and Richard and his family have lived with the impact of her disappearance for almost 40 years. A review of the investigation carried out by the Royal Military Police established that failures and mistakes were made in the initial investigation. Richard and his family have sought answers from the RMP to explain these failures, but no clear answers have been brought forward. At a meeting that I attended with Richard in January, the RMP told us that with no new leads, the investigation—known as Operation Bute—would essentially be mothballed.
Although Richard and I were grateful for the intervention of the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), during his time at the Ministry of Defence, we are little further forward from where we were a few years ago. I therefore welcome the establishment of an independent complaints commissioner for the service police to deliver for those who have been let down or failed by the service police. This is essential. My constituent should not have had to wait 30 years for even the simplest of apologies.
In my view, Shaun Lyons’s report and recommendations should be endorsed by this House and implemented in full. That includes the handling of serious criminal proceedings in civilian criminal courts, which are, according to the review, better placed to deal with serious criminal acts. I, along with many other Members, would very much like to hear why this recommendation from Shaun Lyons’s report was omitted from the Bill when other recommendations have been accepted and endorsed. A serious crime is still a serious crime, whether it is committed in or out of uniform, and our justice system should reflect that, as other NATO and Commonwealth allied armed forces have done already. The Government must provide a credible explanation for this omission and ensure that parity and fairness for victims and defendants are at the heart of the armed forces justice system, as well as the civilian system.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to speak in this important armed forces debate. One of the most significant changes that the Bill makes is to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law. The covenant was put in place 10 years ago to protect and support those who serve us as members of the armed forces. It is our very promise as a nation to ensure that those who serve or have served, and their families, are treated fairly.
Our armed forces defend and protect us, and we often think of them in the context of conflict overseas. However, in the past few months, we have seen at first hand the value of our servicemen and women, as they have built our field hospitals, carried out covid-19 testing and been part of the team vaccinating those at greatest risk. Only last week, a further 96 military personnel were detached to help with the vaccine roll-out here in Wales. Members of RAF Valley in my constituency of Ynys Môn have been assisting with testing across the UK.
Since its inception, over 6,000 businesses have signed up to the covenant, including Isle of Anglesey County Council and Môn Maintenance Services here in Holyhead, but once the Bill becomes legislation, the principles of the covenant will become a legal requirement. That will ensure equal treatment for our serving armed forces and for those who have left the services.
Our local poppy appeal co-ordinator, Piers Beeland, reminded me recently, “Don’t forget the veterans. We may be suffering genuine PTSD, long covid or live in substandard accommodation. Most of us were prepared not just to serve but to put our lives at risk to save others.” On behalf of all current and former servicemen and women, and particularly those in my constituency of Ynys Môn, I thank the Government for their work to create a country in which they can expect fair and equal treatment.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) [V]
May I add my thanks to all our armed forces personnel for everything they do and for the sacrifices they make to keep the rest of us safe? Today, I want to touch on what we can do to keep them safe outside their jobs and when they leave service.
A King’s College London study five years ago confirmed that there were in excess of 70,000 veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Now, mid-pandemic, that number will likely be higher, and there just are not the resources to get adequate help for all those individuals. The sad statistics show the blunt reality of what our service personnel face. More Falklands veterans have committed suicide since the conflict than those who lost their lives during it. Mental health issues can affect service personnel and veterans just as much as physical injuries, leading to unemployment, homelessness, social deprivation and addiction.
Gambling addiction is on the increase in the armed forces. One of the biggest challenges that those in the military face is getting that addiction recognised, as it is often seen as a weakness. To date, it is an offence to borrow money in the forces, but we know from the volume of case studies that every single week, disordered gamblers borrow money and will steal to fund their addiction. For those leaving service, it is evident that there is a worrying lack of support. Many find the transition back to civilian life very difficult, and mental health support falls far short, resulting in veterans being up to four times more likely than any other cohort to experience gambling-related harm.
With over 10,000 veterans thought to be suffering from or at risk of gambling-related harm, more really needs to be done to address the causes. Gambling becomes a coping mechanism, blocking out the anxiety, the anger and the loneliness. With an industry ready to prey on these vulnerable individuals, we need far better regulation to provide protection, if not through this Bill, then through other forms of legislation.
In addition to this Bill, I ask the Defence Secretary to please work with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport as they undertake the long-awaited gambling review. That review is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that gambling legislation in this country is both robust and future-proof. We have to get this right. The review needs to look not just at the industry but at its customers, and particularly at the cohorts, such as our armed forces and veterans, who are most vulnerable to harm.
Our armed forces serve to protect all of us and, in turn, it is our duty to protect them from associated public and mental health issues, of which addiction is one of the most isolating. We owe a real, huge debt of gratitude to every serving member of our armed forces and to all veterans, but thanks and accolades are not enough. There is so much more we need to be doing to help these heroes, many of whom suffer in silence after witnessing things the rest of us cannot even imagine. In truth, the scope of this Bill is too limited. Social care, pensions, compensation, employment and benefits are all excluded and, while it focuses on healthcare, mental health is, sadly, lacking. The answer to what we are doing with this Bill is, sadly, very little.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The defence of the realm is the first duty of Government, and this Bill provides the legal basis for the armed forces. In three years advising the then Defence Secretary, I had the privilege to meet many servicemen and women, at home and around the world, helping to keep Britain safe, and it is in recognition of their unique sacrifices and obligations that we have the armed forces covenant. This pledge from the nation commits to remove disadvantages arising from being a serving or former member of the armed forces, and to consider whether special provision is justified for those who have given the most.
I warmly welcome the new duty on public bodies to have due regard to the covenant’s principles when providing housing, education and healthcare. This is a very good start, and reflects the areas the Secretary of State is required to report on. However, the annual report typically covers a broader range of issues where personnel face disadvantage, including family life, criminal justice and employment, so I encourage the Government to broaden the scope in due course. I hope the Minister will reassure the Royal British Legion and others that the case for adding further areas is under active review.
While I support public bodies being subject to this duty, the Bill would be improved by including Government Departments, which determine policy, allocate resource or provide national guidance to other delivery bodies. I know how committed Ministers are to the armed forces covenant, and a legal duty would help ensure that it is properly adhered to. Clearly, it also needs to be enforceable, and judicial review is expensive and slow, so it would be helpful to clarify that the local government and social care ombudsman and other bodies will have responsibilities for enforcement.
During my time at the Ministry of Defence, I helped instigate the service justice review in 2017. I did so because I was concerned about the transparency, fairness and efficiency of the system and the impact on service personnel who have been let down. The Government have rightly accepted many of Shaun Lyons’s proposals to improve the system. However, I am concerned that they have not accepted his first recommendation that court martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when offences are committed in the UK, except with the consent of the Attorney General. That is the approach that other countries have adopted, including Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans for the discussion we have had on this issue, and I do think it would be helpful to send a clear message from the House that, as a general principle, civilian authority should take precedence for investigating and prosecuting those offences in the UK. This is about giving victims confidence to come forward, and also about public confidence. Another important step to improve confidence are the changes to bring the court martial system into line with the Crown court by introducing qualified majority voting where there are six lay members.
Finally, I was pleased to work on measures to enable part-time working for our armed forces. This Bill will allow reservists to benefit from the same flexible working provisions that regulars have to undertake full-time or part-time service. Churchill called reservists “twice the citizen”, and this is very much a welcome move. Our armed forces represent the best of us, and I am pleased to support the Bill, which will strengthen our commitment to their service.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
I want to tell the story of my constituent Maurillia Simpson, who has served in the Royal Logistic Corps for 13 years. Maurillia grew up in Trinidad. Becoming a British soldier was a dream of hers from the age of seven after she saw Her Majesty the Queen on a state visit.
During her third tour in Iraq, Maurillia was a corporal and a section leader on the frontline. Her position was hit by a mortar, everything went black and silent, and she did not know if she was dead or alive, buried under deep rubble. During the hours in that darkness, a song her mother used to sing to her as a child came to her, and she started to sing it as a form of comfort and as a way of trying to tell her family that she loved them.
It took 20 hours to get Maurillia out from under that rubble and into hospital. She survived, but it was not the end of her troubles. In 2010, while preparing for a tour in Afghanistan, Maurillia was in a traffic accident that ruptured her left leg, and it had to be completely rebuilt. She was left with a disability and still needs surgery to improve her mobility and reduce the pain.
In 2013, despite being on a waiting list for surgery and having no other home to go to, Maurillia was invalided out of the Army, ending her 13 years of service against her will. She was told she would be looked after; told to wait. She is a soldier; she followed instructions. She waited alone, not knowing who to turn to—and it got worse. After a year spent sleeping on her cousin’s sofa or in her car, Maurillia had a visit, out of the blue, from a sergeant major, not to offer the support she clearly needed but to demote her. There were two weeks to appeal but she was just about to go finally into hospital for surgery and she did not understand the system. Losing her rank had a huge impact on Maurillia: on her mental health and on her financial security. If the covenant means anything, it should mean a guarantee that no one is abandoned like she was.
The duties in this Bill for health, education, housing and local government could help to ensure that more support is available, but the reality of the story, it seems to me, is that the MOD failed Maurillia, even though the covenant has been in force since 2012. How many more veterans has the Ministry failed in this way? How can we improve the Bill to ensure that no one else is failed? At the moment, the covenant offer sometimes allows an outsourcing of responsibility from the MOD to our underfunded councils and our public services. But the Ministry passes the buck without passing the bucks, and that has to change, because the covenant must become a true guarantee of support for veterans. We owe that to Maurillia; we owe it to so many others.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Hull and the East Riding have always been popular recruitment areas for the armed forces, so the whole of the UK owes our local veterans and armed forces community a huge debt. Labour’s Hull City Council takes this debt and these obligations very seriously. Hull Labour understands the need to increase local knowledge and awareness of how the armed forces community’s requirements may differ from those of civilians, how service can affect access to public services, and the benefits of creating greater consideration of their specific needs in the provision of those services.
Because of this, Labour’s Hull City Council has already embedded much of the covenant into its systems and practices, and its efforts have been recognised with the award of gold employer standard, as it has demonstrated due regard through its initiatives. For example, reference to the covenant is linked into existing equality protected characteristics, and veteran status is included in all questionnaires circulated through the council’s people power surveys. Reference to valuing our armed forces community is included as a social cause in the council’s commissioning process, and dedicated reference to the covenant is included in a section of the schools admission guidance.
To help to ensure awareness among council staff when dealing with veterans, Hull Labour has designated armed forces champions in the council’s customer service centres. Hull City Council has made training available for all members of staff, and this training is mandatory for housing staff. To ensure oversight and accountability, the council has in place an elected armed forces champion and a senior office lead for the authority. An armed forces covenant officer is already employed to further ensure that the council adheres to its duty.
Labour’s Hull City Council supports and maintains strong links with the veterans community hub, which I am proud to have situated in my own constituency of Hull West and Hessle. The hub provides specialist support for veterans, including money and employment advice. The council’s relationship with the service has been recognised as an example of best practice. We are also very fortunate to have active local charities and breakfast groups such as Hull 4 Heroes and the Hull Veterans Support Centre. The council also leads the armed forces forum, which is well attended by charities and statutory services, including the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Health and Wellbeing Alliance, which, as one of its core outcomes, is improving outcomes for veterans.
Labour’s Hull City Council’s commitment to the veterans of Hull cannot be doubted. Despite the huge cuts to its budgets imposed by successive Conservative Administrations since 2010—now standing at £120 million a year less—it continues to put veterans’ welfare front and centre. However, the impact on resources of embedding the new statutory covenant legislation cannot be ignored by the Government, who are creating that legislation and requirement. Veterans are facing increasingly complex issues, and the services they need are in high demand from all quarters of society. I know that Labour will play its full part in improving this legislation by pushing to include measurable national standards for the covenant, equality of treatment for all British armed forces veterans, regardless of country of birth, and Lyons’ recommendation that civilian courts have jurisdiction in the matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences. I look forward to seeing this Bill proceed through Parliament.
Veterans deserve the support that this legislation is intended to provide, but the fact is that there is no additional funding to allow local authorities to deliver on its expectation. Like many councils up and down the country, Hull City Council is actively engaged in providing that support our veterans need. It must now be given the means to continue to do so.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Let me declare my own family interests, not least those going back multiple generations: my father and uncles who served with the Royal Corps of Signals and Royal Navy; cousins who bravely served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and more; my grandfather in the 1st Airborne Division taken prisoner of war at Arnhem; and my great-grandparents who served in the artillery and the King’s Own Scottish Borderers on the Western Front.
I am hugely proud of the strong constituency connections with our armed forces in Cardiff South and Penarth, not least our Welsh family of regiments: the Welsh Guards; the Royal Welsh and the Queen’s Dragoon Guards. We also have the brand new HMS Cambria training facility, MOD St Athan, which was previously RAF St Athan, and our amazing veterans organisations locally, including the Welsh Veterans Partnership, Woody’s Lodge and many others.
I am proud to have witnessed at first hand our incredible forces worldwide from Afghanistan to Canada, and from Norway to Cyprus, and I thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust for the incredible insights that it has offered.
There have been some excellent speeches today. In particular, I want to commend my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for West Ham (Ms Brown), and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) for his brave and rightly challenging speech. I am pleased by the cross-party and constructive approach taken by most Members today, many of whom I have been proud to work with through the all-party group for the armed forces. It is vital that those who serve us know that they have support from all corners of this House. I therefore take some issue with a small minority today who have tried to imply otherwise. That does our serving forces and veterans no good. There should never be a monopoly on patriotism or pride in our armed forces. We all, regardless of political party, owe them so much. Critical is the example shown by the remarkable work in response to covid-19, including in Wales, where our armed forces, working with Governments of all political colours across the UK, are showing the strength of working together across this Union. Our Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, spoke proudly this week of the work of our UK armed forces in supporting the vaccine efforts, our NHS, and logistics among so much else.
There have been powerful links between Wales and the armed forces over hundreds of years. One of my most recent visits before these difficult times was with the Royal Welsh on Salisbury Plain, where I was driven around in a Warrior by a fantastic Royal Welsh soldier, who also happened to be a Fijian. As we have heard today, there is a proud tradition of Commonwealth soldiers serving in our armed forces, especially the Army. There are particularly strong links with some countries such as Fiji in Wales. On many visits, I have met personnel from the Caribbean, Africa, the South Pacific, Canada, and Australia. Then, of course, there are the remarkable Gurkhas, who I was holed up with under simulated attack at the infantry training centre in Catterick. They serve alongside us and for us, as have so many for so many generations, with the same bravery, determination and professionalism as anyone else. They serve alongside us and for us, as have so many for so many generations, with the same bravery, determination and professionalism as anyone else. With recent issues in recruitment, they have become even more critical to our forces, in some cases comprising well over 10% of an individual unit.
Yet we are letting them down. I have been appalled to hear of Fijian veterans who have been left destitute, homeless and without adequate food, relying on veterans’ organisations and regimental associations. What on earth is happening on discharge, and where are the support and resettlement processes? The issues around visas for settlement of family, travel for compassionate leave, other administrative issues, separated families and so many others have rightly been exposed. The Ministry of Defence needs to get a grip on the issue, undertake a root and branch reform, do the right thing by those who serve us from across the Commonwealth and ensure that we treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve for the service they have given us.
Lastly, I refer to clause 18 of the Bill, regarding historical injustices against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender service personnel of the past—people who, simply because of their sexual orientation, were prosecuted and punished. I praise Lord Cashman, Lord Lexden and all those involved, but there is still a series of historical injustices, including to lesbians who served and who were often discharged under provisions such as “services no longer required”. We need to do the right thing by all those people who were wrongly persecuted for their sexuality or gender identity, and judge them on their bravery and professionalism, not on those characteristics.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
We owe our armed forces personnel and veterans and their families an enormous debt of gratitude for their selfless actions to help keep our country safe. Our armed forces are exceptional people who work in unique circumstances, and they deserve our very best in terms of support. It is only this Conservative Government that will give our troops the full support they need. It was not so long ago that some on the Opposition Benches were toying with abolishing the Army; I am so very pleased that that has been abandoned and now we are all working together.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank our servicemen and women personally. I have seen first-hand their commitment and hard work during the covid pandemic. I have seen just how efficiently they assisted the delivery of the roll-out of testing for covid in Matlock in my constituency, and how important they have been in assisting with the vaccination programme. Quite literally, we owe many lives to them, and I thank them.
I thank my former unit, the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (Princess Royal’s Volunteer Corps), who have also been assisting ably in the covid pandemic. I would also like, in some small way this evening, to convey the heartfelt values of support for our servicemen and women and the understated, proud patriotism that has been held by so many ordinary people in the United Kingdom since the second world war—many of whom have now sadly died, some indeed having passed away in this recent pandemic.
Moving on to the armed forces covenant, I am so very pleased that this Bill delivers the manifesto commitment to our service people and veterans by, for the first time ever, creating a legal obligation for certain public bodies to have due regard to the armed forces covenant. No matter where our armed forces and their families are in the Union, they will receive the same level of consideration for their specific needs from local public bodies in relation to housing, healthcare and education. Those issues are of prime importance to our serving and former members of the armed forces and their families.
This Bill represents a significant milestone in that journey. The duty it will place on public bodies is really important. From my work at the Bar and within the care system I have seen many tragic cases where veterans have not had their needs met in housing, education and mental health provision, and I see how that affects not only the serviceman or woman, but the wider family, including through suicide and domestic violence.
Since my election, I have raised at ministerial level the issue of suicide, and I will continue to do so. I want to continue this work, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) for his moving contribution. I have witnessed in my legal work families facing the difficulties he faced. This Bill will help such families, and I thank the Government for that.
Since my election in 2019, I have been hugely impressed by the support of the British people for service personnel. Locally, in Derbyshire Dales, I have had the pleasure of seeing the hard work undertaken by the Ashbourne Ex-Servicemen’s Club, and I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to them.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by paying tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore on behalf of the people of Stockport. Sir Tom sadly passed away last week, but he represented the best of Britain and gave joy to millions of us during the lowest points of the crisis. He served with distinction during the second world war, and as we debate the Bill, I would like to thank Captain Sir Tom and all the armed forces for their service, not least during this covid pandemic when their efforts have further helped to keep our country safe.
As well as keeping our citizens safe, the armed forces also help to pull our communities together. For example, in my constituency, I would also like to give a special mention to Army veteran Peter Millns of the Stockport branch of the Armed Forces and Veterans Breakfast Clubs. I had the wonderful opportunity to visit the club in March last year and meet the incredible people such as Peter who give their time to help run the club and provide such a worthy service. Peter is an inspirational individual. He is the driving force behind my local branch, helping to create a close-knit community for Stockport veterans. Peter is not unique, though. Liz Murray from the Stockport branch of the Royal British Legion also does so much to support our veteran community in the town. The help that the likes of Liz and Peter give to armed forces personnel past and present is vital, and it is never more important than at times like these, which are particularly challenging and can place an even greater burden on our veterans.
Voluntary organisations are amazing, but it should not be left to them to make up the shortfall in Government support. Too often, the armed forces covenant is not upheld and the promises made do not match the reality experienced by our service communities, from substandard housing to veterans’ mental health and social care. Just last week, a scathing report by the National Audit Office revealed that tens of thousands of troops live in “substandard accommodation” while the Ministry of Defence refuses to pay for £1.5 billion pounds worth of repairs and half the rooms in MOD barracks would fail to meet current building regulations. That is no way to treat those who have put their lives on the line to keep our country safe.
The Armed Forces Bill places a legal responsibility on councils to deliver on the covenant in the areas of housing, healthcare and education, but without providing any extra funding to do so. That commitment is even harder to keep when the likes of my local authority, Stockport Council, have not only faced repeated cuts and austerity for more than a decade but now face a shortfall of millions after the Government failed to deliver on their promise to fully fund local authorities for the cost of covid-19 and keeping the people of Stockport safe. A fair financial settlement for our local authorities is the only way that the likes of our serving and veteran armed forces personnel can continue to receive the support they deserve.
Indeed, it is only right that our armed forces, veterans and their families do not continue to experience any disadvantage when accessing services, as we have seen most recently on the housing issue. The sad reality, though, is that too many still face barriers to accessing the support they need. That is why this Government must go further and deliver the armed forces covenant in full. To ensure that that happens, this Bill should set measurable, national standards that would once and for all end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Anthony Mangnall, I must inform the House that the wind-ups will start at 9.40 with Stephen Morgan, followed by Ben Wallace at 9.50. The question will then be put at 10 o’clock, and I apologise in advance to those Members who may not get in.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak on this Bill, and I would like to start by congratulating the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). He has been assiduous in helping my constituents—veterans and those who are currently serving—with mental health issues and with housing issues, and I thank him for everything that he has done. Today should be a moment for us all to reflect on the hard work that he has put in to the Bill, and into the armed forces covenant to get it where it is. He should rightly be proud.
I am proud to have in my constituency the Britannia Royal Naval College, and I cannot talk enough about it. Last year, I was proud to attend the passing-out parade as ratings and officers were, for the first time ever, able to graduate as they went off into the Royal Navy. I thought then, as I think now, about the future that they will have in the armed forces and what they will have when they retire, become veterans and serve in other occupations, and about what we must do to support those who so bravely put their lives on the line to protect our borders and to push our interests overseas. I hope that today is an opportunity for us to reflect on the fact that we are matching action with words, that we are delivering on our promise to our armed forces and that this will be the start of the many promising steps that we can deliver to those who serve our country.
This is a historic moment, as the Minister has already said, and I welcome the fact that the Bill updates the Armed Forces Act 2006 and that it provides an update to the service justice system, ensuring a fair and effective route to justice. However, I would specifically like to pay attention to the armed forces covenant, which, as I have already said, has been championed so well by the Minister. It is covered in clause 8. We are doing this not just because we have a duty to those servicemen and not just because a focus group tells us to be patriotic, but because this is the right thing for us to do. I come from a military family. My uncle served in the Welsh Guards, and my father was a Green Jacket for his entire career, so I understand what it is like to be in a military family: the requirement to move at the last minute, the onerous stresses of the job that go with it, and the impact that they can place on a family. As such, the fact that this Bill focuses and delivers on the defence transition services that help people move from the military into the private sector, provides flexibility for reservists, and recognises the need to support our veterans and servicemen through education, healthcare and employment are all steps that we should rightly be proud of.
However, we must also recognise that this is a job that will never be finished. It will always require this House, and Members from across this House, to work together to find ways in which we can improve housing and address the mental health issues that are so likely to arise from conflict and crises. These are all welcome steps, but what we must learn for now is that we must improve access to mental health care. With a rural constituency, I know how hard it often is for veterans to access mental health services, so it is particularly welcome to see that the Government’s HeadFIT scheme, launched in April last year, has had such a positive impact, and that 800 GP practices are now recognised as veteran-friendly. I hope that is something we are going to see delivered again and again and improved upon, and that the Minister will come back to the House to provide an update on the progress of these steps.
This is not just about our determination to create the best armed forces in the world; it is about providing support that lasts from when a person joins the service, through their service, and during their careers afterwards. We have that duty. I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken through this Bill, and I welcome this Bill overall.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by paying tribute to our armed forces for everything their personnel have done and continue to do, including in our ongoing battle against coronavirus. I would also like to pay tribute to Labour-led South Tyneside Council in my constituency of Jarrow, where earlier this month, a motion was passed unanimously outlining the council’s support for Commonwealth veterans.
I support the aims of this Bill. However, in its current form, it does not put the armed forces covenant properly into law, to ensure that the long-term failings in the military justice system are put right. As evidenced by the Government’s annual reports, 10 years of the covenant’s operation have shown that the issues the armed forces community face are far-reaching, including health, housing, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, education, criminal justice and immigration. This legislation should include all those broader issues, so it is disappointing that the Bill as introduced covers only certain aspects of health, housing and education.
There is nothing in the Bill to address the long-standing issues around criminal and civil justice for our veterans. How can the Ministry of Defence provide duty of care oversight for service personnel in the service discipline system when it is responsible for investigating, charging and prosecuting them? One of my constituents, Gavin Brearley, has a complaint against the Royal Navy that goes back many years. During his last year of service with the Royal Navy, Gavin was in a hit and run that left him with long-term injuries. He received no rehabilitation and was not medically discharged. His service complaints have never received a satisfactory outcome, and his main concern is that an independent complaints procedure has never been available to him. Various service charities are concerned that the scope of the Bill is too narrow, containing nothing specific on issues such as compensation. The scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage for veterans such as Gavin are addressed.
Additionally, the Armed Forces Bill does not address what many regard as the injustice of the income requirement that can prevent Commonwealth veterans who have served in our armed forces from living here with their families. A change to the immigration rules for veterans and their immediate families would have been a tangible gesture of gratitude to the brave Commonwealth nations men and women who served in our armed forces. This is a huge missed opportunity in the Bill, and being granted citizenship should not come with having to pay extortionate fees. The Government must treat all veterans with the respect they deserve. Leaving them in a state of bureaucratic limbo for years is both shameful and immoral.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Bill and especially the way in which it further incorporates the armed forces covenant into law. I am proud to have two RAF bases in my constituency: RAF Halton, which is primarily a training base; and RAF High Wycombe, which is the home of Air Command and will soon be the home of space command. I pay tribute to all service personnel at Halton and Wycombe and, indeed, those serving everywhere in the UK and worldwide. It is absolutely right that they and their families should be treated fairly and with respect, wherever they are asked to live and work.
Given my experience in the civilian criminal justice system prior to my election—specifically 12 years as a magistrate and a time on the Sentencing Council—I shall concentrate my remarks on changes to the service justice system. Perhaps unsurprisingly, my interest centres on concurrence between the two systems. I take the view that if an offence is committed by a member of the armed forces in the UK, and that offence is not directly linked to military conduct or the maintenance of good order and discipline, the defendant, witnesses and victims should be afforded the same broad principles and rights of justice as if the offence had been committed by a civilian. I am pleased to see that there are several clauses in the Bill that aim to achieve exactly that, as a result of the implementation of recommendations from the review by His Honour Judge Lyons. Notably, these include allowing more junior ranks to sit on a court martial board and permitting only one dissenting voice majority decisions at courts martial rather than the current system, which requires just a simple majority. I am also very pleased to see the introduction of a power to rectify mistakes, which reflects the system in the civilian criminal justice system.
One area that gives me cause for concern, however, is the rejection of Judge Lyons’s first recommendation, which was that unless the Attorney General decides otherwise, the offences of murder, manslaughter and rape should be investigated and prosecuted in the civilian system, not investigated by the service police and prosecuted at court martial. These, after all, represent the most serious offences, and it is imperative that they should be handled in a way that will ensure confidence from all participants in the justice process, especially victims as well as the general public.
Those offences were not subject to the service justice system prior to 2006, so following the Lyons recommendation would not undermine a long-standing precedent. Indeed, Judge Lyons’s report states that in many other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, offences that are so serious in nature are dealt with in the civilian system unless an exemption is granted by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the case of Australia or the Attorney-General in the case of New Zealand. The intention in the Bill is instead to require the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions to agree a protocol to determine whether civilian or service jurisdiction apply in cases of murder, manslaughter and rape. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister expanded on the principles that will guide this protocol.
I am absolutely sure that, like me, the Minister wishes justice to be done and to be seen to be done when serious offences are committed, on those rare occasions, by service personnel in the UK. I feel confident that the added information I seek will provide crucial reassurance that will further strengthen this excellent Bill.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
I am rightly proud of the UK’s armed forces, which are respected around the world for their professionalism and their expertise. Although my own experience is limited to being a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am proud to say that my nephew is a serving soldier.
That professionalism has been seen once again in this past year, from battling floods across the UK and collapsing dams in Yorkshire to the health pandemic, bringing the forces’ expertise in logistics and capacity to support the Government. With the evidence of the value of those forces so fresh in our minds, it seems obvious for the Government to use this moment to make a clear and meaningful statement to improve the day-to-day lives of our forces personnel, our veterans and their families. That is what Labour believes, and what I believe.
Something is clearly not working. Having met several veterans in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, I can vouch for the challenges that they face. For example, soldier C came to me in 2018, in a surgery visit. His eyes betrayed his traumatic situation. I want to focus on some of the issues that came to light in that conversation with soldier C and in others. Although the covenant will provide some focus on healthcare, housing and education, it could go much further.
As charities such as the Royal British Legion have highlighted—and as we in the Labour party believe—the fact that the covenant contains little to address important issues such as employment demonstrates that the Bill is too narrow. If the Government are serious about improving the level of service for members of the armed forces community, they need to address substandard housing, veterans’ mental health and social care. The promises made in the covenant often do not match the reality experienced by our service communities.
Let me start with housing. I have seen with my own eyes, and heard about at first hand, the dreadful state of accommodation on visits to MOD sites with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Of course, there is little choice for most personnel on our bases; it is not like they can head off and lodge somewhere else if it is not up to scratch.
Just last week, the National Audit Office released a report concluding that thousands of armed forces personnel are living in substandard accommodation. Some 80,000 people are occupying single living accommodation blocks —that is half the armed forces—and, of those, the National Audit Office found that more than a third, or 36%, were living in poorer-grade accommodation, while almost 2,400 were in housing considered to be of such bad quality that they were not even charged any rent.
The report said that the Ministry of Defence was failing in its commitment to provide high-quality subsidised housing, with a £1.5 billion backlog of repairs, following decades of underinvestment. The failure of the Government to provide sufficient housing for veterans—as we saw in the case of soldier C—is underlined by the Royal British Legion statistics showing that between 3% and 6% of homeless people have an armed forces background. This Government talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
When it comes to mental health, recent King’s College London and Forces in Mind Trust research found that veterans are at greater risk of mental health disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol misuse when compared with the general population. Yet a Defence Committee report reveals that less than 0.007% of the annual NHS budget is spent on mental health services specifically for veterans, despite the traumatic experiences they have suffered. Among the difficulties reported by veterans to the Royal British Legion’s survey was the failure of benefits officials to understand post-traumatic stress disorder when carrying out and scoring health assessments for disability benefits. Also, of course, it is so hard for veterans to find work in civvy street.
The Bill goes some way to address the issues facing our forces through the covenant, but so much more could have been done. Let us not forget that the armed forces are there to defend the realm and to keep us secure, and that many—as we commemorate every November—have made the ultimate sacrifice. We should safeguard them and provide for them as we would wish to be provided for.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I am delighted to have been called to speak in this debate. Approving the continuation of the armed forces is one of our solemn duties in this House. They allow us as a country to sleep soundly at night, in the knowledge that a world-class organisation stands ready to defend us and our allies 24/7. In the past 12 months, we have seen the incredible reliance we have on the armed forces here in the UK, too. Without their expertise and manpower, we would not be where we are today in the fight against covid-19 and in the roll-out of the vaccine.
This legislation does not only renew our armed forces for another five years; it goes much further. It delivers on another manifesto promise to back our veterans and our active personnel properly. We have already established the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, ably led by the Minister. We introduced the railcard for veterans. We introduced legislation to end vexatious claims against our serving and former personnel. Through this legislation, we will enshrine the military covenant further into law. I thank Ministers and the Secretary of State for all their work to protect our armed forces.
The reason we need this legislation is that the support provided to veterans by local authorities is inconsistent at best. Although it might be excellent in some towns and cities, particularly those with long and deep histories of armed forces garrisons, in other areas it is lacking. The Bill will help to fix that gap by finally putting into law the obligation that authorities have to ensure that, on housing, education and healthcare, we stand by those who served our country. In doing this, let us encourage local authorities and public bodies to think about how the ecosystem of support that exists can be better integrated. Hundreds of charities and community groups do incredible work in all these areas. The Bill should be the catalyst we need to bring all that together and, rather than replacing activity, co-ordinate and enhance it, with the public, private and third sectors all working together for our former and current members of the armed forces. There are still too many instances of public bodies, local authorities and charities competing for funding, which means that they do not always work together even where that is in the best interests of veterans.
I believe that every area should have an armed forces champion, but if we cannot mandate that, let us give guidance on it and best practice, because even in those areas where that role exists, it is not always what we need it to be. It can be someone who shows the leadership needed to pull all the services together and act as a central point of contact. We should all be incredibly proud of this legislation, which demonstrates our enduring commitment to the armed forces and the whole family.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to speak in the debate. Many in the House will know that I have a great deal of respect for our armed services personnel, who have put themselves in harm’s way and made the ultimate sacrifice to protect all of us here the UK. We owe them so much. As the Member for Coventry North West, I am proud to have several army reserve centres in my constituency including at Westfield House on Radford Road with the Signal Regiment and the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers to name a few. I am here because I stand behind our armed forces in totality. I recognise their ongoing efforts to make our country safe, and today I want to pay tribute to them in particular for the frontline work they have undertaken to help us during the pandemic.
The Bill is a good start, and I welcome it, but the work is far from over. To truly honour our service personnel, we must build on it. Not to do so would be a disservice to our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. The armed forces covenant presents a binding moral commitment between the Government and the service community to ensure that men and women and their families get the respect and fair treatment they have earned through their service to our country. It is imperative that the Government deliver on the covenant in full, but the Bill as it stands is a bark without a bite. The Government cannot talk up commitments to our service personnel and not provide concrete action to match it. As it stands, we are already letting them down with substandard housing and a lack of service provision for mental health and social care. The Bill provides the perfect opportunity for us to do more.
The Government state in the Bill that public bodies should give “due regard” to the principles of the covenant, but that is too ambiguous. If the Bill is passed with such ambiguous language, there is a real threat that our service personnel will not see positive change in their day-to-day life. It will be business as usual, and we will continue to see things such as a high homelessness rate among our veterans.
The Bill places a legal responsibility on local authorities to deliver on the covenant in housing, healthcare and education without providing them with any additional funding to do so. If the Government intend to outsource responsibility for delivering on the covenant for our armed forces, I hope they will provide local authorities with the funding needed to make that a reality.
Our servicemen and women—those currently serving—and veterans deserve better, and so do their families. I want to see our armed forces, veterans and their families fully supported, but there are still too many barriers that stop them from accessing key service and support. The Government need to do more by our service personnel, and the one way they can do so is by going further in the Bill and delivering the armed forces covenant in full.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, may I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) for his incredibly brave speech?
This Bill enables our exceptional armed forces to exist and delivers our manifesto commitment and the vision of my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. It is a testament to his commitment to the armed forces and veterans, using this as an opportunity to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
While our brave men and women are supported in their service around the globe, that has not always been the case back at home. They have often had to join the back of the queue. Thankfully, that wrong will, in part, be righted by the Bill. Sadly, in recent days I have heard from a number of veterans in Darlington who have in the past failed to receive adequate access to local services upon their discharge. They have felt forgotten, their needs not understood. One of my constituents, who left the services in 2007, having served in Iraq and Northern Ireland, put it to me:
“The armed forces spend months and thousands of pounds turning civilians into soldiers. However, once leaving, it’s a quick handshake and off you pop.”
In preparing for tonight’s debate, I took the opportunity to discuss the Bill with my former colleague in legal practice, Michael Menzies-Baird, or Mingus to his pals. Mingus served as a soldier in Northern Ireland, defusing bombs, before retraining to become a litigation solicitor. He now gives up his free time to serve SSAFA, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. Mingus said to me:
“Enshrining the armed forces covenant in law is solely about fairness. The armed forces are sent worldwide whenever the nation requires us to serve, to give everything, putting our lives on the line to protect the UK. I was very lucky, but many of my colleagues have either not returned, done so with disabilities or suffer with PTSD having witnessed the horrors of war. They just want to be treated fairly and to have their efforts recognised—a little helping hand, rather than being ignored, which it has felt they have been for many, many years.”
I have also met Councillor Brian Jones, Darlington’s armed forces ambassador. He warmly welcomes the obligations that will be placed on local authorities. As he said, it is to do the right thing.
The Bill is welcomed by the armed forces community in Darlington precisely because it enshrines the armed forces covenant in law, ensuring protection and fair treatment for our armed forces community and imposing a legal duty on UK public bodies and local authorities to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, ensuring that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged because of or by their service when accessing key public services.
This Bill builds on the Government’s investment in the welfare of our armed forces and honours our manifesto pledge. I look forward to supporting the Bill this evening and continuing our commitment to those who serve as we work to protect those who have put their lives on the line to protect us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Peter. You took less than four minutes. Everybody remaining on the call list is a Government Member. While we will keep the time limit at four minutes, if Members are able to speak for less than four minutes, they will be helping those lower down the call list. I call Andrew Bowie.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]
There is a challenge I hope to meet, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not often that the professionalism and adaptability of our men and women of the armed forces are witnessed up close by the British people. Occasionally we see our armed forces step in to support communities suffering natural disasters. For example, I remember from my youth the Green Goddesses being deployed during the 2002 fire service strike. Thankfully, however, in our country the occasions when we see armed service personnel deployed on our streets are few and far between. Far more often, the skills and determination of our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are seen overseas.
This year has been very different. Since this awful pandemic hit Britain, we have seen the very best of the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force here at home. The enemy may not be the traditional kind; we are not asking our troops to face foreign combatants. Nevertheless, it is an enemy that we must defeat, and that is why it is right that the skills of our armed forces are at the forefront of this battle.
As of 5 February 2021, some 5,000 military personnel were committed to assist with 69 open requests for covid-19 military aid to civilian authorities. Around 14,000 personnel are on standby as part of the winter preparedness package. Here in Scotland, we have seen 115 military personnel, including soldiers from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, help to set up and operate vaccination centres, including just down the road from where I am speaking, where they have worked with the amazing people at NHS Grampian to deliver a vaccination centre at the P&J Live arena in Aberdeen. From assisting in planning with the devolved Administrations to supporting our NHS on the ground and running testing centres, our armed forces are the tip of the spear of our attack on coronavirus. When we beat it, as we will, it will be in no small part due to the professionalism and dedication of our men and women in uniform.
Our armed forces have done all that while continuing to defend and protect the British interest and that of our allies in Afghanistan, the Baltics, Belize, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, the Falklands, Iceland, Germany, Gibraltar, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, the Red sea, the Gulf, the south Atlantic and the Antarctic, and across the north Atlantic and Mediterranean, while maintaining our continuous at-sea deterrent for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, every year since 1965, with the RAF now monitoring space. That is why it is apt that the debate on this Bill is scheduled for today and in this year. The Bill’s primary purpose is to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006, update and improve the service justice system and, importantly, deliver the Government’s commitment to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
I am proud to represent Aberdeenshire: last year, my local authority, Aberdeenshire Council, was awarded the Ministry of Defence employer recognition scheme gold award. Much of the work was driven by Aberdeenshire veterans champion, Conservative councillor and deputy provost Ron McKail, himself a veteran.
On reserves, briefly, I welcome the new continuous service commitment, which will enable members of the reserve forces to volunteer to undertake a period of full-time or part-time service. That is a positive step, but in welcoming this Government support for our reserve forces I must raise the concerns of those in my constituency who currently serve in the Royal Naval Reserve, who saw the service suspended at the tail end of last year. Drill nights, training weekends and two-week training has been paused and those serving feel let down, with some in my constituency describing the decision as a real kick in the teeth. We must support our reserves properly and ensure that those serving know that they are full, valued members of our armed forces family and are not easily pushed aside, as many feel they have been at this time. I look forward to April, when the pause will end, and hope it never happens again.
The debate on the issues covered in the Bill will go on in Committee and beyond, but it is right that tonight the House seems to be coming together and that we acknowledge and understand that, as the covenant says, those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy and society that they serve with their lives.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I speak on this important Bill as the daughter of a veteran, the founder of a charity that supports vulnerable veterans, and an early signatory of the armed forces covenant. I want to concentrate on the covenant element.
My late father Eric served in the Royal Artillery in world war two. When war broke out he was 17, a young man from Birmingham who had never travelled beyond the midlands. He saw active service in Iraq and Sicily before landing on Gold beach on D-day, crossing northern France and being part of the liberation of Brussels. My father was only 23 when the war ended, yet it defined him for the rest of his life.
Nowadays, we recognise the mental health challenges of those who have experienced trauma on the frontline and understand the difficulties faced by some in making the transition to civvy street. The armed forces covenant recognises that those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, and those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Such core principles go to the very heart of our values in Stoke-on-Trent: our recognition of, gratitude for and respect for our veterans runs through our veins.
I am sure the Minister will want to join me in congratulating Stoke City football club on its outstanding achievement as the first English football club to be awarded gold in the employer recognition scheme. In 2019, the club hosted a regional employer conference to promote the covenant and encourage small businesses to sign up. Many businesses in Stoke-on-Trent have stepped up to support our veterans, and 15 have been awarded the gold, silver or bronze award in the national employer recognition scheme.
The Bill will ensure that local authorities such as Stoke-on-Trent City Council now have a statutory responsibility to underpin their voluntary covenant commitment, but a big problem remains: we simply do not know how many veterans there are in our area. As a result, many may be unintentionally disadvantaged. Of the 1,900 people currently on the housing register in Stoke-on-Trent, just eight are known to be veterans, yet SSAFA estimates that approximately 47,000 veterans live in Staffordshire. The absence of this information might mean that access to funding from veterans charities for adaptations to properties for veterans with disabilities is denied. I therefore welcome the commitment from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans to improving the data available on veterans, as well as the Government’s £300-million investment in the development of an enhanced veterans portal. However, in the meantime we must encourage veterans to identify themselves to local authorities, particularly during next year’s national census.
In conclusion, for my father’s generation, the shared experience of a world war meant a shared understanding of service to our country. Now, a new understanding is vital to support those who are struggling. That is why I welcome the covenant commitment in this legislation and the ongoing work to strengthen the support network for our military family.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
In many countries, across four continents, I have had the rare privilege of living and working alongside United Kingdom servicemen and women, who serve not only Queen and country, and our hard interests, but British values and humanity. Our forces, and the men and women who compose them, are our nation’s finest asset.
Ever since the Bill of Rights in 1688, Acts of Parliament have provided the necessary provisions for the armed forces to exist as a disciplined force. The Armed Forces Bill in 2021 provides a continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006, establishing the legal basis for the armed forces to operate as a disciplined body. Not only does the Bill guarantee a legal basis for the armed forces, but it introduces vital reform to strengthen the basis of the armed forces covenant. By doing so, we can ensure that those who currently serve or have served and their families are treated with the respect and fairness they deserve.
By implementing some of the key recommendations of the service justice system review conducted by His Honour Judge Lyons, the Bill strengthens the armed forces covenant. Such provisions include providing the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales with the power to nominate a circuit judge to sit as a judge advocate, following a request by the Judge Advocate General, and creating a new regime for complaints against the service police, through the creation of the Service Police Complaints Commissioner, ensuring oversight of the service police forces. Changes to the service complaints appeals system are also included. Personnel are provided with a clear route to justice wherever they are operating, whether that is through reducing the minimum time for complainants to lodge appeals or applying to the service police complaints ombudsman.
Putting into law the armed forces covenant will ensure that all armed forces personnel and veterans are treated with the fairness and respect that they deserve by other public bodies, whether for healthcare, housing or education. Enshrining the covenant in law bolsters the initiatives that have already been introduced to support veterans. For the 4,200 veterans who live in Wakefield, this Bill will help to eliminate any disadvantages or discrimination they may face in accessing public services.
Labour’s post-war track record on the armed forces is evidence that it cannot be trusted to champion our veterans, defend our national security and safeguard UK interests. This Bill proves yet again that the Conservatives prioritise the rights of our veterans and service personnel. I want to thank the Secretary of State for Defence and his entire team for all the work they have undertaken and to recognise the great efforts that they continue to take in promoting the rights of our veteran community. It is a record to be proud of and one that, through this Government’s actions, demonstrates the Conservatives’ entirely authentic, truly genuine affection and gratitude for all our service personnel, past, present and future.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) [V]
I am very glad of this opportunity to acknowledge my gratitude and respect for our armed forces for all they do for peace and democracy and British interests abroad and our security and wellbeing at home, particularly during the past year, when they have played such a vital role, often behind the scenes, in the fight against covid. I particularly honour the troops stationed at Tidworth, Bulford and the other bases in my constituency. Despite what it says on the gates of Aldershot, Salisbury plain is the true home of the British Army, and I am proud to represent it.
Listening to the debate this evening, it has been good to see the House so united, and that is right. The Minister referred at the outset to the foundation of our modern parliamentary democracy in 1688, which is also the foundation of the British Army, which only exists because this House votes for it every five years. The subjection of the armed forces to Parliament is the foundation of a free society. It is what makes the Army a force for good. If we consider recent events in Myanmar, we appreciate the value of that.
If through these Acts every five years Parliament gives the Army its life, we also owe it our duty, so I am proud to support the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill, which, uniquely among its many predecessors, brings the armed forces covenant not just into statute, but into the operations of the British state at the most local level, because the personnel of our armed forces live, like everyone else, in local communities.
Here I acknowledge the work of Wiltshire Council in recent years. The county council was one of the first councils, if not the first, to sign the armed forces covenant. That was not just because of the historic presence of the British Army on Salisbury plain, but because 4,000 soldiers and their families have come home to the UK from Germany over the past 10 years, all needing housing and healthcare, education for their children, civilian jobs for partners and communities for everyone. The military’s civilian integration programme, led by the MOD and Wiltshire Council, has been a great success. I particularly welcome the work that Councillor Chris Williams, our armed forces champion in Wiltshire, has done and the wonderful new civic centre that is opening in Tidworth.
Everyone I have spoken to on both sides of the civilian-military divide has confirmed that the programme has been a great success. Perhaps the best indicator of that is that the divide between the military and the civilian is not so huge as in former days. The famous phrase “behind the wire”, and the fact that soldiers lived literally fenced off from the community they were situated in, has less and less meaning in Wiltshire.
I welcome this Bill and hope it continues the excellent work I see locally, but I echo the point that my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), made about the enforcement of the covenant under the new rules. I do not believe we need extra enforcement in Wiltshire, but there may be places that do. It would be good to understand how the covenant will be enforced.
I end with a word on the justice elements of the Bill. I believe our Army is the best in the world, but as many soldiers have told me, being the best means behaving the best. No one wants soldiers to have carte blanche in foreign conflicts, and no one wants the Army to be a law unto itself at home. I welcome the strengthening of the Army justice system. The Bill will ensure that our armed forces remain morally as well as operationally secure—secure in our constitution and subject to Parliament, but also secure in the higher jurisdiction of right and wrong—and that we can continue to have an armed forces of which we can be proud.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
Bury is the proud home of the Lancashire Fusiliers. We are a military town, but in recent years, there has been an acceptance that our responsibilities to local armed forces personnel under the Bury armed forces covenant—signed in 2014 by our local council—have waned, and that is simply not acceptable. A review of the Bury covenant was announced in June last year and is now taking place for that very reason. I therefore welcome clause 8 and will confine my remarks to that important provision.
Clause 8 creates a duty on principles that specified persons or bodies must have regard to when exercising certain housing, education or healthcare provision. It is a welcome attempt by the Government to ensure positive support and outcomes for our veterans. We all agree that they must never be disadvantaged, but if local councils and service providers do not live up to these duties and principles, I am concerned about the action that can be taken at a local level to guarantee that veterans receive the support that clause 8 envisages.
We must also be ambitious in how we are to deliver improved and better services for our armed forces personnel. Words are not enough. We must ensure joint partnership working between veterans associations, volunteers, all those who provide support for veterans—including through breakfast clubs, veterans cafés and many other forms of support—local councils and clinical commissioning groups.
In Lancashire and Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, I have had the opportunity to see how good practice works, and how the delivery of services to multi-purpose armed forces hubs has fantastic outcomes for veterans from all backgrounds. I point briefly to two examples: the Wigan Borough Armed Forces Community HQ hub and Healthier Heroes CIC in Burnley. Both facilities provide a wide range of support services and social activities for veterans. Wigan has even started building its own housing stock for local veterans.
Having visited both facilities, I know that full-time mental health support is fundamental to the wellbeing of many veterans. We must find innovative ways of delivering these services and funding such fantastic provision. I have spoken many times to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans and I welcome the funding that he champions, including through the armed forces covenant fund, to support local authorities and groups that are ambitious to deliver the best outcomes for their local armed forces personnel.
This is a fantastic Bill that builds not only on our manifesto commitment, but on the deep affection that we all have for those who give so much for our country. I will work tirelessly with others in my constituency to deliver the armed forces hub that will benefit all veterans who have given so much to our country and who are proud to live in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. We are truly an area which values our armed forces personnel. I will work with everyone to ensure that we have the services, outcomes and facilities that they deserve.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I have often spoken—both in and out of the Chamber—of the patriotic nature of my constituents in Dudley North. Their gratitude, and mine, was particularly evident in November last year during our fundraising drive for the poppy appeal. Our armed forces do so much, not just to keep us safe in, and from, conflict, but by delivering vital community support in peacetime. I thank them. I pay tribute to the veterans and those who are still in active service from my constituency here in Dudley North. In times of crisis, those who step forward to risk their lives to protect others are heroes, but in their heroism they often sacrifice the most suffering, bereavement and injury.
I am very pleased that the armed forces covenant is being enshrined in law. It is essential that we ensure that all armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are treated fairly. Despite the great respect and admiration that so many of us have for our armed forces, there is too often a lack of understanding of the intricacies of the unique obligations and sacrifices made by service personnel and their families. Whether it is the struggle to find housing, to access healthcare or to ensure that their children receive consistent and continuous education when they may face disruption from moving between bases, veterans need and deserve all the support that we can give them.
I am a very outcome-focused person. When I chaired an armed forces covenant committee in recent times, I could see many good intentions from local councils, health trusts, housing providers and so many more, but translating those good intentions into the practical differences they could make to that veteran sleeping under a bridge because he or she could not face what we regard as normal life is a very different thing. We have heard very movingly tonight from my colleague and near neighbour, my hon. and brave Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). Support needs to be over-arching and proactive. Typically, our traumatised veterans do not ask for help and, if they wanted to, it would not be that obvious to them where they could find it, so we need to do more; we must do more.
The Bill increases awareness among public bodies of the unique nature of military service, improving the level of service for members of the armed forces community no matter where in the UK they live. I look forward to seeing it implemented in every possible practical way and as soon as possible.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
May I start by paying tribute to Members of this House who have contributed to this debate this evening who have served in Her Majesty’s armed forces? I am extremely grateful to every single one of them, and I extend those thanks to every citizen of this nation who has given their service to Queen and country.
I welcome this Bill very much, and I would particularly like to commend the Secretary of State and the Minister for the hard work they have put in to make this happen. How pleased I am that this is a Bill that is unifying across this House in support of our armed forces.
As the Member for West Dorset, it is important for me to note in this Chamber tonight that one in seven people in Dorset has a connection to the armed forces. The progress, therefore, with the armed forces covenant is very important to me and it is very important to the constituents in West Dorset. I am very grateful to the Minister for the progress he is making in that area.
Dorset has a considerable military presence. We have 6,500 serving members in the surrounding military bases: whether that is Blandford Camp, Bovington Camp, RNAS Yeovilton or the Royal Marines base in Poole, Dorset is particularly well served by forces. But it is also important to note that, while West Dorset is the home to many serving and retired members of the armed forces, we play a very important role as well for those who are looking to progress their career in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or the Marines. At Kingston Maurward College on the outskirts of Dorchester, our county town, there are many students who are preparing for their career in the armed forces with military preparation diplomas.
In Dorset County Hospital in the county town of Dorchester, we have 30 Royal Marines coming to support our doctors, nurses, our support staff, our porters and so on to make sure we can really make progress in this coronavirus pandemic at this time.
It is also very proud for me to be able to articulate, briefly, the very proud history that we have in Dorset with the Dorsetshire Regiment, dating all the way back to 1751, and its successor regiments: the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment and, indeed, today The Rifles; we celebrated its 14th anniversary of inauguration just a week or so ago.
But it is important for me tonight to make very clear that this debate and this Bill are about actions rather than words. For far too long, we have heard warm words rather than actions. I see it. I even see it this last week, when a priest from the Church of England, in the diocese of London, the Rev. Jarel Robinson-Brown, said that the celebration of Sir Tom Moore’s life is an act of white cult nationalism. That is fundamentally shocking and it should be called out, and each and every one of us in this place has a role to make sure that happens. Indeed, when we see action such as Extinction Rebellion’s act on Armistice Day this year to put a protest on the Cenotaph, it is absolutely shocking. I hope I can call on every single Member of this House to ensure that those actions do speak louder than words.
To conclude, I feel it is my duty and it is the duty of all of us in this House to represent our constituents in supporting Her Majesty’s armed forces. I, indeed all of us, have sworn an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, alongside members of the armed forces, and it is with great pleasure and pride tonight that I support this Bill.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I was down at Bovington not that long ago with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham). My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and I share a separate connection too: both Dorset and County Durham are Rifles recruiting grounds. I associate myself with his comments regarding the sad death of Captain Sir Tom Moore.
I am delighted to speak today. It is so important that we recognise what an important role our armed forces play in our country. As a former special adviser in the Ministry of Defence, I witnessed the actions that they take—overt and sometimes covert—on our behalf across the globe, and at home in their support to the civil authorities in dealing with coronavirus and various other issues.
I am particularly delighted that the Bill delivers on our manifesto pledge, ensuring protection for our armed forces and putting responsibility on public bodies at the heart of what we are doing. It is great to see the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), on the Front Bench. I know that he has campaigned for this for so long. Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), spoke very well today, but I think the whole House recognises the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), who made a superb speech.
Turning to the contents of the Bill, I am particularly glad to see clause 8, which moves towards enshrining the armed forces covenant in law. It is also superb to see clause 9, with the flexibility around commitments for our reserve personnel. More broadly, schedule 1 and clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 help to deliver better justice in the armed forces for our serving personnel.
My constituents in North West Durham are more than patriotic, but it is not a jingoistic patriotism. It is much deeper than that; it is much more personal. As I mentioned, my constituency is a major recruiting ground for the Rifles, formerly the Durham Light Infantry, and for the Royal Marines.
I was delighted on the 14th anniversary of the Rifles to speak to Major General Charlie Collins, who is currently the commander of 1st Division and commanded British forces abroad not long ago. He emphasised to me the importance of our armed forces’ regional connections. In County Durham, we have seen in recent years the sad loss of the DLI museum. I really hope that we can get it a new home as soon as possible, because it is such a key part of recognising the deep personal relationship that so many people across County Durham have with our armed forces.
Finally, I would like to speak up on behalf of the professionalism and dedication of those who put their lives on the line for us. I have met several families with young people going through basic training at the moment. It really is amazing to see how those young people develop so quickly in our armed forces. I want to put on record the thanks of all my constituents to them for what they do. They are there for us. They are the hard edge of Britain’s global power. They deserve our respect, they deserve our support, and they deserve a Government behind them every step of the way. I am glad to hear that the Bill goes some way further to delivering on that.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
In Wantage and Didcot, I represent a constituency with a strong tradition of admiration for our armed services but also of service in them, including by some of my predecessors, one of whom was Airey Neave, who had a proud record of service in world war two. His immediate predecessor was Ralph Glyn, who fought in the first world war and was given a Military Cross. We have the Defence Academy at Shrivenham, and we have the 11 EOD & Search Regiment in Didcot. However, my admiration for the services came long before I became an MP. My dad served in the British Army for 18 years, and that left me with a close interest in what we do and how we treat our armed men and women.
The Bill has a lot in it to welcome. I have spoken to quite a number of people from the veteran community in my constituency, as well as to some serving personnel, and there is a lot that they welcome too, from the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner to allowing reserve forces to serve flexibly in the way that regular forces do. I heard particular praise for allowing the rescinding of judgments made in error; one person made the point to me that, particularly where judgments are done very quickly, mistakes can be made, and they thought that was a very welcome provision of the Bill. The extension of the posthumous pardons, often for crimes that should never have been crimes, provides at least some small relief to the family members who are still alive.
The armed forces covenant runs throughout the Bill, of course, and I welcome the “due regard” that will be paid in the areas of housing, health and education. The people I talked to suggested that those were the three areas where they most commonly saw complaints—either their own or those of colleagues. I hope that in time we will be able to extend it to other areas, and perhaps employment is one of the areas that has the strongest case.
I also think it would be good for us to extend this to national Government Departments in time. What we are doing with local authorities is very welcome, and I recognise that health, education and housing are in keeping with the Armed Forces Act 2011, but my general view on a lot of things that go on in the UK is that national Government Departments could and should lead by example. I recognise that there are challenges with that at this time, but I hope we can aspire to that in due course.
Overall, this is a very welcome Bill that builds on everything this Government have been doing, from the guaranteed interview scheme to the veteran’s railcard to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. None of us, unless they are a gallant Member of this House, has made the sacrifices that our armed forces do. Many of those sacrifices are out of sight of most of us, but they should not be out of mind, and with this Bill today we take an important step towards recognising that and giving them the respect and care they deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Aaron Bell. I am not going to put the clock on you, Aaron. Just carry on talking, and I will stop you at 9.40 pm. If you stop earlier, we will go straight to the winding-up speeches.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow so many distinguished contributions from so many hon. Members who have known service, either themselves or through their families, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), who gave us a speech that was brave, honest and full of integrity. He did not spare himself and he did not spare this House, and the whole House is much richer for his presence in it and his contribution here today.
This is a very good Bill that will be welcomed by my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am glad it has cross-party support. It renews the mandate for our armed forces, and I cannot be the only hon. Member somewhat awed by the fact that we are here today with a Bill that is necessary because of an Act that was passed in this place one third of a millennium ago, in 1689. The Bill of Rights is fundamental to our constitution and that of so many countries around the world, and this is a useful reminder of the supremacy of Parliament and where we have come from.
This Bill makes improvements to the service justice system, with a new independent mode of redress, and offers more support for reservists. However, like many colleagues, I want to focus on the armed forces covenant in this, its 10th anniversary year, and on clause 8 in particular. Members of the armed forces and their families simply must not be disadvantaged, particularly in the areas we are talking about today: healthcare, education and housing.
I recall that every time I went to visit my cousins when I was growing up, they seemed to be living somewhere else, all over the country, because their father was in the RAF. Now my sister and her husband are both serving in the senior service—they are both commanders in the Navy. There is a real burden for service families. Servicemen and women put their lives on the line, but I know how difficult service life is for their families too—having to re-establish themselves frequently, maybe every couple of years, in a new place, with a new school and new friends. We owe it to them to get this sort of thing right.
I also welcome the fact that the covenant covers veterans. We have many veterans’ organisations in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I highlight 58 Signal Squadron Association and the Tri Services and Veterans Support Centre, which works with SSAFA to support veterans who may have fallen on harder times. I have met them, and they have been doing great work throughout covid.
As I come towards the end of my shortened speech, speaking about veterans brings me nicely on to Captain Sir Tom Moore. Over 75 years ago, he served our nation with his service in India and Burma during the second world war, as part of that greatest generation, and then he served our nation again last year. Veterans such as him are truly the very best of British; I am proud to support them, to support servicemen and women and their families, to support the Government and to support this Bill.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
I want to start by echoing the contributions from across the House that have recognised and honoured the commitment and service of our armed forces, and it has been a really good-spirited debate this evening.
Labour stands firmly behind our service personnel. We are immensely proud of the role our world-renowned servicemen and women continue to play in making our country and our world safer, and we pay tribute to the local authorities, public bodies, service charities and voluntary organisations that support our forces across the United Kingdom; they are working hard to make the covenant a reality, as my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said.
From peacekeeping missions in Mali to helping frontline services tackle the pandemic and vaccinating Britain, our forces continue to embody the values that British people most admire: courage, integrity, loyalty, discipline and service. While our forces will continue to evolve and modernise, they will always have our brave servicemen and women at their core.
My grandfather left Portsmouth—the constituency I now have the privilege to represent—turning just 17 on D-day, to take part in the Normandy landings. He is one of the reasons I am standing at this Dispatch Box today. He fought for peace and fairness, and he would later establish the Portsmouth Normandy Veterans Association, which provided support as he and others left service. For him and for all others who have served, we have a duty to make sure that this legislation provides the very best.
The Armed Forces Bill presents a real opportunity to make meaningful improvements in the day-to-day lives of our armed forces personnel and veterans and their families. There are welcome efforts to provide new flexibility for reservists, who continue to balance work and military training as the hidden heroes among us. But the central part of this legislation is an effort to enshrine the armed forces covenant into law. Labour welcomes those efforts and the intentions of the Bill, but while the Government like to talk up their commitment to our service communities, the Bill misses a crucial opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant. From substandard housing to veterans’ mental health and social care, the promises made in the covenant often do not match the reality experienced by our service communities.
I want to acknowledge the personal and passionate contribution of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and the sense of abandonment he described. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) spoke about the need to guarantee services for those who have served, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) addressed ending the injustice faced by war widows, a point also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) rightly recognised the work of our personnel during the pandemic, yet the Government want to outsource responsibility for their support. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), a thorn in the Minister’s side, for reminding us of the great record of the last Labour Government in standing up for service people and veterans, and I look forward to his sharing his expertise and insight on the Select Committee. Finally, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who spoke passionately about support for Commonwealth veterans. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his tireless campaigning on this important issue.
The covenant guarantees priority healthcare for those who have served, but service charities continue to point out the uneven nature of its application. We know that waiting times for mental health treatment have skyrocketed, and we know that service housing is in an appalling state and those transitioning out of the forces are increasingly struggling to find jobs, but the Bill does little to tackle these issues head-on. The proposals requiring public bodies to have due regard to the covenant are unlikely to make any real impact on the day-to-day lives of forces personnel.
Ministers have already let the cat out of the bag that they are not serious about delivering for our armed forces. Last week at Defence questions, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans 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.]
I invite the Minister to explain exactly how these principles and the ambiguous legalese of due regard would deliver practical action for our service personnel: the squaddie in poor-quality, single-living accommodation who is without the basics such as heating and hot water; the veteran struggling with their mental health who has to endure waiting times for treatment more than twice as long as Government targets; or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting into work. Instead of lumping extra responsibilities on cash-strapped local authorities and other stretched public bodies, the Bill should set measurable, enforceable national standards for which central Government are accountable. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
Ministers say that they will be producing statutory guidance on how the new responsibilities should be delivered by public bodies. Given the importance that this guidance will have on the impact and delivery of this legislation, I urge Ministers to publish it during the passage of the Bill to allow for proper scrutiny.
Service charities such as the Royal British Legion have also expressed disappointment that the scope of the Bill is narrow. While the focus on housing, healthcare and education is welcome, this legislation should ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed. The Bill is silent on employment, for instance. We are all seeing joblessness among veterans rising above the national average, particularly among black, Asian and minority ethnic service personnel and those medically discharged. There are no specific commitments on forces’ pay, which has been below inflation for seven years running, leading to real terms cuts for our servicemen and women. It fails to seize the opportunities to make a long-overdue step change in the way that we approach the welfare of veterans and particularly the transition back into civilian life. It could finally take steps to improve coroners’ data collection, so that we can better understand and combat the tragedy of veteran suicide. It could tackle the ongoing challenges of access to benefits, but here as well it falls short. By setting a legal standard that is below the existing voluntary offers in some areas, the Government risk creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on services for our forces’ communities.
The threats of poor pay and conditions posed to recruitment and retention, and our overall defence capability were made clear this weekend, with leaked reports, suggesting that 32 of 33 infantry battalions are dangerously short of battle-ready personnel. The Government cannot simply outsource responsibility for delivering on the covenant with this performative show of support for our armed forces.
Let me now turn to proposals on the service justice system, because here again we find that this legislation fall short of what was promised. Labour welcomes the efforts to implement key recommendations in the Lyons review. We particularly welcome the creation of an independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner, which will ensure greater oversight and fairness in service justice cases, but it must urgently clarify why it has not adopted the Lyons’ recommendation of civilian courts having full jurisdiction over murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK. Civilian courts have a much better record of trying these cases.
Labour believes that the armed forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between Government and service communities. The last Labour Government delivered the first cross-government strategy on welfare of armed forces personnel. That introduced the armed forces compensation scheme, doubled the welfare grant for families of those on operations, gave better access to housing schemes and healthcare, offered free access to further education for service leavers, and extended travel concessions for veterans and those seriously injured. The Tories have not only stalled this progress, but reversed it. Every time a member of service personnel is deployed overseas, every time a reservist signs up, and every time they deliver a covid test or vaccine, the promises in the covenant are renewed, but when I speak to service personnel, they often do not know what the covenant promises or how it can help them in their day-to-day lives. The Government’s ambition in this Bill should match the high standards our armed forces display in their service and demand of themselves. While we welcome the principle of this legislation in its current form, it is a missed opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises set out in the covenant. The Government must deliver on the covenant in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. Our country expects it and our troops deserve it.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Let me declare at the outset that I am president of the Scots Guards Association for veterans and have been for nearly 20 years.
I pay tribute to all Members who have spoken in this debate. Looking after our veterans and our armed forces does not belong to any one political party, nor to any one Member of Parliament. Reflecting on the contribution from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), one would easily be forgiven for thinking that serving personnel’s experience of the armed forces is that they all live in substandard accommodation, have an awful time and want to leave. One would also think that the veterans in this country are not enjoying successful careers, becoming incredibly employable, working hard, contributing to society and using their skills. Up and down this country, tens of thousands—nay, even hundreds of thousands—of people who have enjoyed service to this country, whether short or long, show those skills to all and sundry. They show their loyalty to their country, they show their patriotism, they show their ability to work, and they are incredibly employable.
For many people, the system works and they have a great time in the services. For many people, the best part of their lives—probably the best part of my life—was as a serving soldier in the armed forces. Was it perfect? No. Did I lose 30% of my sight? Yes. Did I find myself rushed to hospital being told that they would not save my sight? Yes. Did I feel slightly abandoned when afterwards, with a one-inch gash in my eyeball, I woke up alone in a hospital in west Belfast, and did not really know how to transition? Yes. But do I regret a minute of my service? No. Do I regret the skills it gave me? No. Do the hundreds of thousands of veterans in this country regret it? No.
It is true, however, that for a proportion of veterans and serving personnel, all is not well, and we all recognise in this House that we could always do more and do better. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made the very important point that the journey never ends. The reason the journey never ends is that conflict never ends, and the nature of conflict never ends. The distance between society and the people who serve in the armed forces—fewer and fewer people—never ends. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who is a very thoughtful Member of this House who seeks the best for the armed forces, and, as a member of the Scottish National party, is always open to listening, understanding and exploring ideas, made the very real point that there are fewer and fewer serving personnel in society and the gap between the understanding of what they do and what others do is growing greater. We must address that.
This Bill is a good step in the right direction. It improves many of the things that in my day were not even really in existence. I served as a member of the armed forces under both a Conservative Government and a Labour Government. If we just consider the treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder—the transition and liaison service, the complex treatment service and the high-intensity service now delivered by the NHS for the mental welfare of our veterans—we can see that all that is much, much better; a step change from what it was.
This Bill takes another step forward—it goes further—because clause 8 puts the armed forces covenant into law. As the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, this has been a long journey. It started off with a charter, then a Green Paper, then it became a duty to report, and now this is a step forward whereby we will put a duty on a number of services to pay regard to the covenant.
The Bill is also a step forward in improving the assurances around investigations, which many Opposition Members said during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was something that is missing. It is about improving the quality and the independence of those investigations, alongside that of the prosecutions and the judiciary. It is about improving the training so that our soldiers—men and women of our armed forces—are never again in the position they were in in the early years of the Iraq war, where they were accused of war crimes when they thought they were simply doing what they were trained to do. That happened because the training had fallen far behind the development of the law and human rights legislation.
Many Members called for the Bill to go wider and deeper, and I will do my best to respond, given that nearly 60 colleagues spoke during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) suggested a £500 thank you payment to our troops in the same way as was provided for NHS workers in Scotland. She also said that we could do more in health and education. The Scottish Parliament has those devolved powers, and there is nothing to stop the Government of Scotland tomorrow morning doing even more on a whole range of issues to support the covenant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) pointed out the excellent report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), “Living in our Shoes”—an extremely good piece of work. As Secretary of State for Defence, I have not only listened to and read the reports from my colleagues and from Select Committees on issues such as protecting veterans and legacy, but have made sure that the Department does not put those reports on the shelf and ignore them. I believe that many of our colleagues have some of the best ideas, and throughout the conduct of this Bill, I assure the House that the Government will be open to suggestions about how to improve it. Everyone in the Government will be interested in doing that, because we all have that interest at heart.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and many others raised the issue of Northern Ireland veterans. I refer him to the written ministerial statement on 18 March by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and add that we are all keen to get the legacy over the line as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) gave us an insight into what it means to be a commanding officer, having to discipline soldiers and balance military discipline with the needs of the unit, sometimes on operations—that experience is unique. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) referred to his experiences as a magistrate in the civilian world. I have sat on a court martial in the military world—before the reforms—but the military world and the civil world are different, so that is a unique experience.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire talked about why it is always the military that is called upon to do the resilience. The fundamental reason is how we are trained: it is the pressure, the different discipline and structure, and often the difference between life and death in operations. There is no need to always replicate that across society. It is a unique experience—a unique set of circumstances—because only we in the armed forces are called upon to kill or be killed. It is a unique thing, one that we often take with us for the rest of our lives, and that is why we provide resilience at pace in anything from a pandemic to flooding and snowstorms. That will always continue, because that is the very nature of why our armed forces are special, and we must make sure we protect that special nature. At the same time, we must modernise welfare and aftercare for our troops, but the military is different, and will always be different.
That is why when it comes to co-jurisdiction, there is the obvious difficulty around murder, manslaughter, rape and other offences, but there are many serious offences. There is attempted murder; there is grievous bodily harm; there is armed robbery. Why is it okay for those offences to remain in a service system, but it is recommended that three other offences be potentially removed into a civil system? It is perfectly legitimate to argue against the concept of service justice, although I would disagree, but if we accept that there is such a concept, where we draw the line has to balance the needs of the victim with those of the accused. That is why I think the solution we came up with, which was not the Lyons recommendation of Attorney General consent—which can happen behind closed doors—but consent based on an open and transparent protocol that will be decided between the Crown Prosecution Service and the service justice fraternity, was the right one.
I will just make one other point on this topic, because a number of colleagues make this mistake: the service justice system is independent. I do not appoint the judge advocate; I do not appoint the judges; I do not interfere with the police and the justice system, in the same way that the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor do. It is independent. People seem to think that it is all cosy because we are in the armed forces, and that we sit around and choose who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. We do not. Yes, the service justice system and the quality of investigations have been found wanting over many years. That is why we commissioned the Lyons report, and it is why Sir Richard Henriques has been commissioned to increase the assurance, because that is the best way to make sure we do not constantly get taken to court under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and to ensure that people are not dragged through the courts. We will continue to do that.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) talked about the need for the 16-year-olds. In response to his question, I urge him to visit the Army Foundation College in Harrogate—I will happily make that possible.
All I will say in conclusion is that at their heart, our armed forces are about the people. Over the next few months, we will have debates about equipment, integrated reviews, and which service wins over which—which regiments do and do not—but in the end, if we do not invest in our people, we will not have anything for the future of our armed forces.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Armed Forces Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:
Select Committee
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.
(2) The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before 29 April 2021.
Committee of the whole House, Consideration and Third Reading
(3) On report from the Select Committee, the Bill shall be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.
(4) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(5) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.
(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
Programming committee
(7) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(8) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill (Carry-Over)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:
(1) The Committee shall have 16 members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
(2) The Committee shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it;
(b) to admit the public during the examination of witnesses and during consideration of the Bill (but not otherwise); and
(c) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Bill.
(3) The Order of the House of 24 March 2020 (Select Committees (Participation and Reporting) (Temporary Order)) shall apply to the Committee as if it had the power to report from time to time.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill
Wednesday 23rd June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 23 June 2021 - (23 Jun 2021)
17:18 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:29 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 354 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:39 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s seat, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, which is so much more comfortable and from which I can see better, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chairman of the Committee. The occupant of the Chair should, in Committee, normally be addressed as the Chair, rather than as Deputy Speaker.
Clause 1
Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.
Amendment 7, in clause 7, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide for charges of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape to be tried only in civilian court when the offences are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would ensure that the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter domestic violence, child abuse and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 8, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant government department;”.
This amendment, with amendments 2, 3 and 4, would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government and the devolved administrations as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
Amendment 39, in clause 8, page 10, line 2, at end insert—
“and
(g) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in England, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Decent Homes Standard.”
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that all service housing is regulated in line with the minimum quality housing standard which pertains to whatever part of the United Kingdom that housing is situated in.
Amendment 2, 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 1.
Government amendment 8.
Amendment 40, in clause 8, page 11, line 38, at end insert—
“and
(e) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Wales, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Welsh Housing Quality Standard.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendment 9.
Amendment 3, 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 1.
Amendment 41, in clause 8, page 13, line 9, at end insert—
“and
(e) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Scotland, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Scottish Housing Quality Standard.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendment 10.
Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 14, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Northern Ireland;”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Government amendments 11 and 12.
Amendment 42, in clause 8, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“and
(d) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Northern Ireland, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Decent Homes standard for Northern Ireland.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendments 13 to 15.
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 18, line 7, at end insert—
“343AG Section 343AF: report
The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed on how the powers in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) will work in practice.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope 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.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
Government amendments 16 to 23.
Clauses 10 to 13 stand part.
Government amendments 24 to 30.
Clauses 14 to 26 stand part.
New clause 1—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for serving or discharged member of the UK armed forces—
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68, after (11) insert—
‘(12) No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the UK armed forces, or their family members, applying for indefinite leave to remain under Appendix Armed Forces of the Immigration Rules.’”
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for any current or previously serving Members of the UK Armed forces, and their families.
New Clause 2—Duty of care to service personnel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in section 1(6) of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans Act 2021.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the duty of care standard under subsection (1) before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year—
(a) prepare a duty of care update, and
(b) include the duty of care update in the Armed Forces Covenant annual report when it is laid before Parliament.
(4) The duty of care update is a review about the continuous process and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—
(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;
(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel; and
(d) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) In preparing a duty of care update the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—
(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;
(b) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct: and
(d) meeting national standards of care and safeguarding for families of service personnel, where relevant.
(6) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—
(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;
(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and
(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(7) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.
(8) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.”
This new clause will require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations.
New clause 4—Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report 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.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—
(a) there is 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.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must include recommendations 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.
(4) The report must include a review of the cases 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.
(5) The report must include discharges and forced resignations back to at least 1955.
(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.
(8) In this section, “sexuality or gender identity” includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.”
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.
New clause 6—Duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 20(2)(d) insert—
‘(e) the person is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, alcohol or drugs.’
(3) After section 20(3) insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State has a duty of care to offer a specific pathway for support and treatment for current and previously serving service personnel who experience—
(a) a propensity to misuse, alcohol and drugs,
(b) alcohol or drug dependency, and
(c) gambling disorder.
(3B) The Secretary of State must include in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report—
(a) the number of people accessing treatment and support as set out in section (1), and
(b) the current provisions for rehabilitation facilities for Armed Forces personnel who are experiencing a propensity to misuse or have a dependency on alcohol, drugs and gambling.’”
New clause 7—Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth and Gurkha
members of armed forces—
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68 (10), after ‘regulations’ insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the UK armed forces, or in respect of any person who has served at least four years in the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”
This new clause will ensure that Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.
New clause 8—Armed Forces Federation—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 333, insert—
‘333A Armed Forces Federation
(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—
(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and
(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.
(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the Armed Forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.
(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.
(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.
333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or
(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—
(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;
(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;
(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and
(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.
(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to
members of the Armed Forces.’”
This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.
New clause 9—Investigation of allegations related to overseas operations—
“(1) In deciding whether to commence criminal proceedings for allegations against a member of Her Majesty’s Forces arising out of overseas operations, the relevant prosecutor must take into account whether the investigation has been timely and comprehensively conducted.
(2) Where an investigator of allegations arising out of overseas operations is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct to continue the investigation, the investigator must within 21 days refer the investigation to the Service Prosecuting Authority with any initial findings and accompanying case papers.
(3) An investigation may not proceed after the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the allegation was first reported without the reference required in subsection (2).
(4) On receiving a referral under subsection (2), the Service Prosecuting Authority must either—
(a) order the investigation to cease if it considers it unlikely that charges will be brought, or
(b) give appropriate advice and directions to the investigator about avenues of inquiry to pursue and not pursue, including—
(i) possible defendants to consider,
(ii) possible explanations to consider for the circumstances giving rise to the investigation, and
(iii) overseas inquiries and seeking the help of overseas jurisdictions.
(5) Where the investigation proceeds, the Service Prosecuting Authority must monitor and review its progress at intervals of three months and must on each review make a decision in the terms set out in subsection (4).
(6) On the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator must send a final report with accompanying case papers to the Service Prosecuting Authority for the consideration of criminal proceedings.
(7) After receipt of the final report, the facts and circumstances of the allegations may not be further investigated or reinvestigated without the direction of the Director of Service Prosecutions acting on the ground that there is new compelling evidence or information which might—
(a) materially affect the previous decision, and
(b) lead to a charge being made.
(8) The Judge Advocate General may give Practice Directions as he or she deems appropriate for the investigation of allegations arising out of overseas operations.
(9) For the purposes of this section—
‘case papers’ includes summaries of interviews or other accounts given by the suspect, previous convictions and disciplinary record, available witness statements, scenes of crime photographs, CCTV recordings, medical and forensic science reports;
‘investigator’ means a member of the service police or a civil police force.”
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Government amendments 31 to 38.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
It is a privilege to speak to the Armed Forces Bill before a Committee of the whole House. Indeed, it is fitting that the Bill should come before the Committee during Armed Forces Week, when we celebrate and commemorate Her Majesty’s armed forces.
Before speaking to the Bill, I want to express my gratitude to the members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, some of whom are here today, and to thank them for their rigorous and professional approach to the work of that Committee. I commend their published report.
In simple terms, the Bill’s primary purpose is to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006—
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I wanted to get in early to mention the armed forces covenant, which means a lot to me, as I will explain later.
We have many proud veterans in Wolverhampton who have given so much for this country, and the armed forces mean loads to them. When the diary permits, will my hon. Friend come to Wolverhampton to meet those veterans and hear at first hand what the covenant means for their lives?
Leo Docherty
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I would be delighted to accept an invitation to Wolverhampton. I acknowledge and applaud the magnificent work he does in Wolverhampton to support his veterans. I hope the Bill is well received by them, and we thank them for their service.
The Bill will deliver improvements to the service justice system and, most importantly, it delivers on our commitment to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. Unlike the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), I can say that I was delighted to see the Minister when he came to Northern Ireland last week. I am glad that Northern Ireland got ahead of Wolverhampton on the issue—no offence to my colleague.
Will the Minister spell out clearly at this early stage that veterans in Northern Ireland will be treated equally to veterans from any other part of the United Kingdom, and that no impediment will be allowed to get in the way of veterans being treated fairly and equitably across the United Kingdom, which they should and must be? Will he assure us that the legacy issues will be brought before the House before it rises for the summer?
Leo Docherty
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was very pleased last week to meet several veterans’ groups, both of home service and of overseas service, to hear about their experiences. The Government are committed to driving towards parity of provision for all veterans, whether they be of home service or overseas service. In terms of legacy issues, he will know that work is ongoing within the Northern Ireland Office, and the Government are absolutely committed—and full of resolve—to delivering the closure that our veterans need with honour and finality.
Ian Paisley
I really appreciate what the Minister is saying. He knows how vital this issue is. I do not underestimate the Government’s commitment, but I am concerned about the dead hand of officials and political activists in Northern Ireland. Will there be finality on this matter in July? Will a statute of limitations be introduced then?
Leo Docherty
I cannot get into the timing, and it would not be useful for me to do that at this time. I know that work is continuing apace and that it is a top priority for both the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Office. I share the hon. Gentleman’s sense of urgent desire to see this delivered.
The covenant was introduced in its current form a decade ago, and it has undoubtedly had an enormous and very beneficial impact for many within our service community. However, too often, the experience of the covenant depends on where someone lives, so more does need to be done. The Bill delivers for our service personnel and veterans by, for the first time ever, creating a duty for relevant public bodies across the whole of the United Kingdom to pay due regard to the principles of the covenant in the areas of housing, healthcare and education. The Bill represents a significant milestone and delivers on a key manifesto commitment to enshrine further the covenant into law.
In the area of housing, the duty will cover those bodies that are responsible 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 sometimes face challenges due to their mobile lifestyles in accessing suitable school places for their children, including those with special educational needs. The duty will therefore ensure that the needs of service children are properly understood. In healthcare, much has already been achieved, but service families and veterans still sometimes experience disadvantage, often caused by their mobility or by healthcare requirements resulting from service. The duty will apply to all bodies that are responsible for commissioning and delivering healthcare services across the UK. Housing, healthcare and education are the essential areas, but to future-proof the Bill there is a provision to allow the scope of the duty to be expanded beyond those areas.
Mr Jones
When the Command Paper was launched in 2005 by Bob Ainsworth, we had cross-Government work and armed forces champions in Departments because it was about central Government standing up to help veterans as well. Why, therefore, does the scope of the Bill exclude central Government Departments?
Leo Docherty
It does not need to include Government Departments, because that provision is already made. There are Ministers in every Department holding the lead for veterans’ issues, and the Secretary of State is accountable in his annual report. Therefore, the provision for making central Government accountable is already in place.
Mr Jones
The Minister says that, but in effect it is not in place, because there is no redress. I must say that I am disappointed with the powers of redress in the Bill even in the areas where they are included. What are the powers of redress against Departments in respect of the covenant—not in respect of any other type of complaint there might be? How would a veteran ensure that the covenant was implemented by the Department of Health and Social Care at a national level, and what redress is there?
Leo Docherty
The right hon. Gentleman knows that, in terms of all national provision, Ministers are accountable, as I am being accountable right here, right now. What we are dealing with today is the local provision. If individuals feel that they have not had adequate provision and are disadvantaged, they could pursue the route of judicial review in the worst case. We believe that, at the local level, most local authorities want to get this right, and we are just laying out best practice examples for them to follow.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Leo Docherty
I will give way one last time before I make some significant progress.
Jamie Stone
Can the Minister give me the same reassurance when it comes to Departments in the devolved Administrations, such as the Scottish Government?
Leo Docherty
Absolutely I can, and I am very pleased to.
I turn to the technical amendments. Amendments 8 to 15 relate to the armed forces covenant, amendments 16 to 23 and 31 to 38 amend the service complaints provisions, and amendments 24 to 30 relate to the provision on driving disqualification.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Dr Murrison
Can the Minister confirm, before he gets technical, that the overriding consideration in all this is that servicemen, servicewomen and their families should suffer no disadvantage by virtue of their military service? There will be test cases arising from the guidance to which he has referred in which people say, “Look, I’ve been disadvantaged because I’m in the armed forces.” The acid test has to be what they would have got from the system if they had not been serving. Surely that is the guiding star in all this.
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is the fundamental basis of all this, and that is at the heart of the statutory guidance. We are confident that local authorities will bear that in mind in the way they afford provision in the critical areas that I have described, but of course there may be test cases and we will take note of them if they arise.
A number of Opposition amendments and new clauses have been tabled. I want to concentrate on the key ones that specifically relate to the service justice system and the armed forces covenant. Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that the most serious crimes are automatically tried in the civilian courts when committed by a serviceperson in the UK, thereby undermining the current legal position that there is full concurrent jurisdiction between the service and civilian justice systems. The amendment would mean that the most serious offences, when committed in the UK, could never be dealt with in the service justice system, even though the Lyons review recommended that the most serious offences could and should continue to be tried in the service justice system with the consent of the Attorney General.
The Government have a more pragmatic approach. We are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur, bolstered by improvements recommended by the Lyons review, such as the creation of the defence serious crime unit and improvement to the support to victims. The service police, prosecutors and judiciary are trained, skilled and experienced. Victims and witnesses receive comparable support to the civilian system, for example through the armed forces code of practice for victims of crime, which we continue to keep updated in line with civilian practices. The amendment would remove the valuable role of independent prosecutors in allocating cases to the most appropriate jurisdiction.
Clause 7 improves and strengthens the protocol between service and civilian prosecutors to determine where cases are tried. That improvement will bring much-needed clarity on how decisions on jurisdiction are made and will ensure transparency and independence from the chain of command and Government. To be clear, the aim of this approach is not to increase the number of serious crimes being tried in the court martial. The civilian prosecutor will always have the final say. I therefore urge the Committee to reject amendment 7.
Amendments 1 to 4 would create a duty on central Government and devolved Administrations. Clause 8, as it stands, covers public functions in healthcare, housing and education exercised by the local or regional bodies that are responsible for those services. Those are the key areas of concern for our armed forces community. Central Government’s delivery of the covenant is regularly scrutinised, as I referred to in my answer to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and the Armed Forces Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State for Defence to lay an annual report before Parliament. Devolved Administrations and other bodies are given an opportunity to contribute their views to that report. That duty to report will remain a legal obligation, and it remains the key, highly effective method by which the Government are held to account for delivery of the covenant.
Amendments 39 to 42 seek to ensure that all service housing is regulated in line with the local minimum quality. These amendments are unnecessary because, in practice, 96.7% of MOD-provided service family accommodation meets or exceeds the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s decent homes standard. The amendments would introduce an unhelpful disparity across the UK and would not achieve their intended effect, because local authorities that fall within the scope of the current duty are not responsible for the provision of service accommodation, so these amendments should be withdrawn.
The provision of high-quality subsidised accommodation remains a fundamental part of the overall MOD offer to service personnel and their families. Over the past decade, we have invested £1.2 billion in single living accommodation and another £1.5 billion will be invested over the next 10 years. Additionally, we are rolling out the future accommodation model to improve choice, and I am pleased to report that the forces Help to Buy scheme has helped more than 24,000 personnel to buy a new home over the past seven years.
New clause 9 seeks to introduce artificial timelines for the progress of investigations. These are operationally unrealistic. They do not take account of the nature of investigations on overseas operations and could put us in breach of our international obligations, including under the European convention on human rights, to effectively investigate serious crimes. The right hon. Member for North Durham will be aware, following my letter to him on 7 June, that the detail of this new clause has been provided to Sir Richard Henriques for consideration as part of his review into investigations, and I am confident that Sir Richard will consider this matter very carefully.
Mr Kevan Jones
I thank the Minister for his letter, but let us be honest, we are in this mess because of his predecessor, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who promised that the issues around time limits and investigations would be in this Bill. When I address my amendments, I shall read them out at length. I welcome the fact that they have been referred to Judge Henriques, but the question is: when will they then be implemented? Are we going to have to wait another five years for a new armed forces Bill before that happens? Otherwise, the Minister is going to have to find legislative time to implement them. There is an opportunity to do it now and, frankly, we should do it now.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I think we have to wait and see what Sir Richard Henriques reports. It is not appropriate to propose changes while his review is ongoing, so we will wait and see, and we will respond when he formally reports.
Leo Docherty
Yes, I would be delighted to give way before I crack on and make progress.
Mr Jones
I accept what the Minister is saying, but his predecessor promised, when he got into a real mess on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, that this issue would be addressed in this Bill. It is clearly not going to be, and has now been kicked into the review. My concern is the real issues that will leave members of the armed forces open to vexatious accusations for another five years. The only way to deal with that would be to find legislative time to bring in a new Bill, but I urge the Minister to just do it now.
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.
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?
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.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is appropriate that this Bill has come back to the House in the week in which we celebrate Armed Forces Day. I add my thanks to members of the armed forces who are currently contributing to our fight against covid, and I pay tribute to them for their service. It was disappointing to hear earlier that members of our armed forces are still being deployed overseas without being fully vaccinated.
I take this opportunity to give a shout out to the team from Kayak 4 Heroes, who are currently undertaking a journey of 1,400 km from Land’s End to John O’Groats, by kayak, around the coast of the United Kingdom and along some of our canals and waterways. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing them the very best of luck in their endeavours.
I have made it clear throughout the passage of this Bill that it lacks the punch required to make a real difference, and the Bill’s commitment to the armed forces covenant falls far short of what it ought to be. Many stakeholders, including the Royal British Legion, have argued that the Bill should go further in strengthening the covenant in law, but many areas have been missed out, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel, pay, DWP issues and proper representation for serving personnel.
I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the group from Fighting with Pride, Caroline Paige and Craig Jones, for working so hard to undo some of the injustices of the past. Labour’s proposed new clause 4 is an opportunity to take this further. We have started to recognise that there have been injustices, and we know that many individuals who were convicted of sex offences in the armed forces lost their pensions and continued to have the label of “sex offender” in civilian life, for undertaking a consensual relationship with another person. There are real issues here that still have to be addressed.
Many people were also discharged from the armed forces following spurious allegations that were not related to their sexuality, although their sexuality was the real reason for it. It will be very difficult for us to capture the number of people involved, so I urge the Minister not just to take proposed new clause 4 seriously but to look at how we identify these individuals and put right the wrongs that have been done to them.
Labour’s amendment 7 addresses the service justice system, and the Minister has given us assurances this afternoon that he will be implementing many of the recommendations of the Lyons review. That is good, but I still argue that sexual assaults would be better dealt with in civilian courts, which have far greater experience of such cases. We do people an injustice by continuing to go through a military system, where that experience is not always present. While the Minister is implementing some of the recommendations of the Lyons review, I ask him to undertake an annual review of how it is operating in practice.
The Minister also gave us assurances on service accommodation, but these accommodation issues are repeatedly raised, year on year, by serving personnel. The recent National Audit Office report on single living accommodation describes a litany of neglect, and accommodation for families often falls far below the standards we would expect.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. Does she agree that those who are dedicating themselves to service should receive a cast-iron guarantee of decent accommodation?
Carol Monaghan
It seems totally obvious that decent service accommodation should form the absolute basis of any agreement and any expectation that personnel have, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
It is incredible that the Bill as it stands will not strengthen the accommodation offer. Our series of extremely modest amendments—amendments 39 to 42—asks that service accommodation matches the standards that are set for civilian housing in each of the four nations of the UK. This should be a matter of straightforward agreement across the House. We should not be asking service personnel to put up with accommodation that we would not ask civilians to accept. I therefore do not see this proposal as being in any way controversial, and I hope that Members will support it.
Many of the veterans and families who contact me do so because of a lack of support from the Department for Work and Pensions on pension issues, including widows’ pensions, but all these things are out of scope of the Bill. In fact, it seems that all the most pressing and difficult issues for veterans are out of scope. This really is a missed opportunity.
The SNP has for a long time advocated a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look at the examples of many of our NATO allies, which benefit from armed forces representative bodies that personnel can use to make sure that their needs are catered for. We are used to hearing arguments from Members on the Government Benches that we could not possibly countenance such a body as it could undermine the chain of command or encourage strike action. However, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) said, such a federation would be like the Police Federation. It would not allow strikes and it would not impact on the chain of command, but it would give a voice that, at the moment, is sadly lacking. When we are looking at ensuring that the covenant is properly fulfilled, such an organisation would substantively carry out that role. I believe, despite the Government’s arguments, that the real reason for resistance to this is that it would give our forces and veterans a voice. I am pleased that Labour has joined us in our position, and we will support its new clause 8 because it would go a long way towards addressing some of these issues.
The Scottish Government have taken a number of their own initiatives in areas that are covered in the Bill. On housing, they offer funding from affordable housing programmes to deliver homes for disabled ex-service personnel. On employability, service leavers are offered fixed-term appointments in the Scottish Government. On education, Skills Development Scotland is retraining Scottish veterans to address the skills gap, particularly in the nation’s cyber-security workforce. On health, the Scottish Government have committed to ensuring that all personnel and veterans can access the best possible care, and have provided funding to Combat Stress and Legion Scotland for mental health first aid training. Of course there is always more that we can do, but the UK Government should be looking to mirror these examples of good practice.
Jamie Stone
Giving credit where it is due, I am of a similar opinion that the Scottish Government’s move to offset the bedroom tax by their own hand—from their own money—has been of considerable help to veterans who might not be in the best medical condition, because a loved one can stay overnight and help them out. Would not all of us in Scotland agree that we encourage the UK Government to follow suit?
Carol Monaghan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the work that has been done around the bedroom tax. He will understand that it is often vital for veterans who have been injured in service to have an additional supposed “bedroom” that can actually hold equipment that is required for them to deal with their injuries and possibly help with their rehabilitation. Again, it seems a very easy thing to take on to help those who need this support.
We will also be supporting Labour’s new clause 7 on capping fees for Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans. There is great support across the House for this group of veterans. It seems grossly unfair that we should welcome these individuals into our military, ask them to put their lives at risk and then hit them with thousands of pounds of fees, because it is not just about the cost for themselves; if they have family overseas who they want to bring over to the UK, they are suddenly faced with fees of thousands and thousands of pounds. That is simply not good enough. I hope that the Government are learning lessons from things such as the Windrush scandal when looking at people who have come to this country to help and contribute, in whatever way that is. Given that there is such widespread cross-party support for the Commonwealth veterans, I urge the Government to accept the new clause.
The time and effort spent on this Bill should have been an opportunity significantly to improve our offerings to the armed forces, but I am doubtful. Without the ability to enforce—without the teeth it needs—the Bill will sadly fall short. If this is a once-in-five-years or once- in-10-years opportunity, many of us will be disappointed, but we will continue to engage with the Government and the Minister in the hope that we can make a real change for those who are serving. I think it is recognised throughout the House—this is one thing on which we can all agree—that we want to improve the circumstances in which our forces serve and the practical problems that they hit. I thank the Committee for listening and hope we can move forward in as consensual a way as possible.
Stuart Anderson
As many Members will have gathered now, I have a passion for defence, having served as a young soldier in the Army and spent most of my adult life in and around the defence arena. I have also been fortunate to sit on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee. I pay tribute to all Members across the Committee for the way in which we worked together for the good of our armed forces; it has been an enjoyable and eye-opening experience. Today I want to discuss the amendments relating to the armed forces covenant, which, as hon. Members will see, is very personal to me and I think will massively support our armed forces.
Prior to being an MP, I was an armed forces champion. I got to see the difficulties that regions could have in trying to put forward the armed forces covenant, and how much it would impact different people. Enshrining it in law is a massive step forward. I also have first-hand experience of the benefits of the armed forces covenant, and I think it is right to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I received treatment at one of the trauma units that were brought forward through the armed forces covenant.
I have spoken in the House in the past about when I was shot and the after-effects, which ended up in me wanting to take my own life. Having been told that I was no longer the Army’s problem when I had left and had to fund treatment myself, I was not in a good place.
The Committee can imagine, then, how happy I was to hear about the armed forces covenant. I felt that somebody actually cared. Sadly, it came too late for me, because I had to battle those demons for 15 years before I could get away from the problems that I faced. I thank God that I came through that dark period.
Mr Kevan Jones
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson)? He is a fellow member of the Defence Committee and always speaks with authority and passion. Do I agree with him? Yes, I do. I do not wish to make a party political point, but the genesis of the covenant was the Command Paper from the Labour Government in 2005 and the work that Bob Ainsworth— I pay tribute to his work on this issue—took forward, resulting in the covenant. It was sad that, in respect of one of the Armed Forces Acts—I think it was in the early years of the coalition Government—when we asked for the covenant to be put into statutory law the Government at the time opposed it.
I believe I have served on every Armed Forces Bill for the past 20 years, either as a Minister or as a Back Bencher. Like others, I pay tribute to the members of our armed forces, as we come up to Armed Forces Week. This is an important day in terms of saying thank you, but we should have in our mind every day the work they do for us to keep us safe.
I rise to speak to my new clause 9, and I do so with frustration and disappointment that this issue has not been addressed. I have spoken on many occasions to say that we need to make sure that our armed forces are not faced with these frivolous and vexatious claims, but the Government have made a complete mess of this.
We had the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act, a piece of legislation that was not necessary at all. The issues in it could have been covered in this Armed Forces Bill, but, as with the worst legislation we see in this House, it came out of rhetoric and election slogans and when it came into practice it did not do what it said on the tin. That was a missed opportunity.
When we took evidence in the Committee that considered the overseas operations Bill, it was clear, and not just from Judge Jeff Blackett, a former Judge Advocate General, that we stop frivolous and vexatious investigations and stop the torture—I will use that word—of reinvestigation that people such as Major Bob Campbell went through for 17 years by sorting out the investigation process. That is not—the Minister alluded to this in relation to my new clause 9—to say that we just ignore accusations or wrongdoing. We should not do that, but we have to have a proper managed system, which is overseen by judges, to ensure that there is timely investigation, and those investigations that are not found to be of any veracity should be dismissed at an early opportunity. We could do that through the proposals in my new clause.
I moved similar amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill—I believe they were new clauses 8, 6 and 7—which would have put time limits on investigations, as I say, not dismissing evidence, but making sure that the investigators need, after a certain period of time, to bring their evidence before a judge to see whether it warrants further investigation. That would have been a way forward. That Bill was oversold to a degree that was obscene at times, with people believing that the Bill would stop investigations and the ambulance chasing solicitors. It did nothing of the sort. It did not get to the root cause, which is investigations. As Judge Jeff Blackett said in evidence to that Committee:
“The Bill is effectively looking at the wrong end of the telescope.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 120, Q246.]
It was looking at the prosecutions—limiting prosecutions —rather than dealing with the investigations.
I am on record as saying that, like most Members of this House, I would not want members of our armed forces to face vexatious claims or investigations. However, when I moved those new clauses, the Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), said that those issues, which had been raised not just by Judge Jeff Blackett but by many other campaigners, would be dealt with in this Armed Forces Bill. This new clause today is an attempt to address those issues.
I think that it is worth recapping what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View said last November on Second Reading of the overseas operations Bill in response to the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who raised the idea of time limits. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View stated that
“time and again the issue of the investigations”—
comes up,
“but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 258.]
He then went on to accuse my right hon. Friend of being disingenuous for raising the matter. I ask the Minister today: when will these matters be addressed? A clear promise was given then that they would be included in this Bill. [Interruption.] Well, they were not, because the Government got into a right pickle. Having not addressed them in the overseas operations Bill, if that was where they wanted to do it, they then set up the Henriques review, which was a good civil service way, as we have seen over the years, of kicking things into the long grass, but it has left a gap. These issues were not addressed in the overseas operations Bill and they are not going to be addressed in this Armed Forces Bill either.
That leaves a real issue: when will that legislation come forward? These are sensible proposals, which were put forward in evidence to the overseas operations Bill by Judge Jeff Blackett and others. As I have said, those proposals would have ensured that we had judicial oversight of investigations to ensure we did not have a rerun of what we have had with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, or Operation Northmoor. Those allegations went on for years, which meant that armed service personnel who were being accused of torture, suffered, in some cases, long delays while their cases were being looked at. I suggest that Members read the evidence of Major Bob Campbell to the overseas operations Bill, because that poor man not only went through long delays, but reinvestigations, investigations and investigations. That should have gone at an early stage. My new clause would do that. We would have judicial oversight. May I just re-emphasise this point for anybody who is listening carefully? This is not about putting members of our armed forces above the law. The new clause is saying that these matters should be investigated. It is saying not that we should have no investigations, but that those investigations should be timely and dealt with.
We have now got into this mess where we have the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act in place, which does not deliver on most of the hype that went with it. We also have the Armed Forces Bill going through, but, clearly, the Government will resist putting anything in it about investigations as they have kicked it into the ongoing review. Again, we do not know when that review will report. As a veteran of the last 20 years of Armed Forces Bills, I know that they come round every five years. If I am still in the House in five years’ time, I shall no doubt be dragged into the next one. But five years is a long time for people to wait for this legislation. The only other option is that the MOD will secure Government time to bring in a specific Bill on investigations. You will know, Ms Winterton, that Government time is very precious and trying to fight and argue for a Bill will be very hard, so I do not see that this matter will be addressed for another five years. That is just not acceptable.
This leads me on to another issue that was raised earlier, which is the issue around Northern Ireland veterans. One of the worst things that we can ever do in politics is to make promises to people and then not deliver. What has happened both with the overseas operations Bill and the claims that have been made to our Northern Ireland veterans is a disgrace. It is clear to me that the Government will not bring forward a Bill before the summer recess; I struggle to understand how they are going to bring such a Bill forward. That is not just letting people down, but being completely dishonest with people. Brave service men, mainly, from ordinary working-class backgrounds across this country went to Northern Ireland to do their duty, to protect not only the citizens of Northern Ireland but those of the UK, and we are letting them go through this tortuous process. I would have more respect for the Government if they came out and said, “We can’t do it, so we are just going to leave it”, rather than what we have got at the moment.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
After that speech, who on earth would be a Defence Minister? It is a great privilege to speak during Armed Forces Week. We have a clear responsibility in this place to support Her Majesty’s forces, so the timing is neat. As Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I am familiar with the Bill. It is a good Bill, but may I commend to hon. Members the Select Committee report and the subsequent statement made in this House on 22 April? Both were fully objective and the result of painstaking analysis and debate within the Select Committee. Yes, we did not agree on every issue. In fact, we did not agree on many issues.
Mr Kevan Jones
It was remiss of me in my contribution not to thank the hon. Member for chairing the Select Committee. He got thrown in at the deep end at the last minute, but I think all members of the Select Committee thought he did an excellent job and ensured that everyone had their say. May I put on record my thanks, and I am sure that of other Members, to him for the way in which he chaired the Select Committee?
James Sunderland
I thank the right hon. Gentleman —my friend—for those kind words. It was a real pleasure to chair that superb Committee. The report was pretty good. I believe it to be a framework for what lies ahead and perhaps even a template for what we do with this standing legislation in five years’ time. We are progressing all the time, and the future looks good.
I want to discuss two areas: the statutory guidance and the latest amendments to the Bill. First, I thank the Minister for his written response to the Select Committee report and for the draft statutory guidance, which we have now got. We must acknowledge that the covenant is already with us. It has been signed by the vast majority of councils all over the UK, including in Northern Ireland. In fact, it has its 10th birthday at this point in time, so what better present could there be than to bring it into statute?
The door is already open for the statutory guidance, and it is a good bit of work so far. I welcome the fact that it places a due regard on the placeholder, that it recognises rightful outcomes, that it reflects the unique sacrifices and obligations on HM forces and that it places a legal obligation on the delivery of health, accommodation and local support from councils. It also provides examples of good practice and pragmatic guidelines on how that is to be provided.
I note that prescriptive performance targets are still absent, but it may be that it is impossible to apply any meaningful metrics and tools to this area. I do not believe that councils are in any doubt about what is expected of them after 10 years, but—it is a big but—it may be that guidance is still needed on how they will be held to account if they do not meet their obligations. I read with interest the line in the guidance that:
“Covenant duty does not mandate public specific delivery outcomes or advantageous treatment of the Armed Forces Community. It only mandates that consideration takes place…when exercising certain functions”.
That worries me, as the local authority complaints process does not cut it in terms of what I believe is still needed. Simply inviting disaffected personnel to contact their MP fills me with horror. I urge the Minister to please look again at this, dig deeper and do the right thing.
I turn to the amendments. I am comfortable with what the Government have tabled, and I want to talk to a handful of the others. New clause 1 would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for any current or previously serving members of the UK armed forces. Similarly, new clause 7 provides that foreign and Commonwealth veterans applying for indefinite leave to remain following four years of service will pay only the unit cost of an application.
I am clear in my mind that the Government have this key issue in hand, and I welcome the consultation recently announced by the MOD and the Home Office. I personally wish to see an amnesty for those F and C personnel who slip through the net, and I agree that it is right to abate the cost of visa fees as a function of time to incentivise longer service. As a former commanding officer of the largest and most diverse unit in the British Army, I say that is the right way to go, even though it may set a precedent for other Departments.
New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standards in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel. The MOD takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans, and over the years it has established a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support for service personnel and veterans. We have come a long way from the early days of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with which I am very familiar. The covenant has also been enshrined in law, so I think that the new clause may be redundant at this point.
New clause 3 would require the Government to publish a report on changes to personnel numbers across all services and to detail the impact of reductions on operational capabilities. However, none of that is a closely guarded secret. The MOD recently published its Command Paper “Defence in a competitive age” and noted that the size of the Army would be reduced. I believe that that new clause is also redundant; the information is out there.
New clause 4 would require the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who are dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces due to their sexuality and make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation. Restorative justice is difficult due to the policies that were legally enforceable at the time, but I am comfortable, for now, that the Government are making strides to tackle this, not least by restoring medals and engaging much more broadly with the LGBTQ+ community. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
As for new clause 6, the duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders is already there. It is called good leadership—and also the covenant, which is being enshrined in law.
Lastly, new clause 8 is laudable, but we are not there yet. The new clause would create a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. The Government have not been persuaded at this point that there is a requirement or a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested.
The interests of armed forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least, again, the chain of command. Furthermore, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides impartial scrutiny of service complaints made by members of the UK armed forces regarding any aspect of their service life. However, for the Minister’s benefit, I would, in this case, welcome an independent body to provide additional rigour for service complaints. In my experience, service complaints are very awkward, and it may just be that taking them out of units and out of the chain of command is the right thing to do.
To conclude, one of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it does not go far enough, but as an ex-serviceman I refute that. Any new legislation has to be deliverable, proportionate, pragmatic and responsible, and has to attract the necessary due diligence and analysis, for it needs to consider the effect on those it relates to, and no Government can write cheques they cannot cash, as they have to maintain the fundamental ethos and integrity of the organisation itself. Our armed forces are pre-eminent in their field and must be afforded the autonomy they need to do their job. So this is about evolution, not revolution, and I believe that we will get there in due course through what the Select Committee has recommended.
I say to those who wish to turn this unique organisation into what they would wish it to be by clipping its wings, softening its operational capability and ignoring its hard edge or negating the importance of the chain of command: please be careful what you wish for.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), and I was privileged to serve on the Armed Forces Bill Committee; he was an excellent Chairman of it and it was a really worthwhile exercise. There are a couple of issues that I took an interest in and hope to talk a little about today. I am also looking forward to joining the armed forces community in Liverpool on Saturday.
New clause 4 seeks to right an historical wrong. Some 21 years ago, the ban on homosexuality and LGBT+ personnel serving in the armed forces was lifted. That ban inflicted staggering cruelty on those men, and some women, who had stepped forward to serve their country. Between the mid-1950s and 1996 the 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 that went on for days before they were charged, often without legal counsel or support, and on many occasions arrest was based on little evidence. Heterosexual men were falsely accused by service police officers, losing careers and in some cases homes and families. And after harrowing investigations these men 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, and it is staggering that that continued until 1996, and that the administrative dismissal of LGBT+ personnel continued for a further four years, until January 2000.
As these members of the 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 rank or wear items of uniform, for example in remembrance at the Cenotaph, and 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. They were cast out of the armed forces family, outed to their own family and friends, and 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. And in the past, in their moment of need they were shunned by military charities—something that has now changed.
However, there has been no such remedy from Government or the Ministry of Defence. The Committee heard at first hand from the charity Fighting with Pride—I believe the Minister has met them—accounts of those affected, and how they live today amidst the ashes of their former service careers.
LGBT+ veterans are scattered across the UK, often away from military communities and living a life starkly different from the one they hoped for when they joined the forces. In the 21 years since the ban was lifted, nothing has been done to support those individuals. As Canada, Germany, the United States and other nations prepare, assess, make reparation and put right a shameful wrong, it is long overdue for the UK, which persisted with the ban for longer and implemented it more zealously than many other countries, to do the same.
Those men and women deserve an apology on behalf of the nation from the Prime Minister in Parliament. They must be supported on the pathway to royal pardons, be restored to the retired list and have their medals returned. Prohibitions on their use of rank and on the wearing of berets at the Cenotaph must be revoked. They need resettlement support, which we offer to all other members of the armed forces, and they must be fairly compensated and have their pension 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 the Government’s stated wish to be a global exemplar for both LGBT+ and veterans’ communities.
New clause 4 would place a duty on the Ministry of Defence to find out where those veterans are and how they have fared, and to make recommendations to Parliament on what must be done to right this wrong.
My own new clause 6, which touches on issues around addiction treatment, would place a duty of care on the Secretary of State. Just this week, it was reported in the Daily Mirror that more than 8,000 UK troops had needed medical support with respect to alcohol in the past six years. Here, I want to thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) because I know that his talking so openly will help many people who are listening to him.
We know that rates of addiction among the armed forces population are much higher than those among the general UK population. The unique demands of military life, and the serious trauma, violence and loss, make that no surprise. A culture—I say this without judgment—in which harmful drinking rates are considered normal, where vulnerability is a weakness and seeking help is seen as failing to meet the demands of service makes treatment and recovery even harder. Too many veterans end up in mental health crisis, homeless, in prison or committing suicide.
The charity We Are With You provides specialist services for veterans through its Right Turn programme. The majority enrolled in its programmes are those who left service many years earlier, which poses the question for the Government, what more can be done to increase early intervention? For many people, asking for help with alcohol and drug use, however necessary, is incredibly difficult. Denial, fear, pride and shame stop people seeking the specialist support they need, and that is no different for our service personnel, veterans and their families. If anything, those barriers are all the more difficult to overcome.
I met with Adfam—a charity that supports family members of those with substance use problems—and we discussed its 2020 research report, produced in collaboration with the University of York and funded by the Forces in Mind Trust. Families shared the impact of the heavy-drinking culture in the armed forces, with many describing the use of alcohol as frequent, heavy, expected and normalised, and used as part of, and in response to, all situations and occasions. That normalisation means that problems with excessive drinking are not seen as problems.
Aside from the heavy-drinking culture, those families shared their experiences of another culture—the culture of silence. Families say that their loved ones were expected to be stoic, strong and infallible. Veterans and their families are too often left feeling further isolated and vulnerable.
A small number of charities provide specialist support to those veterans and their families. Tom Harrison House in Anfield, around the corner from my office, is the only residential veteran-specific treatment centre in the UK. I have got to know veterans there. I have heard of their experiences and their struggle to get the support and understanding they need. Many have co-occurring mental health diagnoses and complex needs, and have been struggling with addiction for many years. I have not met one person there who has told me that the support they got came with any help from the armed forces.
One veteran told me:
“From the Army, I went straight to prison and did a long spell there. I then went home for a year. I then lived on the streets for 12 years. During that time I was using drugs and drinking, I couldn't stop drinking and became an alcoholic.”
Another veteran told me:
“I gave my life to service, I was trained to lack empathy; conditioned to survive; asking for help was a weakness; encouraged to drink and when there was nothing left for me to give, I was discharged, without any re-conditioning, no support; completely alone.”
Peer support is key in addiction treatment and key to the success of Tom Harrison House, and veteran-specific services are having great successes.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words earlier. I want to stand with him on Tom Harrison House. One of my friends with whom I served was literally at death’s door and it saved his life. Now, he is helping other people with addictions and the problems that he went through. Credit for having it in your constituency; it is an amazing organisation.
Dan Carden
I am delighted to hear that and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the effort to let us know that in the Chamber.
Armed forces charities provide life-changing services, particularly for those with substance abuse problems, but access remains a postcode lottery. I think it is wrong that the state takes so little responsibility for ensuring that veterans receive the treatment they need. Requiring public bodies to give due regard to the principles of the covenant is not enough. The Bill was an opportunity to set measurable national standards that would end the current postcode lottery through the armed forces covenant. Once personnel have left service, they rely on the NHS and local authorities, and of course on the UK’s third sector organisations which provide excellent help and support. Their work is fantastic, but the MOD has a responsibility to those men and women that it has shirked for too long.
For too many veterans, their service to this country has come at a devastating cost. Drink and drugs are often an escape; a way to cope, a way to manage or medicate mental health conditions and past trauma. One of the worst failings of the system is that many drug and alcohol services simply do not have the competencies to deal with mental health issues in-house and many mental health services are not able to offer support if a patient presents with substance use disorders. Being bounced between services effectively prolongs people’s suffering for longer and longer.
James Sunderland
I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman talking about veterans. I will make two points if I may. First, of course, not all veterans are mad, bad or sad. The picture you paint is very negative. The vast majority of veterans in this country live very successful, happy, fulfilling lives. My second point is this. I visited Veterans Aid yesterday in London, which is a very impressive organisation focused very much not on alleviating symptoms, but on outcomes. Do you agree that outcomes is the right way to go?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I just offer a gentle reminder that we speak through the Chair, rather than directly.
Dan Carden
I take the hon. Member’s second point and I would not want to be painting a negative picture. I am speaking on behalf of the people I have met in my constituency who have come through Tom Harrison House and elsewhere, who have suffered a great deal in their lives.
I will finish on some points made by Dame Carol Black in her independent “Review of drugs: phase one report”. She says:
“The number of residential rehabilitation services have reduced significantly, removing a core treatment component for those that need it to support their recovery”,
and:
“Some areas are starting to ‘ration’ treatment, setting higher thresholds for those who can access it and/or just offering a minimum service due to workers having such large caseloads.”
The question for the Government is: if mental health services are failing the general population, what use is a law that gives due regard to service personnel and veterans? Regardless of people’s training or dedication to their duty, mental health disorders, including addiction, do not discriminate, and I simply want the MOD to take greater responsibility for and interest in these issues.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
Thank you for calling me, Dame Rosie. I am sorry not to be able to contribute to this debate in person, but laryngitis means I have to stay at home in Breconshire, and I apologise if my voice does not last the duration of this speech.
Like many others, I want to start by congratulating the business managers on the timing of this Bill, but in reality every week should be Armed Forces Week. Honouring those who have served as well as those who continue to serve should not be a one-off event. I am excessively proud of the UK armed forces, but in particular of those based in my constituency at Brecon barracks, Sennybridge training area and the Infantry Battle School—not least the soldier I live with, and here I declare an interest in that my partner is a serving member of the British Army.
Like so many this weekend, I will be joining Armed Forces Day events in the constituency. I am looking forward in particular to meeting the daughter of a true British hero in Builth Wells on Saturday. Violette Szabo initially joined the Women’s Land Army when war broke out and the Auxiliary Territorial Service in 1941. She worked for F section in the Special Operations Executive, but during a mission in France she was captured and imprisoned by the Nazis. She was executed in Ravensbrück concentration camp, and she was posthumously awarded the George Cross—the highest honour given to civilians. Walking along the Embankment in London, hon. Members will see a statue of Violette, one of the very few military women to be commemorated. I am deeply excited to be meeting her daughter, who now lives in Cilmeri in my constituency, and to have the opportunity to pay tribute to her mother and to all those who have served and continue to serve.
There is much to welcome in this Bill that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of serving personnel and veterans. However well intentioned they may be or however thoughtfully suggested by the same focus groups that advised the leader of the Labour party to start valuing the military, I will not be supporting the Opposition’s amendments.
I particularly want to single out clause 8 of the Bill, which strengthens the commitment to the armed forces covenant. The covenant is 10 years old this year, and it is something we should all hold dear. I must also declare another interest in that my partner’s mum is the chief executive of the Armed Forces Covenant Trust. His is something of a military family.
Clause 8 compels public bodies to have due regard to the covenant, and I would urge my local authority—Powys County Council—and the Labour-run Welsh Government to pay close attention to it. At present, Powys County Council is proposing to close Llanbedr school, which is a thriving primary school in my constituency. Along with my colleague in the Welsh Parliament, James Evans, I am deeply opposed to the closure of the school, but it is largely because a number of military families will once again find themselves displaced. That is deeply wrong. I spoke to a mum whose partner has recently started a two-year posting in Brecon, and if Llanbedr closes, they will be forced to find yet another school for their three children.
In campaigning against the school’s closure, I have tried to learn more about the Welsh Government’s plans for military families. I was directed to a specialist website, which does not work. People simply cannot find out what the Welsh Government want to do for military families who are searching for a consistent education as they move around the United Kingdom and even abroad. I know the Minister is powerless to keep the school open, but I would be keen to meet his officials to learn more about how the UK Government and Welsh Government could be working together to ensure that military families can rely on an uninterrupted education.
I cannot let the Minister escape without yet another plea for the decision to close Brecon barracks to be reversed. His colleague the Minister for Defence Procurement has kindly heard me a number of times and knows I warmly welcome the commitment to keep 160th Brigade in Brecon itself, but I will have to continue to bang on until this nonsensical decision is reversed. Brecon barracks is an integral part of the defence estate in Wales. It is the home of the Army in Wales and it deserves a permanent home—one that is fit for the future and that honours its history.
The Minister was in Wales this week and I am deeply grateful to him for his visit. It shows his commitment to the armed forces across the Union and his willingness to ensure that Wales is not left behind. However, with the number of service personnel and veterans living and working in Brecon and Radnorshire, I am concerned that the Welsh Government are content for them to be left behind. We have a large veteran population in Wales—around 140,000—but we are still the only nation in the UK not to have a dedicated commissioner for veterans. During this year’s St David’s day debate, the Secretary of State for Wales confirmed that he was actively exploring ways in which the UK Government could establish Wales’s first veterans’ commissioner. However, the ball is now in the Welsh Government’s court, and since February nothing has happened.
In Wales, we have eight armed forces liaison officers, who do fantastic work, but without one overarching commissioner there is no one to ensure that mental health provision, for example, is as consistent for those who live in Ystradgynlais as it is for those who live in Wrexham. At this point, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has done so much work on this issue. I urge the Minister to continue his engagement with the Welsh Government and to get them to put the interests of veterans in Wales above the need constantly to frustrate the Conservative Government in Westminster.
I was incredibly moved to see a large parade of veterans streaming through Brecon a few weeks ago. They were there to support the former soldiers who face prosecution following their service in Northern Ireland. Although I could not join them in person on the day, I give them my full support. These vexatious prosecutions must end. Without any new evidence, there is no justification for the continued harassment of former soldiers.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, this morning heard from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who confirmed that he will be bringing forward a Bill shortly, but shortly is too slow; we cannot waste any more time. It was not appropriate to include Northern Ireland veterans in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 for the very obvious reason that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but there must be no further obstacles to this legislation. All serving personnel should be treated equally and it is more than time that the Government righted the wrongs done to those who served in Operation Banner.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), and to speak in support of several amendments that would improve the welfare of serving soldiers and former service personnel.
As we are in Armed Forces Week, I would like to pay tribute not only to the tireless campaigning of organisations such as the Royal British Legion, but to veterans in my constituency of Ceredigion. I pay particular tribute to the efforts of the Ceredigion armed forces community covenant partners, especially to Captain Colin Jones MBE and his work with the Ceredigion armed forces veterans hub. Together, they run regular breakfast clubs across the county and have organised a series of events to raise money for good causes, the most recent of which took place just last Saturday. Colin climbed Yr Wyddfa, the highest mountain in Wales, blindfolded, in aid of Blind Veterans UK—a feat that was followed in the evening by a friendly but very competitive football match between the old boys of Aberystwyth FC and the old boys of the Royal Welsh Regiment.
I support new clause 1, which would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the unjust fee levied on current or former serving members of the UK armed forces and their families when they submit applications for indefinite leave to remain. Such a measure would cost very little. It has support on both sides of the Committee and would have a profound impact on those it affects. It would also, of course, signal the support of this place for service people and their families.
Furthermore, I welcome amendments 1 to 4, and particularly amendment 2, which would require the Welsh Government to pay due regard to the armed forces covenant. This amendment is crucial in ensuring access to housing and other sources of wellbeing for veterans in Wales, while respecting the devolution settlement. It is important because although the armed forces are clearly a reserved matter, many aspects of their care, from housing to healthcare to education—matters that have been discussed by other hon. Members this afternoon —are devolved, with responsibility for implementation lying either with the Welsh Government or at a local authority level.
It is therefore essential to establish what expectations the Bill places on the Welsh Government and local authorities. With that in mind, I hope the Minister will inform us of what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government to streamline access to these services and ensure parity across the four nations, particularly given that not all armed forces charities and support networks have as strong a presence as we would like in some parts of Wales.
Equally, I ask the Minister to respond to the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill and its recommendation that amendments should be pursued requiring the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers before issuing or revising guidance under proposed new section 343AE of the Armed Forces Act 2006, as well as before making regulations under proposed new section 343AF. That is particularly important given that the Government are no longer seeking a legislative consent motion from the Senedd. If he is able to refer to those points in his summing up, I would be grateful.
I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends in the SNP that would require accommodation provided to service people in the respective nations of the UK to meet certain standards. It is appalling that, while the Government oversee procurement disasters, trumpet budget increases and laud the sacrifices made by our armed forces, they are still to commit to providing basic standards of accommodation for our service people. These amendments would address that, and I urge the Government to support them.
Finally, I note my support for new clause 2, which would establish a duty of care standard for legal, pastoral and mental health support for service personnel in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations. Establishing a duty of care in these instances is the responsible and right thing to do.
The new clauses and amendments I have addressed today would make a meaningful impact on the lives of current and former service personnel. They are all considered amendments and have been tabled in good faith, and I hope the Government will use the good will apparent on both sides of the Committee to ensure that the Bill works with the devolved Governments to improve the standards of care and support received by our armed forces community.
Jamie Stone
It is interesting how, when we listen to a debate, our own speech changes according to what we have just heard. To give credit where it is due, the description provided by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) of what it was like to be homosexual and serving in the armed services rang a very strong bell with me.
My father had a much-loved cousin—he is dead now —who rose to a fairly high rank in the armed forces. Of course, all his life he was a homosexual. I remember him describing to me, not long before he died, what it was like to live a lie, because he did not dare come out or admit to his sexuality. He eventually came out in his 80s and had a partner before he died, and it was great. That always sticks with me, so I compliment the hon. Gentleman.
What the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said about indefinite leave to remain, which has been mentioned many times in this debate, is very important. New clause 1 stands in my name, and I want to take it as far as possible. I hope the day will come when interpreters or anyone who has served Queen and country, and frankly risked their life, will be afforded the most assistance to become a permanent part of our country.
I have mentioned this several times in the past, and I want to make a point that I do not think other Members have touched on. In doing this sort of thing, word gets back to the countries these people originally come from, and that generates good will. Recruitment is the theme of my speech, and that good will helps us address a problem that I have heard about over and again in my four years in this place: that we are not recruiting the numbers that we need. We should never underestimate the importance of good will when it comes to recruitment.
I would be obliged if the Minister would pass on my thanks to his colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), who kindly hosted a most interesting briefing about Mali. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), was there as well. When we heard what was being done by our services personnel in Mali to ensure peace and to do good in the world, it really did sound very good indeed and was very encouraging.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly on Reserves Day and ahead of celebrating Armed Forces Day on Saturday. It is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches, particularly that by my Welsh colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones).
The passage of the Bill through Parliament this year is particularly important because it will put the armed forces covenant into legislation. Of course, the covenant is not new, but has been in operation in its current form for nearly 10 years. During that time, significant progress has been made to improve the lives of armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. More than 6,000 organisations and every local authority in the UK has pledged to support it.
However, the covenant is still just a pledge and individual members of the armed forces community still suffer disadvantage when accessing public services. This is often because of a lack of awareness of not just the covenant but the unique contributions that our service personnel make. The Bill will impose a legal duty on relevant bodies to have due regard to the three principles of the covenant. This is our promise to those who are serving or have served: they and their families will be treated fairly.
I come from a service family—my grandparents met in the RAF. I have RAF Valley in my constituency, and I am proud to be on the RAF section of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I understand that going into the armed forces is a unique career choice. People hand themselves and their family over to the service of their country, with all that that entails.
I am fortunate to work closely with RAF Valley. Group Captain Andy Turk’s whole force team at the base is a very close-knit and supportive community, and I hold regular meetings with the service personnel and the private sector organisations based there, including Babcock, BAE Systems and Affinity. I represent both civilian and service constituents and their concerns are my concerns. RAF Valley is one of the largest employers here on Ynys Môn and I am consistently pushing very strongly, both informally and formally, how important these skilled jobs are in my constituency. Indeed, I had a meeting today with the Minister for Defence Procurement, which included an invitation to visit RAF Valley over the summer.
What strikes me most about the whole force team at RAF Valley is not what they do for the country, but what they do quietly in the background for the local community. Yes, training our future fighter and helicopter pilots is what we shout about, but it is their commitment to Anglesey that makes them truly part of our island. The station is as much part of Anglesey life as Anglesey life is part of the station, so my message today is this: when people think of the armed forces covenant, they should not think only of the contribution that our forces make to our national security; they should remember also the huge contribution that they make to our everyday life.
With RAF Valley here on Anglesey, the community enjoys so many benefits. The team helped us to secure hosting of the 40th anniversary of the Island games. They have provided critical skilled volunteers for our Royal National Lifeboat Institution, mountain rescue and local first responder groups. They host award-winning youth outreach programmes such as the Jon Egging Trust, support the learning and mentoring Profi project and partner with Careers Wales and STEM Cymru projects. They provide local junior football and tennis camps, on-site science, technology, engineering and maths activities and events for local schools. Padre Michael Hall of the station charities committee raises vital funds for a range of north Wales charities and organises a Santa drop for the children staying in Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital over Christmas. They run beach cleans, they are custodians of a stretch of our beautiful coastal path, and they do so much more.
The armed forces covenant is our country’s thank you. It is a thank you for all that our armed forces do, and I take this opportunity to say personally diolch yn fawr—thank you—to RAF Valley for all that it does. I am proud that this Government are enshrining the armed forces covenant in legislation, so that our services personnel and their families receive the recognition that they deserve for their courage and years of commitment to us.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
First, let me put on record that my thoughts are with the crew of HMS Defender as they go about their job with the usual dedication and skill today. Let me also say that despite what certain news agencies may have said today, Crimea is in Ukraine, and all on the Scottish National party Benches hope that the Russian Federation ends that illegal occupation as quickly as possible.
Today’s reminder that those members of our armed forces do a job like no other is pertinent and the opportunity that we in this House have through this legislation is a solemn duty, which I do not doubt all who are speaking today approach with the requisite seriousness. That does not mean, however, that we all share the same optimism about the Bill. While the idea of bringing the armed forces covenant into law is a welcome step forward, I still feel that there is going to be little in the Bill that will be genuinely transformative for the lived experience of armed forces personnel and veterans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and constituency neighbour has already spoken about her amendment on armed forces housing and I will not add much to that, other than to say that it is the type of small change that could make a real difference to the home lives of personnel wherever they are on these islands. More substantively, it is an amendment that makes an important point about how we should see the armed forces personnel not as a special class or caste of a group of our societies that seeks to defend that societies’ values. They cannot do this in substandard housing. The very least we should offer them is that which is available to the rest of society and, in this case, make sure that they are housed safely and warmly. I am determined to say every time these sorts of debates come up that those of us here would do well to think of our serving personnel less as heroes, and more as human beings, with the same needs as the rest of us: fair pay and conditions, the right to private and family life and ready access to secure accommodation. That is taken for granted for every other type of public sector employee, so why is it not for armed forces personnel? In fact, come to think of it, despite being to the best of my knowledge the only group of public sector employees to have a dedicated legislative session every five years, armed forces personnel have demonstrably poorer outcomes on almost every scale. How can that be?
There may be a metaphor in here. We are told that the Armed Forces Bill meets by convention as a Committee of the whole House before Report and Third Reading. Given that the Bill Select Committee was rushed through in a few short weeks, I cannot understand why we are now inserting another stage or, indeed, why the amendments that the Government are bringing today could not have been brought to the Select Committee.
I note with particular puzzlement yesterday’s statement from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). He is a fellow Docherty, with roots in Donegal and Glasgow and with whom I enjoyed working on the Defence Committee. He stated that further scrutiny would
“delay the Bill’s passage, placing undue pressure on the deadline to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 27WS.]
I would certainly like to think that the next time an armed forces Bill whizzes through the House, we get a wee bit more time to discuss the really important issues at hand.
As the arcane workings of this place continue to baffle both Members and personnel alike, we avoid being able to discuss the type of wide-ranging changes that could make a real difference to the lives of personnel, although that is probably the way that the Government and the Ministry of Defence like it. Maybe I am just being cynical.
My final points are in regard to the Opposition amendments relating to the service justice system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) will be supporting. From my work on the Defence Committee, it is clear that the service justice system needs a radical and profound overhaul, and not just the modest changes proposed in the amendment. With the next armed forces Bill, it is time that we think about bringing together all the service police forces, streamlining the processes and ensuring a more robust service justice system that works for all.
I conclude by thanking all my colleagues on the Bill Select Committee for their work over the past few months —especially the Chair, the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), because I know it is the first time that a Bill has been considered in a hybrid way—and the Clerks and those in the Public Bill Office who have helped us navigate this legislation. We owe it to service personnel, in whose name the Bill will be enacted, to make it more straightforward in the future.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate on the armed forces, but particularly this week, as we recognise the huge contribution they make, today on Reserves Day and Saturday on Armed Forces Day. I also take this opportunity to thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. Through the scheme that it runs, I have been able to see almost every week the incredible work that our armed forces do day in, day out.
They say an organisation is only as good as its people, and nowhere is that more true than in the armed forces. Through the Bill, not only do we maintain our armed forces on paper, but it means that the hundreds of thousands of men and women who serve in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, the British Army and the Royal Marines can continue to serve Queen and country. They are the best, the brightest and the most courageous among us.
As we debate clause 1, we must consider why we need the armed forces and why they are still relevant in today’s world. In my view, the argument is stronger than ever before. Turning first to our domestic need, in the fight against covid-19, defence has supported literally hundreds of requests from citizens, the NHS, local authorities and Government Departments. In Lancashire, we have seen that through testing, vaccine deployment, planning, logistics and so much more. They have made a huge contribution, often behind the scenes and always without fanfare. However, this domestic demand has never come at the expense of their core activities. Only last month, we saw HMS Queen Elizabeth set sail as part of the carrier strike group—a huge tasking of personnel from all the services, not just those on board the carrier itself but on the frigates, destroyers and submarines, as well as the aircrew, that go with it.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I pay tribute to the men and women who serve our nation in uniform and our veterans who have selflessly sacrificed so much to protect this great nation. They deserve our utmost respect, gratitude and thanks. I also give thanks to the armed forces and veterans breakfast club in Bury where people work to help veterans, their families and service personnel, bringing the entire community together and reducing social isolation. They meet throughout the week. This should be commended and I put my thanks on record today.
I warmly welcome this Bill. I have the utmost confidence that it will ensure that veterans are treated fairly when accessing key public services, as well as improving the service justice system. As chairman of the all-party group on alcohol harm, I make particular reference to new clause 6 with regard to alcohol disorders. Although I appreciate the reasons that the Government are not bringing forward a measure at the moment, it needs to be explored further so that we do our utmost to ensure that anyone who has a disorder, a dependency or a need—whether they are a recent recruit, still serving or a recent veteran—can be given the help they need throughout their life.
In particular, the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law, increasing awareness among public bodies of the unique nature of military service and improving the level of service for members of the armed forces community in regard to their healthcare, housing and education. I imagine that every Member of this House is aware of veterans out there who have been unable to access help and services that they desperately need, so I warmly welcome the covenant being enshrined in law.
However, our veterans deserve more than the appreciation of a grateful nation. They have protected and built our country, and they deserve our tireless commitment to advancing their opportunities. We must build a brighter future worthy of their sacrifice and that of their families. That is why I welcome the funding announced in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in support of veterans welfare. An additional £10 million will be invested in the armed forces covenant fund in 2021-22, which will deliver charitable projects and initiatives to support veterans’ mental health. This latest funding is in addition to the annual Government contribution of £10 million to the covenant fund.
I welcome the funding announcement, but the veterans community in Bury needs more support. There is currently very little provided for them. Since my election to this House, I have been working with other leaders in the borough, with the council and with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), to try to bring our own veterans hub to the town of Bury. We are proud of our military heritage; we are a regimental town, looking after the Lancashire Fusiliers. The veterans hub would seek to deliver housing and employment skills, further education, family support and health and wellbeing.
I have visited numerous veterans hub operations across the surrounding areas, and I pay tribute to the services in Wigan and also in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham). The positive impact that a local veterans hub can have is clear to everyone. Can the Minister tell me what we can do to ensure that veterans receive the support that they need, no matter where they live, and what funding would be available from the MOD to help set up a veterans hub locally in Bury? We must reaffirm our fundamental promise that, just as the military leaves no one behind on the battlefield, we will leave no veteran behind when they come home.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and an honour to speak in this debate in Armed Forces Week and on Reserves Day, especially because I am proud to have the Royal Marine Reserve headquarters in my constituency. Ahead of Reserves Day, I visited them last week and was able to thank them personally for their service. They put in a hard day’s work all over the country, then travel to their reservist centre to train for the Royal Marines, no less. They offer amazing service to our country, and I am very proud of them and grateful to them.
There is much to welcome in the Bill, which will support our armed forces personnel and their families. I echo the words of colleagues on both sides of the House in recognising and celebrating the work of our armed forces and their ongoing efforts to make our country and the world safer. We cannot put a price on safety. Only when our own safety is compromised, or when we do not have it, do we realise how important it is to us every day. I worked with aid workers in Bosnia during the war, and I have seen the difference it can make to a whole community not to have that safety, so I value it very much.
Our armed forces have had to adapt all their work and all their training at speed during the pandemic, and I commend them for that. I am also thankful for the work they have done to support frontline efforts to tackle the pandemic. They really have stepped up when we have asked them to. It is for this reason that, while I support the aims of the Bill, I think it is a huge missed opportunity and could have gone further. It needs to go further if it is to deliver real improvements to the day-to-day lives of our service personnel and veterans and their families.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
As a fellow member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could have gone further in addressing mental health provision for veterans, given the fact that they have to wait 37 days to receive a face-to-face appointment for mental health services, compared with the Government’s own target of just 14 days?
Fleur Anderson
I agree with my hon. Friend: this Bill could have gone further both in putting all aspects of the covenant fully into law, and in its scope.
The Bill does not fully enshrine the armed forces covenant in law. It seems to absolve central Government from responsibility for delivering the covenant, as has been outlined by my colleagues. It does not make sense to place new responsibilities on a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, to deliver the covenant, but not to include central Government. Does the Minister agree that the Government are effectively outsourcing the delivery of these important commitments and also evading their own responsibility on issues such as pensions, social care and mental health services? For that reason, I support amendments 1 to 4. They would place the same legal responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant on central Government and the devolved Administrations and remove that glaring discrepancy.
My second point is that the Bill is just too narrow. Service charities are rightly concerned that this Bill contains nothing specific on issues such as service accommodation, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed. Our armed forces personnel and their families should not suffer disadvantage in any area. By setting a legal standard that is below existing voluntary commitments in some areas, the Government risk creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on services for forces’ communities where we should be providing the gold standard.
The Bill, as it stands, does not cover all the commitments made in the covenant, or all the public bodies responsible for delivering them It contains powers for the Secretary of State to expand these, so why not include them? Will the Minister clarify how and when these powers might be used? These issues are why I am supporting amendment 6 this afternoon.
This Bill does nothing to address the shameful scandal of visa fees for Commonwealth veterans. I know that there is support in all parts of the House for addressing this, so I urge Members to vote for the new clause. The Government’s long-awaited proposals, currently being consulted on, will help just one in 10 Commonwealth veterans. We know what the Commonwealth veterans want, need and deserve for their service, so why not just put it in the Bill? The proposed changes do not apply to family members of those who have served or who have been medically discharged, meaning that it will help only a minority of those affected.
Commonwealth service personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country for which they have potentially laid down their lives. They have served with courage and distinction, and we thank them and then do not give them the rights that they deserve. The Government’s long-overdue proposals are insulting to those personnel and will continue to prevent non-UK veterans from living in the country for which they have fought. Moreover, the proposals will reduce retention and recruitment rates, as has been outlined.
Under new clause 7, Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans who have served four years would pay cost price—they would pay just over £200 instead of £2,389 for an indefinite leave to remain application. Those with families will have to pay nearly £10,000 to apply for a right to remain. We did not ask them for that when they potentially laid down their life for us and for our country. We ask far too much of them, and put far too high a barrier for the indefinite leave to remain application. This is a move that the Royal British Legion and organisations such as Citizenship for Soldiers have long campaigned for, and I pay my respect to them both for their campaigns and for speaking up for so many people. I urge all hon. Members to support the new clause.
The Government like to talk up their support for our service communities, and rightly so, but they are not delivering. It is time for Ministers to deliver the promises of the covenant in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. I often think that our armed forces personnel lose out because they are not allowed to wear their military uniform out and about, and I absolutely understand the reasons for that. None the less, in countries such as America, armed forces personnel are thanked everywhere they go. They are given special treatment and respect for their service to their country, and rightly so. But our armed forces personnel often do not feel that respect; they cannot because they cannot wear their uniform. The covenant goes a long way to saying how much we respect our armed forces personnel and their families, but it could go a bit further to achieve that. The Opposition’s reasonable and constructive amendments are designed to get the very best for our forces from this legislation, so I urge hon. Members from all sides of the House to support the amendments.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division. On the motion on the conference, November and Christmas Adjournments, the Ayes were 567 and the Noes were three, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the assurances he provided from the Dispatch Box in his opening remarks. I also pay special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for the diligence with which he conducted the Bill Select Committee. I must also pay special tribute to my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). Whenever he recollects and provides details of his experiences, he never fails to move me and, I know, many other Members in this Chamber. Thanks are also clearly due to the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, particularly given the efforts it has put in, and, of course, all the military establishments that have continued with the armed forces parliamentary service during this difficult time of restrictions due to covid. It has been invaluable to me to be a member of the scheme, even with all the constraints that covid imposed.
One of the key messages that I take away from the last 18 months is that our military all do their job with a conviction that I find difficult to equal elsewhere. In fact, calling it a job is probably wrong: it is in fact a way of life. It is not a life of luxury. Indeed, it is not a life with many of the things that most of us take for granted. It is a life that they know might one day put them at risk. I thank all of them and their families and pay tribute to the veterans from my constituency of Dudley North and beyond.
Before I entered Parliament, I chaired an armed forces covenant committee in the Black Country, where I saw at first hand the difficulties faced by our brave personnel and their families—if they had any family—simply because of the nature of their jobs. At that point, the covenant was a voluntary commitment, with inconsistencies across the country. I am therefore delighted that this is being enshrined in law so that the support somebody receives in Dudley will be the same as that given in Portsmouth and, indeed, perhaps in Dover.
While I was chairing the covenant committee, I was never able to find the answer to one simple question: how many people had we helped and were we actually helping? I am a very outcome-focused person, and while I could not doubt the well-meaning and positive intentions of all the partners supporting the covenant—the local council, the local NHS trusts and so many more—I had a hard time quantifying the benefit, even though the covenant is clearly a great step forward. My plea to Ministers is therefore to seek ways to evidence what impact the covenant is having on veterans and their families. That will help partners to improve their offer together and demonstrate the great value in the armed forces covenant.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. I wish to speak in opposition to new clauses 1, 2 and 3.
I thank my colleagues who served on the Select Committee for the Bill, which was so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). The Bill as it stands will protect our armed forces not only while they are serving, but once they have completed their service, delivering on the manifesto commitments on which we were elected.
It is fitting that we are debating the Bill during Armed Forces Week. Only this morning, on Reserves Day, I was privileged to attend a flag raising ceremony here in Darlington, attended by veterans, reservists-and youth trainees, in recognition of their service and to express the thanks of the people I represent. In my Second Reading speech, I reiterated the words of those armed forces veterans in Darlington, who support the Bill. The Bill will impose a legal duty on UK public bodies and local authorities to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, ensuring that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged because of or by their service when accessing key public services. I am satisfied that, with the Government new clauses, this Bill will right the wrongs of the past to provide the protection our armed forces personnel and veterans need and deserve. That being said, I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that more can always be done.
With regard to new clauses 1 and 7, the Government have already stressed that they are aware that the current system places financial liability on non-UK service personnel and are currently consulting on a policy to waive fees for personnel at the conclusion of their military service. I look forward to the consultation’s end next month. Similarly, in regard to new clause 2, the Government have already set out their desire to provide gold standard provision for veterans and I am glad that Ministers have stressed the importance of that duty of care. In regard to new clause 3, the Government have outlined at length how the armed forces are adapting to new challenges that we face across the globe.
This Bill enshrines the armed forces covenant in law and impacts veterans in all our constituencies. I am proud to be supporting the Government this evening in delivering an important promise to those who are serving and those who have served us so well.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to all serving armed forces personnel and veterans, thousands of whom are based in my Stockport constituency and across Greater Manchester. We all owe a debt of gratitude to them.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for tabling new clause 7, which deals with
“Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth and Gurkha members of armed forces”.
It is vital that we recognise the sacrifice that these brave men and women make for our country, and they should be recognised and rewarded accordingly. The very least the UK Government can do is forgo the cost of remaining in our country. I also pay tribute to all Gurkhas, as well as to the work of the all-party group on Nepal and the efforts of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who has tirelessly campaigned for justice for the Gurkha community.
I am especially grateful to Mr Peter Millns from the Stockport veterans breakfast club for all his work in supporting the veteran community in my town. He has a long and distinguished career in the military, including a tour of Bosnia while serving in the 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment during the conflict in 1993. The work he and many like him do is crucial to providing the support and camaraderie that many serving personnel and veterans need.
There are 2.5 million veterans living in the UK, and it is vital that they are not simply forgotten about once they have served our country and put their lives on the line for it. Veterans such as Mr Millns in my constituency require funding for community services such as a veterans hub in Stockport town centre, a place where serving and former personnel can receive support for housing, employment and public services such as healthcare. That is vital in helping many integrate back into society after tours of duty and once they retire. In order to do this, they need Government support in the form of a fair funding package to all local authorities so these hubs in support of our veteran community can be rolled out across the nation. Voluntary organisations do incredible work, but it should not be left to them to make up the shortfall in Government support. Too often, the armed forces covenant is not upheld and the promises made do not match the reality experienced by our service communities, from substandard housing to poor veterans’ mental health and social care.
Earlier this year, a highly critical report by the National Audit Office revealed that tens of thousands of troops live in substandard accommodation, while the Ministry of Defence refuses to pay for £1.5 billion-worth of repairs, meaning that half the rooms in MOD barracks would fail to meet the current building regulations. That is no way to treat those who have put their lives on the line to keep our country safe. The Government also need to reduce the waiting time for access to affordable and social housing and improve the existing armed forces housing stock, much of which is dilapidated and has often fallen into disrepair. The Bill places a legal responsibility on councils to deliver on the covenant in the areas of housing, healthcare and education, but, crucially, without providing any extra funding to do so. The Government must therefore implement the armed forces covenant fully in law and increase its funding.
As I have alluded to already, Commonwealth military veterans who have served with the UK military and put themselves in harm’s way for our nation should be afforded the exact same privileges as British nationals. However, the Royal British Legion has warned that they are facing a “desperate situation” due to visa fees of thousands of pounds for those who want to stay in the UK following discharge from the military. This situation must be urgently rectified, and the visa application fees for military personnel from Commonwealth countries must be abolished urgently. Failure to do so would leave many facing deportation.
The UK aims to recruit 1,350 people from Commonwealth countries each year, up from its previous target of 200. We now have more than 6,000 Commonwealth personnel who currently serve in the armed forces.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that those individuals have a huge contribution to make post their military career to British society, whether it be the NHS or other public services, and that by not doing what he says, we are missing an opportunity for the experience that they gained in their service to this country to be given back to the country?
Navendu Mishra
I fully share my right hon. Friend’s views. These people could be invaluable in our society, contributing to all sections of the community, and the Government should urgently resolve this matter. Many of these people are exempt from immigration controls during service, but that is removed immediately on discharge. That is no way to thank them after years of loyal service for our country. We should be rewarding them rather than penalising them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the chance to contribute to this debate on an issue very close to my heart. Let me put on the record how pleased I am to see the Minister in his place. He has been a good friend of mine over the years—a good friend of us all—and we look forward very much to hearing what he has to say.
I declare an interest as a former part-time soldier, having served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army Royal Artillery for 14 and a half years. That may have given me my interest in this issue, but the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which other Members have referred to, has given me a greater overview of what happens. It has given me an opportunity to see what the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy do, and to have a more strategic overview of what it all means, so it really has been good to do that.
New clause 3 refers to a report on personnel numbers in the armed forces. I have to put on the record, as others have—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to it—my disappointment that the personnel figure for the forces has dropped. In 2004, under Labour—that was long before I came here; I was in the Assembly at the time—there were some 207,000 personnel. That has dropped dramatically.
I worry that, as others have said, we have come to the stage where viability becomes a key issue and there is a question about whether we are able to respond to all the places in the world where there is conflict. We have heard reference—it may have been from the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on the SNP Front Bench—to Mali. We know that British soldiers have a key role to play there and elsewhere in Africa. The level of terrorism in central Africa—Gabon, Nigeria, Mali and other areas in that part of Africa—is rising, and we have a role to play. We have a role to play in the far east as well. I do have great concern about that.
In Northern Ireland over the years, we have been very fortunate to have had a good level of recruitment. We never needed conscription in Northern Ireland, because people volunteered in great numbers in the first and second world wars and in every conflict since. Perhaps Ministers—maybe not this Minister, but another Minister or the Secretary of State—would confirm that the number of TA personnel has been increased in Northern Ireland. The recruitment of TA personnel in my constituency of Strangford and in Newtownards, the town where the two regiments are located, shows great improvement.
Moving on to the amendments that have been selected, I support my colleagues who brought forward new clause 1 regarding waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for serving or discharged members of the UK armed forces and, similarly, new clause 7. We have much to be thankful for historically because those Commonwealth members who joined our ranks served with courage and dedication. Many paid the ultimate price in the service of democracy and freedom while wearing the uniform in service to our royal family and to Queen and country.
Carol Monaghan
Although I said that fees were the biggest issue, we have heard from a number of Commonwealth veterans that they were not made aware of the requirement to apply at the appropriate point and that they have found themselves in a difficult situation over their immigration status. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an awful lot of work to be done here, particularly when veterans are discharged from the armed forces?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and wholeheartedly agree that there are things to do. I hope the Minister will respond to her, and also to me, because I endorse what she has said. It is obvious to me that whenever issues are brought to the attention of Ministers and the Ministry of Defence, things do happen—for instance, the status of the Afghan translators has been changed owing to perseverance and lobbying inside and outside the House—and I suggest that if there is an anomaly to be addressed, we should do that. The way to do it is for our Minister to respond, and I hope he will do so.
Let me return to the fee, which stands at £2,389 per person, despite the unit cost to the Home Office of processing an application being just £243. I always try to be respectful in the Chamber, but when I see figures of £243 and £2,389, I wonder to myself, “Where’s the money going?” For a family of four, the fee would be £9,556. People do not move on their own; they move as part of a family, so I believe consideration should be given to all the family.
I agree that the Government have found some way to acknowledge the debt in that they have proposed dropping fees for personnel who have served more than 12 years, but that does not include any provision for the families, I understand. If the Minister is able to reassure me on the matter, I will be more than happy to respect that.
This must change, and I fully support new clauses 1 and 7 with respect to those who fight to protect these shores. We cannot refuse entry by way of fees, which could take years to save, and perhaps more years to pay off. This small step could change lives and bring working families to enjoy what they have served to uphold. When someone serves, it is not simply their life that is changed; it is the life of the entire family. That is the issue. During the urgent question on vaccinations earlier today, I made a point about families to the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). It is not just one person who is involved, but a family, and often a family of four or more. The immediate family must be part of the equation at all levels.
I welcome some of the work that has been done in relation to veterans. I have a deep interest in veterans owing to the service rendered by my Strangford constituents. Many people have joined over the years and some have lived with the problems of post-traumatic stress disorder. I see the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) in his place. I thank him for his recent report, which has gone some way to addressing those issues.
I want to make a point about a charity called Beyond the Battlefield. It started 10 years ago in my constituency. There are many charities, but I want to speak about this one. Last year, it looked after 850 veterans. Whether it is benefits issues, social housing, health issues, family issues or legal advice, the help that it gives is incredible. Many people that the organisation helps are those who have fallen under the radar; other charities do not pick them up and they face real problems. In particular, I commend Annemarie Hastings and Rob McCartney for the work they have done through Beyond the Battlefield.
The charity organises a walk at the end of May called “A Big Dander”. If someone goes for a walk or a long run, somewhere at the bottom of that is what we call a dander—just take it at your leisure. Connor Ferguson and Ian Reid covered 430 miles in two days, crossing seven peaks and raising some £15,500. I commend them for that. Beyond the Battlefield survives on contributions and volunteer charity events like that one, and it does tremendous work.
I turn to the armed forces covenant. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) referred to her wish—it is my wish as well—to have the armed forces covenant in situ, not just here on the mainland, but for the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and in particular Northern Ireland.
In the background information, I see that the Committee “welcomed the Bill’s proposals” and referred to
“the areas of housing, healthcare and education in the last 12 months…the effectiveness of the legislation and comment on future scope…a memorandum to the Defence Committee two years after the legislation is enacted to enable the Defence Committee to conduct post-legislative scrutiny into how the Act has worked in practice.”
I want that covenant for my constituents in Strangford and all those across the whole of Northern Ireland who have served Queen and country in uniform, so that they have the same rights as they would here.
In the same spirit, I lend my support to amendments 39 and 40 on the standard of housing in the armed forces. Family units sacrifice to serve and it is vital that we do right by them. How can we expect a man or woman to serve with focus if they are worried about the housing in which their family reside back home? How can they serve with focus if they are concerned that their child’s asthma—this is one issue that has come to my attention—is worsening because of damp in their housing? The answer is that they cannot. It is their duty to sacrifice for us and they do so willingly. We in this House must do the same for them and address the issue of decent housing for families. It is sad that we need to legislate in this way, but the fact is that some Army housing is not fit for purpose and funding must urgently be allocated for those family homes. I am coming to the end of my contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In my constituency, I have an Army couple—one person from Northern Ireland and one from England—who refuse to put their five-year-old into Army housing, so they private rent. It is not because they want to be better than anybody else. It is because the rented accommodation that they were offered just was not suitable for their child or for them; indeed, I would suggest that it is not suitable for anybody. Given that they have had to private rent, their decent wage is taken up almost in its entirety by rent and childcare.
When we ask people to serve, we take them away from the support of siblings and parents who might be able to mind their children, yet—with great respect—we do not provide enough for them to live comfortably when doing so. It is little wonder that many families choose to split their time by keeping a base in one town to which they travel on weekends and when on leave, and another only for work. One step towards a good working family is providing housing that is fit for purpose that families can live in together and save the money that they can while working on base, and doing away with the use of very costly private rentals.
I am immensely proud of our armed forces, as we all are in this House. We stand in awe of those who serve in uniform, whether in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or the Army. We are so proud of what they have done for us, and I believe that we in this House have to do our best for them, with gratitude for their service and for their families, who are part of that service. We need to give them the best; unfortunately, we are not there just yet.
Leo Docherty
I thank all Members who have spoken today for their thoughtful and sincere contributions, and I wish to put on record again my gratitude for the effective chairmanship of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) for the constructive tone of his remarks today. He rightly spoke at some length on the historic hurt suffered by those dismissed from military service purely for their sexual orientation—this related to new clause 4. We also heard welcome remarks on that from the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), who made a moving speech, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). So I want to put clearly on the record the fact that the historical ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong and there was horrific injustice as a consequence of it. We will go all out to address that injustice. We are resisting new clause 4 today because we believe that if we accepted that, it would complicate our efforts to address at pace this injustice. But getting after this historical hurt and delivering justice for these people is at the heart of our veterans’ strategy, which I will be announcing later this year. I have met Fighting with Pride already to that end. So we will address this injustice with compassion and deep urgency.
Many Members mentioned settlement fees in relation to new clauses 1 and 7. New clause 1 stood in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, but other Members spoke to it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who also mentioned the cases of Afghan interpreters. I am pleased that they are now coming to our country for the sake of refuge. Let me be clear again that the provisions for settlement fees are out for public consultation, which will conclude on 7 July. I cannot pre-empt what it will find, but I am optimistic and expectant that we will deliver a good and honourable result for those who serve and deserve to be able to settle without exorbitant and unjust fees.
The right hon. Member for North Durham returned to the familiar theme of investigations, and I am pleased to confirm to him this afternoon that Justice Henriques will report by the end of the summer, at which point we will consider with sincerity and rigour the recommendations within that report. I have no doubt that we will communicate further on this subject.
Mr Kevan Jones
I have been a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, so will the Minister just clarify what he means by “the summer”, because there is a big difference between what we all know as the summer and what the MOD knows as the summer? Is he referring to what we recognise or will it be later in the year?
Leo Docherty
I am pleased to confirm that that means summer this year, not summer next year.
I was pleased to hear from a trio of Welsh MPs: my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), the hon. Member for Ceredigion and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). The hon. Member for Ceredigion questioned whether or not we should have had a legislative consent mechanism in relation to this Bill. I am happy to confirm to him that that is not required—we have taken legal advice on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to my recent visit to Wales, when I was very pleased to meet veterans and members of the armed forces and to hear about the very important work of armed forces liaison officers in relation to the local delivery of the armed forces covenant. We had discussions about whether or not there is a need for a veterans commissioner for Wales, and I would hope that all three Welsh Members who spoke today would support that notion, because it would, in addition to the armed forces liaison officers, deliver some value for our defence people and our veterans. I urge the Welsh Government, as I will do in future meetings, to look at that very seriously.
We were pleased also to hear from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who brought his usual good cheer and sincere interest in defence affairs to the Chamber virtually. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred, quite rightly, to the valued work of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, through the trust. He spoke about the centrality of people to everything we do in defence, and I thought that was very apposite.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) spoke about the breakfast club in Bury, and about the challenges faced by veterans and servicepeople when it comes to alcohol. I have noticed a discernible shift in the drinking culture in the armed forces: it is becoming much less of a thing. During my visit to Wales, I met serving members of 1 Para, who said that the gym is the new bar. That is quite interesting, compared with my experiences as a young soldier 20 years ago. Of course I spent a lot of time in the gym, but I was also committed to time in the bar. I think that culture may be shifting. I will be happy to support my hon. Friend’s efforts in Bury South—if he was in his place, I could give him that personal commitment—and the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) to support veterans at the local level.
The hon. Member for Putney made a fitting tribute to the magnificent Royal Marine reserve unit in her constituency. I can confirm that if she comes to Aldershot, she will see a lot of armed forces personnel cutting around in public, in the garrison and in Tesco. She would be very welcome to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) also mentioned the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and the hon. Member for Stockport mentioned the valuable work that veterans do to support their local communities.
I think we were all moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). His moving testimony of his personal experience of the armed forces covenant, both as someone in despair following service and then as an armed forces champion, caught the House’s attention and was very welcome.
Ten years ago, the covenant was relaunched to set out our nation’s promise to honour the immense contribution and commitment of our armed forces people. Ten years on, we are going further still. Anyone who has served their country knows that they should never face disadvantage because of their service. Today, we honour our servicepeople and our veterans. This Bill delivers, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Reserve forces: flexibility of commitments
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 8, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant government department;”—(Stephen Morgan.)
This amendment, with amendments 2, 3 and 4, would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government and the devolved administrations as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
“1A | a sentence of detention under section 224B (special sentence of detention for terrorist offenders of particular concern) | two-thirds of the term imposed pursuant to section 252A(5) of the Sentencing Code by virtue of section 224B(4) of this Act (the appropriate custodial term)” |
“4A | a serious terrorism sentence of detention in a young offender institution under section 268A of the Sentencing Code by virtue of section 219ZA of this Act (serious terrorism sentences) | the term imposed pursuant to section 268C(2) of the Sentencing Code (the appropriate custodial term)” |
“6A | a serious terrorism sentence of imprisonment under section 282A of the Sentencing Code by virtue of section 219ZA of this Act (serious terrorism sentences) | the term imposed pursuant to section 282C(2) of the Sentencing Code (the appropriate custodial term) |
6B | a custodial sentence in respect of which section 244ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies to the offender | two-thirds of the sentence |
6C | a custodial sentence not within any of the preceding entries in respect of which section 247A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies to the offender | two-thirds of the sentence” |
Armed Forces Bill
Tuesday 13th July 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 July 2021 - (13 Jul 2021)
17:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 361 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 360 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 358 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report 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.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—
(a) there is 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.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must include recommendations 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.
(4) The report must include a review of the cases 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.
(5) The report must include discharges and forced resignations back to at least 1955.
(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.
(8) In this section, “sexuality or gender identity” includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.”
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.
New clause 3—Armed Forces Federation—
‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 333, insert the following new clauses—
“333A Armed Forces Federation
(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—
(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and
(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.
(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.
(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.
(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.
333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or
(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—
(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;
(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;
(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and
(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.
(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.””
This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.
New clause 4—Armed Forces Mental Health Care review—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing a review of the mental health treatment provided to Armed Forces personnel through the—
(a) Defence Medical Services,
(b) Departments of Community Mental Health and the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service, and
(c) Reserves Mental Health Programme.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the government to conduct a formal review of the standards of mental health care available for serving personnel.
Amendment 1, page 4, line 27, clause 7, at end insert—
“guidance under subsection (3)
(a) must provide for charges of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape to require specific consent by the Attorney General to be tried in court martial when the offences are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, and
(b) if the Attorney General has not granted such consent, guidance under (3)(a) shall provide that charges as set out in section 4A(a) to be tried in civilian court only.”
This amendment would ensure that the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried under courts martial.
Amendment 7, page 16, line 1, clause 8, leave out subsection 5
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Ministers in the devolved legislatures before issuing or revising any guidance under section 343AE relating to the duties imposed by sections 343AB(1), 343AC(1), and 343AD(1).
Amendment 8, page 17, line 34, clause 8, leave out “consult” and insert “obtain consent from”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Ministers in the devolved legislatures before widening the scope of the duties in sections 343AA(1), 343AB(1), 343AC(1) and 343AD(1) when exercising this power in devolved contexts.
Amendment 2, page 18, line 28, clause 8, at end insert—
“343AG Section 343AF: report
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed, and thereafter must make a report at least once in every calendar year.
(2) The report in subsection (1) shall set out how the powers in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) will work in practice.
(3) Any report published under subsection (1) after the initial report made 3 months after this Act is passed must include—
(a) a statement detailing how the powers granted through section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) have been used since the last report was issued,
(b) a review of the relevance of the listed bodies and functions in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in relation to the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report under section 343A of AFA 2006, and
(c) the outcome of a consultation conducted by the Secretary of State with the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group on the bodies and functions listed in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in regard to their appropriateness and relevance as part of the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope 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.
Stephanie Peacock
Labour stands firmly behind our armed forces and our brave service personnel who serve our country. It is a privilege to be speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition on this important legislation. From their work across the country on the frontline of the pandemic to operations around the world, Britain’s armed forces deserve our admiration and gratitude. My granddad, who would have been 100 this year, served with the RAF during the second world war. Nearly all of us will have loved ones whose service we look back on with pride, and I am sure that we would all hope they were given the support they needed and deserved during their service and afterwards.
Labour supports our armed forces and the principles behind the Bill. It presents a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to bring about meaningful improvements to the lives of our service personnel and veterans and their families, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all the organisations—local authorities, service charities and voluntary organisations—that have contributed to this legislation.
It is the duty of any and every Government to look after their people, and there are welcome steps in the Bill, which we support—the creation of a legal duty to the principles of the covenant, and the implementation of key elements of the Lyons review—but we believe the Government can and should go further. Our forces communities cannot afford for this Bill to become a missed opportunity, and that is why Labour has put forward our amendments in good faith to strengthen the Bill and offer the support and protection that are needed by many of our service personnel.
Turning first to amendment 1, currently serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape cases that are committed in the UK by service personnel are prosecuted in the service justice system, the SJS, not the civilian courts. Victims and their families often do not get the justice they deserve, and quite often sexual abuse cases are tried as “disgraceful conduct” and other service offences, meaning those who commit the offences are not put on the sex offender register.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I greatly welcome the shadow Minister’s commitment to the rule of law in amendment 1. Almost 50 years ago 14 unarmed civil rights marchers were murdered on the streets of Derry by the Parachute Regiment. Five of those victims were shot by David Cleary, otherwise known as soldier F. For 50 years he has been granted anonymity; now the Government want to give him an amnesty. Does the shadow Minister agree that nobody—none of the perpetrators involved in murder during our troubles—should be granted an amnesty?
Stephanie Peacock
The Labour party is committed to the Stormont House agreement and the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), made it clear in Northern Ireland last week that the rule of law must be central to our approach to legacy in Northern Ireland.
Returning to amendment 1, last week I met with the charity Salute Her at Forward Assist, who shared with me statistics showing that up to six out of 10 women serving in the military have experienced some form of sexual harassment or abuse. This is an issue that disproportionately affects women of lower ranks; it is a harrowing issue, and these women deserve real justice. This amendment would ensure the Armed Forces Bill provides appropriate support, protection and access to justice for our forces. Serious crimes will be tried in civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has consented for such crimes to be tried under courts martial.
Moving on to amendment 2, a significant part of this Bill relates to the armed forces covenant and the introduction of a legal duty for public bodies to have regard to its principles. I am proud that my local authority, Barnsley Council, is not only one of the leading signatories of the covenant but has achieved the gold award in the defence employer recognition scheme. More needs to be done to end the postcode lottery of support and introducing a legal duty in this Bill is a welcome step, but we believe it can go further not only in the duties themselves—currently limited to healthcare, housing and education—but in who they apply to as well.
While the Bill creates new responsibilities for a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, central Government are not included. The Government are notable by their omission from these legal responsibilities; they should show leadership in at least holding themselves to the same standard they are asking others to follow. Our amendment would place the same legal responsibilities for the armed forces covenant on central Government as their current drafting requires of local authorities. Twelve of the UK’s leading military charities wrote an open letter to MPs last week sharing their concern that the new legal duties in the Bill do not cover the “full range of issues” currently affecting our armed forces community. They are urging the Government to widen the Bill’s scope to make sure that greater protections are given in areas such as employment, pensions, social care and immigration. I hope that the Government will today listen to those charities and support our amendment.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), the new shadow Minister, and I wish her well in her new role. I also empathise with much of what she said this afternoon, but of course the Government position is quite different, and I will explain why.
As Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I am probably more familiar with this Bill than most, and it is a good Bill. As before, with the armed forces covenant, I welcome the fact that it pays due regard to the placeholder, recognises rightful outcomes, and accurately reflects the unique sacrifices and obligations on HM forces, and that it places a legal obligation on the delivery of health, accommodation and local support from councils. It provides examples of good practice and pragmatic guidelines on how this is to be provided.
I note, with the Minister in his place, that prescriptive performance targets are still absent from the statutory guidance, but it may just be impossible to apply any meaningful metrics and tools to this area. I just do not believe that councils are in any doubt about what is expected of them after 10 years, but it may be that guidance is still needed on how they will be held to account if they do not meet their obligations, so I await that with interest.
I want to talk to just a handful of the amendments, if I may. New clause 1, as mentioned, is on the duty of care. It would require the Secretary of State to
“establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations”.
While this duty of care is one of the most important aspects of the Bill, and of the armed forces of course, applying a one-size-fits-all approach could lead to difficulties in the future. Tailored welfare and mental support for those who have served is already very effective and is already offered to all personnel.
New clause 2, on dismissal for sexuality, requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who are dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces because of their sexuality or perceived sexuality, and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation. As before, while there is no validation of this practice and the Government do see it as an absolute wrong, the Government have resisted this clause at this point in time, as indeed they did in Committee, owing to its complicating the MOD’s efforts to address at pace this injustice. However, for the record, this does need to be done in due course, and I believe that the Government will do it.
New clause 3, on a representative armed forces body, would create a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation, that would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. But, once again, the Government have not been persuaded that there is a requirement or a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested. The interests of armed forces personnel, of which I was one, are already ably represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command. Furthermore, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of all service complaints.
I would talk to some more amendments, but actually my opinion of all of them is the same as it is of the new clauses: while they are laudable on their own, there are good reasons why the Government are resisting every one—reasons outlined at length in Committee, and indeed during the Select Committee stage. In the interests of time, let me just say that this Bill has been subject to repeated scrutiny at various stages. It is a good Bill, it remains fit for purpose in terms of what can be achieved now, and I will be voting it through tonight.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I start by paying tribute to members of the armed forces both for the work they do in ordinary times and for the work they have done over the last 15 or 16 months with their support for services during the pandemic. I also want to pay tribute to the organisations that have taken time to engage with Members during the passage of this Bill to ensure that we are fully informed about as many areas and as wide a range of issues as possible.
The Bill started its passage with Members on all sides keen to see real change for personnel in the armed forces. From that start with the very best of intentions, we have ended up with a disappointing conclusion, with non-controversial amendments being rejected without, I believe, any real attempt to make meaningful progress. We therefore find ourselves at this stage with a Bill that will make very little, if any, practical difference to those who serve. Of course, I do hope that I am proved wrong about this, but I have my suspicions that if, in a year’s time, we were to ask personnel whether they knew of any difference this has made, the answer unfortunately would be negative.
As I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, it lacks the punch required. The Bill’s commitment to the armed forces covenant falls far short of what it ought to be. Many stakeholders, including the Royal British Legion, have argued that the Bill should go further in strengthening the covenant in law, but many other areas have been missed out, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel, pay, Department for Work and Pensions issues, and proper representation for serving personnel.
For veterans who have suffered humiliation, dismissal and loss of pensions because of their sexuality, the Bill simply does not deliver. The Armed Forces Minister has previously spoken of his intention to make real progress in this area, so I look forward to working with him to deliver a just outcome for those individuals who have been affected in that way. This is an example of an issue that the Bill fails to address, and the SNP will be supporting Labour’s new clause 2 on that.
The Armed Forces Minister has previously given us assurances on service accommodation, but accommodation issues are raised year on year by serving personnel. The recent National Audit Office report on single living accommodation describes a litany of neglect. Accommodation for families also falls far short of the standards we expect. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill as it stands will not strengthen the accommodation offer. The SNP’s series of modest amendments, Nos. 3 to 6, asks that service accommodation match the standards set for civilian housing. This should be a matter of straightforward agreement across the House. We should not be asking service personnel, or indeed their families, to put up with accommodation that would be deemed unacceptable to non-military families. If we are talking about non-detriment, basic housing standards would be a good place to start. I am not expecting the Government to accept the SNP amendments on that today, but I hope this issue can be properly considered in the weeks and months ahead.
The SNP has for a long time advocated a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look at the examples of many of our NATO allies, which benefit from armed forces representative bodies. We are used to hearing arguments from Members on the Government Benches about how it could not possibly work, because it could undermine the chain of command or encourage strike action. However, an armed forces representative body would be a federation like the Police Federation. It would not allow strikes and it would not impact on the chain of command, but it would give a voice to our personnel that, at the moment, is sadly lacking. I am therefore pleased to see Labour bringing an amendment forward again. If we are looking to ensure that the covenant is properly fulfilled, such an organisation would substantively carry out that role. It could advocate on housing, pay, terms and conditions and so on. However, I think the real reason for the Government’s resistance is that it would actually give our armed forces and veterans a voice.
The time and effort spent on the Bill should have been an opportunity to significantly improve our offerings to the armed forces, but I am doubtful. Without the ability to enforce—without the teeth the Bill needs—the Bill will sadly fall short. If this is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity, many of us will be disappointed, but the SNP will continue to engage with the Government and the Armed Forces Minister in the hope that we can make a real change for those who are serving.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
The substance of the Bill before the House today is access to justice and welfare and our wider responsibilities in the context of the military covenant. In supporting this Bill, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the excellent work of some local authorities in relation to our service personnel and veterans, including the many who reside in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner as a consequence of the numerous nearby military bases, including HMS Northwood, RAF Northolt and some of the historic ones in the area .
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I join other Members in thanking the Committee Clerks who have supported this Armed Forces Bill and in paying tribute to all the Members who have taken part in it, as we are now on the final stage. I was also going to pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), but I do not think that I can because he is absent again today. He has taken such an interest in this Bill and in standing up for veterans that he cannot even be bothered to get off his beach in Devon to come to speak on their behalf when he has the opportunity to do so, but we will leave that there for now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I rise to support Labour’s new clauses. As I think I have said on a previous occasion, I have been on every single Armed Forces Bill for the past 20 years either as a Minister or a Back Bencher. As has just been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), these Bills come round every five years. The Department does not deal with much legislation, so it is very important that, when we do have these five-yearly Bills, we ensure that we try to address all the issues that we can. Sadly, I do not think that we have done so with this Bill. As I have said before, that has partly been down to the intransigence and attitude of the previous armed forces Minister. The new Minister for Defence People and Veterans has been left to pick up the pieces at the end. One issue that has been left unresolved—I was tempted to table an amendment today, but I decided against it—was around investigations. It is outside the scope not only of this Bill, but of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. If, as I understand it, the review is complete later this summer, when will those amendments and changes be put in place, because I do not think that we can wait another five years for the next Armed Forces Bill. As I have said before, this is a missed opportunity. Such changes would have improved this Bill and certainly vastly improved the 2021 Act, which is a disappointment to say the least in terms of promising a lot, and delivering very little. It actually takes away rights from veterans, which is disappointing.
I wish to speak to some of the amendments before us, beginning with new clause 2. One great thing about the way proceedings on Armed Forces Bills are constructed is that we can take evidence from a wide range of individuals. I pay tribute to the people from Fighting With Pride for their evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill. They shone a light on something that has not been highlighted: the effect on those individuals who were dismissed from service because of their sexuality. Many of us thought that because the ban was overturned, that was somehow the end of the issue and things had moved on, but what shocked me and, I think, many Members on the Committee was the fact that those individuals who served their country with dignity and bravery but were then dismissed because of their sexuality still suffer the legacy of that. We heard evidence about an individual who, because it was classed as a sexual offence, is on the sex offenders register, and today, 20 years afterwards, that still affects his ability to get a job as, for example, a school caretaker. That urgently needs to be addressed.
I do not doubt that the Minister is committed to looking at the issue, but without new clause 2 the Ministry of Defence will go into its usual mode of thinking, “We don’t need to bother about this and how we’re going to do it for the next few years.” A study of the effects clearly needs to be done and the issue of criminal records needs to be addressed straight away. There is no justification for these individuals having a criminal record when if they had “committed the same acts” in civilian life they would not have a criminal record. That cannot be right.
I note the change from the Government in terms of asking about medals and making sure that people can apply for the medals that were stripped from them when they were dismissed from service, but we need clear guidance. People have to apply; some people have asked why the MOD cannot take a proactive stance and offer the medals out. For some unknown reason the data is not there, which makes me wonder whether a hard-enough effort has been made to find out about these individuals and address the situation. All three services must have records on the individuals who were dismissed. It is important that those medals are reported. As I say, I do not question the Minister’s commitment, but I think that without the new clause he will come up against what we all do—as you know, Madam Speaker—in terms of the civil service system: the issue will just get pushed back and back. We have to make sure that that does not happen, and the only way we can do that is through the new clause.
New clause 3 would establish an armed forces federation. This idea always sets off end-of-the-world notions in some in the military and some on the Conservative Back Benches, as though somehow if we had an armed forces federation, the world would stop. If it is good enough for our main allies—the United States, Australia and many European countries—it is good enough for me. People ask whether we are arguing for a trade union; the hon. Member for Glasgow North West was correct to say that it is not about having a trade union for the armed forces. I understand the conservative—with a small c—nature of the military, but we are reaching the point where a federation is going to have to come in sooner rather than later.
Along with other members of the Select Committee on Defence, I have just undertaken an inquiry, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), into women in the armed forces. I will not say what is in our report, but when it is published, which I think will be next week, I think that people will be utterly shocked at the evidence and at what we have found.
A key point that comes out loud and clear is people’s reluctance to come forward and make complaints, and the chain of command’s reluctance to address the issues. We are not talking about employment disputes; in some cases we are talking about serious sexual assault and other issues that are just not being addressed. It is like a pressure cooker—we need something to let the steam out, but there is no system there at the moment, so all it does is build up. In some cases, that is because people in the chain of command are ignoring the issues.
There is still a cultural issue, particularly in the Army, that means that people’s issues are not being addressed, and I do not see any way of changing it other than what would seem a radical change. I would not support any sort of federation that could affect the operational effectiveness of our armed forces in terms of strikes—I would not go there—but what the ordinary man and woman in our armed forces need is a voice, and frankly I do not think they have one. People ought to read the Committee’s report; it saddened me that after all the changes in wider society, some of the old attitudes are still there. It will come round to such a change—whether it will be in the next Armed Forces Act, I am not sure—because those people need representation.
New clause 4 is about the provision of mental health. Has a lot of progress been made in the area? Quite clearly it has, but the same thing is happening now that came up when I was dealing with the matter in the Ministry of Defence: the transition and the disconnect between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health. I know that the present Government have tried, as I certainly did, to ensure a joined-up, seamless service, but it is still not working. Veterans are still falling through the gaps in provision, and the only way we can address that is to ensure a seamless, joined-up service. It has to be patient-led, and it has to be about the individuals.
To reiterate something that the Minister has said on numerous occasions, I do not want to portray the average veteran as a victim, because they are not. Most of them are very active, constructive members of society who have no problems whatsoever, but we have a duty to care for individuals who do not have that positive life post service. How do we break down the barriers for them? Without a joined-up service, we will not have the proper system that I think we all want, across the House, and which is best for our veterans.
I turn to amendment 1. Hon. Members will have seen The Times this morning; the figures on rape and serious sexual assault are not pretty. Is that an issue with lack of commitment or resources? Possibly, but having worked on the Defence Committee’s recent report, what saddens me is that some of it is down to cultural attitudes that have no place in a modern society and that need radical change.
The other issue addressed by amendment 1 relates to my earlier comments about investigations. With matters such as serious sexual assault and domestic violence, we cannot expect the military police to have the level of expertise that most forces would have because of their volume of cases. If someone is dealing with one case a year, their level of expertise in terms of being able to make it a priority, to gather the evidence and to make sure they have the strongest case possible is not going to be there. I am sorry, but this has to be taken out of the military justice system.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I find myself making a mental note to be fairly worried if the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) praises me, but we will gloss over that. I, too, would like to extend my thanks to the Minister. I was delighted to receive a telephone call from him to discuss this Bill a few days ago. I would have been much more surprised had I received a telephone call from his predecessor.
I will give credit where it is due. In our conversation, we discussed the fact that I would be very pleased, forgetting political boundaries, if the Minister or one of his colleagues would care to come to witness NATO’s Exercise Joint Warrior, which takes place off the north-west of my constituency and in other parts of Scotland. It would be a tremendous shot in the arm for our military personnel to see a ministerial presence. I do not think we have actually seen a Government Minister there—certainly not in the lifetime of this Government. I cannot speak for previous Governments; I was not here. It would also be churlish of me not to express my thanks to all the organisations that have been in touch with me during the whole process of this Bill.
We are rather short of time, so I will keep my comments very brief. I want to talk about two things. The first is to say that my party will be supporting amendments 1 and 2. Further to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham on amendment 1, the general public do not really understand why, if a member of the armed forces commits a truly terrible crime—murder or rape—they should be tried and dealt with differently from how someone not in uniform would be dealt with, in a civil court. As an MP, if I were to commit a crime, I would not have the right to be tried by my peers in this House. I would be up in court, in the dock, the same as any other citizen of this country. There seems to be an impeccable logic in amendment 1.
The right hon. Member for North Durham is correct, in that the military police do not have the resources to investigate in the depth that would get to the bottom of some of the most serious allegations that can be made in this land.
Finally on amendment 1, let me turn it around. If the Government cannot support the amendment, are they saying that, in fact, the civil courts are in some way inferior to military courts? Why would they not trust the civil courts and the civil police to get it right?
Secondly, I do not want to weary the Chamber on this, but it is a point I have made a number of times and, for the sake of the record, I repeat it. I have talked at some length about my concern that reducing the size of the Army will lead to the Army, and possibly the other armed services, being seen as not a terribly desirable career option for young people.
We have a massive recruitment problem. Going around the highlands of Scotland, going to the Black Isle show, the Dornoch show and my local Tain highland games, in years gone by there would be a stall set up by the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, or perhaps two or three of them. The stalls were very popular, an attraction to the general public. They were one of the many reasons why people would go to these events, because people like to see the weapons on display and meet the armed forces personnel. Those events were excellent for recruitment.
I leave Members with a final thought. My thanks again to the Ministry of Defence, as I and others, including the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), went to the Ministry to be briefed on what we have been doing with the United Nations in Mali. It was a most interesting briefing. One message came out. When a young person in my constituency says they are thinking of joining the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, if I can say, “If you opt for that career, you might get yourself involved in something like the peacekeeping effort in Mali,” I guarantee it will be a tremendous attraction. It is very different from doing an ordinary job—I do not want to do down ordinary jobs—a non-services job. That is one way of augmenting recruitment.
All of us in this place, regardless of our political persuasion—if we care about the defence of the realm, if we care about our armed forces, which I am sure everyone here does—have a duty, as Members of Parliament, to do everything we can to encourage recruitment by talking to our constituents and talking to what we call modern studies students in Scottish schools, to say, “Here is a career option you might like to think about.”
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I associate myself with some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), especially those about the work he and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) have been doing in the Defence Sub-Committee on women in the armed forces.
As we discuss the Bill’s remaining stages, it is unfortunate to reflect that at no point in its journey has it received the attention I would hope for such an important piece of legislation, especially in a week in which we see the inevitability of the external factors that always pop up and seem to push armed forces welfare down the pecking order.
Today, unfortunately, it is international aid. I often wonder whether there are some in the defence establishment who see the aid budget as a golden goose whose slaughter would provide some sort of bounty for the armed forces, solving any funding crisis in the equipment budget. Although I do not want to say it, even if we were to cut the entirety of the aid budget, defence would still need reform.
That is particularly pertinent when it comes to the lack of progress on service justice in the Bill. I have seen it throughout my time on the Defence Committee, especially each year when we hear from the ombudsperson for the armed forces about how their role is stymied by a lack of investment and interest, and by byzantine regulation. Although excellent work is being done across the board by a plethora of armed forces charities, I cannot help but feel each time that the hugely divergent range of lived experiences of the 170,000-odd people in uniform—their geographical spread and divergent socioeconomic circumstances—means that charity, however well intentioned, often does not reach those who need it most.
In the case of both service justice and access to services for those in need, which are included in amendments this afternoon, we see a continuation—at least from my perspective and that of my party—of a two-tier system that enshrines class and social privilege, and ensures that the organisation itself will be unable ever to realise its full potential. The deficit in both service justice and access to services brings us to the case of Lance Corporal Bernard Mongan. This week, the Army’s report into his death in January 2020 was brought to wider attention. It admitted
“failings in the proper management of personnel”,
meaning that Bernard lay dead—undiscovered, in his bed, in his room in his barracks—for three weeks. I wrote to the Secretary of State about this case last year, and I have no doubt that the Ministry and the Army feel that his death was unacceptable and profoundly regrettable. However, there are other unsettling aspects of the case that speak to some of the challenges that we face in this Bill.
Lance Corporal Mongan came from a Traveller background. Although I do not want to go into whether that was a contributing factor in the bullying that may or may not have led to Bernard’s death, we must ask ourselves why it is that, time and again, those from our most marginalised communities are failed in this appalling fashion. This is precisely the moment when we should be ensuring that equality of opportunity and an armed forces who are representative of all communities on these islands become a reality. I can only, sadly, come to the conclusion that that is an opportunity that has been missed.
Although enshrining the armed forces covenant into law is welcome progress, a real legislative framework for armed forces personnel in this political state is, quite simply, long overdue. We can call it a bill of rights for the armed forces or an armed forces representative body, as has been my party’s policy for many years. I could even call it a trade union; I do not have a problem with the words “trade union”. We could at least start by giving members of the armed forces a contract that clearly states the obligations that their employer has to them and vice versa. Until we do, it is unlikely that we will be able to address the underlying issues that so many armed forces personnel face.
Finally, I feel that I should touch on something that is in a way connected to this legislation and which illustrates the knots into which the UK Government tie themselves to keep up appearances. I am currently chairing the Defence Sub-Committee on the subcontracting of MOD staff, which held its first evidence session yesterday. We will hear Ministers and other Members today make references to things such as “defence family”, “defence people” and “whole force”, but the demonstratable experience of many of those who make up the whole force, including my own constituents, is one of worsening conditions, lack of security and increasing alienation with the picture that is painted, I am afraid, by those who come to the Government Dispatch Box, including the Minister. We will undoubtedly hear all about the increase in the capital budget from the Government Benches today. I only wish that we might hear more about the day-to-day spend that is to remain stagnant over the next five years and what the Government intend to do to ensure that it is not the poorest paid in the armed forces who bear the brunt of this fiscal restraint.
I have always believed that in life, just as in politics, the key measure of our character and our beliefs is how we treat those with the least power and agency. It is high time that we enshrined the rights and responsibilities of all members of the armed forces, and, indeed, all those who support them. I will never tire of saying in these debates, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us speak of them less as heroes and more like you and me, entitled to everything that you and I would expect. It is the very least that we can do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and hear such welcome contributions from the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far. This Bill is something that is close to my heart, as a former Ulster Defence Regiment and Territorial Army soldier, and as an elected representative who has seen the way in which some of our troops have fared after service. I will make some comments in relation to the regular force: the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to recruitment issues, which I also mentioned last time we spoke on this topic in the House, and I want to reiterate some of those comments if I can.
I believe that we must improve recruitment and retention. Each time numbers are cut, morale is dealt a blow, recruiting drops, and the three services become undermanned, which has a detrimental effect on those who are serving and those who maybe would wish to. I make these comments gracefully and try to do so in a respectful fashion, but we have two aircraft carriers, yet we only have crew for one. We have fewer tanks than most third-world countries, and we have a few highly complex fighter jets, but little ability to conduct expeditionary air warfare other than a reliance on Cyprus as a base. Future investment must be about growing the capability and capacity of the regular force. I know that the Minister is keen to do that, and we are keen that he should be supported in doing so, from both the Opposition side of the House and his own side.
If our regular forces can no longer punch at or above our new weight as an independent post-Brexit global player, I believe that we must reinvest in soft power. The last debate we had, which was on overseas aid, was about soft power: how we use it better to influence and help countries in which the potential for terrorism and extremism abounds, and how we get a reasonable level of GDP boost in those countries to ensure we can still bring some influence to bear in places where we cannot put boots on the ground, or indeed jets in the air.
When it comes to the reserve forces, I make a plea to the Minister directly: I know that he is interested in this matter and will wish to respond, but we continue to believe that Northern Ireland could make greater contributions to the whole force concept through greater opportunities in the reserve forces. Again, I urge the Minister to review the current reserve forces footprint in Northern Ireland, and consider expanding it to recruit a greater number of reservists from a wider footprint.
For example, Enniskillen uniquely gives its name to two very fine British Army regiments, the Inniskilling Dragoons and the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, both formed in the Williamite wars of the 1690s to defend the town against Jacobite rebels. Today, that loyal town is only being asked to provide a few medics and an infantry company. Northern Ireland is able to, and wants to, provide more reservists, so how can we make that happen? This comes back to the issue of recruitment, which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross referred to and which I want to speak about today, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. May I remind the Minister, hon. and gallant Member that he is, that at the height of the cold war and in the midst of the so-called troubles there were 11 UDR battalions, two TA infantry battalions, an artillery regiment—which I belonged to as a part-time soldier—a signal regiment, an engineer regiment, logistics regiments, medical regiments, yeomanry regiments, military police and so on? Today, we are being asked for a fraction of that, yet the world is still a dangerous place. If we have the potential to recruit in Northern Ireland, we should be taking every step and every action to make sure that happens.
Very quickly, I will turn to veterans. I put on record the work of Danny Kinahan, the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner, and thank him for the impact that that post will no doubt have in due course. However, for some veterans in Northern Ireland, there is still precious little evidence of the impact of the armed forces covenant, or of other initiatives for veterans such as rail cards, guaranteed interview schemes and the veterans ID card. May I remind the Minister that this is a far cry from the desire to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran?
Respectfully, I make the point that Westminster can impose abortion laws and Irish language Acts from Westminster, but there is a real lack of pressure from London on Belfast when it comes to supporting our veterans. I would love to see more emphasis put on that if at all possible. I remain concerned about the scrutiny of the delivery outputs that flow from the armed forces covenant, so can the Minister be sure that all the promised action is being taken so that veterans are being housed, getting treatment with the priority they need, getting access to jobs and training, being supported by local and regional councils, and getting the recognition they are due?
Who are the eyes and ears at local and regional levels that are ensuring that all that can be done is being done? I urge the Minister to increase the assistance and get on with empowering the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees in order that they can fulfil their remit of ensuring that the armed forces covenant is being delivered across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in its entirety.
I appreciate the sentiment behind new clause 4, to which the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred, regarding the duty of care on mental health. That is vital, and never has it been more important. I work closely with a charity in Northern Ireland called Beyond the Battlefield, which provides counselling, as well as practical aid for veterans. It has recently leased a property in my constituency, in the village of Portavogie, which provides en suite accommodation for 10 people. The intention is to use it as a respite facility for veterans from throughout the Province. It will be the first of its kind in the whole of the Province, and after the closure of the Royal British Legion facility in Portrush we will have dedicated facilities available for our veterans.
This venue will provide space for individual reflection, as well as having communal rooms and therapy areas. The charity has fundraised and done so much work, and there is much more to be done with this facility—it has been targeted by vandals in the past, so there is some refurbishment work to do. I know that the Minister will be keen to hear more, and I will be anxious to see how the MOD can sow into this facility that is designed to pick up the slack left by the Department. On behalf of Beyond the Battlefield, I extend an invitation to the Minister to visit when the refurbishment is completed, as we would be very pleased to have him over for that purpose. If he is able to do so at a time convenient for him and us, we will do that.
Another clause that has struck me is that on the armed forces federation. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has referred to this regularly. It is one of the subjects he never misses on, and he did not miss on it today either. There is a principle at stake there that should be considered. I work with a wonderful charity called SSAFA—the armed forces charity, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. It is probably known to everybody in this House, and it is often called on to step into scenarios that an armed forces federation would be designed to step into. If this Bill is aimed at addressing the years of neglect, this is an important aspect of it. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for the work he has put into this Armed Forces Bill, and I thank him for it. Our party will be supporting amendments 1 and 2 if they are put to a vote.
I conclude by saying that the Bill has many pros and many cons, one of which is that soldiers who served in Northern Ireland are treated differently. That must be made right. I know the Minister wishes to do that, and it would be good to hear in his response that that will be the case. I anxiously await the Government holding to their word to ensure that every service personnel member, regardless of where they served, deserves the same treatment. I still believe we miss out on this. This Bill is to be welcomed, but improvements can and must still happen. I look forward to hearing from the Government, and from the Minister in particular, whom I look upon as a friend, as to whether these new clauses and amendments which would enhance the Bill will be acceptable.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock); I am grateful for her sincere and constructive tone. I think the whole House is united in our desire to support our armed forces, and I am confident that the Bill delivers for our armed forces. It renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, it improves the service justice system, and it delivers on the Government’s commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
I turn first to new clause 1. As I said in Committee, the Government take very seriously our duty of care for service personnel and veterans under investigation. This amendment was debated at length in the other place during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. Our servicepeople are entitled to receive comprehensive legal support, and a full range of welfare and mental health support is offered to all our people, as laid out in the Defence Secretary’s written ministerial statement of 13 April 2021. We have made clear our intent to provide a gold standard of care, and we will not deviate from that.
We resist the new clause because a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. People have different needs, and we want to ensure bespoke provision—the right support at the right time. Furthermore, the difficulties of drafting such a duty of care would inevitably mean the involvement of the courts and additional litigation.
Turning to new clause 2, I am pleased to remind the House that the Government accept entirely that the historical policy prohibiting homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong, and there was historic injustice suffered by members of the LGBT+ community as a consequence. We are committed entirely to addressing that with urgency and humility, and our priority now is to understand the full impact of the pre-millennium ban. We are committed to finding an appropriate mechanism to address this injustice, but we resist the new clause because it may complicate or constrain the work already under way.
Mr Kevan Jones
As I said in my contribution, I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to righting this wrong, but he is going to come up against a lot of resistance from his Department when it comes to issues around compensation in terms of pensions and everything else. I just stress that he must push back, and push back hard.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s encouragement. I hear it, and I reassure him that we will address this matter with absolute resolve. It will be at the heart of the veterans strategy, which I will announce this winter.
Turning to new clause 3, let me reassure the House that the interests of armed forces personnel are already represented and protected through a range of mechanisms, including the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the pay review bodies, the annual continuous attitude survey, and more than 50 diversity networks operating within Defence at various levels, run mostly by volunteer members, with senior officer advocates and champions—and, lastly but most importantly, there is the chain of command. We therefore resist the new clause.
I turn to new clause 4. In June 2021, the annual UK armed forces mental health bulletin showed that the overall rate of mental ill health is actually lower among service personnel than in the general population, but of course we are never complacent. We are constantly striving to improve our mental healthcare support for service personnel and, indeed, veterans. We resist the new clause because it lacks utility and would merely add to the administrative burden of those seeking to support our service personnel. Indeed, a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on healthcare provision already exists as part of the armed forces covenant.
Amendment 1 would give the Attorney General the role of deciding whether the most serious crimes are prosecuted in the service courts. We have already considered this issue carefully as a recommendation of the Lyons review, but we believe that enhancing the prosecutors protocol is the most effective way to improve decisions on concurrent jurisdiction, because it allows decisions to be made early on, by independent prosecutors who have close working relationships with civilian and service police.
If the AG had to give consent, the process would be slower. The AG would effectively be asked to endorse decisions that had been made very early in an investigation, and it is hard to see what the AG would be adding. However, if the AG were to disagree with those earlier decisions and veto the trying of a case in the service justice system, there would be no easy way to transfer that case to the civilian system. That may have the undesired effect of making it difficult or impossible to prosecute the case in either system.
For that reason, we resist the amendment. We have a more pragmatic approach, because we want a workable, transparent and rigorous process for decisions on jurisdiction. We want cases to be heard in the right system, and we are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur. We must bear in mind that the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say.
Turning to amendments 2 to 8, the covenant duty covers public bodies delivering healthcare, housing and education, because those are the key areas of concern for our armed forces community. We have ensured that the legislation can adapt to the needs of the armed forces community in future by making provision to allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant by way of affirmative regulations. The Bill is evergreen, and if we need to expand it in future, we will.
Jim Shannon
I asked specifically about recruitment in Northern Ireland and what we could do with reserve forces. Can I have an assurance that recruitment is necessary in Northern Ireland to fill the gap for soldiers who can help the British Army? If we can do it in Northern Ireland, let us make it happen.
Leo Docherty
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance and put that on the record.
I thank the team of magnificently resolute and tenacious MOD civil servants in the Bill team, including Jayne Scheier, John Shivas, Caron Tassel, Tim Payne and Ben Bridge. I call on the House to reject the amendments. The armed forces always stand up for us; we must stand up for the armed forces, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
It has been an incredibly thoughtful debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have taken part, including the Minister. Having listened carefully to what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1, but I will seek to press new clause 4 to a vote, as well as amendments 1 and 2.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Armed Forces Mental Health Care review
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing a review of the mental health treatment provided to Armed Forces personnel through the—
(a) Defence Medical Services,
(b) Departments of Community Mental Health and the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service, and
(c) Reserves Mental Health Programme.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed.” .—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would require the government to conduct a formal review of the standards of mental health care available for serving personnel
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Leo Docherty
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to reiterate my thanks to all hon. and right hon. Members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions today. I have been honoured to lead on this Bill that further enshrines the armed forces covenant into law. Ultimately, the Bill is for the armed forces, its serving personnel, veterans and their families, and I pay tribute to them for their bravery, stoicism and unflinching professionalism. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and this Bill is for them.
Our armed forces stand up for us and we must always stand up for them, and I commend this Bill to the House.
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
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 July 2021 - (13 Jul 2021)
Armed Forces Bill
Tuesday 7th September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 July 2021 - (13 Jul 2021)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to be speaking to the Armed Forces Bill this afternoon. Without this Bill, the Armed Forces Act 2006—the legislation that maintains the Armed Forces as a disciplined body—could not continue in force beyond the end of this year.
This Bill is for the Armed Forces. We have the best Armed Forces in the world; their professionalism and dignity has recently and vividly been displayed to us with the evacuation of over 14,500 people from Kabul airport to the safety of the UK. That draw-down operation was no easy undertaking, with the ever-present risk of attack and the emotionally charged, hostile environment that our service personnel found themselves operating within. It is their professionalism, integrity and resolute fortitude to get the job done that shone through.
The Government acknowledge their responsibility to the new arrivals from Afghanistan; as such, Operation Warm Welcome is fully under way to support and provide the necessary assistance where required. We owe an immense debt to those arrivals, and this Government are determined that we give them and their families the support they need to rebuild their lives here in the UK.
I acknowledge that many of us have questions about what has happened in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister said,
“the events in Afghanistan have unfolded faster, and the collapse has been faster, than I think even the Taliban themselves predicted.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/8/21; col. 1254.]
As the Defence Secretary said, “the die was cast” when President Trump struck a deal with the Taliban, paving the way for our exit. However, I reaffirm to your Lordships that we will now use every diplomatic and humanitarian lever at our disposal to restore stability to Afghanistan, and the Prime Minister has been clear that that will require a concerted and co-ordinated effort from the international community. None the less, this must not overshadow what our brave service personnel have achieved in Afghanistan, nor indeed their tireless efforts domestically at the forefront of the battle against the global pandemic. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to join me in commending and saluting their manifold accomplishments, and we can do that in tangible form by supporting this Bill.
This leads me to the integrated review. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, questions were raised over prospective reductions in service strength and, in turn, whether such reductions have negatively impacted our operational ability; for example, in Afghanistan. The integrated review is about the future; it is not about the past, and our military operations in Afghanistan are now at a close. Furthermore, it would be disingenuous to suggest that any variations in the overall Armed Forces strength figures could be directly and meaningfully linked to delivery of specific outputs. It is simplistic to say that there is a direct correlation between overall Armed Forces strength figures and capabilities. I reassure your Lordships that the UK Armed Forces continue to meet all their operational commitments, and we expect them to continue to do so, and our capability will be designed to meet a new age of threat.
Finally, before I turn to the Bill, I wish to say a few words about the recently published report from the House of Commons Defence Committee on women in the Armed Forces. I extend my gratitude to the members of that committee for their well-balanced and thoughtful report. I reassure your Lordships that we are giving the report serious consideration and the Ministry of Defence will publish its response soon.
Your Lordships will also be anticipating the outcome of the review led by Sir Richard Henriques, which was announced last year. We are very grateful for the comprehensive work Sir Richard has been undertaking. I expect to be able to update your Lordships in early course, and certainly in time for your Lordships to consider the matter during the passage of this Bill.
Without further ado, I now turn to the Bill. There is an Armed Forces Bill every five years to renew the legislation that governs the Armed Forces. This is currently the Armed Forces Act 2006, which contains nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system for the Armed Forces of command, discipline and justice. The requirement for renewal of the 2006 Act is based on the assertion in the Bill of Rights 1688 that the Army—and now, by extension, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy—may not be maintained within the kingdom without the consent of Parliament.
I wish to be quite clear that this Bill must pass to renew the 2006 Act by the end of this year, because current legislation does not provide for the 2006 Act to be extended beyond 2021. Your Lordships will understand that if we fail to effect that renewal, there would be serious consequences. For example, if the Act expired, members of the Armed Forces would still owe allegiance to Her Majesty and would have a legal duty to obey lawful commands, but there would be no penalties for disobeying orders or for other types of indiscipline. Service offences would cease to exist, commanding officers and service police would lose their statutory powers to investigate offences and enforce discipline, and the service courts would no longer function.
Discipline in every sense is fundamental to and underpins the existence of our Armed Forces. Indeed, it is the reason for their success in the discharge of their remarkable range of duties. That is why renewal of the 2006 Act is so important, and renewal is the primary purpose of this Bill. That is what Clause 1 provides for: the continuation of the 2006 Act for a year from the date on which this Bill receives Royal Assent. It also provides for renewal thereafter by Order in Council, for up to a year at a time, until the end of 2026. The Bill also provides us with a regular opportunity to update legislation for the Armed Forces.
I turn to service courts, summary hearings and jurisdiction. In 2017, in preparation for this Bill, the MoD commissioned an independent review of the service justice system to ensure that it continues to be transparent, fair and efficient. The review, led by His Honour Shaun Lyons, made a significant number of recommendations for improvement and this Bill deals with the small number that need primary legislation to be implemented, including changes to the constitution of the court martial and a power to correct mistakes, which is called a “slip rule”. Clause 7 deals with the issue of concurrent jurisdiction. For offences committed by service personnel in the UK, justice can be delivered through the civilian criminal justice system or the service justice system.
Importantly, the service justice system review found that the service justice system was fair and robust. But it also proposed that some of the most serious offences should not be prosecuted at court martial when they are committed by service personnel in the UK, except where the consent of the Attorney-General is given. To be clear, the review was not saying that the service justice system should stop dealing with certain categories of cases which occur in the UK. Rather, it was saying that, when such cases come up, controls should be introduced if they are to be tried in the service justice system. Meanwhile, jurisdiction would remain to deal with such cases overseas. I reassure your Lordships that the Government considered this recommendation fully and carefully and concluded that concurrency of jurisdiction must remain.
We have highly skilled, capable and effective service police, who have equivalent serious crime training to civilian police. They also follow procedures and processes used by civilian police, and, so far as investigations are concerned, are independent from the chain of command. Indeed, a process audit which was part of the Lyons review found that the service police have the necessary training, skills and experience to investigate any crime.
The Service Prosecuting Authority is headed up by a civilian, Jonathan Rees QC, who is a leading criminal silk and eminently qualified to lead the Service Prosecution Authority in prosecuting these and all types of offences. When he took up the position of director, he seconded, to lead on rape for the SPA, the former head of the Thames and Chiltern CPS rape and serious sexual offences unit, with all the experience and knowledge that brings. The judges who sit in the court martial are also civilians who frequently sit in the Crown Court. So we are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur. But we agree that the current non-statutory protocols and guidance around jurisdiction must be clearer. That is why Clause 7 places a duty on the heads of the service and civilian prosecutors in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to agree protocols regarding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction.
We believe that such decisions on jurisdiction are best left to the independent service justice and UK civilian prosecutors using guidance agreed between them, but the Bill ensures that the civilian prosecutors will have the final say should a disagreement on jurisdiction between the prosecutors remain unresolved. I want to be clear here: this is not about seeking to direct more cases into the service justice system and away from the civilian criminal justice system or vice versa. It is about guaranteeing that both systems can handle all offending and are equally equipped to deliver justice for victims.
I turn to the Armed Forces covenant, which the Bill takes important steps to strengthen. Clause 8 imposes a duty to have due regard to the three principles of the covenant on certain public bodies across the UK. It is perhaps helpful to remind your Lordships of the three principles of the Armed Forces covenant: first, the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the Armed Forces; secondly, the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for servicepeople from membership, or former membership, of the Armed Forces; and, thirdly, the principle that special provision for servicepeople may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the Armed Forces.
Clause 8 inserts new sections into the 2006 Act to impose the duty in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. The new duty will apply where particular types of public bodies or persons are exercising certain of their public functions in key areas of housing, education, and healthcare, which are vital to the day-to-day lives of our Armed Forces community.
In the area of housing, the duty covers 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 sometimes face challenges, due to their service-related lifestyle, in accessing suitable school places for their children. Specific challenges may present themselves in relation to service children with special educational needs or disabilities—as it is described in England—when attempting to maintain continuity of provision to meet their needs. We know that some service children have specific well-being needs and this duty will target those who are responsible for this, ensuring that they understand and consider the specific needs of our community’s children.
In healthcare, much has already been achieved, but service families and veterans may still experience disadvantages, often caused by their mobility or healthcare requirements resulting from military service. This duty will apply to all bodies that are responsible for commissioning and delivering healthcare services across the UK.
At this point it would be useful to remind your Lordships that health, education and housing are all matters for which the devolved Administrations are responsible, and they are administered as best suits those nations. However, the Government have been delighted with the proactive support we have had from colleagues in the home nations for the covenant as a whole and for this legislation in particular.
Guidance will be crucial to ensure that bodies subject to the new duty understand the principles of the covenant and the ways in which members of our Armed Forces community can suffer disadvantage arising from service. Clause 8 provides that the Secretary of State may issue guidance in relation to the duties imposed to which those subject to the duty must have regard when exercising a relevant function, and he must consult with the respective devolved authorities where this is relevant, and other appropriate stakeholders, before issuing the guidance.
The Bill also provides for the covenant duty to be extended in the future. The Secretary of State may, by regulations, widen the scope of the new duty to include additional functions and bodies in other areas. However, before doing so, he would be required to consult the relevant devolved authorities and other appropriate stakeholders, and any amendment—this is important—would have to be made by way of affirmative regulations, requiring the express consent of Parliament.
Clause 9 deals with a new continuous service commitment that will enable members of a Reserve Force to volunteer to undertake a period of full-time or part-time service. This offers a more flexible suite of engagement options for reservists, incorporating seamless movement between full and part-time service under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, and empowers defence with greater freedoms to introduce further modernising changes to reserves commitment types.
Clause 10 creates a power to change the minimum time limit for submitting an appeal against a first-level decision in a service complaint from six weeks to two weeks. It also provides the ability to restrict the grounds on which someone can appeal. There are good reasons to make these changes.
Currently, the 2006 Act provides for a minimum time limit for submitting appeals of six weeks, and this is the time limit set in regulations. However, we believe that in most circumstances two weeks is adequate for someone to submit an appeal. Not all service personnel are engaged in the same type of work; many are engaged in roles such as working in offices, where a two-week deadline would be appropriate. This approach is in keeping with other public sector complaints systems. However, of course, we recognise that there are circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to restrict the time to appeal to two weeks, such as for those deployed on operational duties or those in poor health. In such cases, an extension can be sought.
We also need to ensure that people have good reason to appeal. Currently a complainant need only say that they are unhappy with the decision. We believe that appeals should be permitted only where there were procedural errors or where new evidence is provided that may change the outcome of the original decision. Where a complainant’s request to move a service complaint to the appeals stage has been deemed inadmissible, they are entitled to ask for a review of that decision by the Service Complaints Ombudsman.
Clause 10 and Schedule 3 are part of wider reforms to support service personnel through the complaints system, to increase efficiency and to reduce delay within the service complaints process. Other reforms, which do not require primary legislation, will provide guidance agreed with the Service Complaints Ombudsman on the criteria and grounds for appeal, early access to an assisting officer, mandated offers of informal resolution, easy-read guides for complainants and respondents, and improvements to forms for lodging complaints.
We have to ensure that we modernise and reduce delay in the service complaints system, creating where we can a consistent experience across defence, and following best practice from other parts of the public sector. It is crucial that our service personnel feel confident that complaining will not adversely impact on them. Therefore, complaints must be dealt with appropriately and in a timely fashion to build that trust further.
Clause 11 amends the 2006 Act to create a new regime for complaints against the service police and related matters. It does so by establishing the service police complaints commissioner and enabling the creation of a regime for complaints, conduct matters and death or serious injury matters which is modelled on the regime for the civilian police in England and Wales. The clause also contains powers that will enable provision to be made in relation to both super-complaints and whistleblowing, which will be modelled on the regime for the civilian police in England and Wales.
The new independent service police complaints commissioner will oversee the new complaints regime and will carry out investigations into the most serious allegations against the service police. The commissioner will also have overall responsibility for securing the maintenance of suitable arrangements for making complaints and dealing with other serious matters. The creation of this new oversight regime brings the service police into line with their civilian counterparts.
The Bill also addresses sentencing and rehabilitation. It would enable the court martial and the Service Civilian Court to disqualify offenders from driving in the UK and deprivation orders to be made in the service justice system. The Bill also makes some minor technical adjustments to the rehabilitation periods for reprimands.
Finally, among the main provisions in the Bill are steps to right the wrongs of the past which ensure that posthumous pardons for those who were convicted of historic service offences relating to their sexuality also apply fully to convictions under older legislation governing the Army and the marines.
This Armed Forces Bill makes important changes to the service justice system, bringing forward the sound recommendations of the Lyons review that require primary legislation. The Bill ensures that our service justice system remains fit for purpose, and, importantly, it will strengthen the legislative basis of the Armed Forces covenant to help ensure that those who serve and have served, and their families, are treated with fairness and respect in the communities they serve.
I look forward to the detailed scrutiny which we shall give the Bill in Committee and I commend it to the House.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual clear and helpful introduction to this legislation, which the House will appreciate. It is a privilege to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition on this Armed Forces Bill, so I join the Minister in her comments.
The Armed Forces Bill provides Parliament with an essential opportunity every five years not only to renew the legal underpinning for the Armed Forces but to examine how we can improve the lives of, and protections and support for, personnel and their families through legislative change. I make it clear that Her Majesty’s Opposition stand firmly behind our brave service personnel and their families, and we strongly believe that the law should be on their side. That is why I say to the Minister that we support the principles behind the Bill and indeed the Bill itself, and welcome steps to create a legal duty to implement the principles of the covenant and the key elements of the Lyons review.
However, there are many both in and outside the House who believe that the Government could and should go further. Therefore, our main priority will be to work with others cross-party to improve the legislation where appropriate and to challenge the Government on certain points in order to seek further clarity. Our forces communities are themselves determined that the Bill should not be a missed opportunity, so we will bring forward amendments in good faith to reflect these calls where we believe the Bill could be strengthened.
First, we need to place the Bill in context. The UK is currently facing a rapidly changing security environment, threats are multiplying and diversifying, democracy itself is under pressure and technology is changing warfare for ever.
As the Minister acknowledged, we also debate this legislation on the back of the Afghan withdrawal. Afghanistan, whatever the rights and wrongs, has demonstrated how quickly situations can change, with serious consequences for the UK and our allies. I join the Minister and, I know, everyone across the House in noting the bravery of our personnel and their professionalism during the evacuation, which has been incredible and, once again, awe-inspiring. Alongside them were embassy staff, diplomats and many other personnel, including many of our Afghan colleagues who stayed with us until the end. We are used to this brilliance, but we must never take it for granted. We thank them for everything they have done and recognise that our troops are a great source of pride for our country, as they should be.
However, as the Minister herself acknowledged, we cannot escape what has happened, as withdrawal has raised questions about the future and what the Government’s Global Britain actually means, nor how the trauma of recent scenes will not end for our personnel and Afghans now that the main evacuation is over. As I said, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude, along with a moral obligation to continue to support serving personnel, veterans and former local staff. Combat Stress pointed out recently that, not unexpectedly, perhaps, calls to its helplines doubled in August. In the light of that, we will work with the Minister to suggest where the Bill may be strengthened and, in particular, to look to ensure how the Ministry of Defence continues to provide additional mental health support for those who have been affected by the Afghan withdrawal.
As we turn to the Bill, I am reminded that sometimes the Government’s rhetoric may not match the reality of their actions. The Prime Minister promised not to cut personnel, but the integrated review defence Command Paper is a plan for 10,000 fewer troops. The overseas operations Act promised to end repeat investigations, but focused only on prosecutions, not shoddy investigations, nor a duty of care for troops.
We need to ensure under the Armed Forces covenant that the law fits what we all want to achieve. The Bill introduces “due regard to principles” of the covenant, but what will that mean in practice. How will it be measured? What will enforcement look like? What redress is there for Armed Forces personnel who feel let down? Many of us, including me, would argue that this commitment needs to be broadened. At the moment, it focuses only on healthcare, housing and education. Of course, all of those are important, but the Government need to ask themselves: why not social care, why not employment, why not pensions or, indeed, immigration?
That oversight has been raised by not only people such as me but many service charities and organisations. The Army Families Federation said:
“This limited scope will address only a small proportion of the disadvantages that Army families face”,
while the Royal British Legion said that the scope should be widened to include all matters affecting the Armed Forces community. Help for Heroes said that, as many issues of vital concern to veterans will be excluded, the Bill risks creating a two-tier covenant.
I am sure that the Government will point to proposed new Section 343AF, which allows the Secretary of State to add later by regulation other policy areas and additional persons and bodies to which the “due regard” principle applies, but how often will that be reviewed? What will the consultation process look like?
I was also surprised to see that, while the Bill creates new responsibilities for a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, central government is not included. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for example, questioned that oversight during the Afghanistan debate late last month. Why are Ministers not including central government within the Bill?
The Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between government and service, but also between the public and our Armed Forces and communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment their service has earned, suffering no disadvantage. That is why the scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed, and we will be tabling amendments to probe the Government’s thinking.
What about the Government’s stated objective to improve the service justice system, ensuring that personnel have a clear, fair and effective route to justice wherever they are operating? That is on the back of the Lyons review, which, as the Explanatory Notes state, was carried out with the aim of ensuring the service justice system's effectiveness. We welcome efforts to implement key recommendations of the Lyons review, particularly the creation of an independent service police complaints commissioner, which will ensure greater oversight and fairness in service justice cases. But the Government should clarify—to be fair, the Minister attempted to do this in her remarks—why they have not adopted the Lyons recommendation that civilian courts should have jurisdiction in matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK. The Minister will know that the MoD’s own figures show that between 2015 and 2019, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 10%, while, during the same period, the conviction rate was 59% in civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year.
Indeed, in evidence in other place, the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird QC, said:
“Rape and sexual assault are hugely under-reported, and it is all the harder to report something when you are inside a system that is hierarchical and you may be jeopardising your own career”.
The report from the Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces, chaired by Sarah Atherton MP, stated:
“We do not believe that the problems highlighted by the Lyons Review in the handling of sexual offences in the Service Justice System have been fully resolved.”
Again, we will need to explore the Government’s thinking on that in Committee. Therefore, we will be seeking an amendment to the Bill to ensure that court martial jurisdiction should no longer include rape and sexual assault with penetration, except where the consent of the Attorney-General is given. Given that reports such as the Wigston review have highlighted unacceptable levels of sexism, we shall be looking to see how we can strengthen the Bill in that area.
There are many other amendments under which we will seek to pursue the Government and to clarify their thinking in later debates: visas for Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans; a review of the number of people dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality; the role of Reserves, which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, will touch on, given his excellent report; and building on the creation of a representative body for the Armed Forces.
Finally, the Minister highlighted those who were dismissed in the past because of their sexuality. I think all of us in this House welcome the Government’s commitment to do something about that. It was a historic wrong which has been too long in the undoing, and I think we would all compliment the Government on doing something about that, but there are many other important issues that we need to discuss.
Her Majesty’s Opposition remain wholeheartedly committed to working across the House to doing all we can for our Armed Forces. Our service communities deserve nothing less. I know that view is shared by everyone, so let us work together to try to achieve it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the tributes paid by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to the expertise and professionalism of the British forces in the recent withdrawal from Afghanistan.
In February 1997, Lance-Sergeant Alexander Findlay of the Scots Guards, a veteran of the Falklands campaign and the Battle of Mount Tumbledown, successfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights against his conviction for assault. Suffering from PTSD, he had held members of his own unit at pistol point and threatened to kill himself and them. The court held that the constitution of courts martial in the UK was such that they were not an independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The march to reform the system had begun. I declare my personal interest as chair of the Association of Military Court Advocates.
This Bill means that we have nearly reached the conclusion of that march. I pay tribute to the excellent review of His Honour Judge Lyons, who comprehensively covered the ground and made recommendations on the composition of the panel that tries these cases, including on numbers, on the need for more than a simple majority to convict and on the extension of membership to chief petty officers and their equivalent. He also proposed that a board need not be of single service composition in general discipline matters. I raised all these issues as amendments to the then Armed Forces Bills of 2006, 2011 and 2016, in step with the evidence given to the Commons committees by the highly experienced former Judge Advocate-General Jeff Blackett. Something once bitterly opposed by the Ministry of Defence, under Governments of every stripe, is now seen as uncontroversial and commonplace; I am grateful to the Government for that and to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the way in which she opened this case and has been open to discussion and consideration of these proposals.
The one recommendation of Judge Lyons that the Government rejected is that court martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when these offences are committed in the UK except when the consent of the Attorney-General is given. The judge thought it important enough to make it his first recommendation. In 2006, I moved an amendment to negative this novel extension of jurisdiction, introduced in the then Bill. My excuse for quoting myself is that my remarks were quoted in Judge Lyons’s review. I said:
“The purpose of my amendments is to maintain the present position. The present position traditionally has been that if a serious offence of treason, murder, manslaughter or rape is committed in the United Kingdom, as opposed to abroad, by a soldier or serviceman or a civilian subject to service discipline, those offences cannot be tried by way of court martial but can be tried only in the Crown Court”—
that is if the offences are committed in the United Kingdom. I continued:
“That is the position today. For some reason, which has not been adequately explained, although I have pressed the matter both in Committee and on Report, the Government think that it is right to extend the jurisdiction of the court martial court to encompass any criminal offence.”—[Official Report, 6/11/06, cols. 599-600.]
I lost the Division by 63 largely Liberal Democrat votes to 165 Labour votes. The Conservatives abstained.
What, then, is the reason given by this Government to reject Judge Lyons’s primary recommendation to restore the pre-2006 position: that cases should normally be heard in the civilian courts, as they always used to be? If a really exceptional case arose, an application could be made to the Attorney-General to transfer it to the court martial system; I suggest the possibility that a manslaughter case involving the failure of equipment or the exigencies of training might be such a case. I had a look at the justification given by Mr Leo Docherty in the other place in answer to the Labour amendment. He suggested:
“If the AG had to give consent, the process would be slower … there would be no easy way to transfer that case to the civilian system.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/21, col. 251.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, tried to expand on his explanation by suggesting that it shows confidence in the service system if it can try everything. I do not think that is the right position. I am not aware of any case of a murder committed in the United Kingdom and involving service personnel that has been tried by court martial since 2006.
However, on rape, the Government’s position has been completely undermined by the Defence Sub-Committee’s report Women in the Armed Forces, published on 25 July—barely a month ago—and to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred. As it happens, the review was chaired by my own Member of Parliament, Sarah Atherton—the only Conservative in recorded history ever to represent the constituency of Wrexham. She said:
“Sexual assault and rape are amongst the most serious offences committed against female service personnel … It is difficult not to be moved by the stories of trauma, both emotional and physical, suffered by women at the hands of their colleagues. A woman raped in the military often then has to live and work with the accused perpetrator, with fears that speaking out would damage her career prospects … From our evidence, it is clear to us that serious sexual offenses should not be tried in the Court Martial system. It cannot be right that conviction rates in military courts are four to six times lower than in civilian courts. Military women are being denied justice.”
To underline those comments, Judge Lyons’s review contains a telling statistic: in 2017, of the 49 charges of rape preferred before a court martial, there were two convictions. This means that up to 47 victims and their families have been failed by the system. What does that do for the recruitment and retention of women soldiers? I leave it to your Lordships’ imagination. It undermines the trust and public confidence on which the whole criminal justice system, whether military or civil, depends.
Here, we have a number of factors coming together. Giving jurisdiction to courts martial to try murder, manslaughter and rape charges for offences committed in the UK was an aberration introduced by the Labour Government in 2006. It is not a hallowed part of service history. The Conservative Party did not support it at the time. In considering this Bill, the Labour Party has called for its removal in the other place. The jurisdiction has not been utilised, save for rape cases in a highly unsatisfactory way. As I said, the Conservative chair of the Defence Sub-Committee, after the investigation, stated:
“Military women are being denied justice.”
She is right. The Government, which cannot give a sensible explanation for its retention, should heed the voices from Wrexham and follow Judge Lyons’s recommendation.
Another issue that remains is that of sentencing. I have argued during the passage of each Bill that sentencing is a complex process resulting in varying disposals. I suggest again to your Lordships that it should be left to a professional judge to determine sentence, not to a panel whose members may well be making such a decision in respect of a defendant for the one and only time in their lives. Whereas they can impose sentences of up to life imprisonment, magistrates with lengthy experience of the judicial system can do no more than pass a sentence of 12 months. It is true that, these days, a judge sits in on and participates in the decision, but he does not have a casting vote.
Of course I pay tribute to our armed services—they are very close to all our hearts in this House—but we must have a justice system that is perfect. We have moved strongly in that direction. My noble friends Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Brinton will deal with the important aspects relating to the military covenant, while the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, will deal with pensions. I fully support what they will say.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Armed Forces Bill 2021 and support the principle of strengthening the Armed Forces covenant in law. As the Lords Defence Minister at the time, I was responsible for the passage through this House of the Armed Forces Bill 2011, which received Royal Assent in November 2011. It amended the 2006 Act, most notably by requiring an annual Armed Forces covenant report to be presented to Parliament—which has been done each year since. Following the present Government’s manifesto commitment, this Bill makes provisions to further incorporate the Armed Forces covenant into law. I very much welcome the Government’s stated support for this position, and I am grateful to Poppyscotland for the briefing that it sent me.
Maximum advantage should be taken of this golden opportunity to enhance the delivery of the covenant to the Armed Forces community and ensure that it is fit for purpose for the next 10 years. During the consideration of the Bill by the Commons Select Committee, a wide range of oral and written evidence was received from those who regularly work with the Armed Forces covenant, often daily. They included Armed Forces charities, representatives of local and devolved governments, the Veterans Commissioners in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The committee also undertook its own online survey of the Armed Forces community. The evidence repeatedly highlighted the desirability of the Bill being enhanced, and in particular the need to apply the same legal standard to national government as would be applied to local government.
Members of the Armed Forces community access public services through national, devolved, regional and local bodies, so it is important that there is a consistent approach, so that all public bodies recognise their responsibilities under the covenant. However, the Bill as introduced largely applies only to local government and some education and health bodies. National government should be subject to the same legal standard on the covenant that it seeks to apply to councils.
Many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or are based on national guidance provided to other delivery partners. This is particularly relevant to ensure that serving personnel, for whom many services are the responsibility of the MoD, benefit from the Bill’s provisions along with the rest of the Armed Forces community. I also suggest that the Scottish Government, in addition to Scottish councils and certain public bodies, should be within the scope of the new “due regard” duty. Many issues affecting Scotland’s Armed Forces community are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Without the application of the Bill’s covenant provisions to all aspects of devolved government, national policies developed in Scotland will not be subject to the duty of due regard, as will be the case at the local level. On this point, I welcome the view expressed by the then Scottish Government’s Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans in evidence to the Select Committee, indicating that he would be content with such an expansion.
The overwhelming backing for widening the Bill’s scope would suggest that improving the Bill in this way would be an uncontroversial step for the Government that would command widespread support and consensus.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome this Bill. I wish to speak about the service justice system, and in particular the courts martial. It is important that we put this on a firm and clear basis, because the bravery of our Armed Forces, shown recently in particular in Afghanistan, demands no less. I therefore welcome the recommendations and their acceptance by Judge Lyons in matters such as the type of majority that is required for a court martial jury to convict, and also the slip rule. These are welcome and have been long advocated by Judge Jeff Blackett, who did so much to bring the courts martial system into line with the ordinary courts.
However, I too take the view that the best solution would have been to adopt the recommendation of Judge Lyons in relation to the concurrent jurisdiction point. I will say nothing about two factors which are important, namely the independence of the investigation and the experience of prosecutors, until we have the report of Sir Richard Henriques. That is crucial to these issues and I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate when it might become available.
Two critical matters do arise at this stage. First, why do we retain special juries in serious cases in respect of murder and sexual offending for the military? These were abolished in the rest of our justice system many years ago and it is difficult to see why they should be retained, save in exceptional circumstances. Why is a member of the Armed Forces not entitled to the protections that the rest of us have? It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that fundamental point. Secondly, I assure the House that sentencing is an incredibly difficult exercise that requires a great deal of experience. There is therefore no reason for differentiating the court martial system from the ordinary justice system. I very much hope that the Minister will think again on these points, and I look forward to speaking in support of what it has been indicated that the Opposition might move in relation to Judge Lyons’s recommendation.
Perhaps I may say two words about the proposed solution to the concurrent jurisdiction issue. First, if this is the route we go down, it will be easier to see whether the details have been got right when we see the report of Sir Richard Henriques on the matters. There are three matters that I will briefly mention. The first is the question of supervision or the provision of factors that should influence the protocol. We are delegating very considerable powers to two law officers. Should Parliament consider setting into the Bill the factors that they should take into account, or should Parliament approve the protocol? Secondly, the choice of jurisdiction is quite unlike the choice of a prosecutor as to whether to prosecute or not. I respectfully ask the Minister to consider whether there should not be a right of appeal to a judge of the Court Martial Appeal Court if the defendant or the complainant feels that the wrong choice has been made. This seems to be a far preferable route to seeking judicial review of the prosecutor’s decisions.
The third point, which is possibly a technical mistake in the Bill, is that the protocol will deal only with offences committed in the United Kingdom. However, there is concurrent jurisdiction for certain offences, wherever they are committed, murder being the clearest example. Therefore, if we are to go down the protocol route, it seems to be a technical error to have left out dealing with the issues in relation to the commission of serious offences overseas. I merely put on the record that this was one of the issues that arose in the Blackman case, and it is accepted that that trial could have been conducted if a different decision had been made in the ordinary courts of the land—just as any British citizen accused of murder can be tried here. This is a problem that should not be left out of the Bill. It is not dealt with satisfactorily at present.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too want to pay tribute to our Armed Forces. In repaying their service, it is right, as the Armed Forces covenant states, that
“those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens”.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill enabling greater legal enforcement of the covenant in achieving this parity.
At the same time, however, the Government must pay attention to the unique working environment of military service and the accompanying higher risk prevalence of a variety of health-related issues that occur both during active service and when readjusting to civilian life. Numerous studies over the years have identified a higher prevalence of alcohol misuse in military service personnel compared with the general population. The Ministry of Defence explicitly recognised this reality back in 2016 when it introduced the AUDIT-C questionnaire for alcohol screening during routine dental inspections by defence primary health care dentists.
Despite this positive public health approach in the past, last year I asked the MoD about the success of its existing programmes in the military to stem gambling-related harm. I was surprised by the response that it had seen no evidence that service personnel were more prone to problem gambling than any other group. I am tempted to say that it cannot have looked very hard. There is a raft of studies from the United States of America analysing the gambling habits of both serving personnel and veterans. Those studies have found far higher rates of pathological gambling and lifetime gambling disorder in both those serving and in veterans, and in both genders. Based on this evidence, the United States of America introduced screening for gambling in Section 733 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
Of course, the conditions that give rise to problem gambling and the nature of the addiction itself may differ between the UK and the USA, but that alone does not mean that the possibility of higher than average levels of gambling disorder in the military can be dismissed. One of the few UK studies of problem gambling, from 2018, using data from the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, recorded UK veterans as being eight times more likely to be problem gamblers than the general population—a trend that broadly mirrors those found in the United States of America.
Currently, little research has been done on the gambling habits of serving UK personnel but, since similar trends in UK veterans and their American counterparts have been found, there is good reason to believe that the gambling habits of American service personnel broadly correlate to those in the UK. In fact, the UK has had a much more relaxed attitude to regulating online gambling. If ever research were undertaken into the gambling habits of UK service personnel, it is likely that it would reveal levels of gambling disorder that exceed those in the USA military. I believe that screening for gambling disorder is as important as screening for alcohol misuse. Both are destructive; both ruin lives.
It is part of our care for those who go into these dangerous situations and are put under huge psychological pressure that we screen them and make sure they have proper support. For this reason, I am minded to table amendments to the Bill in Committee including provisions that mirror those the USA already uses when screening for various disorders in the military, including gambling disorders.
On a final note, I simply want to add my support to the Government in not forgetting those who served their country and have long since passed, and I welcome the extension of posthumous pardons for now abolished service offences.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I echo other noble Lords’ words of support for and admiration for our Armed Forces. I have the highest regard for those who serve. From their work on the front line of the pandemic to operations around the world, such as Operation Pitting, daily they earn our admiration and deserve our gratitude. As my noble friend Lord Coaker has so clearly and articulately explained, Labour has made clear at every stage of the Bill that it is our intention that they be given the support they need and deserve, both during service and thereafter. It is the Government’s duty to look after the Armed Forces. As my noble friend said, and as has been echoed, the Armed Forces Bill presents this Parliament with its best opportunity to improve the lives of our service personnel, veterans and their families, and it should not be allowed to become a missed opportunity.
For that reason, my Labour colleagues and I support the principles that underpin the Bill. There are welcome steps in the Bill, including the creation of a legal duty on public bodies to have regard to the principles of the covenant, but I too urge the Government to go further. That is why, in the other place, Labour put forward amendments to strengthen the Bill so that it offers the support and protection identified as needed now by many of our service personnel. Disappointingly, all of them failed to attract government support, and I was appalled to read in the debates the disrespect with which some of these amendments were treated by the Minister who predominantly responded for the Government.
The legal duty to have regard to the principles of the covenant imposes new legal responsibilities which appear, certainly in the main, to apply only to councils and some limited public bodies delivering certain aspects of housing, health and education. As has already been said—I commend the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, who made a persuasive and compelling case for the principal point I wish to make here—it would appear that these amendments do not apply to the Government; they are absent from this commitment. In moving an amendment that placed the same legal responsibilities for the Armed Forces covenant on central government, my honourable friend Stephanie Peacock in the other place asked the Government to show leadership in at least holding themselves to the same standard that they are imposing on others.
Interestingly, the Bill, which was published in January, was the subject of a substantial piece of work by the Government, on 21 January, on the pages of the Government’s website aimed at those who are entitled to the protection of the covenant. A four-page document entitled Armed Forces Covenant—Proposed Legislation was posted. On page 2, under the heading “aims of the legislation” the Government’s stated that it was intended
“to increase awareness among service deliverers and policy makers of the unique obligations and circumstances facing the Armed Forces Community”.
Service delivery and policy—not alternatives, but complementary purposes. So I ask the Minister, for whom I have the most enormous regard, just how it is hoped that the legislation will increase awareness among the relevant policymakers if it does not apply to them? Or were we to infer from her words about the devolved Administrations that it applies to policymakers in the devolved Administrations but not to policymakers in our own Government? Either the Bill needs to be amended to meet the Government’s own aims, or, in all honesty, they must go back to those web pages and erase the reference to policymakers, because it is not served by the Bill.
In July, leading military charities joined together to urge the Government to improve the Bill by extending its scope to make sure that greater protections are given in employment, pensions, social care and immigration—issues that are currently affecting the Armed Forces community—and the Government’s response was to vote down attempts to do just that. At the same time, some Afghanistan veterans struggling with the scenes of chaos in Kabul and of the unchallenged Taliban seizure of power across the country have had their own trauma from their experiences come back to them, but this time, in the context of a public narrative of failure.
Many young soldiers involved in a Kabul evacuation operation will need different forms of counselling in the coming months, but published targets for mental health care for members of the Armed Forces community are routinely missed. A formal review of the standards of mental health care available to service personnel was called for; the Government did not agree in July, but should now consider it, in the face of the evidence that is emerging. I regret also that the Armed Forces Minister James Heappey, in unforgiveable errors yesterday, has done nothing to instil confidence that the Government have a grip on this important issue.
Finally—I apologise for slightly overrunning the advisory time—I plan to revisit an issue I raised first on the overseas operations Bill and signposted that I might return to in this Bill, which is the protection and guidance that Armed Forces personnel need to ensure they comply with the law, including international humanitarian law, and explaining how international and domestic legal frameworks need to be updated, all because of the use of novel technologies that could emerge from or be deployed by the Ministry of Defence, UK allies or the private sector, which is now routinely deployed with our Armed Forces in overseas operations as part of multinational force deployment. On this point, I commend the Minister and her officials for their generous and helpful engagement with me and other noble and noble and gallant Lords on the complexity of these issues since I first raised them. That discourse will continue and I am grateful for it.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the next speaker will take part remotely. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will focus my speech on Clause 8 on the covenant. I support the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Browne. The creation of the covenant is a serious and enduring undertaking by Ministers and Parliament on behalf of the people of our nation, who understand the sacrifice that we are asking of those serving and their families when they undertake the obligations of protecting our nation and our interests in the world. It is vital because it also recognises that those sacrifices continue beyond the time that they serve, understanding that many of our veterans and their families also face barriers to living what the rest of us would regard as a normal life.
As health spokesperson for my party from these Benches, I will particularly raise the difficult and sensitive subject of the practicalities of delivering the covenant for access to health services, especially but not only mental health. Over recent weeks, I have talked to family and friends who are current or former service personnel deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The recent shocking events in Afghanistan have brought back the most difficult memories and experiences for many of those who made sacrifices for us and, they believe, for the Afghan people. For some, their PTSD has been retriggered; for others, there is a sense of helplessness about whether their deployments and the sacrifice of friends’ lives and health over the past 20 years were worth it.
Our service personnel, being ever practical, always just accept the order to “fill their boots”—service speak for “Go ahead and carry on with the task”—and they do. Here, I give a special shout out to the Sandhurst Sisterhood, which has worked tirelessly using and finding contacts to help senior Afghan women at high risk from the Taliban to get to safety. I mention it because much of the recent publicity has focused on our servicemen and far too often we forget that women were deployed to Afghanistan too. They suffered injury, physical and mental, and some did not come home at all.
The long-term mental health difficulties that many service personnel face are intended to be covered by the covenant, with responsibilities for our clinical commissioning groups, GPs and secondary hospital sector. The Minister, in her usual gracious way, helpfully explained the new duty in this Bill for housing, education and health, but the reality is that this new duty is only to “have due regard”, and without any similar duty for central government it is unlikely to be able to be delivered. It does not put a duty on those public services to actually provide the help that is needed. No duty and, as important, inadequate funding from central government mean that, too often, for individual current or former service men and women the covenant is not being fulfilled.
Combat Stress has said that it has had a doubling in calls to its 24/7 helpline from veterans struggling with their mental health. Its specialist clinics are hearing veterans say, “When we went there, we fought a war. Friends died, we struggled, we got blown up, and now they’ve given the country away.” One veteran, Dean, has attended 13 military funerals since he left the Army in 2008, including eight killed in Afghanistan; the others have subsequently taken their own lives. Dean said:
“it just feels as though it was all for nothing.”
Combat Stress is partnering with the NHS on Op COURAGE, but it struggles to support more than 1,600 veterans with severe complex needs a year. Some 75% of Combat Stress’s funding is from voluntary donations, and it believes that there are at least double the veterans needing this key expert service. We know that NHS mental health services are very stretched with extremely long waiting lists at the moment, so the capacity of local services to provide support is limited without guaranteed extra funding.
This last month has reminded all of us of the long- term problems that too many service men and women face. After Afghanistan moves out of the headlines, the covenant’s specialist health services commitment will probably be needed for the rest of our veterans’ lives. It must be a statutory duty, properly funded, including covering central government, to ensure it is not just lip service. I ask the Minister: what costings have been made for the help support needed under the covenant? Will the Government provide that funding?
Finally, in the debate on Afghanistan in August in your Lordships’ House, I said that the Armed Forces covenant needed to be extended to those who served alongside our troops in Afghanistan. The interpreters and members of the Afghanistan army who have been given the right to resettle here under ARAP stood and fought alongside our troops and faced exactly the same dangers. This group should also be able to access the services under the covenant in the same way.
The covenant is a key part of the duty of care that we owe our service men and women. They have and do fill their boots without question. It is time that Ministers, Parliament and our nation filled our boots to deliver a covenant that really works for the men and women who keep us and our world safe.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very clear way she introduced this very important Bill. I join those who have spoken already very eloquently in thanking the Armed Forces. Sometimes that is particularly important on issues that they may feel have not been particularly successful. I think of those who gave their lives in Afghanistan and those who suffered very serious injuries there. Today they sometimes wonder just exactly what it was for. I do not know whether your Lordships are always able to answer that question; I must say that I find it quite difficult to know, except in relation to the idea of keeping out of existence a safe place for the development of terrorist organisations.
I associate myself very much with all that has been said in appreciation of the Armed Forces. We are extraordinarily in debt to the Armed Forces of the Crown and those who support them in every possible way. The Armed Forces covenant is some token of that. It is important that it is sufficiently specific to make it really worth while. For example, it is questionable whether it will be successful without incorporating central government, with its policy responsibilities, into the three principles mentioned that apply to local authorities to come up with possible results. Why they should not apply also to central government and the devolved Administrations I do not feel confident to answer, but I look forward to hearing an answer from the Minister in due course.
This Bill is an important reminder of the principle of our constitution that the Armed Forces of the Crown are not authorised by a statute that has no end. The statute that authorises the existence of the Armed Forces is one that always has a terminus. That is an important part of our constitution, and the need for this particular Bill is a very important reminder of that.
The last thing I want to say is that in relation to the previous Bill—the veterans Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and his colleagues pointed out the very difficult situation that some members of the Armed Forces have encountered as a result of experiences they have had in the course of their service that raised issues of possible criminality. I was not alone in being very moved by that account, and I wish that we could have done something about it then, but it was obviously very important to get that Bill through and therefore the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and his colleagues graciously decided not to press that amendment at the end of the consideration here. I am glad that the Government have fulfilled their promise to bring it forward now, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, who will follow me, is pleased with that.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, it is now 10 years since the informal military covenant developed by the Army was converted into the Armed Forces covenant for the benefit of all three Armed Forces, and incorporated into the Armed Forces Act 2011. At the time, its incorporation was seen by some as something of a politically expedient device by the then Cameron Government because it lacked bite. I am therefore very pleased that this Armed Forces Bill provides many of the teeth that were missing, especially in the areas of housing, education and healthcare.
The well-being of our Armed Forces personnel once again came into sharp focus as we witnessed the extraordinary efforts of our service men and women in and around Kabul Airport last month. As Brigadier James Martin, commanding 16 Air Assault Brigade, said a few days ago, British soldiers cannot unsee the horrors of Kabul and will need help to recover from that deployment, which he described as “harrowing”. I would be grateful if the Minister would reassure the House that such help is being made available. I am considering an amendment to the Bill to ensure that such help is indeed forthcoming in full measure. I see this as an extension of the duty of care to our service- people—a topic debated and endorsed by your Lordships’ House earlier this year in the context of the overseas operations Bill but which was rejected by the government majority in the other place.
The non-combatant evacuation operation at Kabul raises other issues pertinent to the Bill. Given that one of the stated aims of the operation was to assist the evacuation of interpreters and other locally engaged Afghan civilians who had helped the British over the past 20 years, can the Minister provide any information about how many interpreters we have been able to bring to this country? My information is that we directly employed some 2,850 interpreters up until 2013 when the service was contractorised, but that only 440 interpreters benefited from the ex gratia scheme until the introduction of the Afghan relocation and assistance policy in April this year. My concern, which I believe is shared by many of the 45 senior retired officers who signed an open letter to the Government in July, is that many of the other 2,400 interpreters have not yet been brought to this country. Can the Minister provide an up-to-date figure on how many of those 2,400 interpreters were brought here between April and mid-August? Presumably all those disembarking from RAF evacuation flights were asked who they were and what they did to qualify.
I am sure that noble Lords will want to thank local councils around the country for making homes and education available to these Afghan people, and I also congratulate charities, such as Help for Heroes, which are agreeing to treat Afghans who stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the same way that they are supporting British veterans of recent conflicts. Among those who have recently arrived in this country are former members of the Afghan special forces. It has been suggested that some of them might wish to continue to serve in the British Armed Forces. I would welcome that, provided that normal nationality regulations are followed, or perhaps an exception should be made via another amendment to the Bill. Is this something that the Government are considering?
It was heartening to see the way in which the Government pragmatically put aside the rules regarding indefinite leave to remain to aid the resettlement of recently evacuated Afghans. This relaxation of the rules is part of Operation Warm Welcome, which will see individuals who worked for British forces and their families granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Unfortunately, this generous treatment is in stark contrast to how we currently treat our foreign and Commonwealth veterans. For them, many of whom will have served in Afghanistan, military service confers no such privilege. Indeed, when those individuals leave HM forces, they are treated the same as any other foreign applicant seeking indefinite leave to remain. Foreign and Commonwealth service personnel also miss out as they cannot apply to bring their families to the UK while serving unless they meet the income threshold, while under the new Afghan schemes the whole family can come notwithstanding income levels. We will therefore shortly face the bizarre situation where veterans of the Afghan National Army arriving here have greater residency rights than some veterans of the British Armed Forces. If we agree with the aspiration that the UK should be the best country in the world in which to be a veteran, we must ensure that we treat our veterans as well as we treat those to whom we give refuge. It is high time we extended the warm welcome to our foreign and Commonwealth veterans. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s thinking in this regard?
While we are dwelling on anomalies, there are two other groups of veterans who are being disadvantaged. One is the dwindling ranks of servicemen who were excluded from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975. Recently a petition signed by more than 30,000 people was handed to the Government requesting pension equity with those who benefited from the post-1975 scheme. It should be acknowledged that some of those discriminated against served in Northern Ireland, Aden and Borneo. Can the Minister update the House on progress to eradicate the pre/post-1975 pension inequality? Of course, the Northern Ireland veterans are eagerly awaiting the tabling of legislation to terminate the endless questioning of their operations during the Troubles. Are we any nearer to knowing when that legislation will be tabled?
Finally, it will not have escaped noble Lords’ notice that the other group of veterans currently being discriminated against—Gurkha veterans who retired from the British Army before 1997—have been on hunger strike outside Downing Street. This is shameful. Successive Governments inevitably carry some responsibility for the actions of their predecessors, and although many approved of the popular decision some 10 years ago to allow Gurkhas who had retired before 1997 to have residency rights in the UK, doing so without an uplift to their pension was shameful. A solution to this entirely predictable problem must be found before a Gurkha veteran dies on our streets. Does the Minister have an update on the resolution of this issue? The Armed Forces covenant is for all serving and veteran personnel, including minority groups whose voices often do not get heard.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the brave men and women who have served and continue to serve us so valiantly in our Armed Forces at home and in combat overseas. In my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we will never forget their efforts and, in many cases, their sacrifices during the height of the Troubles. For that reason, I welcome, and will always welcome, moves by Her Majesty’s Government to give greater standing to the Armed Forces covenant across the entirety of the United Kingdom. It is important to state that there should be no impediment that would block veterans from being treated fairly and equitably in any part of the United Kingdom.
In Northern Ireland, the New Decade, New Approach agreement committed the Government to legislate to incorporate the Armed Forces covenant further into law and to support its total implementation. It is right and just that the Bill before us today should treat Northern Ireland veterans and service personnel in exactly the same way as those in other parts of the United Kingdom, with full implementation of the military covenant. The failure to implement the covenant fully in Northern Ireland up to this point has let down our brave veterans. It is right that this injustice should be brought to an end.
Veterans across this nation should have full access to a full range of services. We owe it to our Armed Forces to do better. We owe it to them to provide a duty of care for legal, pastoral and mental health support. It is a historical fact that were it not for the bravery and courage of our Armed Forces and security personnel there would never have been a peace process in Northern Ireland and we would not have the relative peace that we enjoy today. We therefore have a duty here and in the other place to protect those who have protected us.
This stretches further, beyond the provision of the vital health and mental health services under discussion. We must also protect our brave men and women from malicious charges and questionable legal claims. We should value the principle that access to justice remains open for us all. To that end, it is worth noting in the strongest terms that there should never be any question of a blanket amnesty being offered. Where a murder has been committed, the law does and must apply equally. Equally, cases that have already been thoroughly investigated, and in some cases reinvestigated, and for which no new evidence has been brought forward, should not be continually reopened to satisfy a particular agenda.
There can be no moral equivalence between terrorists, or those accused of terror offences, and people accused of having committed offences when they were members of the Armed Forces trying to protect us from the terrorists. Those who served our country valiantly deserve some form of legislative protection against continual cycles of reinvestigation when they have been previously investigated and no compelling evidence has been brought. Where service personnel have been fairly judged to have carried out their duties, often in extremely difficult circumstances and at great risk to themselves, their actions should not be second-guessed years or decades later in the interests of political expediency.
British soldiers operate under the highest possible standards and with strict rules of engagement. The vast majority of service men and women act within the law in the service of their country. In any conflict there are of course exceptions to this. However, the majority of victims and veterans do not seek a blanket amnesty from prosecutions; they seek fair and equitable justice.
Regrettably, in recent decades we have witnessed a two-tiered approach to these sensitive issues. In some instances, decisions have been taken to shield the victim-maker rather than deliver justice. As it relates to Northern Ireland specifically, the early release of convicted terrorists under the terms of the Belfast agreement, and the subsequent securing of royal pardons through the on-the-runs scheme, equally perverted the criminal justice system. These are historical examples where dangerous legal precedents have been set.
We must at all times work hard to find proportionate answers to these extremely difficult questions. These answers will not be found if we follow a path that finds any equivalence between brave soldiers and the terrorists and criminals they protect us against when on the battlefield. We stand four-square behind our troops. We must support all efforts to ease the burden for our brave soldiers. Our veterans, and today’s service men and women, do not expect the path they have chosen to be an easy path.
I welcome the work that has been done to date, but it is clear that we have still much work to do. I firmly believe that the passage of this Bill into law will make a significant contribution to the improvement of the welfare of our brave service men and women.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister and join in the tributes to our Armed Forces. I wish to raise two points in connection with this Bill. I recognise that it is a routine Bill, but it gives us an opportunity to raise issues of concern.
My first point concerns the ombudsman. I have been given evidence of a case in which the ombudsman’s ruling was apparently overturned by the very senior officers who were comrades of the object of the complaint. Can the Minister assure us that there is now a cast-iron method of totally impartial complaint in which complaints against senior officers cannot be overturned by the might of the military machine?
I raise my second point because the Bill says it is
“to make provision about war pensions”.
There is virtually nothing about war pensions in the Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, has raised some anomalies and I wish to raise another. I am a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association, and the Minister is well aware of—and, I think, sympathetic to—the issue I wish to raise yet again.
Time was when military widows automatically lost their widows’ pensions if they remarried—obviously this edict was made entirely by men; no women, let alone widows, were allowed anywhere near it. It was also a time when the military made no pretence at being caring: wives were tolerated as long as they were camp followers, but woe betide them if they fell out of line. Happily, those days have largely gone. Many widows would be very young; servicemen often die young. The only support and legacy they had from the men who had died in the service of their country was the pension those men had left them. I well remember when my husband—as a young RAF pilot who had seen too many of his comrades meet an early death, and who paid as much as he could into the widow’s element of his pension—told me that if he died, not to remarry and lose all the contributions he had made but to live in sin and be happy. The terminology will tell noble Lords that this was a very long time ago. Of course, for his last three years he was a Member of your Lordships’ House, so happily he did not die as a young pilot.
Then, of course, the Military Police caught up with those living in sin, who we had to then call “cohabitees”, and they too lost the meagre pensions from their dead husbands. How cruel. How mean. For many of those women, that money was the only money that they held in their own account, so what penny-pinching politicians thought this was a caring saving on the public purse? Women who had lost their men—who had died doing their duty—were targeted to lose the pensions that were the last gestures from dutiful dead husbands.
For most military widows this cruel edict has now been cancelled, but there is a small and dwindling group of ageing widows who fell between legislation and who have not had their pensions restored nor any financial recompense. We are told that it is impossible to restore pensions retrospectively, but is it really beyond the brains of the MoD and the Treasury, where we do have some very bright people, to find a way of giving some sort of financial compensation to this last, small group of deprived and elderly widows? We are left with the conclusion that the MoD is waiting for them all to die off, for the problem to go away. Is this really the face of the caring military family?
I once again appeal to the Minister, who I know to be a caring person, to go back to the MoD and the Treasury and ask again for some form of financial help for these widows who lost their men and who, when they dared to find happiness in a new relationship, lost their entitlement to pensions. The total sum would be a pittance against an eye-watering aircraft carrier and would be greeted by such enthusiasm from all military widows, and indeed all the military community that cares. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I continue to live in hope, and I assure her that the War Widows’ Association will not give up on this campaign for justice for their peers.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring a familial interest in that my son, who is 24, is serving in the Army and therefore is subject to the Armed Forces Act and will be subject to this Bill, when it becomes an Act. I took the 2011 Bill through the House of Commons; it established the Armed Forces covenant, so I know a little about it. My noble friend Lord Astor took it through the House of Lords, as he mentioned. I recall that it was rather hard work, which is not always my favourite topic.
I will concentrate on one point alone today; it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from the Labour Front Bench. The humiliating defeat and disaster that was the withdrawal from Afghanistan has changed the geopolitical spectrum beyond recognition. China, Russia and Iran—all of which, I regret to say, are not our closest friends—are laughing their socks off at the humiliation of the West, NATO, the US and us. The West, western values and western culture are no longer taken seriously around the world. This should deeply depress us all. Our Armed Forces are here to protect us and our interests. I think they have done a pretty good job over the years, but in my opinion this is the worst disaster that NATO has had in its existence. We won the Cold War—I sat in Germany for a year trying to defend the western alliance. The Americans had Vietnam, of course, but NATO is now exposed as weak and rudderless, I am afraid, and we should all address that.
With that in mind, I turn to my noble friend and say that the geopolitical situation has changed. The idea of reducing the Army by 11% and reducing the number of ships and aircraft that we can use is, in these times, absolutely bonkers, and we must revisit it. I pay tribute to the Government for increasing the amount of money they are spending on defence. Yes, what used to be called unmanned aerial vehicles and are now largely called drones are very important, as is AI, but we must have boots that we can put on the ground, ships that we can put in the sea and aircraft that we can put in the air. It is by that that we are judged by potential adversaries.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill, which, in addition to sustaining the legal basis for our Armed Forces, brings with it some worthwhile innovations. Inevitably, though, its provisions tend to raise as many questions as they answer. It is on some of these loose ends that I wish to concentrate today.
One of the most controversial aspects of the Government’s approach to the Bill has, as we have heard, been their rejection of the recommendation in the Lyons review that cases of murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the UK should be tried in civilian courts except as agreed by the Attorney-General. I accept that there may be valid reasons for the Government’s decision. The military justice system will continue to have responsibility for dealing with such offences involving service personnel outside the UK, but our military footprint abroad has been reduced significantly in recent years so such cases will probably occur infrequently.
The military justice system may find it very difficult to sustain the skills and experience necessary to carry out its responsibilities overseas if it is unable to prosecute domestic crimes of this nature. If it is to do so, however, it must be demonstrably comparable to the civilian process. There is at the moment a very serious issue of credibility, which must be addressed. Conviction rates in cases of rape brought before service courts are significantly lower than for similar crimes tried in civilian courts. Why? Supporters of the Lyons recommendation might point to fundamental deficiencies in the service justice system. I suspect that the Minister would reject such a proposition but, if so, she needs to set out credible reasons for the stark differences in outcome between the two systems. Perhaps she could take the opportunity to do so this afternoon.
The inclusion of OR7 ranks in the list of those eligible for appointment as lay members of a court martial takes us closer to the idea of a jury of one’s peers, although not all the way. It does, however, raise the question of rank gradient. There is a tendency in the military for juniors to defer to seniors even when wisdom does not necessarily lie with the greater rank. This was in the past a significant issue in aircraft cockpits—not just in the military, I might add—and a factor in a number of avoidable accidents. It took a dedicated programme of training and cultural change across the entire aviation community to address the problem. Does the Minister envisage the need for something similar for lay members of service courts?
My final points concern Clause 8, which places a duty on “specified persons and bodies” exercising certain functions to have “due regard” to the principles laid out in the Armed Forces covenant. I welcome the intent behind this clause. It certainly represents necessary progress but it leaves a number of unresolved issues. The relevant functions that fall within the ambit of the Bill are restricted to housing, healthcare and education. These are undoubtedly the functions about which service personnel, veterans and their families are most concerned but, as we have already heard today, they are by no means the only areas of difficulty.
My other concern relates to the legal implications of Clause 8. As far as I can see, there are none. It requires the relevant bodies to have “due regard” to the provisions of the Armed Forces covenant but it does not specify any outcomes. There is nothing that could be effectively challenged in law, nor are there any potential remedies for a failure to comply with the provisions. The alternative—to specify particular outcomes—is not viable. What outcomes would one specify? In any case, it must be for those most closely involved to determine priorities. Veterans and their families should not suffer from their service, but that does not automatically place their needs above those of others.
So how are we to ensure that the very welcome intent of Clause 8 is delivered in practice? We cannot just rely on veterans to raise concerns. What formal avenues will be open to them? With whom should they register those concerns, and what processes of investigation and judgment would this trigger? In any case, most of those most in need, particularly those suffering from mental illness, will be just those least able to deal with the pressures and demands of an uncertain appeal process. Balancing the need for flexibility and local decision-making with certainty in enforcement is a challenge, but it must be faced if Clause 8 is to function effectively. A comprehensive and proactive audit process would allow us to assess the practical implementation of the clause and to develop recommendations for both closing loopholes and tightening application. Does the Minister agree that this is necessary if the Government’s worthy aspirations are to be given practical effect?
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate our Armed Forces on their conduct in the evacuation from Afghanistan. During my national service—there cannot be many of us still around in Parliament—my command in Germany was a platoon of 30 men. From time to time, I was deputed to take a section of 10 men fully armed on the overnight train from Hanover to Berlin, with all blinds down, in order to maintain our right to travel from the British zone to the British sector in Berlin. Our limited training was for war and the maintenance of peace on the border with the Russians. I make this point to emphasise that our young men had no training in crowd control, let alone receiving babies in arms across wire fencing. I therefore congratulate them even more.
I once prepared a speech for your Lordships’ House detailing the history of British Forces fighting in Afghanistan. I did not make the speech because there were Welsh regiments fighting in Afghanistan at the time and we lost a large number of men, and many lives were permanently changed, including that of the commanding officer of the Welsh Guards.
I want to concentrate on the court martial system. I give notice that I intend to move an amendment to set up an inquiry into the merits of bringing the system into line with civilian courts without endangering military discipline. I first raised my concerns about courts martial as far back as 2017, following the case of Sergeant Blackman. The noble Baroness responded with a speed unaccustomed in the Ministry of Defence and announced an independent and more in-depth look at the service justice system. We are indeed indebted for the report of His Honour Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy. However, I fear that the report and the Government’s conclusions in the Bill are a missed opportunity to bring courts martial into line with our civil courts.
I am not concerned with the bulk of the work of the courts martial in their dealings with minor offences. The first point I want to make is that the Armed Forces are considerably smaller than in my day as a young soldier, and life in the forces for soldiers and their families is now much closer to life for their civilian counterparts. When I was Attorney-General, I set up a protocol that, if any difficulties arose in prosecutions, the differences should be finally resolved by the Attorney-General. I welcome Clause 7 on the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions; it places him in the senior role and, of course, he will be guided by the Attorney-General.
My concern is with the more serious offences of murder, manslaughter, rape and serious injuries. In the courts, in my professional life, I have had to deal with many of those. I suspect that they are in the minority of cases dealt with by courts martial, and probably quite rare. Judge advocates who preside over courts martial have only limited experience of dealing with such cases in their own courts, although, of course, they sit from time to time in the civil courts. The Bill empowers the Lord Chief Justice to nominate a circuit judge to preside over courts martial as only a minority of circuit judges are licensed to try murder and rape cases. May I be reassured that this power will be exercised in the same way whenever a circuit judge is nominated?
I come to my main point: the Secretary of State should set up an inquiry to consider bringing the whole system of murder, manslaughter, rape and serious offences into line with court procedures. Courts martial now reach their decisions by a majority verdict of their lay members. It is proposed in Schedule 1 that where there are three members of a court martial their decision can be made by a majority of two to one, and appropriately where there are other numbers. I do not think that a majority of two to one is fit for purpose in this modern age—or, as the Minister said as far back as 2017, when she set up the inquiry—as effective as it can be for the 21st century.
Why cannot our servicemen have the same rights as ordinary citizens and have a jury of 12 persons with the detailed control of a majority verdict, whereby it is set out in public how many people have voted one way for a conviction and how many have not? As I understand it—the Minister can confirm this—courts martial do not announce whether there is a majority or whether the verdict is unanimous. In all those circumstances, given the time available I wish to return to the issue in Committee so that we can have a definitive view on why soldiers cannot have the same privileges as their counterparts in civilian life.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, like other Members I welcome the Bill to the House. I want to briefly focus on two issues: healthcare for our Armed Forces veterans and reinvestigation into service personnel, an issue that my noble friend Lord Browne has already alluded to.
As has already been said, our Armed Forces do a remarkable job to keep the people of this United Kingdom safe and secure in an ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for their courage and devotion to duty. The sacrifices of our Armed Forces at home and abroad must never be forgotten. Across the United Kingdom, there are 2.5 million veterans and it is vital that they are not simply left to fend for themselves once they return from active service. Our Armed Forces veterans continue to need support for housing, unemployment and vital public services such as improved healthcare. It is only right that those who have sustained life-changing injuries in the service of this nation should receive the best medical care available. When our brave men and women return from a tour of duty, many need assistance when reintegrating into society after the physical and mental challenges they have sustained while serving across the world.
Regrettably, too often the promises made have not matched the reality experienced by service communities, from poor housing provisions to veterans’ poor mental health and social care. We must continue to improve these services and, where we can, support sensible, practical and long-lasting protection for our military personnel. I fully support any legislation that will improve the lives of our forces personnel.
In return for their service, the Armed Forces should enjoy our strongest possible support as we work towards ensuring that our brave men and women get the best possible mental health and well-being provisions available, during and after their service. We must also ensure that, across the United Kingdom, they benefit equally—and in full—from the protection within the covenant. Regrettably, there have been attempts to block the full implementation of the covenant as it relates to Northern Ireland. All forces personnel and veterans across these islands should be able to avail equally of the same quality service, protection and support made available via the covenant. There should be no difference between the services offered in different parts of the United Kingdom.
I will focus briefly on equal justice; more especially, the matter of reinvestigation into service personnel. Operation Banner remains the longest continuous deployment in British military history. Without the bravery and long-lasting commitment of our security personnel, the reign of terror in Northern Ireland would have led to the deaths of many more innocent victims. Veterans and victims are searching for fairness and balance in how justice is served. Nobody is suggesting that military veterans, security forces or anyone else should be above the law or able to act with impunity. However, veterans rightly expect to be afforded natural justice and fairness.
Investigations into previous cases ought to be balanced. It is wrong that former members of the security services have been subject to different sets of standards and rules, despite the fact that 90% of the deaths during the Troubles were caused by terrorists. We have the unseemly situation where thousands of innocent victims of terrorist organisations have been denied justice. As we have done in the past, it is important to say again that we oppose any attempt to introduce an amnesty for criminal actions of terrorists or gangs. There should be no amnesty for anyone who perpetrated wrongdoing.
Broadly speaking, no legal or moral equivalence can be drawn between Armed Forces acting under the rule of law and terrorists who set out to murder and clearly acted outside the law. Affording some form of legal protection to Armed Forces in conflicts at home and abroad against repeated historical reinvestigation is one thing; the possible introduction of a blanket amnesty for anybody is another.
We all must work to provide the services and protections that are needed for our Armed Forces and service personnel. However, what recent discussions have there been with the Northern Ireland Executive on the full implementation of the military covenant in Northern Ireland?
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill and of course start by declaring my interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces, and so subject to it. I also fear I am a veteran of this process, having served on the 2006 committee and the 2010 committee, and been the Minister responsible in the House of Commons for taking an Armed Forces Bill through in 2016. Of course, the star turn of this Bill is the enshrining of the Armed Forces covenant into law. That is most welcome, although it brought a slight wry smile as I recall saying something similar before, when we were simply enshrining the requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year. None the less, this is welcome. Like other noble Lords, however, I wonder whether it goes far enough.
I understand absolutely the Government’s argument when it comes to local authorities; they certainly want to hold them to account while not necessarily restraining them in how they should enforce the covenant. Focusing on healthcare, housing and education is the right thing to do but, at the same time, if I am true to myself, I recall slightly irritating my noble friend Lord Robathan when he was the Minister back in 2011 by proposing a Back-Bench Conservative amendment in Committee that pensions should be added. At the very least, I feel that a role for this House as the Bill progresses will be to explore to what should be included in the military covenant.
Linked to that, since a Second Reading is about what should be in the Bill, there is also potentially a missed opportunity here with the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees. As noble Lords know, these are 13 regional committees which advise, advocate and assist. They are very much a conduit between the MoD and helping veterans in the regions, but their role is very much governed by law. There has been talk for some time about whether we should be updating their role, yet we have not done it. As we bring the Armed Forces covenant into law, why are we not looking at those committees? They are desperate to do more. Why are we not allowing them to do more, when it would help us as the Armed Forces covenant is enshrined in law?
It would be wrong, however, not to recognise the progress that has been made in recent years in the world of veterans. Not least, there is the creation of the veterans’ gateway and the one-stop shop of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. Even last year, we saw for the first time in the census the question about whether or not veterans should be included.
I too want to say a couple of words about indefinite leave to remain. I declare my interest as colonel commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I have lobbied the Government on this issue and know that it was out to public consultation, but I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could update us on that. I urge a word of caution to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, when it comes to Gurkha pensions. We are comparing apples and pears. The Gurkha pension from 1948 enabled a Gurkha soldier to receive an immediate pension after just 15 years’ service, meaning many Gurkhas received a pension from their early 30s for life. A British soldier at that time had to serve 22 years; had they served 21 years, they would get not a penny. Be very careful when calling for equivalence between those two schemes: they are quite different.
I am particularly pleased about Clause 9, which brings in continuous service for the Reserve Forces. I declare my interest as over the last year, I have been chairman of the Reserve Forces review. The headmark is the integration of the reserve and regular forces. We have a vision of a spectrum of service whereby, on the right of the arc, we have a civilian working in industry and we can bring their skills through reserve service into the military. On the left of the arc is full-time service in the Armed Forces, and we enable the individual through their service career to move along that spectrum. This clause removes some of the obstacles preventing that. Terms and conditions of service for both regular and reserves are quite different. In the same way that the 2006 Act brought together the three single service Acts, there are some who call—and I am probably one of them—for the bringing together of the Armed Forces Act and the Reserve Forces Act into a single piece of legislation, as that will enable further integration.
Finally, I want to offer one word of caution, which I have mentioned before. I declare another interest—this is a very happy interest—as colonel commandant of the Cayman Islands Regiment; I look forward to going to visit them soon. I fear we made a mistake last time by excluding Gibraltar from the Act, and it is excluded again from this Bill. Shortly after excluding it, we had the airport incident in Gibraltar and, because of a misunderstanding about whether this Act applied, three members of the Armed Forces were arrested and there is still rancour there. Yes, Gibraltar has now passed its own Armed Forces Act, but as soon as we pass this Bill, Gibraltar will be out of kilter again. I simply do not understand why it, like other overseas territories, cannot be included in this Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased that additions are to be made to the Armed Forces covenant. I know that the Royal British Legion and other forces charities have raised points of substance and I wish to be helpful in tabling and debating suitable improvements.
As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, mentioned, as Minister he introduced the covenant in the 2011 Act. It added two sections about the annual report, and they were to be inserted, almost as a postscript, into a miscellaneous part of the 2006 Act. I objected to this de minimis approach. First, it did not seem to accord with the importance that Prime Ministers and many others then attributed to the concept of the covenant. Their fine sentiments deserved better visibility in legislation. Secondly, two new covenant sections followed immediately: Section 359 dealt with posthumous pardons for servicemen executed for disciplinary offences in World War I—an unfortunate juxtaposition of veteran treatment. My proposed amendment was resisted but, after protracted discussions, by Third Reading the Government decided that the covenant deserved better treatment and should be given its own separate and distinct part, where it now sits as Part 16A. The Government tabled the relevant amendment but, graciously reflecting my persistence, the Minister asked me to speak first to move his own amendment. Clause 8 of today’s Bill builds on that modest beginning.
When the 2011 and 2016 Bills were debated, I commented that they were large, cumbersome Marshalled Lists for the latest version of the 2006 Act. This 2021 Bill is even larger. There are over 85 insertions of substance and five pages of concurrent jurisdiction— no less than 10 for the Armed Forces covenant—and 15 pages of schedules. When it was introduced in 2006, the Bill was over 340 pages long. Now it is close to 400, thanks to the 2011 and 2016 Acts. I asked in 2011 and again in 2016, without answer, why the Government did not introduce the Bill in the form in which they wished it to be enacted, replacing the 2006 Act in toto. It might be a 400-page Act, but the Bill before us is over 50 pages. Future quinquennial reviews could be considering 50 pages of amendments to a 500-page plus, and growing, 2006 Act.
It might be possible, if the Bill were to be a new one, to tidy up the presentation. It has a plethora of parts, chapters and miscellaneous add-ons. The 2006 Act, which was an amalgam of the single service legislation, was a brand new Bill, replacing the single service Acts: a departure from the quinquennial amendments of past Acts. Is there any reason why this legislation, at least in the future, bearing in mind it has passed in the other place, could not be tabled as a complete Bill? It would be more readable and comprehensible, compared with the cross-referencing now required. Maybe this time the Minister will be able to respond.
The thrust of new Chapter 3A in Clause 7, in particular protocols for directors of prosecutions to follow and arrangements to approve their alteration, worry me. I remain concerned that the march of disciplinary legislation for the Armed Forces has the unintended but most unfortunate implication that Parliament and the Government harbour a lack of trust in the higher ranks of the chain of command and the military courts martial system. Yet trust in the chain of command, both upwards and down, is of crucial and overriding importance to the very life and fighting resolve of the Armed Forces. So too there should be no unintended inference that courts martial, which are an essential part of the Armed Forces disciplinary structure, are inadequate or failing. One should look rather at what steps might be taken to counter or dispel any such impression.
These new protocols are ill-defined. Could not different versions be approved for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? The view of the service prosecutor may be overruled by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Lord Advocate for Scotland or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, as the case may be. The prosecutors are only required to “consult” the Secretary of State, presumably the Defence Secretary, and other named bodies, which differ in each jurisdiction. Is “consult” strong enough to avoid or prevent different approaches to these protocols? Is there a danger that one or more of the final civilian arbiters of the protocols may be personally averse to courts martial, being inconsistent, in their view, with a fair and efficient justice system? What may not be a worry now might be in the future without some strengthening of the protocol arrangements. Is it right that the disciplinary structure of the Armed Forces should be a devolved matter? Is this Bill not a further diminution of courts martial? I look forward to some reassurances from the Minister in winding up the debate.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who made some very good points in his excellent speech. I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this Bill and explaining its purposes. We tend not to debate often enough our Armed Forces and the proportion of our national income that they consume. The historical requirement to pass an Act every five years to maintain a standing army ensures that Parliament has more opportunities to debate the state of our Armed Forces than would otherwise be the case. It is particularly welcome that the Bill seeks to strengthen the Armed Forces covenant, which contains the Government’s promise that servicemen and women should not be disadvantaged in any way by their service and that special consideration may be appropriate on occasion, especially for those injured and those who have lost close family members.
It is good that the Bill makes provision for a new legal duty for public bodies to give due regard to the covenant. However, this applies only to local councils and some limited public bodies delivering housing, health and education. Could the Minister please tell the House why the Government and the devolved Administrations are exempted from this duty? Could she also explain why the list of relevant functions covered is so limited? It includes only housing, education and healthcare. The Royal British Legion, together with many other service charities, is asking for the duty to be extended to employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration, among other topics.
It is welcome that, with the Bill, the Prime Minister can rightfully claim that he has honoured the second of the three commitments together described as his “veterans pledge”, which he made in his letter to the Sun of 11 July 2019, to enshrine the military covenant in law. The first commitment was:
“To create an Office of Veterans Affairs within the Cabinet Office”.
The third—outstanding—commitment was to introduce legislation
“to end repeated and vexatious investigations into historical allegations against our servicemen and women—including in Northern Ireland”.
I recognise the highly sensitive and difficult nature of achieving this third objective, and I welcome the Government’s Command Paper, published in July, which I think all will agree constitutes progress. It points out:
“The decreasing likelihood of successful prosecutions is supported by evidence, which shows that between 2015 and 2021 just nine people have been charged in connection with Troubles-related deaths.”
It also notes that
“of these nine, just one person has been convicted.”
In particular, proposals for a statute of limitations, which would bring an immediate end to the divisive cycle of criminal investigations and prosecutions, would successfully deliver the Prime Minister’s third objective. Can the Minister tell the House more about the timescale to which the Government are working to achieve this?
As honorary air commodore in the No. 600 (City of London) Squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, I welcome the provisions introduced by Clause 9, which recognise and give effect to the fact that reserve or voluntary service today comes in many different shapes and sizes and that the legal framework required to support that needs to be much more flexible than has been the case in the past. The “whole force” concept, which blurs the distinctions between regular and voluntary service, also requires modification to the legal commitments required of our service personnel. My noble friend Lord Lancaster spoke wisely about this matter. It is right that reserve personnel are subject to service law for the entire time that they are in service, under continuous service commitments.
Together with other noble Lords, I am full of admiration for the loyal and tireless service given by all those involved in Operation Pitting. Nevertheless, I also agree with the moving speech of my noble friend Lord Robathan, who is not in his place. He was surely right to say that the badly damaged reputation of NATO, as a result of the Afghanistan debacle, means that now is absolutely not the time to make cuts to numbers of military personnel, ships or aeroplanes.
I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister whether she will also commend the great contribution made by the Reserve Forces to Operation Rescript, in combating the Covid-19 pandemic, which would otherwise have wrought even greater havoc on our lives. I welcome the Bill and look forward to supporting my noble friend in taking it through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Minister started the debate by saying that our Armed Forces are the best in the world. I am proud to serve as an honorary group captain in No. 601 Squadron in the Royal Air Force.
Clause 8 of the Bill would make further provisions for the Armed Forces covenant. I will quote the covenant. It is the nation’s commitment to
“acknowledge and understand that those who serve or who have served in the armed forces, and their families, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy and society they serve with their lives.”
The House of Commons had its Second Reading on 8 February this year, and many MPs spoke about Clause 8, criticising it for not going far enough in strengthening the covenant. The shadow Defence Secretary said that it was a “missed opportunity”. The Royal British Legion was quoted as well—I am privileged to be chairman of the Memorial Gates Trust, and the Royal British Legion is our partner. The Memorial Gates commemorate the service and sacrifice of the 5 million volunteers from south Asia, Africa and the Caribbean who served in the First World War and Second World War. The problem with this is that it could lead to a two-tier covenant. A committee said that the Bill falls short of what it ought to be and it must have due regard to the covenant itself—it is too weak because it is local and not national. Will the Minister explain why it is not national but only local?
As noble Lords have said, any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country—other than the UK, of course—who served for at least four years is to be exempted from visa fees. This also applies to those who served for at least four years in the Brigade of Gurkhas. However, there is a shameful scandal: Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK after having served for at least four years, and, to add to this, they are given less than a month—28 days—in which to pay this. This leaves many of them in financial ruin. A suggestion has been made that all they should pay is £204, which is the fee for indefinite leave to remain, instead of £2,389. Does the Minister agree that this should be implemented? The Government say that they are listening to this.
It has been suggested that those of the Afghan special forces who have come to the UK could be absorbed into the Armed Forces and made into a regiment like the Gurkhas. Will the Minister confirm that this has been considered? After all, the bravery that those Afghan troops have shown in the evacuation—going out into the crowds outside the airport, risking capture at Taliban checkpoints—has been absolutely amazing. In the past two decades, the UK special forces have worked alongside the Afghan units, such as Commando Force 333. My friend Tom Tugendhat, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said:
“We trained and fought alongside many Afghans who are now in the UK. They've proved their loyalty a thousand times. If they want to serve, we should welcome them. I would love to see a regiment of Afghan scouts.”
We must remember that, sadly, 457 people from our country gave up their lives and more than 2,000 were injured in the Afghanistan conflict over the past two decades.
I will conclude by talking about the Gurkhas, of whom there are 4,000 in the British Army. They have served over here for over 200 years. This year is the 50th anniversary of the country of Bangladesh. My late father, Lieutenant General Bilimoria, commanded his battalion of Gurkhas—the 2nd 5th Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force)—in the liberation of Bangladesh. His battalion received three Victoria Crosses in the Second World War. My father ended up being colonel of his regiment, president of the Gurkha Brigade in India and commander-in-chief of the central army. He commanded his battalion with pride. The person who took over from him as commander of the regiment, Major General Cardozo, has recently written a book, 1971, about the 1971 operation. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw was the chief of the Indian Army at the time, and, referring to the Gurkhas, he said:
“If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he is a Gurkha.”
We had a sad situation recently where three Gurkhas, representing Gurkha veterans, went on hunger strike outside Downing Street; fortunately, it was called off. It was to do with the pensions that noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, spoke of. My friend Joanna Lumley, who fought so hard with us to give Gurkhas the right to stay over a decade ago, has also urged the Government to meet the brave and loyal Gurkha veterans staging the hunger strike. I ask the Minister: are the Government doing all that they can to resolve the Gurkha pension situation, which seems so unfair? They say that the cost is £1.5 billion, but I would go so far as to say that there is no cost: the contribution of the Gurkhas has been absolutely priceless.
I conclude with this: we must never ever take for granted our beloved Armed Forces, our respected services, which are the best of the best. We will always owe them a debt of gratitude, and that is the covenant that is testament to this.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for explaining the purposes of her Bill. Like many others, I am convinced that the system of the quinquennial review, coupled with an annual renewal, is the right one.
When we have just been defeated in a major overseas military campaign, I do not believe that the usual channels have served this country or the House well by providing us with only five minutes of speaking time to deal with all the G1 matters in defence. Unlike my noble friend Lord Lancaster, I no longer have to declare any interest as a reservist, but I have been subject to service discipline, have exercised summary jurisdiction and have once been subject to summary jurisdiction myself. With hindsight, I realise that it was rather more to do with accounting for a lost camp bed than anything I might have done wrong. However, it was in the mid-1970s. Importantly, I have also served on a court martial a few times.
I have three issues to raise. The first is about opening up the membership of the board of the court martial to certain senior NCOs of OR7 rank, which may have unintended and undesirable effects. It might sound a bit more democratic, but the board is not synonymous with a jury—it is a tribunal. Before starting their training, commissioned officers were very carefully selected for having suitable innate and learned characteristics and capabilities. Warrant officers will also enjoy those characteristics in large measure, and they are already permitted to be on the board. It was only when I became a major and a company commander that I dared to suggest to the RSM that he might do something differently or better. My worry is not that a staff sergeant or equivalent might be too lenient but rather the other way: he or she might not have much sympathy or understanding of a weak or poor-quality serviceman. He or she might also lack the wider knowledge and education of an officer or warrant officer. Furthermore, they may lack the capability of standing firm against a judge advocate who advocates a relatively severe punishment against the wishes of the board, a point touched on by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
My second issue relates to Clause 7 and follows on from the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others, including the noble and gallant Lord, who raised the issue of suspicious deaths, rape and sexual assault and any related investigation, prosecution and litigation. I do not believe that the service police or the court martial system are well placed to deal with these matters, as some arise so infrequently while others are extremely difficult to investigate and determine. Moreover, there will always be a suspicion of a cover-up, no matter how unfounded the suggestion is. It would be much better to hand these matters over to a Home Office police force immediately, or as soon as possible, and then exclusively use the civil criminal justice system.
My final point concerns inquests related to deaths on overseas operations. The lawyers, who members of the Armed Forces absolutely love, would argue that we need the inquest system to identify what has gone wrong and prevent a repetition. I suggest that that is a delusional view. If there is a technical failure leading to death, especially with ECM matters, the feedback loop can operate within days. If it is an equipment, tactics or training issue, that weakness is fed back into the training system and to the staff. The idea that an inquest, taking place perhaps 18 months later, is going to add to or improve the process is ludicrous. All it would do is to tie up the staff to no useful effect. As I told your Lordships during the debate on the Chilcot report, the attention paid to each individual fatality incurred on operations is inversely proportional to the number of such casualties.
Media reports of those inquests are an absolute gift to our opponents, who can use them to encourage their own members to take the risk of making further attacks on our people and our friends. These reports could also create a lack of confidence within our own servicepeople and the wider public. I am afraid that the hard fact of life is that “hot” overseas military operations are bound to involve fatalities and serious injuries. The other hard, delicate and unpalatable fact is that the victim—or his or her comrades—is sometimes, sadly, the author of the tragedy. Quite understandably, and for obvious reasons, the MoD and the staff will never make this clear at any inquest. Therefore, there is little chance of the inquest coming to the correct verdict in many of these cases.
I intend to return to these issues at a later stage and will provide strong support on the Clause 7 issues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in rising to speak to the Armed Forces Bill, I can only contextualise our debate, as so many other noble Lords have, with the dreadful events in Afghanistan and the continuing desperate efforts of people who have supported and served with our Armed Forces to escape the country where their lives remain in severe danger. I acknowledge the impacts, as so powerfully outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of these events on so many who have served there recently and who have served there previously. I share concerns expressed by many noble Lords about inadequate funding and levels of services for veterans and current servicepeople, particularly mental health services.
Many noble Lords have expressed concerns, which I share, about the failure of the Government to adopt the recommendation of Judge Lyons on the treatment of murder, manslaughter and rape charges, and particularly well-highlighted concerns about the management of rape and sexual assault cases. I do not feel that I have a great deal to add on that issue; the view of the House is already very clear. The statutory application of the military covenant to local government but not central government is another area in which the view of the House is very clear. Furthermore, I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place, on highlighting the issue of problem gambling. I ask the Government, as he did, whether they have at least planned an examination of the issue. To be fair, I want to commend the Government on the measure in the Bill to right previous wrongs against LGBTIQA+ servicepeople.
I want to devote my speech to raising two issues, which I do not believe that other noble Lords have raised. The first is child soldiers. It is estimated today that the number in the world ranges from 250,000 to 300,000. The United Nations has an International Day Against the Use of Child Soldiers, also known as Red Hand Day. The UK is remarkably silent in international venues on this issue, when we are outspoken on so many other related issues—and we know why. It is because we have child soldiers. This Bill is a lost opportunity to end the practice of recruiting children into the UK’s Armed Forces, as a coalition of 20 human rights organisations called for earlier this year.
I suspect that many Britons would be surprised to know that one in five new military recruits are under 18, a ratio that rises to one in four in the Army, which recruits more 16 year-olds than any other age, particularly into infantry roles. This argument has been rehearsed over many years, but we are now in a very different situation, given that continuation of education for 16 and 17 year-olds is now standard even among the most disadvantaged groups, where four in five continue in education.
Nearly one in three underage recruits leave the Army or are dismissed. They have left their education early to join up, unlike their peers, and then they are immediately out of a job and not in education. So I have a question for the Minister. Are they covered by the military covenant, and what special provision are the Government making for their obviously very high needs? Have the Government any plans for a reconsideration of the recruitment of child soldiers?
I note the disturbing figures obtained by the SNP MP Carol Monaghan that girls under 18 made at least 16 formal complaints of sexual assault to the Military Police in the last six years—equivalent to one in every 75 girls in the military. That brings me to the second main issue I want to address. Women are about 10% of our full-time military, more than 15,000 in number: a significant minority, serving in virtually all roles and functions, but still very much a minority, bringing in their different experiences from a discriminatory society, subject to particular issues in service life and afterwards. I commend the work of Salute Her in highlighting this issue and the need for specialist support services, with women veterans having experienced significantly higher rates of adverse childhood experiences than civilians: 38% of women veterans report military sexual trauma and 33% of women veterans have experienced intimate partner violence, compared with 24% of non-veteran women.
Since we are addressing the place of our military, I must also raise one broader issue, given the timing of this debate: the role of our Armed Forces being closely interrelated with our arms industry. Indeed, we are speaking now as we are about to see arms fairs in the UK not very far from this place. Our military is working with our arms industry to pump weapons out into a world that is already awash with them. This weekend I will be joining many on the streets to protest and call for an end to such promotion of a dangerous industry that threatens the security of all of us.
I think there is one final question—I suspect that the Minister will not have this in her briefing, but I hope she might consider responding to me afterwards in writing. In that industry since 2008, export licences have been allowed for £150 million-worth of weapons to go to Afghanistan. Can the Minister tell me how many of those weapons are now in the hands of the Taliban—and useably in the hands of the Taliban?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the Bill and paying tribute to the Armed Forces, but I do reflect that, while we make a tribute to the Armed Forces, during the time of Covid the Government made tremendous efforts to get people off the streets. I claim no great role in that, but I did notice the huge number of ex-military personnel who are homeless, who felt left out of society, who were sleeping on the streets and who were part of that homelessness.
I must also say that, as someone who has had a fair amount of dealings with the United States and its legislative assemblies, we pay far less attention to our military than they do in the United States. To be an ex-soldier in the United States is an honourable situation. To be an ex-military person in Britain is something that is referred to from time to time with warm words but seldom followed up very effectively. So one thing I hope can come out of the Bill, the covenant and what follows, is a more humane look at the need to deal with post-service life as well as service life, and to face up to the problems that one gets.
If we are running a military operation, we should be clear what we are doing. We are operating a killing machine. The main purpose of an army is to go and kill people, and, if you bring people into that sort of situation, you get throwback in the sense of not only post-traumatic stress disorder but enormous pressure on people and the way in which they see the world. We have to face up to that. I spent a long time, as some noble Lords know, in the European Parliament and I was for some years vice-chair of its Security and Disarmament Committee. We used to go to NATO and, when it existed, the Western European Union and talk to people from all over Europe. It was very clear, talking to some of our Nordic friends, that they did not want to get their soldiers anywhere near military action that would involve killing the opposition—and they did not want it for quite good psychological reasons. I make this point because I think we sometimes romanticise this, saying “Oh, yes, Tommy soldier, great person”. I cannot remember the quote, but Kipling made it and we all know it: sometimes we love them, sometimes we don’t, but mainly we forget them. I think we need to remember that.
We also need to come to terms with the fact that the whole nature of warfare is changing. While 100 years ago the idea of mass killing was accepted—“Over the top you go” at Ypres or the Somme—that would never now be acceptable. Time has moved on. I predict that we are coming to the end of military operations as we have known them up to now. Afghanistan may well turn out to be the last big operation of its kind, and maybe we are moving forward to operations where drones and targeted killings are much more the case. Let us be honest: it is much easier to sit in a bunker in Lincolnshire and destroy someone on the ground in the Middle East than it is to face them across 300 yards or 300 metres of desert.
So I put it to the Minister, not as part of this Bill but as a consequence of this Bill, that we need to come to terms with how we deal with ex-service personnel, many of whom have severe mental problems partly caused by the situation in which, you can say, they have put themselves, but actually in which we have put them. We owe a duty of aftercare, and if there is one thing that Covid taught me, it is the huge number of people in society, on the streets, who come from a military background. I was actually shocked to learn how many, as a percentage, there were. I notice my good friend opposite—I am not sure whether I am allowed to call her a friend—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who lives in Cambridge, the same city as I do. Much of my evidence came from there, where the Government gave Cambridge City Council money to get people housed and people were still on the streets. I spoke to some of them and went round with some of the welfare workers, and I discovered a shocking level of mental incapacity that we also need to tackle.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am the last Back-Bench speaker in this important debate and I will confine myself to one clause, Clause 18, to which some reference has been made but which I would like to talk about a little more fully. Clause 18 redresses, as far as is possible, the hardship and suffering inflicted in the past on gallant servicemen who happened to be homosexual. I speak not only for myself but also for my noble friend Lord Cashman, who cannot be in his place today, and for our indispensable colleague, Professor Paul Johnson of York University, who has a fuller understanding than anyone else of the laws which, over the centuries, created hardship and suffering for homosexual servicemen.
Five years have passed since the three of us called for the action which Clause 18 will at last now authorise. Back in 2016, during the Committee stage of the Policing and Crime Act, which became law in 2017, provision was made through amendments passed in this House to grant posthumous pardons under certain conditions to individuals convicted or cautioned for certain offences that have now been swept from the statute book. I pointed out in December 2016 that the legislation would not make adequate provision for the Armed Forces. Pardons were made available for offences now repealed under civil law going back to the famous Henrician statute of 1533, but for service offences only the period since 1866 was covered. It goes without saying that all families who want justice for homosexual forebears or relatives should have the same possibilities of redress made available to them.
Some improvement was made in the final stages before the 2017 Act became law. Posthumous pardons for naval personnel were extended back to 1661, but in the time available it was not possible for Professor Johnson to locate all the relevant statutes under which homosexual servicemen suffered for so long. After additional work had been carried out, further legislation to accomplish what had been left undone in 2017 was drafted in the form of two Private Member’s Bills which the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, introduced in this House. Clause 18 represents the completion of a long process for which my noble friend the Minister and her officials deserve sincere thanks. It has been a formidable undertaking. The clause covers a period in which some 300 separate enactments, comprising the annual Mutiny Acts and Marine Mutiny Acts as well as numerous iterations of articles of war, regulated the Army and Royal Marines. We do not know how many servicemen were convicted or punished for engaging in same-sex sexual conduct which would be lawful today. Whatever the number, a posthumous pardon will, so far as is possible, acknowledge and address the grave injustice done to them and wipe the stain of that injustice from their memory.
I would like to say that Clause 18 ends the matter. Unfortunately, it does not. These posthumous pardons cover only those convicted of civil offences under service law. Many Armed Forces personnel were convicted under specific service discipline offences, such as the offence of disgraceful conduct, for engaging in consensual same-sex acts which would be lawful today. Again, we do not know the number, but it is substantial, and for every one of that number a career was damaged or destroyed. Service discipline offences are not covered by the current pardon and disregard schemes first introduced in 2012. Why should the brave people harmed by them be excluded from such measures of redress as have been belatedly devised to help restore the reputations of the unjustly condemned? I intend, therefore, with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, to table amendments in Committee to address those further historical injustices.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches as from the Opposition Benches, I support this Bill. As we have already heard, this is the once-every-five-years Armed Forces Bill, following very swiftly on from the annual Bill to ensure that the Armed Forces continue and quite swiftly on from the overseas operations Bill. In recent weeks and months, we have therefore had the opportunity to talk quite frequently about the Armed Forces and as much about our duties to them as about theirs to our country.
I welcome this Bill and certain aspects of it in particular, but as many noble Lords have pointed out, there are some aspects which could go further and some aspects on which we will certainly move amendments. Some will be probing and others very much will not be—they will seek to change the Bill.
While this is in many ways a welcome Bill, which clearly has support across the Chamber—with the partial exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who had a few more caveats than the rest of us—there are two areas where we will want significant change. The first is service justice and a change to Clause 7, while the other is aspects of the Armed Forces covenant.
I do not propose to rehearse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford; the reason I asked him to open for the Liberal Democrat Benches was because I knew that he had the expertise to talk about military justice that I absolutely do not. Please take it as read that I am in complete agreement with everything he said, and that is very much the Liberal Democrat position. Any amendment that my noble friend proposes we will support, but that very much fits with comments that we heard from across the Chamber, including from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
There are questions about why one aspect of the Lyons review was not brought into this Bill. If the Minister is unable to give satisfactory responses on why military justice should differ from civil justice in the areas of rape, murder and manslaughter, a series of amendments will be brought forward. Whether that is in the form of the inquiry proposed by the noble Lord on the Labour Benches or of a series of explicit amendments, something needs to be done to ensure that everybody receives justice—the women who, as my noble friend Lord Thomas pointed out, currently do not receive justice or the service people against whom the allegations are brought. If incorrect or poor decisions are made, that clearly is not right either for the perpetrator or for those against whom offences are committed. We need to ensure that justice is brought for everybody.
I want to talk in particular about Clause 8 and the Armed Forces covenant. Before I do, I pay tribute in his absence to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for their efforts on posthumous pardons. We obviously welcome Clause 18 and will listen to the amendments that they will bring forward.
A key part of this Bill, and where it differs from previous Armed Forces Bills, is the focus on the Armed Forces covenant; all Members are committed to it but there appear to be questions about how far it goes. It is obviously welcome that it is being put on a statutory footing, but what good does that do? As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, implied, there are no clear legal implications from the duty to have due regard in the areas of health, education and housing. Can the Minister tell the House what that might mean in practical terms?
The phrase “due regard” sounds good and legalistic, but what does it mean in practice? We can say to service personnel who are looking to their future, “It’s fine. The Armed Forces covenant is enshrined in law. The local authority will have to give due regard”. However, if the local authority says, “We have no funds—we can’t make any difference. We’ve paid due regard, but the Covid crisis has left us almost bankrupt. We can’t do anything”, what will central government do about that? I say as somebody who was on Cambridge City Council as a portfolio holder, including for customer services and resources for some years, that there is a tendency for Governments of whatever political persuasion to give duties to local authorities. They may give a small amount of money, but it never covers the cost of what is required.
The areas in the Bill on the Armed Forces covenant are very much ones where local authorities are already under pressure. What will the Government do to ensure that local authorities and public health bodies will be able to do anything more than pay lip service to the duty to have due regard to health, education and housing? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, veteran homelessness is a significant issue. What support will local authorities be given to deal with that aspect of the covenant? A lot more work needs to be done in the Bill on those areas, and I propose to table amendments on the financial aspects.
However, as several other noble Lords have pointed out, we see the duty to have due regard only at the local level, not at the national level. What assessment have the Government made of creating a duty for themselves to pay due regard to the Armed Forces covenant? Are there particular departments of state that could be looking at the Armed Forces covenant? Should those educational duties be on local education authorities or should the Department for Education be doing something? What is happening at the UK level? What should be happening at the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland levels?
In addition to the aspects on the face of the Bill, like my noble friend Lady Brinton I raise the issue of PTSD—a very particular aspect of the health, particularly mental health, areas of the Armed Forces covenant. This puts it very much in the context that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about in his opening remarks, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. This Bill must be seen in context. We can see that context in a general way or a very specific one. The general way is, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, sought to do—to say that this has been a military disaster and that we in the West are being laughed at. There is a case for looking at the UK’s role in Afghanistan and our role with NATO, but I do not believe that that is for this debate or this Bill. There are lessons to be learned, but they are not issues that we can deal with in this Bill.
What we can do is think about the veterans of Op Herrick and Op Pitting and the service men and women who have been involved, because we have a duty to all of them. As my noble friend Lady Brinton pointed out, the danger is that recent events in Afghanistan are triggering our service veterans, who have in many cases been on several tours of duty there. Can the Government commit to putting more resources into ensuring that PTSD can be treated, and that veterans and current service personnel can be looked after as quickly as possible?
I have no service background, but in the last three weeks I have talked to people who have been involved with the UN, the British Council and our Armed Forces. Talking to people with hands-on, personal experience of those who are currently at risk in Afghanistan is incredibly moving because they are so concerned about the people now at risk of losing their lives—people they have worked alongside and who have worked for them. They feel a personal responsibility, in the way that we as a country and the Government, as responsible for the Armed Forces, all have a duty to the service personnel, as well as to those we are evacuating from Afghanistan.
My final plea is for the Government to think about extending the Armed Forces covenant to those who have come out of Afghanistan under ARAP, and maybe even those who come through the second tier. If that is to be done, I make a further plea on financing. We have already heard the impassioned pleas from my noble friend Lady Garden about widows’ pensions—a very small number, but it would make a huge difference—but the Government have said they cannot do things retrospectively. We have also heard impassioned speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Bilimoria, about the Gurkhas. If we have not been able to look after those people, we will not be able to look after those who will come from Afghanistan, unless we put the resources in. Could the MoD please think about that? If we do not do that, Operation Warm Welcome will be merely warm words and will not deliver. We owe it to our service men and women, and to those whom we are liberating and bringing back from Afghanistan, to ensure that we give them the warmest of welcomes. We must honour our service personnel, as we all owe them a great debt.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, demonstrating not only the wealth of service experience in our House but how all Peers want to work together to get the best for our service communities. Personnel, veterans and their families are a source of great pride for our country and their professionalism is respected across the world. I know many will join me in thanking them for their past and ongoing service, especially those who have been involved in the evacuation in Afghanistan in recent weeks.
As my noble friend Lord Coaker outlined at the start of the debate, we will seek to improve this legislation. We support the Bill’s main principle and welcome steps for the creation of a legal duty of due regard to the principles of the covenant and the implementation of elements of the Lyons review. I have been struck by the cross-party support for the issues my noble friend outlined at the start of the debate: widening the scope of the legislation to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed; ensuring a two-tier Armed Forces covenant is not created; including central government on the list of public bodies which must take on the new responsibilities; and giving civilian courts jurisdiction in matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK.
As we have heard, these priorities reflect the main calls and concerns from service charities. The Royal Air Forces Association said the Bill misses an opportunity to enact the Lyons recommendations, the Naval Families Federation called for widening of the Bill’s scope to include all aspects of the Armed Forces covenant, and the Royal British Legion stated that the list of public bodies subject to the due regard duty should be widened to include national government. We are listening and responding to service charities, so why are the Government not?
The Government have not maximised this legislative opportunity to fix other important issues which continue to blight personnel and veterans. These focus on investigations, visas for Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans, an Armed Forces representative body, and examining dismissals and resignations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
First, we have heard throughout the debate that issues surrounding repeated and shoddy investigations remain. Noble Lords tried to settle this in the overseas operations Bill; there was a clear consensus in this House that the Bill, now an Act, did not do what was promised to protect British personnel serving overseas from vexatious legal claims and shoddy investigations. There was cross-party support for a duty of care to support troops facing investigation, as well as for conditions to be set on investigations to ensure timely, not time-limited, investigations. I remind the Minister of her words during ping-pong, when she gently encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, not to press his duty of care amendment, saying that if he was to
“bring back this amendment in the Armed Forces Bill … this House will no doubt debate the issue further. I look forward to continuing these constructive discussions”.—[Official Report, 28/4/21; col. 2347.]
So here we are. I hope the noble Lord will be inclined to bring back this amendment, which we strongly support.
Next, the Government should have made provision in the Bill to stop Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans being subject to eye-watering fees to remain in the country they have served. Under the current rules, Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK after having served for at least four years. It means that someone with a partner and two children could face a bill of almost £10,000 to stay in Britain. We believe that this is dishonourable, unfair and certainly no way to repay their bravery and sacrifice.
In May, the Government announced a consultation that would waive visa fees for those who had served for 12 years or more, but this would apply to just 20 of the 200 non-UK personnel who left the regulars in 2020. Commonwealth service personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence and we owe them a debt of gratitude. However, the extortionate visa fees have left many non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and being abandoned. Therefore, in line with calls from the Royal British Legion, we will bring forward an amendment that would mean that Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans who have served for years would pay just the cost price for an indefinite leave to remain application.
It has been clear for some time that the Armed Forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses during the Committee stage in the other place reinforced this, since Armed Forces personnel have endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade and concerns about the service complaints system remain. We will therefore explore whether the time is right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay. To be clear, this would not be an equivalent to a trade union for the Armed Forces, and it would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the Armed Forces. The body would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues and would be similar to models in the United States and Australia.
We are also saddened to see that the Bill does not include a clause requiring 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. Homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until 2000, when the ban was lifted by the then Labour Government. During the ban, many were dishonourably discharged or forced from the service, losing access to pensions and benefits. Some were also stripped of medals that they had earned for their service. Along with the practical impacts of this discrimination, such as the loss of pension, it also caused significant challenges for mental health and well-being. We deeply regret the treatment of LGBT+ veterans under the ban. As organisations such as Fighting With Pride, Stonewall and the Centre for Military Justice have said, we must do more to identify those affected and consider what further compensation might be appropriate. We will therefore seek to amend the Bill to force Ministers to consider the restoration of ranks, pensions and other forms of compensation to honour appropriately those who have served our country.
That is, in a sense, a summary of the position we will take on these Benches, but I ask the Minister to take away three ideas. First, our Front Bench found little reason to disagree with most of today’s speakers; there is consensus across the House on a wide variety of issues. Secondly, at least five speakers were concerned about the failure to embrace all the Lyons recommendations, particularly those relating to murder, manslaughter and rape. Thirdly, no less than 10 Members spoke about their concerns about the covenant. It if comes to Divisions, the Government will lose. I hope that they will start straightaway to think about how they might meet this House’s concerns so that we can work through concessions, not government defeats.
There is much to be commended in this Bill but there is also much to be put right. This type of legislation comes along once in a military session. Let us seize this opportunity. Let us work across parties, including with the Government, and improve the lives of our service personnel, veterans and their families.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by quoting my immediate predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who said that this has been an excellent debate. He is absolutely correct—we have heard many thought-provoking contributions. What has left a lasting impression on me from this afternoon’s proceedings is the many impassioned speeches made on behalf of our Armed Forces. I thank your Lordships for that warmth and affection, and for the cross-party support of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who opened for the Opposition, of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and from the Cross Benches. That attitude and those contributions reflect the deep and abiding affection and support that our service men and women, veterans and the broader service community enjoy in this House and beyond.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, we should also remember that a tremendous contribution has been made over decades by our Commonwealth forces and veterans. Bringing it right up to date, my noble friend Lord Trenchard rightly reminded us of the role of our reservists in Operation Rescript, so there is much of which we can be very proud and certainly much for which we are very grateful. In turn, this mirrors the desire of your Lordships to make certain that this Bill can deliver measures that have a profound and far-reaching benefit to those who guard and shield the nation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, support for this Bill is strong and widespread. I appreciate the interest shown and the questions about certain measures and wider issues. I will address as many of your Lordships’ concerns as I can in the time available.
I was interested in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. One was perhaps predictable, because her assiduous work on behalf of war widows is, rightly, widely respected and acknowledged. Her plea for war widows, for whom she so tirelessly advocates, is heard. I can say that there is a desire to find a solution and all avenues are currently being explored; I use the word “currently” advisedly. I hope it will be possible to report further on that in the not- too-distant future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, also asked about overturning decisions of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. That ombudsman is of course independent but, as with other ombudsmen and ombudswomen, their recommendations are taken seriously but are not in themselves binding. However, I was interested to hear the noble Baroness’s contribution.
I also want to deal with one or two important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, which I noted down. In character, the noble Lord raised a multiplicity of thought-provoking and important issues, and I will look at Hansard and endeavour to respond to him. He referred to the Gurkha hunger strike, which I am pleased to say has now come to an end. My colleague the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, and the Defence Secretary, will meet Gurkha welfare groups shortly to discuss all welfare concerns. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was also concerned about that.
I was not surprised to find that a lot of the discussion this afternoon concerned the covenant. There was widespread acknowledgement that placing it in legislation is good news; indeed, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern rightly identified the important message that this sends to our Armed Forces, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. However, I certainly noted the concerns articulated by a number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
In response to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern on why the legislation will not apply to central government, I would say that government is held to account by Parliament and the purpose of the covenant duty is to raise awareness among providers of these public services of how service life can disadvantage the Armed Forces community in accessing these key public services. The MoD is fully aware of issues that impact the Armed Forces community, and we work with other departments and organisations across not just government but the United Kingdom to raise awareness, to access concerns—as best we can—and to help facilitate the resolution of problems. The MoD and central government more widely are already held to account in the delivery of the covenant by the statutory requirement to report progress against the covenant annually to Parliament. That will remain a legal obligation. I realise that that will not satisfy all noble Lords, but I shall anticipate with interest how your Lordships who are concerned about the omission of Governments—indeed, I think it was my noble friend Lord Astor who specifically mentioned the Scottish Government—explore and broaden out these genuine issues.
As in the other place, a number of noble Lords have argued that the scope of duty for the covenant is too narrow and that it should be broadened beyond housing, healthcare and education. We have chosen the scope of the duty carefully and in consultation with the Armed Forces community because we know that these issues will make the greatest improvements to family life. Indeed, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lancaster for recognising that. Significantly, of course, the Bill contains provisions for us to expand the scope into other areas through secondary legislation at a later date. I was asked for an assurance that this will be reviewed regularly. I am happy to give that assurance: the scope of the provision will be reviewed regularly. This is not the end of our legislative effort; it is the beginning.
A number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and a number of others, claim that the new legal duty is not strong enough. They are concerned that creating a legal duty “to pay due regard” to the principles does not go far enough. I know there has been talk in the other place from the Opposition Benches of needing to set “measurable national standards”. I think our challenge throughout this has been one of striking a balance. On the one hand we wanted to ensure delivery against the covenant principles, but on the other we wanted to avoid the sort of prescriptive approach that puts bureaucratic barriers in the way of practical delivery. Your Lordships will understand that when we are dealing with constituted local authorities which are entitled to a degree of government autonomy to make their own democratic decisions about what they wish to do, and with devolved Governments who have legislative competence to deal with delivery of these policy areas, we have to be very careful that we are not setting down a prescriptive approach which could be provocative, inimical and, in that respect, fairly unhelpful. I assure your Lordships that public bodies were consulted extensively, and our decision also reflects the diverse nature of public services across the country, but the Government will monitor responses and we are obliged, as I said earlier, to submit an annual report on the covenant to Parliament.
Predictably, the issue of the service justice system invited significant and extensive comment. I was pleased to hear noble Lords refer to the important reviews of the service justice system. I, too, have considered the reviews of His Honour Shaun Lyons and Professor Sir Jon Murphy, and it is their recommendations that underpin the improvements to the service justice system that we are taking forward in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, with his considerable experience in this field, raised this issue. He sought a further explanation about why the Government were adopting the particular course they have chosen. That was, to some extent, echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. As I said at the beginning of this debate, while we accept the need to improve the decision-making process in relation to concurrent jurisdiction, we do not believe that the introduction of an Attorney-General consent function is the best way to achieve it, because Attorney-General consent arises at the end of the investigatory process, when key decisions on jurisdiction have already been made. I find it hard to see what the attorney adds if he or she is endorsing decisions already made. If the attorney were to disagree with those earlier decisions and veto a case being tried in the service justice system, there is no easy way to transfer that case to the civilian system. This could have the undesired effect of making it difficult or impossible to prosecute the case in either system; I think we all need to reflect upon this. The Government believe they have opted for a more pragmatic approach. As I said earlier, Clause 7 ensures that decisions on jurisdiction are left to the independent service justice and UK civilian prosecutors using guidance they have agreed between themselves. I do not consider that politicians should meddle in that. It is the case that the civilian prosecutors will have the final say as to within which jurisdiction the matter will be tried if there were disagreements.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, raised three significant points to which I listened with interest: first, should Parliament approve the prosecutor’s protocol and, secondly, in the choice of jurisdiction, should there be a right of appeal? He also suggested that it must be an error that this applies only in the United Kingdom. The Government seek to go with the grain of existing non-statutory arrangements. There is an existing non-statutory protocol between service and civilian prosecutors, and putting it on a statutory basis will bring clarity and transparency. On the specific points the noble and learned Lord raised, I suggest that there is no need for parliamentary approval for this type of protocol because this follows the precedent for the statutory Code for Crown Prosecutors, and that is not subject to that type of approval. On the second point, the Government see these as decisions for prosecutors. They are not subject to appeal at present; we are not looking to change that. On the third point, no, it is not a drafting error that it applies only to the United Kingdom. The purpose of this provision is to guide how civilian and service authorities within the United Kingdom manage these matters. Overseas matters are different—not least that they are often governed by a status of forces agreement.
I have endeavoured to explain why the Government have not just pulled this out of the air. Careful thought has been given to these proposals. I think it is worth reminding ourselves that the current situation was established by the Armed Forces Act 2006; that is the legislation that Parliament approved back then. I appreciate that that was under a Government of a different hue but, none the less, Parliament approved it and established jurisdictional concurrency by allowing murder, manslaughter and rape in the UK to be tried as service offences. It is that legal principle that the Bill supports, and that is why it is drafted as it is.
A number of your Lordships raised the comparative statistics on conviction rates between the service justice system and the civilian criminal justice system. I have to say—and I have looked at this—that I do not think it is possible to make a meaningful statistical or data comparison between the service and civilian justice systems. The service justice system review makes it clear that it is not possible to make accurate comparisons of outcomes in the systems as the relatively low number of cases and the small database in the service justice system mean that variances have a disproportionate effect on percentage values, which can subsequently lead to false conclusions.
A number of your Lordships referred to the House of Commons Select Committee report, which the MoD is currently considering; we shall publish our response shortly. On some of the criticisms which were levelled by your Lordships about the efficacy of the service justice system dealing with rape and serious sexual offences, we are confident that the service justice system provides an effective and fair system of justice for the men and women in the UK’s Armed Forces. It is interesting to note that the forces themselves do not report a lack of confidence in the system. The latest continuous attitude survey showed that 64% of the service population thought that the service justice system was fair, which compares with around 69% of the civilian population who think that the criminal justice system is fair. I am merely offering to your Lordships some basis for the approach which the Government have chosen.
A number of your Lordships raised the very important matter of mental health and mental health support: the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke movingly about this, and the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, referred to it, as did my noble friend Lord Balfe. It is correct that as our service personnel return home from testing operations, there is little doubt that in future years, sadly, an increasing number of veterans may suffer from mental health issues.
The MoD is committed to the mental health and well-being of our Armed Forces personnel and recognises that service life can cause stress. All Armed Forces personnel are supported by dedicated medical services, including mental health support. The MoD works with the single services, the Defence Medical Services and other stakeholders to promote mental fitness, prevent ill-health and try to reduce stigma. A lot of work has been done in that respect, of which I think many of your Lordships are aware.
I emphasise that an online mental health fundamentals course is available to all Armed Forces personnel, and since 2021 an annual mental health briefing is mandatory for all Armed Forces personnel. The MoD provides a 24-hour mental health helpline for Armed Forces personnel and their families, delivered by Combat Stress. That has been one of the most important developments in recent years. Togetherall allows Armed Forces personnel access to its 24-hour staffed digital forum and the Samaritans delivers bespoke workplace training and a peer support pocket guide providing guidance on how to talk to and support colleagues struggling to cope with mental health.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who sought information about resource. From the information I have available, in 2020-2021, NHS England provided £16.5 million for veteran-specific mental health services, which increased to £17.8 million for 2021-22. In addition, the Government are also accelerating a new NHS England high-intensity mental health service for veterans who have acute mental health needs and are in crisis.
I refer to yesterday’s announcement that additional funding will be allocated to a range of projects that will increase capacity in mental health charities. There will be a £5 million boost to help increase the user-friendliness and accessibility of services and better signposting of veterans to the range of services available. I hope that that reassures your Lordships that this is an area in which we are determined to do our very best and that we endeavour to support our veterans in every way we can.
In the time remaining I will address specific points that were raised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, is not with us. He explained to me that an urgent domestic matter has commanded his attention, requiring him to leave early, and I thank him for his courtesy. He raised important points, and, although he is not here, I will address them because they concern the courts martial.
His honour Shaun Lyons in the service justice system review concluded that there remained the need for a separate service justice system. The court martial system largely follows the Crown Court procedure, and the Bill takes the court martial system closer to that civilian system. While it is true that the Bill retains the possibility of 2:1 majorities, the intention is that three-member panels will deal only with less serious offending, and serious offending will be dealt with by six-member panels. His honour Shaun Lyons considered but rejected the possibility of voting being announced; voting is not currently published.
My noble friend Lord Lancaster raised the fact that the Armed Forces Act 2006 no longer applies to Gibraltar. I am aware that this is an issue which my noble friend dealt with extensively when a Minister in the Ministry of Defence. While it is true that the 2006 Act no longer extends to Gibraltar, the Bill contains an important provision on Gibraltar. Clause 19 confirms that Gibraltar legislation can apply the Armed Forces Act 2006, which means that Gibraltar can make provision so that the Royal Gibraltar Regiment can make use of the UK service justice system.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, raised the important and interesting issue of what I would describe as a statutory spring clean: could we make future Armed Forces Bills more straightforward, easier to read and to understand? As regards spring cleaning, that is a kind of floor-to-ceiling job with the curtains included as well, so I undertake to have a meeting with the noble and gallant Lord to discuss those issues further.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, asked whether we have figures for interpreters returning to this country. During Operation Pitting, between 15 and 29 August up to 5,000 Afghan locally employed staff and families were relocated under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. Prior to Operation Pitting and between 22 June and 14 August, a further 2,000 were relocated, and in the last six weeks 7,000 locally employed staff and families were evacuated in total. These are the figures I have at the moment. Obviously, they may change on a day-to-day basis, but we have all been aware of the noble Lord’s herculean efforts to keep this matter at the forefront of the attention of government and the British public, and I pay tribute to him for those efforts.
My noble friend Lord Lancaster and the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Bilimoria, raised the matter of visa settlement fees. We recognise that settlement fees may place a financial burden on some serving personnel wishing to remain in the UK. The Defence Secretary has met with the Home Secretary to consider how we could offer greater flexibility in the future. As was indicated, a public consultation was launched on 26 May 2021, which closed on 7 July. We are currently analysing the feedback from that consultation and we shall respond in due course.
My noble friend Lord Lexden raised the very important matter of Clause 18, and I am grateful to him for mentioning the significance of that clause. He rightly mentioned Professor Johnson and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I wish to use this opportunity to pay tribute to their incredible efforts to bring Clause 18 to fruition, and I think the Chamber would wish to acquiesce in these sentiments.
Finally, an interesting contribution, if slightly not in the mainstream, came from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She referred to “child soldiers”, which is a term that few of us in this Chamber recognise—it is certainly not one that the Armed Forces recognise. We have a very healthy cadet programme where young people, on their own admission, have marvellous opportunities and thoroughly enjoy the experience, and that seems to be a very positive initiative in this country.
The Armed Forces covenant covers those who have been in regular service. It applies to all service personnel and veterans, and a veteran is a person with at least one day’s service. On the noble Baroness’s specific question about export licences, I refer her to the Department for International Trade, because that is its responsibility.
In conclusion, I thank everyone for their valued contributions. If my memory serves well, back in February I said to this House during the debate on the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order that I anticipated an interesting and lively debate on this Bill. In that regard, I am certain that none of us has been disappointed. I have enjoyed the debate and found it stimulating. I look forward to the detailed scrutiny we shall give the Bill in Committee, and I commend it to the House.
Armed Forces Bill
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 42-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Oct 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Baroness Goldie
“(3A) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) In the case of proceedings where the number of lay members would (but for this subsection) be three, a judge advocate may, in accordance with Court Martial rules, direct that the number of lay members is to be four.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a judge advocate to direct that a Court Martial should comprise four rather than three lay members. Court Martial rules will set out the circumstances in which such a direction may be made.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join you in Committee this afternoon to discuss amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. Without further delay, I shall speak to group 1, which comprises government Amendments 1, 2 and 4 as well as Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, dealing with the constitution of the court martial.
Clause 2 will fix the number of lay members on a court martial board at either three or six. The amendment will give judge advocates the power to direct that a fourth lay member be sworn in to what would normally be a three-member court martial board. The court martial rules will set out the circumstances in which such directions can be made. If a four-member board loses a member, it will be able to carry on with the remaining three members and reach a verdict.
We are making this amendment because the Covid pandemic showed the need for greater flexibility in the service courts as board members were taken ill or had to self-isolate, particularly following the “pingdemic” earlier this year. This measure is a practical arrangement that seeks to future-proof the service justice system against this type of situation, or any other unforeseen circumstances that may arise in future. It will introduce flexibility to the system and ensure that more trials are effective and that victims and witnesses are not subjected to delays in the system. If we do not make the amendment, when a panel member is lost from a three-member board, the only options open to the judge advocate would be either to adjourn the proceedings until that lay member is available again or to halt the trial altogether. This would introduce an unwelcome delay to the administration of justice, which would especially affect victims and witnesses, and in some cases could actually mean that a retrial was required.
The approach that we have taken is based on the current legislation for the court martial. When a trial is likely to last more than 10 days in the UK, or five days when overseas, there is an existing arrangement whereby the judge advocate is able to direct that there should be one or two more members than the current minimum number of lay members for a trial. Where a four member-board remains in place until the end of the trial, at least three members of a board of four must agree on a finding. If it is reduced to three members, at least two out of three must agree.
We have consulted the Judge Advocate-General on this amendment, and he supports it as a means to improve service justice system efficiency and provide flexibility to deal with unexpected events in future. I hope that your Lordships agree that this is a sensible measure that will allow the court martial to continue to operate in difficult times and prevent unnecessary delay for victims and witnesses of crime.
I turn Amendment 3, which would create a statutory requirement for the judge advocate to determine the appropriate sentence alone, having consulted the military lay members of the board. This would reverse the current position whereby the military members of the board and the judge advocate together discuss and vote on an appropriate sentence.
Interestingly, the change sought by noble Lords is not something that His Honour Shaun Lyons recommended in the service justice review. The Armed Forces community is different from the civilian community and it is important that we recognise that. It is obviously the one with which we are familiar, but it is a very different environment within the Armed Forces community.
The board votes on sentence because it is best placed to fully appreciate the context of the offending, the background of the offender and the deterrent effect of any sentence on the wider service. Moreover, some sentences, such as demotion or detention for corrective training, are specific to life in the services. The board has the expertise to judge whether they might be appropriate or effective.
It is worth emphasising that members of the military are governed by a more stringent set of rules and restrictions than those of us in civilian life. These rules are designed to maintain discipline and promote operational effectiveness so that they can get the job done. Many of these additional rules and restrictions to which service personnel are subject apply regardless of whether they are on or off duty. An in-depth understanding of these rules and the context in which they apply form a key part of reaching an appropriate sentence.
To give a simple example, a civilian turning up late for work in a supermarket does not have the same impact on operational effectiveness as the same situation with a marine engineer on a nuclear deterrent submarine that is about to leave port. Members of the Armed Forces will have a broader and deeper understanding of the implications of this type of behaviour.
I reassure noble Lords that the sentencing process is already subject to stringent legal controls and oversight. The court martial is required by law to have regard to the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which must be followed by the civilian courts. It can depart from these guidelines only if this is justified by the service context.
The Judge Advocate-General also issues guidance and sentencing for the service courts. The judge advocate makes the decision on sentence with the board, so everyone involved is fully aware of the relevant legislation and guidelines. Judge advocates also regularly sit in the Crown Court and bring that experience and expertise to the deliberations of the court martial. Further judicial oversight is provided by the Court Martial Appeal Court, made up of judges who sit in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
The current system is both legally sound and ensures that sentences take account of the service context. This amendment would not add any significant legal safeguards to those that already exist. It would move the emphasis away from the court martial being a part of a service justice system in which discipline is maintained by and for the Armed Forces and service personnel. It also diminishes the importance of the service context in sentencing and places a barrier between the service person being sentenced and those with whom they serve.
I hope I have managed to explain fully why the Government have a reservation about this amendment. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw it, and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for seeing me and my noble friend Lady Smith yesterday, when we had a full and fruitful discussion of these issues. I very much support the thrust of this Bill, in particular, bringing the service justice system up to date and having majority verdicts at the heart of it.
Sentencing is a difficult and technical business. I suspect that I am the only person in this Room who has actually seen the judge in a case in which I was appearing put on a black cap and sentence my client to death. That was in Hong Kong. He was not actually executed but it is a solemn moment. Sentencing in the old days used to follow the verdict but not anymore. In any serious case there is an adjournment for sentencing to enable the judge to consider the sentencing guidelines, the pre-sentence reports, the technicalities which he or she must say in the sentencing remarks, the statements of relatives and the public interest in the whole matter. A balancing exercise is carried out.
Importantly, the guidelines may give the recommended range of the sentence, but the judge has to consider the aggravating and mitigating features of the case, which will increase or decrease the recommended sentence in the sentencing guidelines. If I can give an illustration, because it is apposite for next Saturday when Wales play the All Blacks, in rugby, a referee, with his touch judges or assistant referees and the television match official, will discuss something that might have happened. They talk together and they have the advantage of a replay of an incident from various angles so that they can actually see what happened, which does not happen in a court. But it is the referee who takes the decision, not the people who assist him in his decision.
In the court martial system, it is the panel that takes the decision on the sentence with the judge participating and advising. It is only if the board are equally divided that the judge has the casting vote. To take another example, in the magistrates’ court it is the decision of the magistrates, as advised by the clerk, who may or may not be legally qualified. The judge advocate is not a clerk advising; he is central to a trial. He controls the proceedings. He gives directions to the board and rulings, including dismissing the charges altogether, as happened in the 3 Para case in Colchester in 2005. There is an anomaly as well: if the defendant is a civilian subject to service discipline and thereby liable to court martial, the judge advocate sentences alone.
Of course, the panel could and should advise on any particular military facet of the case, but from my experience it should not be assumed that the members of the panel have any direct front-line operational experience comparable to that of the defendant before them. They might have, but there are many units and many roles in which modern British forces are involved. Very frequently, the officers on a court martial do not have anything like the same experience as the defendant and the pressures he has been under. On the other hand, the judge, who sits regularly as judge advocate in a military court, has considerable experience of the operational conditions from the cases that come before him.
Under the current system, an officer or warrant officer is summoned to be a member of the board, probably with no or limited experience of courts martial, save for the president. He might never have been near a court or a court martial, but he becomes a judge with very considerable powers. He will be given the responsibility of determining sentence in a difficult case. That is a power that has never been given to civilian juries in the history of the common law. But it can be only history which retains this unique power for the board in courts martial. Perhaps it is a throwback to when there were no civilian professional judges, but, as I said in opening in my remarks, we have advanced so far. The civilian judge advocate is so important to the system.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, in the light of the very full observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I want to add three observations. First, over the years the practice of sentencing has become much more complicated and difficult. From the early 1980s onward, the way in which you sentence in the criminal courts has been the subject of guidance from the Lord Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It was then followed by the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Now it is contained in very complicated and detailed documents drafted by the Sentencing Council.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I will contribute briefly. I will not say this every time, but of course I start by declaring my interests as a serving member of the Army Reserve. I support the government amendments; they seem a sensible measure, as my noble friend the Minister described them. While I understand the thrust of the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on Amendment 3, I want to air a brief concern about the potentially diminished role of the lay members.
With minor offences that come before the court martial, the intent is very much that we wish to keep service personnel in the service. Indeed, MCTC in Colchester is designed very much to do that. Only if you are sentenced to more than six months do you have to leave the service, I think. For many soldiers who have been through that centre, a common theme has been that they come out better soldiers; when I say soldiers, I also mean airmen and sailors.
What really worries me is that we used to have three single service Acts, which were merged under the Armed Forces Act some time ago, but the three single services remain very distinct. Under the Levene review, we have delegated responsibility, which was originally intended solely to be a financial delegation to the three single services but in reality has become a policy delegation. Despite an effort by the MoD to regain that under unified career management that means that, for members of the Armed Forces at the same point of their career, a certain sentence may have a disproportionate impact on them depending on which service they are in. Although any judge-advocate may well know the system well and be very experienced, I am not sure that they would necessarily have the detail of the single service to apply to their judgment.
I accept that it is quite possible, however unlikely at this time, that a senior warrant officer or officer on the court martial would not have front-line experience; I am willing to bet that almost all of them have, because of recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am willing to bet that there are not many judge-advocates who have front-line experience.
It is important that lay members continue to play an active role. I am concerned that, in what is proposed, we are moving away from the defendant being able to look lay members in the eye, knowing that their peers will play an active role—through first-hand experience and being able to compare their own careers with those before them—and be part of the sentencing process.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, as we begin Committee on this important legislation, I stress to all sides that we must use this opportunity to improve the lives of, and protections and support for, personnel and their families through legislative change.
Her Majesty’s Opposition stand firmly behind our brave service personnel and their families, and we strongly believe that the law should be on their side. That is why we support the principles behind the Bill and welcome the steps to create a legal duty to implement the principles of the covenant and the key elements of the Lyons review. But we all know that there are many, both in and outside the House, who believe that the Government could and should go further. Therefore, I repeat that our main priority will be to work with other parties to improve the legislation.
Our forces communities are themselves determined that the Bill should not be a missed opportunity, so the amendments tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition and those we are supporting, we believe, are designed in good faith to reflect the cause of personnel, their families and the organisations which represent them.
The first group of amendments, which focuses on Clause 2 and Schedule 1, concerns the constitution of the court martial and implements recommendations from the Lyons review. These include fixing the size of court martial boards at three or six, and a move to qualified majority verdicts instead of the simple majority systems currently used.
The Bill’s Select Committee stated that the
“use of the simple majority verdict had been criticised by some, including … Jeff Blackett, and Liberty, who proposed that unanimous verdicts be sought in the first instance.”
The Government have subsequently tabled Amendments 1, 2 and 4, which they say enable the court martial to remain validly constituted if a three-member board loses a lay member—for instance, due to illness or the need to isolate. The Minister has said that she is making a small adjustment to future-proof the system of three-member boards to allow for the appointment of a four-member board for longer cases.
Why are these amendments suddenly needed? How often does the Minister think that a four-member board will be appointed? What consultation process has there been for this change? Is there a large enough pool of board members to support this change? When she says that four-person boards are for longer cases, what type of cases does she mean? Will it be just about time, or some other characteristics of the case?
It was also helpful to hear the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, behind Amendment 3; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to these points. With that, and with a careful reading of Hansard, we will be considering our position on this amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
First, I thank your Lordships for your contributions. I will start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who I think was principally concerned with the government amendments to which I spoke. Regarding the decision to introduce a flexibility to allow a three-member board to become a four-member board in order to keep operating, I cannot give him a list of statistics, but I can tell him that Covid brought into very sharp relief the potential fragility of the system if people sadly become infected with Covid or are required to isolate. That made it clear that we need to introduce some change to accommodate these extraordinary circumstances, which we may continue to encounter. None of us is clear when life as we once remember it may return, so I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we regard this as a sensible introduction of a flexible measure to ensure, importantly, that justice continues to be done for victims and that they are not in the unenviable position of a case having to be dropped because the court martial is not properly constituted.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, inquires about what type of cases it is about and how often we expect a full-member board to sit. I suggest that the type of case is probably a matter for the court martial rules to determine. One would imagine that, in looking at the composition and constitution of a court martial, regard would be had to the type of offence being tried, the number of witnesses available and that an appropriate judgment would be made on that basis, but the court martial rules would be more specific about that aspect.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—I hope he finds my pronunciation semi-acceptable; I was tutored by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on how to deal with it. I think the points made are important. I detected a fundamental difference of opinion between me as a government Minister within the MoD and the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the philosophical or essential character of what we are dealing with in the service justice system. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, eloquently touched on that.
We have to remember that life for a service community and all those within it is very different from life for those of us in a civilian community. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gave us an interesting analogy of the forthcoming rugby match between the All Blacks and Wales. The comparison that he attempted to draw was that the referee may consult the touch judges as to what has actually happened but the referee will ultimately make the decision. In response, I would say that the referee and the touch judges are not living in a close and mutually supportive community such as the Armed Forces community, where not only are they all living in close proximity to one another but in service they are mutually dependent on each other. The rugby players, the referee and the other officials are not dependent on each other for either disciplinary or operational effectiveness. There is a temptation to make that comparison but I do not find it completely analogous to what we are discussing within the Armed Forces.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said that sentencing is complex, and I do not think anyone would dispute that. Training is needed, and in court martial appeals you have the expertise of the judges. I would respond by saying that we do have expertise; the judge advocate has expertise, and sentencing guidance is available to all on the panel. As I indicated in my preliminary remarks when addressing Amendment 3, there is a great body of expertise and information available. Where we differ is on a fundamental point, a point that noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, made well when he said that there has to be an understanding within the service community about how a punishment or a penalty is to be appropriate to what has happened. That is in the wider context of what the offence, transgression or omission actually meant to the broader community. As I pointed out in my speech, there is a world of difference between a supermarket worker turning up late and a marine engineer being late for a nuclear submarine that is just about to leave port.
The concern was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that in a civilian court you can adjourn for sentencing. The Judge Advocate General can also adjourn the court martial to consider sentencing if the panel needs time to get further information on the defendant, and pre-sentencing reports are used in the court martial system.
I have endeavoured to address the points raised. I have a note here saying that apparently the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked who we had consulted in the court martial. We consulted the Judge Advocate General, the Service Prosecuting Authority and the single services.
I submit that the government amendments proceed from a sensible and widely understood base and that Amendment 3, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is well-intended but inappropriate for incorporation within the service justice system.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I admire the loyalty expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who is concerned about weakening the identity of the single service, and I understand it. It was an argument advanced in 2006, when the wholesale reform of the court martial system took place, bringing the three service justice systems together into one—something widely accepted at the time. I remember at that time proposing an amendment that the board should be drawn from the three services and not from one to deal with a particular defendant. After the rather heated debate, I met an air marshal, a field marshal and an admiral of the fleet in the corridor. I said that I hoped I had not upset them with the suggestion, whereupon one of them, who shall be nameless, said to me, “You should be shot”. So, at that time, the same sentiments were widely abroad and discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that the defendant should be able to look into the eyes of the jury and know that he is among people who understand him. There have been some very serious trials recently involving policemen. Should a policeman be looking into the eyes of a jury composed of senior policemen because they will understand the pressures that he is under? It is just not the British system to take particular people in the community, who may have loyalties one way or the other, and have them tried by their peers in that sense.
I welcome and understand what the noble Lord said, but I think we have gone beyond that. Indeed, the report by Sir Richard Henriques that we will be discussing later takes the matter even further, with the defence units that he proposes, and which the Government now propose, where any concept of different services is abandoned.
I return to my argument on the judge sentencing. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for his support on that, and shall return to it when we get to Report, because it is an important matter of principle that should complete the considerable reform of the criminal justice service system that we are undertaking. I shall not move my amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civil court unless, by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service, the Attorney General consents to trial by court martial.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration – are tried in civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried by court martial by reason of complexity involving the service.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, prior to 2006, charges of murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the United Kingdom were tried in the ordinary courts, rather than by court martial, when a person subject to service discipline was involved. At that time, in 2006, the Labour Government gave concurrent jurisdiction to courts martial to try these matters. The Conservatives opposed the change, as did the Liberal Democrats. I suggested at the time that the purpose was merely to bolster the credibility of the new courts martial system, which was being totally reformed.
I am not aware of any murder or manslaughter case involving a person subject to service discipline that has been tried by court martial arising out of incidents in the United Kingdom, but rape and sexual offences are very different. A significant disparity in conviction rates in rape cases where courts martial have been employed was found by the statistics before Judge Lyons: 16% were convicted in a court martial, as opposed to 34% of defendants in the ordinary courts. That is an unacceptable disparity.
It was referred to in Sarah Atherton MP’s Defence Sub-Committee report published in July and entitled Protecting Those Who Protect Us. Paragraph 175 of that report, which is now only three or four months old, says:
“We do not believe that the problems highlighted by the Lyons Review in the handling of sexual offences in the Service Justice System have been fully resolved. While we accept there is a limited set of circumstances where it may be appropriate for the Service Justice System to be used for UK-based sexual offences (for example when there are offences both in the UK and overseas), this must require the Attorney General’s consent. There may be other compelling reasons, such as the young age and vulnerability of the victim, when it is more appropriate for the civilian justice system to hear these cases. In our view, the fact that a UK case may involve a victim and a perpetrator who are both Service personnel is not a sufficient reason for the Service Justice System to be used.”
Sarah Atherton’s report went on to call for the implementation of the very first recommendation of Judge Lyons’s review—he made a large number of recommendations—in which he said:
“It is … recommended that the Court Martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when these offences are committed in the UK, except when the consent of the Attorney General is given.”
The Atherton report also called for the implementation of the Lyons recommendations to place all domestic violence and child abuse cases in the civil jurisdiction when committed in the UK.
Why is that recommendation from Judge Lyons, repeated by the Defence Sub-Committee chaired by Sarah Atherton, a Conservative Member, resisted? The Government may now feel that reverting to the pre-2006 position may be seen as a vote of no confidence in the court martial system. I do not believe that to be so, and I do not think it a proper justification. In 2006 it was not seen by the Conservative Party to be a sufficient reason to support the Labour amendment of this historical common-law position that service personnel who commit offences in the United Kingdom will be tried in the ordinary courts.
It is a breach of the basic principles that a person subject to service law is still a citizen and that a British citizen has a right to be tried for serious offences by a randomly selected jury of 12 ordinary fellow citizens. That was a point strongly urged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, at Second Reading and in the extension of that in his amendment linked to this, which I fully support. I shall leave it to him to explain the purposes of that. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the first of these amendments but, before explaining my reasons, my primary purpose in tabling these amendments is to try to ensure the proper morale of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and the standing in which they are held by the public. One has to bear in mind always that in the modern criminal justice system, where successive Governments have ensured that the victim or complainant —I will use the words interchangeably—is put at the heart of the system, that is taken fully into account. One can see this so often. For example, recently, the public look at the way in which the police investigate and they will look at the way in which people are tried. Are they being tried fairly and is there a proper balance?
It is important to realise that what I seek is, first, to achieve a much greater degree of certainty in relation to these matters and, secondly, to try to ensure that the Armed Forces are not subjected to yet more complaints about the nature of the justice system. It is evident from the report of Judge Shaun Lyons, a most distinguished Naval Judge Advocate—and a judge who is in charge of a major London criminal court—that there ought to be the change which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has so carefully gone through. I fully support his amendment but, in view of the difficulties that arise, it is necessary to go a little further.
If I may explain, I want to deal with two issues, one of which, the position of crimes committed overseas, I regret to say the Minister was not happy about last time. However, there is a serious issue and I shall take a moment or two to refer in detail to the law on this subject. The other is in relation to crimes outside the ambit of the proposal to deal with sexual offences, murder and other serious offences.
It is right to begin by recording that, particularly in relation to the most terrible crimes that have occurred, one can go back a very long way. I have seen many of these crimes myself, although the first of them occurred one year after I was born. It concerned the involvement of a battalion of the Scots Guards in an event at a place called Batang Kali during the Malayan emergency. That case was not investigated properly at the time; it is now abundantly clear and there remained a residue, which went right down to the early 2000s, about the way in which it had been approached.
In more recent times, there were the cases involving Baha Mousa and others in Iraq. There was the Blackman case, to which I regret I will have to return, and there were the points raised by one newspaper last Sunday. From what I have seen in each case, regrettably, one has to be sanguine about the fact that such conduct may well occur again. We have to deal with it in a way that is fair and just, while maintaining the morale of the Armed Forces.
We shall turn to looking at investigation when we come to consider the report of Sir Richard Henriques but, on this amendment, we are concerned with jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction to try a case? Jurisdiction is not like deciding whether you prosecute. It goes to the fundamental position of the court and, over the centuries, it has always been the position that Parliament controls the jurisdiction of the courts. As I mentioned at Second Reading, it is also a fundamental principle that for certain offences there is a right to trial by a jury of 12 people. It is very difficult to see any justification whatever for taking that right away from one of Her Majesty’s citizens. It is fundamental; one has only to read Lord Devlin’s classic work on the jury to realise how core this principle is to our justice system.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my contention that Clause 7 should not stand part. It is a probing amendment. First, may I say that I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister’s opening remarks about the differences between members of the Armed Forces and others? This always needs to be foremost in our deliberations on disciplinary matters. Indeed, I stressed this point when the House was considering the Human Rights Bill in 1998.
At Second Reading, I expressed particular concern that the effect of this new clause would be to make a vital part of disciplinary procedures for the Armed Forces subject to devolved treatment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has mentioned. The Armed Forces are a national, United Kingdom force. Any devolution of their oversight or control from central government does not make sense.
I further expressed concern about the protocol which this clause alludes to but is silent on what it should say in detail. Other noble Lords have been suggesting what should be included. Clause 7 suggests that protocols are to be agreed in the three legal jurisdictions between the Director of Service Prosecutions and, as we have heard, the equivalent civilian prosecutors in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will they be identical? Certainly, the Director of Service Prosecutions cannot ensure that. He is expected to deal with three separate individuals, all of whom have the right to the final word. One way to finesse these two points might be for the Director of Service Prosecutions, guided by an agreed protocol, to be given the final word.
New Section 320A(7) requires the Secretary of State and others to be consulted but it is not clear that even the Secretary of State could reject the proposed protocol. Surely the Bill should be much clearer than at present about these possibly different protocols. It may be argued that any divergence of view would, in practice, be unlikely to arise and “common sense” would prevail. However, this is far from ensuring no divergences. I pointed out at Second Reading that there is no guarantee of how the three civilian prosecutors would view handing serious criminal military cases about which there is already a wide divergence of view, as amendments before this Committee make clear.
Finally, while the pressures to move service justice under separate independent scrutiny and handling have steadily increased following the major disciplinary changes of the 2006 Act, the impact of excessive delays in civilian courts should not be overlooked. As the NAO recently reported:
“The backlog of cases in the criminal courts is likely to be a pervasive issue for several years”.
Surely, swifter justice in a court martial—there are only about 400 on average every year and very few are in the serious category—might be welcome to the accused and to any victim of the crime.
To quote Gladstone:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
What is fair about adding long, excessive delay to court proceedings for the accused service individual? The service interest may also be damaged if an accused is acquitted, having spent months or years away from their post awaiting trial. Is there not a case for the accused to be allowed to elect for court martial trial if that were significantly to speed up the process?
The integrity of the court martial system remains essential to the Armed Forces. It may at any time be deployed globally; it should not be diminished. I fear the judgment of noble and learned opinion favours more use of civilian courts.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, the two proposals before the Committee in this group have the same aim: so far as serious crime is concerned, to make the procedures similar to those in our criminal courts. The first amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by two other members of the Committee. We are indebted to him for his historical analysis, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for his unrivalled experience, which will be of great assistance to the Committee. The second proposal is the new clause tabled under my name and that of the noble and learned Lord; I am grateful for the support I have received.
My proposed new clause does not go so far as Amendment 5, but imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to commission a panel to review the courts martial and, in particular, to consider bringing courts martial into line with specific Crown Court procedures. I would be content if either amendment or my proposed new clause were accepted. On reflection, I find the mandatory terms in Amendment 5 very attractive.
I first raised my concern about the court martial system for serious offences as far back as 2016. The Ministry of Defence moved with unaccustomed speed to set up an independent inquiry led by ex-Judge Advocate Shaun Lyons. We are indebted to it, and to Ministers, for their speedy action. It was the case of Sergeant Blackman, already mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, that aroused my interest; many in the Committee will recall the case. My experience of courts martial is limited. I was a young officer newly arrived in BAOR, and it became known to alleged wrongdoers that there was a barrister in their ranks. To my adjutant’s dismay, there were other priorities, with the South Wales Borderers preparing to go to Malaysia. Little did my potential clients know how wet behind the ears I was, not having yet done a pupillage. Apart from a few courts martial then, I had nothing to do with the system when I returned to a lifetime of criminal practice. Since then, I have kept an interest in well-published cases, both as a Defence Minister and as Attorney-General. When I put in place a protocol for various prosecuting authorities, including the military, involving the supervision of the Attorney-General, I was in fact not troubled by the military.
My proposals are not concerned with the courts martial that deal with minor offences; they concern only some of the most serious offences. However, a verdict of 2:1 in any case does not fit particularly well the standards and needs of the 21st century. I propose that serious consideration be given to bringing courts martial that are trying specified serious crimes into line with ordinary criminal procedures. I do so for the following reasons. First, our Armed Forces—I am proud to have served in them—are today much less separate from ordinary civilian life than in the past; indeed, some civilians are tried by court martial. Secondly, our forces are mostly based in the United Kingdom and live in, or close to, civic communities. They are not the press-ganged sailors and soldiers of bygone centuries.
Thirdly, trials of serious cases are comparatively rare. Perhaps the Minister can remind us how many murder, manslaughter or rape cases we had in the last year. I think we are all concerned with the rate of conviction in rape cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned. Such trials should be presided over by experienced judges who try such cases day in, day out. Even then, only a minority of the circuit judges are licensed to try cases such as murder or rape. Although I was a Crown Court recorder for many years, with the powers of a circuit judge, I would not be given such responsibility. Those who are licensed to try such cases are very experienced. I know that sometimes, maybe fairly regularly, Judge Advocates sit in our criminal courts, but that does not mean they are licensed to try such cases.
Fourthly, there are now well-hallowed procedures in our criminal courts for trial and the taking of verdicts. I confess that I had my doubts when the proposal for majority verdicts was first put forward, but long experience at the criminal Bar has proved beyond doubt that the procedures are both just and efficient to render justice without undue delay. In such cases, the judge should be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice and the jury should comprise 12 jurors. Soldiers, sailors and airmen should have the same rights as ordinary citizens. The number 12 was hallowed by the eminent jurist Coke many centuries ago.
When a criminal jury now retires to consider its verdict, the judge gives a direction that it should seek unanimity. It is then given considerable time to achieve this. Only when sufficient time has elapsed and there appears to be no prospect of reaching such a verdict is the procedure put in place whereby a verdict by fewer than 12 of its number can be accepted. It is told again to try to achieve unanimity, and only then, when it fails, is a verdict by at least 10 of its number acceptable. The numbers required for a majority verdict speak for themselves; it is the overwhelming majority. When the verdict is delivered, the numbers are announced publicly in court—quite different from a court martial.
The Minister has sought to justify a 2:1 verdict as arising only in minor offences, but such a verdict can have serious consequences for the individual. I have my doubts about a practice in courts martial that I am told of, whereby the most junior member of a court martial is expected to announce his decision first, and so on in the military hierarchy. If I am right—I may be wrong—it could be quite intimidating, in particular for a junior member sitting for his first court martial.
If our proposals are not accepted today, I hope the ground has been laid for the inevitable reform next time the legalising of our Armed Forces by Act of Parliament is considered. Every soldier, sailor and airman should have the same right as an ordinary citizen of a trial by a jury numbering 12.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start my first contribution in Committee by thanking the Minister and her officials for the courteous briefing and the informed and courteous way in which she has conducted the Committee and this work. It is extremely helpful to us all, so it is worth publicly thanking the Minister for that and for the way she has tried to engage with us.
I had a great speech written—well, I do not know if it was a great speech, but I had one written—in support of Amendment 5. However, one of the important things that the Minister does is to try to respond to the debate, and I want to pick up on what I think have been some brilliant contributions to this discussion. We all support a covenant. We all support the Armed Forces Bill and what is in it. We all believe that this is a step forward, we are all pleased that the Government are putting a legal duty on local authorities to do this, and so on. We all agree with the Bill so the discussions taking place here are about how we can make it even better, and to get the Government to clarify some of their thoughts and put their intentions on record for people to read.
I was particularly moved—I say this with trepidation because I am neither a lawyer nor a military person, but I think it is important in these debates to speak from where the public would come from—by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said: this element of the Bill, on how the military deals with sexual offences and some of the most serious crimes, goes to the heart of the confidence that the public have, or do not have, in the Armed Forces. You can see that as an analogy with the police at present; I come from a police family so I understand that issue. Surely that is the point that the Bill is getting at.
I know the Minister will point to the reforms that are going to be made, the welcome introduction of the tri-service serious crimes unit and so on, but we all agree that some of the things that we read about—and I intend to quote some because it is important to put some of the statistics before the Committee—are truly shocking. We saw a particularly horrendous example in our papers at the weekend. I know that the vast majority of the military, whether they be privates, sergeants, officers, Royal Navy, airmen or soldiers, want this dealt with as well.
The challenge for us in the Committee is how the system that we set up will best reassure the public that these matters are being dealt with—how it will help with the reputation of the Armed Forces but also allow service men and women to get the justice that they too deserve. That is the purpose of Amendment 5, which I put my name to and was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
If it is not to be done in the civilian courts, which is what the amendment is pushing for, how will we know—and how will the public be reassured—about some of the things that they are reading about, where terrible, unacceptable sexual crime, rape and murder take place and have no consequence, or where people do not believe that the system works and therefore do not come forward? That is the challenge. As noble Lords have said, the amendment is all about jurisdiction. What jurisdiction would best deal with these offences in the way that I have outlined?
It is not just me. Judge Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy recommended that the most serious crimes should be removed from the military justice system; the recent report by the Defence Select Committee recommended the same; and Johnny Mercer MP, who was a Defence Minister, has now said he believes that should happen. These are serious bodies of opinion supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as well as other issues that have been raised.
I know much of this will come forward when we talk about the tri-service serious crimes unit, but I want to put on record the recent Times article that I was particularly struck by, which said:
“Complaints of rape and sexual assault made by girls under 18 in the military have risen tenfold since 2015, Ministry of Defence figures reveal.”
That is shocking—and it is from the MoD’s own figures, unless the Minister says that the Times has got it wrong. The article says that
“girls under 18 in the armed forces have made 41 complaints of rape and sexual assault to the military police since 2015 … equivalent to one report for every 40 girls. This makes girls in the armed forces more than twice as likely as their civilian counterparts to report a rape or sexual assault to police.”
The amendment is intended only to pose the question, given the statistics being reported, of whether a change to the jurisdiction would, first, give more confidence to people to come forward; and, secondly, give more confidence to the public, because such horrific incidents and cases, which we all abhor, are best dealt with by the civilian courts.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I beg the Committee’s indulgence. This is my first time back in this Room, and I am afraid I got my body language wrong. I was hoping to come in before the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Perhaps I may briefly speak in support of Amendment 5. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, as you would expect from legal people, were very carefully balanced, but I shall speak unashamedly in favour of the victims. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the Times report about under-18s to which I was going to refer. I shall refer to another Times report from April, when 4,000 servicewomen and veterans came forward to speak about their concerns.
We know that there is a problem with prosecution of the crimes of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence in all areas, but it is obvious where we want to invest our effort. If we do so in the civilian courts, that is where the real speciality and ability will lie. I and others have framed this as an issue of violence against women and girls, but it is also worth thinking about male victims of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault, and how difficult it may be for them in that context.
This will be my only intervention in Committee. Your Lordships’ House is not taking recess for the COP 26 climate talks, although we recently took recess for the party conferences, which happen twice a year. I apologise that I will not be able to take a full part, but I hope to come back on Report.
Finally, there was a great deal of discussion of this at Second Reading, and I was expecting more discussion of Amendment 5 today, because this is something that we really need to see change and progress on.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
First, I want to thank your Lordships for what has been a profound and stimulating discussion. I am conscious that much of the debate has centred on fairly technical legal issues, not least in particular reference to the criminal legal system, both for civilian and service justice systems. I shall do my best to address the issues raised.
By way of preface, in response to points notably made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, we all want a service justice system that is fit for purpose. I think we are all absolutely united in seeking that objective, and that is exactly what the Bill aims to achieve. That offers me the opportunity to say to your Lordships that much had to move at pace, involving a considerable volume of material. I apologise for that, as I know that you have all been deluged, first with the publication of the Henriques report and then the tabling of government amendments to create the defence serious crime unit.
While I think that these are regarded as very positive developments, I understand that it has put pressure on everybody to try properly to assimilate and understand the report and amendments. I took the view that the amendments did not make a lot of sense without the report, and I had to navigate my way through a fairly tangled jungle of clearances to make sure that we could get both things out into the public domain. I felt that it was important that we did that; it seemed to me that the amendments the Government were then able to table to the Bill in respect of the defence serious crime unit provided reassurance and perhaps answered some of the questions raised today. I think that gives a clear signal of intent about the desire to ensure, as a number of noble Lords have observed this afternoon, that the criminal justice system is absolutely fit for purpose and as good as it can be.
I will now address the amendments in this group. I shall do that beginning with Amendment 5 and then move on to Amendment 6—and then I shall speak to the intention expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, to oppose Clause 7. Finally, I shall speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that there has to be confidence in the justice system, and I totally agree with that. He rightly referred to recent statistics, which are deeply troubling—and I make no pretence about that. As he probably knows, there has been ongoing work in the MoD over the last decade to try to address cultures and behaviour, to provide people who have been treated wrongly—whether it is the victims of unacceptable behaviour or of a criminal offence—with the confidence to come forward, and to try to reassure those within our Armed Forces, not least our women, that this is a good and safe place to be. That has been a Herculean struggle; it has been a huge challenge, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. What I can say is that there has been systematic progress of very good work.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the Commons Select Committee report, in which the MoD very readily engaged—and the Secretary of State took the courageous and absolutely correct decision to allow serving women to appear as witnesses before the committee. I thought he was absolutely right to do that, as it is the only way in which we can get evidence out into the open. Very troubling evidence was heard, and some of it was utterly appalling. What I drew comfort from was that, to the end, a very high percentage of the women who gave evidence said that they would recommend a career in the Armed Forces to other women. I felt encouraged by that. There was recognition that, while unacceptable practices and attitudes have existed in the past, there is a discernible recognition that the direction has changed.
In relation to the stats to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred, they are troubling, but they do tell us that people are now coming forward. One problem that we had was that people would not come forward; they did not have the confidence to do that—and that to me strikes at the very heart of the probity and integrity of, and the confidence that people should rightly have in, the system.
We have been and are reforming the service complaints system. A huge amount of work has been done among the single services to that end.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, it might help if everybody knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is intending to participate remotely in the next group, has just arrived. There is possibly a little technical adjustment to be made so that she does not find herself inadvertently speaking in the wrong debate.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I shall leave that to those who are much more technically gifted than I am to resolve.
I say to the Committee that I absolutely hear the concerns expressed and am not giving some cosmetic response to them. These concerns are being addressed, and in many respects have been addressed. I hope that we are going to see that a much healthier climate exists within the Armed Forces.
I turn specifically to Amendment 5, which seeks to ensure that the most serious crimes as listed in the amendment are tried in the civilian courts when committed by a service person in the UK, unless, by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service, the Attorney-General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried at court martial. I realise that there is much interest in the Government’s decision not to follow recommendation 1 in the Service Justice System Review. While we accept the need to improve the decision-making processes in relation to concurrent jurisdiction, we do not believe that the introduction of an Attorney-General consent function is the best way to achieve it.
By way of background, I would like to be clear that the primary reason the service justice system was established was, as we discussed earlier today, to support operational effectiveness and maintain the service discipline of our Armed Forces. The recently published review by Sir Richard Henriques and the service justice system review by His Honour Shaun Lyons were unanimous in accepting that premise; they strongly supported the continued existence of the service justice system. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to the importance of public confidence in that system. I entirely agree: it is vital that the public and victims, and service personnel, have confidence that this system can act adequately in respect of what it is asked to do.
Sir Richard Henriques stated in his review, published just last week, that he agreed with the Government’s decision to retain unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape. Sir Richard, a retired High Court judge, found the service justice system to be fair, robust and capable of dealing with all offending. This endorsement of capability echoes the conclusion of the process audit conducted as part of the Lyons review, which previously found that the service police have the necessary training, skills and experience to investigate any crime. The service police, prosecutors and judiciary are trained, skilled and experienced, while independent prosecutors can be trusted to make appropriate decisions on jurisdiction.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who raised the issue of statistics on conviction rates. It is not possible to draw a meaningful statistical or data comparison between the service justice system and the civilian system, because the small database in the service justice system means that variances have a disproportionate effect, which I think everyone can understand. That can lead, frankly, to false conclusions.
We are confident that the service justice system provides an effective and fair system of justice for our Armed Forces. What we recognise, as in the very point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is the public confidence issue and that it can be maintained only if the service justice system not only has but can be shown to have the capability to deal with all offending fairly, efficiently and in a manner which respects and upholds the needs of victims. That is why we continue to implement the recommendations of the Service Justice System Review, some of which are measures in the Bill. This will ensure that the service justice system is more effective and efficient and provides a better service to those who use it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
On the point about circuit judges being allowed to try these very serious offences, will they be of a similar calibre to those judges who are licensed to try rape and murder cases? Maybe the Minister will not be able to deal with this now, but perhaps she could later.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble and learned Lord makes a good point. Obviously at the heart of this is making the service justice system as good as it can be. Clearly I cannot give a specific undertaking as to what criteria would be adopted in making such a selection, but I hear what he says and it will be given careful consideration. I cannot be more specific about that just now.
I was saying that I hope the noble and learned Lord is reassured that we have considered this matter in detail, having regard, as we have been discussing this afternoon, to the military and operational environment in which our armed services function. In these circumstances, I hope he will not press the amendment.
I omitted to answer a specific question posed by the noble and learned Lord about the most junior member of the court martial voting first. I am informed that the most junior member of the court martial does vote first.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I want to ask about two matters. First, I raised the point about judicial review but I also raised the serious issue of concurrent jurisdiction relating to murder committed overseas, and I gave the references. I would be grateful if the Minister could reply. I would not expect her to do that now but I would be grateful if she could write and deal with these two rather important points.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I certainly undertake to look at Hansard and endeavour to frame a response to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for the very careful and thorough way she addressed these amendments. I feel that she slightly misrepresents the nature of Amendment 5. I am not suggesting that in every case the Attorney-General be woken up by the telephone in the middle of the night and come to a decision in her pyjamas. That is not quite what I have in mind, which is that serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and domestic violence should normally be tried in the civil court. There is no question of protocols: that is the normal way you go about it. But in the event that there is some very specific naval or military complexity involved—I had in mind, for example, the working of a gun in a tank that causes another person to be killed on Salisbury Plain—one could imagine that there might be a case for the authorities to say, “This has a bit of a military tang to it. Therefore, we will see whether the Attorney-General will agree, in this very unusual case, that a trial by court martial would be more appropriate, because the panel might be more used to that sort of thing.”
We are talking about murder, rape, manslaughter, domestic violence, and child abuse by serving soldiers or servicepeople in the United Kingdom. It is important that that should be realised. Normally they would be tried in the Crown Court by a jury in the ordinary way.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, raised the issue of confidence. That is what this is about: public confidence in the system of service courts. That is what is needed. I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said: people will not come forward. If you have a situation where servicepeople who complain of rape find that only 16% of the complaints result in convictions, that means that 84% of victims will have gone to the court, given their evidence and found that the defendant has been found not guilty of the offence against them. Does that give confidence, not just to the victim but to the family? They will leave the service; this is the sort of situation in which a person says, “I’m not going to stand for this. I’ve gone before a court martial; they don’t believe me.”
This is an extensive problem in the United States. Four or five years ago I gave evidence to a congressional committee in Washington on what the British system was because they were considering sexual assaults in the military over there. I was in the unlikely company of Senator Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat, and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is known to have certain right-wing views. They were all on the same side. Nothing happened. President Biden has within the first six months of his Administration set up a commission to deal with sexual offences in the military. This is a very important point and it is very necessary that we deal with it properly.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, pointed out to the judicial review that took place in the Blackman case that our protocols for overseas jurisdiction have not worked. His proposal that parliamentary approval of any protocol should underpin that protocol is entirely correct, sensible, right and common sense, because it would prevent the bringing of judicial review against whoever is in charge—the Director of Service Prosecutions or the director of prosecutions in another jurisdiction—as the protocol would have parliamentary approval.
I support the noble and learned Lord in that. The fact that it does not exist at the moment is neither here nor there; what we are concerned about is having something that does not give rise to parades and demonstrations in Parliament Square, as happened in the Blackman case. That is an important point, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, will pursue it.
Lord Coaker
“(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.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are getting used to various constituencies. I expect the Minister to come forward with Scottish towns for us to compare with Welsh ones.
This is another important group of amendments. I shall speak also to Amendments 10 to 13. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for signing up to the amendments in this group, which expand the definition of the covenant to include more policy areas. Oh, I think I can hear her speaking remotely. It is nice, because in the other place you get used to barracking, so it makes you feel a bit more at home.
We all believe that the Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. Clause 8 places a duty on specified persons or bodies to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, if they are exercising a relevant housing, education or healthcare function. However, service charities are rightly concerned that the scope is too narrow, containing nothing specific on issues such as service accommodation, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The service charities themselves have pointed out that this narrow focus could create a two-tier Armed Forces covenant.
The Government’s own press release announcing the Bill stated that it would
“ensure armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged by their service when accessing key public services.”
It stated that it would
“embed the Armed Forces Covenant into law by introducing a legal duty for relevant UK public bodies to have due regard to the principles of the Covenant, a pledge to ensure the UK Armed Forces community is treated fairly.”
That is an excellent statement by the Government, but despite this promise there is a wide chorus of concern that Ministers have failed to follow that through. Help for Heroes said that
“by limiting the scope of the legislation to Healthcare, and some aspects of Housing and Education, rather than the full reach of the Covenant, many issues of vital concern to veterans … within the criminal justice system”
could be excluded. It added that:
“The absence of social care is a significant issue”.
The Army Families Federation said:
“This limited scope will address only a small proportion of the disadvantages that Army families face.”
The Royal British Legion called on the Government to extend the Bill to cover
“employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice, and immigration,”
and the Naval Families Federation said that it would
“welcome a widening of the scope to include all aspects of the Armed Forces Covenant.”
I have tabled the amendments in this group so that the Government are able to fulfil their own promises to service communities but also to take account of the very real concerns that so many military charities have raised. Amendments 8, 10, 11 and 12 do exactly what they say: they expand the scope of the covenant in the Bill to include employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. It would be interesting to know why the Minister is opposed to that.
Amendment 13 is perhaps less explicit but has the same intention. It requires the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces covenant, again for employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. I expect that the Minister will say that the Government have chosen the scope of the covenant duty carefully and in consultation with the Armed Forces community, and that they think that these issues will make the greatest improvements to family life. Indeed, they will make some difference. However, the Royal British Legion has said that the Government have not produced any statistical or other evidence for this position and that it is not aware of any specific consultation with the Armed Forces community which resulted in that conclusion. I would be interested in the Minister clarifying that point.
The near unanimous evidence submitted to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Bill showed that those working with the covenant on a day-to-day basis are clear that the policy scope is too limited and does not reflect the reality of the issues presented or their complexity and, indeed, interaction. Evidence from users of the Veterans’ Gateway, which is part funded by the MoD, shows that finance and pensions top the list of issues raised, and the Government themselves have publicly claimed employment to be the most critical issue affecting veterans’ life chances. The legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed and that the postcode lottery on veterans’ access to services is addressed. I will be interested in the Minister’s response.
I want to pick up on one other point related to Clause 8. The Delegated Powers Committee has called for regulations defining “relevant family member” to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Can the Minister confirm or otherwise whether the Government intend to accept that recommendation? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Does the noble Lord intend to move his amendment?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I first apologise for the technical glitch. This is the first week of new remote contributions to Grand Committee. It is such a shame that we always notice the problems rather than the vast majority of smooth remote contributions. I pay credit to all the staff involved in helping those of us who are disabled Peers and can attend only remotely at present.
I commend the Minister for the principles behind the Armed Forces covenant, which are an admirable start to providing that morally binding commitment to current and past service men and women. But frankly, as these amendments seek to point out, it is somewhat patchy at the moment on the services that current and former service men and women would be able to access. Why is one function included and another excluded, when the barriers to accessing services are exactly what the covenant is trying to resolve?
Amendments 8 and 10, to which I have added my name, would add a number of functions to the relevant functions listed under proposed new Sections 343AA and 343AB. Amendment 13, to which I have also added my name, addresses how the Bill can widen the scope to other forms of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces covenant, including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has addressed very ably why this is needed, so I want to focus briefly on access to social care as one illustration.
The covenant already recognises that health is a vital service, where serving personnel and veterans can face particular problems, but social care—whether for the serving person or veteran, or for a member of their immediate family—is not. While social care is commissioned by local authorities it can, due to the circumstances of the individual, often involve a number of bodies. Some are within central government, for example on disability benefits; some are public bodies, for example health and local authorities; but some are also private, such as for those who are given a personal budget and will purchase their personal care that way. It can be very difficult and messy to navigate if you are new to it or have had to move.
Let me give an example to illustrate this point. Serving families with a severely disabled child have found it extraordinarily difficult when moving from one posting to another to transfer their child’s essential social care support, without falling off the bureaucratic cliff and having to go through reassessments in their new area, then waiting for the reports from those assessments. No services were given at all, so all help was denied them until the end of this new process. The child’s needs had not changed; their serving parent had merely been posted elsewhere. To be clear, this is not just a bit of social support every now and then. Disabled children, like the one I am describing, may have severe epilepsy or be fed with a tube, or be on ventilators some or all of the time. The help of carers at home supports the unpaid parent carer, who is already on duty pretty well 24/7.
Shockingly, the consequences of not having that help mean that a child might even be taken into care and away from their parents, not because the parents cannot cope but because one of them has been posted elsewhere. Adding social care to the covenant would protect the family and prioritise the ways of continuing the help that they are getting, when the move has made the difficulties entirely apparent.
For service men and women, and veterans, the complexities about access to services if they have mental health problems can be just as acute. Too often, we think of mental health as solely the domain of the NHS and those specialist charities such as Combat Stress, which I have been working with. The reality is that severe mental health problems disproportionately affect access to every part of the individual’s life, including discrimination in employment, access to criminal justice and compensation, and even to pensions, as well as social care. If the principles of the Armed Forces covenant are to ensure the well-being and support for current and former Armed Forces personnel, surely it cannot be possible for certain parts of the public sector to ignore it.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 65 and to Amendment 64. Like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I support the other amendments in this group brought by her and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. They have given us clear arguments why those amendments are important, and I do not think they need to be rehearsed again.
On Amendment 64, my noble friend talked about people who have come here under ARAP. She and I raised this at Second Reading, and the Minister was kind enough to take some time to discuss it with me yesterday; I am grateful for that. There is clearly a question of scope in an Armed Forces Bill such as this. To suggest that we might extend the Armed Forces covenant to people who have not been service personnel with the British Army, Commonwealth or Gurkhas might raise some eyebrows. There were certainly some questions about that around tabling Amendment 64, which is why there is a specific bit of phrasing about extending the covenant
“to cover civilians subject to service discipline”.
My noble friend Lady Brinton asked whether we have a moral duty. The answer is surely that we have a moral duty to support in every possible way the people coming to the United Kingdom under ARAP. By definition, they are arriving here under ARAP because they worked as interpreters for our Armed Forces, with other allies or perhaps for the British Council. Those who worked for the British Council are vulnerable. It is easy to assume that it is simply interpreters putting their lives on the line, but those who were out teaching English now find that their lives are under threat. It is incredibly important that we look at them, not just at interpreters—although the situation with interpreters is very important. Why bring this amendment? Clearly, the ARAP scheme is in place and remains open, but those coming in under ARAP have worked closely with our Armed Forces and potentially put their lives on the line for the United Kingdom.
Surely we owe them a duty. Given that the Armed Forces covenant is supposed not to give advantage to service personnel and veterans but to ensure that they are not at a disadvantage, so there will be many issues facing people here under ARAP that are very similar to those faced by service personnel and veterans. I would like the Minister at least to explore what provisions we can make for people under ARAP, in particular to ensure that anybody arriving under ARAP can work from day one, because most people who come here under other Home Office arrangements seeking asylum are not permitted to work initially. That is very important.
My Amendment 65 is slightly different and perhaps should have been decoupled, because it relates to the duties put on local authorities and local health authorities. The Bill talks about having “due regard” and requesting local authorities to do certain things. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that they have to have due regard, but there will not necessarily be financial provision for them to do so because they already have a duty to do certain things, so incorporating the Armed Forces covenant into law will not really make a difference. The way I phrased it may have sounded muddled, but I have been left muddled by the Government’s intention. If there is a purpose to putting the Armed Forces covenant into law, surely it is precisely to ensure that it makes a difference. If local authorities find that in paying “due regard”, now on a statutory basis, to the Armed Forces covenant they are required to engage in further expenditure, where will that money come from?
It is not possible within the scope of a Bill in the House of Lords to table a line saying, “Please give local authorities additional funds”, so we are not asking for that. We are asking for the Government to report on the financial implications of enshrining the Armed Forces covenant into law. If local authorities, housing associations and local health authorities incur financial consequences when engaging in their duties by supplying services such as social care, housing or health, we would then know that and it may at some suitable point be possible to bring forward relevant legislation. If no assessment is made, it is impossible to know the consequences.
The amendment is in a sense a probing amendment because we need to understand the real consequences of enshrining the Armed Forces covenant into law. If it is causing local authorities additional costs over which they have no say we should try to ensure that the finances are there to cover that.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group. I have no fundamental objection in principle to extending the categories as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. When I was the Minister responsible for this Bill five years ago there was great discussion of what the categories should be.
My concern—not an objection—is practical, which is perhaps the purpose of Committee. There has been some cynicism about the effectiveness of the Armed Forces covenant since we first created it, and its implementation has been patchy across the United Kingdom. Given how many local authorities are recovering from the pandemic and have been overwhelmed, I am slightly concerned that by adding all these categories now—the key word is “now”—we run the risk of overwhelming various bodies and simply adding to the cynicism that we have not managed to implement the Armed Forces covenant when they fail to implement it effectively.
My suggestion is a sensible one, though perhaps not for today, as to whether there should be an incremental addition to the categories that we put in the Armed Forces covenant. I am sure it cannot be beyond the ability of the Bill to attach dates for when categories are potentially added. I am not saying that we could necessarily sort that out today, but it may be a sensible compromise as we seek to slowly expand the Armed Forces covenant and make sure that we do not lose public consent to it being implemented effectively as we do so.
Equally, I have great sympathy with Amendment 64, having served in Afghanistan and worked closely with interpreters. There is no doubt that they were subjected to the same sorts of pressures and stresses that members of the Armed Forces were. Of course, having now crossed the line where we have rightly welcomed them into the UK, although it is a question of scope, and it may well be beyond the scope of the Armed Forces covenant to include them, I think the Government have a duty to explain how exactly, if they are not going to be included in the covenant, we will ensure their ongoing welfare.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
I must apologise for not being here at Second Reading when I was unable to come over from Northern Ireland. I declare an interest in that we are involved at my home with veterans and I am president of the Northern Ireland RFCA. Whereas it is different in England, we have not responsibility but more interaction with veterans themselves.
What worries us all is the “due regard” and how that is treated by our different and separate Administrations. I am not shining a light on Northern Ireland in particular nor asking the Minister to make any comments about Northern Ireland, where we have a special issue. However, this problem is seen as an issue by veterans. When we talk about the mental welfare of veterans, one of the biggest issues is who we are talking about. We have veterans who we know individually have mental welfare problems, but the big problem is the one that we do not know about: the vast number of veterans who have mental welfare issues but do not come forward. They do not do so for many reasons and we cannot go into them too much, but they include pride and the fact that they live with their families and do not want to admit the problem.
We know that the length of time between leaving service or being traumatised and presentation has gone down since Prince William and Prince Harry drew attention to it, from roughly 12 or 13 years to some six or seven, which is tremendous. However, the doubt as to how the covenant works and how it benefits our veterans inhibits a lot of them from coming forward. It is very difficult to admit that you have a problem and then be turned away due to a postcode lottery. Indeed, which Administration you live in can make it more difficult.
At the moment, I think the covenant is the beginning of a story and of a method by which we can support our veterans. It is not a done deal but a start. I therefore support the gist of the amendments because they would take us in the right direction, though I appreciate that some of the scope and the lack of teeth are only a start. We have to make sure that we can take it further and cover an increasing proportion of those people.
The statistics, which are roughly equivalent to American and Danish statistics and therefore correct, show that 6% or 7% of all service people—interestingly, this relates outside this business to police and other front-line services—suffer some form of mental illness, while 17% of those on operations do so. So there is a very large body of people out there, and we have to enable this commitment to the covenant and to our people to be extended.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Once again, I thank noble Lords for a stimulating and interesting debate. I appreciate the contributions, to which I have listened with care.
To set a context for my response to the amendments, I would just observe that I clearly and firmly feel that the Bill, by including the reference to the covenant and imputing to it a statutory effect, is taking us a very significant step forward. I understand the frustration and impatience on the part of some that the pace is not moving more quickly and that the reach of the definition in Clause 8 is not being broadened. However, in that context, I shall try to address the points that have been raised, all of them very worthy; in no way would I wish to dismiss them.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would widen the scope of the new covenant duty to the areas of employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. In considering how to take forward our commitment to further strengthen the covenant in law, which we have discharged in the Bill, we looked first at what the covenant has already achieved. The considerable number of successful initiatives across many different policy areas that we have seen through the Armed Forces covenant to date shows how the careful use of legislation could provide a firm basis and the flexibility for a much wider range of work to develop.
We bore this model in mind in the development of the new covenant duty to ensure it can provide a secure framework that allows scope for innovation, change and future growth. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that this is about our service personnel, our veterans and their families. In approaching this, we recognised that delivery of the functions relative to healthcare, education and housing in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would benefit from what I might describe as a more uniform awareness of the covenant and perhaps a more universal application of the principles that underpin it.
This has been difficult to encompass, as I think your Lordships will understand, for obvious reasons. The first thing I want to do is to give thanks to the devolved Administrations. They have been co-operative and helpful. I simply explain to your Lordships that even progressing the statutory import with the three areas of healthcare, education and housing has not been straightforward. It has been complex. Your Lordships will understand why. We have a range of delivery mechanisms across the United Kingdom. We have different responsible elements. We have different responsible Governments. We are trying to increase awareness across the UK and achieve a more universal recognition of the principles of the covenant in delivering services.
The question was asked: why healthcare, education and housing? The new duty is designed initially to focus on these three core functions. That not only reflects those already in statute—where there has to be obligation —but also addresses the most commonly raised issues affecting the day-to-day lives of our Armed Forces community. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who asked how we know that. It is a perfectly legitimate question. There has not been a specific consultation on that but, as the noble Lord will be aware, the covenant now embraces the MoD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. There are our partnerships and discussions with charitable entities, not least the Royal British Legion. We also discuss regularly with families, federations, local government and devolved Administrations what the needs imposed by the covenant are. I can say to the noble Lord that there has been significant experience of dealing with issues coming through to the covenant team in the MoD and their subsequent discussions with the other parties to which I have referred.
The three entities, healthcare, housing and education, seemed to be the most prominent features in that work. That is why we have focused on them. Importantly, the Bill provides for further consideration of additional areas of concern and it grants the Government powers to make any changes as a consequence. In this way, the covenant duty can effectively adapt to the needs of the Armed Forces community in the future. Future areas of concern will be addressed as and when they arise through the powers in the Bill that allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant duty, if needed, through secondary legislation. We are working with key stakeholders to establish an open and transparent process by which the scope of the legislation can successfully adapt to address the changing needs of the Armed Forces community.
We have to consider the practicalities of extending the covenant duty to further policy areas. My noble friend Lord Lancaster alluded to this. Indeed, to achieve the extension sought by this amendment would require the amendment to specify which functions would be relevant, in the way that we have defined a relevant health, housing and education function. The list of specified persons and bodies subject to the duty would also need to be amended to include the bodies which exercise the relevant functions envisaged by the amendment. That would require extensive consultation with stakeholders and the devolved Administrations to identify the appropriate bodies and functions to bring into scope.
I suggest that a perhaps wiser and better way forward at the moment lies in first working through and resolving any practical implications arising as the new covenant duty is implemented. That will give us a good indication of where amendments may be required to better meet the changing needs of our Armed Forces community in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, also raised the important issue of mental health, and were absolutely right to do so. I was asked for some detail. We are committed to enhancing health and well-being for veterans; I highlight the recent launch of Op Courage, which simplifies access to NHS England veteran services. That is among excellent work being done within the serving Armed Forces in relation to mental health, where there is far swifter and better recognition of persons who may need support and a much swifter reference point to direct those individuals to where they can get that support.
I return to the amendment. By retaining the flexible nature of the legislation, the Government hope to establish a firm legal foundation for the covenant while avoiding any unnecessary administrative burden. The new duty builds on the existing widespread commitment to the covenant, thereby contributing to a further strengthening of covenant delivery across the UK. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who specifically asked about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its recommendations. I am seriously considering its report and will undertake to update the Committee on Report.
I have attempted to explain in relation to Amendments 8, 10 and 13 why the Government have a difficulty. I hope that my remarks have been received sympathetically and have not been regarded as obstructive, but I invite the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.
Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, refers to civilians subject to service discipline; these are civilians who come within the jurisdiction of the service justice system and include groups such as families of service personnel living on bases overseas, Crown servants working with the Armed Forces overseas, or civilians on board military ships or aircraft. I understand that the amendment was actually intended to apply to locally employed staff in Afghanistan but I am required to address the amendment as scripted, although I will come to Afghanistan more specifically.
The Armed Forces covenant was designed with the Armed Forces past and present, and the families who support them, at its heart. That was in recognition of the unique obligations of and sacrifices that they make on behalf of the country in serving us. In practical terms, the covenant is focused on ensuring that the Armed Forces community gets a fair deal when accessing public goods and services in comparison with their civilian counterparts, with the aim of mitigating any disadvantage that they may face as a result of service life, and to allow special provision to be considered for those who have sacrificed the most.
The covenant is therefore directed primarily within the UK, and I do not think that it would be helpful or appropriate to include in its scope locally employed staff working for the United Kingdom Government, whether in Afghanistan or any other country. Those individuals are employed as civilians under their own bespoke terms and conditions of service within their own countries. However, importantly, the Government will take further action where necessary. In Afghanistan, we completed Operation Pitting, the biggest and fastest emergency evacuation in recent history, bringing around 15,000 people to safety in the UK and helping 36 other countries airlift their own nationals.
The whole UK Government are engaged, via Operation Warm Welcome, in ensuring that those Afghan nationals relocated to the UK are provided with the best possible support and start to life in the UK that we can give them. That comes from a variety of sources; it comes from across government departments and may involve the devolved Administrations or come from other public agencies. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that it includes assisting these Afghan nationals into work. I am informed that some ARAP people are now working in the UK as we speak.
We have made it clear that our commitment to Afghanistan and those who supported our mission there continues. Our message to those people to whom we have made a commitment is clear: that commitment to you is enduring. However, the covenant is not the appropriate mechanism to accomplish that support and help.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I refer her back to her earlier comments about the addition of functions, and her feeling that this would be an overload on the functioning of the covenant system. Perhaps these functions could still go into the Bill but be brought into force through statutory instrument at various stages in future. It seems to me that the opportunity to get them into the Bill is one that we should not miss.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble and gallant Lord knows, I have the greatest respect for him. I have no doubt whatever about his commitment to and interest in these issues. I have tried to indicate that even to get to where we have reached has been challenging and difficult. Notwithstanding all that, it has got us to a good place. It is far better to put our toe in the water, make progress in these three significant areas—and they are significant—and assess how that is working in practice. Then we can make an informed decision about whether expansion is needed and, if so, where. Is it proving a source of concern to our Armed Forces personnel and veterans? That further work will be important to establish, first, whether a need is there and, secondly, how to meet it. As I said earlier to him, that requires extensive consultation with a large variety of bodies, not least the devolved Administrations.
I should not want to give people boundless hope that we could deliver things that, although in an Act of Parliament, could prove problematic to deliver. That is my major concern. We should manage expectation. Quite honestly, we should allow this to unfold and see how it runs. We are under an obligation in the covenant to report every year on how matters are progressing, and we have the facility in the Bill to take forward expansion if that need is identified. I suggest to the noble and gallant Lord that this is a more prudent and sensible way in which to proceed.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I thank her for everything she said and for being so open-minded. However, she said that a veteran—or a veteran’s family—who goes to get help and is refused will then go to an ombudsman or through a complaints system. I think she is a bit optimistic, because veterans who have given their hearts to the country in Afghanistan and who have fought for their lives should not have to fight for this. I would rather that she had suggested a way of monitoring from the other end the refusals of help and the circumstances. My experience is that, even without mental welfare problems, veterans have given their lives to this country fighting, and they are reluctant to go public or to drag others in. We are talking about initiatives from up the chain of authority, which is monitoring and picking them up, rather than relying on our veterans to fight once again.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can understand why the noble Viscount articulates that point. If we draw a distinction between active service personnel and veterans, I imagine that our active personnel in service at the moment are more likely to be interested in health and education. I think that our veterans are more likely to be interested in health and housing, for obvious reasons.
One of the difficulties with the noble Viscount’s suggestion is that we do not know, and we have no reason to know, whether anyone is encountering problems. To take the example from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we do not know whether a parent has a problem with getting her child adequately placed in a suitable facility until that person comes and tells us that there is a problem. We are trying to ensure that they have a much simpler route to finding the solution they need because of what the Bill is doing. That is why the obligation is being placed on the delivery end. The individuals seeking the particular facility or the help actually want to go to the provider and say, “This is what I need, please can I have it?”
In the disappointing eventuality that help is not forthcoming, if that person is in service then there will certainly be help available within the armed services to support them. If the person is a veteran, there is a plentitude of help from charitable agencies, some of the Armed Forces charities and other support charities. If there were a delay or obstruction in the necessary service being received by the person who needs it, I hope that that would be very quickly picked up so that the person knows they could go to the provider and say, “You’re failing me. You’re falling down on the job. That is not good enough.” It is very difficult for anyone else to know whether that person, first, wants a service, and, secondly, has been disappointed or obstructed in trying to get it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for a very constructive reply. While she was responding, I looked again at the power to add bodies and functions in the Bill. To take up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and some of what the Minister was saying, it seemed that she was not saying that there was never going to be a need for bodies that need to “have due regard to” to be added to the covenant, but the issue is the practicality of it. From looking at the Bill, I wonder whether an appropriate amendment could come forward on Report to put a bit of meat on the bones, rather than the Bill just saying that there is a power to add bodies and functions. If I have not mistaken what the noble Lord said, maybe there could be some kind of timeframe and greater certainty, but perhaps we will be able to look at that in response to what the Minister said and the suggestion that he made. I thought that was very helpful.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for his contribution and the point he made about what “due regard” means. I hope we do not have a judicial review about that. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I know what “due regard” means. I am sure you can argue it, but I think we all know what it is supposed to mean. I will leave that to the lawyers.
I also apologise to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. As many of us will have done, I read lots of documents and Bills related to this over the weekend. I did not properly read Amendment 64, which raises a really important issue that the Minister, to be fair, sought to answer. I will read this out, because people read our affairs and they will not know what we are talking about when they read it; I apologise, but it is important. The noble Baronesses suggest that the covenant
“should be extended to cover civilians subject to service discipline who have been employed by the UK Armed Forces while on deployment.”
I think a lot of people would think that was probably already the case. The Minister, to be fair, said that of course the Government have due regard to people who had done that, because they have a duty of care, responsibility and so on, but the amendment seeks to put that into primary legislation. It is certainly something worthy of further thought and consideration. I appreciate that the Minister sought to answer this, but it is a particularly important amendment. I think that in bringing it forward, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, have done the Committee a service. That is what I have to say about the attention to detail.
With those brief comments on what I thought was, again, a helpful debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Coaker
“(za) the Secretary of State;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This amendment again applies to the covenant. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, for their support on this amendment. It seeks to extend the application of the covenant to central government. Using the test that I always use, I think people would expect that to be the case, but no doubt we will hear from the Minister why the Government seem to be resistant to it.
We all believe that the Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. The Bill creates new responsibilities for a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, to deliver the covenant, yet central government is not included. Amendment 9 seeks to change that. In practice, without it, we would create a situation, which I think sounds farcical, in which a chair of school governors, for example—and you can make other examples up—has a legal responsibility to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant, but government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, do not. I find that really strange, to be frank.
As the Royal British Legion 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. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said at Second Reading, it is
“questionable whether it will be successful without incorporating central government, with its policy responsibilities,”—[Official Report, 7/9/2021; col. 742.]
into the Bill. The British Medical Association has called on the Government to
“expand the ‘specified persons and bodies’ section under clause 8 of the bill to include … Her Majesty’s Government and Secretaries of State with responsibility for the functions specified within the bill.”
Giving evidence to the Bill Select Committee, General Sir John McColl of Cobseo said:
“I do think that there is a strong argument for the inclusion of central Government functions … At the moment, the central Government traction that we have is that there is a moral requirement for Government to comply with the Covenant. That is fine as long as it works, but in some cases it absolutely does not work.”
It should be a part of this Bill, in primary legislation.
The MoD has said, in defence of not including central government in the Bill, that it was already in many ways subject to a duty of regard to the covenant. Personally, I do not think that is enough; it is insufficient. Central government should be included in the Bill. The Bill Select Committee report said:
“The Committee notes that by excluding central government as a responsible public body, Service accommodation is not covered by the duty of due regard. The Government may wish to consider adding this as an area where the duty applies in the future.”
Again, that is just one example of the Bill Select Committee looking at this and giving a practical example of what happens if central government is not included in the Bill. With those remarks, I will leave it there. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 9. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already said, at Second Reading a number of noble Lords, including me, raised the fundamental problem with the Armed Forces covenant. While local authorities and other public bodies offering key services are listed, there is one glaring omission: central government is not required to have due regard to the covenant, and the noble Lord has just ably explained why that is such a contradiction.
The Government need to understand that in creating the covenant they have created demand and expectation. To use the closing comments by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from the previous group on my Amendment 64, if you asked anyone outside the Bill they would think that the Government were already included. That service accommodation is not included is a helpful pointer to why the Government need to reconsider.
Without the same responsibilities for central government and its services to provide the covenant, frankly it is nothing more than warm words. I am sure there are plenty of arguments to say that it should, and probably will, be covered by different parts of government services, but the point is that the amendment can remedy that. The amendment would go further than the Government want to at the moment, but if the Government do not accept that they need to have the same responsibilities as other bodies, frankly they are not truly committed to delivering the covenant.
The police covenant being proposed at the moment in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has this same lack of responsibility for central government while imposing it on other bodies. I have to say that it is beginning to look a bit worrying.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment because I think it is extremely important. The covenant with the Armed Forces is an agreement putting obligations on our country in favour of people serving in the Armed Forces and those who have served in the Armed Forces. The covenant therefore contains specific obligations, which have been listed. It is true that in practical terms most of those will be local; if one wanted some health help, normally one would get that locally. It is therefore quite natural that the local authorities have a responsibility, but there seem to be quite serious possibilities that veterans and acting members of the Armed Forces will want government help.
One illustration that came to my mind when thinking about this before Second Reading was in relation to the first Iraq war. Noble Lords may remember that there was serious concern before and as the war started that our troops might be subject to a form of poison gas that would be very damaging to them. It was suspected that it was a gas of a particular kind. Exactly what the basis was for that I did not know, but it certainly resulted in protection being handed out to many of those in our services taking part in the first Iraq war.
When the war was over, it was discovered that some people who had served in the Armed Forces were beginning to suffer from a strange, rather neurological type of disease. There was a question about whether the disease had been caused by the protection that had been given to them against the gas. The gas, I may say, never emerged, so the protection turned out not to be necessary, but the protection had been given and could have had its own effect on those to whom it was administered.
That problem, of whether it was a consequence of the prescription, was a difficult and very deep question of medical research. It took quite a long time, as your Lordships may remember, and there was some dispute among the medics as to whether it was so. That is a special illustration of the necessity for the Secretary of State for Health, for example, to be involved because you could not expect the local authority or the local health trust to be responsible for looking into that national problem.
As one approaches this covenant, one also has to remember that it has obligations. That is not just a sort of wishful thinking; it has specific obligations. When the Bill says, as I hope the Act will, “have regard to the covenant”, it means looking to see what obligations in the covenant affect me. If I am a local authority, a local health authority or a local education authority, it will be the obligations in the covenant which have bearing on my responsibility. I therefore regard it as a close legal obligation that is created by the Bill to support those in the Armed Forces presently serving, and the veterans.
As the Minister has said, of course, the nature of the help that veterans require may be rather different from the help that service people require. For example, on moving between areas, if you have medical care in one area and have to move you may well have problems registering. There are quite a lot of problems nowadays in some places for somebody coming into a district in getting on to the medical register of a practice. That kind of thing can readily arise in relation to the local authority.
I have no doubt whatever that if the local authority has an obligation in a particular way, the finance for that is required under the local authority financial provision because this is one of the statutory provisions that are binding on the local authority. I regard the Bill as putting quite a fixed and rather balanced obligation on local authorities, but I see no reason whatever why it should not include central government. It will put obligations on them only in respect of an obligation in the covenant which applies to them at a particular time. In the example I have given, it would apply to the Government when a question was raised as to whether what they had done in the way of seeking to protect our people against a gas had in fact caused such a neurological condition. You would not expect the local health authority to be able to deal with that sort of problem; it would require the considerable resources of research that this country can command to see whether it was a cause and, if so, how it could be cured.
It is extremely important that the Government—the Secretary of State, as our amendment says—should be responsible. This provision would not put any responsibility on him or her that is not already in the covenant, so far as it affects him or her. I am not obliged to do anything under the covenant, except where an obligation encompasses me. The Secretary of State would not be put under any obligation which it was not a proper reading of the covenant to allot to him or her. I very much support this amendment. I mentioned it to my noble friend the Minister in general terms, based on my example of the first war in Iraq. I hope that the sensible effect of this amendment will be appreciated and that we can get it into the Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
I endorse what the noble and learned Lord has been saying about what was known as Gulf War syndrome. Of course, I was involved in that Gulf War but after it I was also involved for many years in the investigations and the attempts to get investigations into what was known euphemistically as Gulf War syndrome. There was a great reluctance, perhaps understandably in government, to accept that there was something special here. It took a great deal of persuasion, study and effort before it became more recognised. It was that experience that makes me believe what noble and learned Lords have been talking about, and how important it is that the Secretary of State and central Government, in effect, have a responsibility which may need to be discharged in this type of situation. I hope it does not arise again but if it does, it can be dealt with at the central level.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because we have had contributions from all parts of the House—Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Cross Bench—supporting this amendment. I should be very grateful if the Minister answered the question I asked at Second Reading, which was:
“What assessment have the Government made of creating a duty for themselves to pay due regard to the Armed Forces covenant?”—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 766.]
Has the Minister had a chance to think about that so far? If not, would the Government like to think about it ahead of Report?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, again this has been a fascinating debate and I arise with trepidation when one of the contributors is my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. A number of significant points have been made and I will try to address them as best I can.
Amendment 9, as has been discussed, centres on the desire to make central government departments subject to the duty of due regard. Again, to provide some context, we designed the new duty to initially focus on the three core functions of healthcare, education and housing because, as I indicated in debating a previous amendment, these are prominent among the concerns of both Armed Forces personnel in service and veterans. They not only reflect issues that are already in statute, but also address the most commonly raised issues affecting the day-to-day lives of our Armed Forces community.
As our Armed Forces are a very mobile population, frequently moving from local authority to local authority, it is often the variation of service delivery across local areas that can inadvertently cause disadvantage. Consequently, it is vital that those delivering these key public services are sufficiently aware of the challenges faced by the Armed Forces community when accessing these services. It is right that we look at this area first.
We also took into account that central Government are responsible for the overall strategic direction for national policy and for delivering on the manifesto on which they were elected. However, the responsibility for the delivery of these functions and their impact rests at more local level. I would argue that Governments are answerable, ultimately, to an electorate when a general election comes round and, before that point, they are most certainly accountable to Parliament, and that is an accountability no Government would ever take lightly.
Senior engagement regularly takes place between the MoD, the Cabinet Office, other government departments and the devolved Administrations to drive an increase in covenant awareness across national healthcare, and housing and education policy to improve the lives of the Armed Forces community. Additionally, the Government’s delivery of the covenant is, as we all know, subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the existing annual legal obligation to report progress delivering the covenant across the UK to Parliament. This is in addition to regular parliamentary scrutiny through other channels, such as Parliamentary Questions, reviews by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and debates called by Members with a particular interest in certain aspects of defence.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern raised in support of his argument the certainly interesting event that occurred during the first Gulf War. As he explained, in anticipation that troops might be exposed to gas issues and had to be protected against that, protective equipment was handed out. As he indicated, people then suffered from a neurological type of disease on their return and tried to identify where it had come from. As my noble and learned friend said, they had not actually been exposed to any toxic gas, so the suspicion was that it was from the protective equipment. He adduced this instance in support of his argument that central government should be brought in.
I have two observations on that analogy. The emphasis on what the Government are doing in this Bill and what we have endeavoured to make possible is, first, to give the covenant a statutory impact, which is innovatory and very important; and secondly, to try to make it much clearer across the United Kingdom, for the whole panoply of services being delivered in respect of housing, education and health, how there needs to be greater awareness and understanding, and a much more universal approach to delivering these services to personnel who may be in service in the Armed Forces or veterans. That is about ensuring that, when they need services, they can access them.
The question that my noble and learned friend poses about the instance that he describes, with the reference to the first Gulf War and the particular situation that developed there, is a legitimate illustration to give the Committee. I accept that that was a serious situation, but the question running through my mind as he spoke was that surely the important thing there was remedy. This is not about people needing something, not being able to get it, and making sure that the providers of that service are much more alert to providing it; it is about a situation where, under orders of government, Armed Forces were sent abroad and then apparently—I do not know the facts myself—experienced neurological disorders when they returned, and considered that was attributable to protective equipment that was defective, with which they had been issued.
That is not a complete analogy with what the Bill is trying to do. If you ask what solution was needed, the answer, quite simply, is that those people who suffered in that way needed to be given advice and helped, and needed to find a legal solution, if that was what was available to them. I do not know what happened to that particular group of people, but I imagine that the first thing they needed was medical support, which I hope that they got. I imagine that, within the Armed Forces, there would be a concern about the manifestation of that situation and a desire to support, but the bottom line is that, if the culpable body were the Government and the MoD, if these individuals sought and obtained good legal advice the MoD would find itself, quite properly, the subject of litigation. That is how the solution would be sought. If the court was satisfied that the negligence alleged by those who had suffered was proved, remedies would follow.
I say with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay that I absolutely understand what he is driving at, but I still do not see a complete dovetail analogy with what we seek to deliver through the Bill. The situation that my noble and learned friend outlines is serious. It may very well happen in future, but the MoD is very vigilant and conscious that if it falls down on its duty to its own people it will expect to be sued—and it is. Not only is it sued and expected to provide redress but support is given to people who find themselves in that grouping. Including central government in the Bill is unnecessary. The Government are already subject to a legal obligation to report on the delivery of the covenant, and there are many and sufficient levels of public scrutiny.
Let us bear in mind that the Bill is about trying to improve the levels of awareness across the United Kingdom and a better and more universal provision of essential services for those members of our Armed Forces and veterans who need them. My problem with the amendment is that, were it accepted, we would create an obligation on central government. We cannot impose a comparable obligation on devolved Governments because that would be incompetent and not within the scope of the Bill. We would then once again create disparity rather than universality across the United Kingdom. We would have central government bound in one way but not devolved Administrations. That is not a desirable outcome.
I am not at all immune to the importance of the arguments advanced by my noble and learned friend. He makes an important point. The situation to which he refers was grave. I suggest that that can be addressed by existing means. It does not need the inclusion of central government in the covenant, which, indeed, would not necessarily have prevented the problem. The question is: how do we provide a remedy to people who have been affected by such an unfortunate development? My response would be: by providing support. Advice is available—legal advice if that is required—for people to follow through the remedies they seek. It is not necessary to bring central government into the legislation. It is much more important that we focus on what we are trying to do as a first step, make sure we get that working properly and then, as we have been discussing, consider whether there is a need to expand that provision of duty.
I am unable to agree that this amendment is either necessary or would help the situation; it could create a difficulty where one does not currently exist. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I never mentioned negligence. I am not suggesting for a minute that there was necessarily any negligence. The Armed Forces put in requirements for the people who were taking part for protection against what they thought might come. That was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Some of them took the treatment. The question was: what was the result of that? That was a question for the Secretary of State. It was him who had to look into that; it was a national question. It had nothing whatever to do with negligence or some other basis of claim. The claim was because the Government had approved a covenant, which I said should protect them in respect of their work in the Armed Forces and after they had left. That is what this was—nothing more, nothing less.
I am sorry to interrupt, but I have to make it clear that there is no suggestion in my argument that there was any negligence or any sort of enforcement available at the time. This is a new remedy, and it should be given.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for expanding that further. I understand the point he is trying to make. I was making a distinction between areas where, if the MoD was culpable, it could expect a claim of negligence. My noble and learned friend outlines a situation where something happens and maybe no negligence can be established but people suffer. In that event, we would want to do two things: we would want to find out what happened and provide help to those affected. But is it not the case that the covenant already provides a route for question and accountability of the Government to Parliament? The annual report could be presented and Parliament could say, “We absolutely dismiss that report”, and ask why it has made no reference to the situation of the type my noble and learned friend referred to. I argue that there is accountability and, separate issues flowing from that, our support and solutions for those affected, but these could be provided in other ways. They do not require a covenant to secure that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s thinking has not necessary moved on very much from Second Reading, when she said
“I would say that government is held to account by Parliament and the purpose of the covenant duty is to raise awareness among providers of these public services”.—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 770.]
Parliament can and should hold the Government to account but, if the legal duty to have due regard is put only on local authorities and certain other providers and not on the Government, yes, we can ask questions but we cannot actually hold the Government legally accountable. The points the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made are surely right: if we want to think about aspects that go beyond the duties to local authorities, that duty needs to put on to central government, not just local government.
The Minister suggested there might be a problem that we as Parliament or Her Majesty’s Government cannot put duties on the devolved Administrations. Surely that is precisely because defence is a reserved matter so, if we are putting a duty on to anybody, apart from local authorities and local health authorities, it ought to be on to central government, not on to the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
With the greatest respect, that might seem a tempting analysis of the situation, but the bottom line is that an inequity and disparity would be immediately introduced in the United Kingdom, because a Government would be bound and other devolved Governments would not be. That is profoundly undesirable.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. She is in a bit of trouble on this one. Logically, I do not think that some of what she said holds together. In her answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, she clearly talked about negligence, people being sued and things like that, whereas what the noble and learned Lord talked about, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, talked about very movingly from his own experience, is that we are seeking to require central government to have due regard to the covenant. Placing that obligation on central government in the same way as we are placing it on local authorities and other bodies is consistent with the principle that we are seeking to drop adopt through this legislation. This is not about moving into an area where a Government are negligent.
All I would say to the Minister is that we will have to come back to this on Report. I wonder whether she could reflect again on the discussions that have taken place in Committee to see whether there might be a way forward for us all. With that, I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
“343AG Regional committees(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to give committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989, known as Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, additional functions specified in the regulations relating to all former members of Her Majesty’s forces and their relevant family members, and a new name.(2) The regulations may in particular provide that it is a function of the committees—(a) to report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on matters that are or may be relevant to—(i) their armed forces covenant report, and(ii) sections 343AA to 343AD and guidance issued under section 343AE;(b) to provide a distinct, identifiable, and independent point of reference in their region for both the veteran community and all those supporting it;(c) to raise awareness of, and support the implementation of—(i) services provided to the veteran community alone or with others,(ii) the Government’s strategy for veterans, and(iii) the terms of armed forces covenant;(d) to act as an advocate, promoter, facilitator, or communicator of services that are relevant to the veteran community;(e) to report and make representations and recommendations on existing or proposed services that are relevant to the veteran community.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the statutory functions of Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (VAPCs), currently limited to functions relating to compensation schemes for veterans and their families (the War Pensions and the Armed Forces Compensation Schemes) to all aspects of veteran life.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I first raised the subject of Amendments 14 and 15 in my name at Second Reading. I hope they will prove uncontroversial. Indeed, to pick up on the conversation we have had over the last few groupings, all these amendments seek to do is effectively to support the Government in what they are already doing and, equally, to try to embolden a committee to deliver the Armed Forces covenant. I shall be very brief.
Specifically, the amendment enables the Secretary of State to extend the statutory functions of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, VAPCs. They are regional statutory committees—nine in England, two in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland—established by a statutory instrument made under Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989. Each committee has between 12 and 20 members, who are all volunteers. They are public appointees who act independently of their sponsoring department, the MoD, and so provide evidence and views from that independent standpoint. During my time as Minister for Veterans, I felt that as a body they played a valuable role, both as advocates on behalf of the MoD and as a source of candid advice to me as a Minister and to the wider veteran community.
However, the issue is that the enabling power limits the statutory functions that can be given to VAPCs solely to functions relating to the compensation schemes for veterans and their families, namely the war pensions and Armed Forces compensation schemes, and as such are mandated to engage with only a relatively small part of the veteran community and not the Armed Forces covenant in general.
As we seek to improve the implementation of the Armed Forces covenant, it strikes me that, through their independent approach and regional structure, the members of the VAPCs are well placed to make a useful contribution to the Government’s drive to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. Indeed, just one aspect of this drive is the implementation of the duty introduced by Clause 8(3) of the Bill to have due regard to the principles of and relating to the Armed Forces covenant. In my view, at least, this is not only timely but long overdue.
Interestingly, we have in all honesty been talking about expanding VAPC powers for some time. As I recall, it was a proposed amendment put to me as a Minister when I was responsible for taking the last Armed Forces Bill through Parliament five years ago, but due to lack of preparation time was ultimately not included. We really have been talking about this for a very long time.
It is also an argument that has already in part been conceded by the Government, by their agreeing in principle that members of each regional VAPC be invited by terms of reference to join parallel informal regional groups to perform functions relating to all veterans. This is exactly what this amendment is trying to do, and they are proposing to do it. We even now have a position in which the Government are actively advertising the role of membership of VAPCs as extending beyond the original statutory functions. I have sent this to the Minister. I was rather surprised to discover that on the public appointments website, dating back over four years—the current appointments are equally advertised—the principal role for the chair of the south-east England VAPC, the first role it describes as being required, is to
“act as advocates for implementing the Armed Forces Covenant and associated measures at a local level”,
even though at this point it was not mandated within the statutory requirements. They have already been advertising it, so it seems logical that we should enshrine it in this legislation.
To be fair, this amendment is carefully crafted to ensure that it ties in with the Government’s intent to review the interim solution that they are proposing for the function of VAPCs after one year, after which it will enable the Secretary of State to give VAPCs functions relating to all veterans only if it should be concluded after that review that this is potentially the best way to maximise their contribution to helping support the Armed Forces community.
My plea to the Minister is simple. The Government have accepted in principle that the role of the VAPCs should be expanded by delivering this interim solution. The Government are even actively advertising it as an expanded role. All that these modest amendments would do is put in place the ability for the Secretary of State—if, and only if, he so wishes—to make that change after the review period rather than having to wait yet another five years for the next Armed Forces Bill.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am generally supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. He very ably made the point why the time to act is now rather than waiting a further five years before something is done. I very much hope the Minister can respond positively to what I think is a very sensible amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment, and I understand his motivation for doing so. I want to develop this a little further because he has raised some interesting arguments. He has described how the amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State for Defence the power to amend the scope of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees’ statutory functions by regulations in the future.
My noble friend has described extensively what the VAPCs do across the UK. They are established under the Social Security Act 1989, with their functions set out in the War Pensions Committees Regulations 2000. Indeed, they used to be known as War Pensions Committees and their original role was expressly to raise awareness of the War Pension Scheme and latterly, the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, and to make representations to the MoD on behalf of recipients. For that reason, the enabling Act for the VAPCs, the Social Security Act, sets out that their statutory functions are limited to the cohort of veterans and their families who are claiming for or in receipt of one of the two compensation schemes. It is that limitation that my noble friend’s amendment seeks to remedy.
In practice, as my noble friend knows—he alluded to this—members of the VAPCs have for many years performed activities that go above and beyond that scope. For example, many members have taken on a role promoting the Armed Forces covenant locally to all those who might have an interest in it. They have done that on a non-statutory basis and there have been no substantive issues with them doing so. I therefore suggest that in this respect my noble friend’s amendment is not necessary to achieve the outcome that he seeks.
However, there is a desire on all sides for greater clarity on the role that VAPCs have. My honourable friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans joined a conference with the VAPCs yesterday and confirmed that he had signed off on a new set of terms of reference agreed by both the VAPC chairs and officials in the MoD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. The terms set out two new specific principles: first, to set out the activities that members of VAPCs as individuals and as members of informal regional groups are asked to carry out relating to all veterans and their families and, secondly, to provide direction relating to their performance for an initial period of 12 months beginning from 26 October, in order that we give the chairs a sensible period of time to adopt the new terms of reference and show how they can deliver against them. Following that initial 12-month period, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans will review the terms of reference and performance against the activities set out and will then make a determination on the next steps.
I say to my noble friend that the Government have a clear way forward over the next 12 months that has been agreed with the VAPCs themselves. We want to give them the chance to perform under the new terms of reference before we take any decisions about their longer-term future. We want to use the next 12 months to gather the evidence that we need to take an informed decision.
That is why I feel that my noble friend’s amendment is premature at this stage. To pass it now would put the cart before the horse. It would give the Secretary of State a power that we do not yet know if he would need or use. It would pre-empt the outcome of our work over the next 12 months and would imply that a change to the VAPCs’ statutory role was required when we have not yet actually come to any decision about that. It would provide only for a specific and rather limited adjustment to their statutory role when we might instead wish to consider more fundamental changes.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am of course grateful for my noble friend’s courteous reply. Indeed, if nothing else, having waited for seven years, if coincidentally, yesterday, the terms of reference were finally signed, then perhaps we have achieved something through tabling this amendment. That is good news. However, I must say to my noble friend—and she is a dear friend—that I am slightly disappointed by the reply. The one aspect that she did not address is why it was deemed necessary to put some of the roles of the VAPCs on a statutory footing, yet now it does not seem necessary to put on a statutory footing the extended role. There seems to be an illogic in that argument, which was not addressed. That is something we can discuss, because it certainly was not my noble friend’s point and we did not have the opportunity to meet before Committee.
I reserve the right to look at this again, because there is a strong sense of feeling. I know that many people listening to this debate will be feeling that, yet again, the Government are kicking the can down the road. When the Government issue adverts luring people in to be members of these committees, because they would apparently be supporting the Armed Forces covenant even though they are not on a statutory footing, that sends a very poor message. For the time being, however, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Goldie
“(a) omit “(a “full-time service commitment”)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, group six comprises Amendments 16 to 37 inclusive. In total, these relate to a minor, technical amendment to Clause 9, which introduces important changes to Section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable our reserve personnel to do more and for defence to offer them more. The changes we are making to Section 24 will in future enable reservists to undertake periods of full-time and part-time service, or a combination of both under one continuous commitment.
On reflection, we feel it more appropriate to refer to our new continuous service commitment using neutral terms, such as “a Section 24 commitment”. This will avoid any suggestion that reservists are in continuous service only in certain circumstances. Reservists are serving members of the Armed Forces during their entire term of service, not just when they are on duty or in training. It is a purely technical amendment and I can confirm that, importantly, it will have no impact on how the new measures we are introducing under Clause 9 will operate. It will allow our Reserve personnel to do more and enable the Ministry of Defence to make better use of their knowledge, skills and experience, but avoid any possible confusion as to nomenclature and meaning. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I accept the Minister’s assurance that this is a wholly technical amendment. If my assistants find that not to be true, I shall return to it ferociously on Report. But assuming that is the case, I am content with the amendment. I make the point that the next group goes into a fundamental area, and I would greatly object to any attempt to move into that group tonight.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am grateful to be able to contribute briefly on this group, which is an area of particular interest to me. I declare my interest as chairman of the Reserve Forces Review 2030, which is the 10-year review of the Reserve—the outcome of which is, I should like to think, partly responsible for some of the Bill’s provisions on the Reserve.
The headmark of that review was the integration of the Regular and Reserve Forces. Within that, we attempted to create a spectrum of service—right of arc, full-time regular service; left of arc, a civilian—and within that spectrum of services, enabling the principle of bringing civilian skillsets through Reserves into delivering against defence demand signals. We encountered two principal barriers to that spectrum of service. The first, frankly, was money. Unlike the Regular Forces, the Reserve Forces are always considered to be a marginal cost and therefore, as soon as there are pressures on costings, it is the Reserves’ budget that will be reduced.
The other, to which this technical amendment goes directly, was terms and conditions of service. Of course, we already have full-time Reserve service, but we do not have the ability for reservists to have not a contract, per se, but an assured Reserve capability. That could be on a part-time but enduring basis—for example, not being contracted to work five days a week and becoming a temporary regular, but to be able to do it as part of a portfolio career. That would enable you to come in and, perhaps, work one day a week but over an enduring period. It would make the Reserve much more effective in delivering almost as augmentees, working on a daily basis, and moving away from its traditional role as a contingent capability that trained at weekends and was always used as that traditional Reserve.
That is why this government amendment is so welcome, to my mind. It helps to deliver that traditional Reserve capability for a Reserve which will be very much suited for the 2030s.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I wanted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, before I spoke because I thought that if there were any heffalump traps, he might have spotted them, given his expertise on reserves. I seem to recall that when we were looking at flexible working for the regulars it garnered some concern from certain Benches and perhaps from some noble and gallant Lords who were a little concerned that you could not be a part-time soldier. Actually, that was never what was being suggested.
Looking at these amendments one by one, a bit like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I could only assume that they were all doing what the Minister said they were doing because they look so technical. I think the statement given by the Minister and the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, both suggest that this is helping to bring the reserves into an even more effective place. The reserves clearly play an important role, and if there can be a logical movement between full-time and part-time work and that counts as continuous service, that has to be all to the good. The only thing I would say, if anyone were looking at a complete guide to plain English, is that by the time anyone is looking at this Bill it will be totally unreadable because the language seems to be so arcane. I hope it will keep the government lawyers working for many years to come.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I want to make one comment. It is slightly out of context but what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was talking about there, bringing the reserves in more and greater integration, also moves things. His report will take consideration of civilian contractors who come under military law. We are beginning to bring the whole thing together, and a previous amendment about making the covenant more available to those contractors who may be under military law becomes even more relevant.
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
“(2) For subsection (1)(a) substitute—“(a) in service under section 24 commitments; or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
“(b) omit subsection (3)(d).”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Armed Forces Bill
Tuesday 2nd November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 42-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (29 Oct 2021)
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make consequential provision in connection with the new Clause proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Clause 11.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to group 7, which comprises government Amendments 38 to 42, 45 to 47, and 67 and 68, in my name. I will speak also to Amendments 43, 44 and 66, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
I thought it would be helpful if I started with something of a scene setter on the report of the review conducted by Sir Richard Henriques. As noble Lords will be aware, on 13 October 2020, the Secretary of State announced the commissioning of a review by Sir Richard Henriques, to build upon, but not reopen, the recommendations of the service justice system review by His Honour Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy.
The aim was to ensure that, in relation to complex and serious allegations of wrongdoing against UK forces on overseas operations, defence has the most up-to-date and future-proof framework, skills and processes in place, and that improvements can be made where necessary. The review was to be forward looking and, while drawing on insights from the handling of allegations from recent operations, it was not to reconsider past investigative or prosecutorial decisions or to reopen historical cases.
I am pleased to say that Sir Richard submitted his report at the end of July 2021 and, as I had committed to do at Second Reading, we published it on 21 October, with a supporting Written Ministerial Statement, to enable your Lordships to have chance to consider it during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill. It goes without saying that we are very grateful for the comprehensive and considered work that Sir Richard has undertaken, and we particularly welcome his recognition of the need for a separate system of military justice. In summary, the report contains a total of 64 recommendations, approximately a third of which are focused on taking forward the establishment of a Defence Serious Crime Unit—DSCU—originally recommended by Sir Jon Murphy.
There are also a number of operations-related recommendations, including for protocols between the service police, the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Judge Advocate-General for processes relating to the timely and effective investigation of allegations of unlawful killing and ill-treatment by UK forces on overseas operations. There are also recommendations for improving the technical IT systems supporting the military courts, and a number of recommendations relating to summary hearings.
As set out in our ministerial Statement, we have prioritised taking forward the recommendations to establish the Defence Serious Crime Unit, and I am extremely pleased that we were able to take swift action to table the government amendments for the key DSCU recommendations—one, two and seven—because they require primary legislation.
We have also committed to taking forward work over the coming months on four other recommendations, which will: amend standard operating procedures to ensure that service police are informed with minimum delay of reportable offences; establish a serious incident board within the Permanent Joint Headquarters; create or upgrade an operational record-keeping system; and adopt a uniform approach in respect of training of service legal personnel prior to their posting to the Service Prosecuting Authority.
The remaining recommendations, including among other things legal support to personnel, improved technology and IT for the service courts and improvements to the summary hearing process, raise wider implications relating to policy and legal and resourcing issues. These will be considered further by the department over the coming months. Where appropriate and necessary, legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. I will of course update your Lordships on progress.
Our goal will be to ensure that, in considering and taking forward work on Sir Richard’s recommendations, we continue to maintain operational effectiveness and the swift delivery of fair and efficient justice for victims and offenders.
The amendments in my name contain the necessary changes to primary legislation to give effect to the Government’s plans for a new tri-service serious crime unit, headed by a new provost marshal for serious crime. This is an important set of amendments that demonstrate the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to the highest investigative capabilities for the service justice system. Through this, we are rapidly taking forward the most important set of recommendations from Sir Richard Henriques’s recently published review.
The amendments make the following key changes. The new clause provides that the new provost marshal for serious crime is subject to the same rules about appointment as existing provost marshals. This means appointment by Her Majesty and the requirement that they be an officer in the service police. The new clause also provides that the new provost marshal for serious crime will be responsible for ensuring that investigations of the new tri-service serious crime unit are independent.
The new schedule contains consequential amendments relating to the clause and provides the new provost marshal for serious crime with the same investigative powers as the pre-existing provost marshals for the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force and service police. I should underline that these are not new investigatory powers for the service police. This is about ensuring that the existing service police investigatory powers are available for the new arrangements. We expect there to be a similar consequential exercise for changes needed to secondary legislation.
Sir Richard’s recommendations supported those made by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy regarding the implementation of a Defence Serious Crime Unit. He further recommended: that the Defence Serious Crime Unit be an operational unit; that it should be commanded by a provost marshal for serious crime; and that the provost marshal for serious crime should have a duty of operational independence in investigative matters owed to the Defence Council, on the same terms as that owed by the service provost marshals under Section 115A of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
The Ministry of Defence has been working on the Defence Serious Crime Unit model since the recommendations made by the Lyons and Murphy review. There were non-legislative ways of implementing the recommendations from Lyons and Murphy under consideration. However, the recommendations from Sir Richard require primary legislation, particularly as far as they concern the operational independence of the unit and the new provost marshal.
The Defence Secretary is adamant that we should progress these aspects of Sir Richard’s report with the utmost speed, which is why we are bringing these amendments before your Lordships today. With the support of noble Lords, we will be able to implement these critical recommendations and, in tandem, we will progress the remaining recommendations which focus on the functionality, remit and operational considerations for the unit.
With the establishment of the new provost marshal for serious crime and the tri-service serious crime unit, the MoD will be in a stronger position to respond to serious crime. We will be able to combine resources and specialist skills from across the single services under one unit and will build an independent, more effective and collaborative approach to policing across defence.
This reinforces the decision by the Secretary of State for Defence that the existing principle of jurisdictional concurrency between the service and civilian jurisdictions should be maintained. That of course is a position that Sir Richard Henriques has also supported. The service justice system is capable of dealing with the full range of offences when they occur, in the UK as well as overseas. These changes to service policing will support that capability into the future.
I hope that this explanation assures noble Lords of our commitment to the improvement of policing across the service justice system and our intent to adopt the recommendations provided in the judge-led reviews. I therefore urge your Lordships to support the proposed amendments in my name.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness give way for a moment? She admits that she is not implementing all the recommendations in the Henriques report in relation to the prosecution and then she said that the Government would consider them with utmost speed. I recognise all these wonderful phrases. Then she said that she would bring forward amendments when parliamentary time allows. That seems to me to kick the matter down the road. Some of his recommendations that are not part of this new clause need to be implemented as early as possible. I am sure the Minister will eventually find that “when parliamentary time allows” normally means in many years’ time.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am just checking back to see what I actually read out. I was pointing out that this is roughly broken into three sectors. One is what we are taking forward today with the amendments. The second concerns four other specific recommendations that we are taking forward. Then the remaining recommendations, as I said, raise wider implications for policy, resourcing and legal issues. I said that these will be considered further by the department over the coming months and, where appropriate and necessary, legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.
That is not kicking the can down the road. That is to simply say to the noble Lord that we recognise that we still have research, inquiry and investigation to do in the department to understand the consequences of these recommendations from Henriques. We want to be clear about that but, equally, we are very positive about Sir Richard Henriques’ report. I said that our goal will always be to ensure that, in considering and taking forward work on his recommendations, we keep an eye on operational effectiveness and the swift delivery of fair and efficient justice for victims and offenders.
I hope that explains to the noble Lord why I cannot really go any further than that today. I certainly dispute his analogy of kicking the can down the road. This is a serious and substantial piece of work. We are prioritising the most important part, which we think will make a big difference to policing within the service justice system, and we are being canny about how we then progress the other bits of the report.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
May I ask the Minister to be more specific and tell us which of his recommendations in relation to this specific part raise policy implications that will have to be considered over some time?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will have read the report and he will be in no doubt, I imagine, about both the extent and the complexity of many of the recommendations. I cannot be drawn into commenting on something where we are still doing the exploratory work to understand what the implications of the recommendations are. To reassure the noble Lord, as I said earlier, we are very positive about this report. It is a huge contribution to how we deal with justice and the service justice system. I beseech the noble Lord to exercise a little patience. I know that his natural interest in these matters, and the avenues available to him to pursue that interest, will ensure that I and the department are kept on our toes.
I was about to speak to Amendments 43, 44 and 66. I turn first to Amendment 43. That seeks to change the wording in government Amendment 42 on the duty of investigative independence for the defence serious crime unit. Government Amendment 42 works by updating the existing duty on the service police currently contained in Section 115A of the Armed Forces Act 2006. The government Amendment provides that the provost marshal for serious crime must
“seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the tri-service serious crime unit are free from improper interference.”
The term “improper interference” is already defined in Section 115A. It includes any attempt by someone not in the service police to direct an investigation. Amendment 43 would amend the duty so that, rather than seek to ensure that investigations are carried out free from improper interference, the duty will be absolute, placing on the provost marshal a need to guarantee—“to ensure”—that the investigations are operationally independent.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, first, good afternoon, everyone; it is a great privilege to be here again for the second meeting of the Committee, after what I thought was a really interesting and thoughtful discussion on our first day. As I have said to the Minister in the various meetings I have had with her, we support the establishment of the unit and think it is a good step forward. But we have questions to ask and, as the Minister can see from the amendments that we have tabled, issues that we wish to raise and press the Government on, to ensure that we make this new unit as effective as possible.
I will speak to the government amendments but, first, will say to the Minister that I was struck by one of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in the debate we had the other day on the first group of amendments. He talked about the need for public confidence and trust in any system that we set up. This is really important, and we will come to it when we talk about some of the amendments we have tabled, and some of the probing of the Government that we want to do. In reading around this group of amendments, I was struck by one of the statements made by the court in the judgment of the Mousa case, which was:
“One of the essential functions of independence is to ensure public confidence and, in this context, perception is important.”
I respectfully ask the Committee to bear that in mind as we go through these various amendments.
We strongly welcome the detailed report of Richard Henriques, and the recommendations, and we hope that the Government will implement the recommendations as soon as possible. This goes to the heart of what my noble friend Lord Robertson said. We want to press the Government on what they mean by implementing the recommendations and the timeline for all of that. The report is especially pertinent, and I wonder whether the Minister might like to take the opportunity to say something about the allegations in the Sunday Times about a Kenyan woman being murdered by a British soldier, with no action apparently being taken and evidence suggesting that the case was actively suppressed. I think all of us would hope that the establishment of this unit would prevent that sort of thing occurring in future.
I will speak to these recommendations that the Government have put down. As I said, we welcome the establishment of the serious crime unit. However, as the Minister said, the Government’s framework amendment does not fully implement all the recommendations. Indeed, as I have already pointed out to the Minister, she wrote to us all on 22 October, only just over a week ago, saying that the amendment would implement three of Sir Richard’s recommendations. This is why many of us are wondering what this means.
In her opening, the Minister said that there were three and that four have been added to that but, as we know, Henriques makes more than 20 recommendations relating to the establishment of the serious crime unit. If there are three in the letter and four in this—unless I have misunderstood what the Minister said to us—what has happened to the other 13 that relate specifically to the unit? The Minister will understand the Committee’s desire to know more about what is happening to the rest of these recommendations. There were 64 in total, but 20 relating to the serious crime unit. What has happened to the others? What is the timeline for it? Will the Government implement the other 13—if that is the right number—or are they saying, “We’ll have a look, but we’re not very keen on these”? We need to know from the Government what exactly is happening to those other recommendations. Which are not going to be adopted? Which are the Government thinking about? We need some understanding of the timeline; I think many of us want greater clarity on that. What is happening with respect to that, and when can we expect to know more about the number of recommendations that will be implemented?
There are a number of other things that we need some clarity on. The Minister’s letter said the amendment would ensure that the new provost marshal for serious crime will be under a duty to ensure that investigations by the tri-service serious crime unit are independent. I know the Minister has sought to answer this, but the Government use the words “seek to ensure”. In the court of public opinion, people would say that we should not seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the tri-service serious crime unit are free from improper interference; it is an expectation that they are independent. Surely we should not merely seek to ensure that.
As I said before, I am not a lawyer but I think most people would say that any independent process should be free from improper interference full stop, yet the Government’s amendment talks about seeking to achieve that. Clearly, that is why a number of us—I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—have concerns about the use of these terms. I press the Minister on this. If the court of public opinion sees the word “seek”, it will not believe that in all circumstances that means it will be free from improper interference. It is important that the Minister reads into the record exactly what “improper interference” means in this respect. It almost implies that there is such a thing as proper interference.
Our Amendment 44 lists many of the things that the Henriques report says should be part of the tri-service crime unit. Again, to be fair, the Minister has intimated that the Government intend to do some of this, but that is why many of us are asking why we do not put it in the Bill. We all have experience of legislation and know that there is often debate about why something is not in a Bill. Why is it left off? Why is it left to the Government, of any colour, to say, “We will do this later on. We will come back to it. We agree that this is important but we are going to look at how we do it”? We are saying that if it is important, it needs to be put in the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are very grateful to Sir Richard Henriques for his report and recommendations. We understand why, in the three months since they were published, they have received only light-touch consideration from the Government. Perhaps I can be forgiven for giving some historical context to the role of the chain of command in courts martial, because it appears in Amendment 43 and in the Bill.
In 1757, Admiral Byng was convicted not of personal cowardice but of failing to do his utmost to engage the enemy in an attack upon French forces besieging the British garrison in Menorca. The truth was that his fleet of ships had been hastily assembled by the Admiralty. They were in poor condition and he had to retire to have them repaired, but he was convicted by court martial under the Articles of War and, despite pleas for clemency, even by the Prime Minister William Pitt himself, George II refused to commute the sentence. Admiral Byng was shot on the quarterdeck of a British ship by a firing squad. Your Lordships will recall that Voltaire, in his book Candide, commented that in Britain, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others—“pour encourager les autres”.
Courts martial were seen then, and for 200 years afterwards, as an instrument of discipline rather than justice. It is undoubtedly the case that men were shot for cowardice in the First World War to encourage their comrades to go over the top. Discipline was seen to be a function of command, and the commander must achieve discipline to secure cohesive action and singleness of purpose.
It was the Labour Government of 1946 who appointed a commission to examine the administration of military justice. It advised the appoint of a civilian judge-marshal but made no change in the way the board and the prosecuting officer were appointed. So it was that in 1996, the structure of courts martial was still within the chain of command. The convening officer, who was the field officer in command of a body of the Regular Forces within which the person to be tried was serving, was the person who decided the charges against the defendant, appointed the board and the prosecuting officer and arranged the trial. He—the convening officer—could dissolve the court martial during the trial, in the interests of the administration of justice, and could comment on its findings publicly, in the interests of discipline. He confirmed the findings and could reject or change the sentence, so the board was still subject to command influence.
A fair and impartial trial is obviously difficult in an atmosphere of command control. All the personnel connected with the trial are dependent, or were at that time, on the commanding officer for assignments, leave and promotion. A member of the board could not deviate too far from his commander’s views of the case if it might affect his career. That is why, following the criticisms made by the European Court of Human Rights in Findlay, we brought about such significant changes in 2006. Justice is now the dominant element and in a volunteer army, this is vital to morale and to the retention of personnel, as Sir Richard Henriques himself comments.
Despite this history, the Government have rejected Sir Richard’s recommendation 14. In paragraph 5.4.1 of his review, he says:
“An investigating body, charged with the responsibility of investigating serious crime allegedly committed by members of the Armed Forces, must be hierarchically, institutionally and practically independent both of the chain of command and of those whom they are under a duty to investigate.”
The wording that he uses—“hierarchically, institutionally and practically”—comes from the judgment in Jordan v United Kingdom, 37 EHRR 2. Explicitly, the European court was following Lord Steyn in 2003 in the Appellate Committee of this House, where he said:
“Public perception of the possibility of unconscious bias is the key.”
That issue of public confidence was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, at the last hearing of this Committee.
However, instead of following that wording and explicitly breaking away from the chain of command, the Government have put forward the existing wording taken from the 2011 Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out. New Section 2A, proposed by the noble Baroness’s Amendment 42, would impose a duty on the provost marshal to ensure that all investigations are “free from improper interference”. That in no way matches the language of recommendation 14 of Sir Richard Henriques’s report, which makes an explicit break from the chain of command.
In recommending a strategic policing board for civilian governance and oversight of the provost marshal for serious crime, in paragraph 5.6.13 of his report, Sir Richard Henriques looked around the world. He looked to New Zealand, Australia and Canada. He also considered the function of the independent advisory group, which was formed for Operation Northmoor in this country. It appears that he agreed the composition of the strategic policing board with the Chief of Defence Staff and the Chief of Defence People.
Today, the noble Baroness told us that the Government have accepted the strategic policing board’s structure, but it is something to be put into the future. The strategic policing board is the person who stands behind and is the instrument of governance of the proposed provost marshal for serious crime. You cannot have one without the other, so perhaps the noble Baroness will explain how you could appoint a person to a position and give them responsibilities without first having the strategic policing board of civilian governance and oversight that Sir Richard Henriques called for.
Finally, I add my support to Amendment 66 and its requirement for a report to ensure that Sir Richard Henriques’s recommendations are carried out.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, but I have a number of questions for my noble friend the Minister.
The tri-service serious crime unit is definitely a good idea but, given that the Armed Forces Act brought together the three single-service Acts back in 2006, I have for some time questioned why we do not have a joint service police force, given their relative sizes. The Royal Air Force Police is commanded by a group captain; the Navy, by a commander; and, of course, the Army provost marshal is a one-star brigadier. Who will own this organisation? If it is not going to be linked to one of the other service police forces, how can we ensure that it will not wither on the vine in time? For example, what will happen to the SIB, which has a proud operational record over the past 40 years? What will its role be vis-à-vis this new organisation? Equally, as we create what will be a fourth provost marshal, who will sit on the National Police Chiefs’ Council? Currently, the three single service provost marshals do. Does this mean that now there will be four? How will that look? Will defence be speaking with a single voice?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. I rise to deal with the key issue of independence. It is, as I said on the previous day in Committee, essential to two things. One is public confidence—one cannot overestimate the importance of that—but it is equally important to the morale and well-being of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
I think we have established a very clear structure for the independence of the Director of Service Prosecutions and the three distinguished holders of that office, Bruce Houlder, Andrew Cayley and Jonathan Rees, the current DSP, have ensured that it happens. Now, how do we deal with the independence of the police? It seems to me very important to look at the problems with the independence of an investigation. Many us will have forgotten—or were not alive at the time—when there were serious problems in the civilian police, particularly with watch committees and other mechanisms that were meant to ensure that the police were accountable and independent. It did not work. Various things were tried and eventually we came up with the police and crime commissioners, as Sir Richard notes in his report.
Looking at independence, and having had to fight for the independence of the judiciary from time to time, I can assure noble Lords that what you need is a structure behind you—someone independent to go to on whom you can rely. In the case of the judiciary, one can obviously come to Parliament. That is ultimately what is provided for. That is why, it seems to me, the independent strategic board proposed is absolutely the key part of this. There should be an absolute duty for an independent investigation, which should not be qualified in any way, but you need an institutional structure.
What I wholly fail to understand from the Minister’s observations is why that cannot now be put in place and, in the way that police and crime commissioners have been made part of the statutory mechanism that looks to the police, why we cannot have a statutory mechanism for the Armed Forces. Surely they are entitled to the same sort of protection as ordinary civilians—as us all. I do not understand why we always expect the Armed Forces to have second best. There can be no reason why these issues have not been fully considered and why the Government cannot go forward.
This has been a long-standing problem. One has to go back only to the awful problems of the Iraq and Afghan wars, with the sticking-plaster solutions—if I may be so bold as to describe them as that—of bodies such as IHAT, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. If you lived through cases on that, you would appreciate the need for a structure and something that we can be proud of to protect independence.
Given the history of the way in which the Armed Forces from time to time behave, if you do not do something now, you will have a problem in the future. I urge the Government to grapple with this now and deal with it by putting in provisions, as Sir Richard recommended. If one reads his report carefully, one sees the importance of the strategic board as the guarantor of independence. As the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, how is independence to be secured without some form of mechanism?
The second area on which I want to comment briefly is witness and victim care. This seems to me an important part of a statutory protection. If there is a witness or victims’ unit, there is someone to go to. Again, why are the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to have second best? Why is there not statutory provision, just as there is in the ordinary criminal justice system? I urge the Minister to look at this again with the objective of protecting the Armed Forces for the future and giving them what the rest of us have.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in making the valuable and very firm points that he made. The question he asks is far from rhetorical. Why should members of our Armed Forces settle for second best? Why should we expect them to be less entitled to systems of justice that ordinary citizens can access?
I have vivid memories of the overseas operations Bill from this Session of Parliament. That was another Bill that came from the House of Commons, where the debates were dominated by a Minister demanding total obedience to every dot and comma of the Bill on the grounds that if you were against it, you were against the British Army, thereby allowing through provisions that might well have led to British soldiers and other members of Britain’s Armed Forces appearing before the International Criminal Court. Eventually, the Government woke up, but not without huge pressure and a lot of distinguished Members of this House making sure they got a very firm message. I do not want to embarrass the Minister too much, but I know that she played a role in getting common sense seen in that debate.
When we look at legislation being brought forward by the Government, we are wise to be cautious about what the Government say in their own defence. Therefore, when the Minister says that there are elements in the Henriques report which require attention and I ask which of those have policy implications, I would expect the department to be able to tell us. I recognise the phrase “when parliamentary time allows”, because I am sure I used it during my ministerial career. There is usually very little parliamentary time available for primary legislation, which is what would be required to enact the remaining aspects of the Henriques recommendations.
I follow my noble friend Lord Coaker in what he says and his detailed questions. The key question concerns the fact that, while Henriques made a number of recommendations, 13 of them have not appeared in the amendments to the Bill in this Committee. He is right to ask this question, which I repeat: which of these require policy consideration, because that could take a very considerable period to come forward as well?
The stories in the Sunday Times, both last Sunday and the Sunday before, should, frankly, horrify all of us. What is described there is disgraceful, disgusting and completely indefensible. I am not a lawyer or a soldier, but I cannot understand why action is not being taken and investigations into this particular incident are not taking place. We are being told that only if the Kenyan authorities start to make their inquiries will anything happen in this country, when there seems to be clear evidence around, involving British citizens and members of the British Armed Forces involved in this. Why has there not been some investigation? Just as members of the Armed Forces are perfectly entitled to be treated like other citizens in this country, victims also have a right to the kind of justice and investigation that we would expect for anyone else in the country.
We should not allow the Sunday Times to develop this story, week after week, with hugely damaging effects on the reputation of our Armed Forces, the recruitment of people into them and the country as a whole. Although it is not, strictly speaking, the business of this Committee, it is a matter of public concern. It has alerted the public in general to the whole question of service discipline. Therefore, the business of this Committee and Bill, detailed and arcane as it is in some ways, has now become a matter of public attention. It is up to the Government and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to pay attention to that and resolve it so that they protect the reputation of the country and our distinguished Armed Forces.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I first thank noble Lords for an interesting and stimulating debate, as ever. I shall endeavour to respond to the points raised. I certainly hope that the fate that befell Admiral Byng, so colourfully described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, does not befall me, or the proceedings would come to a summary conclusion.
I will first address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who said, quite correctly, that perception is important. I agree with that, but so is legal exactitude, which is, I accept, tedious to some but none the less absolutely vital in the framing of legislation. I will come to that in a little more detail shortly.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Robertson—who, with the best of intentions, I know, raised the appalling situation of the Kenyan lady —that I am constrained. This is a live investigation in Kenya, and it is sub judice. I can say that the Secretary of State has offered our full co-operation, but it is essentially a Kenyan investigation. We are prepared to offer any co-operation that we can when they request it. We have to let the investigatory process continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reverted to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, about the remaining Henriques recommendations. I looked at again at what I said and double-checked where we are. I do not want to be discouraging or disappointing, but I can put my hand on my heart and say that approximately 40 of these recommendations require policy and legal analysis. That is factual, and I cannot accelerate that at the moment, but I am happy to give your Lordships an undertaking that I shall certainly monitor and report back on progress. I hope that will reassure your Lordships that this is not some somnolent process that will fall asleep once Committee stage is over. I am very happy to place that on the record and offer to do that.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I sense that my noble friend might be coming to the end of her remarks. Perhaps I might take her back to the question of independence and the need for the appointment to come from members of the service police. The answer that she gave to the Committee was, “Well, that’s what the Armed Forces Act says”. My response would be, “Well, so what?” Is it not the purpose of this Bill and this Committee to look again at these issues? I do not want to put my noble friend on the spot, but could we perhaps think again as to whether that is still the best thing to do, given the nature of the role, and whether, as we move forward, because there are other examples in defence where we recruit from civilians because they are best qualified and best placed, the time has come to look again at that requirement?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I cannot give my noble friend the certainty of the assurance that he seeks, but I indicated that the rank was decided based on the current rank range of the single service provost marshal. We are open to revisiting the rank of provost marshal for serious crime—that is one of the recommendations in Henriques—and we would intend to review the post three years after the unit is operational. That is a sensible review period to allow some time to elapse. We want to ensure that the post remains aligned with the level of responsibility that is implicit in the role and the relevant and recent skills and experience of the postholder, and that it remains open to all three services to compete for. I can say to my noble friend that there is continued thinking on this, but I cannot at this stage provide him with the certainty that he seeks.
I have tried to address the points that have arisen and I hope that I have covered them all. In these circumstances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Perhaps I might draw to the Minister’s attention her amendment, which states in subsection (3)(b) of the proposed new clause:
“The Provost Marshal for serious crime has a duty, owed to the Defence Council, to seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the tri-service serious crime unit are free from improper interference.”
Does she not agree that that is miles away from the formulation proposed by Sir Richard Henriques, as stated in Amendment 43, that the duty is to
“ensure all investigations are operationally independent from the military chain of command”?
I have tried to point out that we have got away from the military chain of command in the justice system and that justice comes first, before discipline, in that area—individual justice. Does the Minister not see the difference in the wording, and how much stronger is Sir Richard Henriques’ formulation?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the noble Lord—and I do not want to reprise everything that I have said—that we recognise the different characteristics within the service justice system that are not necessarily a part of the civilian system. We have to acknowledge that, as I indicated, it is not easy to just place things in silos. If something happens on an overseas operation, the chain of command may have to take action. That is why we talk about “improper interference”. I think that is an important distinction. What we are placing upon the provost marshal and the Defence Serious Crime Unit is the obligation to be independent and to seek to ensure the independence of the investigation.
However, we also have to acknowledge the reality of the environment in which these individuals are operating. That is why the Government have deliberately chosen the phrasing they have. I said earlier that there is nothing innovative about that phrasing; it deploys existing text from previous Acts. But I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it would be unwise to place on the provost marshal obligations that are beyond the wit of the provost marshal to discharge. Equally, it would be wrong to condemn the chain of command for taking action in the early stages of an incident which the chain of command may have had no alternative but to take to protect personnel, to look after safety, to preserve evidence or whatever. That is why the Government prefer the phrasing they have adopted.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
May I ask one question? I asked: why does the Bill contain no institutional provisions to protect the independence? Maybe the Minister needs a little more time to think about this and look at what protection is given in relation to the civilian police. I would be grateful if she could write with an answer about the institutional support that backs up independence.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I hear the noble and learned Lord. I think there is an acceptance within the service justice system that there is operational independence. I have had that confirmed to me by military police officers, particularly those investigating senior ranks and above their rank. They have not felt inhibited. They have not felt constrained. They have absolutely done the work they have needed to do. But I will reflect on the noble and learned Lord’s remarks and see whether I can offer any comfort.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not going to press my amendments and I say to the Minister that that was a very helpful reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. She will have heard from a noble of Lords in this Committee that there are real concerns about the operational independence of the work of the new serious crime unit, and that really goes to the heart of it. Something in the Bill that deals with that would be of immense reassurance to us all.
I say as well to the Minister that we will have to come back to one or two things on Report, not least the Henriques recommendations that the Government clearly are not going to adopt. I will give one example. It is disappointing to know that the deputy provost marshal is expected to be a military officer. Again, that gives evidence for the view that we have to be really careful in how we ensure that the public have confidence in the mechanism that we are setting up. It is a good thing to do, but we have to ensure that that independence is not only enshrined in legislation but is seen by the public to be real as well.
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make consequential provision in connection with the new Clause proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Clause 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make consequential provision in connection with the new Clause proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Clause 11.
“(2) In subsection (1) “relevant body” means a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make consequential provision in connection with the new Clause proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Clause 11.
Baroness Goldie
“Framework for establishment of tri-service serious crime unit
(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 365A (Provost Marshals: appointment), in subsection (1), after “force” insert “, or to be Provost Marshal for serious crime,”.(3) In section 115A (Provost Marshal’s duty in relation to independence of investigations)— (a) in subsection (1), for “This section” substitute “Subsection (2)”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The Provost Marshal for serious crime has a duty, owed to the Defence Council, to seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the tri-service serious crime unit are free from improper interference.”;(c) in subsection (3), at the end insert “or (as the case may be) the unit.”(4) In section 375 (definitions relating to police forces)—(a) in the heading, after “to” insert “the service police and other”;(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In this Act the “tri-service serious crime unit” means a unit under the direction of the Provost Marshal for serious crime, each member of which is a member of a service police force.”(5) Schedule (Tri-service serious crime unit) makes further provision about the tri-service serious crime unit and the Provost Marshal for serious crime.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision amending or revoking any provision of subordinate legislation made before the passing of this Act as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in consequence of any provision of this section or Schedule (Tri-service serious crime unit).(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may include transitional provisions or savings.(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (6) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(9) In subsection (6)“subordinate legislation” means—(a) subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978,(b) an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or(c) an instrument made under Northern Ireland legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Baroness Goldie to insert a new Schedule after Schedule 4 would make provision in connection with the establishment of a tri-service serious crime unit and with regard to the functions of the Provost Marshal for serious crime who is to be the head of that unit.
“Tri-service serious crime unit | 60A(7)(a), (b), (c) and (e) | Lieutenant Commander | Entity Data | 61(7)(a) and (c) | 61A(7)(a) and (c) |
Major | Entity Data | 61(7)(a) and (c) | 61A(7)(a) and (c) | ||
Squadron leader | Entity Data | 61(7)(a) and (c) | 61A(7)(a) and (c) | ||
Commander | All | 61(7)(a) and (c) | 61A(7)(a) and (c) | ||
Lieutenant colonel | All | 61(7)(a) and (c) | 61A(7)(a) and (c) | ||
Wing commander | All | 61(7)(a) and (c) | 61A(7)(a) and (c) |
“The Provost Marshal for serious crime. | A person holding the position of deputy Provost Marshal in the tri-service serious crime unit. | A member of the tri-service serious crime unit.” |
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make consequential provision in connection with the new Clause proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Clause 11.
“(8) In subsection (7) “relevant body” means a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make consequential provision in connection with the new Clause proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Clause 11.
Lord Dannatt
“Mental health support
(1) A Minister of the Crown must make provision for additional mental health support for serving Armed Forces personnel, including but not limited to targeted support for serving Armed Forces personnel who have been affected by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and Taliban takeover in Afghanistan in 2021.(2) This support should aim to improve mental health treatment provided to Armed Forces personnel through the Defence Medical Services, Department of Community Mental Health, the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service, and the Veterans and Reserves Mental Health Programme.(3) Progress, monitoring and evaluation of this support must be included in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide additional mental health support to serving Armed Forces personnel, including those who have been affected by the UK withdrawal and Taliban takeover in Afghanistan in 2021.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 48 I will speak also to Amendment 66A, both of which stand in my name and those of other noble and noble and gallant Lords.
I will address Amendment 66A first. Noble Lords will recall that a very similar amendment was tabled and debated during the passage of the recent overseas operations Bill in the previous Session of Parliament. Then and now, the amendment seeks to require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel, and to include a duty of care update in the Armed Forces covenant annual report.
Noble Lords will recall that our House divided twice on this issue, but the measure was overturned in the other place. In the interests of not losing the whole overseas operations Bill, the amendment was not pressed a final time. In concluding our previous debate on this subject, the Minister stated that perhaps the Armed Forces Bill was
“a more appropriate mechanism for any discussion of the wider duty of care owed to our people.”—[Official Report, 13/4/21; col. 1257.]
It is perhaps therefore no surprise that I am returning to this topic now, although I do not want to take undue time by rehearsing all the arguments made in our previous debate, the majority of which still stand.
That said, I am very aware that the Ministry of Defence has been working hard on duty of care related issues in recent months and I am sure that many serving personnel will already be benefiting from that work. However, the Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans in the other place, during a debate on the duty of care amendment in the context of the overseas operations Bill, said that he wished to ensure that our care provided was at a gold standard. So I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could update your Lordships on progress towards reaching this gold standard.
The initial impetus for Amendment 48 came in the aftermath of Operation Pitting as the final withdrawal from Afghanistan took place—but Op Pitting was only the most recent episode in a long series of operational settings that have put pressure on the mental health of our servicepeople. As with the duty of care issue, I am aware that the Ministry of Defence has been working hard on mental health matters. Nevertheless, I ask whether the Government’s recent mental health MoT announcement will include specialist support for personnel who have been affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Indeed, could the Minister comment on what specialist mental health support has been offered to personnel involved in Operation Pitting?
Among the welcome recent initiatives, in October the Government announced the new annual mental fitness brief for UK Armed Forces. This is to be welcomed. The press release said it would be:
“Available on Defence’s internal learning platform”.
Can the Minister confirm whether face-to-face support will also be offered as part of this?
Very sadly, the tragic end of the mental health spectrum is the death by suicide of both serving and veteran members of the Armed Forces. In October the Armed Forces Minister said that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs had looked at how the frequency of suicide within the veteran community could best be measured and had identified a robust methodology. Can the noble Baroness explain this new methodology today? What frequency rate has been identified?
Furthermore, I was informed by the previous Veterans Minister that a new study was being undertaken to identify the rate of suicides among serving and veteran members of the Armed Forces. Previously, studies have been based on data from the first Gulf War and the Balkans, but the intensity of recent campaigns more than justified a new study. Can the noble Baroness say whether that new study has been completed? If so, what did it reveal? I am not alone in believing that recent operations have led to a tragic upturn in the suicide rate.
While commending the recent improvements in mental health provision, I believe that more can be done. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s response later. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 48. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, it aims to improve mental health services and to provide additional support for serving personnel, particularly those affected by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan this year. I also support the other two amendments in this group, Amendments 60 and 66A.
At Second Reading I highlighted Operation Courage, a partnership between the NHS and Combat Stress and other mental health charities, whether Armed Forces-specific charities or local or specific mental health charities. In principle, Op Courage is a really good example of how mental health services for current serving personnel or veterans should be able to provide a strong, signposted short cut to mental health services when and where they are needed.
Combat Stress reports that during August it saw a doubling of calls to its 24/7 helpline. This was on top of already struggling to afford to offer its specialist treatment to around 1,600 veterans with complex mental health needs annually. It estimates that there are at least double that number out there who Combat Stress cannot afford to support.
As a charity, Combat Stress is currently 75% dependent on voluntary donations and the generosity of the public. I think we all know that donations to charities have significantly reduced during the pandemic. I have no doubt that with extra resources it and the other specialist mental health charities can deliver the services needed, because they understand the specific pressures facing serving personnel and the traumas that too many have to learn to live with, both during and after their terms of service.
Leo Docherty MP wrote to all MPs and Peers on 24 September, setting out the support available for service personnel and veterans, their families and the bereaved, should they need it. It was a helpful and informative letter, but it did not refer to when the further £2.7 million will be made available for Op Courage. Does the Minister have that detail available? Is it for spending in a particular period, or does it extend over more than one financial year?
The letter from Leo Docherty did not mention one welcome intervention in recent years: the training of mental health first-aiders in our Armed Forces. The mental health first-aid charity MHFA England says:
“In 2015/16, 3.2% of UK armed forces personnel were assessed with a mental health disorder—over 6,000 people. Many more go undiagnosed and untreated.”
When I have talked to service personnel who have become mental health first-aiders since their return from deployment in Afghanistan, I have heard of how the training that they received enabled them to recognise the warning signs this summer in those they currently serve with, as well as past comrades. One soldier told me that, in August, the community of personnel was able to come together on social media to support and encourage those reliving tough memories or, worse, flare-ups of PTSD. Because of their mental health first-aid training, they were able to help these colleagues to access phone lines—for example, to Combat Stress and other organisations.
How many Armed Forces mental health first-aiders are now in place? Will the extra funding announced in September include training for more mental health first-aiders in the future? Also, can the Minister explain how Op Smart, which was designed to develop mental resilience across personnel in the Armed Forces, sits with Op Courage? Op Smart is much to be welcomed, and is critical to personnel becoming not just self-aware but aware when colleagues may be facing problems. How is Op Smart, and specifically the mental health first-aider programme, funded? The last part of Amendment 48 talks about collecting data. It would be very beneficial to see data on all these issues, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, on suicide. Can we find such data now? If not, will it be collected and, as the amendment says, included in the annual covenant report?
I return to the extra £2.7 million of funding. Many current and former service personnel who served in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and are currently reliving their traumas, need to access NHS mental health services, including crisis care, right now. Unsurprisingly, these services are facing extraordinary pressure already. The NHS Providers activity trackers show that, for October 2021, referrals remain 10% higher than pre-pandemic levels, with many people having to wait significantly longer than the 18-week target time for their first contact.
In July, NHS England proposed setting new mental health access service standards, working in conjunction with Mind, the mental health charity, and Rethink Mental Illness. The new urgent care proposals would mean that community mental health crisis teams could reach patients within 24 hours of referral. The other key target for mental health liaison teams linked with A&E departments would also be rolled out across the rest of England. Detail on the actual level of funding to deliver this new target is still awaited. For this Bill, I am particularly interested in how all this will fit in with Op Courage. Perhaps the Minister can help me; if she does not have that information at her fingertips, could she write to me afterwards?
This amendment seeks urgent, extra, specific support for Op Courage—and, I hope, for Op Smart too—to ensure that all those people who are serving, or have served, their country do not fall through the net when they need mental health services.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of Peers for Gambling Reform. I rise to speak to Amendment 60 in my name. I tabled it because I am concerned that the Ministry of Defence is not taking gambling-related harm in the military community sufficiently seriously. On two occasions in response to my concerns in this area, the Ministry of Defence has stated that it has seen no evidence, or does not hold information, suggesting that serving personnel are more prone to problem gambling than any other group in society.
At the same time, it was disappointing to hear that evidence from the United States that suggested that serving personnel were more prone to problem gambling did not constitute an evidence base for the UK Armed Forces. This leaves us with a clear impasse, where the Government refuse to accept research from abroad but, at the same time, do not commit to researching whether there is a problem.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to add my support to my noble friend Lord Dannatt’s Amendment 48 regarding mental health support. I came to today’s debate thinking that it struck me as a very modest but effective way of keeping the Ministry of Defence’s feet to the fire on an issue patently requiring action. However, having listened today, I begin to worry that it may not be enough.
I think it is now more generally accepted in society that in human beings mental health is every bit as prevalent as physical health. The fact that mental health can suffer as a result of traumatic experience is also widely accepted. Mental health should nowadays carry no stigma and should be proactively monitored in the same way that physical and dental health are. This is where I improvise and part company with my prepared thoughts, as I reflect on my own experience of the mismatch in the approach to mental as opposed to physical health.
In September 1973, as an 18 year-old, I attended Sandhurst. On day one, I was weighed. Sandhurst had an idea that an officer had to weigh 12 stone 8 pounds. If you weighed more than that, you were put in a queue for extra PT. If you weighed less, you were put in a queue for extra milk.
In virtually every week, if not every day, of my life in the Army in the following 43 years, something to do with my physical health was assessed or tested, with a basic fitness test every other day, a battle fitness test probably once a month, the Army physical training assessment, the Army physical fitness assessment, annual medicals, hearing tests, foot inspections and dental tests. This mismatch between checks on my physical and mental well-being is remarkable. I was never once in 43 years asked by anybody how I felt mentally. I know from my own children that sports physiotherapists are everywhere. People, including my son, think nothing of taking a couple of sessions with a therapist to make them feel a bit better—he knows he will get better, but he just feels a bit down.
If the Minister will forgive me, the appearance of the annual online platform and £2.7 million in funding does not seem a sufficient amount of effort. It smacks of tokenism to meet something that actually needs a cultural shift in the whole approach to mental health from the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence. Whatever happens to this amendment, which I fully support, I hope that this sense of a need for a cultural shift is taken back to the ministry and the Armed Forces.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton. His sharing of his personal experience has honestly been of great benefit to the Committee on this group of amendments, although I am not sure I can match the impact it has probably had on your Lordships’ thinking. I should begin my first contribution to the Committee by offering my apologies for my absence from the first day; family commitments required that I was in Scotland.
The proposals before the Committee in this group have the same objective: they are aimed at safeguarding and improving the mental health and welfare of service personnel. I support Amendments 48 and 66A but have added my name to Amendment 60, and I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for tabling it. I agree with the arguments that he put forward and begin my remarks in support of his amendment by referring the Committee to his Oral Question in your Lordships’ House on 13 September, on the prevalence of gambling disorder in the Armed Forces. In my supplementary question then, I drew attention to the Army Headquarters Regional Command IPPD information sheet, Gambling—A Serious Risk to Military Personnel, which he has drawn from today. If the Committee will allow me, I wish to do the same for part of my argument.
In the preamble—this is the Army talking—it is stated that
“service personnel … are potentially more vulnerable and at greater risk to the harm that can result from gambling than the general public”.
As has been pointed out, it goes on to assert specifically that:
“Military veterans are 8 times more likely to become problem gamblers than the general population”.
This is not an historic document. Examination of it reveals in its last footnote a reference to 30 April 2019, which I understand to be its publication date, so it is a relatively modern view of the Army.
The Forces in Mind Trust study on veterans’ health and gambling, published on 23 September 2021, reinforces the Army’s official conclusion that there is that prevalence among veterans. It finds that veterans who responded to its survey were 10 times more likely than non-veteran respondents to experience gambling harm, and that veterans gambling were seven times more likely to be motivated by a need to escape or avoid distress. But this research is much more valuable than that, because it reveals some other very disturbing traits among veterans. Veteran participants were found to be at much greater risk of poor mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, and to have an alcohol and/or nicotine dependence. This research found that veterans with problem gambling had higher healthcare and benefit costs, as well as higher levels of debt than non-veterans. It is relevant to the right reverend Prelate’s amendment that the recommendations from the report include routine screening for gambling problems, including when leaving the Armed Forces.
I have to be completely honest about this: on the publication of the report, the researchers emphasised that their research must be considered with some caution, principally because
“The sample was recruited online, and veterans who have gambled may have been more likely to take part”.
I say that, however, with some further qualification because it is exactly the broader discussion about gambling and gambling harm that the Government themselves have been relying on for the oft-made assertion in your Lordships’ House that such harm is present in only a very small number of gamblers. It is all based on research and data gathered in much the same way. However, Professor Simon Dymond, the lead author of the report, said:
“Despite this, the significance of the findings is indisputable. This is the first UK study to explore the impact of gambling on UK ex-Service personnel, and our findings are consistent with the international body of work which finds that veterans are at greater risk of gambling harm.”
From my perspective, in addition to its consistency with the international body of work referred to, this research is fully consistent with the position adopted by the Army itself, which is expressed unqualified in the transition IPPD information sheet. Further, it is significant that the veterans who participated, whether self-selecting or not, were motivated to gamble by the need for an escape from, or avoidance of, distress.
However, this is perhaps the most concerning finding of the research. I quote the executive summary of the study:
“All veterans surveyed experienced some symptoms of depression, anxiety, risky alcohol use, nicotine dependence at higher levels, and increased indications of PTSD and complex PTSD … diagnoses compared to non-veterans.”
Consequently, I repeat what I said on 13 September in my supplementary question. In considering this, the “appropriate questions”, both for the Government and for us, that need to be answered are—
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will get back to where I was. The problem is real. On the basis, nature, extent and clear effect it has on military personnel, questions need to be answered. The issue is not whether we have sufficient data, but how we get the data that answers these questions. Why are soldiers more vulnerable to gambling? Why do military veterans have such a heightened prevalence to problem gambling, as opposed to the general population? Much more importantly, what are we—and in particular the MoD—doing to understand what lies behind that prevalence and all the other findings of this research? How can it be tackled before the vulnerability forms?
These are the right questions, and they totally justify a requirement for proper research, such as that laid out in this amendment. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister. If she believes that this is not the right approach, I ask her to tell us what the right approach is to gather the data that will protect these people from the development of those dreadful conditions. If she cannot propose an alternative, I suggest that we would have no difficulty getting the Committee to support the amendment, were it given the opportunity so to do.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 66A. I will not cover all the ground covered on the overseas Bill; I merely want to say that I look forward to what the Minister has to say about delivering what she said at the time. Aspects of the welfare of our people should be looked at and some implementation of policy achieved.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 48 and will follow what the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said. I will say why the amendment and more care for mental illness are required.
I live in a town in Scotland called Dunblane. In 1996, a gunman used a private armoury to kill schoolchildren and their teacher. At that time I was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and lived in the town. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, was the local Member of Parliament. We came together that day. It was by any standard a traumatic day. We did everything together after that to handle the issues that came up in the media. The following day, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition came to the town.
Within days I was back at work, which you do: it is traumatic, but you get through these things. I thought, “Well, I’m tough enough”—I had been a politician in Scotland for long enough, after all. You think you can take it all. But gradually I came to realise that I was not coping with it at all. I remembered that the Secretary of State for Scotland had offered counselling to those who had been affected. We were also made the same offer as individuals. I went to see the counsellor because I found I could not mention the events of that day without breaking up, and this was not something that was convenient or natural when you were in the bearpit of Scottish politics. I took up the offer and went to the counsellor. I spent a morning with an experienced counsellor and I was fixed. It took only a morning, but that lady was quite remarkable in the way she treated me.
Fast forward two years and I am Secretary of State for Defence. The Omagh bomb exploded in that small town in Northern Ireland. I went across as Defence Secretary with the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler, and spoke to the troops that day. The troops based there who had helped in the aftermath were pretty hardened infantry soldiers—as tough and as hard as you can get, and they had been in Northern Ireland for some time—but they were deeply affected by what they had seen that day. They could cope with most things, but the sight of a baby torn in pieces was something they were deeply traumatised by.
I told them my story that day to say that they had been injured by what they had seen and that they needed to take the counselling that was going to be on offer. Although they were tough and hard, if they had been told after being shot in the shoulder to put a sticking plaster on it and it would go away, it would not have seemed sufficient even for them, yet they had been injured in another way, and there were ways in which they could be treated. I hope that had an effect that day and persuaded some of them to take that treatment, which they probably felt was not something they would ever really need.
Since then, of course, the traumas of Afghanistan and Iraq have come along and many more of our Armed Forces have been severely affected. Therefore, this amendment, which, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, maybe does not go far enough, alerts the Ministry of Defence to the necessity that is there to make sure that more attention is paid to that aspect of medical welfare.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I do not think anybody can disagree with the intention of these amendments. Indeed, I agree entirely and am pleased to have heard about the progress made by the MoD in recent years when it comes to mental health—and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, the differing approach that we have taken to mental health and physical health over many years. It begs the question as to whether there is anything about physical health in the Bill, if we are potentially about to put something in about mental health.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 48 and to make one comment on Amendment 60. Additional mental welfare supervision and psychology work while people are in the Armed Forces is really important. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said words to the effect that 3% of servicepeople are recognised as having a mental illness while serving. We also know that the total is 7%. That is if they have not been on operations, when it is 17%—so there is a gap. We do not manage to close that gap unless we pay much more attention to members of the Armed Forces while they are serving.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned that he was never asked how he was when he was in the Army. I wonder where this has gone wrong. When I was in the home-based security forces in Northern Ireland, we were visited quite regularly by a medical psychologist in Lisnaskea. That may have come through the Royal Irish and the RUC, which recognised all this a long time before other people. The problem is that I, like the others, rather pooh-poohed it because you are a mean, green, lean fighting machine, and a psychologist walking in and asking, “Are you all right, mate?”, somehow just does not work very well.
Another issue applying to all this is that we generally consider veterans to be older people. To a certain extent, the idea of a veteran is someone on a veterans’ parade on Remembrance Sunday in towns and villages and at home. However, quite clearly there are two age groups of veterans. There are the old and bold, some of whom—and, in our case in Northern Ireland, many of whom—have psychological problems from the many bombings and shootings, but there is also a large number of current-day servicepeople leaving in their 20s and 30s. They leave for a host of reasons, not least because, if they have been on two or three tours of Afghanistan or somewhere else, they rather feel they have done their bit. When these people, as opposed to those who are 40 or 50, become veterans, they are really a different group that it is hard to get in touch and stay in touch with.
The older ones have been serving for a long time. Therefore, they are there for people to man manage and look after. As a platoon officer or a company officer you know everything about your soldiers’ lives, so they are under some form—not psychological—of supervision. They tend to leave as families or to relatives or whatever. However, you have a very large cohort now of those in their 20s and 30s, and when they leave their first thing on getting out of the gates is to think “Yippee, we’re out”.
We talk about increased money going to current serving soldiers. We are a host to a mental welfare service charity at home. One of the major problems is that the MoD—and I can be corrected by the Minister, perhaps—is responsible for serving soldiers. The moment they walk out of that gate, they are no longer in that category. I am talking about a lot of the younger ones. “Yippee, I’m out”—they are gone. They have had a military doctor, a military dentist, a padre and the NAAFI. Their whole life has been provided for them. They go out and bang—they have no doctor; they have nothing. Incidentally, even if they do find their medical records, at no stage does it say when they go to a health centre, “Beware, this is a veteran”.
We have a total lack of joined-up service care. Therefore, anything that can contribute to greater attention being paid to servicepeople while they are in is really important, because when they are out they are so difficult to find—until they go wrong and become homeless or turn to gambling. That turns, of course, to Amendment 60.
I was interested that the Government deny the figures, or at least do not recognise here the figures from the US. I ask the Minister: why? The number of servicepeople who have not been in operations is 7% of mental health cases in this country. What is it in America? What is it in Denmark? What is it in Germany? It is 6% or 7%. The figure for those on operations who have mental welfare problems is 17%. What is it in the other countries? It is the same. What is different with gambling that the Government seem to know about but we do not? I add my support to these amendments, because any increase in this help is very important.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Viscount and I, too, will want to raise issues in respect of gambling. I begin by saying how much I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. In particular, I want to say how grateful I was to have had the opportunity to hear the speeches from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. They both drew our very clear attention with their very personal experiences to the importance of being as concerned about the mental health of our service personnel as we should be about their physical health.
I am delighted to support Amendment 60 and, in so doing, declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. I suggest to your Lordships that, just as we have become used to dealing with the issues of alcohol and drug addiction, we should now be equally concerned about the addiction that can be caused by gambling.
As we have heard already, much research has been done in many other countries on this issue. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all found that military service personnel and military veterans are more likely to gamble than other people and are more likely to become problem gamblers. In some of those countries the research findings have led to action. For example, in 2019 in America moves were taken that are very similar to—and in fact go far further than—what is proposed in Amendment 60 today.
Research in the UK has of course been limited, and Ministers in the MoD have simply not been persuaded that, just because problem gambling exists among personnel and veterans in other countries, that will be the same here. It is almost as if the MoD is turning a blind eye to it. So far, Ministers have also not been interested in finding out whether the situation in other countries might be replicated, or even whether the current rules that they have, which prohibit gambling on MoD properties, are being adhered to.
Over a year ago, the right reverend Prelate made a freedom of information request, asking whether gambling machines were present on just one military base: Catterick. That FoI request was rejected, with the bizarre argument that contacting the base individually would incur disproportionate costs. Could the Minister explain how a single phone call, letter or email would have incurred disproportionate cost? Why, if gambling is not permitted on military bases, does she seem unable to say with confidence that there are no gaming machines on any military base, especially when some military personnel have suggested otherwise?
While the Government appear to want to ignore the possibility that UK military personnel and veterans may be more prone to gambling harm than the rest of the population, as we have already heard, very senior people in the military are alert to the issue. As the right reverend Prelate said, the Army Headquarters Regional Command information sheet on the transition to public life claims that
“service personnel … are potentially more vulnerable and at greater risk to the harm that can result from gambling than the general public.”
More recently, some research in the UK backed up the concerns. The research by the Forces in Mind Trust and Swansea University, which has been mentioned, reports that 43% of veterans have experienced problem gambling in the last year—far more than the general population—and were
“ten times more likely than non-veterans to experience gambling harms and to gamble as a way of coping with distress.”
The Government cannot therefore now continue to claim that we have no evidence. Just over a month ago, following the publication of that research, I wrote to Leo Docherty MP, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, seeking a meeting to discuss the report. I still await a reply, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give him a nudge and see if we can make that happen.
It appears that, while alert to the potential of military personnel and veterans developing alcohol and drug problems, as I say, the Government do not have similar concerns about gambling problems. That has been mirrored in some of the decisions made. Earlier, my noble friend Lady Brinton rightly gave credit to the Government for introducing Operation Courage and the £2.7 million attached to it. She asked when the money would come forward. But it is worth looking at what it is intended to be spent on: expanding services for military veterans with complex mental health issues, physical trauma and alcohol or substance misuse issues. It does not include funding to help with gambling addiction.
The Minister has said that the Government are now studying the Forces in Mind Trust research—so, if persuaded by it, will she agree to extend the use of funding for Operation Courage to encompass help for military veterans with gambling problems? No doubt she will reply that more research is needed, and I would entirely agree with her on that. Indeed, in a recent debate in your Lordships’ House on Public Health England’s review of gambling research, I said as much. The Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay—responded by saying:
“As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, the report identifies gaps in the evidence base. One of the aims of our review”—
that is, the gambling review that his department is undertaking—
is to make sure that we have high-quality evidence to support regulation. We will work with the Department of Health and Social Care and key parties to address the knowledge gaps identified in the evidence review and improve data collection.”—[Official Report, 14/10/21; col. 1973.]
I simply say this: since the Government are belatedly showing interest in the need for improved research into gambling, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment, which would provide an opportunity for more research to be carried out and more data gathered. I hope it will also demonstrate that the Government really are serious.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 60 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. There is no doubt that problem gambling is a debilitating condition that takes over people’s lives and, in some cases, destroys them. Since the Gambling Act 2005, the opportunities to gamble have increased significantly. As we have heard, the recent report from Swansea University and the Armed Forces veterans’ health and gambling study clearly indicate that, in the United Kingdom, serving personnel and veterans in particular are significantly more likely to struggle with problem gambling than non-veterans.
I was privileged to meet many problem gamblers, some from the Armed Forces, when the GAMSTOP exclusion from online gambling was being debated in your Lordships’ House. One of those gamblers was a retired Army major, Justyn Larcombe, whose case is well documented. He lost more than £750,000 over three years through taking part in online sports books. As a result, he lost his home, his family and his wife. However, I am glad to say that he has now been reunited with his wife and family, and has become actively involved in helping others obtain help for their gambling addiction. Indeed, he was the co-investigator on the United Kingdom Armed Forces Veterans’ Health and Gambling Study 2021 report, which provided a useful survey of gambling, mental health and associated costs among a sample of UK veterans.
The findings of that report back up the fact that members of the Armed Forces are much more likely to develop gambling problems, especially if they have experienced post-traumatic stress. Also, the transition from active military service to civilian life can be extremely challenging, leading, as we have heard, to many veterans engaging in high-risk behaviour, such as alcohol and substance abuse, and having behavioural problems. As I have said, there is growing evidence indicating a specific vulnerability to gambling-related harm.
Veterans’ gambling is more likely to be motivated by a need to escape and avoid distress. Indeed, we should note that the 2021 veterans study found that
“gambling is estimated to cost the UK between £260 million to £1.6 billion in economic, health, social and criminal justice costs”.
As the Forces in Mind Trust states:
“This research found that veterans with problem gambling had higher health care and benefits costs, as well as higher levels of debt than non-veterans.”
I believe that this amendment would lead to the provision of much needed further research—because research is limited at the moment—to assist our understanding of the mechanisms underlying problem gambling among Armed Forces personnel. With increased data, the Government would be in a much better position to formulate and draw up policies to help those in our Armed Forces facing gambling problems. It would also help them to think of policies to reduce the stigma often associated with those in the Armed Forces seeking help for gambling problems. Unfortunately, many personnel fear facing the possible repercussions, such as losing a chance at promotion or, in some cases, being dismissed from the services.
The problem of gambling in the Armed Forces is real and causing real problems for not just the individuals in the Armed Forces but their families. The inclusion of this proposed new clause in the Bill would go a long way to provide for and protect them so that the Government could make well-informed decisions, as I said. Northern Ireland has the highest incidence of problem gambling in the general population. It is four times higher than in any other region in the United Kingdom. I hope that, if these two proposed new clauses are accepted by the Government, they will apply to Northern Ireland.
We must continue to improve service and, where we can support sensible, practical and long-lasting protection for all our military personnel, we should do so. I fully support any legislation that will improve the lives of our very fine personnel.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I will particularly speak to Amendments 48 and 66A. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, pointed out in introducing Amendment 66A, it very much builds on those he sought very hard to bring forward on the overseas operations Bill. The suggestion at the time was that perhaps that Bill was not the right place for such an amendment.
The idea of a duty of care seems to be beneficial, and the amendment is laid out in very clear detail. I have a suspicion that the Minister might come back with a whole set of reasons why even this Bill is not the right place, and that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about unintended consequences might come with the suggestion that there will be scope for some sort of legal interpretation and that this might create all sorts of problems. However, does the MoD not have a duty of care to service personnel and their families? Should this not be very clearly stated? If the Minister does not accept that Amendment 66A as currently proposed would be a desirable addition to the Bill, could she undertake to think about an alternative amendment that could be brought back on Report?
Amendment 48, relating to service personnel and mental health, is important. As other Peers have pointed out, the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, are important in bringing personal insights. Often when we talk about legislation relating to the Armed Forces, we are a bit technical. We talk not necessarily about individuals but about generalities. It is clearly important to think about the individual because it is precisely the individual who matters in each of the three amendments in this group.
However, I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that Amendment 48 specifically refers to veterans affected by events in Afghanistan. There may be a case for saying that, on the face of a Bill, we should be a little more general rather than being quite so specific. If the Minister’s only objection to Amendment 48 happens to be something along the lines of not being able to talk specifically about people being affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, perhaps again she might suggest some alternatives. Very clearly, there are a huge number of serving personnel and veterans who have been affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, precisely because they served there on multiple occasions, so this case is very specific.
All these amendments enhance the Bill. I hope the Minister will see her way to accepting parts of at least some of them, even if she cannot accept all of them in full. If she cannot accept them, we will obviously bring some or all of them back on Report.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in the important group before us. There are clearly many issues around mental health support but I have an optimistic note. We heard contributions from very senior former military officers—not least the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, who moved the exceedingly important Amendment 48, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, who supported it—and former Secretaries of State for Defence talking about mental health in a way that would not have happened 20 or 25 years ago. That is significant progress and we should all be proud of it.
Perhaps that stigma we all worry about is starting to lift. Is it good enough and are we there yet? No, but my noble friend Lord Robertson spoke movingly about his experiences, shocking as they were. I am certain that those officers who served in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere across the world, could recount their own stories of horror. Others of us could recount horrors that have occurred in our own lives: the right reverend Prelate may have had very distressing things to deal with in talking to people during his ministry. Within the context of the Armed Forces Bill, though, mental health is now something that we can talk about and discuss. That is why this amendment is so important, although maybe there are problems with it; the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed some out.
We can almost see in the drafting of Amendment 48 the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. Yes, it refers to Afghanistan: proposed new subsection (1) talks about
“targeted support for serving Armed Forces personnel who have been affected by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal”
from Afghanistan, but before that it refers to
“additional mental health support for … Armed Forces personnel, including but not limited to”
that support. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, includes a recognition that Afghanistan may be on our minds, for obvious reasons, given the bravery of our service men and women there and the horror of what we have just witnessed, et cetera. But I suggest that, in drafting his amendment, he was very aware of the fact that there are people who have served, and are serving, in countless places across the world whose trauma could need additional support.
To be frank, the Minister may have some official statistics on this. I do not know the actual number of those affected, but it would be useful for the Committee to know from the Ministry of Defence its assessment of the level of need, if that is the right way of putting it, with respect to this provision. Perhaps I may tell her one thing that drives me absolutely insane: people know that I try to tell it as it is but, from the Government’s announcements over the last few months, I have no idea exactly what is happening to spending on mental health in terms of additional support for veterans or their families, both serving and in the future. There have been numerous announcements; I hope the Committee will bear with me if I refer to two or three.
At the end of August, the Government announced that Armed Forces veterans would benefit from extra support, including extra mental health services, thanks to a further £2.7 million in funding. Is that additional funding and what is it on top of? It would be helpful to know what the spending on mental health support was last year, is this year and will be next year. Resources are clearly an issue and it would be really good to know what the official level of spending is on mental health support for our serving personnel and veterans. What is it now and what is projected as we go forward?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I think we all found that a fascinating discussion. I will say later in my remarks that I indicated during the passage of the overseas operations Bill that I felt that some of these issues would be worth revisiting in the Armed Forces Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for raising the issues. I will address the points on which he specifically sought clarification later in my speech, but I pay particular tribute not just to the content of your Lordships’ contributions but to the emotional sentiment and the calibre of that sentiment, as so eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson.
These important amendments centre on the issue of service personnel and mental health. As I said, I am very grateful to be able to look at these amendments. I accept that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, are well intended. Amendment 48 is supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, while Amendment 66A is supported by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Boyce, with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, lending his weight as well.
I also extend my gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, whose Amendment 60 highlights the potential harmful impact that addictive gambling could have on our service personnel. His amendment is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Foster of Bath. The right reverend Prelate’s determined pursuit of the potential harm of addictive gambling is acknowledged and admired. I assure him that I have looked at the research he referred to, which I shall refer to when I address his amendment.
Amendment 48 seeks to ensure that the Government make provision for additional mental health support, including for service personnel affected by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, asked about Afghanistan and the effect of Operation Pitting on those who participated. I am not dodging the issue, but as yet there is no clear evidence to support what mental health impact the current Afghanistan situation is having. The MoD is prepared with comprehensive services and support for everyone who may have been affected by this situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, specifically raised the issue of suicides. The MoD has begun the defence suicide register. It relates to all suicides across defence, including those relating to Afghanistan. It is anticipated that this review or register will be released in spring 2022. I hope that provides the noble Lord with some reassurance that active attention is being directed to this.
It is MoD policy that mental health should be properly recognised and appropriately handled, and that every effort should be made to reduce the associated stigma. The MoD recognises that mental ill-health can be a serious and disabling condition, but one that can be treated through education, training, diagnosis and specialist care. We have a resilient workforce and are focused on the prevent space all the time, not just with current events. I will explain to your Lordships what we do now. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who said that, time was, we did not really talk about these issues. I say to him: we want to talk about them now, we can talk about them now, and that is what we should do.
Every year the MoD publishes the United Kingdom Armed Forces Mental Health bulletin, which provides a summary relating to Armed Forces personnel seen in all military healthcare services—primary care and specialist mental health care—for a mental health-related reason. It provides a wider picture of mental health among Armed Forces personnel. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, justifiably asked about the level of need. That annual bulletin is a useful indicator of level of need.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also asked for an overall figure of resource applied to the mental health support given to service personnel and veterans. I will inquire and see what I can find out. I undertake to write to the noble Lord, and I shall place that letter in the Library.
In June 2021, the annual UK Armed Forces Mental Health bulletin showed that the mental health of UK Armed Forces personnel is
“broadly comparable to that seen in the UK general population”
and that the rate of mental ill-health
“for those needing specialist mental health treatment was lower in the UK armed forces than that seen in the UK general population.”
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, referred to the helpful description that I believe my ministerial colleague for defence personnel and veterans used: the “gold standard” of what we try to do. I think we do have a gold standard in relation to the provision of mental health support for our Armed Forces and veterans. I am going to take some time to explain what we do, because it is important that I share with your Lordships as much information as I can. All Armed Forces personnel are supported by dedicated medical services, including mental health support. The MoD works with the single services, Defence Medical Services and other stakeholders to promote mental fitness, prevent ill health and reduce stigma. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, quite rightly raised that important issue.
Each of the single services provides through-career mental resilience and stress management training, including a defence course for senior officers. Armed Forces personnel who experience a traumatic event are supported through the trauma risk management process. The MoD has also produced the HeadFIT website to encourage the good management of mental fitness. An online mental health fundamentals course is available to all Armed Forces personnel and, from 11 October this year, the annual mental fitness brief is mandated activity for all Armed Forces personnel, delivering an understanding of mental health and well-being, stress management, how to transform stress into mental resilience and where personnel can seek appropriate help.
The MoD provides a 24-hour mental health helpline for Armed Forces personnel and their families delivered by Combat Stress. Togetherall allows Armed Forces personnel access to its 24-hour staffed digital forum, and the Samaritans deliver bespoke workplace training and a peer support pocket guide providing guidance on how to talk to and support colleagues struggling to cope with mental ill-health.
One question that arose was: what processes are in place to identify those who are vulnerable and most at risk of developing mental illness? No system can detect every individual at risk of mental illness. Nevertheless—I say this to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Robertson—measures are in place to increase awareness at all levels and to mitigate the development of operational stresses. These include pre and post-deployment briefing and the availability of support, assessment, and, if required, treatment both during and after deployment. This is available to all personnel, whether regular or mobilised reservists.
Going back to the important issue of stigma, what is the MoD trying to do to help address that and people’s reluctance to accept or seek help? Stigma is not, as your Lordships will understand, an issue only for the UK Armed Forces. It accompanies mental health issues among the general population. But, from September this year, all Armed Forces personnel receive a mandatory annual mental health and well-being briefing. It focuses on increasing awareness of mental health and the personal barriers that prevent some personnel seeking support.
We move on to the important issue raised by a number of noble Lords: the transition. What do you do when you propose to go from active service to the status of veteran? What support is given to service leavers with mental health issues to ensure that they do not slip through the gaps in that transition? Where personnel leaving the Armed Forces have an enduring need for mental health care, we work in partnership with the NHS to ensure continuation of care. The MoD’s departments of community mental health are accessible for up to six months after discharge to help veterans during their transition period.
An important question was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough: what are we doing to support the mental health needs of veterans? Wherever they live in the UK, all veterans are able to receive specialist mental health support if they need it. The MoD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs work in close partnership with a variety of different organisations, including the NHS and the devolved Administrations, who are responsible for health care, including mental health care, for veterans, and service charities.
The through-life mental health support now provided to Armed Forces personnel will also have a positive impact on the veterans of the future. We are ensuring that Armed Forces personnel have the psychological resilience training they need to recognise mental ill-health in themselves and those around them and know how to manage it.
What about the supporting background, which is also critical? The majority of Armed Forces personnel who seek mental health care are actually managed by their GP. However, some with more complex needs will receive treatment from specialist mental health care providers. MoD specialist mental health services are configured to provide community-based mental health care in line with national best practice. This is done through 11 military departments of community mental health across the UK that provide outpatient mental health care. These DCMH teams comprise psychiatrists, mental health nurses, clinical psychologists, senior mental health practitioners and mental health social workers. A wide range of psychiatric and psychological treatments are available, including medication, psychological therapies and environmental adjustment, where appropriate.
For those personnel requiring medical intervention, the Defence Medical Services provide a responsive, flexible, accessible and comprehensive treatment service. Some 10.5% of UK Armed Forces personnel were seen in military healthcare for a mental health-related reason in 2021. This figure includes both personnel seen by their GP and those who required the support of specialist mental health services. We also do more out in the broader community. The Defence Medical Services set up Project Rebalance, a self-referral provision for serving personnel seeking mental health care who are pregnant or are on maternity leave. In February 2021, the Defence Medical Services set up another self-referral provision—Project Direct Support—for DMS personnel seeking mental health care while being engaged in clinical front-line duties during Covid.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We have discussed these matters for one hour and 35 minutes, which is much longer than I anticipated we would, but it is very good that we have had a tremendous number of points exercised. I also congratulate the House staff on grouping these amendments so cleverly. Amendments 48, 60 and 66A have come together in an extremely powerful fashion to underline the concern that many of us have about some of these issues.
I particularly thank the Minister for her most comprehensive answers to all the points made. It is true that part of the thinking behind the amendments we have discussed this afternoon was to invite her to give a comprehensive statement of where the department thinks that it is. I am grateful for her extensive, exhaustive and informative account of the many improvements and changes that the department has been making. I refer back to my opening remarks, when I paid credit to the Ministry of Defence for a number of the changes that have occurred in recent times. We all know that much progress has to be made—much has been made but, in many of these areas, much more has to be made.
In closing, I will make one comment. On two or three occasions, we have looked at data. It has been asserted that the Ministry of Defence does not find any oddity between the service population and the general population. I find that quite difficult to accept. A number of pieces of evidence have been alluded to during the course of this debate indicating that perhaps the Ministry of Defence’s data is not all that it should be, and perhaps there is an element of understanding what you want to understand as opposed to what the reality actually is.
I point particularly to suicide, which I raised and discussed 18 months ago with Johnny Mercer MP, then the Veterans Minister. He assured me that two investigations were going on, comparing the incidence of suicide arising from Iraq and Afghanistan to the historic data of the first Gulf War and the Balkans. I was promised that this information would be available. I am now told that there is another study, which will report in spring 2022. Asking questions is a good thing but we also need some answers because, when we have them, we have a factual base, and we can then start to build some better policy. I make that comment as an aside, and I thank the Minister for her comprehensive updating of your Lordships about where we have got to.
At the present moment, I am content to withdraw Amendment 48 and not to move Amendment 66A. I should like to analyse, as others will, the information that has been given this afternoon and see where we might go in the context of Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth and Gurkha members of armed forces
(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 68(10), after “regulations” insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, or in respect of any person who has served at least four years in the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause will ensure that Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 49, I will speak to Amendment 63. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for signing these amendments.
It is extremely disappointing that, as currently drafted, the Bill does nothing to address the shameful scandal of visa fees for veterans. As Stephen Morgan said:
“Commonwealth service personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country they served with courage and distinction.”
Under current rules, Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK after having served at least four years. It means that someone with a partner and two children could face a bill of £10,000 to stay in Britain. I remember that, at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, called this a “shameful scandal”, while the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said that it was a “bizarre situation”.
The Government finally announced a long-awaited public consultation on 26 May on proposals that would waive visa fees for those who had served 12 years or more. However, as the Sun reported:
“Ministry of Defence figures show only 20 of the 200 non-UK personnel who left the Regulars last year would qualify … when the majority serve between four and 11 years … The average length of service for all UK armed forces leavers has been about 10 years since 2015.”
The proposed changes also do not apply to family members of those who have served or those who have been medically discharged, meaning that they will help only a minority of those affected. Amendments 49 and 63 would mean that Commonwealth, Gurkha and Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans who have served four years would pay just the cost price of £243 for an application for indefinite leave to remain. I know that the Royal British Legion and organisations such as Citizenship 4 Soldiers have long campaigned on this.
The government consultation closed on 7 July. The Minister said at Second Reading that the Government were
“currently analysing the feedback from that consultation and we shall respond in due course.”—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 775.]
Is that response ready today? If not, when will it be ready? Can the Minister explain why this Government can justify making Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans, who have served our country with the same courage and distinction, wait two years longer before they are allowed to live in the country they have fought for? This is about not only fairness but our moral obligation to those who have served our country in the Armed Forces. I want to see movement from the Minister on this issue; otherwise, we will certainly return to it on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 49 and 63, but I shall speak to Amendment 63 and concentrate on the plight of the few UK Armed Forces veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. For completeness, I also include veterans of the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron. They were all full members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces throughout their service. They took the same lifetime oath of loyalty as all other British service members, and paid full UK taxes. Officially recognised as veterans by Her Majesty’s Government, they are not being treated fairly and reasonably, as the covenant requires. I have already explained the background to this issue to the Minister and raised it many times in this House, so I will not repeat myself now in this Committee.
The recent swift action by the Government to evacuate and grant right of abode to thousands of Afghanis shows that the Home Office can respond fast. Is there any reason why the Government have prevaricated for the past nine years and refused to come to a decision about granting the request of the Hong Kong veterans for British citizenship and right of abode? These veterans’ covenant rights should apply in Hong Kong as they do anywhere else.
The imposed national security law in Hong Kong has put the “one country, two systems” paradigm in a precarious state. These veterans find themselves living under Beijing rule. They, along with many other Hong Kongers, are worried, but they are small in number and believe their case is now a matter of humanity, not politics. They feel they are being treated as aliens, not veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
They, as much as other past members of the Armed Forces, deserve a positive decision, not the endless excuse that their case is being “actively considered”. That euphemism has been the response of Home Office Ministers and a frequently repeated response to approaches from Members of both Houses on behalf of these veterans for the past nine years and more. Over 60 individual applications from this small group of veterans, which I forwarded to the Home Office on their behalf in March 2020, over 18 months ago, have gone unanswered. It all smacks of a Sir Humphrey-style reaction, unworthy of the Home Office, unless it aspires to remain a department unfit for business in this area. It is long past time for this request to be resolved finally and clearly.
Is this not an equally pertinent example, as was the case of Gulf War syndrome, highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the earlier Committee debate, of the need to include the Secretary of State for Defence in the list of those who must have a duty of care under the covenant? These Hong Kong Armed Forces veterans’ concerns and requests are not ones that could be devolved or passed to a local authority. Including the Secretary of State in this Bill is necessary to fill this gap in the duty of care under the covenant. Will the Government acknowledge that this Hong Kong veterans’ claim is a long-standing and legitimate one that should be honoured by reaching a decision now?
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I wish to contribute on Amendment 49. In doing so, I declare my interest as Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I have had a long association with the brigade since, as an 18 year-old troop commander in the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers, I first visited Nepal in 1988. I have served with them ever since, in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere, so I am delighted to now be the Colonel Commandant.
This is an interesting day. Yesterday marked the 207th anniversary of the death of Major-General Rollo Gillespie at the Battle of Kalunga, where a tiny Gurkha or Nepali force of some 600 held off for nearly a month a much better-equipped and larger British Army force. That honourable draw effectively started the relationship between the British Army and Nepal, when the Prime Minister at the time, Bhim Thapa, allowed the East India Company, as it was then, to start recruiting Gurkhas.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to ask for some clarification from the Minister. On the first day of Committee I mentioned, perhaps in a slightly inappropriate place, British citizenship for Commonwealth soldiers. One of the tasks of a lord-lieutenant is to be the Queen’s representative at citizenship ceremonies. On one occasion a soldier from the Rifles, who was from the Caribbean, came up. When I asked him what he did, he said very quietly, because we were in Northern Ireland and one is sensitive about that, “I’m in the Army”. I would like clarification on what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, has just said. I understood him to say that they could not apply for citizenship while they were serving. In that case, how was this soldier, who was not a Gurkha, able to apply during that time?
Also, previous clauses of this Bill cited “due regard” by the authorities—not the Government but other statutory bodies—in housing, mental welfare and whatever. How is it that we do not appear to have due regard for Commonwealth soldiers, some of whom have done multiple tours in Iraq, Afghanistan and, indeed, Northern Ireland? I understand from earlier comments by the Minister that “due regard” in the whole Bill does not apply to central government, so the Government seem to have sidestepped this, in more ways than one.
We were talking about this a few minutes ago. Where is this moral responsibility of at least “due regard”? What is the process for a serving soldier from a Commonwealth country who is not a British citizen to apply for British citizenship? Do they have to go through the same hoop and process, with significant cost, as somebody who may be a doctor or nurse from the Philippines? These are people from all over the world, including China and Russia—I have carried out this ceremony for citizens of all sorts of countries. I would just like the Minister to explain where we are putting our soldiers. We do not seem to have the moral and caring attitude that, as a country, we should have to those who have served us so well.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I support both these amendments in regard to those affected in Hong Kong, about whom the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, spoke most eloquently, and Gurkha soldiers who are Nepalese citizens. It is also worth putting in the widest possible context that we have a large component of the British Armed Forces from not only Nepal or Hong Kong, as already mentioned, but other Commonwealth countries. When I had the privilege of being Chief of the General Staff, the make-up of the British Army included people from 41 different nationalities. In fact, I had under my command more Fijian soldiers than Frank Bainimarama, the head of the Fijian Army, had in his own army. This is not a niche problem but a significant issue which we have to address, recognise and deal properly with.
We have to do so now in the context of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. In that melee of people coming back on the various flights during August were many members of the Afghan national army who, one way or another, have found their way back here. As part of Operation Warm Welcome, they will now be given significant residential rights in this country, over and above the foreign and Commonwealth soldiers who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us and fought in many campaigns. This is an anomaly and it is bizarre. We have to resolve it, so I put that issue back on the table. Earlier this afternoon, unintended consequences were mentioned in another context; this is an unintended consequence of a generous gesture to Afghans but, I am afraid, it makes a mockery of our policy with regard to foreign and Commonwealth individuals, including those from Nepal and Hong Kong.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support both amendments. I added my name to Amendment 49; it was merely an omission not to have added my name to Amendment 63 since both amendments, as we have heard, are important. At Second Reading, I spoke about the situation with the Gurkhas; my only experience of them is visiting once while on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, so I have no interest to declare in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, has.
However, like other noble Lords, I am deeply aware of the importance of the Gurkhas and the service they give. We need to think what signals we send if we say, “You can work with us; you can put your life on the line and die for us. But if you wish to have indefinite leave to remain, we will charge you huge sums of money, as if you were simply coming as a third-country national with no relationship to our country.” People who have been serving with us, such as the Gurkhas and Commonwealth citizens working within our Armed Forces, should be given the opportunity to have indefinite leave to remain on an at-cost basis, as we ourselves would when we sign up for a passport. We do not get our passports free but we pay the cost.
Earlier on, the Minister suggested that the MoD has certain duties, but this is not currently a duty. The MoD and the Home Office could do something relatively straightforward about this and make a huge difference in the message that we send to service personnel from Commonwealth countries.
Finally, I add a word in support of the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, about Hong Kong. This is partly because my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool was hoping to speak on this amendment in support of the service personnel from Hong Kong; he sat through the first group and most of our next debate but has had to leave for another meeting. It is very important that we think again about the commitments to Hong Kong. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, it is slightly an issue of history and timing that the withdrawal from Afghanistan has happened in the middle of the passage of the Bill, and it sends certain messages. However, that withdrawal and the situation in Hong Kong again mean that we have certain duties. It would behove the MoD and the Home Office to look generously also on service personnel from Hong Kong.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for their contributions on an issue that might look fairly contained but is, none the less, important. I will look first at Amendment 49, on fees for indefinite leave to remain, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. I make clear immediately that 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.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Home Office, not the MoD, has a specific set of Immigration Rules for Armed Forces personnel and their dependants, the Appendix Armed Forces. Under these rules, non-UK service personnel enlisted in the regular Armed Forces, including Commonwealth citizens, and Gurkhas from Nepal, are granted an exemption from immigration status for the duration of their service to allow them to come and go without restriction. They are therefore free from any requirements to make visa applications or pay any fees while they serve, unlike almost every other category of migrant coming to work in the UK.
Non-UK service personnel who have served at least four years or been medically discharged as a result of their service can choose to settle in the UK after their service and pay the relevant fee. As my noble friend Lord Lancaster indicated, the time before discharge when such settlement applications can be submitted has been extended this year from 10 to 18 weeks. Those applying for themselves do not have to meet an income requirement, be sponsored by an employer or meet any requirements regarding their skills or knowledge of the English language or of life in the UK. That again puts them in a favourable position compared with other migrants wishing to settle here.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, asked specifically about the situation of Afghan interpreters and sought to draw an analogy between them and the group that we are discussing under these amendments. ARAP and the ex-gratia scheme before it were set up in recognition of something very simple: the serious and immediate danger locally engaged staff would face, were they to remain in Afghanistan. The unique and perilous situation that this group of Afghans faced, because of their support for Her Majesty’s Government, required a bespoke solution to meet that immediate and extreme need.
I can tell the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that specific Immigration Rules are already in place for our non-UK service personnel and veterans, as I have outlined, to ensure that those who choose to can remain in the UK after service. Some choose to take up that offer, while others return to their original nation, but that personal choice is not overshadowed by risk of persecution or even death, such as would be faced by Afghan citizens if they returned to Afghanistan.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting. I much appreciate her point, but my point was not in this instance to do with interpreters. I am very grateful for the work of the Ministry of Defence in enabling many of our interpreters to come to this country, and more is still to be done. I was referring to members of the Afghan National Army who have found their way back to this country through the evacuation flights. As soldiers of another nation, they are going to be accorded better rights of residence in this country than foreign and Commonwealth soldiers who have served as members of the British Armed Forces.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I referred to locally employed citizens in Afghanistan. It may be that some members of the Afghan army felt at risk and that their lives were imperilled, and therefore sought to return to this country. We would bring them under the overall umbrella of help we felt it necessary to provide people who came here because they feared for their lives—and they were people with whom we had a relationship. So I suggest that there is not a complete analogy in the noble Lord’s description.
We recognise that settlement fees place a financial burden on non-UK serving personnel wishing to remain in the UK after their discharge, and the strength of feeling from parliamentarians, service charities and the public about this issue. As has already been indicated, the Ministry of Defence, together with the Home Office, ran a public consultation between 26 May and 7 July 2021 regarding a policy proposal to waive settlement fees for non-UK service personnel. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked when we will get an outcome from that. I can say to him that 6,398 responses were received. These are having to be sifted through. The results are currently being considered and the Government will publish their response in due course. The Government are aware that there is a certain anticipation in the outside world to know their response.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the time is late. I think six Peers have spoken on these amendments and they were entirely in favour of them, as far as I can tell. There is a thing called democracy. It does not come in during this Committee but does on Report, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will be back on the subject. I suggest she adjusts her mind not only to consultations and reports but to a dash of pragmatism, which would be best achieved by a major concession from the Government. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“Report on dismissals or discharges from the Armed Forces on grounds relating to sexual orientation or gender identity
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the number of people who have been dismissed or discharged from the Armed Forces on the grounds relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—(a) there is formal documentation citing sexual orientation as the reason for their dismissal, or(b) there is evidence of sexual orientation or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.(3) The report under subsection (1) must make recommendations for appropriate compensation to be awarded, including but not limited to—(a) the restoration of ranks,(b) pensions, and(c) other forms of financial compensation. (4) The report must include a review of the cases of those service personnel who as a result of their sexual orientation were convicted of service discipline offences as a consequence of engaging in conduct which, if occurring in the same circumstances today, would not now be an offence and make recommendations on how to address such convictions.(5) The report must include dismissals and discharges back to at least 1955.(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than six months after the day on which this Act is passed.(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.”Member’s explanatory statement
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 sexual orientation and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 50 in my name, which is in this important group of amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, for their amendments in this group. I very much support and appreciate them.
I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief to give other noble Lords time to speak. This is a crucial set of amendments. The Committee will know that homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until January 2000. That is quite astonishing, given that the law was changed in 1967. The ban was lifted by the then Labour Government and I was very pleased. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was Secretary of State at that time. If he was not, he would no doubt have been working towards that. The fact that homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until January 2000, some 33 years after the 1967 Act, is shocking.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that I left the Ministry of Defence in October 1999, so I cannot claim the credit.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I would say that my noble friend laid the ground for it.
My serious point is that it has left a situation in which thousands upon thousands of ex-service men and women were dishonourably discharged, or quite outrageously forced from the service, simply because of their sexuality. It is simply unbelievable given the standards we have now and simply unacceptable that it happened. The practical impact of that discrimination —loss of pension, loss of livelihood et cetera—let alone the mental health damage and the stigma attached to it, was simply unacceptable and unbelievable. I want to draw attention to that. I would be interested to know from the Minister what the Ministry of Defence’s estimate—the Government’s view—is of the number of people impacted by this. I have seen estimates in the press of up to 20,000 people. I do not know whether that is correct; maybe noble Lords have better information than me, but it will be interesting to know what the actual figure is.
We have heard the Government say that there will be a restoration of medals. That seems good, but its progress has been slow. What will the Government do more of to try to accelerate that progress? There is clearly a need for further compensation, for pensions to be reformed and all those sorts of things. The Minister must now consider the restoration of ranks, pensions and other forms of compensation to honour appropriately those who have served our country with courage and distinction. That is what Amendment 50 seeks to do. Fighting With Pride gave compelling evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill about the damage that the ban on homosexuality has done to LGBT+ veterans. What steps will the Minister take to proactively identify those who were discriminated against? What discussions has she had regarding further forms of compensation for those affected?
I was grateful that the Minister in the other place said so clearly that
“the historical ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong and there was horrific injustice as a consequence of it.”
I could not have put it better. It is absolutely shameful for our country. How do we go about fixing this injustice? That is what we all want to do. The Minister said that the Government would resist a similar amendment as it would
“complicate our efforts to address at pace this injustice.”
I do not understand what was meant by “complicate”. Surely the amendment would give a clear direction and encourage action. The Minister then said that fixing this injustice
“is at the heart of our veterans’ strategy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/21; col. 929.]
When will we get to see this strategy and will the idea of compensation be included?
When giving evidence to the Bill’s Select Committee, Craig Jones from Fighting With Pride said:
“When people were found or suspected”,
of homosexuality,
“they were arrested, often late at night, by the Royal Military Police. They were taken away for questioning, and that questioning … went on for days. Many of the people who were questioned had no legal support, or no ‘accused’s friends’, as we sometimes call that in the Armed Forces. They were searched, and the process went on for a very long time. After they had been charged, many were taken to military hospitals for medical inspections, which were a disgraceful breach of trust between members of the Armed Forces and the officers whom they were in the care of.”
I could not agree more with the Bill’s Select Committee’s report, which stated:
“Diversity is a source of strength for the Armed Forces and all should welcome and encourage a more diverse Armed Forces.”
Surely part of that is righting this historic wrong.
I was moved by an article that I hope noble Lords saw in the Mirror a few weeks ago. It outlined some of the case studies of some former veterans, forced to leave the Armed Forces after some years of service. It was heartbreaking and unbelievable. It brings tears to your eyes when you read it. We were all shocked by it, but what we want is speedy action from the Government.
I will mention one positive sign: is it not great that finally in our country, on Remembrance Sunday this year, Fighting With Pride will be able to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph? That is a symbol of the change that we all want and the action that needs to be taken, but it needs to take place sooner rather than later. I press the Minister not only to share our shame and sense of outrage at this injustice but to explain to the Committee what we will do about it to end it more quickly than we seem to be at the moment.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 50, and I will also speak to Amendments 57 and 58. It is a real privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and his opening statement in support of his amendment to remind us of the harm and damage done to armed service personnel who wanted nothing other than to serve their country. Because of their homosexuality—not necessarily their conduct—they were forced out of the armed services, and they have had to live with the consequences. Some still do, in terms of the employment that they are prevented from getting.
I was not able to be in my place to speak at Second Reading, but I take this opportunity to say that I am particularly grateful for the collaboration that has brought about Clause 18, on
“Posthumous pardons in relation to certain abolished service offences”.
I place on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, her entire Bill team and Professor Paul Johnson. I also wish to record my immense admiration for my noble friend Lord Lexden—my dear friend. I commend his contribution on the Bill, and Clause 18 in particular, at Second Reading. He and I have benefited from the wisdom, fortitude and knowledge of Professor Paul Johnson of the University of York, whose work with officials has produced some extremely fine drafting—he is the expert in this field. Professor Johnson, my noble friend Lord Lexden and I have worked together for five years on the issues of pardons and disregards that are before noble Lords today, and I hope—indeed, I believe—that we are about to see the fruits of our endeavours.
Indeed, when I was preparing these notes, I reflected on the day in 1991, 30 years ago, when I joined Lisa Power, a member of Stonewall, and Robert Ely to give evidence to the Armed Forces Select Committee to call for the ending of the ban on homosexuals serving in the military that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. Robert Ely, along with Elaine Chambers, both former armed services personnel, joined others and formed a group called Rank Outsiders to make the case for ending the ban and the harm done by it. Robert and Elaine showed immense courage, and I pay tribute to them and the founders and members of Fighting With Pride. I also thank Stonewall for its tireless campaigning, carried out across the decades, in putting the case for and promoting equality and equal treatment. I am proud to be one of its cofounders.
As I said, I fully support Amendment 50, which deals with the consequences of the injustices. I associate myself with the comments and concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. As he rightly reminded us, one could be dismissed from the armed services merely because of homosexuality, and there were some appalling cases and investigations that followed.
I now focus on Amendments 57 and 58, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lexden, which would insert two new clauses into the Bill. Their purpose is to expand the current disregard and pardon schemes, which provide a means of redress to those previously convicted under now-repealed—I repeat: repealed—offences for engaging in same-sex sexual conduct that today would be entirely lawful.
Current schemes do not encompass the wide number of service discipline offences that were once used to regulate Armed Forces personnel who engaged in consensual same-sex relationships. For example, the Army Act 1955 alone contained at least three separate offences—disgraceful conduct, scandalous conduct of an officer and conduct to prejudice of military discipline—that could be used to regulate the same-sex sexual conduct that would be lawful today. These offences, along with other civil offences, need to be included in the disregard and pardon schemes to provide those so cruelly treated by now-repealed laws with the justice they deserve, as my noble friend Lord Lexden explained at Second Reading. Great injustice would remain if action were not taken in the way that he and I have proposed.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, set the scene for this short debate so very effectively by explaining the extent of the injustice that occurred in the past and setting out the issues that so badly need to be addressed swiftly in the present. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s reply on all the important matters that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, placed before us.
The amendments in my name and that of my comrade and noble friend Lord Cashman contain provisions that need to become law. I sensed widespread support for that in the reaction to my speech and in comments made to me since Second Reading. The amendments would bring many more gay service personnel who suffered grievously in the past as a result of unjust legislation within the scope of the now well-established pardon and disregard schemes, which my noble friend Lord Cashman and I have been working on for five years, as he mentioned. It is essential that the schemes are widened so that the stain that was so wrongly placed on the reputations of so many brave Armed Forces personnel can be removed.
As my noble friend Lord Cashman explained, the Government have proposed that effect should be given to the provisions in our amendments through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, rather than this Bill. There can of course be no objection to that. I look to my noble friend the Minister today for a clear assurance that the necessary additions will be made to the other Bill to incorporate the provision of these amendments within it. As long as that happens, it should not be necessary to return to these amendments at a later stage of this Bill. As I said at the outset, action must be taken to ensure that gay service personnel who have suffered injustice obtain the redress that these amendments provide.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly merely to add the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches to the three amendments. I completely understand that, if there are discussions between the Home Office, the MoD and the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Cashman, about Amendments 57 and 58, I will take that as read and assume that we do not need to discuss them further at this stage. Obviously, we on these Benches support the amendments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said in his opening remarks, there is a set of issues that we clearly still need to think and talk about, and injustices that need to be righted. So, while Amendments 57 and 58 may not come back to us, I assume that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will come back in some form. We will support it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this may have been a short debate but I do not think that any of us can doubt the passion and commitment that have been evident in the contributing speeches.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for moving Amendment 50 and the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, for tabling Amendments 57 and 58. All three amendments have undoubtedly been tabled with deep compassion and humanity, with the intent of righting a past wrong. They are all concerned about the historical effect of the criminalisation of homosexual behaviour in the Armed Forces. As the Minister in the defence department responsible for diversity and inclusion, I feel a personal commitment to deliver improvement; I say that in a manner that I hope reassures noble Lords.
Amendment 50 seeks to place an obligation on the defence department to commission a comprehensive report on the number of service personnel who were dismissed, discharged or charged with disciplinary offences due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, and to make recommendations for compensation and restoration. I am pleased to remind the Committee that the Government accept entirely that the historical policy prohibiting homosexuality in the Armed Forces was absolutely wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is right: there is a sense of shame. We recognise this and are looking, where appropriate, to address the historical injustice suffered by members of the LGBT+ community as a consequence.
Our priority is effectively to look at what the Government can do to better understand the impact of pre-2000 practices on LGBT+ veterans and swiftly put in place a series of steps to address past wrongs. We acknowledge that many individuals, including the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would like to understand how many people were affected by past practices. This is not a straightforward task. I must say, focusing solely on it would detract from our primary goal of righting historical failures, which is what we are engaged in doing and, I hope, what the Bill reflects.
While we agree that identifying how many people were affected has value, this must not overtake our efforts to find further tangible ways to do right by those who were treated unjustly. We therefore resist the amendment because it will constrain the work already under way now. Having said that, the MoD is working at pace to identify the cohort of individuals affected due to this policy. This will not be a quick process; it will take time.
We are also investigating historical records to see whether we can establish members of the Armed Forces who were encouraged to leave the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation and gender identity. However, this latter cohort, as your Lordships will understand, will be much harder to identify, given that their personal files may not explicitly link their departure to their sexual orientation and gender identity.
In February this year, we announced the restoration of military medals to Armed Forces personnel discharged on the basis of their sexuality. Since February, we have received a number of applications in response to that well-publicised announcement. These are being actively considered.
On the scope of current legal disregards, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, indicated, the Home Office and the MoD are working together to consider whether any further services offences can be brought within the scope of the disregards scheme. The current legislation—the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012—is very specific as to the offences that can be considered for a disregard, with the scope being limited to offences that have since been abolished or repealed and that criminalised homosexual activity. I am sure that many of your Lordships will be aware that our decision to address this issue has drawn the support of organisations such as Fighting With Pride and Stonewall, and we continue to engage with these and other stakeholders as we work together to make it clear that the military is a positive place to work for all who choose to serve.
As noble Lords have heard, there is a significant amount of cross-government activity, which includes, but is not limited to, working with the Cabinet Office, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. I thank the noble Lord for attending the meetings, which I attended with my colleague and noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is reassured by what I have been able to say today, and will agree to withdraw his amendment.
As we know, Amendments 57 and 58 seek to extend the disregard and pardon schemes to include all service discipline offences, whether repealed or not, for which gay service personnel were convicted or cautioned. They also seek, where applicable, to provide posthumous pardons to deceased service personnel. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for indicating that he will not press these amendments. As I just said, on the scope of current legal disregards and pardons, the Home Office and the MoD are working together to consider whether any further services offences can be brought within the scope of these schemes.
There is a significant amount of cross-government activity to resolve the issue of historic hurt. As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, indicated, we are already in conversation with him—as well as with the Home Office and Professor Paul Johnson of York University—to find the best course of action to implement the necessary legislation to address this issue. It is complex; there are technical complications in understanding which Acts apply and how we must draft remedial provisions. We must be mindful to mitigate the potential risks that a whole-scale adoption of these amendments in both this Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill may cause.
This will not be a straightforward task. We need to continue to develop cross-departmental policy and correctly identify the approach to be taken. We therefore resist the amendment because this Bill is not the most suitable place to make these amendments; rather, the proper legislative vehicle is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, where the scheme can be properly and effectively extended and managed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, will have gathered from the attitude of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford that he has a very willing pair of hands prepared to look at all aspects of this.
I remind noble Lords that Clause 18 of this Bill seeks to amend the pardons scheme to ensure that those who served in the Army and the Royal Marines before 1881 and were convicted of now-abolished service offences are posthumously pardoned. I suggest that these actions demonstrate the full commitment made by this Government to rectifying what I earlier called the shameful and wrongful treatment of those who have served. I therefore assure the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and my noble friend Lord Lexden, that the Government are determined to redress this historic slight—“slight” seems an inadequate word; I think it is an historic injustice—against our brave and loyal servicepersons.
I hope that your Lordships have taken comfort from what I have said today: that far-reaching and consequential work is going on in this area. Naturally, the outcome of this work will never truly replace the hurt suffered by those affected. However, I hope that it will provide a degree of recompense and demonstrate that this House, this Government and this nation stand resolutely and proudly with both former and serving members of the Armed Forces who are drawn from across the LGBT+ community.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. Many people hearing it will be reassured not so much by the Government’s intentions and so on, but by what shone through: her honest answer and her clear determination to want to get something done. That is what is actually reassuring. I do not know whether I am supposed to say that as a Labour politician or noble Lord to a Conservative, but on this occasion there is, frankly, nothing that disunites any of us here. The noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Cashman, have campaigned long and hard on these issues for much longer than I have. I hope they will also have been reassured by a government Minister who, instead of hiding behind weaselly words, talked about a sense of shame that our country should have—because it should. That reassurance gives me confidence that she will push this forward.
There are questions to be answered as to how far we will be able to get the Home Office to move, if it is the Home Office that needs to do so, and what legislation will eventually be passed. I do not really care which department is responsible for passing the legislation; what I am concerned about is that the legislation is passed. If it is the Home Office it is the Home Office, and if it is the Ministry of Defence it is the Ministry of Defence. This was a historical injustice. It is almost one of those things where you look back and cannot believe that it actually took place, but we are having to deal with many historical injustices at present. We cannot be judged on those but we can be judged on how we respond.
The only thing I would say to the Minister is that the restoration of the medals has not gone as quickly as it might have done and some of the other things are not going as quickly as they might. I accept there are huge difficulties. People will have been paid to leave the Army and all sorts of excuses will have been made, when the real reason was that they were pushed, bullied and intimidated out simply because of their sexuality. That is unacceptable. I do not know how many people there are; I read the figure of approximately 20,000 in the papers. But if it was 100 or 200—if it was 10,000, 15,000 or whatever—that does not alter the principle that we should be ashamed of what happened, but proud of the fact that we are now going to try and do something about it. I say to the Minister: can we please do it as quickly as possible, and not have this dragging out for years and years? We owe it to those who are still living and to the memory of those who are no longer with us. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 8th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 42-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (4 Nov 2021)
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) After section 333, insert—“333A Armed Forces Federation(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.(3) The Armed Forces Federation must act through local and central representative bodies.(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces are to be construed accordingly.333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and (d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, is a probing amendment. We will be interested not only in the Government’s response but in the response of the noble and gallant Lords whose experience we value.
The new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. It has been clear for some time that the Armed Forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses before the Bill Select Committee in the other place have reinforced this 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 there is a concerning perception that one’s career will be under threat if one complains.
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 our national defence, the time may be right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Sorry. You do not want me to start again, do you? I am in two minds about it.
This would not be the equivalent of a trade union for the Armed Forces in that 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.
The proposal might seem radical or dangerous to some, but other nations, including the United States and Australia, already have similar models embedded in their existing military structures. Would the Minister not accept that if our police service enjoys access to a representation body for welfare, pay and other key issues, our Armed Forces deserve the same?
Following on from the Budget, I want to ask the Minister a specific question. The Budget set out that the MoD would experience a decrease of 1.4% in average annual real-terms growth between 2021 and 2025 in day-to-day departmental spending. Does the Minister accept that this means less money for forces recruitment, training, pay and family support? Ministers should seize this opportunity to give the Armed Forces a real voice. I beg to move.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Fundamentally, I believe that it would be seriously detrimental to the chain of command. I have some questions. Will membership be voluntary? Would there be a subscription? Would all Armed Forces members be expected to join?
I want to focus particularly on the purpose mentioned in the amendment: that the federation might represent members on welfare, remuneration and efficiency. On welfare, we have the covenant. We have myriad Armed Forces charities, and we have the internal welfare services and a number of other things. I cannot see what value this would add. On remuneration, the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body has respect among the members of the Armed Forces. How would this dovetail with the federation? On efficiency, what do we mean by efficiency? Is it fighting efficiency—in which case, what will the competence of the federation be to decide what is good or bad efficiency on the fighting side of life?
The amendment also says that:
“The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings”.
Would we have to have an Armed Forces federation member, rather like a Soviet commissar, on ships deployed for example in the Pacific? I think this is completely impractical.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I, too, oppose this amendment. I take the opportunity at the start of the session to remind your Lordships of my interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve.
I was going to intervene on the noble Lord, but perhaps I will give him this opportunity to intervene on me in reply to this question: how many members of the Armed Forces have contacted him or the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to ask for this? Surely somebody has. I say that, because at no point in my 33 years’ service in the regular and reserve has this ever really been a topic of discussion for serving members of the Armed Forces. If the noble Lord wants to intervene on me or perhaps answer the question when he comes back at the end, I would be fascinated to know how many members of the Armed Forces have actually asked for this. I have a horrible feeling that the answer is none. I certainly have no experience of that.
Equally, I share the noble and gallant Lord’s concerns about the impact on the chain of command. Given the unique circumstances that we find ourselves in in the military, certainly on operations, there is a distinct way of doing things with the chain of command. There are ways through the chain of command to make your complaints. Of course, we now also have the Service Complaints Commissioner. We have quite a developed sense of how this works in the military, which is why I go back to my first point: I just do not sense that there is any demand for this at all within the community the noble Lord is seeking to impose it on.
Where there are areas of concern, for example pay, we have quite a developed system with the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. I have given evidence to this body as a Minister. It is a very considered body, it is independent and its recommendations have been taken very seriously by successive Governments now for many years. We have seen that in the annual pay award, which the Government are forced to respond to
I suppose my principal opposition to all this is that I just do not understand where the demand is coming from, other than political parties potentially wishing to impose their values on our Armed Forces.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I do not support this amendment either. Indeed, I fully endorse the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I do not for a moment question the good faith in and the fulsome support of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, for the Armed Forces. However, I believe that there is a concept, of which this amendment is an example, that has been aired from time to time over the past 30 years and more—a concept that seems to have sprung in part from the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. The concept, or supposition, was that the Armed Forces were “civilians in uniform”, so their treatment, expectations and everything else about their daily lives should be seen and fashioned in that civilian primary context. However, it is a false premise.
I believe that the proposal in this amendment has been floated unsuccessfully more than once since the 1980s. Of course, members of the Armed Forces, like all their civilian counterparts, are human, but members of the Armed Forces have duties and responsibilities unmatched in the civilian environment. The fact that we are dealing with an Armed Forces Bill that affects the lives and well-being as well as the fighting efficiency of our Armed Forces underlines that point in spades. The fact that this Act has to be renewed every year and owes its origins to the time of Henry VIII exemplifies the unique difference in treatment, both in law and more generally, of the Armed Forces from the civilian world of employment over centuries.
Whether on or off duty, the behaviour of service personnel may be much praised, but if they fall short of good behaviour it is their service as well as themselves that attracts bad publicity and opprobrium. The more senior the individual, the greater the public dismay at poor or reprehensible behaviour. Both on or off duty, the service individual has a duty to behave responsibility, and who or what has or should have the responsibility to lead and encourage that? It must be the chain of command.
I have many times in my own experience explained why this is so fundamental to the ethos and fighting efficiency of the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, spelled all this out in the clearest of terms in her introductory remarks in the first sitting of this Committee. She said, and it is worth quoting:
“It is worth emphasising that members of the military are governed by a more stringent set of rules and restrictions than those of us in civilian life. These rules are designed to maintain discipline and promote operational effectiveness so that they can get the job done. Many of these additional rules and restrictions to which service personnel are subject apply regardless of whether they are on or off duty.”—[Official Report, 27/10/2021; col. GC 146.]
That is worth listening to and remembering.
The regard for an application of such a unique regime must rely primarily on the chain of command. I am not alone in expressing concern and, at times, even dismay at the way in which the chain of command’s uniquely important role has been set aside or weakened, sometimes in the search for more transparent justice. However, no judicial system is perfect. The imperfection is processed and managed by gradations of justice, but that does not make it infallible.
The introduction of an Armed Forces federation, regardless of whether such an organisation could perform alongside the chain of command without confusion, overlap or mismanagement, would once more be to underrate the chain of command’s importance to the efficiency and ethos of the Armed Forces. Indeed, I am not sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was saying, on what research or examination the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, have undertaken in support of this amendment. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—and, I believe, all chiefs of staff since my day, over 30 years ago, including the present holders of that office—I agree that an alongside federation as proposed in this amendment would be a grave mistake. That body of expert opinion should be heeded. I do not support the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I fear that the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Coaker, will not have very much support this afternoon. We on these Benches are also somewhat sceptical about the proposed amendment. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that this was not a trade union, which we would clearly oppose, but it is also not entirely clear what an Armed Forces federation would bring that would serve an appropriate and necessary purpose. We therefore share a lot of the reservations raised by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Craig of Radley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. In particular, what precise problems do the noble Lords believe will be served by having this federation? In particular, in what way can it serve efficiency? Adding another mechanism does not necessarily seem to be a way in which to help efficiency.
The one area where I think something might be useful that would not, I hope, undermine the chain of command is that on some occasions, particularly at times with issues of pensions and pay, there could be better lines of communication. What was fed to me occasionally when I was involved in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme was not that people were saying, “We must have representation and a trade union or an Armed Forces federation”. It was more that they would like to understand better what was going on. So slightly better lines of communication would be welcome.
However, I do not think there is anything in this amendment that will really be necessary or particularly useful. In particular, I have reservations about proposed new Section 333B(2)(a), (c) and (d). What will the Secretary of State be providing on membership, voluntary subscriptions or financial support for this Armed Forces federation? Will those really be useful expenditures? Will they help our security, our defence or our Armed Forces?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling Amendment 51, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for so eloquently speaking to it. As has been explained, this amendment seeks to create through primary legislation a representative body for the Armed Forces that is similar in many respects to the Police Federation. It proposes that details of how the federation would operate are set out in regulations. I recognise the commitment of both noble Lords to the welfare of our Armed Forces, as other contributors have rightly acknowledged.
This has been an interesting debate. It has thrown up in broad terms the particular environment and context in which we ask our Armed Forces to operate, and it has disclosed some specific issues. Let me try to address some of the points raised. Clearly, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have reservations. I think they were well articulated and suggest that they should be heeded.
To go to the context, the environment in which we ask our Armed Forces to operate, the Armed Forces have a unique role and can be called upon to carry out tasks that are clearly beyond anything that most other people would be asked to do in the course of their duties. What works for a civilian workforce such as the police will not necessarily work for service personnel. That is why the interests of Armed Forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command. I will spend a short time outlining some of those provisions. We are currently, in fact, considering what more we can do in this space without compromising operational effectiveness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of pay in general terms and made a particularly interesting point about whether the Armed Forces understand the structures. The Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body provide independent annual recommendations on pay for the Armed Forces to the Prime Minister. The X factor addition to basic military pay, which is currently at 14.5%, recognises the special conditions of military life, including the limits on the ability of service personnel to negotiate on this issue. Processes are in place for personnel to make complaints about their pay or allowances. I would hope that, with the new ambience that now pervades the Armed Forces, people would be encouraged to articulate those concerns and ask questions of the very type the noble Baroness mentioned.
With regard to complaints more widely, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of the handling of service complaints made by members of the UK Armed Forces regarding most aspects of their service life, and service personnel are able independently to approach the ombudsman or ombudswoman about a complaint which they do not want to raise directly with their chain of command. Support is provided to those who are making complaints or allegations and to those who are the subjects of such actions. In addition to this practical support, there is a range of internal and external welfare support for personnel to draw on if they need it as they go through these processes.
Improvements to the service complaints process are being progressed as a matter of policy, as the vast majority of these do not require primary legislation. For many other issues, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—SSAFA—the Royal Naval Association, the Royal Air Force Association, the Veterans Support Association and a host of other regimental associations and groups around the country have regular access both to the chain of command and to Ministers to represent their members’ interests.
Service personnel have their own voice on matters which concern them through the Armed Forces annual continuous attitude survey, which asks our people about all aspects of their service life. The results, which are published, are used to inform the development of policy and to measure the impact of decisions affecting personnel, including major programmes and the Armed Forces covenant.
Service personnel can also play an active role in the development of the policies which affect them. There are currently more than 50 diversity networks operating within defence at various levels. Most of these are run by volunteer members, with senior officer advocates and champions, and they can be consulted on matters which are likely to impact our people.
Noble Lords will understand that the well-being of our personnel directly contributes to the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. It is therefore important to the chain of command and to defence to both sustain and support the well-being of service personnel and their families and, where necessary, provide welfare support to resolve issues that might otherwise undermine well-being and impact on operational effectiveness.
That is why, during basic training, all service personnel receive details on how to identify welfare issues and how to get help, with refresher training provided during subsequent initial trade training. All regular and reserve officers also receive training during their respective commissioning course which teaches how their service provides welfare support and sets out their welfare roles and responsibilities as line managers. Once again, refresher training is provided throughout and welfare specialists are also on hand to provide advice to the chain of command and provide support to their personnel.
We recognise that some personnel and families may feel uncomfortable exposing welfare issues to the chain of command and, in some cases, issues may even arise as a direct result of conflict with the chain of command. My noble friend Lord Lancaster spoke in broad terms about that and the alternative channels available to complainants.
I therefore submit that, in these circumstances, service personnel have alternative mechanisms for raising and addressing welfare issues, giving them a voice independent of the chain of command. These include unit welfare staff, padres and confidential helplines, in addition to the service families federations and service complaints process that I referred to earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to Australia, but Australia disbanded its armed forces federation in 2006.
The noble Lord also raised an issue about the recent Budget, in response to which I would say that as the department prioritises providing a wider range of supportive bodies and invests in training for service personnel throughout their service career, it would be misleading to quantify this in terms of budget lines as such. The department feels strongly that the interests of service personnel need to be protected and we take a varied approach by providing many strands to offer that protection. We cannot put a price on giving people a voice.
I hope that this explains clearly the rationale for the Government’s approach to ensuring that the interests of service personnel are protected and the provisions that exist. I trust that, following these assurances, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, one of the essential skills for survival in politics is being able to count. I recognise a 5-0 defeat when I hear one; it can also be pretty uncomfortable when the closest you get to support comes from the Government. But I ask noble Lords to pause and consider that the speech that the Minister just made was probably unthinkable 30 years ago. She at least took the generality that representation, through one mechanism or another, is necessary. We also have to take the generality that, much as we all are proud of the Armed Forces, we know that in some areas things are not as perfect as we would want.
The concept of representation will have its day. Clearly, that is not today. But on the ideas behind it, I am pleased that the Government, I think, conceptually see that it is necessary to make sure that there are appropriate mechanisms for representation. Over time—this will come up every five years—we will test the ground, because we as a party believe in representation.
There is an interesting concept about civilians in uniform. They are not civilians in uniform; clearly, they are different from civilians in that they have to put their lives on the line, and I accept that. However, I think that they are citizens in uniform and there need to be processes and a mechanism for their views to be made known. We talk about supporting individuals going to the ombudsman. That is a good thing. I think that there is a recognition that that might have to be more formalised and more powerful. We will see. I accept that we are apart on this issue. Nevertheless, we are not as apart as one might think. The idea of agency by individuals is one that will not go away, but it is certainly not an idea that should be forced on an unwilling institution.
I opened by saying that I wanted to hear what the Government had to say. I am pleased with the direction of their answer. I also said that we were interested in what noble and gallant Lords might say. I note what they said. Therefore, taking account of all those issues, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and will not be bringing it back on Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Universal Credit
(1) The Government must publish annual statistics on the number of veterans who are receiving universal credit.
(2) These statistics should be included in the annual Armed Forces covenant report.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish statistics on the number of veterans in receipt of universal credit.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, I will speak also to Amendment 56. Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to, and have a moral obligation to help, those who have served our country transition back into civilian life. This transition can often be hard. Just the idea—let alone the process—of finding a new job can be challenging. Too many veterans are falling through the cracks of veterans’ employment support and struggling to find a job. This support has even been cut back by Ministers.
I was shocked to learn earlier this year that the Government have dropped their target for helping personnel, veterans and their families to find work after they leave the Armed Forces. Ministers are now hiring only 50 Armed Forces champions, despite committing £6 million in 2019 to fund “more than 100” Armed Forces champions in jobcentres. Announcing the increased spending in 2019, the Work and Pensions Secretary Thérèse Coffey said that 100 champions should provide
“specialist, individual support to former service personnel and their families”.
The Government also said that champions were a key part of their commitment to the Armed Forces covenant.
However, in response to a Written Question in June 2021, the DWP Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said that a “new model” was now being pursued, with 50 Armed Forces champions being recruited. She also confirmed that the number of Armed Forces champions had fallen to a record low, with only 34 champions being appointed so far. In 2019 there were 46 Armed Forces champions in the UK, so why did Ministers decide to cut the number of Armed Forces champions in jobcentres? How much money did they save? Can the Minister tell me how many Armed Forces champions are currently working in jobcentres? Is it the target of 50, or fewer; if so, how many fewer? Amendment 56 seeks to reinstate the Government’s original commitment of 100 Armed Forces champions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches did not add our names to these two amendments, both of which seem to be small but important. In particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, Amendment 56 essentially asks the Government to go back to a prior commitment. Can the Minister commit to 100 champions in jobcentres? As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, the Minister’s noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, could not answer all the questions the other day in the Chamber. If it were possible for either DWP or the MoD to come forward with some statistics, that would be helpful. Normally, asking for annual reports on this, that and the other can be a little time-consuming and bureaucratic but, on this occasion, if the information is not available it is time to suggest that we ask the Government to make sure that it is available. Unless the Government can make a commitment, the amendment seems wholly appropriate.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
This amendment, which I do not particularly support or otherwise, would be an awful lot better placed if better evidence were available. There does not appear to be the relevant data. Personally, I am convinced that if that data were made available, it would re-establish in people’s minds and in society at large that the Armed Forces are one of the nation’s most successful organisations for social improvement among the people who join.
I fear that amendments such as this convey the impression that people enter the Armed Forces and then leave, at some later stage, damaged by the experience. That is far from the reality of the situation. Yes, some unfortunate people will struggle to find employment—some people struggle with second careers—but, by and large, people leave the Armed Forces both socially and professionally improved and go on to have highly successful second careers. So the publication of the evidence base would be hugely helpful in determining whether this sort of amendment was, in truth, required.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this may have been a short debate, but it was interesting. Once again, I have no doubt about the commitment of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, in taking an interest in these matters. Amendments 52 and 56 engage with the subject of, first, the number of veterans claiming universal credit, and secondly, Armed Forces champions.
I will deal with Amendment 52 first. The Government are delighted that the universal credit system has now been enhanced to allow the Department for Work and Pensions to collect information on how many universal credit claimants are veterans. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, put his finger on the point: the all-important issue here is the data, which is not yet complete. It is still early days. The DWP is still building up its data base and working out what the data is telling them and how to make best use of it, including producing reports and making information public. This may well include making information available through the covenant annual report, as well as more routine data releases.
I understand that, as soon as decisions have been made, the DWP will write to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, setting out its plans. I expect it to be able to do this early in the new year. Further, the MoD will keep a close eye on this area as well. We are also interested in the data being collected, so I, too, look forward to the DWP’s response on this matter. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I will now address Amendment 56, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which seeks to put into the Bill a specific number of Armed Forces champions who would be in place at all times. The number of Armed Forces champions, their specific roles and how and where they are deployed are detailed day-to-day operational matters for the DWP.
The DWP’s long-standing, undoubted and profound commitment to and support for the Armed Forces covenant is clear. Like the rest of this Government, my colleagues there do everything that they can to provide members of the Armed Forces community with the help and support that they deserve. I thought that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, made an important point about the impressions that we wish to create and what the perceptions might be. Armed Forces champions are key in supporting and enabling the DWP to provide that help and support, but setting out a specific number in the Bill will limit the DWP’s flexibility to adjust the support to meet levels of need and will do nothing to enhance the current support provided by the DWP to veterans and others.
The DWP works very closely with the MoD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to help ensure that those using its services get the help and support that they need. Earlier this year it introduced a new model. Once again, it is important to put all this into shape so that there is context. It introduced the new model to transform the support that the DWP provides to members of the Armed Forces. This change of approach by the DWP was not subjective; it reflected feedback that the department had received, including from formal research and from those representing members of the Armed Forces community.
The new model was designed to ensure that veterans and others are served in a more intelligent and effective way. It enables the department to better match available resources with the demand for its services. The new model has built on the successful network of Armed Forces champions, which had been in place within the DWP for a number of years.
As part of the new model, the department has introduced for the first time a dedicated Armed Forces role at middle management level. These roles have responsibility for building capability and sharing best practice on Armed Forces issues across the DWP network, as well as building networks with the tri-services. It is important to understand the relevance and significance of that conjunction of activity.
There is a lead role in each of the 11 Jobcentre Plus groups and, as part of its work, it oversees 50 Armed Forces champions stationed across the Jobcentre Plus network. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was critical of that level of champions, but the work of the champions cannot be viewed in isolation, for the reasons that I have just described.
The champions have specific responsibility for supporting claimants who are members of the Armed Forces community. Under the new model of support, the champions also have a front-line role and will personally handle some claims for the first time, supporting veterans into work and helping to resolve some of the more complex cases where necessary. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised this point—that there is at least one Armed Forces champion in each of the 37 Jobcentre Plus districts.
The new model has been welcomed by the department’s Armed Forces stakeholders, who have been more interested, to be honest, in the structures and quality of services than in actual numbers. The DWP has listened to what stakeholders and researchers have said. Putting in place the new lead roles will help to improve the co-ordination of support activity and facilitate the sharing of best practice between the champions, and more widely across the department. The new roles also provide the opportunity for more pro-active work with the three armed services on resettlement and recruitment. Again, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, took an interest in this issue.
In the early stages of introducing the new model, the DWP talked to a number of stakeholders, including Armed Forces charities and other groups, about the planned structures and roles. It explained how these would work in practice for stakeholders, as well as for individual claimants and their families. Now, almost six months in, the change seems to have settled in well and continues to be well received.
The DWP’s support is not limited to those with a formal Armed Forces role. For example, the new model enables the dedicated Armed Forces roles to complement the wider investment the department had already made during the pandemic in the recruitment of an additional 13,500 work coaches, bringing the total to 27,000. The Committee may be interested to know that every work coach receives specific training to support members of the Armed Forces community, and that an important part of the work of the new champions and lead roles is to build capability on Armed Forces issues across the whole department. This is not just across the Jobcentre Plus network but more widely, for example in DWP service centres.
As your Lordships will understand, there are many DWP staff, some based in individual jobcentre offices, who will be the local expert on Armed Forces issues and will work with those in the dedicated roles also to the support the Armed Forces. Many of these staff will have experienced service life themselves, either directly or through friends and family. They will use this experience in their work.
As within other parts of its business, the DWP will monitor and evaluate the new model, and will use the information gathered from this work to shape the support provided. These new arrangements come on top of other support that is already in place. For example, veterans are given early entry to the work and health programme, and if we can use service medical board evidence, a severely disabled veteran does not have to undergo additional examinations for employment and support allowance and universal credit purposes.
If the intention of this amendment is to make sure that the DWP always provides an Armed Forces champions service, it is unnecessary. The the DWP, through its words and actions, has consistently demonstrated its commitment to support veterans and members of the Armed Forces community. I accept that this is unintentional, but the amendment would constrain what are rightly day-to-day operational decisions for DWP managers. For example, holding open a post for a short while during a recruitment exercise would become unlawful. I know that is not the noble Lord’s intention, but we should let the expert delivery managers in the DWP manage their resources as they see fit.
With that reassurance of the scale of support within the DWP for Armed Forces personnel and veterans, I hope nthe noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, called for better evidence. If there is any consensus here, it is between him, the Minister and me that data, which we are promised will be early in the new year, will add light to our concerns.
I am in no way suggesting that, as a generality, individuals are damaged by their experience of being in the Armed Forces. In the limited experience that I have of contact with the Armed Forces, I see, as a generality, good people who have valued their training and their roles.
The problem is that there is anecdotal concern that some veterans have a difficult time and there is a general concern in society that veterans of the Armed Forces in particular should be looked after. The dilemma of the covenant is the negative concept—it is put in a negative way, although I do not mean it negatively—that nobody shall be worse off as a result of coming from the forces. There is a second tranche that says that, in view of the special service of members of the Armed Forces, we should do things at the edge to help, having regard for their previous experience.
We will carefully consider what the noble Baroness has said, although we would welcome any additional information that she finds to reassure us. However, she has put on the record areas of comfort, which we will take account of, so I am content at this point to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“Flexible Service scheme report
A Minister of the Crown must make provision to improve the uptake and use of the Flexible Service scheme, for both women and men, and report its progress by the end of 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is based on recommendations in the House of Commons Defence Sub-Committee Women in the Armed Forces report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. I look forward to continuing the interesting debate that we have had on the Bill.
As I know all Members of the Committee will agree, these are extremely important amendments. We can see their importance not only because of the concerns that all of us have raised in Committee and beyond, but because, as we read last week, the Defence Secretary himself has written to Armed Forces chiefs, asking to meet them to discuss his concerns over the progress of the implementation of various recommendations. I understand from press reports today—perhaps the Minister will be able to update the Committee on this—that the Defence Secretary is meeting them to discuss some of the issues raised in the amendments. The BBC says:
“The defence secretary told the BBC it was ‘really important we get the culture right’ in the Army.”
We all agree with that.
The purpose of the amendments is to try to understand how the Government intend to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the serious issues that various reports have highlighted, including media reports that we have read in our papers, and to move forward on them. The evidence for and recommendations in the amendments are based on the Defence Select Committee’s report that was published just a couple of months ago; it is also the source of some of the data that I will quote and is the basis of the amendment before the Committee. It is therefore incumbent on us to understand what, if the Government say that the amendments are unnecessary, they will do to achieve the effect of the recommendations. Clarity from the Minister on that would be welcome to us all and those outside who read our proceedings.
I beg to move Amendment 53, and will speak to Amendments 54, 55, and in particular, 66B. They are all amendments based on an excellent recent report from the Defence Sub-Committee into women in the Armed Forces. The report stated that it was
“disappointed … with gaps between the many policy documents”
on women in the Armed Forces
“and practice on the ground”.
It added that
“the 2021 Armed Forces Bill”—
in other words, what we are discussing—
“may represent a missed opportunity to address critical issues.”
So here we are with these four amendments, which seek to understand from the Government what has actually happened.
Some of the report’s conclusions were that:
“Services are failing to help women achieve their full potential … barriers still affect female recruitment, including an impression that it is harder for women to thrive there … Within the military culture of the Armed Forces and the MOD, it is still a man’s world. There is too much bullying, harassment and discrimination—including criminal behaviours”,
which we discussed earlier in Committee,
“like sexual assault and rape—affecting Service personnel … Juggling Service life and family life can be hard for all Service personnel, but especially for military women”.
These were the conclusions of that Sub-Committee and are the sorts of things we need to hear about from the Minister. How are the Government going to seek to address them? Nobody would want to read about some of those things; all of us want them addressed. We need a clear plan of action. We need bold and unequivocal action from the Minister in solving these challenges.
In 2019, the Wigston review identified a
“pressing need to reform the Service Complaints system”,
echoing the findings of the ombudsman that BAME and female personnel were disproportionately affected by such behaviours. Wigston made 36 recommendations, all of which the Government, to their credit, accepted. But the question two and a half years on is: where are we on the implementation of those recommendations?
The Defence Sub-Committee’s recent report said that the recommendations in the Wigston review were “positive” but that
“progress is slow, and frequently there is a gap between the raft of policy documents in place and actual practice on the ground.”
Many of us, if not all of us, in the Committee would welcome a statement from the Minister as to how the Government intend to accelerate this progress so that we do not read in another report in a year or two that progress has been made but it is slow.
The most recent Service Complaints Ombudsman annual report found that female personnel were overrepresented in the service complaints system—21%, compared with their representation in the UK Armed Forces of 12%. What do the Government intend to do to rectify that situation? In 2020, female service personnel were disproportionately represented in the service complaints system. Female personnel had nearly twice the rate of service complaints that males had. Although this overrepresentation was found in all categories, it was primarily driven by differences in levels of bullying, harassment and discrimination. The rate at which female service personnel raised bullying, harassment or discrimination service complaints was four times the equivalent figure for male service personnel.
The Defence Sub-Committee made a number of recommendations and we have tabled amendments to raise some, but not all, of the most important of them. Amendment 53 forces a Minister of the Crown to
“make provision to improve the uptake and use of the Flexible Service scheme, for both women and men, and report its progress by the end of 2022.”
Amendment 54 forces the Secretary of State to make recommendations of the Service Complaints Ombudsman binding on the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence, and Amendment 55 ensures that the covenant annual report includes a metric to monitor the experiences of veterans by sex or gender and by other protected characteristics.
I say again to the Committee, to reinforce the point, that these are not my recommendations; they are based on the Defence Select Committee report. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister believes that the amendments are unnecessary and not needed, and, if so, why that is.
Amendment 66B seeks to establish a defence authority responsible for cultures and inappropriate behaviours that is outside the chain of command. Again, this was a direct recommendation from both the Wigston review and the Defence Select Committee. I say to the Committee that we have tried very hard in the amendment to be reasonable and to understand why the Government or others might object to that. That is why we have put that the Secretary of State must review whether it is desirable to establish an independent defence authority. If it is not desirable, why is it not, and why would the things identified in the various Defence Select Committee reports and in the Wigston review and in many other reports, including the experiences of personnel who gave evidence to these various committees, mean that such an independent authority is not needed, and how can the people who have made those significant complaints in many areas of service life be reassured that their concerns can be dealt with and things can be improved without the establishment of such an authority?
I say to the Minister that there may be flaws in the amendment, and the Government might say “Item C doesn’t work with respect to legislation, it’s not needed, it’s not drafted correctly” or whatever, but two or three of us have tried to put these things together without the legal expertise of the MoD, and what they seek to do is represent the spirit of the various committees that have reported, to try to deal with concerns that have been raised.
As I said, the Defence Secretary himself is clearly worried and concerned by the various problems that have arisen and that we have read about in our papers recently. None of us in this Committee would try to justify any of that; all of us would want something done about it. But what I am saying to the Minister is that “We need to do something about it” is not good enough. What is it that we are going to do? What practically is going to happen? What policy changes are going to take place? What sense of urgency is being put in place at the MoD to drive this on?
Clearly, if the Defence Secretary himself has written to defence chiefs to say “I want to see you to understand why there are problems and these problems are not being fixed as quickly as I would want”, this is now an opportunity for the Minister to reassure the Committee that the Government have a grip on this and “This is what the Government intend to do”. If these amendments are unnecessary, “This is why they are unnecessary, because this is what the Government are doing to take into account all the various recommendations”.
I thought the Defence Select Committee report was a very sobering document. I am not a military person, but in any walk of life, if you read that two-thirds of the 4,000 women who gave evidence had experienced bullying, sexual harassment or discrimination during their time in the Armed Forces, it does not matter what the organisation is. It is not an attack on the Armed Forces; it is not an attack if you are talking about this as a Civil Service or as a police force or as an industry. There is something that really needs looking at, to understand how it is possible that of the 4,000 women who came forward to give evidence to the committee, two-thirds reported that there had been a problem.
None of us would want that. None of us condones that: of course not. But the question is, what are the Government doing about it? That is the purpose of the amendments before the Committee today—to try to put some meat on the bones and say “These are some of the ways that were recommended by the Defence Select Committee as ways of helping with respect to this particular problem”. The Defence Secretary thinks there is a problem. I think there is a problem. I am sure that many noble Lords in the Committee think that there is a problem. But we want to understand what the Government are going to do to tackle these very real issues. That is the purpose of the amendments before us.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I have added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, they very much draw on the House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s report. In a sense, that was a cross-party report. The signatories in this place come from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, although of course Sarah Atherton, the MP for Wrexham, who was the force behind the report, is a Conservative. We potentially have cross-party and cross-Chamber support for a range of issues brought forward in these amendments.
If these amendments are not necessary, we would be delighted to hear the Minister say, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, invited her to do, that whatever the Secretary of State has been doing today in bringing the service chiefs together will somehow deal with all the issues. That would be fantastic, but the evidence seems rather concerning, to put it at its mildest. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about the number of female service personnel and veterans who had come forward. The report also talks about delays in the complaints procedure. It says that the performance target for the Armed Forces is apparently that
“90% of service complaints should be resolved within 24 weeks. This target has not been met by any of the services in recent years, and the pandemic has increased delays in the system.”
Maybe the pandemic has made it even worse, but in 2020 only 24% of the complaints brought in the Royal Navy were dealt with within 24 weeks, although it had a much better record in previous years. In 2019, before the pandemic, the Army’s statistics were only 32%. Those figures seem entirely inappropriate.
Could the Minister tell the Committee what is being done to try to resolve the complaints system? It does not seem to be working at the moment. What is even more shocking, in addition to the delays, is that the people who have brought complaints have been extremely dissatisfied with the outcomes and the way they were kept informed about progress. What is going on? If the Minister and her team are unable to give the Committee good answers, these amendments seem the very minimum of the recommendations that came forward from HCDC that we would want to see in the Bill to ensure that the service complaints system is improved.
Noble and gallant Lords raised concerns about the chain of command under the Armed Forces federation proposals in an earlier amendment. I understand that. I do not think that anything in these amendments would undermine the chain of command, but there are suggestions in the House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s report and in Amendment 66B that say essentially that if service personnel bring cases against somebody in the chain of command, that has to be looked into. It is hugely important to acknowledge that the argument about the chain of command cannot be used in any way to negate the complaints that have been brought by service personnel, particularly women. I hope the Minister will take these amendments in the spirit in which they are brought, which is in no way to criticise the MoD specifically but to say that these issues need to be explored and that the service complaints procedures need to be speeded up if that is possible, which we hope it is.
I will say a brief word about Amendment 55, in case the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, feels the need to say that we should not be talking down veterans or the experience. I do not believe that the intention of the previous set of amendments on universal credit was to say that there is particular problem and somehow veterans are coming out as being poorly treated; rather, it was to understand the situation for veterans. Again, the House of Commons Defence Committee report seems to suggest that there are some problems for women transitioning out of the Armed Forces that may be a little bit different from those experienced by the men. If we can understand the experience of veterans and have a report on that, we can try to improve the situation for all veterans.
These amendments are intended to be positive and constructive, and I hope the Minister takes them in that light.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
One would think that one would get into a routine of “Off with the mask, slug of the water, stand at the Dispatch Box”, but it still comes as a ritual.
Amendments 53 to 55 and 66B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and promoted so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, cover four strands: promoting flexible service, making binding the recommendations of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, monitoring the experience of veterans with protected characteristics, and considering whether to establish an independent defence authority. These are important amendments, and I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the Government understand that Members are trying to make constructive contributions.
The amendments concern a broad range of topics but, as has been identified, each is based on recommendations of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee report, Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was interested in what happened at the convened meeting of the Army Board this morning. I think he will understand that I am constrained in what I can say, because these proceedings are confidential. I hope he realises that the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the Army do want to be sure that they are proactive in addressing issues which, as noble Lords have indicated, can be upsetting when they surface in the media and can cause concern. Without being able to impart any specific details, I reassure your Lordships that this morning’s meeting was very constructive, with what I thought were some excellent suggestions coming forward.
I believe that the motive behind the amendments is driven by a subject which I am deeply passionate about and wholeheartedly supportive of: women in the Armed Forces and, indeed, women in defence. To that end, I want to say a few words about that Select Committee inquiry and to thank the committee for its thorough work and report. That work has been enhanced by the testimony of current and former servicewomen, whose experiences have greatly assisted the inquiry. Their courage and fortitude were not just admirable but inspiring, and I extend my thanks to all those women who came forward to such positive effect. I acknowledge that, on too many occasions in the past, Defence has failed to provide women with adequate support. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear me say that.
We have examined the Defence Committee’s report in minute detail. We want to use it to build on our improvements and to ensure that our response is substantial and informed. We recognise that the lived experience for many women is not yet good enough, and this has to change.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly identified the report as pivotal. I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State is absolutely committed to delivering against its findings. Indeed, he intends to go further. The Secretary of State has personally discussed the initial draft of our response to the report with members of the servicewomen’s networks, and this has led to additional work.
I know that your Lordships are keen to see a response to the Defence Committee’s report and I acknowledge that it is taking a little longer than expected, but that is for good reason. The Secretary of State has kept the inquiry chairwoman, Sarah Atherton, fully informed. She is in the picture. I think that we all agree that we would much rather produce something meaningful and substantial that provides hope and concrete direction for the way forward than just cobble together something to produce it within a time limit.
Defence Ministers and service chiefs are adamant that the important issues in the report are addressed comprehensively and that no opportunity is missed to bring about meaningful and enduring change. We are all taking an active role in ensuring that our response to the report is comprehensive and well informed to deliver positive outcomes. We are in the process of finalising that and anticipate submitting our response “in due course”, as it says here. I say to your Lordships to read that as “sooner rather later”.
I wish to be clear that many changes have already been introduced to improve the experience for women in the Armed Forces and military service remains a fantastic career opportunity for men and women alike. It is important to remind your Lordships that nearly 90% of the women giving evidence to the committee would recommend a career in the Armed Forces to female relatives and friends. We should not underestimate the importance of that. Yes, there are matters to be addressed. Yes, there are improvements to be made. Yes, there were areas overdue for investigation, for being addressed and for being rectified. But that sort of testament shows that many women have confidence in a career in the Armed Forces. We are delighted about that and proud of it. We owe it to them and everyone else in the Armed Forces to make sure that the response to this report has clout and impact.
Before speaking to Amendment 53, I first remind this Committee that the Armed Forces launched flexible service on 1 April 2019. The policy allows all regular personnel to apply to serve part-time and/or to restrict the amount of time that they are away from the home base, for a temporary period, subject to defence need. Flexible service is part of a suite of flexible working opportunities that we offer our people, which include remote working, variable start and finish times and compressed working. Between its introduction in April 2019 and September 2021, more than 355 service personnel and their families have benefited from flexible service. This level of uptake is in line both with the MoD’s forecast and with the experience of other nations’ Armed Forces that have introduced similar measures. Defence is ensuring that as many service personnel as possible can benefit from these measures by keeping flexible service under constant review.
We have an ongoing communications campaign aimed at encouraging uptake and improving awareness of flexible service and the wider flexible working opportunities that it offers its people. For example, this autumn, Defence is releasing a series of podcasts that explore service personnel’s experience of flexible working. On completion, the campaign’s impacts will be evaluated to inform communications for 2022.
Our previous communications have led to a high awareness of flexible service. The Armed Forces continuous attitude survey for 2021 shows that 82% of service personnel have heard of the policy. Notable campaigns have included video case studies of service personnel on flexible service in summer 2020, which attracted over 270,000 impressions on social media and nearly 10,000 engagements, and promoting Defence’s full flexible working offer to the Armed Forces through a digital booklet Flexible Working and You: A Guide for Service Personnel, which was published in January 2021. The booklet was viewed 17,000 times on the GOV.UK website and 12,850 copies were distributed to Armed Forces information centres and military units during June and July this year.
Ownership and development of flexible service policy is overseen by the Minister for Defence People and Veterans and, as such, he, too, is committed to ensuring that all service personnel can benefit from the policy. Defence already has several initiatives in place to measure and report on its awareness and uptake. These include annual reporting of flexible service’s developments, uptake and usage in the Armed Forces continuous attitude survey’s background quality reports.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I simply want to ask a technical question, which she will not be able to answer right now. I accept that, but perhaps she would be so kind as to write to me. Having thought about this as she spoke, can I take her back to Amendment 53 and the wonderful flexible service scheme? We are going to face the challenge between dialling down the regular service of an individual, male or female, to perhaps two or three days a week and what they are going to be paid. Given that when you are on operations, you sometimes work seven days a week but at other times, effectively, you work Monday to Friday—five days a week—are they to be paid, for example, 60% of their salary if they are dialling down to three days’ service? I am bearing in mind that a part of that is their 12% X factor, which they get because of the inconvenience of service life. Would they continue to get that 12% X factor when they dial down their service?
I will compare that to the other end of the spectrum and the Reserve service. Part of the Reserve Forces 2030 review, which I chaired, sought to have a spectrum of service so that a reservist can increase their service, potentially, to three days a week—the same level that the regular has dialled down to. Bearing in mind that a reservist gets paid only a reduced X factor of 5%, and that their individual pay is based on one-365th of their regular counterparts’, unless we manage to mirror those two schemes so that they meet in the middle, individuals will potentially be doing exactly the same service per week but will be paid quite different amounts. That is a technical challenge, but we need to think about it. I simply ask whether, perhaps in slow time, my noble friend could write to me about how we are going to address that issue.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am sure that your Lordships are, as ever, immensely impressed by the noble Lord’s command of this matter. I think he is the only person on the Committee who really understands it and I am very grateful to him. I will look in Hansard to consider all his remarks—and, yes, I do undertake to write to him, because there are serious points in there and I do not have the information before me.
Before I conclude my remarks on this group of amendments, I was saying that the response to the Defence Committee’s report will be significant and I think your Lordships will be reassured by it. I will certainly be pleased to update your Lordships once the Government’s response to the report is published and I might even, I suggest, do a Peers’ briefing on that topic when it is forthcoming.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response which, as usual, sought to engage with the questions. That is always very helpful to the Committee. In particular, we all look forward to what she mentioned in her last point: she said to the Committee words to the effect that there will be a significant response to the Defence Select Committee report, which we have been referring to. I am sure that the Committee will look forward to that response.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for not mentioning that she had added her name to the amendments. I did not mean to be rude. I had it in a note that I wrote to myself but I just went over it, so I apologise for that.
In addressing the specific amendments, on Amendment 53 I wrote that I understood what the Minister had said. I think I nearly understood what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was saying. That reflects my ignorance, not his explanation, and it was an important point. I would be interested to see that, but I understood the points that the Minister made about Amendment 53. However, like all of us, I am going to have to reread Hansard a little to fully grasp some of this—and Amendment 54 is a classic example of needing to read it. As I understood it, the Minister said that if the ombudsman makes findings, they are binding; but if they make recommendations, they are non-binding, but that is okay because they can be judicially reviewed. I need to read what she said because, again, the role of the ombudsman is important for us. On Amendment 55, perhaps I need to look again, but I think she said that the Committee will be pleased because the Government are going to go further than is stated in the amendment so, in that sense, more will be done.
Before I make a couple of general points, with respect to Amendment 66B I refer the Minister—if the Committee will bear with me for one moment—to something that I will read. She referred to the Diversity and Inclusion Directorate as one of the reasons that a defence authority was not needed, but paragraph 147 of the report says:
“Although the Wigston Review identified a pressing need to reform the complaints process, the MOD has not fulfilled the recommendation for a Defence Authority, to handle complex BHD complaints outside the chain of command.”
Lord Browne of Ladyton
“Liability for using novel technologies: review
(1) Within three months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, including in weapons systems, for legal proceedings against armed forces personnel that arise from overseas operations, and produce recommendations for favourable legal environments for the United Kingdom’s armed forces operating overseas, including instilling domestic processes and engaging in the shaping of international agreements and institutions.(2) The review must consider—(a) what protection and guidance armed forces personnel need to minimise the risk of legal proceedings being brought against them which relate to overseas operations in response to novel technologies,(b) how international and domestic legal frameworks governing overseas operations need to be updated in response to novel technologies, and(c) what novel technologies could emerge from the Ministry of Defence and the United Kingdom’s allies, and from the private sector, which could be used in overseas operations.(3) Within the period of one year beginning on the day on which the review is commissioned, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament of its findings and recommendations.”
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton of Richmond and Lord Craig of Radley. I am very grateful to them for joining me in this amendment, and I convey the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is unable to be present today because he had a prior, immovable commitment to be abroad representing your Lordships’ House in a meeting.
Amendment 59 focuses on the protection and guidance that Armed Forces personnel engaged in the deployment and use of new technologies will need to ensure that they comply with the law, including international humanitarian law, and that will explain how international and domestic legal frameworks need to be updated—all because of the predicted increased use of novel technologies that could emerge from or be deployed by the Ministry of Defence, UK allies or the private sector.
Today the private sector is often deployed with our Armed Forces on overseas operations as part of a multinational force. The amendment imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to commission a review of the relevant issues, sets out what that review must consider and obliges the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament of the report’s findings and recommendations.
That is the focus of the amendment but underlying it is a much broader issue about the duties of the Government for our Armed Forces in respect of the development, deployment and use of these technologies, and another complementary obligation on the Government to ensure that they are parliamentarily accountable for these developments—to the extent, of course, that they can be.
Noble Lords will recall that the same amendment was tabled and debated during the passage of the overseas operations Bill but was not pressed to a vote. Separately, on behalf of those noble Lords who supported it, I told the Minister that it was our intention to bring it back in this context, which is perhaps a more appropriate and broader context for the amendment.
I thank the Minister and pay tribute to her and to the MoD officials who are wrestling with the complex legal challenges posed by the development and deployment of these weapons systems for their work on that, and for their repeated engagement with me and other noble and noble and gallant Lords, including those who have put their names to this amendment. As a result of that engagement, I am very aware that the Ministry of Defence continues, and has continued over recent months at pace, both domestically and internationally, to work hard on this, and is making progress with these complex challenges.
I do not want to take unnecessary time going over again all the arguments made in support of the measure in the overseas operations Bill context. I take them as read. There are still unanswered questions, but I hope that, over time, they may be answered. I shall refer to some of them, and more recent developments, for another purpose, which is to set the context, and reinforce the importance, of addressing these challenges—so I shall repeat a few points that I made in earlier debates.
First, the integrated review, published in March, was the third defence and security review since 2020, which alone is an indication of the pace at which these developments are taking place. It was described as forward-facing, recognising both current and future threats against the UK, and set out the capabilities that will need to be developed to deter and engage them. It does do that—imperfectly, I have to say, but it does do it.
When the Prime Minister made a Statement on the review in November last year, he said that
“now is the right time to press ahead”
with the modernisation of the Armed Forces because of
“emerging technologies, visible on the horizon”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 488.]
The Prime Minister said that these would “revolutionise warfare” and I think he was right. The CGS, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, said that he foresees the army of the future as
“the integration of boots and bots”.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, who is with us today, has repeatedly warned your Lordships about the risks posed by the intersection of artificial intelligence and human judgment and has spoken wisely about the risks posed by technology interacting with human error.
These risks are with us now and they are very real. Last month retired General Stanley McChrystal, who led the coalition forces in Afghanistan for two years, said that artificial intelligence inevitably will come to make lethal decisions on the battlefield. However, he acknowledged the “frightening” risks of potential malfunction or mistake. He said:
“People say, ‘We’ll never give control over lethal strike to artificial intelligence.’ That’s wrong. We absolutely will. Because at a certain point, you can’t respond fast enough, unless you do that. A hypervelocity missile, hypersonic missile coming at the United States aircraft carrier, you don’t have time for individuals to do the tracking, you don’t have time for senior leaders to be in the decision loop, or you won’t be able to engage the missile.”
Now, at a less strategic level, military-grade autonomous drones can fly themselves to a specific location, pick their own targets and kill without the assistance of a remote human operator. A UN report about a March 2020 skirmish in the military conflict in Libya records that such a drone made its wartime debut. The report states that retreating forces
“were subsequently hunted down and remotely engaged by the unmanned combat aerial vehicles”,
but does not say explicitly that this lethal autonomous weapon system killed anyone. But it certainly tried to.
The very real fear is that autonomous weapons will undermine the international laws of war. These laws are premised on the idea that people can be held accountable for their actions even during wartime and that the right to kill during combat does not confer the right to murder civilians. But how can autonomous weapons be held accountable? Who is to blame for a robot that commits war crimes? Who would be put on trial: the weapon, the soldier, the soldier’s commanders, the corporation that made the weapon, or the person who wrote the code that gave the weapon the ability to do this?
In a world without regulations that compel meaningful human control of autonomous weapons, there will be war crimes with no war criminals to hold accountable, and the laws of war, along with their deterrent value, will be weakened significantly. I say “deterrent value” because I think, from my experience, that the laws of war and international humanitarian laws work because they are observed, not because they are enforced. It is important that we find some way of collectively reviewing these laws so that they can continue to be observed in this more complicated—and, in many ways, terrifying—new world that we are moving rapidly into.
On 21 October 2021, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to NATO’s first ever strategy for artificial intelligence—AI—which states:
“At the forefront of this Strategy lie the NATO Principles of Responsible Use for AI in Defence, which will help steer our transatlantic efforts in accordance with our values, norms, and international law. The NATO Principles of Responsible Use … are based on existing and widely accepted ethical, legal, and policy commitments under which NATO has historically operated and will continue to operate under. These Principles do not affect or supersede existing obligations and commitments, both national and international.”
Our Government must have agreed these principles. When will the Minister make a Statement to Parliament on them, allow them to be debated and allow Ministers to be questioned on their sufficiency or their breadth and depth? The provisions of Article 36 of Protocol 1, additional to the 1949 Geneva conventions, commit states, including our own, to ensure the legality of all new weapons, means and methods of warfare by subjecting them to a rigorous and multidisciplinary review. I have no reason to believe that we have not complied with our legal obligations in that respect, but, unfortunately, as we are not one of the eight nations in the world that publish a review of legal compatibility, including the United States of America, I have no Minister’s reassurance in that regard. When will we get that assurance or transparency?
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of this amendment. It is one of the few elements of the Bill that seeks to get ahead of the game rather than just play catch-up. My particular perspective is that there is one element of the new security challenge that I feel has escaped proper consideration, one for which there seems no comprehensive or coherent plan of action, which is the issue most commonly referred to as “lawfare”.
To my view, the law is potentially one the most powerful weapons that we have in the security context of the age. It is both a weapon of defence that we should use to protect ourselves from the malign activity of others, and a weapon of attack that we should use to liberate our own freedom of action. As had been said, a fundamental deduction from the recent integrated review was that, within what is a significantly changed strategic context, we now live in a persistent state of adversarial competition, but one in which the resort to formalised warfare at scale is, perhaps by choice, avoided. The preferred vectors of attack in this competitive world are not, therefore, active, large-scale military operations, but more subtle, more deniable and less attributable activities.
The domains of active warfare are no longer necessarily primarily land, sea and air, but space, cyber and what is called the “cognitive domain”. Whereas traditional warfare has rules and laws and accepted norms of ethics and morality, the new character of grey-zone warfare is one in which our enemies exploit, for advantage, the absence of a legal framework within which to operate. So the new vectors of attack are activities such as disinformation, multiplied by internet bots; deniable cyber offensive activity; proxy terrorism; and political assassination, potentially using international private military companies.
More specifically in relation to this amendment, technological advancement in the areas of artificial intelligence, machine learning and autonomous weapons systems also offers scope for our adversaries to deny us their potential benefit while they exploit their unattributed use simply because no accepted legal framework for their authorised use yet exists. This context means that our principal geopolitical adversaries can employ methods that are both malign and aggressive but which we find difficult to respond to because we are unclear about what is morally, ethically and legally permissible. We risk, in effect, allowing our enemies to win without fighting.
In this House, during the passage of the overseas operations Bill, I bore witness to—forgive me—some remarkably contorted debates that appeared to present the law as either something inviolate to change or else an irremovable object that needed elegant methods of circumnavigation. I fear that our enemies will exploit our legal complexities to undermine our morale and devalue our credibility as an ally, among other things.
My view is that the only practical way to respond to the situation I have described and the one described in the integrated review is to start to use the law to our advantage: to go on the legal offensive, to reimagine our use of the law not as a time-honoured constraint on activity but as a weapon to be employed to liberate and confirm the legal boundaries of our own freedom of action while bringing much-needed constraint to the malign activities of our enemies. The Government need to give serious thought as to what aspects of this legal offensive need prioritisation. This House, consisting as it does of far more legal minds the military ones, has a significant role to play, but unless global Britain can make a meaningful contribution to the re-establishment of internationally accepted norms of morality, truth and justice, some might seriously undermine the willingness of our people to fight for them.
My strong view is that this country has all the necessary skills to embark on lawfare. I hope that, within their stated intent to help shape the future international order, the Government have the political will to do so as well. I believe the amendment is a small step in the right direction and it has my unreserved support.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and agree that there is an increasing need for clarity not just today but in the immediate future about the legality of, for example, remote aerial vehicle kinetic operations that involve loss of life, whether military, paramilitary or civilian. Many recent operations have been conducted on an asymmetric footing and not all perhaps with formal, clear-cut international approval. Of course, the right to self-defence is well understood, but how confident are we that emerging technologies in defence weapons systems and their oversight will remain invariably with a human in ultimate control? How it that to be maintained in order to comply with the present laws of conflict as new weapons systems with new technologies are deployed? Are the laws of conflict being overtaken by the possibilities of new types of lethal weapons systems?
Presumably the legality of a remote aerial vehicle operation applies to long-distance control from ships as well as to that from a land base that is remote geographically from the target. Does that base have to be on national territory? What if it is not? What if the operation of the remote vehicle is shared with an ally? How has the operation been approved? What justifications are required for an armed response or for initiating one?
What if the child of a non-combatant civilian accidentally killed by a remote kinetic strike subsequently grows up and seeks to sue the individual or individuals responsible for the control or authorisation of the attack that killed their parent? Will the loss or destruction of any official records of the attack be any sort of viable defence?
As technology moves defence capabilities forward, we will soon enter the era of loyal wingman UAVs and how they interact with their human control. Swarming mini drones are also emerging. There will soon be more, as novel digital technologies are exploited; for example, in the Tempest programme, although I do not have knowledge of secret projects.
The Armed Forces personnel—and this is the key point—involved in kinetic operations exploiting these novel technologies must have absolute clarity about the legal position in which they are required to operate. It is time to know more about how the Government are examining this issue, as I am sure they must be. It is time to be kept informed about the considerations of this complex legal issue as it evolves. Reports from the Secretary of State to Parliament are a must. A review, which should be already in hand, should be reported to Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise as a Liberal Democrat to support this amendment and, like the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to apologise that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is not able to be present in Committee today. He asked an Oral Question last week, to which the Minister responded:
“UK Armed Forces do not use systems that employ lethal force without context-appropriate human involvement.”—[Official Report, 1/11/21; col. 995.]
I was not sure that the Chamber fully understood what “context-appropriate human involvement” was. It was a phrase that the Minister used many times. I wonder if she could elaborate this afternoon a little more on what she meant and whether now might not be the time to think a little more about AI, machine learning and some of the forward-looking issues. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, pointed out, this would be a forward-looking aspect to the Bill. It is surely time for us to think about that, because the ethical and moral questions of people being killed by autonomous weapons that have a life of their own are unconscionable.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Browne, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Craig, for tabling this incredibly important and forward-thinking amendment and the ensuing debates around it. As we have heard, Amendment 59 seeks to force the Government to conduct
“a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence … for legal proceedings against armed forces personnel that arise from overseas operations, and produce recommendations for favourable legal environments for the United Kingdom’s armed forces operating overseas, including … how international and domestic legal frameworks governing overseas operations need to be updated in response to novel technologies”.
As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, this was first debated during the passage of the overseas operations Bill and, just like then, it is about future-proofing this legislation as well as ensuring protection for our personnel from the increased risks when using new technology. I understand my noble friend Lord Browne’s concerns about the mismatch between the need to be future-focused when it comes to technology and emerging threats, and the legislation we have in front of us.
Technology is not only changing the kinds of threats we face but changing warfare and overseas operations in general. Clive Baldwin of Human Rights Watch said that
“we are seeing a breakdown in what is the beginning and the end of an armed conflict, what is the battlefield and what decisions are made in which country … The artificial distinction of an overseas operation with a clear beginning, a clear theatre and a clear end is one that is very much breaking down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 67.]
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how the Government view this and what changes they have in mind.
The Prime Minister was surely right, when giving his speech on the integrated review last year, when he said that technologies “will revolutionise warfare” and announced
“a new centre dedicated to artificial intelligence”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 489.]
and an RAF fighter system that will harness AI and drone technology. It sounds impressive—it is impressive—but, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, as military equipment gets upgraded, we do not know whether the Government necessarily plan to upgrade the legal frameworks for warfare and what this means for legal protections for our Armed Forces personnel.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I have added to my choreography before standing at the Dispatch Box: can I get a Polo mint in before the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, concludes? The answer is no. That is the first question I am able to answer.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for tabling Amendment 59, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Craig, and engages with the subject of novel technologies. It is a significant issue that merits discussion, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
There is no doubt that the increasing adoption of innovative technologies is changing how military operations are conducted. The noble Lords’ analysis—that we need to be particularly mindful of the legal ramifications—is hard to dispute. From the engagement that I and the department have had with the noble Lords, I know that they understand very well the broader complexities likely to be created by Defence use of AI and are anxious that we should address these issues both purposefully and systematically. This scrutiny and challenge is welcome, because we are grappling with questions and subjects that are indeed very complex.
I hope to reassure your Lordships that the department is alert to these issues and has worked extensively on them over the course of the last 18 months. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot set out details until these positions have been finalised, but work to set a clear direction of travel for defence AI, underpinned by proper policy and governance frameworks, has reached an advanced stage. Key to this is the defence AI strategy, which we hope to publish in the coming months, along with details of the approaches we will use when adopting and using AI. This commitment, which is included in the National AI Strategy, reflects the Government’s broader commitment that the public sector should set an example through how it governs its own use of the technology. Taken together, we intend that these various publications will give a much clearer picture than is currently available, because we recognise that these are important issues that attract a great deal of interest, and we need to be as transparent and engaged as possible.
Noble Lords asked pertinent questions. I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked some of these: where in the chain of command does responsibility for AI-related outcomes reside? When might the Government have an obligation to use AI to protect service personnel from harm? What are the military and moral consequences of machine-speed warfare? These are vital questions, and we recognise that we do not yet have all the answers.
Nor can we hope to arrive at these answers on our own. We have to persist in our engagement with our international partners and allies, and with our own public and civil society. It is perfectly legitimate for parliamentarians to take an interest in this subject, to ask questions and to table debates. I hope that our forthcoming publications will provide a solid platform for an ongoing effort of public engagement and efforts to enhance public understanding, subject to the usual caveats that may apply to the release of Defence information.
To turn to the subject of the proposed amendment, we are committed to ensuring that our Armed Forces personnel have the best possible care and protection, including protection against spurious legal challenges. I assure noble Lords that, regardless of the technologies employed, all new military capabilities are subject to a rigorous review process for compliance with international humanitarian law. Furthermore, we also adjust our operating procedures to ensure that we stay within the boundaries of the law that applies at the time.
International and domestic frameworks provide the same level of protection around the use of novel technologies as for conventional systems because their general principle is to focus on the action, rather than the tool. These frameworks therefore offer appropriate levels of protection for our personnel. Earlier this year, we acted to bolster this protection in historical cases, for example, through the overseas operations Act.
In respect of artificial intelligence, I have mentioned our forthcoming AI strategy and our plan to publish details of the approaches we will use when adopting and using AI. This is really where we come to the nub of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, put his finger on it, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I want to try to encapsulate what I hope will be a substantive and reassuring response to them all.
These approaches will not affect or supersede existing legal obligations, but they will ensure coherence across defence. They will also drive the creation of the policy frameworks and systems that, in practical terms, are needed to ensure that personnel researching, developing, delivering and operating AI-enabled systems have an appropriate understanding of those systems and can work with and alongside them in compliance with our various legal and policy frameworks.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, specifically referred to the NATO AI principles. Essentially, NATO’s position is that alliance members can sign up to these NATO-wide standards or they can produce their own to a similar standard. We support NATO’s leadership in the responsible use of artificial intelligence and, as I have indicated, we intend to publish details of our own approach in early course.
In addition, we will continue to engage internationally, including through the United Nations Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons, to promote consensus on international norms and standards for the use of new and emerging technologies on the battlefield, while continuing to act as a responsible leader in this area.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked about the phrasing I used in response to her noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s question last week. From memory, I said two things: first, the UK has no systems that could unilaterally employ lethal force without human involvement at some stage in the process. I think that I went on to say that, sharing the concerns of government, civil society and AI experts around the world, the UK opposes the creation and use of systems that would operate without context-appropriate human involvement. I think that is the phrase the noble Baroness sought clarification on.
The phrase means that a person is exercising some form of control over the effect of the use of the weapon in a way that satisfies international humanitarian law. This could be some form of control over the operation in real time, or it could be setting clear operational parameters for a system. I hope that that has been helpful to the noble Baroness in explaining what was behind the use of that phrase.
I have endeavoured to provide reassurance to noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence takes these matters very seriously, is already doing all that needs to be done, and is planning to be proactive in communicating our approach appropriately to Parliament and the public. On this basis, I suggest that the amendment is not needed.
I also say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and no sense of impertinence, that I do question the utility of requiring a review and a report. This will necessarily be only a snapshot; it will quickly become out of date when we are dealing with a rapidly evolving subject matter. Not to put too fine a point on it, the effort of staffing it risks reducing the capacity needed within the department for developing the extensive systems and frameworks that we need to ensure the proper handling of AI.
I must say that I have enjoyed this debate, as I always enjoy my engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Browne—but, for these reasons, I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response to this debate and, with the indulgence of the Committee, I will refer to parts of her response. I was greatly appreciative of it all, but some parts I welcomed more than others.
I will start with the last point. The criticisms the Minister made about the vehicle that I tabled in order to have this debate was correct. It is implicit in the way I debate these issues that they are moving so fast that probably there is no point in time at which we could publish a report that would not quickly go out of date. I accept that. In fact, for that reason I wish that people, and sometimes senior military officers—but thankfully no British ones—would stop talking about a “race” for this technology. A race requires a line, and the development of this technology has no winning line that we know of.
In fact, the likelihood is that when we move to AGI, which is a hypothetical but likely development, whereby an intelligent agent understands or learns any intellectual task that a human being can, it may well be that we think we are at the line, but the machine does not think we are at the line and runs on and looks back at us and laughs. So I accept all of that but, at some point, we need to find a framework in which we in Parliament can connect with these issues—a methodology for the Government to report to Parliament, to the extent that they can, and for all of us to take responsibility, as we should, for asking our young people to go into situations of conflict, with the possibility that these weapons will be used, with all the implications.
So that is what I am seeking to get. I want a 24 year-old who is asked to take some responsibility in an environment in which these weapons are deployed to know with confidence that he or she is acting within the law. That is my shared responsibility with the Government; we need to find a way of doing that. This may be an imperfect way, but we may always be in an imperfect situation with a moving target. So I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. None of these debates answers any questions fully, but they all add to our collective knowledge.
I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, for his unqualified support. He took me slightly by surprise with the deployment of his eloquence to make the case for deploying the law as a weapon of war. I fear that I agree with him—I used to be a lawyer—but I will have to think long and carefully before I give him my unqualified support for that. However, I suspect that, as always, I will end up supporting what he said.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“Age of recruitment
In section 328 of the AFA 2006 (enlistment), in subsection (2)(c), omit “without the consent of prescribed persons.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes 18 as the minimum age for recruitment into the UK armed forces.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 61 and 62 consider the minimum age for recruitment into the UK Armed Forces. Amendment 61 would establish it as 18. Amendment 62 would ensure that soldiers aged under 18 were not required to serve for a longer period than adult personnel.
Noble Lords may remember the efforts of my late noble and much-loved friend, Lord Judd, who fought to change the situation with regard to the recruitment of under-18s. I am honoured to resume his campaign and hope that progress can be made. He would have reminded us—I shall do so, therefore—that people under 18 are actually children. We should not forget that. Today I am honoured and delighted to have support for these amendments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. They all have great expertise in children’s issues and are passionate in supporting children’s rights. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and, of course, the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard. I thank the Child Rights International Network for its help and support.
I have tabled these amendments due to concern about the rights and welfare of children. I have worked for many years with children—that is, people under the age of 18. Thankfully, we now have a much better understanding, thanks to research and experience, of the teenage brain and behaviour. This knowledge of the brain can help us understand the mental and emotional health of those under 18, and how those develop. Children mature at different rates and the ability of a 16 year-old to make decisions about, for example, life choices may lack the necessary maturity. The younger children are, the more vulnerable they are. Some children will thrive as recruits—we know that—but others may not.
The Minister may point to the opportunities available in the Army for young recruits who might otherwise be unemployed, but circumstances have changed and the new circumstances must be taken account of. It is now the norm for young people to stay in full-time education beyond the statutory school leaving age of 16. This includes those whom the Army targets for recruitment. Four out of five of the most disadvantaged young people in England now stay in full-time education after their GCSEs. In fact, the policy of enlisting at 16 draws young people out of full-time education. The Army is now competing not with the dole office for its underage recruits but, as its officers acknowledge, with schools and colleges.
Every year the Armed Forces enlist around 3,000 young people aged 16 or 17. Most join the Army, which tends to recruit from deprived neighbourhoods. Military recruitment at 16 is now highly unusual internationally. Three-quarters of countries worldwide now allow only adults to be enlisted. A few other NATO member states still recruit at 17 in small numbers, but the UK is the only country in Europe, and the only NATO military power, still allowing its Armed Forces to enlist 16 year-olds. Indeed, we appear to be the only country in the world to rely so heavily on that age group to fill the ranks. In the British Army, more new soldiers of 16 than any other age group—
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She places significant importance on her research. I simply seek some reassurance from her, and perhaps the other proposers of the amendment, that they have actually been to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate and talked about these issues with the young people to find out what has motivated them to join the military.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I shall mention this later. I have not visited that college myself. I know people who have and I know an organisation that has visited quite regularly. I will come on to that later. If the noble Lord is not satisfied then, I will try to give some more information.
I was saying that more new soldiers are recruited at 16 than from any other age group in the UK. I am aware that some join due to instability in their lives—I have known several of those—such as divorcing parents, or unhappiness at school or in their communities. The 16 year-olds who enlist sign a binding contract. Its terms of service are so restrictive that they could not be imposed on any person of any age in any other walk of life, with or without consent.
A 16 year-old has no right at all to leave the Army in the first six weeks, which corresponds with the most stressful period of their training. Then the recruit may leave. They are subject only to a notice period of between two weeks and three months. From the day that recruit turns 18, they have no right to leave the Army for the next four years. That means that the 16 year-old recruit is subject to a minimum period of service of up to two years longer than recruits who enlist as adults, whose four-year minimum term is counted from the day they enlist, rather than from their 18th birthday. In effect, a soldier’s service before they turn 18 is not counted, when plainly it should be. An 18 year-old recruit who serves for four years can leave the Army. A 16 year-old recruit who serves the same duration cannot.
The second amendment seeks to end that discrimination. Although the High Court has ruled that the Army is entitled to discriminate in this way, the basic principle of fairness—and, I suggest, common sense—demands otherwise. Indeed, even the Army says that the change would, to quote its junior entry review,
“provide greater consistency to U18 recruits”.
That is the Army saying that.
It is important to know that under-18s are not normally deployed on hostile operations, but that they will be during training is a matter of serious concern; here I come on to the noble Lord’s intervention. The Army’s youngest recruits undergo their initial soldier training at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. As is well publicised, the institution has an “outstanding” grade from Ofsted, awarded again this year. But Ofsted does not grade the Army Foundation College on the same basis as civilian schools. The outstanding grade is awarded not for the education on offer, which amounts to less than one day per week, but for the welfare arrangements. Despite this, the Army recorded an extraordinary 60 allegations of abuse of recruits by staff at this college between 2014 and 2020. The allegations include assault and battery. They are all on the Army’s record and officers are aware of them, but they are absent from the Ofsted inspection reports, including the latest report this year.
The situation facing girls is of particular concern. Freedom of information requests show that since 2015, 41 girls aged under 18 in the Armed Forces have made formal complaints of rape or other sexual assault to the service police. This is equivalent to a rate of 2.5%—one in every 40 girls in the forces. This is twice the reported rate of sexual abuse for girls of the same age group in civilian life.
The Child Rights International Network has collected some testimonies from parents of former recruits at the Army Foundation College. They have shown great courage in speaking out about their children’s treatment. The father of a former recruit at the college writes:
“[My son] had been bullied verbally [by staff]; he and the other recruits were talked down to, called [the c-word and the f-word] constantly … [we had a] fraught and stressful negotiation to get our son out.”
A mother says:
“[My son] struggles to talk about what happened … but we know that staff bullied and abused the young recruits … [My son] is a completely different person since his time at Harrogate. He has attempted suicide and his mental health is permanently damaged.”
Another mother said that her boy was,
“hit, slapped, pushed, kicked and verbally abused by staff. He told me his request”
to leave the army
“was ripped up in his face. He was only 17 years old and devastated at not being able to leave … My son died last year while still serving in the army.”
This is abuse, and these are shocking testimonies concerning young people placed in a care of an institution that has a clear legal and moral duty to safeguard them from harm. One can only imagine what would happen to a civilian school or college, whatever its Ofsted grade, with so many allegations of violent abuse to students.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, to which I have added my name. I have done so because of my concerns about the well-being of young people and because I am not convinced that there are sufficient benefits in allowing the enlistment of young people of 16 or 17 rather than 18. Evidence and personal experience tell me that there is not.
I speak because of the experience of a member of my own family, so I know a story inside out, but I have also spoken to a number of parents whose children were recruited under the age of 18—and I have heard some very similar stories those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in her speech. I have no doubt that, for some early leavers recruited below the age of 18, the mental damage can take years to recover from. These recruits have the legal status as children and are entitled in law under safeguarding legislation to be protected from harm as far as possible.
There are a number of other reasons why I question this policy. Younger recruits suffer from very high drop-out rates. Official statistics show that, once enlisted, 30% of the Army’s under-18 recruits leave or are dismissed before they finish their training. They can find themselves out of work and education within months of joining, and these discharged recruits are not tracked, so we cannot speculate on how they fare after they leave the military. That being said, it would not be unreasonable to say that, had the option of joining up not been available, they would have stayed in full-time education, taken an apprenticeship or worked part time while undertaking a qualification. We are talking about not some small, troubled minority who failed to adapt adequately to military service, but nearly a third of all junior recruits. That is affecting some 700 young people a year, according to the Child Rights International Network.
According to data from 2011 to 2014, of those junior recruits who stay on to complete their training and enlist fully, an additional 10% drop out at the age of 22, the minimum length of service. This gives a total retention percentage beyond the age of 22 of around 63% for all those who enlisted below the age of 18. Furthermore, data from 2017 to 2019 shows that only one in five recruits enlisted under the age of 18 are still in the Army 10 years later, compared with one in four adult recruits.
Surely this makes little sense for the Army, which allocates huge amounts of time and resources to recruit so many under-18s only for such a large proportion to either leave prematurely or complete just the minimum required service. The Ministry of Defence’s own data shows that adult recruits aged 18 or above are more likely to finish their training. Hence, it makes economic sense apart from anything else for the Army to focus its efforts on older recruits, especially given that the MoD admits that adult recruits cost half as much to train.
As I have mentioned, there are also concerns surrounding the long-term mental health outcomes of those who join up early. A recent study led by Glasgow University comparing the long-term outcomes of junior entrants with civilians of the same age and background found that junior entrants since 1995 were between two and three times more likely to develop long-term PTSD. This is significant because PTSD has been found, in a range of studies, to co-occur with depression and addictive behaviours, including substance and alcohol misuse and gambling disorders. This point is reinforced further by a study led by King’s College London, which reviewed the mental health of veterans who had originally enlisted as junior entrants. Since 2003, junior entrants were twice as likely to develop alcohol misuse and twice as likely to report episodes of lifetime self-harm compared with veterans who had enlisted at older ages.
Even if these are afflictions that affect junior recruits in adulthood, any reasonable duty of care must consider the long-term consequences of a particular policy. Since around the turn of the millennium, the youngest recruits to the Armed Forces have been substantially more likely than older recruits, and more likely than civilians of the same age and social background, to develop mental health problems in the longer term.
I am sure that some might prefer to focus on the fact that this problem has emerged since the late 1990s. The slur “snowflake” has been used to tar a generation some believe are overly sensitive and unable to overcome adversity. But the reality surely is that, regardless of our approach to young people, the problems young recruits face are real and have serious long-term impacts. In an age of heightened awareness about mental health, old mantras such as “toughen up” fail to alleviate the damaging consequences of junior enlistment.
The evidence I have been trying to outline in favour of these amendments points to a real problem with the policy of recruiting at such a young age. Seeing as most other countries can manage by recruiting adults, surely the UK should have no problem either. For those 16 or 17 year-olds who would have eagerly joined the military, if they are still passionate about doing so at 18, the option is still available to them. They will be entering with greater life experience and a greater chance of success both in the military and in their subsequent civilian life.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the last time I spoke on this issue was in support of my late noble friend Lord Judd, who, as my noble friend Lady Massey said, was much admired and loved—and, I would add, is much missed. He brought to issues such as this his passion for social justice, which was unrivalled in your Lordships’ House. That said, my noble friend has made a powerful case today in introducing these amendments. Like her, I come to the issue from a children’s rights perspective and am grateful for the briefing from the Child Rights International Network.
I apologise that I could not attend the Second Reading debate but, reading it, it seemed that the Minister was rather flippant in her response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, when she raised this issue. The Minister dismissed the term she used, “child soldiers”, as
“a term that few of us in this Chamber recognise”.—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 775.]
Perhaps so but it acts as a reminder that we are talking about children, as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as has already been emphasised. The Minister may wish to point out that the convention does not prohibit enlistment of children under the age of 18. But the body which monitors compliance with the convention, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, has repeatedly called on the UK to raise the minimum age of recruitment to 18. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has in the past, including when I was a member, also questioned government policy on this matter from a human rights perspective.
The UN committee will be reviewing the UK’s progress on children’s rights again next year and has already flagged up Armed Forces recruitment in the list of issues that the review will examine. It has asked the Government to explain what steps they have taken to raise the enlistment age since the last review in 2016. The committee has also asked whether the minimum period of service for recruits aged under 18 is still longer than for adult recruits—a discrimination that Amendment 62 seeks to end. Surely we wish to be able to point to progress in this area since the last review.
As my noble friend underlined, it is important to remember the international context. She pointed to a clear positive trend: half a century ago, it was normal for state armed forces to recruit children; in most parts of the world, including Europe, it is now abnormal. This is a seismic shift at a global level that has already safeguarded countless adolescent children from the harm associated with joining the armed forces too early. Increasingly, the global consensus that children should be safeguarded from military work is denying political cover to less scrupulous countries than our own and armed groups which otherwise have no qualms about sending child soldiers into combat.
We have an opportunity here. A global ban on the use of children for military purposes used to be a pipe dream. Now, it is at least imaginable. At the moment, the UK follows the lowest legally permissible standard in the world by allowing enlistment from age 16, lagging behind others when we could be helping to lead the way—and it can be done. Noble Lords here will know much more about this than I do but, in contrast to the Army, the RAF and Navy do not recruit many under-18s. Historically, the Army has said that it needs younger recruits just to fill the ranks and when the issue was last debated, the then Minister—the noble Earl, Lord Howe—explained that the under-18s represented 15% of the Army’s inflow, which I found rather shocking. Given that the Army has downsized and, as I understand it, is continuing to do so, surely it does not need underage recruits any more. Can the Minister give us some up-to-date information on the trends in recruitment of those under 18, including what proportion of inflow they represent now?
It would seem that the transition to an all-adult Army could now be within easy reach. For the protection of children’s rights, here in the UK and globally, it is a step we should take.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support the amendment of my friend and fellow member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. At that point I had not had the irresistible invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, to support her on this. She and I have form when it comes to working on children’s rights. I put on the record that I am a governor of Coram, the oldest children’s charity in the United Kingdom, dating from 1739.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 61, which would effectively prohibit the enlistment of persons under the age of 18. I, for one, certainly am not ashamed that we give young people these life opportunities. I say to the noble Lords who have proposed this amendment that many of what they seem to have taken as facts I simply do not recognise: presumably they have been published by organisations opposed to this. I am happy to give way to be corrected, but the one cohort they do not seem to have engaged with is the young people themselves at the Army Foundation College. Has anybody been to the Army Foundation College? No, no one has. That is a disappointment. Perhaps I could ask noble Lords to at least consider going to visit the college.
Slightly tongue in cheek, I say to the right reverend Prelate, on his concerns about what is an appropriate age to recruit young people into an organisation, that I think I was 14 years old when I was recruited into the Church of England, effectively, through confirmation. I have no idea what is now the minimum age to be confirmed in the Church of England, but I am happy to give way for him to tell me.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I would say that we are not asking our confirmation candidates to enter into armed conflict. It is a very different thing when we talk about membership of clubs, the Church or whatever. We have laid out our concerns about this very strange period when young people are growing up because, right across Europe and most of the world, we are absolutely clear that these are children who we are asking to undertake an adult task. That is the concern I bring—but I am happy to have further conversations.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
That is a reasonable point, but none the less, the Church of England is actively targeting young people of a certain age to be recruited into an organisation. Okay, I say that slightly tongue in cheek, but there could be a discussion of what age is appropriate for young people to make an informed decision.
I begin by reminding your Lordships that there is no compulsory recruitment into the Armed Forces. All those under the age of 18 are volunteers, and we should take pride in the fact that our Armed Forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people while in service, as well as after they leave.
The Armed Forces remain the UK’s largest apprenticeship provider, equipping young people with valuable and transferable skills for life. I declare an interest, because I applied to join the Army before the age of 18. I went through a regular commissions board and made an informed choice to join the Army when I was still a minor. Although I did not attend Sandhurst until shortly after my 18th birthday—a short course for the type of commission I was undertaking—I recall my time in the regular Army when I was a teenager with great pride and a sense of satisfaction. That may well be in part due to my posting to Hong Kong, where I received both a formal military education and a rather less formal liberal education in life—but that is another matter.
The minimum age for entry into the UK Armed Forces reflects the normal school leaving age of 16, but recognises, through the training offered, that participation in education or structured training remains mandatory until 18. In the services, all recruits who enlist as minors and do not hold full level 3 qualifications are enrolled on an apprenticeship scheme, unless their trade training attracts higher-level qualifications. All undertake structured professional education as part of their initial military training, and therefore automatically fulfil their duty to participate under the various education Acts. Many individuals who join under the age of 18 are not academic high achievers, although some are, and the duty of care and training that the Armed Forces provide enhance their self-esteem and prospects for the whole of their working life, within or without the services.
Let me be clear: our military is full of service men and women who freely admit that, had it not been for the structure, education and discipline that service life offered them as 16 year-olds, it is highly likely that their lives would have led them down an entirely different and less positive path. Joining the military at 18 would have simply been too late for them to make that positive change of direction in their lives.
In my experience, the military fully recognises the special duty of care that it owes to under-18s, and commanding officers continue to have that made clear to them. The recruiting policy is absolutely clear. No one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process. In addition, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to engage with recruiting staff during the process. Once accepted into service, under-18s have the right to automatic discharge at any time until their 18th birthday. All new recruits who are under the age of 18 and have completed 28 days’ service have a right of discharge within their first three to six months of service if they decide that a career in the Armed Forces is not for them. It is simply not in the interest of either the individual or the service to force them to stay where they are not happy to be.
MoD policy is not to deploy personnel under the age of 18 on operations. Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on any operation outside the UK, except where the operation does not involve them becoming engaged in or exposed to hostilities. There is evidence to suggest that those joining at a younger age remain in service for longer and that under-18s in the Army achieve higher performance based on their earlier promotion. Evidence clearly shows that junior entrants are likely to serve longer and to achieve higher rank than some senior entrants, so the additional costs incurred in their training that noble Lords have mentioned reap considerable benefits for the service, the individual and society as a whole.
The services are among the largest training providers in the UK, with excellent completion and achievement rates. Armed Forces personnel are offered genuine progression routes which allow them to develop, gain qualifications and play a fuller part in society—whether in the Armed Forces or the civilian world. In the naval service and the Royal Air Force, initial military training is conducted on single-service sites and, because of the smaller scale, no distinction needs to be made in the training provided to those under 18. In the Army, phase 1 training for under-18s, the basic military training course, is completed at the Army Foundation College, where the facilities have been specifically designed for this age group. The training courses last either 23 or 49 weeks, both of which are longer than the basic over-18 course and dependent on the length of the subsequent specialist training.
The MoD’s duty of care policy for under-18 entrants is laid down in a defence instruction and covers the duty of care obligations of commanding officers. This is constantly updated, and I am the first to admit that I am probably now out of date, since I have left being a Minister for two years, but I am sure that my noble friend in her response will update the Committee on some of its current components to offer some reassurance as to how the military deals with that duty of care.
Equally, as I have mentioned, all recruits enlisted as minors who do not hold full level 3 qualifications are enrolled on an apprenticeship scheme, unless their trade training attracts higher-level qualifications. For example, as a Royal Engineer I trained to be a bricklayer and an electrician. The time taken to complete their apprenticeship varies according to the programme being followed, but completion rates are high. Additionally, while in service all Armed Forces personnel—subject to meeting certain qualification criteria—can claim financial support for education under the standard learning credit scheme and enhanced learning credit scheme.
To conclude, I believe that under-18s who chose to join the Armed Forces are an important and valuable cohort among those starting their military career. The MoD invests strongly in them and they repay that investment with longer service and higher achievement. The duty of care for that cohort is paramount and establishments are regularly inspected by Ofsted and achieve consistently good or outstanding gradings. The training and education are clearly first class and MoD policies on under-18s in service are robust and comply with national and international law.
Crucially to me—and I have seen this time and time again—joining the Armed Forces provides prestigious and respected career opportunities for young men and women who may not have achieved the same in civilian life. But there is no need to take my word for it. I would encourage any noble Lord seeking to support this amendment to visit the Army Foundation College in Harrogate and speak to the young service men and women themselves—because it is, after all, their future we are debating.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Well, perhaps he might respond as this is Committee stage. I pay tribute to the Army training, because the noble Lord is certainly able to follow a brief and read it in a fairly military fashion and in a straight line. But if this is such a good idea, if it is so effective and productive for the children who enter the Army at the age of 16, why are we one of the very few countries in the world, and the only military force within NATO, to do this? What do we know that they do not? Why have we got it right and why have they got it wrong?
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I think the evidence speaks for itself. I have attempted to outline some of that evidence, bearing in mind that for those first two years we offer first-rate training. We are the largest apprenticeship provider in the United Kingdom. We are giving life opportunities to young people who, without that discipline or training, may well have followed a different path. I am convinced through my experience of 33 years in the military, of visiting this college and of meeting young people who have been through their careers, will look me in the face and say, “Had it not been for joining the military, I would have ended up doing something awful on the streets of Portsmouth or London, or wherever. It is only through the opportunity that the military gave me at a young age that I became the man or woman that I have.” That, away from the MoD’s passion for young people, has to be the best reason why this should continue.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to both amendments. I thank my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen for tabling them. My noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Lister and I are doing our level best, in his absence, to do justice to our recently deceased, much-loved and greatly missed noble friend Lord Judd, who was a person of the greatest integrity and enormous kindness, in the context of an issue which was very dear to his heart. But that is not why I want to speak to these amendments.
When I was Secretary of State for Defence, I attended a passing-out parade for young recruits and, on occasions, spent time with the young recruits themselves and those who were training them. I invariably enjoyed a morning of meeting recruits, their families and the Army training and welfare staff. Among other matters, we talked about some of the social challenges that these young people faced. On each occasion—this was some time ago—I left with an overwhelming feeling that the Army offers many young people an accessible alternative at a time when some could quite easily drift down another path; a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, made repeatedly and which I think is not lost on your Lordships’ Committee.
Of course, the discussion was almost exclusively about how the Army had provided for these young people, often from very poor socioeconomic backgrounds, an opportunity to find meaning in their lives and to develop comradeship and interpersonal skills, as well as training them for a variety of trades—opportunities which may have been difficult for them to obtain otherwise. I admit all of that. I wish I had access then to the research I have now read because I would not have asked the young people these questions. I would have asked the people who were training them and responsible for them, and who had recruited them, many different questions. I now have access to this research, which I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, dismisses with a wave of his hand, saying that it clearly is being done by people who have a vested interest—as he does, of course.
Frankly, I have much experience of personal experiences which have been contradicted by the truth. I would, in the face of this peer-reviewed research, not be conceited enough to make the case that my short experience, which has never been peer reviewed or tested properly, was a better basis for public policy than that research. That is the point I want to make in this debate.
My attention has been drawn to the work of King’s College, which found that violent, sexual and drug-related offending increases after enlistment and then rises again before first deployment. My attention has been drawn to two recent studies by the University of Glasgow—my alma mater and hardly an institution which has some grudge against the Army or its practice of recruiting young people, but which has, like King’s College, an enviable academic record and an insistence that before any work is published it is properly and rigorously peer reviewed—which found that the mental health outcomes of junior entrants give further cause for concern. The Glasgow study found that PTSD among veterans who enlisted before 1995 was between two and three times more common than among civilians from the same social background.
In the face of these recent reports, it is hardly surprising that many people are calling for an end to the UK’s policy of permitting 16 year-olds to join the military, but I am asking for an urgent rethink. I press this upon the Minister. I will not rehearse all the many good arguments as to why this reconsideration ought to conclude with a termination of the policy, but my conclusion is that the case for consideration of raising the minimum age is comprehensive. It is built on medical evidence, sound logic and, much more importantly, ethical standards.
Beyond those recruited to the Army, adolescence is known as a time when the brain and the ability to make well-reasoned decisions are still developing. Why would we ask young people to make a decision of this importance when their brain is still developing? Of course we ask young people to make all sorts of decisions that affect what they do in the rest of their life, but this is a very special decision because of what the Army does. It means that teenagers recruited to the Army are more likely to be acting on impulse than making a fully informed decision about their future. I say no more; I do not say that every one of them is but they are more likely to be. That is enough to make me hesitate. It means that they are also less likely, although it is not impossible, to withstand the physical and emotional strains of military life and training. Young people who have experienced childhood adversity are also more likely to develop mental health problems in the Army.
There is credible research on all of this. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, invites each of us to visit a particular institution. I invite him to read the research with an open mind. I will be confounded if he does not come to the conclusion that there is a serious issue. One study found that three-quarters of military personnel have suffered two or more instances of childhood adversity and that factors such as younger age, lower educational attainment and serving in the Army were all linked with higher vulnerability to depression and anxiety. I understand that that might be because of what we ask these people to do and what we subject them to in order to keep us secure. That is their service to us and it has consequences for them. We have to ask ourselves, however: at what point in their maturity is it more likely that they will make the right decision to commit their lives to do that? All I ask is that we consider what that time is.
There are, of course, logical flaws in the policy of 16 year-olds joining the Army. It is inconsistent with other legal age limits. Supposedly 16 year-olds are not mature enough to vote but they still can make life-changing decisions about their future. They cannot purchase knives but they can learn to use lethal weapons. Perhaps the greatest irony is that the sale of certain military videogames is prohibited to under-18s. That is not at the heart of my argument, but there are these inconsistencies. This is not the only case where an age limit that we apply to activity appears arbitrary and illogical.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about what age we should choose: any age we choose is arbitrary because each of these young people—these children—is an individual. If we could find some way to measure their maturity and their ability to go through what they will go through, that would be a far greater way to decide whether they were ready to be recruited to the Army, but we cannot. It was tried and it proved to be ineffective.
Surely, if we are satisfied, on the incontrovertible evidence, that it is far less likely that we will expose young people who are actually not fit for this if we wait until they are 18 instead of doing it when they are 16, that is a very compelling reason for moving the age from 16 to 18. I am not suggesting that those arguments ought to convince the Government to go back on this policy; there are many others. But surely the time has come, now that we have this knowledge, to do what noble Lords in this Committee have repeatedly asked the Minister to do—to expand on the research until we can make the best judgment we can with what we have available to us about this. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it should be to stop recruiting young people at scale into the Army at 16 years of age.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I apologise, but I had not finished—it was a dramatic pregnant pause that misled the noble Baroness.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
It is not a preface. I want to turn to Amendment 62, for a couple of paragraphs. The amendment would ensure that
“soldiers aged under 18 are not required to serve for a longer period than adult personnel.”
In my view, the amendment addresses an issue that is just wrong—we just should not be keeping people who signed at 16 in the Army longer than people who signed at 18, just because of their age. There is no justification for that discrimination, in my view. It is an abuse of their rights; they should be treated the same as everybody else, and we should simply get rid of their distinction. I have finished now.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the dramatic pause of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was going to interrupt if I had not.
It is unusual to get to the final group of amendments and suddenly discover the most heated debate of the whole Bill. That is clearly were we are today. Clearly, the concept of child soldiers, which the Minister said at Second Reading that she did not recognise, is emotive. If one talks about “child soldiers”, it gives a very strong sense of children running around, perhaps recruited by being stolen away from their families by regimes that would be seen as unsavoury. The recruitment of 16 and 17 year-olds in the United Kingdom is somewhat different.
With some of the arguments in favour of Amendment 61, there was a sense that somehow people were being forced to join—that the Army is so determined that it needs more young people, and it can fill its ranks only if it recruits 16 and 17 year-olds. But nobody is forcing 16 year-olds to join the Army; it is voluntary recruitment, and they can do so only with parental agreement.
I am not as passionate as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in saying that I am not persuaded by Amendment 61. On these Benches, our defence spokesperson in the House of Commons, Jamie Stone, and I discussed these amendments at an earlier stage. We were encouraged to table such amendments, but neither of us felt that we wished to do so, because there are some benefits to the current arrangements.
We heard clearly from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about certain problems at Harrogate. Like other noble Lords, perhaps with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I have not visited Harrogate. I would be extremely happy to do so if the Minister can arrange a visit, because I think it would be important to do so.
We have heard some horrifying-sounding statistics about things that have allegedly happened at Harrogate. However, on an earlier group of amendments we were looking at the report from the House of Commons Defence Committee and some of the issues facing particularly female soldiers—recruited, presumably, after 18. Those statistics were also horrifying. If we were to say that a higher level of abuse or sexual harassment should lead us to say, “Away with Harrogate; away with recruiting child soldiers”, we could almost be getting ourselves to the point of asking why we are recruiting to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. I do not think we should conflate two things. If there are issues associated with the Army Foundation College at Harrogate, they should be dealt with separately from the principle of whether it is acceptable to recruit people at 16.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I did sit down; I apologise.
On Amendment 62, like other noble Lords, I can see no justification for saying that somebody recruited at 16 should be required to stay in for longer than people recruited at any other age. I really have finished now.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am a bit nervous of standing up.
I will make some brief remarks, if noble Lords will bear with me. It is somewhat strange for me: my noble friend Lady Massey, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I have spent years campaigning on children’s rights and on 100% of occasions have been exactly as one on all these issues. I therefore fully understand the proposal outlined in Amendment 61, but I have always been persuaded by the argument that has been put forward: for some young people in some situations, recruitment into the Army at 16 offers a way out of the situation in which they have found themselves. It is often a desperate situation—not for all the recruits at 16, but certainly for a number of them.
I was persuaded by this as much as anything. Most of the schools I taught in for 20 years before becoming a Member of Parliament and then joining your Lordships’ House were in the most deprived and desperate communities. One of the options available to those young people was the Armed Forces. Indeed, we used to use the uniformed organisations, admittedly not the Army, but certainly organisations such as the cadets, the Scouts and the Guides, if it was girls, to try to instil some structure into completely chaotic lives. I have always felt that, in some situations, recruitment at 16 gave some young people an opportunity that they otherwise would not have had. I have always been persuaded by that argument and certainly that is our position formally from the Front Bench.
I do not want to get into an “I have done this and other people have not” discussion but I have been to the college at Harrogate—not that you have to go to places like that to have a legitimate or honest opinion. I went there when I was shadow Secretary of State a number of years ago and it was fantastic. It was brilliant and the experience of the young people and the dedication of the Army personnel who were responsible for them was first rate. The young people talked openly about their experience there. You can be cynical about it and say that they were set up to do it and they would not say anything else because they would be worried about getting in trouble, but I did not feel that, to be honest. Maybe I was duped—who knows? However, I felt when I was there that those young people expressed a view that supported the fact that they were allowed to be recruited at 16.
I know that there are very deeply held views on both sides on this. They will cut across party lines, probably. As I have said, I am completely persuaded and always have been by that argument that it creates opportunity. That is the position that the Front Bench of Her Majesty’s Opposition have at present.
There are concerns and I think the Minister would say that some of the allegations that have come out need to be addressed. Some of the statistics from the report quoted by my noble friend Lady Massey are concerning. We need to understand the rights and wrongs of the bullying and of the sexual allegations. We need to get to the root of that. As Amendment 62 points out, maybe there is something there that needs to be looked at.
A very serious debate has taken place here and people have very deeply held views. It is a debate that has been going on for decades about whether it is right to recruit young people at that age because they are too young, or whether is it right to create an environment in which they can join at that age if they are properly supported, protected. They are looked after but they are given an opportunity that were it not available to them there would be significant problems in their lives. That opportunity should be made available to them, but that then puts an added responsibility on all of us to ensure that they are properly cared for and properly looked after as part of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
First, I can say to all contributors that, wherever one comes from in relation to this debate, this was a cracking debate. It was really interesting, with genuinely thought-provoking contributions from all round the Committee. I thank contributors for that.
The subjects under discussion are, essentially, fairly simple to understand. To look at these two relatively small amendments is perhaps misleading, because they are the genesis of the content that is the trigger for the debate. Essentially, we have amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, with Amendment 61 supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. Amendment 62 is once more supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
These amendments seek to raise the age of recruitment to the Armed Forces to 18 and to ensure that those recruited while under the age of 18 serve the same period of time as those who enlisted at the age of 18. To be honest, what I have detected is a fundamental philosophical divergence: the proposers and supporters of Amendment 61 think that such recruitment is bad; the Government take a different view. I will try to address the concerns articulated by your Lordships in the course of the debate.
I want to be clear about one thing: we comply with the law. We are not in breach of the law in doing what we do. We remain clear that junior entry offers a range of benefits to the individual, the Armed Forces and society, providing a highly valuable vocational training opportunity for those wishing to follow a career in the Armed Forces. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lancaster, who spoke eloquently and authoritatively from a very personal standpoint as to the merit he sees in this system. That opinion should weigh with us.
What I am very happy to do—if others want to respond to this, I am more than happy to support that—is facilitate a visit to the Army Foundation College at Harrogate. I offer to join that visit myself. I, too, have not visited that college, but I would be very happy to do so. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who specifically asked whether I would be prepared to do that. I hope that, following the impressive marketing strategy from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, relating to the foundation college, there will be a good take-up of this invitation. I will take that away, engage with those who might be interested in attending and see whether we can get a visit to Yorkshire sorted out.
A number of noble Lords quite rightly raised our duty of care in Defence. We take our duty of care for entrants under 18 extremely seriously. Close attention has understandably been given to this subject in recent years, especially after the tragic deaths at Deepcut. We have robust, effective and independently verified safeguards in place to ensure that under-18s are cared for properly.
I will give a little more detail on that. Mental health and well-being are a priority across Defence and all training establishments. We are clear that the duty of care to all our recruits, in particular those aged under 18, is of the utmost importance, and that those aged under 18 should be treated with special consideration. The 2020-21 Ofsted report, Welfare and Duty of Care in Armed Forces Initial Training, noted the well-co-ordinated care and welfare arrangements for regular and reserve recruits and trainees. At the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, Ofsted was particularly impressed by the strong ethos of emotional and psychological safety, as well as the high standards of all facilities and accommodation. The AFCH has dedicated safeguarding, mental health and well-being leads to support students while they are at the college.
As others have indicated, the provision of education and training for 16 year-old school leavers provides a route into the Armed Forces that complies with the law and government education policy while providing a significant foundation for emotional, physical and educational development throughout an individual’s career. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She made a very balanced contribution and acknowledged her acceptance of these virtues.
As others have said, there is no compulsory recruitment into the Armed Forces. Our recruiting policy is absolutely clear. No one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without formal parental consent, and that is checked twice during the application process. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, adduced an example and thought it would be extremely undesirable if the individual whom he envisaged were to go into the Armed Forces but, presumably, in that situation, parental consent would not be given, and one could understand why not. In addition, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to be engaged with the recruiting staff during the process. As has been acknowledged, service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on hostile operations outside the UK, or on operations where they may be exposed to hostilities.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
On Amendment 62, can the Minister answer this deceptively simple question? Why do the Army, in their regulations regarding the minimum service period, discriminate against younger recruits? On the issue of whether this is legal, I am not arguing that it is illegal—but will the Minister confirm for the record that the only reason why this discrimination, which would be unlawful in civilian life, is lawful, is because the Armed Forces benefit from an exemption from the Equality Act 2010 which was put there to allow them to continue to discriminate?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think I can add nothing more to what I have already provided by way of an explanation for how that system works and why it is there, and why we do not believe that it is as discriminatory as the noble Lord indicates. However, I am happy to look at his remarks in Hansard and see whether I can provide him with a fuller response.
In conclusion, I thank your Lordships for all contributions. I genuinely thought that it was an extremely interesting debate, and I have welcomed the thoughts from contributors all around the Room.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I have about 10 pages of notes here, which I shall go through very slowly. I joke, of course—it is late.
First, I thank the Minister for her extended response. I should love to meet her, and I should also like to bring others with me to that meeting, because I think we all have a variety of experiences on this—they are very different. We are almost at some sort of philosophically possibly permanent divide. I know where I stand and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, knows where he stands, and possibly never the twain shall meet. But perhaps they will.
I will say a little about some of the comments by my very dear noble friend Lord Coaker, who talked about children joining the guides or scouts. They are not forced to join them, obviously, and can also not go if they do not want to. You cannot do that in the army, so it is a different situation. Sorry about that, Vernon.
In trying to make any comments of any sense, I can only say what I would like next from this debate. It has been a super debate, it has been really interesting and exciting, with very good speeches from my friend the right reverend Prelate, my noble friend Lady Lister, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who are all clearly where I am—on the side of the rights of the child, child protection and welfare. That was my focus: child protection and child welfare.
We perhaps all need to seriously look at—I do not mean in depth, just some summaries—the new research coming out about children’s brains. It is very extensive and scientific. We have to accept from this research that the teenage brain develops at different levels in different children. However, there are trends, and 16 is generally too low an age to accurately make decisions or predict what you want to have in life. I was a teacher—as was my noble friend Lord Coaker—a long time ago. I do not think we knew all this stuff then. We knew that children were different, but we did not have all this scientific input about the development of the brain. I am grateful for it. I have just read a wonderful book about it, and I am really grateful we have it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that the Armed Forces can equip children with skills for life. Yes, they can, but so can other places. I cannot accept that equipping people with skills for life should include such joys as I have heard—I have not quoted all the stories I have heard—about the not-so-good parts of Harrogate. I would love to go to Harrogate with the Minister or anybody else. I am very aware that institutions can gloss over things. I have been in schools, so I know that when you have an Ofsted inspection you would not think there were naughty children there, or anything is wrong, you would just believe what you were told. You were often not invited to interview children. It is absolutely key that children must be interviewed, and parents should give their views as well, to have a complete spectrum of what is going on in an institution.
I keep talking about the rights of children. We should respect the international agreements, that we have not just made but endorsed, about the rights of children as embedded in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a hugely important document; we do not know enough about it and we should take more account of it. My noble friend Lady Lister was quite right to bring out the awful reports from the committee on our attention as a country to youth justice and the rights of the child. We need to look at all these things if we have not already.
I would also say that the evidence of people tonight has not really answered this question: if the case for recruiting at 16 is so strong, why do none of our closest allies do it? We are really out on a limb. I read in the Times the other day that the Marines are now looking at recruiting people at an older age because they are more mature and have more experience of life, and that is what they want, rather than people who are raw recruits.
Baroness Goldie
“(ga) paragraphs 1 to 23 and 33 to 52 of Schedule (Tri-service serious crime unit) (and section (Framework for establishment of tri-service serious crime unit) (5), so far as it relates to those paragraphs);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is about the territorial extent of the new Schedule proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Schedule 4.
Baroness Goldie
“(ha) paragraphs 1 to 23 and 33 to 52 of Schedule (Tri-service serious crime unit) (and section (Framework for establishment of tri-service serious crime unit) (5), so far as it relates to those paragraphs), and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is about the territorial extent of the new Schedule proposed by Baroness Goldie to be inserted after Schedule 4.
Armed Forces Bill
Tuesday 23rd November 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62-I Marshalled list for Report - (19 Nov 2021)
16:03 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 190 - Amendment 2 agreed.
17:47 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 173 - Amendment 4 agreed.
19:07 - Division on Amendment 23 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 160 - Amendment 23 disagreed.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move my Amendment 1, which would add my own words to the Government’s insertion of “or a Circuit judge”, and to speak in the same group to Amendment 2, which I support, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords.
My amendment seeks to put on the face of the Bill the type of circuit judge that can be nominated to sit as a judge advocate. My understanding is that, at present, the Lord Chief Justice is able to nominate a High Court judge to do so and, in practice, from time to time does so. High Court judges have wide experience to try a whole range of cases, and those of the Queen’s Bench Division from time to time try the most serious offences, such as murder, manslaughter and rape, while they are on circuit. Circuit judges do not as a rule try such cases, save for those who are licensed by the Lord Chief Justice to do so. They are very senior and experienced judges. Trying a murder case can be a challenge, although those experienced to do so have the custom and practice to do it extremely well.
I hope that we can have a clear view that the type of judge who should sit is one who is licensed to try murder and manslaughter cases. I have the assurance of the Minister that they would be very experienced judges. I am grateful for her remarks but I emphasise that, administratively, in future there is no guarantee that what she says on paper now will mean that only those who are licensed to try in the criminal courts try such cases.
Turning to Amendment 2 to Clause 7, I racked what one of my mentors, the late Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Chancellor, used to call my brain for a suitable amendment that would be in order for Report to revisit the proposition, which I argued for in Committee, to civilianise the court martial system in certain serious criminal cases. My poor offering is the new clause proposed in Amendment 25 on page 8 of the Marshalled List. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has shown greater ingenuity than me, and I now give notice that I will not move my amendment and will instead support his.
My campaign to civilianise the court martial system goes back a long way, to the time of the controversy concerning Sergeant Blackman’s case. The Minister was particularly kind to refer to my interest then. Following a number of debates that I was fortunate to initiate, the Ministry of Defence, with unaccustomed speed, set up an inquiry led by His Honour Shaun Lyons, and we are grateful to him. I am sure that this action owes a great deal to the then Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Regrettably, Shaun Lyons’s recommendations for murder, manslaughter and rape have not been accepted by the Government.
I am glad that the protocol that I initiated and signed in the agreement between the Attorney-General’s office and the military prosecutors has stood the test of time. The ultimate authority in the Bill is the Director of Public Prosecutions, who works under the supervision of the Attorney-General, and, from my reading of the Bill, there is no undermining of the system. The Government were loath to accept my amendment in Committee. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, does exactly what I had hoped would be plain sailing at Committee stage, and I congratulate him.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, for his support, and I congratulate him on the attempts that he has made over a long time to civilianise military law. I am pleased that he mentioned Lord Elwyn-Jones, who admitted me to the rank of Queen’s Counsel in the Moses Room rather a long time ago.
The issue in Amendment 2 is: should members of the Armed Forces accused of murder, manslaughter, rape or other sexual offences alleged to have been committed within the United Kingdom be tried by court martial or in ordinary courts? The Mutiny Act 1689, in the reigns of William and Mary, laid down the principle that there should be annual renewals of the Armed Forces Act. The recital to it said:
“No man may be forejudged of life or limb, or subjected … to any kind of punishment … by martial law, or in any other manner than by the judgment of his peers and according to the known and established laws of this realm.”
That is the sentiment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has just enunciated, and it is a principle derived from the Magna Carta.
But this recital in the Act contained an exception to that stirring principle. In respect of
“every person being mustered and in pay as an officer or soldier in their Majesty’s service, who excited, caused or joined in any mutiny or sedition in the Army, or deserted their Majesty’s service”,
the punishment was death.
The other means of disciplining service personnel was under the Articles of War, issued under the King’s sign-manual, but only for the purpose of operations abroad, particularly in the colonies, not in the United Kingdom.
The Mutiny Act applied throughout Great Britain and Ireland, so that even in peacetime a soldier mutinying or deserting would be tried and punished under martial law, not civil law, and without the protections offered through civil law procedures.
The great jurist Sir William Blackstone, writing in 1765, was incensed that soldiers should be dealt with by court martial in peacetime and regretted that
“a set of men, whose bravery has so often preserved the liberties of their country, should be reduced to a state of servitude in the midst of a nation of freemen!”
When, in 2006, therefore, the Labour Government introduced into their Armed Forces Act a provision which permitted the trial of service personnel by court martial for serious offences committed in this country—a course which I strongly opposed at the time—they were going against centuries of history. The serviceman was now open to court martial for any offence, including murder, manslaughter and rape, even when committed in the United Kingdom. Importantly, he had lost the right to be tried by an ordinary jury of 12 of his peers and was subject to the verdict and punishment of up to seven officers, arrived at by a simple majority.
That is enough history; we must look at the position now, in 2021. We have before us the strong recommendation of His Honour Judge Lyons in his review. As it happens, his first recommendation is that the court martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when those offences are committed in the United Kingdom, except with the consent of the Attorney-General. The Defence Sub-committee under Sarah Atherton, Member of Parliament for Wrexham, published its report in July, entitled Protecting Those who Protect Us. That report calls urgently for the implementation of His Honour Judge Lyons’s recommendation.
It is true that, in his recent report, Sir Richard Henriques accepted concurrent jurisdiction, as it is called, but the reason he gives is that there may be cases which occur both abroad and in this country, and consequently a single trial would be preferable. That reason would not have any force in respect of murder cases, where there is universal jurisdiction.
I do not believe that a murder case, for a murder committed in the United Kingdom, has been dealt with by way of court martial since 2006. However, I have been able to trace two cases where charges of manslaughter by negligence occurring in this country were tried in that way, both relating to the Castlemartin range in west Wales. In the most recent case, in 2012, a soldier was killed during a live firing exercise. That case was about the planning, organisation and running of that range and required reconstruction of the scene, with accurate grid references and bearings to establish to the criminal standard the origin of the fatal round. Three were convicted and the officer was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, with the others receiving service punishments. It follows, and I do concede, that there may be cases involving complex military issues where a court martial may be appropriate, but these are very rare—two cases in some 14 years.
In reply to the Minister’s comments in Committee, I said that she had misinterpreted this amendment. I have used the word “normally”, which means what it says: that offences committed in the UK would be tried in the ordinary Crown Courts, or in their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That would be part of the protocol of the DSP and the DPP. It would be in only exceptional cases of the nature to which I have referred that the Attorney-General would need to be approached. I am not suggesting that he should be involved in the decision-making process of venue ab initio. Incidentally, there is no bar to the Attorney-General making a decision on venue, just as he or she may do in deciding on the commencement of proceedings. The Minister suggested the contrary in her reply in Committee.
Much more common are cases of rape and sexual offences occurring in this country being tried by court martial. It is obvious from the report of Sarah Atherton’s Defence Sub-Committee that complainants, their families and the public simply do not have confidence in courts martial. We can argue about the figures, but if the level of conviction is so low then this perception will have an effect on recruitment and, more importantly, retention. There are many victims within the armed services who will wish to leave for a civilian life if their complaints are not upheld.
The noble Baroness also repeated the justification advanced in 2006 that public confidence can be maintained in the whole service justice system
“only if the service justice system not only has but can be shown to have the capability to deal with all offending fairly, efficiently and in a manner which respects and upholds the needs of victims.”—[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. GC 166.]
That was the justification in 2006 to give a boost to the status of the partly reformed system of courts martial.
I said at Second Reading that I generally welcome the reforms in this Bill. They nearly conclude the long journey since the Findlay human rights case in 1995 towards founding the service justice system on justice rather than, as it has been historically, on discipline. We have finally buried the Mutiny Act, under which General Braddock in the Seven Years’ War could issue the order of the day:
“Any Soldier who shall desert tho’ he return again will be hanged without mercy.”
This amendment is designed to complete the journey towards justice.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
There is one brief reason that I would add to what has been so eloquently said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We have always tried, and marked the seriousness of, crimes set out in the amendment by trial by jury. Magna Carta conferred on defendants the right to trial by jury. Today, we take account of the interests of the victim of such crimes and they have confidence only in trial by jury, particularly as so many of these cases turn on credibility. On that, the judgment of ordinary men and women, drawn from a jury, is the only way to achieve justice. For those three reasons, we should not deprive people of trial by jury in these cases.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I did that because, as we came to the deadline, I noticed that there was a space, and I really felt that, given the level of support that the issue covered by this amendment achieved at Second Reading, it deserved the broadest cross-party and non-party support possible.
I will also reflect on what I said in Committee on this amendment. Much of our leadership on this has come from Members from legal backgrounds, who focused on the rights of the defendant. I understand that, but I also note that I am the only female Peer who has attached my name to the amendment. There is very much a gender aspect to this. Women currently make up 10% of our full-time military—about 15,000 in number. They are still a significant minority right across the forces.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, just alluded to, we have a military culture stretching back many centuries that was, for most of that time, entirely male dominated. Offences such as domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault are disproportionately committed against women. Last night in this very Chamber on the policing Bill we were discussing how difficult it is to get our civilian justice arrangements to cater adequately for these offences. How much more difficult is it in the military context, with the culture we just heard outlined?
I commend the amendment to the House and, looking back to the Second Reading debate, note the breadth of support it achieved.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after my noble and learned friend Lord Morris, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I support Amendment 2 in our names, an exceptionally important amendment that seeks to build and improve on the current situation, according to the principles laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on the need for trial by jury.
As we heard in Committee, the independent review by his honour Judge Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy recommended that murder, manslaughter, rape, sexual assault by penetration and child and domestic abuse cases, where alleged to have happened in the UK, should be removed from the military justice system, except where the consent of the Attorney-General was obtained. Lyons recommended establishing a serious crime unit and removing murder, manslaughter, rape, sexual assault by penetration and child and domestic abuse cases from the SJS. One did not stop the other.
As noble Lords have pointed out, there is a problem here, in some of the issues of principle that have been raised and in looking at some of the statistics. In Committee, the Minister said that it was not possible to draw
“a meaningful statistical or data comparison between the service and civilian justice systems”,—[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. GC 165.]
because the small database would mean that some changes would result in a “disproportionate effect”.
I looked for some statistics to put before your Lordships, to highlight some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about. These statistics, regarding the court martial system within the Ministry of Defence, as given by the Government in answer to a Written Question in February 2021, show the issue that has been highlighted, not only by Sarah Atherton MP’s report but by many other reports and stories that come out of the Ministry of Defence. For example, according to the Government’s own figures, in 2015, 31 charges were heard, with three defendants found guilty. There were 40 sexual assault cases that year, in which 21 defendants were found guilty. In 2019, nine cases of assault by penetration were heard, with two defendants found guilty. There are many other figures that can be used. These statistics were issued on 3 February 2021 by the then Minister, Johnny Mercer MP, in response to a question, highlighting some of the issues and the need for us to reflect on whether we can improve the system.
Sarah Atherton MP, his honour Judge Lyons and many others have said that it is not only about a case of justice or the principle of trial by jury. There are very real problems within the military justice system in this respect. Therefore, this amendment takes us to a very important issue of principle and a very important way in which we might do better in bringing justice to some of these women.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had
“committed to publishing a defence-wide strategy for dealing with rape and serious sexual offences in the service justice system.”—[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. GC 166.]
However, on 8 November, her ministerial colleague, the Armed Forces Minister, said that the Government have only an intention to publish a defence-wide strategy for dealing with rape and serious sexual offences in the service justice system. Can the Minister comment on whether publishing that strategy is a commitment or an intention, and how that strategy would seek to improve conviction rates in the system?
Supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the excellent way in which he presented it, is a way of ensuring that we move towards the principles that we seek to ensure for all our citizens, and to do something about some of the problems that we see in the statistics I have mentioned.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, if I may intervene briefly, I will start with a confession: I have not read the Mutiny Act 1689, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred so eloquently. But I have a little experience, in that I have sat on a court martial as part of the board. I have never been court-martialled, I am glad to say, but I have experience of military justice—some decades ago now, because I am getting old. I also have some experience of it from working in the Ministry of Defence in the coalition Government. The Bill as a whole tries to make the criminal justice system in the military better. It is all to be applauded, and I am particularly impressed with the setting up of the defence serious crime unit.
I found a slight contradiction in the amendments that we are discussing today; perhaps it might be explained later. Is it because defendants—typically soldiers—are too harshly treated that they should have trial by jury? When I was serving, my experience was that, in the military justice system, there was a certain attitude: “If he is before a court martial”—it was almost exclusively a “he”—“he must be guilty”. Or is it because, as it says in Amendment 25, we need to improve the rates of conviction for serious offences? This seems to be a slight contradiction.
Is it because people do not like the whole courts martial system? That is a serious question to be addressed. In my experience, which is aged and limited, the courts martial system works pretty well, so let us know exactly why it should be that we wish to change it for these matters—and I know Judge Lyons has said so. Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that we should not consider discipline to be part of this, it is very important that we have a disciplined force. That is why we have courts martial, though no longer the death penalty for mutiny.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to join your Lordships in the Chamber this afternoon on Report to discuss these proposed amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. This is an important Bill. I know it enjoys support across the Chamber, but interesting issues have arisen and merit discussion.
I also observe that many of the issues that were vigorously and articulately debated in Committee have resurfaced. That was a good debate, probing the legislation for the Bill. Please be assured that I will endeavour again to address the points raised and to dispel the concerns that noble Lords have around the Bill.
Your Lordships may take comfort that I am as passionately driven as anyone in this Chamber to ensure that we deliver the best for our service men and women, our veterans and their families, balanced against the resources to hand. I say with confidence that the Bill seeks to achieve that overriding objective. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Robathan for acknowledging that this is exactly the improvement that the Bill seeks to deliver.
With that said, I will now speak to Amendments 1, 2 and 25. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, will not now move Amendment 25, and therefore I propose not to use my speaking notes and have a Mogadon effect on the Chamber. If the noble and learned Lord is content with that, I can perhaps shorten this debate a little.
Amendments 1 and 2 focus on the service justice system. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, for tabling Amendment 1. It seeks to amend Clause 3 so that a circuit judge or a High Court judge can be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice to sit as a judge advocate only when they are ticketed to deal with cases of murder, manslaughter and rape.
First, I reassure your Lordships that judge advocates hearing murder, manslaughter and rape cases in the courts martial have the same training and requirement for ticketing as judges hearing those cases in the Crown Court. The Judge Advocate-General and all judge advocates sit in the Crown Court for up to 60 sitting days a year and are as qualified, capable and well trained as civilian judges sitting in the Crown Court.
Tickets are allocated based on the Judge Advocate-General’s judgment that a particular judge advocate has the appropriate training, experience and ability to try the case in question. Judges nominated by or on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice to sit as a judge advocate will likewise have whatever tickets are necessary for the case that they will be trying. I trust that this will assure the noble and learned Lord that all the judges sitting in the courts martial are qualified to try whatever case is before them.
There may also be some misapprehension about another situation: when the service courts might need additional judges. As drafted, the amendment would allow only judges ticketed for murder, manslaughter and rape to be nominated to sit in the court martial. The judiciary in the service courts is already able to deal with these serious offences, so the Judge Advocate-General may need to request the nomination of a judge for other reasons. It might be because they have particular expertise or experience that is relevant for another type of offence. There might also simply be a temporary shortage of judge advocates, perhaps when the service courts have an unusually high caseload. A judge nominated to sit in the service court would need to be ticketed only for the particular type of case that they are trying; they would not need a ticket for murder, manslaughter or rape, unless of course they were dealing with those offences. I hope that that reassures your Lordships and, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Amendment 2 in this group, tabled by the noble lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It seeks to ensure that certain serious crimes—murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration—are all tried in the civilian courts when committed by a serviceperson in the UK, unless by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service the Attorney-General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried at courts martial.
By way of preface, I say that it was very clear from our debate in Grand Committee that we all have a common aim: to ensure that, where there is concurrent jurisdiction, each case is heard in the most appropriate jurisdiction. This amendment seeks to achieve this through two procedural safeguards—namely, that there is a presumption that these offences are heard in the civilian courts and that, to overturn that presumption, the Attorney-General’s consent must be obtained.
We accept the need to improve decision-making in relation to jurisdiction, and a key part of that is of course for the civilian system to have a potential role in each case. We differ on the need to restrict the legal principle of concurrent jurisdiction by introducing a presumption in favour of one system over the other, and that is what the noble Lord’s amendment manages to create.
As I said in Grand Committee, the recently published review by Sir Richard Henriques was unanimous on two things, in supporting not only the continued existence of the service justice system but the retention of unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape. Importantly, the review found the service justice system to be fair, robust and capable of dealing with all offending. The creation of a defence serious crime unit elsewhere in the Bill will further improve the skills and capability of the service police to deal with these most serious offences. Therefore, we do not believe that a presumption in favour of these offences being heard in the civilian courts is necessary or justified.
We acknowledge that change is required to improve clarity as to how concurrency of jurisdiction works in practice. Instead of introducing an Attorney-General consent function, as recommended by His Honour Shaun Lyons, we believe that a better approach is to strengthen the prosecutors’ protocols and enhance the role of prosecutors in decision-making on concurrent jurisdiction. Independent prosecutors are, after all, the experts on prosecutorial decisions.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civilian court unless, by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service, the Attorney General consents to trial by court martial.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration – are tried in civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried by court martial by reason of complexity involving the service.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her careful reply, but I feel that I must test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely.
Clause 8: Armed forces covenant
Amendment 3
Lord Coaker
“(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.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to be back. In moving Amendment 3 in my name, I will speak to Amendments 5, 6 and 7. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for signing those amendments. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for tabling Amendment 4, which is extremely important, and the same as an amendment tabled in my name in Committee.
As I said in Committee, we support the aims of this Bill, but at present believe that there is a missed opportunity to deliver real improvements in the lives of our service personnel, veterans and their families. Like all noble Lords, we believe that the Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between the Government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment their service has earned. In Committee, the Minister argued that central government in the Bill is unnecessary. She said:
“The Government are already subject to a legal obligation to report on the delivery of the covenant.” —[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. GC 194.]
But we all know that a reporting function is very different to a statutory provision ensuring that Ministers are subject to the duty of due regard. Ministers are arguing, as noble Lords will see in the Bill, that it is unnecessary for them, but necessary for local authorities, for NHS trusts, for NHS governors, and for a range of other public bodies to have a statutory duty to have due regard for the covenant. As said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, it is not only many of your Lordships who are dismayed that the Government seem determined to stand against ensuring that the due regard principle applies to central government, but the Royal British Legion and many others. They believe that the due regard principle should apply to central government in the way it applies to others. I am very supportive of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.
Service charities, including Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and the Army and Naval Families Federations are also concerned about the narrow scope of the covenant, concentrating as it does on education, housing and healthcare. Service charities have pointed out that this narrow focus could, in their view, create a two-tier Armed Forces covenant. That is why we have retabled Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7, extending the scope of the covenant in the Bill to include employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.
The Minister has explained that the new covenant reference group will evaluate the new duty. That is very welcome, and I thank her for that concession, but it is clear that the narrow scope of housing, healthcare and education does not go wide enough to stop all areas of potential disadvantage against members of the Armed Forces, veterans and their families. As the covenant reference group will have that new duty to evaluate how the covenant is working, how will the process of evaluation take place? For example, will it have to report to the Defence Committee on an annual basis?
Not extending the scope of the covenant is a missed opportunity by the Government, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s further justification of why they are resisting that. I also look forward to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, speaking to his Amendment 4, which I think is particularly important as it would extend the “due regard” principle to central government as well as the other public bodies mentioned in the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will not be taking part in these proceedings because she is double-booked in Grand Committee.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I have much sympathy with these amendments. Back in 2010, when I served in the Committee on the Bill, I proposed similar amendments, so noble Lords may ask why I now express some hesitancy about extending the remit. I suppose it comes from my experience as Minister for the Armed Forces and Minister for Defence Veterans, Reserves and Personnel. When we roll back the clock, if I am entirely honest, in the early days of implementing the Armed Forces covenant we struggled to get traction. It took some time to convince all the local authorities within the United Kingdom to sign up and indeed to get employers to sign up. I am delighted that now we have close to 2,000 signatories to the Armed Forces covenant.
My concern really lies around the fact that, as we continue to extend the width, we may struggle to get buy-in into this if we create yet more of a burden for local authorities in particular. Especially after Covid, as they have had a difficult couple of years, they might not see the benefit of this if we simply overburden them with yet more categories. My suggestion in Committee was not that we should not extend the categories but that we should do it incrementally over a period of time. In many ways, had that been suggested today, I would have been happy to accept this amendment, but that is not the case, which is a shame. During that early stage of the process, we also struggled to demonstrate the benefits of this to veterans.
It is a shame that we have an Armed Forces Bill only once every five years because I do not want to have to wait another five years to slowly extend the remit of the covenant. However, I simply feel that at this stage such a step would be a bit too much too soon, for the reasons that I have tried to explain.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I think it might be convenient for me to speak to my amendments in this group, Amendments 17 and 4. Something about Amendment 4 has been said already and I will not repeat that, but I shall attempt to elaborate on it somewhat.
On Amendment 17, when I was trying to consider this issue more carefully after the Minister’s argument in Committee, I happened to notice that this clause has a curious provision at the beginning: it is the same as the opening clause that was in the 2011 Bill on the Armed Forces covenant report. The only reference to “Armed Forces covenant” here is by dropping the word “report”. That struck me as rather strange in a Bill dealing with the Armed Forces covenant.
My noble friend may be able to put me right on this, but I have not found a definition of that covenant in the Bill. It is true that there is a definition on the website, but the website is not yet by law an Act of Parliament. We have to distinguish between these two. I am happy to think that what I have proposed in Amendment 17 is not very different from what is on the website, but it would at least be in the statute—in the part on definitions and principles that apply to England—and would apply through it.
My main argument, of course, is in relation to Amendment 4. It is right that central government in the form of the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament for the Armed Forces, should be responsible for respecting the Armed Forces covenant. If he does not have a duty to respect it, it is difficult to put that duty on local authorities, health authorities and so on. In Committee, I referred to what I regard as an important example of where this was really necessary. In the first Gulf War, there was a feeling early on—of course, I have no detail on this that I could go into—that there might be poison gas coming from the opposition in Iraq. A possible protection against that gas was provided to some of our Armed Forces. Needless to say, I do not know what it contained, and I do not think local or health authorities knew either. Importantly, therefore, the illnesses of a neurological character contracted by some veterans were thought to be possibly connected to the protection against the poison gas.
As it happened, I do not think the poison gas ever emerged, but some veterans had had this protection and there was a question about that. I sent the Minister a copy of the Library report on this; there was an inquiry into it by one of my judicial colleagues. The eventual opinion expressed by Her Majesty’s Government was that the illness was not sufficiently definite to be called Gulf War syndrome—it was probable that it was due to a variety of things and, therefore, it was not to be classified in that way.
I cannot see how anybody other than the Secretary of State could be responsible for carrying out an investigation of that kind. It is therefore vital that he should have regard to the principles; of course, the areas that he has to have regard to are in the Bill now and not subject to the extensions of Amendment 3 and the other extensions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. It is a simple case of three zones, as it were, in which the Secretary of State has to have regard to the principles. If anybody has to have regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant, I should have thought that the Secretary of State responsible to Parliament for the Armed Forces would be the leading person in that capacity.
It is for this reason that I tabled Amendment 4—having benefited from the copyright very kindly given. I look forward to what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I am sure she will have a good answer which will not be good enough. Unless this is accepted by the Government, or some provisional point of view for the future is accepted, I therefore intend to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, on Amendment 4, and I support his Amendment 17. He has brought to your Lordships’ attention an example of where due regard is necessary from the Secretary of State. When he did so in Committee, I said that I had another one, and I would like to take the opportunity to spell that out, because this cannot be devolved or left to local authorities to be dealt with.
Some servicemen recruited in Hong Kong were full members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, having taken the oath of allegiance and paid full UK taxes on their pay. They held British passports; some trained in this country or elsewhere to fit them for their role in Hong Kong; some were involved in jungle-style warfare training in Borneo; one large unit was sent to Cyprus to release further UK armed personnel for Operation Granby, the first Gulf War in 1991. Many in the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron served worldwide on Her Majesty’s ships. Now retired, they are still rightly classified as UK veterans and deserve fair treatment under the military covenant. But a few who served in those units that disbanded in 1997 missed out when allocations to retain their British citizenship were made in 1984. Some but not all of these servicemen were indeed allowed to retain their British passports and citizenships. Those that were missed out and overlooked have long been campaigning for a return of this right, which has been replaced by BN(O) status without the benefit of full British citizenship. This injustice occurred when they were still serving.
Their case was first raised in this House in 1986, over 35 years ago. It has been recommended by the Hong Kong LegCo and was strongly supported by Lord MacLehose, drawing on his long and distinguished tour as governor of Hong Kong from 1971 to 1972. The Minister who wound up that debate about Hong Kong replied:
“I hope that your Lordships will recognise that there are some complex issues to be considered here … But, again, I can assure your Lordships that we shall give this the most careful consideration.”—[Official Report, 20/1/1986; col. 102.]
Note that promise of careful consideration. Nothing happened. Nothing further was said or done. Regrettably, repeated assurance of careful, active consideration by the Home Office to this day still produces no decision. Surely these few veterans deserve better—a definitive answer, not just prevarication and stalling behind a misleading false promise of active consideration. How many more years of consideration do the Government require? Are the Home Office hoping that when the veterans are all dead the problem will be forgotten?
Following the enactment of the convenant in 2011, a small association, of which I am privileged to be honorary patron, was formed by some former members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps to press their case again. I myself have repeatedly raised it in debates and Questions for Written Answer and written to the Prime Minister to support representations by those affected in Hong Kong. I am far from alone. Over the past nine years or more, many Members of both Houses have approached Ministers, Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers on behalf of these veterans, but over the past decade the response has been increasingly incredible and ridiculous—that is, that it is under active consideration.
Over 18 months ago, at their request, I forwarded 64 individual applications from those Military Service Corps veterans to the Home Secretary. None has been answered. There has not even been an acknowledgment from the Home Office. Understandably, the present situation in Hong Kong has strengthened the wish for this matter to be resolved and for those now few remaining individuals to be treated as full citizens. Will this Government at last do the right thing for these veterans?
Surely this is a further extreme example of the reason for a duty of care and due regard to be placed in statute on the Secretary of State. I am sure in future other issues affecting a group of veterans, not just individuals, will arise, which cannot be dealt with at devolved or local authority level. The Royal British Legion and other service charities have provided cogent arguments why it is not right to exclude central government from a statutory duty of due regard for veterans. I endorse that view based on their detailed and dedicated experience helping the veteran community. I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendment 4, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and my friend the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, told us, his amendment gives us the opportunity to address specific injustices experienced by our ex-servicemen and he is absolutely right in telling us that the lead on this should not be local authorities but national government. That is why not only are we right to hang specific cases on this amendment, but the purpose of the amendment itself is also clear and right.
Over the past decade, my noble and gallant friend and I have knocked on the doors of Ministers and raised questions on behalf of Hong Kong veterans. I know how greatly he is admired and respected by that cohort for his dedication and commitment to their cause. We have also worked with Mr Andrew Rosindell, the Member of Parliament for Romford, who has put great energy into putting right what is a clear injustice. The treatment of Hong Kong ex-servicemen has not been commensurate with the Armed Forces covenant, and the noble and learned Lord and others are seeking to put it right.
I also pay tribute to Roger Ching, the chairperson of the HKOR Benevolent Association, and who says of the treatment of Hong Kong’s ex-servicemen that
“The attitude of successive Governments towards servicemen and women and veterans is appalling.”
In 2014, my noble and gallant friend and I met with the late James Brokenshire when he was a Home Office Minister. He was characteristically courteous, but neither he nor a series of successive Home Secretaries have been able to correct the signal injustice faced by Hong Kong’s ex-servicemen.
It is worth recalling that, from 1857 until 1997, more than 40,000 Hong Kong men lost their lives protecting our interests and the interests of the Crown. In the Great War, 100,000 British-Chinese soldiers served on the Western Front, and by the time of the Armistice the Chinese Labour Corps numbered nearly 96,000 men. In subsequent conflicts, they served alongside British servicemen: in the Second World War, in Korea, in the Malayan anti-communist campaigns and elsewhere, as the noble and gallant Lord has told us. In this month of all months, we should not only honour that contribution but do something practical to show that with memory of past sacrifice comes contemporary engagement with a long-running failure to honour the past.
In July 2006, the United Kingdom granted full British citizenship to all British Gurkha soldiers and their dependants who had served in Hong Kong. It was a generous and good decision. But why has there been such a different treatment for all but a handful of Hong Kong veterans? When Hong Kong was handed back to the Chinese Communist Party in 1997, a points- based system meant that only 159 of the 654 soldiers who applied to live in the United Kingdom were successful.
Campaigners responded to that clear injustice, and one group, 38 Degrees, even set up a petition which gathered more than 117,000 signatures. Yet the response since right of abode was set up in 1997 has failed to bring a settlement, with successive Home Secretaries repeating the mantra of which my noble and gallant friend has reminded us this afternoon: that the applications are “under consideration”. For how much longer are we to be given this unsatisfactory, stalling response?
Last year, Rosie Laydon, a presenter and reporter for Forces TV, was in touch with me. She said:
“British Hong Kong veterans do not feel the current Government offer of visas to those with BNO status offers adequate recognition of their service. They have told me that they believe they should be granted British citizenship unconditionally”—
and I agree. They also told her that, as former members of the British Armed Forces, under Chinese national security laws, now imposed on Hong Kong, they are liable to be charged with spying for the United Kingdom Government.
Here I should declare that I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch, a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and sanctioned, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, by the CCP after taking part, in my case, in an international team monitoring the district council elections in 2019. Since then, we have seen the enactment of the CCP’s draconian national security law, and I should like to hear from the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, as she knows, what assessment she has made of the implications of loyal service to the Crown for the safety of our ex-servicemen in Hong Kong. We need to see this matter is a question of honour, but we also need to see it as a question of safety and security.
Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, told me in a Parliamentary Answer:
“The National Security Law is being used to systematically stifle rights and freedoms, not protect public security.”
He also wrote:
“The UK is deeply concerned about the situation in Hong Kong and the systematic erosion of rights and freedoms and the high degree of autonomy enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”
Perhaps when the Minister replies, she can tell us when the United Kingdom is going to do anything more to hold the People’s Republic of China to account for the destruction of the basic freedoms of Hong Kong.
Meanwhile, I point out to your Lordships’ House that the Times has reported that the Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, says that the CCP is “committing genocide” in Xinjiang—something that the House will return to on Thursday. In the context of Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan, I may add that there have been more than 150 sorties trying to intimidate Taiwan in the course of just five days. In Xinjiang, we have heard the United States Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, say that
“the forcing of men, women and children into concentration camps”—
his words—
“trying to, in effect, re-educate them to be adherents to the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, all of that speaks to an effort to commit genocide.”
Is it any wonder, then, that loyal servants of the Crown fear for the consequences of being abandoned in Hong Kong? The CCP has imprisoned lawyers, dissenters, pastors and journalists, such as the young woman, Zhang Zhan, tortured and jailed for four years for shining a light into the origins of the Covid pandemic in Wuhan. On Friday last, concerned for her deteriorating health, the United Nations called for her release.
In this context of arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture and re-education—even genocide—who can seriously doubt that Hong Kong’s ex-servicemen, like Afghan interpreters or judges, will be primary targets as “two systems, one country” becomes “one system, one party, one ideology”? Recall that this is the same CCP responsible for the massacres in Tiananmen Square and for the enormities of the Cultural Revolution—and the deaths of 50 million Chinese people.
Through the Armed Forces covenant, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that we will not abandon loyal servants of the Crown, that we do not forget our debt of honour and obligations and that Parliament will go on supporting my noble and gallant friend until this wrong has been put right. It is for those reasons that I strongly support the amendment placed before your Lordships’ House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments, in particular Amendment 4, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I have special reasons for doing so. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that, when he was in office, it took a long time to persuade local councils and devolved powers to agree to implement the covenant. I dispute the fact that he got them all to agree; I come from Northern Ireland and there is a particular problem there. For that reason, Amendment 4 is even more important.
In Northern Ireland, the devolved Government and many of the councils do not support the covenant. Therefore, where do we go for support? The only place we can go, without, if you like, disfranchising our veterans, is to a Secretary of State. I am sure the Minister will say that this amendment comes in the part of the Bill that affects England and that it therefore does not affect the other nations and cannot stand on its own. However, it would take just a stroke of a pen to add this for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland issue is colossal. We do not have more veterans than anywhere else but, because of our Troubles and the local security forces, we have an awful lot more in relation to our size. Of course, we have veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well. The number is significant, and these people have nobody at all to be their champion as far as the covenant goes.
At the moment—one does not need to go into the detail—the covenant is actually being administered quite well at a different level, below the radar, and we do not want to bring that up as a subject. However, on the idea of having a final place or person that people can go to, I support Amendment 4 because it brings a Secretary of State into this. It should therefore be written throughout that the Secretaries of State in the devolved areas have responsibility for this and are just quietly overseeing it. It is not necessarily a devolved issue and can be retained through the Secretary of State. He would have an influence on our veterans being supported as they should be. I certainly support these amendments.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 4. I ask your Lordships to reflect on the origin of the Armed Forces covenant, which we find in the Armed Forces Acts, going back to 2011. It was not a new idea dreamed up by the Government of the day but the beginnings of the codification of something that had existed for quite some time as an informal covenant or agreement between those who serve and the Government who require them to carry out certain operations.
The covenant is effective when the balance between the requirements placed on the Armed Forces community and veterans is itself in balance. In the days and years leading up to 2011, when the Armed Forces covenant went into law, and particularly during the most difficult period when operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were being conducted together, the balance was definitely out of kilter and we were out of balance as far as the informal aspect of the covenant was concerned.
Who could better personify and embody the government side of the balance between the Government who require the Armed Forces to carry out operations and the servicepeople who conduct those operations than the Secretary of State? I fully support Amendment 4. I support the further codification of the covenant and any moves to increase its scope, but particularly the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which would make the Secretary of State a pinnacle and personification of the Government’s side of the covenant. That is absolutely critical.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too support Amendments 4 and 17. What brings me to this conviction is a case in which the widows of four soldiers from the Royal Marines were asked to leave their houses within three months of their deaths. They had nowhere to go. Another soldier who survived the same battle came to see me in Bishopthorpe, together with four other members of the Royal Marines, to say that we had to protest about the way widows were treated. There was talk about the covenant, but it had not yet come through. To raise the profile of this issue, they wanted me to join them in a parachute jump. At my age, this is quite serious business, but I thought that yes, I would join them. We were up there, at 14,500 feet, and, thank God, I survived; there was no real trouble, and I landed properly. Do you know what happened? People who saw this and learned what had been done donated a lot of money, and those four widows were housed in new builds, supported by a landowner who gave them a place to build houses.
That is what the covenant is about in the end: that we should look after anybody who has done their duty for the service of the Crown and the nation. The Bill is right to require local authorities and other places to have due regard to the covenant, but I would have thought that the Government should be first in line to have due regard to it, because the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament, unlike local authorities. We could have some junior Minister reporting on what is happening and what is not happening, but the issue of democracy at the heart of this is that members of the Government are answerable to Parliament and can therefore be asked questions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is right to include the Secretary of State in Amendments 4 and 17. If they were agreed, the covenant would no longer be given to people of good will to try to do whatever they want—the Government would actually be answerable, and we could ask them questions.
This amendment is timely. I hope we will all support it and that the Government will see it as an improvement, not an attempt to create more jobs and work for the Secretary of State. In the end, our soldiers ultimately look to them for a voice, for help and for support.
I did that parachute jump and was very glad to see the covenant a few years later, but it still did not quite do what this amendment is trying to do. I say to the Government: do not come back to this again—include the Secretary of State.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4, which I have co-signed, and Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Brinton. We have already seen this afternoon one of the slight peculiarities of our system, which is currently not quite hybrid: we had a long delay on the first Division, because somehow the technology did not quite work. At the moment, the technology does not quite work either for noble Lords who seek to be both in Grand Committee and in your Lordships’ House, in the main Chamber, simultaneously. For those of us here physically, it can be possible to move very quickly between the Moses Room and the Chamber. Our colleagues appearing virtually have to log on half an hour before an item of business, so my noble friend Lady Brinton apologises for not speaking on this group.
I will speak to the amendments she has co-signed with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. There is one aspect in particular which ought to be mentioned: paragraph (i) of Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7, which mentions an immigration function. If we are going to talk—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have done—about Hong Kong service personnel who served with our Armed Forces, initially as citizens and then losing that citizenship and perhaps having only the right to BNO status, I fear that we need to think about immigration questions and the Home Office.
I am aware that the Minister will be responding on behalf of the MoD, even though obviously she is also responding on behalf of the Government as a whole. I am therefore aware that some of the things we will ask might not be within her gift, but I very much endorse the impassioned calls from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble friend Lord Alton about the situation for Hong Kong veterans. They served for us. We owe them a debt of gratitude and the citizenship rights they expected.
If the Minister cannot commit, as I suspect she will not, to changing this piece of legislation in the way that some of us might want, can she at least undertake to go and talk to her colleagues in the Home Office and discuss ways in which we can look at veterans—not just the Gurkhas or Commonwealth veterans, who will appear in later groups of amendments, but the Hongkongers? This is vital, in part to demonstrate that the United Kingdom respects those who have worked with us. We have a moral obligation. Can we trust the Government to live up to it?
We heard the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, suggest that he actually had some sympathy with this group of amendments, particularly Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7. He would like to bring in these additional functions, alongside healthcare, education and housing, but thinks it is too much, too soon. But, as we have heard, we will not have another full Armed Forces Bill for five years. Would it not be appropriate to bring forward and approve these amendments now, acknowledging that maybe they will not all be brought in on day one? Indeed, if they were all brought in on day one, that would be nothing short of a miracle—but, if they are enshrined in the Bill, it means that the Government will have a duty to look at these additional functions, and even the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who appears to be most sceptical about the amendments, acknowledges that these functions should be considered. So I ask the Minister to think again about these functions and whether they should be added to the Bill.
I particularly want to speak to Amendment 4, to which I added my name. It seems quite extraordinary for a Government to say, “We are so committed to the Armed Forces covenant that it has to have statutory status, yet it should not place a duty on us. We ourselves should not have to pay due regard to it, but we will ask local authorities, local health authorities and housing associations to do so”. Why are we not asking the Secretary of State for Defence to have a duty? Why are we not asking the Secretary of State responsible for levelling up, houses, communities and whatever else is now part of that portfolio?
We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that it would also be important for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to play a part. As he pointed out, the amendment refers only to England. It would be very simple to have additional lines that would give it validity in Northern Ireland, and indeed Scotland and Wales. If the Minister were to say, “We can’t do something that’s for England only”, could she perhaps consider bringing back at Third Reading some amendments that would deal with this?
From the letter that the Minister sent to us last week, we know that she will say that the Government are out of scope of the Bill because, actually, it is at local level that we see problems. Well, if it is only at local level that we see problems, surely it would be of no difficulty whatever for the Secretary of State to find himself in the Bill and for the Government to have a duty enshrined in this piece of legislation. The Government should be leading, not simply setting duties for other—lower—levels of local government. The Government themselves should take responsibility and the moral lead.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a genuinely interesting and thoughtful debate. I will focus on the amendments that comprise the grouping: Amendments 3 to 7 and Amendment 17. To that end, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling his well-intended—I know that that is what they are—Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for supporting them.
I was aware during the debate that some contributors made fairly wide-ranging speeches, not least focusing on citizens of Hong Kong and former Hong Kong military service personnel. These are important issues, but I would rather deal with them under Amendment 26, which seems more relevant to that particular area of concern. So, in addressing the amendments in group 2, I will confine my remarks to the issues covered by them.
The purpose of these amendments is to widen the scope of the new covenant duty to the areas of employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration in all four home nations. As I made clear in Committee, the new duty created by the Bill is designed to initially focus on the three core functions of healthcare, education and housing. This quite simply reflects those already in statute that are the most commonly raised areas and where variation of service delivery across localities can inadvertently cause disadvantage to the Armed Forces community.
Importantly, future areas of concern can be addressed as and when they arise through the powers in the Bill that allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant duty, if needed, through secondary legislation. We are working with key stakeholders to establish an open and transparent process by which the scope of the legislation can successfully adapt to address the changing needs of the Armed Forces community.
As a number of your Lordship have indicated, our plan is to use the covenant reference group as the focus of this work. It has a broad representation from the Armed Forces community, service charities, families’ federations, the Local Government Association and senior officials from both central government departments in Westminster and the devolved Administrations. I suggest that the covenant reference group is therefore ideally placed to be closely involved in the future development and running of this process. It will bring the necessary expertise and representation together to best consider suitable additions to the scope of the duty.
I wish to make clear—I am not being evasive or trying to elude or escape responsibility—that we have to be very careful about what we are creating with the Bill, understand how it will work in practice, make assessments, and then have a clearer sense of what may be needed and may require to be added in the future. This will also provide an opportunity for areas of concern to emerge and be highlighted, and it may be possible that these can be addressed through other means.
In adopting this approach, we considered the practicalities of extending the covenant duty to further policy areas, and the timelines involved. Any addition to the scope of the duty will require extensive consultation with stakeholders and the devolved Administrations in order to identify the appropriate bodies and functions to bring into scope and to work through any issues arising as a result of different procedures and legal frameworks in devolved policy areas.
I suggest that a better way forward lies in first working through and resolving any practical implications arising as the new covenant duty in the Bill is implemented. This will give us a good indication of where amendments may be required to better meet the changing needs of our Armed Forces community in the future.
By retaining the flexible nature of the legislation, the Government hope to establish a firm legal foundation for the covenant while avoiding any unnecessary administrative burden. The new duty builds on the existing widespread commitment to the covenant, thereby contributing to a further strengthening of covenant delivery across the entire United Kingdom. That is not in any way dodging the bullet. I am not trying to be evasive; I am trying to explain why I think this a sensible and cautious way to proceed, and I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press these amendments.
I turn to Amendment 4, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. The purpose of Amendment 4 is to make central government departments subject to the new covenant duty. This new duty arises when a specified public body exercises a relevant function. Those functions, which are specified in the Bill, are exercised by local authorities and other public bodies, and are not matters for which central government has day-to-day responsibility.
The problem with the amendment as drafted is that it would not, as I far as I can see, serve any identifiable meaningful purpose. I can understand the enthusiasm among opposition Members of this House to land anything they possibly can on the Government. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay is not motivated by these sentiments and that he genuinely believes that there is an omission here that should be addressed, but I am trying to explain that I am not quite clear what the omission is, and I am certainly not clear how the amendment would address it.
It occurred to me that, in addressing the principle of this amendment, it would be useful to explain the Government’s thinking behind the design of the new covenant duty and how we see it establishing a firm foundation from which to build into the future. I hope noble Lords will indulge me: I will go into this in some detail because my noble and learned friend raises an important issue, and I believe it merits serious discussion and a considered response. I will attempt to give due attention to his amendment.
As I have outlined before, in considering how to take forward our commitment to further strengthen the covenant in law, we looked first at what the covenant has already achieved without being brought into any statutory provision. The considerable number of successful covenant initiatives across many different policy areas shows how the covenant provides a framework through which the widespread admiration and support for our Armed Forces community can flourish, allows scope for innovation and permits future growth. That is why we designed the new covenant duty around the principle of “due regard” as a means of building greater awareness and understanding of the lives of the Armed Forces community, which will bolster, rather than weaken, this support.
We considered carefully which functions and policy areas the covenant duty should encompass, including those that are the responsibility of central government. This required an assessment of the benefits arising from their inclusion, focusing on the purpose of the duty: to raise awareness among providers of public services of how service life can disadvantage the Armed Forces community, and so encourage a more consistent approach across the UK.
We were mindful that central government is responsible for the overall strategic direction for national policy, whereas the responsibility for the delivery of front-line services and their impact generally rests at local level. The Government are fully aware of issues impacting on the Armed Forces community. Indeed, we work with other departments and organisations to raise awareness across all service providers. The inclusion of central government in the scope of the duty was therefore not seen as necessary.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised a particular issue with reference to Northern Ireland. The key front-line services we wish to target are generally devolved issues. They are not the responsibility of the Westminster Government, so any additions to the scope of the duty in respect of central government would not address the concern he has but would cause a greater disparity in covenant delivery if the—
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I remind her that when we found that the Executive were not operating on things that they should operate on, as in this case—I am talking about abortion—this Government, from here, overrode the Assembly. Therefore, there is a precedent for doing so.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord refers to a very difficult and sensitive issue, and I think he is referring to the time when the Executive were not functioning in Northern Ireland. This Bill is concerned with the actual delivery of services that exist at the moment. It is the responsibility of Northern Ireland’s devolved legislature to deliver health, housing and education, although it may not directly be doing any of these things. That is why bringing in central government does not address the noble Lord’s concern. Indeed, there is an argument that, if you brought in the Westminster Government but not the devolved Governments, there would be an even greater disparity in covenant delivery. The reason the devolved Governments are not in this Bill is that it would seem to be beyond its scope.
I have previously explained that, as we look to the future, the vital element in our approach rests with the new powers granted to the Government in the Bill to add to the scope of the duty. This will allow it to effectively adapt to the changing needs and concerns of the Armed Forces community. We are engaging with government officials and covenant stakeholders to establish an open and transparent process, by which possible additions to the new duty can be thoroughly considered and evaluated, and we expect issues of concern to be raised, as they are now, by members of the Armed Forces community, by service charities and by other stakeholders through our existing networks. So, to be clear, we see no restriction to the nature of any issue raised, including those that fall within the responsibility of central government.
My noble friend Lord Lancaster asked wisely whether it would not have been better to approach this incrementally. I think that is exactly what would be better, and that is what the Government are intending to do. His other words, I think, were about being very wary of doing too much too soon. The reason the Government are being cautious about this is that we are breaking new ground. We are going where Governments have not gone before in relation to the covenant. We hope it will lead to improvement right across the United Kingdom, but we have to assess in practice how this will all work once this legislation has gone through.
The plan, as we look to the future, is for the work to be focused through the covenant reference group, which, as a number of your Lordships are aware, is made up of independent representatives from service charities, such as the Royal British Legion, the War Widows’ Association and the families’ federations, and, as I said earlier, includes senior officials from central government departments at Westminster and from the devolved Administrations. That group plays an important role in working with the Government to set out the overall direction of the covenant. It ratifies the grant-awarding priorities of the Armed Forces covenant fund trust, as it is recognised as having a clear understanding of the issues of most concern to the Armed Forces community.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who asked about the covenant reference group and its terms of reference. The covenant reference group feeds into the ministerial covenant veterans board, chaired by the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that board last met on 8 November. So, at the senior levels of government, this work is very much on the radar screen and being addressed.
In my opinion, the covenant reference group is ideally placed to be closely involved in the evaluation process, both in terms of its development and the conduct of its work. Where there is evidence to support the inclusion of new bodies and functions, a recommendation will be made to the Secretary of State for Defence, who will then consult with relevant stakeholders. Where a decision is made to exercise the power to extend the scope of the duty, further consultation will be required with key stakeholders before making regulations, which would need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Crucially, any evaluation process must also ensure that extending the scope of the new duty would help to address any perceived problem, as it may not always be the appropriate response and there may be other methods of addressing the areas of disadvantage required under the covenant that do not necessarily require statutory powers.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I do not disagree with all the good things that the noble Baroness is describing, which the Government have brought about, but I have not heard her address the central argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern: that it might be easier for the Government to persuade others to go on doing good things if the Government bound themselves in the same way as they are seeking to bind others. I suppose the noble Baroness could say that the Government feel bound already, but if so, why not spell it out in the Bill?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord has been listening carefully to the argument that I have been advancing, but I have been trying to distinguish between identified, critical core services—in this case housing, education and health, which the Armed Forces community said mattered most to them—and how we address the delivery of these services. In the main, these services are not delivered by central government but by a range of other agencies, and may be the responsibility of devolved Administrations, in turn delivering them through their agencies. The point I am making is that adding an obligation to central government does not seem in any way to address the need that we have identified that has to be addressed: the current disparity in the delivery of services across the United Kingdom. That, quite simply, is what the Bill is seeking to rectify. That is why trying to attach a covenant obligation to central government is something of a red herring—I do not actually see what it is going to deliver.
Before the noble Lord interrupted me, I was simply explaining, by way of illustration, the point I have just been making: exactly what it has been possible for the Government to do without attaching any statutory obligation on them, and I am not even halfway through my list. At the risk of being tedious with your Lordships, I was also going to mention, finally, a new holistic transition policy that co-ordinates and manages the transition from military to civilian life for service personnel and their families when they leave the Armed Forces. The Defence Transition Services also supports those in that position. We have the Career Transition Partnership, and a range of initiatives and support packages covering a wide range of activity, all of which benefit our Armed Forces personnel. I merely adduce that list to illustrate how alternative processes allow areas of concern to be brought to light more readily and addressed more quickly through other means, if necessary, including action to be taken by central government departments and devolved Administrations, where appropriate.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who specifically raised the evaluation process. This would feed into our existing commitment to review the overall performance of the covenant duty as part of our post-legislation scrutiny. That review will be submitted to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and will also be covered in the covenant annual report. This is in addition to regular parliamentary scrutiny, such as Parliamentary Questions and regular reviews by the Select Committee, or whatever form of inquiry Members of the other place and of this House may wish to undertake. The detail of the evaluation process is still being worked on with our stakeholders, but I hope that this background and the outline of the process provides reassurance that it represents a better way forward and that we are committed to continuing our work to mitigate the impact of service life on the Armed Forces community, wherever it may occur.
Listening to some of the contributions, it occurred to me that there may be a misunderstanding of the role of the Armed Forces covenant. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern recalled an interesting and arguably disturbing situation, in which it is possible that Armed Forces personnel suffered harm. I undertake to look at that instance in detail; he provided a reference for where I can find more information.
However, I say to my noble and learned friend that central government, and the MoD in particular, are directly responsible for the Armed Forces, and the MoD has always looked after the welfare of service personnel. During the Bill’s passage through this House, we have heard how the support provided has improved, expanded and developed over time, particularly in relation to issues such as mental health. Central government and the MoD answer to Ministers, are held to account in Parliament, and may be held to account by the courts of this land. But the covenant is a separate concept: it is a promise by the nation as a whole to the Armed Forces community that they will not be disadvantaged because of their service. It brings in other organisations, such as health providers and local authorities, who are not directly responsible for the Armed Forces community but whose decisions undoubtedly affect them. It is this new duty that will ensure that these organisations consistently apply the principles of the covenant and can be confident of the legal basis for doing so. Based on this fairly lengthy explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will not press his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 17, also tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I know that he is motivated by the best and most honourable of intentions, but I am somewhat unclear about its purpose. The new definition contained in the amendment adds nothing to the duties already set out in the Bill. Indeed, perhaps disquietingly, it seems to decrease the scope of that duty, which I know is not my noble and learned friend’s intention.
We are clear that the Armed Forces covenant is a promise by the nation to support our Armed Forces community. The amendment characterises the scope and character of that promise as an agreement between the Secretary of State and servicepeople. But, with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend, in doing so, it fails to capture its essence: it is a much broader and more widely embracing concept.
The covenant was framed during a time of great pressure on the Armed Forces community. As I have described at some length, it has been delivered highly successfully in the succeeding decade because it captures the spirit of appreciation and voluntary support for that community from people of every walk of life across the United Kingdom. This voluntary spirit is why it is called a covenant and framed as something far greater than the more transactional approach that this amendment could engender. To express the covenant in the way proposed by this amendment goes against the spirit of the covenant and the many successful initiatives that it has produced, built on the widespread admiration and support to which I have referred.
The Armed Forces covenant is described on the government website for the Armed Forces, and on the front of the annual report, as
“an Enduring Covenant Between the People of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government—and—All those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and their Families.”
That definition is not in statue, but the principles of the covenant appear in the Armed Forces Act 2006. That is why this Bill has been taking forward greater detail, to try to assist the delivery of vital services for our Armed Forces community.
The description I have just given of the covenant far better captures its nature, which provides the framework through which support for our Armed Forces community can thrive and grow. I thank your Lordships for indulging me with patience and courtesy, as these were important points which had to be addressed at length. In view of the explanation I have given, I hope my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed answer to my amendment. It was clear to me, from the beginning of this provision titled “Armed Forces Covenant Report” in the 2011 Act, that all that had been done to make any references to the Armed Forces covenant in this was to delete the word “report”. But it seemed to me that, in the ordinary course of statutory interpretation, you need to know what you are talking about, and I was surprised—I thought I must have missed something, though the Minister now confirms that I did not—that there was nothing in statute to define the Armed Forces of the Crown covenant. A covenant is a contract, and it is obvious that the people of the United Kingdom are represented in this agreement by the Secretary of State. Therefore, it seems to me odd that the Secretary of State is not prepared to have regard to the principles given at the opening of this provision. Of course, the term “Secretary of State” includes the Secretary of State for Defence and other Secretaries of State as well, if that is relevant to the provision in question. I find it hard to have the Government of the United Kingdom say that they are not prepared to be bound to have regard to the principles of the covenant.
If I should by any chance be successful, this will go back to the House of Commons, and the Commons will have to ask themselves whether it is reasonable that the Government of this country should refuse to be bound to have regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant. I do not think the Government intend that, but that is the effect of leaving this out. Having this on a website is not equivalent, as yet, to having it in law—the statute book is still distinct from a website. It rather comforts me that the definition on the website includes the Government. I think that something of this kind is necessary, and I had rather hoped that the Minister might think of Third Reading as a time to put in a definition, but there is no offer of that kind, and I understand why she is not a position to do that.
I thank all who have supported me, as I think all who have spoken apart from the Minister have, which is a very good situation so far as I am concerned. I am not concerned about anything except that the Armed Forces covenant should be as effective as possible in law in our country. I do not subscribe to the other extensions that were being suggested in amendments because I can see that there is power to do that and, as and when resources are available, it would be right to bring that in by regulation.
In the meantime, I very much regret to tell my noble friend that in all conscience I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment. It is a matter that has to be faced by those who are responsible for this if they are not prepared to subscribe to having regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I believe that in order for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to move his very important Amendment 4, I need to withdraw my Amendment 3 as the lead amendment in that group. In doing so, I thank the Minister for her response, which tried to address some of the concerns that I raised about the covenant reference group and the fact that the group could make suitable additions in future. That takes on board the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about incrementalism perhaps being a better way forward than the “all in at once” approach in my amendment. I thank the Minister for her reply but, in withdrawing my amendment, I want to say that I very much support Amendment 4.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay—and all noble Lords across the Committee apart from the Minister—said, at the end of the day, whatever the rights and wrongs of this, the people of this country would be incredulous to find that the due regard principle was applicable to local authorities, public health authorities and so on, but not to central government. I think people would find that incredible, and that is why it is so important for us to support Amendment 4 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
“(za) the Secretary of State;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place the same legal responsibility to have “due regard” to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I move that the opinion of the House be taken.
“(3A) Guidance under this section—(a) may not be issued unless a draft has been laid before Parliament, and(b) comes into force on whatever day the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for guidance under new section 343AE to be laid in draft before Parliament and for the coming into force of the guidance to be governed by regulations (and is to be read with Baroness Goldie’s amendments at lines 36 and 43 of page 15 and page 18, line 39).
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to the government amendments that will implement specific recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of the Armed Forces covenant. Among this group are some minor and technical corrections to the Bill.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—whose painstaking work is often unsung and to whom I pay tribute and offer thanks—made two recommendations in respect of the Armed Forces covenant. These relate to the power under new Section 343AE to issue guidance to which public authorities must have regard when exercising relevant statutory functions, and to those who are classed as “service people” and are therefore beneficiaries of the covenant duty. Having considered the committee’s recommendations and recognising the impact these matters may have on the duties imposed on public bodies, we have brought these amendments to provide for greater parliamentary scrutiny in these key elements of the duty.
I will first address government Amendments 8, 9, 11, 12, and 19, which relate to the statutory guidance that we are preparing in support of the duty. These amendments will require the guidance to be laid before Parliament in draft before it can be issued and provide for the guidance to be brought into force by regulations using the affirmative resolution procedure. Given the status of the guidance and its importance in supporting the public bodies that will be subject to the duty, these amendments will provide Parliament with a greater opportunity to scrutinise this document before it is issued.
Amendments 16, 18 and 20 relate to the definition of “relevant family members” for the purpose of the covenant duty. The covenant principles relate to disadvantages arising for “service people”, with special provision being made for such people. The term “service people” is defined in Section 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to include “relevant family members” of service and former service personnel, but this does not include a description of precisely who is a relevant family member for the purposes of the covenant duties. As this group of people will need to be considered by those public bodies in scope of the new duty, we have accepted the committee’s recommendation to specify in regulations who is to be regarded as a relevant family member and that the affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate.
These amendments will therefore amend Section 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to provide for “relevant family members” to be defined in regulations that will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The definition set out in the regulations will apply to both the new “due regard” duty and the Armed Forces covenant report. However, for the purposes of the report, the definition will also include such persons connected with service members and ex-service members as the Secretary of State may decide, as is currently the case under Section 343B.
In addition to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the amendments will also require the Secretary of State to consult with the devolved Administrations and other stakeholders he considers appropriate before making the regulations.
There are further minor and technical amendments to Clause 8. Amendments 10 and 13 amend new Sections 343AE(4)(c) and 343AF(7)(c) to correct drafting omissions to ensure that the duty on the Secretary of State to consult a Northern Ireland department on regulations or guidance applies only where the Northern Ireland devolved context is affected. This mirrors the position for Wales and Scotland.
Amendment 14 to new Section 343AF, which is inserted by Amendment 19, removes a superfluous part of the definition of Northern Ireland devolved competence, also bringing it into line with the approach for Wales and Scotland. I hope your Lordships will support these amendments, which will provide Parliament a greater opportunity to scrutinise these key elements supporting the covenant duty before they become law.
Amendments 21 and 22 are minor and technical in nature and are being brought forward to improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure consistency with existing legislation. Amendment 21 will allow the regulations that replicate the effect of Section 10(5) of the Police Reform Act 2002 to also replicate the effect of Section 54(2D) of the Police Act 1996. The service police complaints commissioner and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary have complementary statutory functions and are charged with the oversight of the service police forces. This amendment will require them to enter into arrangements with each other for the purposes of securing co-operation and providing assistance in the carrying out of their respective functions. Amendment 22 would provide for the records of the service police complaints commissioner to be “public records” for the purpose of the Public Records Act 1958. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the increased parliamentary scrutiny for the statutory guidance on the application of the duty for due regard. This was a recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee, which we thank for its work on this. Could the Minister give us some indication of how the consultation with the devolved Administrations on drafting the guidance is going? We also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation to ensure that regulations defining “relevant family members” are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The amendments that have been brought forward all seem sensible and, as the Minister said, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for looking in such detail at this legislation, as in so many cases, and particularly for being glad, as always, to have any changes made with affirmative assent rather than negative approval. There is little to add at this stage. We look forward to the Minister moving these amendments and then moving to other groups that might be a little more contentious.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. We are working with our stake- holders over the course of this year to develop the accompanying statutory guidance document. Their views are essential to ensure that the guidance is practical, useful and robust. We are also engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, including devolved Administrations, covenant partners across government, the Armed Forces community, local authorities, relevant ombudsmen and the service charity and welfare sectors. As I indicated, the Secretary of State is required to consult the devolved Administrations and other stakeholders whom he considers appropriate before the guidance can be published. Once it is, the document will remain subject to periodic update to ensure that it continues to remain up to date. I hope that answers the points that the noble Lord was interested in.
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is supplementary to Baroness Goldie’s amendment at page 15, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an omission in provisions setting out the Secretary of State’s duty to consult before issuing guidance.
“(4A) Subsection (3A) has effect in relation to any revised guidance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is supplementary to Baroness Goldie’s amendment at page 15, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Baroness Goldie’s amendment at page 15, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an omission in provisions setting out the Secretary of State’s duty to consult before making regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects the definition of “Northern Ireland devolved competence” by removing a redundant limb.
“343AG Regional committees(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to give committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989, known as Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, additional functions specified in the regulations relating to all former members of Her Majesty’s forces and their relevant family members, and a new name.(2) The regulations may in particular provide that it is a function of the committees—(a) to report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on matters that are or may be relevant to—(i) their armed forces covenant report, and(ii) sections 343AA to 343AD and guidance issued under section 343AE;(b) to provide a distinct, identifiable, and independent point of reference in their region for both the veteran community and all those supporting it;(c) to raise awareness of, and support the implementation of—(i) services provided to the veteran community alone or with others,(ii) the Government’s strategy for veterans, and(iii) the terms of armed forces covenant;(d) to act as an advocate, promoter, facilitator, or communicator of services that are relevant to the veteran community;(e) to report and make representations and recommendations on existing or proposed services that are relevant to the veteran community.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the statutory functions of Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (VAPCs), currently limited to functions relating to compensation schemes for veterans and their families (the War Pensions and the Armed Forces Compensation Schemes) to all aspects of veteran life.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I apologise to your Lordships’ House for failing to remind the House of my particular interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces and therefore subject to the provisions of the Bill. I hope that Amendment 15 is uncontroversial. It relates to the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, among which there are 13 regional committees—nine in England, two in Scotland, one in Northern Ireland and one in Wales. They were created under Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 and are mandated to simply do two things: act on behalf of the Ministry of Defence—to be very much its eyes and ears on the ground and be an independent body that can offer candid advice to Ministers—and, equally, to support veterans. But, because of the Social Security Act 1989, they are mandated to act only in the areas of war pensions and the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. While I will not give a number for this, it applies to only a relatively small number of veterans. At their wish, this amendment simply tries to update their role to that which they are currently carrying out.
Indeed, the Government have recognised for some time that this needs to be done. When I was a Minister some seven years ago, we were potentially going to include a similar amendment in the Armed Forces Act 2016 but we did not, so I am simply trying to correct that wrong. It is important because there is a feeling that, for some years now, the Government have been advertising that they should be acting on behalf of veterans when it comes to the Armed Forces covenant—but they are not mandated to do so, and this amendment simply attempts to do that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, brought a similar amendment forward in Committee, which we discussed. He has made very clear why there is a case for expanding the role of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees. He seems to be exhorting various people to think about Private Members’ Bills but, as that is not the role of your Lordships’ House today, could the Minister say how far the Government would be willing to explore his ideas? Is there a neat way in which she might be able to bring forward a suitable amendment at Third Reading which means that, while he does not need to divide the House today, the intentions could be brought on to the face of the Bill?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling Amendment 15. I have not much more to add than my comments in Committee, so I will not hold up the debate for long. I again thank everyone involved with the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees across the country. These committees help to ensure that veterans and their families receive the help and care they need on pensions, allowances and other issues, and act as an important bridge between the veteran community and national government.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lancaster for retabling his amendment. I understand his motivation for doing so. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their contributions. I will not rehearse the whole structure behind the VAPCs, which my noble friend very eloquently did. I will make two points in response to him. First, for several years, VAPC members have undertaken activities that go above and beyond the scope of the statute. They have undertaken these additional activities on a non-statutory basis instead, and there have been no substantive issues with them doing so.
My second point is to acknowledge—and I hope this reassures my noble friend—that there may be ways in which we can improve on this arrangement. The Government are committed to looking again at the role of the VAPCs. That is why the MoD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs recently agreed with the chairs of the VAPCs a new set of non-statutory terms of reference to guide their activities. The terms of reference envisage that VAPC members will undertake many of the activities listed in his amendment, such as raising awareness of the strategy for our veterans and the proposed new duty to have due regard to the covenant. The terms of reference are set for an initial period of 12 months. I confirm to my noble friend that we intend to use this period and the evidence we gather during it to work with the VAPCs to review what they have done, how effective they have been in doing it, and whether and how their statutory role might need to be amended in the future.
Anticipating the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I hope my noble friend will understand why seeking to amend this Bill at the present time is premature. The Government have already set themselves on a course to review the role of the VAPCs, but we are doing this first via the introduction of new terms of reference, and we want to give the VAPCs a chance to perform under them before we take firm decisions about their longer-term future.
Legislative change may well need to follow and the evidence we gather over the coming months will help to inform us on this point. As it is, we are not sure that the legislative provision proposed in my noble friend’s amendment is necessarily the most suitable or effective way of achieving the desired outcome. For example, it would provide for only a specific and rather limited adjustment to the VAPCs’ statutory role, when instead we might want to consider more fundamental changes.
My noble friend will appreciate that I cannot speculate about the precise vehicle or timing for any future legislative change. However, I am very willing to commit to him that I and my officials will explore what changes we can make in this area and I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Goldie
“(b) subsection (4) is amended as follows— (i) in the definition of “relevant family members”, after “means” insert “such persons as may be prescribed, and for the purposes of section 343A also includes”;(ii) at the appropriate place insert—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and Baroness Goldie’s amendment at page 18, line 37 would provide for “relevant family members” to be defined in regulations.
Baroness Goldie
“(c) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) In subsection (4) “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under this subsection.(4B) Before making regulations under subsection (4A) the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Welsh Ministers so far as the regulations contain provision that is within Welsh devolved competence,(b) the Scottish Ministers so far as the regulations contain provision that is within Scottish devolved competence,(c) the relevant Northern Ireland department so far as the regulations contain provision that is within Northern Ireland devolved competence, and(d) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4C) Subsections (8) to (10) of section 343AF apply for the purposes of subsection (4B) as they apply for the purposes of that section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and Baroness Goldie’s amendment at page 18, line 32 would provide for “relevant family members” to be defined in regulations. This amendment also imposes requirements with regard to consultation.
“(eda) regulations under section 343AE(3A),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment supplements Baroness Goldie’s amendment at page 15, line 35 and would apply affirmative resolution procedure to regulations bringing guidance into force.
“(ef) regulations under section 343B(4A),””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment supplements Baroness Goldie’s amendment at page 18, line 32 and would apply affirmative resolution procedure to regulations prescribing persons as “relevant family members”.
Baroness Goldie
“(2A) If regulations under subsection (1) include provision corresponding (with or without modifications) to section 10(5) of the Police Reform Act 2002 (general functions of Director General), the regulations may also provide for subsection (2D) of section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (functions of inspectors of constabulary) to apply (with or without modifications) in relation to the Service Police Complaints Commissioner as that subsection applies in relation to the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable regulations to impose on the chief inspector of constabulary duties which would be reciprocal to duties imposed on the Service Police Complaints Commissioner by the same regulations.
Baroness Goldie
“2A_ In Part 2 of the Table in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), at the appropriate place insert—“Service Police Complaints Commissioner.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for records of the Service Police Complaints Commissioner to be public records for the purposes of the Public Records Act 1958.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“(3A) After section 115A insert—“Further provision in relation to independence of investigations115B Further provision in relation to independence of investigations(1) The tri-service serious crime unit must contain a victim and witness care unit, funding for which is to be made available by the Secretary of State.(2) The Deputy Provost Marshal for serious crime must be a civilian appointment.(3) The tri-service serious crime unit must carry out its investigations in a manner that is operationally independent of the military chain of command.(4) The Provost Marshal for serious crime must produce a report annually to the Minister chairing the Service Justice Board, who must arrange for the report to be laid before Parliament.(5) Before the tri-service serious crime unit is established, a Strategic Policing Board, consisting of a non-executive director (who is also a member of the Service Justice Executive Group), a retired chief constable, a recently retired senior military officer, and a retired judge, must be established to provide assurance and governance of the Provost Marshal for serious crime and the Defence Serious Crime Unit.(6) The tri-service serious crime unit must be established by 1 April 2022.(7) By 1 July 2022, the Provost Marshal for serious crime, Director of Service Prosecutions and Judge Advocate General must agree protocols on fatalities and ill-treatment cases.”” Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is intended to strengthen the independence of the tri-service serious crime unit in accordance with the recommendations of the Henriques Report.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 23 and support Amendment 27. The issue addressed by Amendment 23 is quite clear: the adequacy of the statutory provisions to protect the independence of the Armed Forces police and, in particular, this new unit.
I do not think there is any difference about the constitutional principle. It was set out in one of the cases dealing with the Iraq war, Ali Zaki Mousa (No. 2), where it was said that the Armed Forces police
“must be able to make their decisions entirely independently of the Secretary of State for Defence, any civil servant in that Ministry and, even more importantly, of anyone in the hierarchy of the armed forces.”
That was the principle applied by Sir Richard Henriques in his report, which set out the practical way in which that principle could be given effect and applied.
This amendment seeks in particular to fill in the essential areas of protection needed to ensure independence. They are all set out in the proposed new subsections of the amendment. We went into these in Committee, but I will highlight three of them.
First, the deputy head must be a civilian. It is important to bear in mind that, in the cases that went into the independence of the investigations in Iraq—the Ali Zaki Mousa cases—IHAT had a civilian head, and he brought a different perspective. This is a very important point made by Sir Richard.
Secondly, there can be no watering down of the principle of the operational independence of the military command. I will come to the provision of the Bill which does water it down.
Thirdly, there is the establishment of the strategic police board. When you occupy a position where you can be put under pressure, it is very important to have the protection of someone. Within the Armed Forces, the Director of Service Prosecutions has the Attorney-General. The Judge Advocate-General has the Lord Chief Justice. There can be no reason for not putting into statute a very clear provision that the strategic policing board can support the head of the unit if he or she comes under pressure, which he or she no doubt will.
Why are these statutory provisions necessary? I am grateful to the Minister for her very careful letter, in which she sought to deal with the adequacy of what is in the Bill, which is, essentially, the appointment of the provost marshal of the tri-service unit, the method of his appointment and, if I may say so, a somewhat watered-down expression of the principle of independence, and in particular operational independence. There are three reasons why I urge your Lordships to consider this amendment as important in strengthening the position.
First, as the Minister, with the assistance of her lawyers, has set out, there are a number of cases, two of them in particular involving Ali Zaki Mousa, that looked at the independence of the way in which the investigation was made of the conduct of the Armed Forces police. But it is critical to remember that in those cases what was put under the microscope was the particular structure that had been carefully set up. There is no case that says that the current position is adequate. Indeed, that must be the position, otherwise would why would Sir Richard have gone to the trouble to which he went in making these recommendations? What is set out in the report, which I have already mentioned, is what is required.
The second reason why statutory provision is needed is to protect the Armed Forces. Indeed, my principal reason for moving the amendment is to try to protect the Armed Forces from the risks of it being able to be argued that the position of the Armed Forces police is not independent. In the cases that related to IHAT, on which the Ministry of Defence relies, there was a very careful examination. For example, in the Ali Zaki Mousa case there were five days of hearings spread over a considerable period of time, a vast quantity of documents, statements from very senior people across the Armed Forces, and some cross-examination. It is obviously undesirable to have a repetition of that process and it is therefore essential that the position is made clear in statute.
Noble Lords might say that this is a one-off circumstance. I referred in Committee to something that happened during the Malaysia emergency in 1948 that came up for investigation in the courts many years later in 2011. One of the central issues there was that the investigation had not been independent. Again, issues arose during the course of the Blackman case as to the independence of the investigation. Much more recently, there have been reports in the Sunday Times, of which we are all well aware, that again cast doubt on the independence of the investigation. All I feel it necessary to say is that all these attacks on the independence of an investigation could and should be avoided by putting the matter beyond doubt in legislation. The current legislation simply does not go far enough.
The third reason for saying that the current legislation is not correct is that it does not reflect the proper constitutional position, and these matters ought to be put on a statutory basis. The duty set out in Clause 12(3), which is to try to ensure operational independence, is not enough. There must be operational independence, and that should be a statutory principle.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 27, in my name and those of other noble Lords, which calls for an independent defence representation unit. The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is the principal amendment in this group, but this amendment is important and I am sure the Minister will have been well briefed on the subject. As the noble and learned Lord said rhetorically in Committee:
“I do not understand why we always expect the Armed Forces to have second best.”—[Official Report, 2/11/21; col. GC 295.]
And, in respect of independent representation, I fear that that is precisely what they get at the moment.
In Sir Richard Henriques’ fine report, he points to the fact that there is independent representation in Canada, Australia and South Africa but not for the British Armed Forces. There is talk that the present representation is a mere sticking-plaster solution. In Committee, the Minister said in mitigation of the stance that these proposals would not be accepted that,
“approximately 40 of these recommendations require policy and legal analysis … and I cannot accelerate that at the moment”
and
“we have so far been able to undertake only a light-touch analysis of some of his recommendations.”—[Official Report, 2/11/21, cols. GC 295, 297 and 288.]
I put it to the House that this recommendation is simple, clear cut and very necessary indeed. There is no reason why the Government need postpone further consideration of it. The Minister said in Committee that further consideration will be given when legislative time was allowed, and most of us know that that is usually shorthand for a long time in future. I strongly believe that a defence representation unit is urgent.
In his report, Sir Richard says he has considered the arguments carefully here, and that
“The Unit must be fully independent of the military command and act under the general supervision of the Attorney General. Any guidelines or instructions issued by the Attorney General must be published.”
He also makes the very strong point that
“there should be a significant saving on Legal Aid from the creation of this Unit. … Many of the delays at Court Martial may be avoided by the services supplied by the Unit.”
I do not intend to take up the time of the House this evening as we move through the consideration of this Bill, but I shall also read out paragraph 8.3.10 of Sir Richard’s report:
“Budgeting can only be a speculative process in this sphere. I have no doubt that there will be a saving in Legal Aid expenditure, the cost of Services Legal Aid approximating £1.8 million in the year 2019/2020. The cost of adjourned trials in the Court Martial caused by a lack of, or by delayed representation cannot be assessed. The provision of this facility to Service personnel and veterans should not be dictated by budgetary speculation, but by the moral obligation to provide proper support to those who serve or have served their country.”
His final sentence needs to be emphasised and repeated:
“The knock on the door will carry markedly less menace with the knowledge that competent legal assistance will be readily available.”
For the last couple of years, we have come to know precisely the anxiety and mental cost to serving and former members of the Armed Forces caused by that knock on the door. I therefore suggest to the Minister that Sir Richard Henriques’s recommendation that a defence representation unit be created to provide a triage service to service personnel and veterans under investigation for criminal conduct be a matter of some urgency. I look forward to the Minister saying to us tonight that that will be brought forward.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
There is no doubt that serious crimes are more difficult to investigate in the military than in civilian life due to the exigencies of service. On the other hand, serious crimes occur less often than they do in the territory of every civilian police force. That is why Sir Robert Henriques concluded that
“there should be a senior civilian appointment within the Defence Serious Crime Unit … with experience of major investigations and the ability and necessary experience to control a major incident room.”
He thought that such a number two should have the
“experience and ability to record, retain, manage and process several hundred allegations simultaneously using the most up to date technology.”
I would hope that the noble Baroness could explain, if she resists that particular proposal, that there is some system of training somebody up to the standard Sir Robert Henriques was talking about in his recommendation. How is a person going to get that experience to control a major incident room and carry out the various tasks he is referring to? It is not possible. That is the practical reason why he wanted a civilian as number two.
In recommendation 13 of his report, he said that the candidate would have
“achieved sufficient rank and recognition within civilian policing to act as an ambassador for the interests of Service police within the wider policing community.”
It is important that the service police are seen to be a first-rate service; there should be nothing second rate about the legal service provided to the Armed Forces on whichever side of a particular trial they may be. It is important that the service police should have status and expertise in all fields. I recall, for example, a court martial in Germany involving a German victim, where it was necessary to fly in a criminal pathologist from England to examine a body and later give evidence, and other scientists had to be imported as well. That was only one aspect of the case—the management of a large case is extremely difficult. I respectfully suggest that you cannot get that experience within the service police because they are scattered and do not organise themselves in that way.
I commented at very considerable length in Committee on the necessity to maintain the serious crime unit in a manner that is operationally independent of the military chain of command—for all the reasons that I gave then, and those so eloquently advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I do not propose to repeat those comments but very strongly support what he has said.
I emphasise the need also to set up a strategy policing board of experienced civilians—as referred to in paragraph (5) of this amendment—to which the provost marshal for serious crime and the defence serious crime unit should be accountable. That should be done now. There was some suggestion that the provost marshal for serious crime had already been chosen—that is the wrong way round. You need to get together the body of people who will provide support and to whom these various bodies will be accountable.
I will say a brief word about Amendment 27. I strongly agree that there should be a defence representation unit. There are a number of very competent and able solicitors around the country who carry out this task, but it is not well paid, and they have to travel considerable distances to do it; legal representation is frequently delayed as a result.
I remember my great friend Gilbert Blades, who was the solicitor in the Finlay case that started all this off in 1995. His method of attracting clients was to drive around in a pink Rolls-Royce, the arrival of which at an army unit would cause something of a stir. I do not imagine that a defence representation unit would pay the sort of fees that would enable a person employed there to buy a Rolls-Royce, but there we are. It is very important that such a unit be set up; I support that amendment too.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we strongly support Amendment 23 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to which my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I have added our names. I thank the noble and learned Lord for the clear and concise way in which he outlined the need for this amendment and why the Government should think again with respect to it.
We welcome the establishment of the DSCU but remain concerned as to why the Government will not accept something as seemingly sensible as this amendment. It seeks only to implement Henriques’ full vision for the unit. Without it, independence is not necessarily guaranteed—a point that a number of noble Lords have made—and nor are the other recommendations for how the unit will function. If the Government accept such recommendations, why not put them on the face of the Bill?
The Minister has argued that the other Henriques recommendations remain in the mix but do not need legislative underpinning; however, there is a difference of opinion between what does and does not need legislative underpinning. For example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has argued that there needs to be a statutory provision for the witness and victim care unit, but the Government seem to say that it is not needed. Can the Minister tell us what legal advice the Government have received to come to such a very different conclusion?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for his amendment. I know this is an issue in which he is keenly interested and one which he has pursued with vigour. I will speak first to Amendment 23 in his name and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Thomas of Gresford.
We had a useful and, I think, constructive debate in Grand Committee on the defence serious crime unit and this amendment. The DSCU is an important part of Sir Richard Henriques’ recent review. Indeed, 20 of the 64 recommendations of that review relate to that unit. I am extremely pleased that we have been able to take swift action to make the necessary changes to primary legislation in order to deliver that unit, and I think everyone shares that view.
Let me address at the outset the specific issue of the number of Sir Richard’s 20 recommendations on the DSCU that the Government are accepting. I think noble Lords were left with the impression that only a small number had been accepted, because the government amendments in Grand Committee related only to three recommendations on the DSCU. It is certainly not the case that only a small number of recommendations have been accepted. Let me explain. With one exception, where we are taking a slightly different approach to civilians, the Government accept all Sir Richard’s recommendations on the DSCU. All the recommendations that we accept and that require primary legislation are dealt with in the Bill. The three recommendations I referred to in Grand Committee reflect those that require primary legislation to constitute the DSCU. These are the changes needed to deliver an operational unit. In particular, they give the provost marshal for serious crime the same powers and duty of investigative independence, on the same terms, as the existing provost marshals. The other recommendations that the Government accept do not require primary legislation.
This mirrors the usual position of a review of this nature, where some recommendations require primary legislation to be implemented and others simply do not. I have sought to explain this in clear terms today, but I have also made available a fact sheet to set out in detail the Ministry of Defence’s work on the DSCU. Indeed, a number of your Lordships helpfully referred to that. I have circulated that fact sheet to opposition defence spokespersons, but I have copies with me in the Chamber today if anyone wishes sight of one.
I also want to assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence is now taking forward the DSCU project, both the legislative and non-legislative elements, with considerable speed and energy. As well as the swift work on the primary legislation, work on the necessary changes to secondary legislation is well under way. In Grand Committee, noble Lords agreed a power to make consequential secondary legislation, which will facilitate this once the Bill is passed. A DSCU implementation team has been established, led by a senior civil servant. It is a multidisciplinary team of project management and service police specialists representing the three services. An individual has now been selected to be the provost marshal for serious crime designate. Their initial focus will be to lead the implementation of the DSCU to full delivery. I noticed the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that he thought this was putting the cart before the horse, but I disagree. This is a sensible, logical, structured way in which to proceed.
I now turn to the specific issues raised in this amendment. In general terms, I do not believe that adding these further Henriques DSCU recommendations to primary legislation is necessary. They will form part of the work that is already under way to establish the DSCU. I am happy to confirm that we are already working towards a DSCU by April 2022 and will look to implement a victim and witness care unit shortly after. In addition, the implementation team has already started work on the establishment of a strategic policing board, which is also to be in place by April 2022. The provost marshal for serious crime will produce an annual report to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, which that Minister will provide to Parliament. None of these matters requires primary legislation.
Let me say a bit more about three specific issues: the independence of the DSCU, the role of civilians, and the investigative protocols. On independence, the amendment includes the language:
“The tri-service serious crime unit must carry out its investigations in a manner that is operationally independent of the military chain of command.”
However, I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that this is already reflected in the Bill. I remind your Lordships of the recommendations from Sir Richard regarding the implementation of a defence serious crime unit. He was specific. He said:
“The Provost Marshal (Serious Crime) should have a duty of operational independence in investigative matters owed to the Defence Council, on the same terms as that owed by the”
existing
“Provost Marshals under section 115A of the Armed Forces Act 2006.”
That is what we achieve in this Bill and what we are delivering under Clause 12(3).
As the noble and learned Lord indicated, the UK courts have already found that, under the existing structure, the service police are capable of being
“hierarchically, institutionally and practically independent”
of those that they are investigating. It is therefore right that the duty on the new provost marshal for serious crime is the same as the existing duty on the provost marshal of each of the service police forces. I urge noble Lords to look at Clause 12(3) if anyone is in any doubt about the impact of that clause.
The Ministry of Defence shares Sir Richard’s ambitions for an increased role for civilians in the DSCU. It is already possible under existing arrangements for civilians to work alongside the service police in delivering service police functions. There are examples of civilians taking on leadership roles in the service police, and of secondments from civilian police forces to the service police. As part of the work of the DSCU implementation team, we will look at options to appoint a civilian in a senior leadership role and at how experienced civilian police can work with the unit. I say specifically to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Coaker, that what we cannot do at this stage is have a civilian as deputy provost marshal, because that is a role for service persons and currently subject to Armed Forces systems of command and discipline. At present, simply making them a civilian might give them the title of deputy provost marshal but without the concomitant mechanisms of accountability and control. I am sure that is not what the amendment desires to achieve, but it would be its effect. The role of civilians therefore needs further consideration and work as part of the implementation exercise. However, I hope I have indicated that there is no antipathy within the MoD to the role of civilians in this important process.
I want to address the protocols regarding fatalities and ill-treatment cases referred to in the amendment. As we set out in the ministerial Statement, and as I confirmed in Grand Committee, the non-legislative protocols for dealing with fatalities and ill-treatment cases on overseas operations—between the service police, the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Judge Advocate-General—should rightly be considered by those independent bodies in the first instance. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Sir Richard’s own view on this, which is that “an agreed protocol” is “preferable to legislation”. That particularly avoids compromising the independence of the Director of Service Prosecutions. We support Sir Richard’s recommendation that the protocols should be non-legislative. Taking that approach will allow for more flexibility as the protocol text can be amended at speed in response to lessons learned during its application. Sir Richard also made the point that agreements along the lines that he proposed,
“doubtless with variations to achieve flexibility”,
could be achieved but only once the issue of coronial jurisdiction had been resolved. That was his recommendation 41, and we will engage with the Ministry of Justice on it.
We will be supporting the service police, the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Judge Advocate-General in this important work. The principles of timeliness, regular reviews and consultation are extremely significant. However, there are likely to be issues for these bodies and individuals to consider. In particular, they would need to be comfortable that the arrangements respected the proper relationships between the police, the prosecutors and the judiciary. Further work will be needed to ensure that we address Sir Richard’s concerns over investigations without falling foul of the constitutional principles of the independence of the investigation, the prosecution and the judiciary.
As I have set out, these are important but complicated matters, and the service police, the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Judge Advocate-General need time to properly consider them. While I am sure they will seek to undertake the necessary work to progress them as quickly as possible, it is vital that they get them right and it is important to respect their independence. I do not think it would be appropriate for Parliament to set a timeline of July 2022 for their implementation. I therefore urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I will speak to the other half of the group—Amendment 27—which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. This amendment seeks an early decision—one month after Royal Assent of the Bill—on whether the MoD is going to accept or reject the recommendations in the Henriques review report for the establishment of a defence representation unit and, if the recommendations are accepted, requires the Minister to lay a report before Parliament, setting out a plan and timeline for establishing the unit by July 2022.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have spoken in this part of the debate. I will first say something briefly about Amendment 27. It is critical to a justice system that you have a properly defended and functioning defence service, and therefore I very much hope that, in the event that this amendment is not pursued, the undertaking given to keep the House closely informed of developments is greatly appreciated.
I turn to the main amendment, Amendment 23. I accept that the police in the armed services are capable of being independent, and indeed in most cases they are—but, as has been shown by recent cases, that has not always been the case, to the enormous damage of the Armed Forces. Therefore, with this amendment, I seek to put the principle and the protections on a clear basis to save future damage.
The Minister asked noble Lords to look at the difference between what is in the Bill and what is in the amendment. On the duties of the provost marshal, the Bill says that he owes
“to the Defence Council, to seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the tri-service serious crime unit are free from improper interference.”
There is nothing there at all that reflects the proper constitutional position that they should be operationally independent of the military chain of command. That is what is set out in the amendment. I simply do not understand why this fundamental principle of the way in which the police operate in the Army, Navy and Air Force should have second best. It is in their own interests to ensure independence.
Then there is the quibble that you cannot, for some reason, fit a civilian into the structure. I do not begin to understand that. In the cases I did which involved this area, one of the principal reasons why the courts concluded that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team was independent was that it had a civilian head. I therefore do not understand what the objection is, not only for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, namely that civilians bring experience, but because they also bring an outside perspective.
The real issue in this case is the need for statutory protection. Perhaps the Ministry of Defence lawyers take the view that all that is required are the three provisions in the Bill. I accept that the Government want to proceed with the implementation, but our difference of opinion relates to whether Parliament should do its duty and specify this in the legislation and put a proper duty in relation to operational independence into the Bill, with the necessary vital safeguards. Without those safeguards, a duty will not work—or do you take the very narrow view that it is not required?
For the good of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, we ought to stop speculation about investigations not being independent. We must make sure they are seen to be independent by Parliament itself providing on this occasion, as part of the five-year review, that there are sufficient safeguards for independence. Therefore, for the good of Armed Forces and the service police, I would like to take the opinion of the House on this issue.
Lord Coaker
“Independent defence authority
(1) The Secretary of State must review whether it is desirable to establish an independent defence authority which is responsible for interpersonal conduct within the armed forces and which has a remit, in particular—(a) to assess cultures of behaviour and to identify where inappropriate behaviour is systemic,(b) to promote good behaviour and, where necessary, cultural change,(c) to investigate specific instances of inappropriate behaviour, (d) to mediate employment-related grievances, and(e) to advise service members about their rights in relation to service discipline.(2) Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conclude the review and lay a report before Parliament.(3) If the Secretary of State recommends that it is desirable to establish an independent authority, the report must—(a) set out details of a reporting and investigation system which is outside of the chain of command and outside the single services, and(b) explain how the authority is to have properly trained staff and a properly resourced budget.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is based on recommendations in the report of the House of Commons Defence Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 24 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for supporting this amendment, which seeks to establish a defence authority responsible for cultures and inappropriate behaviours outside the chain of command. This is a direct recommendation from both Wigston and the Defence Sub-Committee’s recent report into women in the Armed Forces.
I am sure one of the arguments we will hear from the Minister again is that we do not need an independent defence authority, as the Government established the diversity and inclusion directorate in April this year. But I remind the Minister of the conclusion of the Defence Sub-Committee’s report, which stated that:
“the Directorate’s mandate differs in key ways from the Authority recommended by the Wigston Review. For instance, the Directorate will not handle the most serious behavioural complaints outside of the Single Services, centrally.”
Therefore, there is a clear difference. The report was also clear that
“the MOD has not fulfilled the recommendation for a Defence Authority”
with the directorate. I would be grateful to know what the Minister says to that.
The report found that
“the Services are failing to help women achieve their full potential … Within the military culture of the Armed Forces and the MOD, it is still a man’s world … There is too much bullying, harassment and discrimination—including criminal behaviours like sexual assault and rape—affecting Service personnel.”
I know the Minister and all noble Lords will agree that this has to change and we need to do better. The debate is about how we do that.
The Minister will understand how much this is a real issue. We read in our newspapers and heard on the news recently:
“Army boss announces culture audit after defence secretary talks.”
This is a probing amendment, not something I will seek to divide the House on. Notwithstanding that, the amendment deals with a very important matter, which I know all of us will be concerned about. The news continued:
“The head of the British army has announced an independent audit of its culture amid concerns over bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination. Gen Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said the audit will ‘reinforce the best and weed out the worst’ It comes after Defence Secretary Ben Wallace met Army leaders earlier over concerns about culture and discipline.”
I am really pleased that the Defence Secretary and General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith have done that. The debate is whether an independent defence authority, established according to the recommendations of Wigston and the Defence Sub-Committee, would help deliver that and ensure that the changes that we all want occur quickly and make a real difference.
In closing, I ask the Minister whether we have yet been told the date on which the Government will publish their response to the Defence Sub-Committee’s report. I understand that it may be next week. Can the Minister confirm that? I gently say to the Minister that it would have been helpful for the passage of the Bill had we had the Government’s formal response to that report before the conclusions of our deliberations—with Third Reading next Monday.
As I said, this is a probing amendment. I know the Minister cares about these issues and wants change to occur. All I am saying is that the Army, the Defence Secretary and everyone agrees, but it is how we deliver it, whether we cannot get a little bit of a move on, and whether an independent defence authority—as recommended by the bodies I have mentioned—would help with respect to that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have signed.
In the first group of amendments this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out that she was the only female Peer speaking in that group. At that stage, I did not speak, not because I did not think it was important to speak on service justice but because we felt from these Benches that it was appropriate to have one person speaking, and that person was my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. He is rather more expert on the military justice side of things than I am. I would like to add my support to tackling the range of issues that are faced by women in the military.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out that this is a probing amendment, but it is an important amendment because the report that was done for the House of Commons Defence Sub-Committee, brought forward by Sarah Atherton, was a very revealing one. I know that the Minister is aware of the report, not just from iterations in this Chamber but because, at some point during the Summer Recess, I happened to turn on “Woman’s Hour”, and I heard none other than the Minister and Sarah Atherton MP talking about the report.
These are issues of concern not only within the Armed Forces and the Palace of Westminster; they are issues that have traction much more broadly. They are important issues and, while it might not be necessary to include this amendment in the Bill, it is vital that the Government take notice of the issues that have been raised by serving female personnel and veterans.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, there is a set of issues that needs to be thought about. Bullying and harassment have no place in the Armed Forces. Some of the issues that have been revealed, as mentioned in the previous group of amendments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, are actually very damaging to public understanding of the Armed Forces. We need to be very careful to make sure that, if discipline is not maintained and there are issues affecting people in the Armed Forces—particularly women—they are looked into. If the Minister is not able to accept the language of this amendment, we would be grateful if she would explain a little bit more about what the Ministry of Defence is doing to help bring about behavioural change.
Statements from the Secretary of State might be of interest, but the current Secretary of State seems to talk to the media an awful lot. Sometimes it feels as if he is rather shooting from the hip. It would be nice to know that some of these comments are actually based on practice and ways of effecting change. Can the Minister give us some comfort in this regard?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling this amendment. He is quite right: it raises issues that all of us care about very deeply, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, so eloquently described.
In essence, the amendment proposes a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to review whether an independent defence authority is desirable. It might be helpful to your Lordships if I try to set a little bit of context for this, and then try to address the specific questions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised.
First, we believe that the vision of a central defence authority, as it was foreseen in the Wigston review, is being delivered through the diversity and inclusion directorate. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, specifically raised this point, so let me try to address these issues and reassure him. Eleven out of the 12 Wigston recommendations relating to the authority have now been achieved. They have been delivered. Your Lordships may remember that Danuta Gray was ordered to carry out a progress assessment one year after the Wigston review to see how it was getting on. She is independent of the MoD, and she concluded that a new diversity and inclusion directorate would, in effect, fulfil the functions of a central defence authority.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her comments. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her comments. As she said, this is a probing amendment, but it is an extremely important amendment. The way in which the Minister answered reflected the seriousness with which she takes this, and I know that the Defence Secretary is working hard on this.
What we all want to see now is progress. In my remarks, I said that I was very pleased to see that the current head of the Army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, is undertaking the audit—I know that he will take it seriously. Change is out there, and there is a need for Ministers and the Defence Secretary, with senior officers in all three branches of the services, to continue to push this. As we have seen, there are very real problems in cases that have been reported in the papers—I will not go into the detail of them—and some very serious issues remain.
But the only thing I ask—perhaps I need to ask the question every now and again—is for the Ministry of Defence to consider how it keeps all of us updated on the progress that is made over the coming months. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha members of armed forces
(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 68(10), after “regulations” insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, or any person who has served at least four years in the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron, the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause will ensure that Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 26, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker. We have retabled this amendment from Committee due to the strength of feeling on this issue across the House. Commonwealth service personnel and other non-UK personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.
Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country they served with courage and distinction. I was shocked when the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said in Committee that Hong Kong veterans feel that
“they are being treated as aliens, not veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”
I remember how the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said that the welcome approach to former Afghan staff means that government policy towards
“foreign and Commonwealth soldiers who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us and fought in many campaigns … is an anomaly and it is bizarre.”
I also remember how the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that the MoD policy change that now allows Gurkhas to apply some 18 weeks before leaving service
“does not address the issue of cost”.
The Minister stated:
“We recognise that settlement fees place a financial burden on non-UK serving personnel wishing to remain in the UK after their discharge”.
So why is action on this issue so slow? I am grateful that the Minister told the House that 6,398 responses were received in the Government’s consultation, but we are still not further forward when the Minister says only that
“the Government will publish their response in due course.”—[Official Report, 2/11/21; cols. GC 337-41.]
This answer is no longer acceptable. We need to know when and how the Government will act, and they should not hide behind the usual ministerial lines to kick the can down the road.
I remind the Minister of the large sums involved. Under current rules, Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK, after having served for at least four years. This means that someone with a partner and two children could face a bill of £10,000 to stay in Britain. I will listen very closely to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
I will make two points, a broader one and a narrower one that is particularly germane to this amendment. My broader point picks up the discussion in your Lordships’ House about the wider duty of care standard, which we debated in the context of the overseas operations Bill, introduced at Second Reading of this Bill and discussed and debated in Committee. I am encouraged by the Minister’s various responses at the various stages of these two Bills. The Ministry of Defence appears to be going very much in the right direction, which is why an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to put in place a duty of care standard has not featured on Report of this Bill.
My narrower point still relates to duty of care and duty of care standards, with particular regard to former service men and women who served in Hong Kong, Gurkhas, and foreign and Commonwealth individuals. The latter make up a large proportion of the British Armed Forces today. I come back to the very narrow point I made in Committee: it is an anomaly that among those withdrawn from Afghanistan in Operation Pitting in August were former members of the Afghan national army, who have now been given right of residence in this country and are in a better position than foreign and Commonwealth soldiers, and Gurkha soldiers who have served shoulder to shoulder with us for at least four years, and in many cases for much longer.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 26. I believe that, until the issue of citizenship is resolved in favour of the few remaining veterans of the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron and other military members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces recruited there, they deserve de minimis to benefit from this financial concession on the grounds of their full status as veterans. I have already in Amendment 4 explained the full background to these claims. Let us see whether the Government are finally able to make up their mind in favour of these long-standing requests. What response will the Minister make now—and please will she not just respond that it will be actively considered?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment. Many of the issues have been rehearsed at earlier stages of this legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, pointed out. We have even heard some of the arguments rehearsed in the second group of amendments this afternoon. However, I feel I need to speak again at this stage to try to bring together a few issues, because the question of service personnel who have put their lives on the line for the United Kingdom, whether from Hong Kong, the Commonwealth or the Gurkhas, needs to be recognised. We need the Government to do more than give lip service to this.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, pointed out just now, until citizenship is resolved for those from Hong Kong who have served with our forces, the very least we can do is look at ways to ensure that indefinite leave to remain does not cost people a king’s or a queen’s ransom. The cost of securing indefinite leave to remain is unconscionable. If somebody has a right to indefinite leave to remain, surely it is appropriate that the cost of securing it is the cost of administering it. If those of us who are British apply for a passport, we pay an amount of money that seems a lot to many individuals but is essentially an administrative cost. The cost of securing indefinite leave to remain is far more than that administrative cost.
I am aware that decisions on this are down not to the Secretary of State for Defence but to the Home Office. Therefore, rather than asking the Minister to commit at this stage to reducing the cost of applications for indefinite leave to remain, all we can ask her to do is to go back and raise this question again with the Home Office.
I also ask the Minister whether we cannot help her. Is there some way in which Parliament can say to the Home Office, “This is something you must do”? It goes beyond questions of how many individuals are coming to live in the United Kingdom or targets of tens of thousands of people. It is about the UK’s duty to those who have served with us. Is there some way in which Parliament can make that case to the Home Office? Can we, as Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place, help the Ministry of Defence do the right thing and put some pressure on the Home Office to reduce the costs?
It is not appropriate to ask for £2,000 or more from somebody who served with us, or from their family. If somebody who has a spouse and children wants and needs indefinite leave to remain, surely they do not want that on their own; they want to come with their families. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, pointed out at this stage and in Committee that people who have come from Afghanistan under ARAP have come with their dependants. If we think that there is a right for citizens from the Commonwealth and Hong Kong and the Gurkhas who have served with us—and for us—to come and live in this country, surely we should give them the opportunity to do so without making the cost prohibitive.
If the Minister cannot give us a guarantee on reducing the costs—I suspect she cannot—can she at least give us some guidance on how we might be able to help her to persuade the Home Office to do the right thing?
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, this was brought home to me when I was presenting Iraq campaign medals to returning soldiers a number of years ago. Since then I have met many who have returned from Afghanistan at official events. It is extraordinary when you hand out the medals and you come to somebody who is quite obviously of Commonwealth origin, and you actually have discrimination standing there in front of you. You have wounded people, if not physically then mentally, who are on parade. You are standing there and giving them a medal, and under your breath you are saying, “This is horrifying. I am totally horrified that you do not have the same or similar rights as the man or lady next door.”
This—our regard and respect for those people—surely comes under the spirit of the covenant. We simply cannot let this lie. It is not a great number of people, compared with the number receiving money put out as a result of Covid or, dare I say it, the number crossing the Channel. This could be killed here and now, in one go, and all those people would be not only happy but that much prouder to be as British as we would like them to be for their service abroad. I support this amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, we had a good debate earlier when my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig spoke to Amendment 4 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. There was a degree of unanimity around the House that this issue needed to be addressed. The Minister was good enough to say that, although she would not reply on Amendment 4 to the issue of Hong Kong ex-servicemen, when we reached this part of our proceedings on Amendment 26 she would be able to give us some reply. I rather hoped that might mean she wanted some space to try to digest some of the points that he and I tried to make earlier.
I particularly reinforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, said about the relationship between the MoD and the Home Office on this. If nothing else comes of this evening, will the Minister agree to facilitate a meeting involving perhaps those who have participated in this debate but also her noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, at which we might try to make some progress on these two questions—one about citizenship and the other about the specific position of the Hong Kong ex-servicemen?
If the Minister has the figures, I wonder if she could share with the House the number of people we are talking about who fall into the category—whether the figures I gave earlier are correct or not. Sometimes it is what you do in small things that matters most, and we are talking about very small numbers of people. It was a point alluded to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough a few moments ago, that when you compare this very small group with the number of people who try to arrive in the United Kingdom—some illegally—it is how we behave towards them that will matter.
This brought me back briefly to debates in another place in 1983, when I spoke on the nationality Act about citizenship and the effects it would have on people in Hong Kong. Sadly, many of the things predicted during that debate have come to pass. The trajectory we all hoped that Hong Kong might be on post 1997 —“one country, two systems”, and an honouring of the difference between Hong Kong and mainland China —has clearly not happened. That has left people in a precarious position, and none more so than those who served the Crown. I reinforce the point I made earlier: these people’s lives are clearly now in danger, and we have a duty to do something about that. It is a point that my noble friend Lord Dannatt made as well.
That is all I wanted to say. I know I had the chance to speak earlier on. I hope the Minister will think about how she can, in a practical way, take these two relatively small questions forward and see if we can get some justice for those involved.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his remarks in support of it. I am also grateful to those who have contributed to the debate, not least the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Alton.
I think your Lordships will understand that I am at the Dispatch Box as MoD Minister. I cannot speak on behalf of the FCDO or the Home Office, but let me try and address some of the more technical issues to at least give context to what the amendment seeks to achieve. The first thing I want to say is that the Government highly value the service of all members of our Armed Forces, including: our Commonwealth nationals, our Gurkhas in Nepal, who have a long and distinguished history of service to the UK both here and overseas; and former British Hong Kong service personnel.
Before I address the detail of the proposed new clauses, I would like to say a few words about the process for setting immigration fees. Application fees for immigration and nationality applications have been charged for a number of years. They are charged under powers set out under Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014. They play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable borders and immigration system, reducing the burden that falls on taxpayers.
Sitting beneath the Immigration Act are a fees order and fees regulations, all of which are scrutinised by both Houses before they come into effect; there is a democratic prism to all this. This system ensures checks and balances, and it seeks to maintain the coherence of the immigration fees framework as set out in legislation. If we were to remove these fees during the passage of this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, suggests in his amendment, it would undermine the existing legal framework for fees, without proper consideration for either the sustainability of the system or fairness to the UK taxpayer. It would also reduce clarity in the fees structure by creating an alternative mechanism for controlling fees which sits outside the immigration fees regime.
When non-UK service personnel, including Commonwealth citizens and Gurkhas from Nepal, enlist in the regular Armed Forces, they are granted exemption from immigration control status for the duration of their service. That is to allow them to come and go without restriction. They are free from any requirements to make visa applications or pay any fees while they serve, and that is unlike almost every other category of migrant coming to work in the UK. Those who have served at least four years or been medically discharged as a result of service can choose to settle in the UK after their service and pay the relevant fee.
As a number of your Lordships are aware, the time before discharge that such settlement applications can be submitted has been extended this year from 10 to 18 weeks. Those applying for themselves do not have to meet an income requirement, be sponsored by an employer, or meet any requirements regarding their skills, knowledge of the English language or knowledge of life in the UK, again putting them in a favourable position compared with others who seek to settle here. We recognise, however, that settlement fees may place a financial burden on non-UK serving personnel wishing to remain in the UK after their discharge, and we recognise the strength of feeling of parliamentarians, service charities and the public on this issue.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Can we press the Minister further on this point about the link between the MoD and the Home Office? She is of course right, but she has just said that it is a continuing process of consultation. The Home Office has been saying that for year after year, as referred to by my noble and gallant friend in his remarks earlier. When does the Minister think that that will conclude, and will she respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and me about the importance of facilitating a meeting between the Home Office, the MoD and noble Lords who are involved and interested in this issue?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I understand the strength of feelings so ably articulated by him, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I understand the strength of feeling expressed in the House in relation to individuals who have served this country. But, as I have explained, there is an existing legal framework in place for immigration fees which already enables proper consideration to be given by government and Parliament to the full range of issues in setting those fees.
The issues raised by this amendment are already subject to a consultation that is entering its final stages. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I have no magic wand that I can wave, and that this is another department’s responsibility. I can also confirm that the specific issues around Hong Kong are also under consideration.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
The Minister talks about consultation. I ask her to let us know who has been consulted and how many of the cohort group have been. Clearly, it will be very wide of the mark if none of them has been spoken to. So how many people, who, when, and has it involved the cohort?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
All I can do is undertake to write to the noble Viscount, because I do not have the specific detail in front of me. The consultation process ran and it was a joint process, but I will find out the specific information that he requested and write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, helpfully indicated that this is a probing amendment, and I am very grateful to him for proposing not to press this to a Division. As I said earlier, I sense the strength of feeling, and Hansard will be testament to that strength of feeling. I give the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the assurance that through the conduit of the MoD I will indicate the desire of your Lordships for some clarity in seeing how these matters are to unfold. Therefore, while I cannot give the answers that noble Lords are no doubt impatient to receive—I sympathise with their impatience but think they will understand that I am in an impossible position in terms of providing the answers—I certainly undertake to use my offices as a Minister in MoD to see whether I can do anything to facilitate the provision of information. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Well, as the number two member of this team, I am glad I managed to imitate my boss with such accuracy that it was unnoticed—but I will recover.
I note that all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have spoken in favour of a change of heart by the Government. It is time the Government got a grip on this. The sense that this is simply a detail in a wider issue simply does not understand the concept. These people have demonstrated a loyalty that most of us have never had to. We are honoured to have a couple of people here who have demonstrated that loyalty: to be willing, on the whim of a politician, to go out and fight for us—not for their country but for Britain. You cannot ask for more loyalty than that; it is a test that I am not sure I would have passed. But these people came along and served. The history of Commonwealth soldiers, sailors and airmen fighting for this country is a long one, and they deserve to be considered quite separately from these wider issues.
I am not going to divide the House—frankly, there is not enough of the House around to be worth dividing—but I hope the Minister will take away the enormous strength of feeling on this issue. What really came out to me from this is that it is crucial that the Government, at the most senior level, understand that this is not an immigration issue; it is about people who have been willing to demonstrate ultimate loyalty to our Government and who would make the perfect citizens of this country. I hope the slightly warm sense that we got from some of the Minister’s words will bear fruit very soon. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“The minimum term for service
In section 329 of the AFA 2006 (terms and conditions of enlistment and service), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Where time is prescribed under subsection (2)(c) by reference to number of years from the date of enlistment, the age of the person on that date may not be taken into account.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that soldiers aged under 18 are not required to serve for a longer period than adult personnel.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 28. I do so in place of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who would otherwise be here, but is indisposed. I thank her for having introduced this amendment and another one so ably in Committee.
In Committee, this was grouped with another one that came before it which talked about trying to achieve a total cessation of the recruitment of under-18s by the United Kingdom, a practice that we are singular among all the members of NATO in pursuing. In the event, because the two were grouped together, the former amendment took about 98% of the airtime of the debate and there was very little discussion of this one, which is in part why we have decided to bring it back here for debate today. I emphasise that this is for debate; I do not intend to divide the House.
I will try, together perhaps with some other noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment, to put a case for the Government to look very carefully at their current practice of asking junior entry soldiers to serve two years more than entrants at age 18. This is to see whether this is the right thing to do in the first place and, more profoundly, whether the entire approach to junior entry is fit for purpose.
In Committee, the Minister made it very clear that, up until their 18th birthday, junior entrants have a statutory right to ask for discharge. However, after 18, they are in for four years and, under the current system, no allowance is made for the first two years at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. A judicial review in 2015 concluded that this is unequal treatment in law, but is not unlawful, since the Equality Act 2010 exempts the Armed Forces from its prohibition on age discrimination.
In 2015, the Army carried out a review and estimated that, if it equalised the minimum service period for all recruits, it would have to recruit and train approximately 40 additional personnel each year to compensate for the relatively small number of junior entrants who might choose to leave after four years. To put that into context in 2015 terms, 40 personnel would be 0.5% of the Army’s enlisted intake for that year, which totalled 8,020 individuals. While the Navy and Air Force both take on a small number of junior entrants, neither service chooses to discriminate in the same way as the Army.
The 2019 junior entry review, undertaken following a recommendation from the Defence Committee in another place, suggested an amendment to the terms of service to a Type S engagement, whereby 18 year-olds can either opt to leave or convert their engagement to a short career versatile engagement, which would recognise the first two years of service and count towards the four years’ minimum length return of service.
The review recommended that this approach be considered, saying that it
“could be deemed a positive change”
and was
“unlikely to be contentious”
to either a junior entry cohort or their “gatekeepers”—I assume that means the staff at Harrogate, although I am not sure how they would feel about that term. The review continued that
“any move to implement”
the new terms of service on leaving the Army as an under-18 year-old
“would make the process … more transparent, which would bring an increase in the confidence of recruits and their gatekeepers.”
Its only caveat was whether this would enable the Army to achieve its desired manning balance along with other assessments of length of service.
In light of the announcement this year that the Army will be further downsized by 10,000 troops, does the Minister agree that this would be an opportune moment to institute the proposed new terms of service and put the matter to rest? Will she tell the House what the Government’s current thinking is? Can she inform us on any actions or, if not, tell us how she might consider progressing this? Will she undertake to come back to the House and report on any progress and timings?
There are two further issues I want to explore to test the MoD and Army’s thinking on the current junior entry structure and content. First, in 2021, is it recruiting the right people for today’s and tomorrow’s Army? This Government and our current, rather busy, Home Secretary frequently refer to an immigration policy that should be focused on attracting and admitting “the brightest and the best”. At the same time, the Army is increasingly conscious that it needs to recruit more young people who are interested and competent in STEM studies and in furthering their education, particularly the sort of technical education that the Army of tomorrow will need to manage challenges such as cyber warfare and the use of artificial intelligence.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and propose to speak for a few minutes in support of it. First of all, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, on the concise way in which he put the arguments for this amendment—he has exhausted nearly all my notes. I do not want to take up unnecessary time in the House this evening—we are running later than expected—as I think he made the arguments very well, but I want to reinforce a couple of them.
Before I do that, I want to go back to the genesis of my involvement in these amendments. I did not put my name to either of the two amendments debated in Committee, although I do support raising the minimum recruitment age for the Army to 18. I support that because, in studying and researching these amendments, I came across some quite persuasive evidence of an inappropriate level of potential damage to young people who had gone through that. I investigated further why that could be the case and learned quite a lot about the immaturity of people at 16 and their physical and mental ability to handle properly what they may have gone through in training. I have now discovered other things about this which worry me even more. I did not think that the benefit to our military, or to other young people, justified potentially damaging such a significant number of young people. That is why I spoke to it in that fashion in Committee.
This amendment was tagged on to that. When I looked at it, I honestly thought that, in this day and age, in the 21st century, there was no justification for continuing this discrimination. It seemed that we were on the wrong side of history on this, and there was no justification for pursuing or sticking with it—I thought it was a no-brainer. I was not surprised that there was not much debate about it; it seemed pretty straightforward, and I more or less said that.
When the Minister responded to the debate and seemed not to concede that this was even discrimination, I intervened and asked her a specific question about what the Army thought it got out of this and why it persisted in doing it. She again gave me an answer, which is to be found in Hansard at col. GC 461. She did not quite say that it was not discrimination but suggested that the Army was not intending to discriminate. She promised to write to me, and she did so today. Her letter expands on what the Army is intending to do.
The truth is, of course, that there was a review in 2015, and the Army put its best case forward at this attempt at judicial review. Two things came out in that very clearly, particularly in the evidence of the brigadier who was then the Army’s chief witness—whose name does not really matter but whose evidence is in the public domain.
It was about force level—about the ability, for a longer period, to take advantage of people in whom they had invested a lot of training. It seems from the noble Baroness’s letter to me that it is now more about what the recruits get out of this than what the Army gets out of it; that is a welcome development. We could go back to the debate about whether it is justifiable for some of these recruits, with the potential for damaging others, but I do not want to rehearse all that.
We debated all this on 8 November. The issue was not been raised in the debate at all, but Corporal Kimberly Hay was convicted of punching two recruits in the very establishment that everybody was singing the praises of just a couple of days later. I was surprised. I had no knowledge of this, obviously, but it had not been mentioned. That incident led me to delve into this issue a bit more. I discovered that, between 2014 and 2017, 50 cases of assault went to court martial but with no findings of guilt. This seemed to have been for process reasons rather than because any witnesses were deemed not to have been telling the truth. The criticisms made about the unsatisfactory nature of the prosecution were about the way in which the Army police had investigated the matter, rather than that any of the many witnesses who gave evidence against some 17 trainers had not been believed. Around the same time, between 2014 and 2020, there were 60 complaints by trainees or parents about the way in which trainees were treated at AFC Harrogate.
None of this seems to have been reflected in the debate or the information given in the debate. That certainly makes me want to reconsider many of the things said in support of AFC Harrogate and what it was actually doing with these young people. My suspicion is that this issue will not go away—that, like many issues over the last 10 years that have become apparent about institutions, it will be a slow burner but eventually much more will come out. Of course I cannot ask noble Lords to make decisions about changing legislation on the basis of an argument as weak as that, but history tends to suggest that there is something there that needs to be investigated.
My final point is to ask what the Army in the current circumstances gets out of this. Over the last decade, the size of the Army’s core recruitment pool— 16 to 24 year-olds—in the United Kingdom has remained steady at about 7 million potential recruits. I am not suggesting that the Army seeks to recruit them all, but that is the cohort. The stability of this demographic is projected to continue—it will not go down—but the targeted strength of the Army has reduced by 29% from 102,000 in 2011 to a planned 72,500 by 2025. In broad terms, for every four new soldiers the Army needed to recruit and retain a decade ago, it needs only three now, drawn from a demographic that has stayed about the same size.
The Army’s own evidence to the judicial review—which failed because of the terms of the Equality Act, not because the distinction was not discrimination—was that, if it lost those recruits for those extra two years, it would then need to recruit 40 more recruits each year. That was the evidence that it put in. I cannot take all these complicated figures to their logical conclusions, but it suggests to me that the problem is solved for the Army. I do not see what the justification is now for continuing with this discrimination. The Army should follow the logic of its own junior entry review of 2019, which is to change the terms in which they sign up 16 year-olds into the service.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I was not able to take part in the debate on these amendments in Committee because I was at the COP 26 climate talks, but at Second Reading I very much majored on the issue of the recruitment of 16 and 17 year-olds into the Army in particular. I would have attached my name to the amendments in this group had there been space. I am following two extremely powerful and important speeches, which I really hope the Government are going to listen to, approached in a very constructive, positive spirit.
I want to make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, outlined for us how the judicial review found that this was unequal treatment, but that the Army was not covered by the Equality Act. The fact that there is a legal exemption does not mean it needs to be used. The Army could choose to say that it will accept, at least in this manner, to follow the Equality Act. That would be a step towards justice for young people, many of whom come from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds and are trying to find their best way forward in life. We need to give them that opportunity.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will make a very brief comment based on what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lord Browne have just said. There was some debate in Committee about raising the age of recruitment, and there was disagreement about that. It is incumbent upon the Government to take very seriously the points that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Browne have made, about the allegations and reports there have been, whatever the rights and wrongs of that. Also important is the point raised in the amendment about the length of service and what is taken into account.
For those of us who, like me, do not support raising the age of recruitment, it is particularly incumbent upon us to ensure that reports and allegations of the sort we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Browne, alongside some of the other concerns raised, are taken very seriously by the Government. They should address them as quickly and urgently as possible and report the results of their deliberations into the public domain.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I do not quite support this amendment but will speak in rather the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. From the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, in Committee, I also spoke against raising the age of recruitment, but of course that is not what this amendment seeks to do.
The debate has focused on three issues: first, the age of recruitment, which is not formally the subject of this amendment; secondly, the question of the minimum term for service, which is, officially, what is in the amendment; and, thirdly, the issue of Harrogate, which has been discussed at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, suggested that everyone spoke in laudatory terms about Harrogate in Committee; while the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, spoke in laudatory terms, I think the rest of us were very much looking forward to the Minister facilitating a visit, so that we could understand what happened at Harrogate a little better—although I think the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, might have visited.
There is clearly a need to separate three different issues here, one of which is how the current facility works. The sorts of cases that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, mentioned clearly need to be looked into. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what the MoD is doing to investigate the sorts of cases that are currently hitting the headlines and reassure the House that appropriate action is being taken. That needs to be separate from whether or not we believe that the age of recruitment is actually right.
However, it is important to consider the age of recruitment and what happens to 16 and 17 year-olds when we look at what is in this amendment. It may be only a probing amendment, but it is nevertheless one where we need to look at what is actually understood by “service”. It is very clear that there is a difference in the language that is used by those who oppose recruitment at 16 and the arguments against child soldiers, for example, which seems to suggest that, somehow, 16 year- olds are being allowed to go off to the front line—they are not; you cannot go to the front line until you are 18, and then only if you have been trained.
What do the Government understand by “service”? Is it that 16 and 17 year-olds can be recruited and trained, but that somehow that does not count as service for the purposes of the minimum service requirement? If that is the case, could the Government make it very clear? If Harrogate, or whatever an appropriate equivalent might be, is about training, is it seen as an appropriate alternative to continuing education in school or a further education college, which, as some of us believe and as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, argued in Committee, can be very relevant for some 16 and 17 year-olds who want not to go back to mainstream education but to do something different? Clearly, if that is the case, what is happening for 16 and 17 year-olds needs to be appropriate.
All of us must surely agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that we need to craft a recruitment policy fit for the 21st century and not the 19th century. Could the Minister reassure us that what is available is fit for the 21st century, and that what is happening at Harrogate has been investigated and we do not have anything to worry about? Can she explain to us the Government’s understanding of service that is accrued from the age of 16 to 18, inclusive?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I know that you are all waiting agog for my response to what has been a wide-ranging and very interesting debate, but I am required to make a correction in relation to our previous debate on Amendment 26. I have been informed that the process that I described is slightly different. The precise fees payable are made through both the affirmative and the negative resolution procedure, which is different from what I may have read out from the speaking notes. I am pleased to put that correction on the record.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for raising this issue, which is important and which we are all interested in. Clearly, some of your Lordships have concerns about it. As I said, it led to a very interesting debate. The essence of the amendment is that your Lordships are concerned that those who join the Armed Forces before their 18th birthday are obliged to serve longer than those who join after it.
Obviously, this is a bit of reprise of what I said in Committee, but I clarify that this is a matter not of length of service but of discharge. The statutory “discharge as of right” rules allow all new recruits, regardless of age, to discharge within their first three to six months of service, depending on their service, if they decide that the Armed Forces is not a career for them. In addition, service personnel have a statutory right to claim discharge up to their 18th birthday, subject to a maximum three-month cooling-off period. These rights are made clear to all on enlistment. Ultimately, all service personnel under the age of 18 have a statutory right to leave the Armed Forces up until their 18th birthday, without the liability to serve in the reserves, which would be the obligation on an adult aged over 18 who was leaving the services.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to a specific example, and I confess that I was not familiar with it. I understood that he referred to the RAF, but if he would care to write to me with the details, I will certainly look at that in detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was specifically concerned about the perceived unfairness to the under-18 group who serve longer than a new start of 18 years or over if they pursue a career in the Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, alluded to some extent to the letter I sent him in an endeavour to explain what these arrangements are about and the rationale behind them. I reiterate for the benefit of the Chamber that the policies in place covering the recruitment of young people below the age of 18 are designed carefully to be lawful, fair and fit for purpose, both for the individual and the service they volunteer to join.
The primary reason for the minimum period of service in the Army for those under 18 is that the Army must ensure that it maintains the right workforce levels to enable it to deploy personnel over the age of 18 on operations at home and abroad. Recruits under the age of 18 are not fully deployable on operations, and their notice period therefore runs from the point at which they become fully deployable alongside those who enlist after their 18th birthday. This minimum period of service for those under 18 also allows the Armed Forces to provide our young people with world-class training. It develops well-rounded junior personnel, both morally and conceptually, and, in turn, all this quite simply brings huge benefit to the individual, the Armed Forces and wider society. I feel that is positive and something that we should celebrate.
I acknowledge the recent reports of entirely unacceptable behaviour at the foundation college resulting in the conviction of an instructor, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Browne and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to this. That is something we all deplore. It indicates to me that there is a system which works: that if somebody behaves absolutely unacceptably in a criminal fashion, they are dealt with within the system. I do not think we should be complacent about this in any way. I was as disturbed to read that report as anyone, but it suggested to me that there are systems in place.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, particularly sought reassurance about this. I want to reassure her and your Lordships that for under-18s any reports of bullying are taken extremely seriously, and tough action is taken against those who fall short of the Army’s high standards. The duty of care for all our recruits, particularly those aged under 18, is of the utmost importance, and we recognise the need to treat under-18s differently.
The Armed Forces foundation college—
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way; she is very generous. However, at this point I think it is appropriate to ask her specifically if it is true that there were 60 complaints between 2014 and 2020 from parents or trainees about bullying behaviour at AFC Harrogate. Is that true?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I do not have that information before me. I will certainly undertake to investigate, and I will write to the noble Lord with whatever I find out.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
With respect, if it is true, will the noble Baroness also express in that letter whether she is concerned that that does not appear to have been reflected in the inspections of AFC Harrogate? If it had been, I am sure the noble Baroness would have shared that when we discussed this in Committee.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I said to the noble Lord, all I can offer to do is to look at Hansard and the detail of what he said, and to check that out and see what I can ascertain. I will undertake to do that and write to him, and I will offer any comment that seems appropriate depending on what I find out.
What I was going on to say, particularly in response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is that—as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has indicated—the foundation college, alongside all phase 1 and phase 2 training organisations, is subject to Ofsted inspection on a routine basis. Ofsted is an independent inspectorate. I and the Government have no control over what it says and does; it is for Ofsted to enter establishments, ask its questions, make its inspections and come to its conclusions.
What I can say to the noble Baroness is that the college was independently inspected by Ofsted in May 2021 as part of the 2020-21 inspection cycle into welfare and duty of care in Armed Forces initial training. Harrogate was awarded an overall grade of outstanding by Ofsted at the inspection, which followed the outstanding grade it received in October 2017. That grade was awarded due to the excellent standard of provision of duty of care and welfare encountered by Ofsted at the college.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who took part in this brief debate. I must confess that, as I listened to the Minister and I reflected on her response to the previous amendment, I was reminded of the saying that is often used about ourselves and the United States of America, which is that we are two countries divided by a common language. On many occasions I felt that the discourse coming from all sides of the House seemed to be of a different nature or dialect from the response we received from the Front Bench.
To be clear, Committee saw an end to the argument—certainly for this Bill—about the rights and wrongs of recruiting junior entrants at 16. That is not what we are talking about.
The point I was trying to make was to probe the Ministry of Defence on whether it has actually thought and reflected on whether what it is currently doing with its junior entry programme is fit for purpose. I could imagine that, if you are dyed deep blue right the way through and support the Conservative Party, you might regard the Army Foundation College as a particularly wonderful example of what is known as “levelling up”. It is taking a cohort of young people, primarily young men, from difficult neighbourhoods and complicated backgrounds, who are completely unenthused by conventional education and find attraction and allure in going into the military.
But, as we have seen from the evidence, the process the Army goes through to select these individuals appears to be seriously flawed on two counts. First, as we heard from the independent appraisal, the number of young people who are leaving within days of arriving in Harrogate does not speak very highly of the efficacy of the recruitment process. So at the very least I think the Army should look carefully at that.
The second point I come back to is more fundamental. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, echoed my appeal to try and think of a junior entry programme that is fit for the 21st century rather than the 19th century. I have every sympathy with the cohort in question, which takes up 70% of the intake. But the size of our Army is reducing and the technical challenges we are faced with are increasing. Your Lordships may have read about this slightly alarming supersonic missile that has apparently gone around the world at five times the speed of sound and apparently has the Americans very rattled. That is the state of the world we are moving into and, with the best will in the world, even the most outstanding students among the cohort the Army is currently recruiting from are unlikely to be of great help in trying to deal with the sort of warfare that the remainder of the 21st century may expose us to.
I do think there are some fundamental questions that the briefing notes—which the Minister has followed assiduously—do not seem to have prepared her for. So what I would ask her to do is, at a minimum, reflect on some of the comments that have been made, particularly some of the more profound questions about looking at the current junior entry strategy, and try to see whether it is fit for purpose.
At the very least, I would have hoped there was an acknowledgement in the briefing of the junior entry review that was conducted at the request of the Defence Committee in the other place, which had inside it a suggestion of new terms of service that would solve what this amendment asks for. The fact that it was not even referred to, either in her briefing notes or in her response to me, is disappointing, and I would ask that she and her officials look carefully at the content of what has been discussed, isolate those questions that have been asked and undertake to write back to us with answers. I would be most grateful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
“Use of novel technologies by the UK Armed Forces: review
(1) Within three months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, including in weapons systems, for legal proceedings against armed forces personnel that arise from military operations, and produce recommendations for favourable legal environments for the United Kingdom’s armed forces, including instilling domestic processes and engaging in the shaping of international agreements and institutions.(2) The review must consider—(a) what novel technologies could emerge from the Ministry of Defence and the United Kingdom’s allies, and from the private sector, which could be used in military operations,(b) how international and domestic legal frameworks governing conflict need to be updated in response to novel technologies,(c) the United Kingdom’s engagement with current and new routes of international efforts to secure a new legally binding instrument governing the use of novel technologies in conflict, and(d) what protection and guidance armed forces personnel need to minimise the risk of legal proceedings being brought against them which relate to military operations in response to novel technologies. (3) Within the period of one year beginning on the day on which the review is commissioned, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament of its findings and recommendations.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment mandates a review within three months of the passing of the Act of implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of AI and machine learning in weapon systems. The review must focus on the protection and guidance that Armed Forces personnel need to ensure that they comply with the law, including international humanitarian law, and how international and domestic legal frameworks need to be updated.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton of Richmond and Lord Craig of Radley. Once more, I am grateful to them for their continuing support of this amendment.
This is the fourth time this amendment, or a variant of it, has been debated in your Lordships’ House in a relatively short time. This version of it has been shaved. The specific references to overseas deployment and overseas operations have been taken out, but subsection (2)(c), which relates to
“engagement with current and new routes of international efforts to secure a new legally binding instrument governing the use of novel technologies in conflict”
has been added to it as part of what the review that it would mandate needs to consider. I will explain that, hopefully in a relatively short period of time.
The amendment mandates, within three months of the passing of the Act,
“a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning … in weapons systems”.
The review would be required to focus on the protection and guidance that Armed Forces personnel need to ensure that they comply with the law, including international humanitarian law, and how international and domestic legal frameworks need to be updated.
I have no intention of repeating the points I have previously made. I will just take a few seconds to remind noble Lords of assurances we have been given by the Minister thus far. I draw noble Lords’ attention to cols. GC 437-38 from the Grand Committee. I accept that we have been given some reassurances that the MoD is “alert to” the complex issues that this amendment raises and is working and
“has worked extensively on them over the … last 18 months.”
I also accept that presently the Government’s position is that the Minister
“cannot set out details until these positions have been finalised, but work to set a clear direction of travel for defence AI, underpinned by proper policy and governance frameworks, has reached an advanced stage”—
so we are in keen anticipation—and that:
“Key to this is the defence AI strategy”,
which, it is hoped, will be published
“in the coming months, along with details of the approaches we will use when adopting and using AI.”—[Official Report, 8/11/21; col. GC 437.]
These are substantially the Minister’s words. I do not intend to read all of this; people can read it for themselves.
Withdrawing the amendment in Committee, I indicated that I expected the issues, which are moving at a dramatic pace, to have moved on by the time we got to Report, and that the probability was that this amendment would come back, because there would be developments. There have been developments. Some of them are that my knowledge of matters relevant to this amendment has increased, but another of them was much more dramatic.
Last Wednesday the “Stories of Our Times” podcast published a podcast—do we publish podcasts?—entitled “The rise of killer robots: The future of modern warfare”. This was hosted by a journalist, a woman, a podcaster, Manveen Rana. The guests were Matthew Campbell, a Sunday Times foreign affairs features editor, General Sir Richard Barrons, former Commander of the UK Joint Forces Command, and General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the Defence Staff. I think a British academic based in the United States also contributed. If I can find a way to do this—I think it might be possible—it is my intention to ensure that every parliamentarian in this building, here and in the other place, gets access to this podcast because, more dramatically and probably with better effect, it makes the points that I have been trying to get across in the last three attempts and this one, explaining why it is crucial that this work is done.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has given us a very thoughtful, well-researched and deeply troubling series of remarks about the future in this area. I wanted to concentrate on a rather narrower point. Those who are ordered to fight for the interests of this country must do so—now and in the future, as more novel technologies find their way into kinetic operations—in the certain knowledge that their participation, and the way in which they participate, is lawful in both national and international jurisdictions. As has become evident in some of the asymmetric operations of recent years, there is real evidence that post-conflict legal challenges arise, and future operations may prove impossible to clear up quickly and comprehensively unless we have thought deeply about it.
Risking one’s life is a big ask, but to combine it with a risk of tortuous and protracted legal aftermath is totally unacceptable. I support the simple thrust of the amendment to demonstrate that the Government indeed have this matter under active review, as one must expect them to. It is infinitely better that the answers to these issues are there before a further operation has to be waged, not after it is over, when issues that should have been foreseen and dealt with press on individuals and others in our Armed Forces. Should the protection of combat immunity not be brought into the frame of discussion and resolution of this seriously troublesome issue?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in supporting Amendment 29, which the noble Lord introduced so persuasively, as he did a similar amendment on the overseas operations Bill that I signed and in Grand Committee on this Bill—I apologise for being unable to support him then. Since we are on Report, I will be brief, especially given the hour. Of course I do not need to explain to the Minister my continuing interest in this area.
We eagerly await the defence AI strategy coming down the track but, as the noble Lord said, the very real fear is that autonomous weapons will undermine the international laws of war, and the noble and gallant Lord made clear the dangers of that. In consequence, a great number of questions arise about liability and accountability, particularly in criminal law. Such questions are important enough in civil society, and we have an AI governance White Paper coming down the track, but in military operations it will be crucial that they are answered.
From the recent exchange that the Minister had with the House on 1 November during an Oral Question that I asked about the Government’s position on the control of lethal autonomous weapons, I believe that the amendment is required more than ever. The Minister, having said:
“The UK and our partners are unconvinced by the calls for a further binding instrument”
to limit lethal autonomous weapons, said further:
“At this time, the UK believes that it is actually more important to understand the characteristics of systems with autonomy that would or would not enable them to be used in compliance with”
international human rights law,
“using this to set our potential norms of use and positive obligations.”
That seems to me to be a direct invitation to pass this amendment. Any review of this kind should be conducted in the light of day, as we suggest in the amendment, in a fully accountable manner.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I am sorry that my name has not found its way on to the Order Paper; I had Covid last week and I failed the IT test of getting it properly registered.
I come at this from perhaps a different angle. I have spent perhaps rather too much of my latter career in the Ministry of Defence and understand the way it functions. It spends the vast majority of its time—and I think this is understandable—managing the crisis of the moment. It spends very little time, in truth, on strategic foresight, and therefore it spends quite a bit of the other part of its time on making good that lack of strategic foresight—and much of what this whole Armed Forces Bill is about is making good that lack of foresight. The thing that I support so much about this amendment is that it is an attempt to get ahead of the game.
The MoD properly stops and looks to the future in the times of its periodic reviews, and there was much to commend the last integrated review. There are two things I would pluck from it that are relevant to this amendment. First, the review was littered with the idea that the country was making a strategic bet on the future by way of investment in technology: technology would be the source of our new prosperity; it would be the source of our technological edge; we would become a superpower; it was the reason that we could reduce the size of our Armed Forces; it was through the exploitation of novel technology that we could hold our heads up high and not fear for our safety.
At the same time, elsewhere in the review—this is my formulation, not the review’s—two forms of warfare were identified. There is the one we do not want to fight—the reversion to formalised war at a scale above the threshold of kinetic conflict—and then there is this grey area of hybrid war; the war that we are currently engaged in, where our malevolent and malicious enemies seek to exploit every trick in the book and the rules of warfare in order to exploit new vectors of attack to effectively defeat us during peacetime in mendacious ways.
You can read as much as you want into the second thing, but this idea of a permanent competition for relative survival and advantage is undoubtedly a feature of the current global security situation. Therefore, in those moments of strategic foresight in the integrated review, we have in some ways identified the fact that the advantage given by novel technologies will be decisive and that we have enemies who will be mendacious in ways that we cannot quite comprehend.
I worry that, in the months to come, this Chamber might revert to its defence arguments being about counting the number of ships, air squadrons or tanks. The amendment will hold the Ministry of Defence and its generals to account by parliamentarians for the ways in which these weapons evolve—they will evolve at pace—and the rules that are to be employed by not just us but our adversaries and what is and is not their proper exploitation.
Having paused in that integrated review and discerned the future, however darkly, it would be gross negligence if we did not wish upon ourselves an instrument by which the evolution of these weapons and the rules involved in their employment were not the closest interest of parliamentarians and this House. The Ministry of Defence should be held to account over the coming months and years to see how it all plays out. This amendment would do so, and it has my unreserved support.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise again for not speaking in Committee due to being at COP. I offer support and regret that I did not attach my name to this amendment. What the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said about public consultation in this process is really important, as is what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said about parliamentary scrutiny. Those two things very much fit together.
I am very aware that the Minister started this day, many hours ago now, promising to read a book, so I will refer to a book but not ask her to read it. It is entitled Exponential: How Accelerating Technology is Leaving Us Behind and What to Do About It, and it is by Azeem Azhar. The thesis is that there is an exponential gap: technologies are taking off at an exponential rate, but society is only evolving incrementally. In terms of society, we can of course look at institutions like politics and the military.
Another book is very interesting in this area. Its co-author, Kai-Fu Lee, has described it as a scientific fiction book, and it posits the possibility of, within the next couple of decades, large quantities of drones learning to form swarms, with teamwork and redundancy. A swarm of 10,000 drones could wipe out half a city and theoretically cost as little as $10 million.
It is worth quoting the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, who said:
“The prospect of machines with the discretion and power to take human life is morally repugnant.”
That relates to some of the words in the podcast that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to; I have not listened to it, but I will.
Fittingly, given what the Secretary-General said, the United Nations Association of the UK has very much been working on this issue, and communicating with the Government on it. In February, the Government told it that UK weapons systems
“will always be under human control”.
What we have heard from other noble Lords in this debate about how that language seems to have gone backwards is very concerning.
This is very pressing because the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons will hold an expert meeting on 2 December, I believe, which will look at controls on lethal autonomous weapons systems—LAWS, as they are known. It would be very encouraging to hear from the Minister, now or at some future point, what the Government plan to do if there are no positive outcomes from that—or, indeed, whatever the outcomes are. While the Government have ruled out an independent process, both the mine ban convention and the Convention on Cluster Munitions were ultimately negotiated outside the CCW.
Finally and very briefly, I will address proposed new subsection (2)(d) and how individual members of the Armed Forces might be held responsible. There is an interesting parallel here with the question on deploying autonomous vehicles—the issue of insurance and who will be held responsible if something goes wrong. Of course, the same issues of personal responsibility and how it is laid will face military personnel. This may sound like a distant thing, talking about decades, but I note that a report from Drone Wars UK notes that Protector, the new weaponised drone, is “autonomy enabled”. I think Drone Wars UK says it has been unable to establish what that means and what the Government intend to do with that autonomy-enabled capability, but the first of an initial batch of 16 Protectors is scheduled to arrive between 2021 and 2024, and the Protector is scheduled to enter service with the RAF in mid-2024.
So I think this is an urgent amendment, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the others on this, and I would hope to continue to work with them on the issue.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I would like to support this amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has probably spent an hour, this evening and in aggregate, explaining to the Chamber the need for this amendment.
As the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones have pointed out, on 1 November, some of the issues raised about novel technologies and autonomy were raised; I am not sure the House was wholly persuaded by the answers the Minister was able to give on that occasion. I think it is essential that the Government think again about how they might respond to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and to this amendment, because we have heard how vital it is that we understand the danger that the world is in. We cannot just ignore it or say we might think about it at some future date because it is not a matter for today.
If we are keen to recruit for the 21st century, recruitment is not just about cannon fodder; it is about people who are able to understand the legal aspects of warfare and the moral issues we need to be thinking about. We need service personnel, but we also need—as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, so eloquently argued—politicians and officers who are able to make decisions. There are questions about autonomy that need to be understood and focused on now, and it is crucial that we talk with our partners in NATO and elsewhere. We cannot simply say we are not interested at the moment in debating and negotiating international agreements; we absolutely have to. The time to act on this is now; it not at some future date when the Government think they might have time. We need to do it today.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is one of these debates that takes place very late at night that should have a packed Chamber listening. It is not a criticism, but the importance of the debate is immense. I thought the introduction from my noble friend Lord Browne was tremendous—I really did. We went from a situation where we all thought “Hopefully we won’t be too long on this amendment” to everybody listening to what he had to say and then thinking they had important contributions to make.
Lots of noble Lords have made outstanding contributions, but this is a bit of a wake-up call, actually. This is happening. My noble friend Lord Kennedy mentioned that he was in a Home Office debate and they were talking about what the police were looking at and, no doubt, what Border Force and all sorts of other people are looking at. But in the sense of the military here, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out, we are going to ask people to operate within a context and a legal framework. What will that be? Because we are going to order them to do things.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is right: we have kept until the end of the day—unfortunately when few people are around—one of the best debates we have had during this stage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for tabling this amendment. I know that their interest is informed and determined, and I can tell them that it is welcome. Having debated this issue with them now on several occasions, I understand the depth of their concern in this important area. I am grateful to them for the way they have engaged with me and officials and I look forward to further engagement, for we will surely debate these issues in this House for many years to come. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that any Government would expect to be accountable to Parliament in respect of matters of such significance.
As with so many issues relating to the rapid march of new technology, this is both complex and pressing. The Government continue to welcome the challenge and scrutiny being brought to this question, and, as I noted on previous engagements, I do not dispute the noble Lords’ analysis of the importance of proper legal consideration of novel technologies. Indeed, I attempted to access the podcast to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred. I do not know whether the Chamber will be delighted or disappointed to learn that, such is the security of my MoD computer, I could not get anywhere near it, so I have still to enjoy the benefit of listening to that podcast, which I intend to do.
As I said, I know that the amendment is extremely well intended and timely, but I hope to persuade your Lordships that the proposed review is not the right means of addressing these issues. However, I assure your Lordships that the department is alert to these questions and has been working extensively on them over the course of the last 18 months. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Clement-Jones, have been engaging with officials in the department. They might have a better understanding than most of what is taking place.
Setting a requirement for a review in law would actually risk slowing down the work needed to develop the policy, frameworks and processes needed to operate AI-enabled systems responsibly, and to address the legal risks that service personnel might otherwise face. That is an issue of profound importance and one in which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is rightly interested.
Noble Lords will understand that I cannot set out details of the department’s position until these have been finalised, but I can assure your Lordships that work to set a clear direction of travel for defence AI, underpinned by proper policy and governance frameworks, has reached an advanced stage. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, will I am sure have a sense of where that is headed. Key to it is the defence AI strategy, which we hope to publish in early course, along with details of the approaches we will use when adopting and using AI.
These commitments, which are included in the National AI Strategy, reflect the Government’s broader commitment that the public sector should set an example through how it governs its own use of the technology. Taken together, we intend that these various publications will give a much clearer picture than is currently available, because we recognise that these are vital issues that attract a great deal of interest and we need to be as transparent and engaged as possible. I wish specifically to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about that.
I know from their contributions, to which I listened, that noble Lords will understand that this AI strategy cannot be the last word on the subject, but I hope that, when we do publish details, your Lordships will be substantially reassured that we are on the right track, and that substantial effort and engagement will follow. There is no end to the march of technology—that is one of the reasons why we have questioned the utility of a snapshot review process—nor will there be an end to our challenge of ensuring that we do the right thing with that technology, especially where grave matters of life and death and national security are concerned.
As we undertake this work, one of our top priorities must be to develop the terminology and vocabulary necessary to ensure we illuminate, clarify and improve understanding and awareness, and to find the right way to debate these issues. This is by no means a comment on any of the discussions that we have engaged on in this House; it is more a general observation on the difficulty of debating concepts such as lethal autonomous weapon systems when there is no definition and different views are not always clearly differentiated.
Are we concerned that AI could usher in a new era of weapons which, whether controlled by a human or not, could result in devastation and atrocities? Or are we concerned at the ethical implications of a machine, rather than a human, taking decisions which result in the death of even a single human? The answer is both, but the discussion is not best served when it jumps between such disparate topics.
The MoD has to keep pace with the threats that confront this country and consider how to deal with them. When I spoke in Grand Committee, I commented, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that context-appropriate human involvement could mean some form of real-time human supervision, which might be called “human in the loop”, or control exercised through the setting of a system’s operational parameters. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, correctly observed that some might call the latter a fully autonomous weapon. But I wonder whether they would use that term, or perhaps more importantly be concerned, if the use case they had in mind was a system mounted on a Royal Navy vessel to defend against hypersonic threats. Such a system might well be lethal—that is, capable of taking human life—but in many ways it would not be considered fully autonomous, even if it detected the threat and opened fire faster than a human could react.
We must be careful to avoid generalisations in this debate. We in the Ministry of Defence have a responsibility to ensure that our position is properly communicated. That is a responsibility we acknowledge, and I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that it is a responsibility of which we are cognisant and about which we will be vigilant.
The crucial point, which is also the reason why this amendment is unnecessary, is that all new military capabilities are subject to a rigorous review process for compliance with international humanitarian law. Any determination as to the exercising of context-appropriate human involvement will similarly be done carefully on a specific case-by-case basis. We also adjust our operating procedures to ensure that we stay within the boundaries of the law that applies at the time.
International and domestic frameworks provide the same level of protection around the use of novel technologies as for conventional systems because their general principle is to focus on the action, rather than the tool. These frameworks therefore offer appropriate levels of protection for our personnel. We are committed to ensuring that our Armed Forces personnel have the best possible care and protection, including protection against spurious legal challenges. I think I said in Committee that, earlier this year, we acted to bolster this protection in historical cases through the overseas operations Act.
This is a fascinating and complex area. I hope my remarks provide reassurance to your Lordships that the Ministry of Defence takes these matters very seriously, is already doing all that needs to be done and is planning to be proactive in communicating its approach appropriately to Parliament and the public. On this basis, I suggest that this amendment is not needed. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has been kind enough to indicate that he will not press it, but I hope that he and other Members of this House will remain engaged with us in the MoD, as we will remain engaged with our international partners and allies, and our own public and civil society, so that we can make rapid progress on these important and challenging questions.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Smith of Newnham, my noble friend Lord Coaker, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am sorry that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, could not add his name to the amendment, but in my head it is there.
I thank the Minister, who was characteristically engaged with the debate and the issues. At this time of night, I do not want to start debating with her on whether some of her comments about this amendment and what it would do are justified. I do not believe that this would slow down the work; it is just a compilation of the things that the Government ought to be doing anyway. I do not care about the three months; a promise that this will be done, and done transparently, is what I, as a parliamentarian, demand of the Government. At some point, this will need to be done and need to be shared with Parliament. We will need to take joint responsibility for these weapons systems if we seek to deploy them in any fashion—even limited versions of them.
My second point is that I am glad to see that our country is complying with its international legal obligations to subject new technology to a rigorous review to make sure that it is compatible with international humanitarian law. I am satisfied that that is happening. I do not understand why my Government do not publish those reviews. The United States and many other countries publish such reviews. Why are they not published, so that we, the politicians who engage, not so much in this House but in the other House, in paying for them with taxpayers’ money, know that we are complying with this? Other countries can do so perfectly well.
I have been obsessed with this issue since 2013, when I read the Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat report of the US Department of Defense’s Defense Science Board. It said specifically that the United States did not have a resilient weapons system that could not be penetrated by cyber, because it had penetrated them. It went on to say that the same was true of “all of our allies”. It did not say in the report that it did that to all of their allies, but I would not be surprised if it did.
In 2013, I took that to the then Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and said, “Have you read this? We are deploying some of this tech that has been penetrated, and it can be penetrated by cyber threat.” I have to say that it was penetrated with software downloaded from the web; no one wrote a single line of code in order to do it. I have yet to meet a Defence Minister of that generation who ever even bothered to read the report.
This is where we are now—this will be my last word on this. General Sir Richard Barrons, Commander Joint Forces Command from 2013 to 2016, is publicly saying of autonomous weapon systems that it is not a question of tomorrow—the technology exists now, it is unstoppable and we need to get on to that bandwagon. He has been saying that for years. I do not know how many senior military officers who have worn our uniform are involved in this and saying this, but one of them doing so publicly terrifies me, because I am far from satisfied that I—a former Secretary of State for Defence —or any of our current Ministers understand this well enough to keep people who think like that under proper control. That is what concerns me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 29th November 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62-I Marshalled list for Report - (19 Nov 2021)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to lead the Bill through this House. It delivers on the manifesto commitment to strengthen the legislation of the Armed Forces covenant that will deliver for the Armed Forces community across the United Kingdom. It further strengthens the service justice system for our Armed Forces, wherever they serve. Most importantly, without this Bill, the Armed Forces Act 2006—the legislation that maintains the Armed Forces as a disciplined body—could not continue in force beyond the end of this year.
I therefore convey my deep gratitude to all noble Lords for supporting the Bill and for their invaluable contributions to our extremely incisive and well-informed debates. Undoubtedly, this is a marked tribute to your Lordships’ shrewdness, the depth and breadth of knowledge and the passion that has persistently shone through when debating issues affecting our Armed Forces. I particularly express my appreciation for the constructive engagement made possible by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dannatt, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Houghton of Richmond.
It is an incontestable fact that all within this House have bought into the spirit of what this Bill seeks to achieve. We all want to do the very best for our Armed Forces community, from the sailors, soldiers and aircrew at the forefront of operations around the world, to the veterans whose days of active service have long since passed, and to the families who unstintingly provide support and are the bedrock to their success. I thank your Lordships for their continuing interest in the Armed Forces.
It would be unacceptably remiss were I not to acknowledge and thank the Bill team under the formidable leadership of Jayne Scheier, supported by her able and committed colleagues. There is a lot of technical detail in the Bill, with complex legal consequences, and the team’s guidance and expertise has been exemplary—as has their patience in supporting a Minister who I am sure must have been very irksome at times.
Before I finish, I remind the House again of the undertakings I made both in Grand Committee and on Report that I will keep the House informed of progress on the recommendations of Sir Richard Henriques’s review. We expect to submit very shortly our response to the House of Commons Defence Committee’s report on women in the Armed Forces; that response is detailed and substantial. This Bill now passes from my stewardship to my colleagues in the other place—so, over to them.
Finally, I pay tribute to the courageous, professional and dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces. We are proud to have the best Armed Forces in the world and, ultimately, this Bill is for them. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a real pleasure for me to see my first Bill through your Lordships’ House on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, with my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who I thank for his support. It has been helped enormously by the generosity of spirit and co-operative attitude of the Minister. I sincerely thank her and her officials for the briefings and advice that we have received throughout the Bill’s passage. I also thank her sincerely for the way in which she has responded to our questions and amendments, and her commitment to reflect on the various points as policies are taken forward by the Ministry of Defence.
In that regard, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and her colleagues, notably the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their collegiate approach, which has helped us all scrutinise the Bill more effectively. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Thanks to him, I now understand terms such as “concurrent jurisdiction”. Throughout the Bill, advice from my noble friends Lord West and Lord Reid was gratefully received, as was the tireless and impressive work of Dan Harris, our adviser. It was also a privilege to have my noble and learned friend Lord Morris and my noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Robertson alongside me. Their expertise and experience is a huge asset to our country, as is the active involvement of many noble and gallant Lords, some present here this afternoon. We hope that the Government will further consider the amendments that we have passed back to the other place, which are intended not to undermine the Bill but merely to improve it, and that they will reflect and think again.
We are all united by admiration for our Armed Forces and the service they give to our country. We know that we depend on them to defend our democracy and values at home and across the world, with our allies. We know that those values are likely to be tested again and again over the coming years and decades. The Bill, soon to be an Act, is part of the contract we make as our duty of care for them and their families, and we as Her Majesty’s Official Opposition have been proud to support it.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in thanking the Minister, and join her in thanking her officials for the time they have been willing to take to brief the opposition spokespeople here in the Lords, and to answer questions in private, in Grand Committee and in the Chamber. It has been an important process and helpful to have had detailed responses, particularly on some of the legislative aspects, where my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is expert and I am not. It has been very useful to have the legal input, and I am grateful for that.
Like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I pay tribute to the Armed Forces. The Bill is important, and it is particularly important at this time to be putting the Armed Forces covenant on a statutory footing. We have now left Afghanistan—Op Pitting has just taken place—and, for many of our service personnel and veterans, there will be questions about the end of Op Herrick and what we have managed to achieve. For some, there may be consequences with which, I hope, the Armed Forces covenant will help them deal.
I very much hope that the two amendments passed in your Lordships’ House will go through the other place without needing to come back for ping-pong. I suspect that may not happen but, pending that, I thank the Minister again and hope that the Bill is passed as quickly as possible, because we clearly need it on the statute book by the end of the year.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, as one of the sponsors of a number of amendments, I have added to the work of the Minister and her Bill team. I add my thanks to her for the way she has dealt with them. The Bill team, having been faced with a very large number of late government amendments, have done a magnificent job; Jayne Scheier and all of them ought to be thanked very much for that effort. I hope that the Minister will not forget that I mentioned the Hong Kong veterans and have yet to have a decent reply about that. The issue has been outstanding for 35 years, so it is about time it was dealt with.
I hope, too, that the amendments we have sent back to the other place will be accepted. Time is short, Covid threatens and it would be sensible if the Government avoided ping-ponging it in this direction again. I thank the Minister very much for all that she has done on this Bill.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and noble Lords across the Chamber for their contributions. They reflect what I said in my remarks: we are all united in our admiration for, and desire to support, our Armed Forces. I thank noble Lords for these helpful and constructive comments.
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 6th December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 6 December 2021 - (6 Dec 2021)
20:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 215 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 50.
Leo Docherty
This Bill delivers for our armed forces, renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, improves the service justice system and delivers on the Government’s commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant into law. We therefore resist Lords amendment 1, principally because we have faith in the service justice system and the protocol that this Bill creates to ensure that serious cases involving murder, manslaughter and rape are heard in the jurisdiction—civilian or military—to which they are best suited.
The amendment seeks to introduce a presumption that these serious offences are heard in the civilian courts. Such a presumption is unnecessary. The service justice system is fair, robust and capable of dealing with all offending. Indeed, that was the conclusion of the retired High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques QC in his recent review, which came before the House in October 2021. On page 199 of his report, he fully agreed with the Government’s decision to retain unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister rightly refers to Sir Richard Henriques’ report. Sir Richard is someone for whom I have great regard. My hon. Friend will also know that, prior to that, there was a report by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons, who had served as an officer and as a senior circuit judge. It was Judge Lyons’ recommendation to do away with concurrent jurisdiction that led to the amendment in the Lords. Why does the Minister feel that it would be appropriate to take on board the rest of the Lyons report recommendations but to leave out this particular one? That seems a little strange, given that it was accepted that, overall, the Lyons review was a very constructive piece of work.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which brings me to my next point. Sir Richard’s endorsement of the service justice system capability echoes the conclusion of the process audit that was conducted as part of the Lyons review of March 2019 to which my hon. Friend referred. It had previously found that the service police do indeed have the necessary training, skills and experience to investigate allegations of domestic abuse and sexual assault. However, to answer his point, we continually seek to improve our capability, which is why the creation of a new defence serious crimes unit—which this Bill delivers in clause 12 —headed by a new provost marshal for serious crime demonstrates the Government’s commitment to achieving the highest investigative capabilities for the service justice system. In simple terms, this is a good thing for all defence people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The evidential base that seems to have been in the news this last while shows a rise in the incidence of sexual abuse and harassment in the Army. Will this legislation be retrospective? In other words, will those cases that have happened in the last few years be investigated, and will there be a reduction in cases in the future?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Given the reports of increased allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment, which have been movingly pointed out through the work of the House of Commons Defence Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), the Ministry of Defence’s response will be to ensure that all those categories of alleged crime or misconduct are considered outwith the chain of command. I look forward to talking more about this when my hon. Friend brings forward her debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday.
Sir Robert Neill
The Minister rightly refers to the improvements in the service justice system, which we all recognise. However, as I understand it, the service justice system does not have some of the safeguards that are available under the criminal procedure rules on the treatment of vulnerable witnesses, in relation to special measures being taken in the same way. In particular, in the criminal justice system we are now rolling out pre-recorded evidence under section 28 for the alleged victims of crime. Would he at least undertake that, if we have concurrent jurisdiction, the same safeguards and protections will apply equally, for witnesses and defendants, under a service jurisdiction arrangement as they will now under the civilian procedure? It would be unfair if witnesses or defendants had a lesser standard of service and lesser protection, particularly in the case of vulnerable complainants.
Leo Docherty
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In addition to the formation of the defence serious crimes unit, we are making non-legislative changes and enhancements in procedure so that the experience of the victim in the civil or military system has parity. We look forward to keeping the House updated on that.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the setting up of the serious crimes unit, but it is a matter of fact, as we heard in evidence in Committee, that the number of incidents that will be investigated is quite small compared with those investigated by the civilian police. The serious crimes unit will therefore always be at a disadvantage in terms of not having the knowledge and the breadth of experience that is available to civilian police forces.
Leo Docherty
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we are trying to consolidate experience across all three services and have a much closer working relationship with the civilian police. We look forward to seeing how the new format rolls out, but we have confidence in the structure.
With these improvements, the MOD will be in a stronger position to respond to serious crime. However, if things do go wrong, the independent service police complaints commissioner—a body also created by the Bill, in clause 11—will be able to determine the appropriate course of action in response to a complaint. These measures will ensure that the service justice system is more effective and efficient in the round and that it provides a better service to those who use it, which will in turn increase public confidence in the system.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Would the Minister care to comment on something that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who chairs the sub- Committee, said? She said:
“Military women are being denied justice. It is clear to us that serious sexual offences should not be tried in the court martial system.”
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Leo Docherty
In simple terms, there are circumstances —normally involving the welfare of the alleged victim—in which it would be advantageous for a case to be heard in the military context. Those cases might be small in number, but it is important for the sake of the victim that agility and choice are retained in terms of our approach.
Furthermore, while the Government accept the need to improve decision making in relation to concurrent jurisdiction, we do not agree with the Lords amendment that an Attorney General consent function is the best way to achieve that. That is because, for the Attorney General to make an informed, meaningful and final decision, the request for consent must come at the end of the investigatory process when key decisions on jurisdiction have already been made. The Government instead believe that a better approach is to strengthen the prosecutors’ protocol. Clause 7 ensures that decisions on jurisdiction are left to the independent service justice and civilian prosecutors, using guidance they have agreed between them. In simple terms, where there is disagreement on jurisdiction, the Director of Public Prosecutions always has the final say. For this reason and others, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 1.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
This Bill has so much to recommend it, and it is so good. I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has done incredible work on this. However, I am struggling to understand what extenuating circumstances there might be where a military court would be better placed to opine on rape than a civilian court. In cases of torture, I completely understand this, given the concept of civilians and military individuals understanding how torture might manifest itself, but in cases of rape involving soldier on soldier or man versus woman on the street, I cannot understand what extenuating circumstances would require a different type of court.
Leo Docherty
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. The advantage of having a choice between civil or military jurisdiction relates to the possibility of a serving person being involved in a case of rape in which their welfare would be undermined by it being heard in a civilian court because of the slower process of the case and the fact that its being heard in the civilian jurisdiction might impede any postings or normal career progression. My principal point relates to the welfare interest of alleged victims, where having agility and choice is advantageous.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Who chooses the jurisdiction in which such a case is heard? What grounds would they hear to inform that choice?
Leo Docherty
The civilian prosecutor always has the final say.
It is clear that Lords amendment 2 fails to recognise the purpose of this legislation. The new covenant duty works by requiring listed public bodies to have due regard for the principles of the armed forces covenant when exercising a relevant housing, education or healthcare function. This amendment seeks to add the Secretary of State to the list of public bodies but, of course, none of the housing, education or healthcare functions is a function of the Secretary of State. This amendment would therefore not serve any meaningful purpose.
Of course the Secretary of State, like other Defence Ministers, is entirely accountable for delivering the armed forces covenant and reports annually to Parliament to that effect, and he answers Defence questions and attends other parliamentary events. In designing the covenant duty, we carefully considered which functions and policy areas the new duty should encompass, including those that are the responsibility of central Government. We were mindful that central Government are responsible for the overall strategic direction of national policy, whereas responsibility for the actual delivery of nuts-and-bolts frontline services and their impact generally rests at local level. The inclusion of central Government, by naming the Secretary of State in the scope of the duty, is simply not necessary.
The other vital element of our approach rests with the new powers granted to the Government to add to the scope of the duty, if need be. The new covenant duty is evergreen and can effectively adapt to the changing needs and concerns of the armed forces community. We continue to engage with the Covenant Reference Group, which is made up of independent representatives from service charities, such as the Royal British Legion, and officials from local, devolved and central Government. This will feed into our existing commitment to formally review the overall performance of the covenant duty following this legislation. The review will be submitted to the Select Committee on Defence and will also be covered in the covenant annual report.
Furthermore, the Bill requires that the statutory guidance in support of the covenant duty is laid before Parliament in draft so colleagues can inspect and scrutinise it before it is brought into force. Ministers and the Ministry of Defence will continually be held to account on the delivery of the armed forces covenant.
Sir Robert Neill
The Minister is being most generous with his time, for which I thank him profoundly. He will know that the author of this amendment is the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Margaret Thatcher’s Lord Chancellor and the current president of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, of which I have the honour to be the deputy chairman. He does not exactly have a record of being antagonistic towards our armed forces, but he is concerned that there does not appear to be a legal commitment in the Bill to the armed forces covenant. If this be the means, or if there be some other means, will the Minister at least give us an assurance that the Government will look to introduce a legal commitment to the armed forces covenant, to go alongside the moral and political commitments that we already have? If that could be achieved, we will be happy.
Leo Docherty
I do not doubt the commendable spirit behind the noble Lord’s intention, but this is a case of unnecessary law being bad law and a potential complicating factor. For that reason, principally, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind the House that this debate finishes at 8.39 pm, so we do not have a lot of opportunity. Could Back Benchers please focus on pithy, short contributions?
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is truly an honour to be standing in front of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my new role as shadow Minister for the armed forces.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who recognised the essential contribution made by our armed forces to the safety and security of our country and who played such an important role in scrutinising this legislation.
In my previous role as shadow Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, I recently stood at the Dispatch Box to commend the courage, dedication and professionalism shown by our armed forces in the most challenging of circumstances. Two weeks ago I was pleased to pay tribute to those who served in Operation Pitting when they visited Parliament. This House, our country and the free world owe a huge debt of gratitude to those service personnel who, for 20 years, prevented terrorist attacks from being launched from Afghanistan and who secured opportunities for women and girls that would never have been possible otherwise. I thank them for their heroic service.
I look forward to engaging with the Minister. I assure him that I will support him when his Department is doing the right thing, but I will also hold him robustly to account when the Government fail to stand up for our armed forces or to act in the national interest.
As the Opposition have noted throughout its passage, this Bill is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to tangibly improve the lives of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. I know they are held in the highest regard by Labour and by all on both sides of the House. For them and for all others who have served, we have a duty to make this legislation provide the very best.
Labour supports this Bill in principle, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure they match their lofty rhetoric with tangible action. As it stands, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel, veterans and their families. That is why I am pleased that the amendments passed in the other place so closely mirror those that Labour pressed during the Bill’s Commons stages. I therefore hope the Government will take this opportunity to think again.
Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK, except when the Attorney General has given consent. For too long, it has been clear that the investigation and prosecution of these crimes within the service justice system simply does not work. The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that, from 2015 to 2020, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data available suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. More than three quarters of victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private.
Lords amendment 1 directly addresses the treatment of women in our armed forces, which is rightly receiving public attention, and it is an issue that disproportionately affects women in the lower ranks. Until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a tiny minority will be allowed to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces.
Sir Robert Neill
Those statistics bear out a significant concern that also exists in the civilian jurisdiction. There is a disparity in parallel authorities between victims and perpetrators. Does the hon. Gentleman think we should be particularly anxious to ensure that the same protection, the same support and the same procedural devices to protect witnesses—screens, special measures and so on—are available were any of these cases to be heard in a court martial setting as opposed to a civilian setting, where they would automatically be available? The position of the private soldier is not dissimilar from the position of the employee who is taken advantage of by her boss, for example, or something similar. There is a strong case for seeking to ensure equity, in whichever court a case is tried.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area is clear for all in this House to see. He is absolutely right that, given the chain of command, ensuring protection for witnesses and victims is essential. We clearly have more confidence in the civilian system to guarantee those. He asks whether the service system could provide those protections, but that seems a very odd way to go about it when the capacity and capability already exist in the civilian system. Why reinvent the wheel?
Will Ministers take this final opportunity to listen to the recommendations of a Government-commissioned, judge-led review, which expressed surprise that these cases were still being handled by courts martial? Will they listen to the expertise on their own Back Benches, as we have just heard, including the proposals made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”? Most importantly, will they listen to service personnel and veterans themselves?
More than 4,000 actively serving women and veterans contributed to that report and its recommendations. Today, a serving member of the Royal Navy whose court martial rape case collapsed due to a number of basic errors made by a service prosecutor called on the Government to back this amendment. She was one of three women who launched a judicial review of the Defence Secretary’s decision not to adopt the recommendations of the Lyons review. She says:
“The value of this amendment for women like me cannot be overstated… This amendment will make the process independent. It will encourage more service personnel to report crimes. It will mean we have some protection from the appalling consequences we suffer when we report rape within our units.
“I am urging the government to accept this amendment. As service personnel we are citizens of this country and we deserve justice just like everyone else.”
Alicia Kearns
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps a sensible compromise might be to have this matter come back before the House in a year’s time, if the Bill does pass, to see whether cases are being properly prosecuted, whether we are getting the prosecution rates we need and whether women are being supported to get the justice they deserve when those senior to them commit the most abysmal and horrific of acts—acts that would be considered war crimes if they were done against a civilian but, because they are done by someone in the chain of command, somehow are considered a completely different situation?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s experience and expertise, particularly in the field of foreign affairs. However, I think her proposal does not really make sense for where we are right now in this Chamber. We need to see a Government showing leadership. Those brave ladies who have come forward are showing that leadership, and I hope this Government will pay heed to it. The moment of truth is upon us, and we need to see that vote and that leadership now. These women have courage beyond their service to our country. They are showing this Government the way. I urge colleagues across the House to support the amendment.
I turn now to Lords amendment 2, which places the same legal responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant on central Government as the current drafting requires of local authorities and other public bodies. This Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, but, mysteriously, those do not apply to central Government. In practice, this would create a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments—including the Ministry of Defence—do not.
As the Royal British Legion 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.”
Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities know this too, as do Conservative Members, both in this House and in the other place. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for delivery.
How can it be that social care, pensions, employment and immigration are among the long list of areas we know will not be covered by this legislation? The exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies also means the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. Our armed forces have gone above and beyond both to support our frontline response to the pandemic in the past year and, as I have mentioned, in Afghanistan. What a contrast between the selfless service of our military personnel and a Government who are missing this crucial opportunity to make long-overdue improvements to the standard of service accommodation, while at the same time handing most of them another real-terms pay cut this year.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend mentions immigration, health and a whole range of central Government Departments responsible for delivering the covenant for our armed forces personnel. Does he agree that there is a missed opportunity in this Bill to deal with the situation facing many foreign and Commonwealth veterans who have bravely served—alongside our Welsh regiments, for example? We know the contribution of Fijians in that regard. There is a missed opportunity here, but there are other opportunities coming up where these issues may be resolved; does he urge the Government to support them?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s personal and political expertise in this area. He is absolutely right that this was an opportunity to right the wrong he has so eloquently set out. There will be an opportunity tomorrow—our Front Bench has tabled an amendment—and there will be other opportunities, but it is a moral point of principle, and I hope the Government will listen and do the right thing in the vote tomorrow.
Without this amendment, the Bill’s principles will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated single living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water, the veteran struggling with their mental health who has to endure waiting times for treatment more than twice as long as Government targets, or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting in to work. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for the delivery of the covenant to cash-strapped local authorities and other overstretched public bodies. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable, national standards as local authorities and agencies. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
The Government are set to reject these amendments. Their majority means they may well win the votes, but in so doing the Conservatives will lose any credible claim to be the party of the armed forces. Service personnel will be asking why this Government’s manifesto pledge to put the covenant further into law delivers no improvements to their day-to-day lives. Veterans will be asking why they still face uneven access to services. Women will be wondering whether a career in the services is for them. These arguments will come back to the Government again and again—from this House, including from Government Back Benchers, from service charities, from armed forces communities and from the Opposition Benches, because Labour will always stand up for our armed forces.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
As I rise to speak in this debate, I first pay tribute to the officials in the Department. I know this is a complex Bill and that with legislation such as this we must operate within the art of the possible. There are clearly areas where everybody would like to go further, but I understand the constraints and the dynamics at play, particularly around legislating for the armed forces covenant and so on.
However, there is one thing I am afraid I will not let pass without shining a spotlight on it: the issue of violence and sexual offences staying in the military justice system. I rise to speak with one purpose, and that is to resolutely support my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in the work that she has done in this space. She has worked tirelessly, initially against the current but then with some support, to highlight the totally unacceptable experience of females in the military.
Today is a really difficult day for my hon. Friend, and unnecessarily so. I understand differences of opinion, particularly in this space, but where the evidence does not point to the decisions being made by those on the Front Bench, I am afraid I will speak up time and again.
Unfortunately, I was in the room when this decision was made. The evidence did not support the Secretary of State at the time and the evidence does not support the Secretary of State today. I cannot vote against the Lords amendment; it is not the right thing to do. Let me be clear: when the Secretary of State made that decision it was against the advice of the officials in the Department and against the advice of his Ministers.
Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact. We can pull up the facts at different times and during different processes on the journey to a sexual conviction, but the reality is that the conviction rates for rape are lower. Over the past five years, the average conviction rate for rape in civilian courts, when using Ministry of Justice data, is 34%; over the same five years, using the same data—the MOD’s data—the average conviction rate for rape is just 16% in military courts. Using Crown Prosecution Service data, the figures are even worse. In practice, this means that a military woman is far less likely to get justice than she would in civilian life. We cannot accept that. We cannot accept that on the Government Benches.
The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court. The Department suggests that, because the numbers involved in the service justice system are relatively so much smaller, the comparison is of little value. That does not make sense—it is ridiculous and illogical. We have to be honest: there is no point coming to this place and railroading through legislation that we all know to be the wrong decision simply because one individual has his course set and refuses to back out of that alley.
Alicia Kearns
Does my hon. Friend agree that it takes enormous courage for anyone to go to court in cases of child abuse, domestic abuse or rape—the issues we are talking about? I worked in the victims department at the Ministry of Justice, supporting people to go forward and get prosecutions, and one in seven Rutland residents is a veteran. Does my hon. Friend also agree that an insidious silence is forced on victims, gagging them and preventing them from going out to get justice in the first place, let alone once they get to a court?
Johnny Mercer
I do agree with those observations. To be honest, when I came into my role as the Veterans Minister, I knew that the experience of females in the military was totally unacceptable. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham published her report, a lot of what she wrote was not a surprise to me. I have daughters who want to join the military. It is something that we absolutely have to sort out.
I wish the Secretary of State was in his place. He has clearly laid his position on the line on this issue. Last week, he said that in 2020 1.6% of rapes reported to the civilian police made it to court, compared with 50% of those reported to military police. I cannot see how that can possibly be true, unless the numbers are so incomparably small as to be totally misleading. The trouble is that our lack of honesty in this place tonight—
Johnny Mercer
Not in here but in what is coming forward from the Department. It places my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in an absolutely invidious position. It is a straightforward integrity check for her.
Johnny Mercer
Sorry—does the right hon. Gentleman have an intervention to make?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman was the Minister who took the Bill through Committee; if he felt so strongly about this, what did he do about it? He is saying that since he is no longer a Minister he is now passionate about these issues, but he did nothing when he was a Minister.
Johnny Mercer
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that he was nowhere near the Department when I was a Minister. He has absolutely not a clue as to what I did to try to change this. He has no clue whatever.
Johnny Mercer
The right hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to make a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Defence and go and look at all the ministerial submissions on this issue, but that would require his dealing in the realms of fact rather than his rather pointless rhetoric. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him outside this place but this is a serious issue that frankly deserves better contributions than that—
Johnny Mercer
I am not going to give way. I am absolutely not going to give way for another interlude like that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has done her work on this issue. It is a serious point. She has found the evidence and that evidence has been backed up by professionals, but in the Department there is one individual who is refusing to back down from the alleyway he has found himself in. My hon. Friend’s is a really valuable voice: she is the first female from the ranks to make it to this place. She has an extraordinarily valuable and powerful voice. For her to lose her position tonight because she has that integrity is not what we do. It is not teamwork and it is not the way this Government should operate. I support her wholeheartedly.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument and I certainly think that these issues are best dealt with in the civilian courts, but where I have a problem with the Lords amendment is in respect of the power invested in the Attorney General. I am not sure that the Attorney General, as a Law Officer, should have that power. I would welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on that.
Johnny Mercer
That is a really fair point. Such provision has not existed before and it is always dangerous when we start going down that route of bringing in new protocols specifically to deal with the challenges of sexual assault that we have here.
I plead with those on the Front Bench: the issue of the female experience in the military defines what we do. I note that the response, last week, was to double the number of females in the military. The only problem is that we have already missed our target for doing that in the first place. It is pointless to give strongly worded statements to the chiefs or to say that we are going to double the numbers if so many people—the young women we saw in the work from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham—simply do not come forward because they do not think they are going to have any fairness, any rigour or any real prospect of a conviction for their horrendous experience.
Members will find no one prouder of the military in this place than me but there is a singular problem. I do not buy this stuff about a culture problem—I am afraid I am on the other side of the fence on that: the military is the most wonderful life-chances machine this country has—but there is a problem with holding our people to account, whether in respect of lawfare or other issues. It is exactly the same here. If we do that and hold our people to account, we will get on top of this problem without losing good people like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, whose work I commend. I am incredibly proud of her; the Government should be as well and should implement all her recommendations.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It was certainly interesting to listen to the contribution from the former Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
Over the past year, personnel have supported the vaccine roll-out, transported petrol to petrol stations and, most recently, aided those impacted by Storm Arwen. Overseas, members of our armed forces have put their lives on the line to evacuate those at risk in Afghanistan and are actively engaged in operations ranging from peacekeeping to combatting the international drugs trade. Our personnel are our greatest armed forces asset and we must do our best to ensure that any legislation that impacts the lives of serving personnel is evidence based, carefully considered and ultimately beneficial.
This Bill has presented a once-in-a-decade chance to improve treatment and conditions for serving personnel and their loved ones while also implementing desperately needed reforms to the service justice system, which is currently failing to deliver for many victims. Sadly, despite the efforts of those in the other place, the Bill is lacking in ambition and many of its provisions are tokenistic.
Lords amendment 1, which we will be supporting, removes the military from the handling of the most serious of crimes. Very recently, the Defence Secretary held a meeting with senior members of the Army to discuss allegations of sexual violence by members of the armed forces. This came after the Defence Committee report on women in the armed forces, which exposed the culture of sexism, intimidation and secrecy within the armed forces and the flawed systems that allow serious acts of misconduct to go unchallenged. Some 64% of the more than 4,000 servicewomen who submitted evidence to the report stated that they had experienced sexual harassment, rape, bullying or discrimination. That figure should cause all of us great discomfort.
Last week, the MOD’s response to the women in the armed forces report announced the introduction of new measures, including sexual consent training and the doubling of the number of female personnel. However, it is hard to see, with the current laddish culture that is being promoted, how women will be encouraged or attracted to join. More ambitious and swifter action is required.
Lords amendment 1 to clause 7 requires a protocol between the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would create a presumption that serious charges against serving personnel would be heard in civilian courts. There is good reason for this. In the five years until 2019, rape conviction rates in civilian courts were approximately 59% compared with the shockingly low 9% of those heard in military courts. The chances of seeing justice are “shockingly low”, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. We heard this evening from the Minister that the reason why these would continue to be held in military courts is that they could be held swiftly; it was for the welfare of the victims.
I would like to hear from those victims whether they think that their welfare is being looked after by the current system. The majority of these cases are currently prosecuted through court martial, where the boards have a largely, if not entirely, male majority who cannot possibly understand the lived experience of women. The Government have stated that female representation must be on the court martial board, but no quotas have been specified, so it is questionable whether this will make any difference.
Within the military, there is evidence of poor victim care and poor investigations, as military police have little experience of complex sexual violence cases. The evidence backing the amendment is clear: for justice to be delivered, these offences must be tried in civilian courts, as these courts have experience of dealing with complex cases, particularly in relation to rape and sexual assault.
The provisions within Lords amendment 1 are also recommended by the Lyons review and the Defence Committee report, which contended that
“service personnel remain citizens and in these serious cases when the civil courts are available to them, they should be tried in that forum.”
This move also has the backing of the Victims’ Commissioner, a former chief constable and, most importantly, many serving personnel and veterans.
Lords amendment 2, which we support, would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to the covenant. The Bill, as introduced, largely applies to local government. The UK Government should be subject to the same legal standard on the covenant that they are seeking to apply in the devolved context and to local councils. We know that many areas of policy in which serving personnel, veterans and their families face disadvantage—forces’ housing, pensions and employment to name but a few—are the direct responsibility of the UK Government. Disappointingly, many live issues are entirely ignored by the Bill, including: Commonwealth veteran immigration; justice for LGBT veterans; and forces’ housing, which continues to cause major issues for personnel.
We will continue to work with the Minister to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for serving personnel and veterans, but, sadly, I do not think that this Bill is a vehicle through which we will do it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We do not have very long left, so I am hoping that Members will take only five minutes in order to allow everybody to say something.
Sir Robert Neill
May I make a few very short points to amplify those things that I mentioned in the course of interventions?
Overall, this is a very good Bill. I respect and entirely accept the good intentions of Ministers in that regard, which is why I am saddened that, in relation to Lords amendment 1 in particular, we are in danger of undoing some of the good. We are in danger of damaging the reputation of a good Bill by what appears to be a degree of stubbornness. I do not blame the Minister personally for that; he has been most generous in his interventions. None the less, taking on board the evidence of the Lyons review and also of Sir Richard Henriques, lawyers whom I respect very greatly indeed, I cannot help but feel that the Government have failed to achieve a compromise that ought more readily to be available. I urge them to consider that in the time between the Bill’s leaving this House, if they have a majority tonight, and its going back to the other place.
For example, let us look at Lords amendment 1 in particular. It is pretty clear that, with the best will in the world, the service prosecution system, precisely because of the small numbers that go through it, will struggle ever to have the level of expertise required to deal with what in the civilian world would be regarded as RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—cases. The CPS has specialist Crown prosecutors and specialist counsel. Cases are tried by ticketed circuit or High Court judges, who are specifically authorised to try cases of such gravity, where particular sensitivity is required with witnesses. The criminal procedure rules have a host of safeguards—both before and in the course of a trial—to ensure that complainants in the system are treated with the sensitivity that the nature of such a case should involve.
It might have been easier to sustain the position on Lords amendment 1 if we were simply talking in terms of murder and manslaughter, but even that would be stretching it. The inclusion of the rape and serious sexual offences element seems needless and not really supported by the evidence. The Henriques argument will be stronger on the murder/manslaughter point, if there be any. I hope that Ministers will think about that again before the Bill goes back to the other place.
As we update criminal procedure—reference has already been made to section 28 and pre-recorded cross-examination —all those things require advocates on the prosecution side, investigators on the prosecution side, advocates on the defence side and tribunals highly experienced in these matters, and swift and prompt listing. I take the Minister’s point about concerns with delay, postings and so on, but in truth those issues apply in the civil courts as well. The answer is to have those cases expedited, rather than to take them out of the system; I hope that he will think about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made an interesting observation about the jurisdictional position in relation to the Attorney General. I accept that that is a novel point, and perhaps it has some force that we have not debated enough. The answer, surely, rather than reject this amendment out of hand, is to seek a compromise, perhaps beefing up the protocol, in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has, in effect, a determinative role. Perhaps we could look at that as a model, rather than putting a Law Officer of the Crown into that unusual jurisdictional position. That ought to be done between now and the Bill’s return to the other place. I urge Ministers to think again on those important issues.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 2. I would hope that we could at least have a commitment that if the noble Lord Mackay’s amendment is not the vehicle through which to do it, the Government have a means of putting into law—either through this Bill or elsewhere—a commitment in law, as well as morally and ethically, towards the covenant. We all know that we all do have that commitment, but it would be a shame again to spoil the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar. I hope that Ministers will reflect on that.
I have had no involvement with the Bill before. I look at it simply as someone who has spent the whole of his life in the criminal justice system, both prosecuting and defending, including in courts martial as well as in civilian courts. I hope that those suggestions are constructive and might help us to find a way forward that can make an excellent Bill—one that leaves both Houses with a greater degree of consensus than we currently have on two difficult points.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Four minutes each. I call Matt Rodda.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
We have covered a wide range of welfare issues tonight. I want to highlight one in particular, which has great resonance in my constituency of Reading East and, I believe, in the Minister’s constituency of Aldershot: the case of Gurkha soldiers who retired before 1997. As many Members will know, the Gurkhas have served our country with distinction over more than 200 years. However, soldiers who retired before 1997 receive very modest pensions—far smaller than those of other British soldiers. Many veterans live in my constituency and manage to exist on a very small income in a high-cost part of the country, and that experience is common across parts of west London, Hampshire and other areas close to their regimental base in north Hampshire.
This unfair treatment has led to a determined campaign by both Gurkha veterans and other former British soldiers to make good this wrong. Sadly, in the last few months this led to a number of Gurkhas going on hunger strike. I visited the hunger strikers as they took their action outside No. 10, which was a very moving experience. I pay tribute to them, and to the others who have supported their campaign. I appreciate that the Minister, and indeed the Secretary of State, have now intervened and responded to the Gurkhas’ concerns and that they are about to have discussions with the Government of Nepal. I welcome that. I support the Minister’s work on this and look forward to a better outcome. However, I remind him that this issue has been dragging on for some time—some years, indeed—and for many of the families involved this is a very difficult time. Prices are rising. Many families are living on very modest incomes, as I said, often in relatively high-cost-of-living parts of the country, and we should be doing so much more for them. They are a wonderful part of our armed forces and have given such great and noble service to this country.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I will speak to Lords amendments 2 to 13.
In principle, I welcome the Bill, which will strengthen the legal basis for the armed forces covenant. The covenant represents a series of promises to the armed forces community—servicemen and women, reservists, veterans, and their families. The covenant covers a number of areas the community might need support in, such as housing, education and, vitally, healthcare. Most are devolved policy issues in Scotland and held at local level by councils and health boards. I have personally turned to the covenant when dealing with casework; I am sure many of us have. It is not necessarily easy to navigate, because responsibility for the things it covers is held in so many different places.
Lords amendment 2 to clause 8 would go some way to addressing that. It includes the Secretary of State in the list of specified persons within the scope of the covenant’s duty of due regard. Without this amendment, due regard will largely sit at local authority level, with no overarching duty placed on national Government. The amendment has been called for and supported by charities such as the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland, which work with the very people the covenant seeks to support. They are perhaps best placed to tell us what is needed to make the covenant work in the way it should. The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland say that in their experience the responsibility for the most prevalent issues faced by the armed forces community does sit at a national level.
I know from personal experience of helping veterans in my constituency that while healthcare definitely sits right at the top of the list of concerns, there are others that are just as important but reserved to the UK Government—for example, pensions. In one case, it took months of chasing, and my constituent had spent a year on it before reaching out to me, before satisfactory progress was made. I thank the Minister for the help that he gave in that case.
In summary, the covenant is an important tool if it is given the legal basis it needs in order to work in the way it should. The amendment moves us closer in the right direction by ensuring that responsibility for national issues is held at a national level. Consistency is key.
Mr Kevan Jones
I rise as a supporter of the military justice system. The problem here is the idea that anyone seen to be supporting amendment 1 is somehow against the military justice system. Well, I am not. I have served on every single Armed Forces Bill Committee, as a Minister or Back Bencher, for the last 20 years, and I firmly recognise its importance.
However, the important thing is that we need to put the victim at the heart of the system, as Professor Sir Jon Murphy said in his evidence to the Select Committee, and that is not necessarily always the case in the military system. We had evidence from the Victims Commissioner and from retired Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, who also raised the role of the chain of command and the complaints system in stopping the number of complaints coming forward. This has got to take place, and I support Lords amendment 1, because we need to send a signal to young men and women in our armed forces that if they are a victim of serious sexual assault, for example, it will be taken seriously and be dealt with on par with what would be done in the civilian world.
I welcome the setting up of the serious crime unit, but I agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I am not sure it will have the volume of work to get the expertise that is needed. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and her report, which I worked on as a member of the Select Committee. It is loud and clear: people are not coming forward with complaints, because they do not feel that the system is fair. If we back Lords amendment 1, it will send a clear signal.
As for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), he is a bit like a lead actor in a play who seems to have been sat in the audience for the entire time during the play, because when he was in Committee, all he did was parrot the lines that were in front of him—if he could find the right page to turn to. I am sorry, but some of us will not take this nonsense, trying to rewrite history about his ineffective role as a Minister.
I also support Lords amendment 2. When I was Veterans Minister, I produced the Green Paper, which was the forerunner for how we got the welfare pathway into law. One thing was clear: Departments should be part of welfare, which surrounds the covenant, because increasingly the services are directly influenced by Departments. Housing in the armed forces is an obvious one, but health and others are increasingly involved. I therefore support amendment 2. The other thing about amendment 2 is that with this Bill we are putting the onus again on local government without any extra resources to carry those functions out.
Finally, I make one point to the Minister. One of the issues around speedy outcomes for justice in our military system has to be speedy investigations. It is an issue that I raised, and I know that Lord Thomas of Gresford raised it in the other place. I raised it in Committee. The Minister made some commitments to look at it, and I would be interested to hear what he has to say.
Armed Forces Bill
Wednesday 8th December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 78-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (7 Dec 2021)
17:10 - Division on Amendment A1 - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 183 - Amendment A1 agreed.
17:29 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 173 - Motion B1 agreed.
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I will address Motion A1, and then Motions B and B1. Obviously there will be a certain element of déjà vu in my remarks but I shall do my best to explain once again why the Government hold to the view they do on these issues.
Over the last 20 years, the service justice system has gone through many changes and been transformed for the better as a result of them. There have been numerous reviews and inquiries, some as a consequence of operations, but all of which have enabled the service justice system to develop and improve. It is no longer recognisable as the system existing 10 to 15 years ago with which many of your Lordships were familiar.
The service police, prosecutors and judiciary are fully independent and trained. They are skilled and have the experience to deal with all offending to the same standard as their counterparts in the civilian criminal justice system. In particular, prosecutors are trained for rape and serious sexual offences, and judges/judge advocates are “ticketed” to deal with particular offences. Our code of practice for victims reflects the same principles as that for civilians and we use many of the same arrangements as in the civilian justice system, such as special measures for vulnerable witnesses. Any visitor to a court martial centre will find it remarkably similar to any Crown Court in England and Wales. In fact, in some areas the court martial is ahead of the civilian system, such as in the use of video links. It is for these reasons that the service justice system is legitimately positioned as an alternative jurisdiction to the civilian criminal justice system in respect of any criminal offence in the UK.
The recently published review by the retired High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques QC and the earlier Service Justice System Review by His Honour Shaun Lyons both strongly supported the continued existence of the service justice system. Sir Richard fully agreed with the Government’s decision to retain unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape. He recommended a number of proposals to further strengthen the service justice system so that it has the best expertise and capacity to deal with all crimes. We have prioritised his recommendation of creating a defence serious crime unit, headed by a new provost marshal for serious crime in the Bill. This is a major development for the service justice system and it demonstrates the Government’s commitment to achieving the highest investigative capabilities within it. The new unit will play a key role in our strategy to drive up conviction rates.
I know we all have a common aim, which is to ensure that every case is heard in the most appropriate jurisdiction. We also agree that in the event of disagreement about jurisdiction, a civilian prosecutor should have the final say. However, we maintain that rather than involving the Attorney-General as set out in this amendment and creating an in-built bias towards the civilian jurisdiction, a better approach is to strengthen the prosecutors’ protocols and clarify the role of the prosecutors—civilian and service—in decision-making on concurrent jurisdiction.
The service justice system cannot be half a justice system or a partial justice system. It has to handle all crimes committed by service personnel outside the UK. It makes sense for it to continue to be able to handle all crimes in the UK. In the UK, this will be subject to the operation of the prosecution protocols in respect of which the view of the civilian prosecutor, as I said, will prevail.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, I take this opportunity to reassure the House that the proposal in this Bill is not about increasing the number of serious cases to be dealt with by the service justice system; it will continue to be the case that a victim can choose whether to report a criminal offence to the service or the civilian police. Our proposal simply maintains the principle that both jurisdictions are capable of dealing with all offending, and asserts that qualified and experienced prosecutors are best placed to make decisions where there is concurrent jurisdiction. Removing crimes from the competence of the service justice system or introducing a presumption in favour of the civilian system for serious crimes, as in this amendment, inevitably calls into question the integrity of the service justice system, raising a perception by victims, witnesses, service personnel and the public that the service justice system is deficient. That is unacceptable to the Government. That weakening and fracture of the service justice system is impossible for them to defend.
Let me now address conviction rates in the service justice system for sexual offences, in particular for the offence of rape, because this is clearly important. In his report, Sir Richard Henriques makes the point at page 201 that the comparison of conviction rates between the service and civilian justice systems overlooks the fact that the service police refer, and the Service Prosecuting Authority prosecutes, cases that would have been discontinued in the civilian system.
The number of rape cases prosecuted in the civilian system stands at between 1.6% and 3% of those reported to Home Office police forces. The Crown Prosecution Service has announced an action plan to address this disparity. Noble Lords will recall that the Government are also working on a new strategy for the service justice system when dealing with cases of rape and other serious sexual assaults. In the service justice system, 55% of rape investigations carried out by the service police in the period from 2017 to 2019 led to a referral to the Service Prosecuting Authority, and 27% of rape investigations led to a suspect being charged. In 2020, 50% of rape investigations by the service police led to charges and prosecution. Viewed as a proportion of allegations reported, rather than of cases prosecuted, the conviction rate in the service justice system is around 8% compared to around 2% in the civilian system. Let me be clear that this rate is still too low but should not be used as a reason for departing from the current principle of concurrent jurisdiction. Your Lordships may be interested to know that more recent data about cases of rape prosecuted at the court martial in the last six months show a conviction rate of just under 50%. Clearly, the service justice system is capable of investigating and prosecuting these cases.
I now wish to turn to specific details of the amendment, parts of the text of which cause concern. It seeks to introduce a consultation role for the Attorney-General in England and Wales only. The service justice system applies across the whole UK. That is why there is provision in the Bill for three separate protocols to ensure that the same approach is taken across the three legal jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As it stands, the application of the amendment to only England and Wales rather than the whole UK means that cases involving service personnel in those parts of the country would be handled differently from cases handled in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The amendment is unsuitable to be extended to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Consultation with the Attorney-General for England and Wales on prosecutorial decisions is entirely inappropriate for the devolved Administrations. For example, the independence of the Lord Advocate as head of the system of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland means that decisions are taken independently of any other person, and this includes not being subject to guidance or direction of another officeholder. It is my understanding that the Lord Advocate would be concerned about any extension of the proposed approach to Scotland.
Finally, I say with the greatest respect that it is not entirely clear to the Government what is meant by the condition of “naval or military complexity”, and how that will be defined, by whom and how it should be interpreted. This approach will lead to confusion and a lack of clarity about how and when the Attorney-General for England and Wales should be consulted.
On the other hand, Clause 7 of the Bill ensures that decisions on jurisdiction are left to the independent service justice prosecutors across the UK, and their respective civilian prosecutors, using guidance that they have agreed between them that will, no doubt, address the military dimension to be considered. Once in place, this new statutory guidance will be used to revise existing protocols between the service and the civilian police to bring much-needed clarity at all levels on how decisions on jurisdiction are made.
The Bill also makes it clear that where there is a disagreement on jurisdiction, the civilian prosecutor—be it the Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales, the Lord Advocate or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland—always has the final say. So the service justice system prosecutor cannot ignore the civilian prosecutor and railroad cases through the service justice system. In this way, the Government’s approach not only provides a solution which works UK-wide but provides ample safeguards to ensure that civilian prosecutors are involved and cases are dealt with in the most appropriate jurisdiction.
In these circumstances, I beg to move Motion A in my name, and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, not to press his Motion A1.
I will now move on to Motions B and B1, in relation to the Armed Forces covenant. The covenant is described as:
“An Enduring Covenant Between the People of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government and All those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and their Families.”
The covenant was rebuilt a decade ago during a time, like today, of great pressure on the Armed Forces community, and has since been delivered in a highly successful manner, because it captures the appreciation and support for the sacrifices of that community of people from every walk of life across the United Kingdom.
This embodies the spirit of the covenant, which of itself is not a legal obligation, and nor should it be. But that is not to say that legislation has not been important in helping its delivery. That began with the obligation on the Secretary of State for Defence to report to Parliament annually on how service life impacts on the lives of servicepeople and former servicepeople. By working with our service providers and key stakeholder groups, from this one measure the covenant has evolved into one of the key drivers of welfare support to our Armed Forces community today. We are now taking the next step to promote and further strengthen the legal basis of the covenant, as we committed, which is why we are taking forward the provisions in this Bill.
Ensuring that key policymakers have the right information about the Armed Forces community and are therefore better able to make the right decisions for their local populations has been fundamental to our current success. Building on this foundation, the new duty will therefore oblige specified public bodies exercising a relevant healthcare, education or housing function to pay due regard to the three principles of the covenant. We see this as a sure and effective way of raising awareness among providers of public services of how service life can disadvantage the Armed Forces community, thereby encouraging a more consistent approach around the country.
However, these provisions are breaking new ground, and it is important that we see how they work in practice so that we both establish an evidence base and allow time for review and assessment to inform future enlargement of this obligation to any new bodies or functions. The provisions in the Bill will allow that enlargement more easily by granting the Secretary of State the power to add to the scope of the duty through regulations, without the need to wait for another Armed Forces Bill.
I have already outlined in this place the work we are undertaking with covenant reference group stakeholders to establish a process to help the Secretary of State to identify and assess functions that it would be beneficial to add to the scope of the duty, including those that are the responsibility of central government. This process will feed into our existing commitment to review the overall performance of the covenant duty as part of our post-legislative scrutiny.
I remind your Lordships of the current legal obligation on the Government to annually prepare and lay an Armed Forces covenant report. In the preparation of the annual report, the Secretary of State must have regard to the three principles of the covenant. He must obtain the views of relevant government departments and devolved Administrations in relation to the effects on servicepeople covered by the report. He must state in the report his assessment of whether servicepeople are facing disadvantage and, importantly, where he is of the opinion that there is disadvantage, what his response is to that, including consideration of whether the making of special provision would be justified. This means in essence that covenant delivery at a national level remains under continual review and, far from avoiding responsibility, demonstrates how this Government are committed to ensuring that the needs of the Armed Forces community are identified so that action can be taken.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civilian court unless, by reason of the circumstances, including but not limited to specific naval or military complexity involving the service, the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultation with the Attorney General, directs trial by court martial.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I will start with a quotation. In the Ministry of Defence
“there is one individual who is refusing to back down from the alleyway he has found himself in.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/21; col. 105.]
Those are the words of the former Defence Minister Johnny Mercer, speaking in the debate in the other place on Monday night, on the amendment that we sent. He had earlier said:
“Unfortunately, I was in the room when this decision was made. The evidence did not support the Secretary of State at the time and the evidence does not support the Secretary of State today. I cannot vote against the Lords amendment; it is not the right thing to do. Let me be clear: when the Secretary of State made that decision”—
the issue that we are discussing today—
“it was against the advice of the officials in the Department and against the advice of his Ministers.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/21; col. 104.]
Unusually, the veil is lifted. Mr Mercer clearly identifies Mr Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, as the man in the alleyway who, against the advice of his officials and his Ministers, persists in resisting this amendment. The Minister knows that I have always assumed that she would not, in her personal capacity, back the Government’s position—but now we have direct evidence from Mr Mercer, her former colleague.
I could leave it at that. I could await the storm of protest from victims whose cases are dismissed at court martial, who will come forward brandishing the Judge Lyons review and the recommendations, after considerable investigation, contained in Sarah Atherton’s report, published last July, to which I have referred at every stage—Sarah Atherton being the only Conservative Member of Parliament ever for Wrexham.
I doubt that the controversy when those protests are made will improve Mr Wallace’s or the Government’s standing with the public on the highly sensitive issue of sexual offences, but I have a deep concern that the reputation of the service justice system in the UK should not be sullied.
On Monday afternoon, I took part in an international forum organised by my friend Professor Eugene Fidell of Yale University, founder and former president of the National Institute of Military Justice in the United States. The forum meets regularly. On this occasion, we considered the way that sexual offences are dealt with in the Canadian military. This is a live issue in many jurisdictions. I had hoped that the United Kingdom would show the way, but I will remind the House of some of the UK statistics that were before the other place.
The Atherton committee interviewed many in search of evidence. Some 64% of the more than 4,000 service- women who submitted evidence to the committee stated that they had experienced sexual harassment, rape, bullying or discrimination while serving in the Armed Forces. Over the past five years, the average conviction rate for rape in civilian courts, from Ministry of Justice data, is 34%. Over the same five years, from using the data of the MoD, it is just 16%. The Minister told us that it was 15% for courts martial over the last six months. If you use Crown Prosecution Service data, the figures are even worse.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for taking this point of correction. The statistic I gave him for cases of rape prosecuted in courts martial in the last six months shows a conviction rate of just under 50%.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Obviously, I misheard the noble Baroness. I will continue. As I said on Report, I am not aware of any murders committed in the UK by service personnel that have been tried by court martial. Of course, that could have happened only since 2006, when the novel change to concurrent jurisdiction was introduced. I have noted two cases of manslaughter arising from deaths at the Castlemartin range in west Wales, in live firing exercises, which involved the organisation of training activities, but I am not aware of any trials of sexual offences at court martial in the UK where the victim was a civilian. If there were any, I shudder to think of the effect on a civilian complainant of giving her evidence in intimate detail, against a serviceman, to a panel of uniformed officers, at a court martial.
Until now, the verdict of a court martial in such a case would have been by a simple majority, but I welcome the changes in this Bill that lead to a different situation. Imagine the difficulty of a junior service woman or man making a complaint of rape to her or his commanding officer, particularly if the alleged offender is senior to them in the chain of command, as is often the case. In addition to all the stresses and strains that already dissuade many women in civilian life from complaining, she, a servicewoman, has to face the effect on her career, an appearance before a board of senior officers, very low chances of conviction and the possibility that, in the event of an acquittal, the terms of her service will keep her in contact with her attacker. At least in a civilian court, the jury, to whom she would give her sensitive and difficult evidence, is 12 anonymous people drawn from the public. They will have no effect on her career and she is most unlikely ever to see them again—contrast that with giving evidence of sexual offences before a court martial.
Sir Robert Neill, with all his experience and wisdom, pointed out in the other place on Monday that the normal safeguards that apply in these cases in civilian courts are not yet available in the courts martial, in both the investigatory and procedural stages. Again, I draw the Minister’s attention to the effect upon the recruitment and retention of women in the Armed Forces. Would you expose your daughter to the probability that she will be subject to sexual harassment and worse, without the protection of a satisfactory service justice system?
I listened to the debate in the other place, and my amendment in lieu has changes. Objection was made to the role ascribed to the Attorney-General. The Minister has made a similar objection in this House, and I have to admit that I had assumed that the Ministry of Defence and the Members in another place appreciated the constitutional position of the Attorney-General. It is one of his functions to supervise the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Service Prosecutions and to be answerable in Parliament for them and their decisions. Hence it was Judge Lyons’ recommendation that the AG’s consent should be sought for the trial by a court martial of murder, manslaughter, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK. I agreed with his position: it represents the correct status of the Attorney-General in this country.
However, if the consent of the Attorney-General is the problem, this amendment in lieu leaves decisions about trial venue in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions—but only after consultation with the Attorney-General. The DPP would naturally consult the DSP, but, as the Minister, Mr Leo Docherty, made clear on Monday evening, it is the DPP’s decision in the end.
I say to the Conservative Benches that, if they vote against my amendment, they would be voting merely for the stubborn man in the alleyway, in Johnny Mercer’s words. They would be voting against the views of the officials in the Ministry of Defence and the departmental Ministers at the time that this was first considered, against the leading recommendation—number 1—of Judge Lyons and, above all, against the passionate findings of the Conservative Member of Parliament and her cross-party committee. Sarah Atherton—the only women in history to have risen from the ranks of the Armed Forces to become a Member of the House of Commons—knows what she is talking about. I ask those opposite not to vote against this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed that the Government are maintaining their opposition to civilianising the courts martial for serious cases, such as murder, manslaughter and rape. The conviction rate for rape alone is 16% in the military courts, as reflected in the remarks from Mr Johnny Mercer in the other place. The Minister has given certain other figures for the last six months. I am very interested in this. Perhaps she could give me the size of the sample when she is winding up? Perhaps we could have a bigger sample, perhaps of a year. I would have thought that these figures alone would cause concern that something was wrong.
Service personnel do not have the statutory protection that other people have when they are tried in ordinary criminal courts or the statutory protections that are embedded in law to ensure that, where there is a majority direction, it is made known, the numbers are made known, and everyone knows where they stand. Nothing of that kind happens in courts martial. According to the Minister on a previous occasion, in some cases—they may be small in number—a verdict of 2:1 is certainly not in conformity with modern criminal jurisprudence.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests and declare that I had the honour to serve in the Royal Marines. I will make a short contribution to this debate. I have only recently discovered that Sir Richard Henriques has made mention of and quoted from speeches I and others made during the progress earlier this year of the now Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act. I put on record my thanks to him for his thorough and compelling report.
I also support this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who has a wealth of knowledge and experience in these matters. If the Government remain unconvinced of the merits of Motion A1, they should commission further research into whether the hierarchical nature of service life is imported into the court martial system or if there is a perception that it is. In other words, are panel members influenced by the hierarchy’s view or what they perceive is the hierarchy’s view?
This concerned me in the Sergeant Blackman case; I played a minor role in the campaign to exonerate him. He served in 42 Commando Royal Marines, had an exemplary record and had been deployed on active service six times in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amounted to six six-month tours of intensive combat operations in seven years. This is not a complaint but an explanation. I always believed that the philosophy of a court martial was that the individual service man or woman should be tried by their peers. In other words, the panel should be comprised of individuals who had experienced the same horrors and dangers of the battlefield with which Sergeant Blackman was only too familiar. In his case, it was an allegation of murdering a mortally wounded enemy operator on the battlefield. The court martial conviction for murder was rightly quashed at the behest of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. A terrible miscarriage of justice was partly righted.
There were seven members of Sergeant Blackman’s court martial panel, five of whom had very little or no experience of combat soldiering in the most dangerous, arduous and exhausting conditions. These conditions were exacerbated by being in mortal danger most of the time, in the full knowledge that at any time Sergeant Blackman or any of the Marines under his command could have set off an improvised explosive device which could have killed or maimed any one or more of them. Two members of that panel had shared that experience, and Sergeant Blackman was convicted by a vote of 5:2 This was an insufficient ratio for a civilian criminal court to convict.
There are other disparities between court martials and civilian criminal court trials that I and others have mentioned in previous debates; they have already been aired here, in part. These disparities do not flatter the court martial system. The further research that I have suggested should also encompass service rivalry, battle fatigue—which can affect the strongest and bravest of men or women—the effects of provocation, and being in continuous mortal danger for months without a break, often in extreme weather conditions. It should also consider the impact of misogyny, sexism and racism in the court martial system, and whether civilian criminal courts would provide a more balanced and equitable system of justice.
Finally, in chapter 8 of Sir Richard’s admirable review, headed, “Legal support and the Defence Representation Unit”, he makes six recommendations, numbered 47 to 52 inclusive. I ask the Minister the following questions. First, have the Government accepted these recommendations? Secondly, will the Government consult on them? Thirdly, will there be a debate in this House on the results of that consultation? Finally, what is the Government’s timetable for their implementation?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion B1 in my name. It was a great disappointment that the other place was not prepared to accept this House’s well-supported amendment, originally proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and to which I readily added my name. With his vast and rightly respected experience, he considered that the Secretary of State should have a statutory duty of due regard for veteran affairs. The telling example of Gulf War syndrome was mentioned. Noble Lords will recall that the Government of the day were reluctant to see or treat this issue with the seriousness it seemed to deserve. It affected a considerable number of service and ex-service personnel who had served in Operation Granby in the first Gulf War of 1991.
A number of noble Lords, dismayed by the Government’s decisions just to set up further studies, arranged an independent inquiry chaired pro bono by a distinguished Law Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He conducted a fair and exhaustive inquiry to which I, as Chief of the Defence Staff during the conflict, gave evidence. But no Government Minister was prepared to be interviewed, or even to attend any of the hearings. That was an example of impact on veterans that was not solvable at local level.
At Report, I quoted another example, that of the veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps, whose long-outstanding case also could not be resolved at devolved or local-authority level. I understand that the MoD has passed this case back to the Home Office, but I hope that the MoD still sees it as a veteran case that deserves its continued interest and a responsibility to see it finally settled. It would be most unsatisfactory, when dealing with the concerns of veterans, for the MoD and the Secretary of State not to continue to be seen to be actively supportive of their veterans. A statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to pay due regard and be seen to discharge a duty of care for veterans seems more important than ever. Serving personnel, soon to be veterans, may well have been involved in live operations that, more than ever, are subject to active ministerial oversight and even direction. Looking to the future, assuming the media reports of hearing damage to soldiers testing the Ajax AFV to be true, this could become a veteran issue—an issue that needs a duty of care for all the veterans as a group, not just individually, where there might inevitably be differing outcomes causing lasting resentment.
This amendment therefore gives the Secretary of State time to consider his responsibility further and report to Parliament. As the amendment spells out, it requires the Secretary of State to detail
“the implications of not applying the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ under the Armed Forces Covenant to central government as the Act requires of local authorities and other public bodies.”
It has been argued that the Secretary of State believes that he and central government already bear this responsibility. Why, then, is there this reluctance to spell it out closely in statute?
The Minister in the other place made the particular point that, because the Secretary of State makes a report to Parliament annually, he is fully discharging his duty of care for veterans. But it is not just a moral duty; the Armed Forces Act 2011 made reporting annually a statutory requirement, so it seems to follow that “due regard to” should be enacted; otherwise, the statutory responsibility is confined just to reporting.
The Minister in the other place said that,
“responsibility for the actual delivery of nuts-and-bolts frontline services and their impact … rests at local level”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/21; col. 99.]
He made no mention of the heart of your Lordships’ case, that there were some issues that could not be dealt with at local level. Why was this not considered? All he said was that the inclusion of central government was simply unnecessary; he did not explain why. As I have just mentioned, the MoD has passed the case that I cited on Report of the Hong Kong veteran to the Home Office; one central department having due regard has passed it directly to another. I rest my case.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I entirely support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has just said, but I want to add a word on Motion A1. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of people with real experience of the criminal and military justice systems support that Motion A1. The Minister is quite right: the service justice system has improved enormously over the past few years, but there is a fundamental respect in which it is different—that is, that there is no trial by jury. Trial by jury is the essence of our system. It gives confidence to the victims, which is critical in the very serious crimes that we are considering, and it is a fundamental right of the defendant. We should not do anything to take those rights away or to undermine confidence; that is the fallacy in the Minister’s argument.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, so ably supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, and my noble and learned friend. I have nothing usefully to add to what has been said by them in the context of Motion A1. They are huge authorities on this matter, and the House is right therefore to support them again and ask another place to think once more on that question.
I rise to support my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley on Motion B1, especially having spoken on this matter when we last considered it. He is right that some things cannot be settled at local level—and I say that as someone who has served in local government. Some things need to be settled centrally, and that should be spelled out in the Bill; that is so. He has made a compelling case as to why there should be some further consideration given to the duties that we have towards our armed servicemen and who has to implement those duties, specifically in the case of the Hong Kong ex-servicemen that was given as a very good example during Report and again by my noble and gallant friend.
The Minister has taken a great interest in this matter and knows that it concerns a very small number of people and that it is on a par with how we rightly dealt with the issue of the Gurkhas. We should do the same for these servants of the Crown, not least because of the developments in Hong Kong, where we have seen the destruction of democracy. Who would be more at risk than people who have served in our Armed Forces in Hong Kong?
If the noble Baroness cannot accept the amendment today and if it does not go back to another place, we will quite soon have before us the Nationality and Borders Bill. If she can do nothing else, she has heard what my noble and gallant friend has said about how this has now been referred back to the Home Office, which will have responsibility for that Bill. When the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, replies for the Government tonight, she will have the opportunity to say to us whether included within the provisions of that Bill will be, as was reported in the media earlier this week, the possibility that this glaring oversight and injustice will be rectified in the course of that legislation. I hope that she will take the opportunity when she comes to reply to say whether that is being seriously considered by the Government and whether she is able to allay some of our concerns, at least on that count.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support both Motion A1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and Motion B1 in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, just pointed out, several noble and learned Lords and noble and gallant Lords have already articulated the case for Motion A1 very cogently. I do not propose to speak to that in any detail, because they have already made the case, as did the Member for Wrexham, Sarah Atherton, in the other place.
If there was only one Minister who was keen to keep service justice the way it is and for issues of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, and so on, to be kept in the courts martial system, that suggests, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out, that the Minister perhaps does not share the same views as the Secretary of State. Clearly, it is not the job of your Lordships’ House to persuade the Minister to come clean on her personal view; she is clearly speaking for the Government. However, if there is perhaps some difference of opinion within the MoD, might it be possible for the Minister to think again and for her to persuade Members of the other place to think again? The cases that have been put forward—the words of Johnny Mercer MP and the report brought forward by the Defence Committee of the House of Commons—are compelling.
I suggest that Motion B1 is in some way superior to what the Government are asking us not to agree with—that we do not go with the amendment that we voted on and approved on Report. At that stage, the amendment just talked about the Secretary of State, but that is slightly ambiguous. Which Secretary of State? The assumption implicit in that amendment was that it was the Secretary of State for Defence. However, on Report, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, pointed out that the situation was vital in Northern Ireland, and there it would not be necessarily be the Secretary of State for Defence that mattered so much as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The new amendment makes clear the import of what we had intended in the first place, all the way back at Second Reading and in Committee, that central government should be brought within the purview of the Bill.
The Minister says that this is about ensuring that key policymakers have the right information. She seemed to imply that this related only to local government, housing associations, local health providers—that is, people providing health, education and welfare support that come under the Bill. But surely that relates also to central government. In particular, it relates to all parts of central government. It does not just relate to the Secretary of State for Defence, particularly if he is caught up some blind alley. It also relates to the Home Secretary. We have already heard about some aspects of what might appear to be issues related to the military being passed over to the Home Office. Surely it is not adequate for the Secretary of State for Defence to report annually to the other place if what we need is the Home Secretary to bear in mind the needs of veterans and service personnel, particularly those who served in Hong Kong, or maybe the Gurkhas.
There is a need for the Bill to apply to central government as well as to local government and other authorities. I urge the House to support Motion B1 as well as Motion A1.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments A1 and B1. I will not go into the legal arguments around Amendment A1: the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and others have spoken about many of the legal reasons why this would be an improvement, and we wish the Government to think again on it. I say to the Chamber that review after review has said to the Government that the civilianisation of murder, manslaughter, rape and these charges would be of immense benefit. It is review after review after review; not just one review and then another review says something different, but review after review after review.
In what I thought were devasting comments in the other place—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out—the Minister responsible for the delivery of these policies agreed with the amendment that was put. You sometimes wonder what parallel universe you live in when all the evidence and all the points put forward support the amendment, only for it to be resisted by the Government. I ask the Minister—who frankly even in her remarks today went further than she has in some of our other debates—to reflect on that. The reviews and now Johnny Mercer MP in the other place say that as well.
Can the Minister clarify the statistics for us? The statistics quoted by Johnny Mercer were 16% but, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, the Minister quoted a much different figure. I think it was around 50%—to be fair, I cannot remember the exact figure. I think we would all be interested in this House in how that figure was arrived at, what the sample size was, and what length of time it was done over. This is an important amendment. I am very pleased to support Amendment A1, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I ask the Minister: is there is any update on where we have got to with the defence-wide strategy for dealing with rape and serious sexual offences within the service justice system? Is there any further news about when we can expect that?
I also want to briefly say something about this. I say this as my last comment on these issues around the service justice system. Significant numbers of cases continue to be raised by Sarah Atherton and by many of the other members who continue to serve. We read about it in our newspapers. We need to reflect on the fact that case after case is brought forward. This would be a way for the Government to restore confidence in the system and in the way that these issues are dealt with.
In supporting the amendment from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, I point out to the Chamber that again this is something that the Royal British Legion sees as of immense importance and that needs to be done. It is something that would improve the situation.
Just recently, on 6 December, the Government published the draft statutory guidance for the covenant. It lists the responsibilities on healthcare authorities, the responsibilities on local authorities, the responsibilities on every single public body you could virtually think of except the Government themselves. I say to the Minister that I have never been convinced in any shape or form that the people of this country would believe that a covenant between the state and the people would exclude the national Government. I just do not believe that people, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, would understand that. The perception of it, apart from anything else, is something that undermines that.
I appreciate what the Government have done in the Bill in terms of placing a legal duty on everyone, but I wonder why it places a legal duty on everyone but the national Government themselves and I ask the Government to think again on that.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank your Lordships for, as ever, interesting and thoughtful contributions on both issues being debated this afternoon, particularly Motions A1 and B1. I will first address the comments made in relation to Motion A1. By way of preface, it is worth noting that this matter was debated and decided in the other place by an authoritative and substantial majority. Notwithstanding that, I will endeavour in my remarks to engage your Lordships and repeat why the Government hold to the position they do. I am grateful for the further comments made.
Perhaps I should clarify to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who seemed to doubt my commitment to the matters of the service justice system, that I and the Government are convinced of the wisdom of retaining unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape—I want to make that crystal clear. I remind your Lordships that, contrary to what some contributions indicated, that view is supported by a distinguished former High Court judge, Sir Richard Henriques.
I was also interested to note that remarks from a number of your Lordships with very senior and impressive legal backgrounds seemed to be addressed exclusively to England and Wales. With all respect, the service justice system that we all admire and revere has to extend across the whole of the UK and must reflect the different systems within it. Military justice must be universal across the UK and the proposal in the Bill achieves that end in a way in which the noble Lord’s amendment does not.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Perhaps I might challenge the Minister on that. If the civil jurisdiction is to be used for an offence committed in Scotland or Northern Ireland, court martials then become immaterial—so there is no problem, as the Minister seems to think. This point has not been raised at any stage of the Bill until today. There is no problem if the ordinary courts of Scotland and Northern Ireland are to deal with offences which occur within that jurisdiction. The question of whether a person is in the military or not is then irrelevant; the offences will be dealt with as usual.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, but with all respect, I say to the noble Lord that that is not the essence of the issue. The essence is instead how you create a service justice system which can operate across the United Kingdom and ensure that, when discussions take place with the appropriate civilian prosecutors, appropriate decisions are reached on the correct jurisdiction for the case. That might be, within the service justice system, convening in Scotland, but under the noble Lord’s amendment there is clearly a desire to bias the whole service justice system in respect of England and Wales to the civilian system, and I am saying that that introduces a disparity or fracture of the United Kingdom service justice system. That is what the Government find unacceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, raised an important point—
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
If there is any technical difficulty regarding the extension of the jurisdiction to include Northern Ireland and Scotland, surely it would not be beyond the wit of the Government, if they accepted the principle of civilianisation, to deal with that matter in an appropriate way.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the noble and learned Lord that, as I understand it, the difficulty is that constitutionally we cannot extend this amendment to cover Scotland and Northern Ireland. That gets right to the heart of whether we have a service justice system for the United Kingdom, operating across it, or we do not. That is the difficulty with this amendment.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, on the Richard Henriques recommendations, I know he was particularly interested in a defence representation unit. In recognition of the remarks I made in Grand Committee when I undertook to keep the House informed of progress on these Henriques matters, I explained then and when the amendment was tabled on Report that we have to analyse and assess these recommendations. We are not yet sure how they could be implemented and what measures would be necessary to implement them, but I am very happy to repeat my assurance to the noble Lord that I will keep the Chamber informed of progress.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, the big issue that came from this House is where local authorities cannot deal with the veteran issue. We produced some examples of that; it was not discussed at all in the other place. Could she explain why? This is not acceptable at this stage, bearing in mind that, in effect, it is already being carried out. I do not see why there should be any difficulty in incorporating the Secretary of State “having due regard” as the form of words, to show that it is a matter for central government. The veteran issue cannot be dealt with at local level.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Central government, as I have indicated previously, is bound by a wide spectrum of obligations. Some of these obligations exist because of parliamentary and government obligations, some exist because the MoD is an employer of the Armed Forces, and some exist because, under the covenant—which is a concept, as I have said—we want to do the best we can.
What I did explain was that to make this work—I hope it is clear from the text of the Bill in relation to the three functions we have identified—you need to have an identified body and detailed functions. That is why the Government feel that it is premature to take this step at this time. I appreciate that the noble and gallant Lord disagrees with that interpretation. He feels that the Government should absolutely accept that they are bound under the covenant. I would say that they are bound under the covenant as a concept in terms of a moral responsibility, and they are certainly accountable not just to Parliament, as they rightly should be, but to their own Armed Forces and to their veterans, and to public opinion.
I have tried to explain why we feel that to take this step at this stage is both precipitate and premature. I appreciate that there is not agreement on that view, and that is what democracy exists to serve. But I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships the position of the Government and why they hold to their views in these circumstances. Again, I respectfully ask the noble Lords to withdraw their Motions A1 and B1.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down—I hope she will forgive me—I asked specifically about the size of the sample for rape cases, an issue which my noble friend Lord Coaker also raised. The figures are quite different and much more encouraging than those given by Mr Johnny Mercer in the other place. Can the Minister tell me—I did give notice of this in the course of my short remarks—what is the size of the sample?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that I am afraid I do not have information available. I gave him the statistics provided to me, but I will undertake to ascertain that information and write to him.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I will pursue that for a moment. The number of cases heard in courts martial is probably fewer than 10 for sexual offences, or at least fewer than 20. I cannot imagine that in six months, we deal with more than four or five cases, but no doubt we will be told in due course. Over a five-year period, the figure is 16% for convictions, as opposed to the civil conviction rate of 34%—shocking as that conviction rate is in any event.
On the point about Scotland and Northern Ireland—never raised before Monday night in the course of this Bill, either here or in the other place—the principle that this amendment sets down is quite simple:
“Guidance … must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civilian court”—
it does not say “in the Crown Court” in this country—
“unless by reason of the circumstances … the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultation with the Attorney General, directs trial by court martial.”
If it is necessary to cover that by putting “after consultation with the Lord Advocate in Scotland” or whoever is the chief authority in Northern Ireland, that can be done in 30 seconds—if you let me loose for that period of time.
No answer has been given, and we are faced with what Johnny Mercer said:
“there is one individual who is refusing to back down from the alleyway”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/21; col. 105.]
This is not proper policy for the Conservative Party. It will face, as a party, the complaints of people who have been subjected to sexual violence but whose cases have not been upheld. It will arise, and it will be to the advantage of other parties. So, I plead that the amendment be supported in this case. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
“343AG Section 343AF: report
The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than six months after the day on which the Armed Forces Act 2021 is passed detailing the implications of not applying the same legal responsibility to have “due regard” under the Armed Forces Covenant to central government as the Act requires of local authorities and other public bodies.””
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The Question is that Motion B1 be agreed to. I am content to have an electronic Division to settle this. I instruct the clerks to plug in the machine.
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 13th December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 13 December 2021 - (13 Dec 2021)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2B, and the Government motion to disagree.
Leo Docherty
The House knows that this Bill is vital: it renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, so that the armed forces can continue to operate and enforce a system of discipline, and it also fulfils our commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant into law.
On Lords amendment 1B, we have been listening to hon. Members here and in the other place. The Government recognise the fact that all Members of this House want to do the best for our armed forces and to ensure that criminal wrongdoing is robustly addressed for the sake of our forces and for the victims of crime. We are particularly mindful about the prominence that statistics have recently played in this debate. The Government have always welcomed scrutiny of our own performance and the role that parliamentarians have in performing that scrutiny. We should ensure that the statistics that we use are clear, transparent and cover the most serious offending that Parliament is concerned about. I am happy to confirm that we will therefore commit to an expansion and an improvement of our existing annual statistical update on sexual offending in the armed forces to include other serious offences.
Our bulletin in spring 2022, in addition to reporting on rape statistics, will now include granular data on cases of murder and manslaughter, and, for sexual offending, those cases involving personnel serving in the armed forces who are under 18 at the time of the offence. Furthermore, from January 2022, we will start to record separately information about domestic violence and child sexual abuse in the service justice system, so that those, too, can be reported on in our spring 2023 bulletin.
These bulletins will include information relating to police investigations, as well as court martial proceedings, meaning that all data related to the categories of serious offences referred to in the amendment of Lord Thomas of Gresford will be included. This will include: the number of reported incidents; how many cases are referred from the service police to the service prosecution authority; how many cases the service prosecution authority are able to prosecute; how many cases go to court martial; and how many cases result in a guilty verdict. We believe that this will increase the transparency of, and the confidence in, the service justice system, and we welcome this scrutiny. Greater reporting will demonstrate the good work that we are doing through this Bill, not least the establishment of the defence serious crime unit, and it is right that data is available to hold Government to account.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I have been listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say. He has talked about the need for transparency, and, clearly, that is demonstrable and welcome. On the reports to which he now refers, he obviously hopes that they will make his case for him as they are published. If they do not, what happens then, other than just becoming tomes to gather dust in his or his successor’s office or in the Secretary of State’s office? In practical terms, what will be done to change the policies?
Leo Docherty
I reassure my hon. Friend that we will keep this under review. We are prepared to be judged by our performance.
Simon Hoare
I tell my children that I keep a lot of things under review, knowing full well that I will never acquiesce in what they are asking for—I hope they are not listening this evening. I know that my hon. Friend understands that this is a serious point for many of us. Keeping something under review, to ask us now to support the Government’s line, is laudable, but we need a bit more flesh on the bones as to what happens if the data in this report does not land where he and I—let us be frank—would hope that it would. One can keep something under review, but if there is no promise to come back with changes to the legislation, that is a pie-crust promise.
Leo Docherty
I expect the data to justify our confidence in the service justice system. My hon. Friend knows that the Government believe very strongly that the SJS needs to retain the full complement of capability because our armed forces are expeditionary by design and our justice system also needs to be expeditionary. He may not mean it sincerely when he deals with the children, but he will see that in my remarks this evening we certainly are sincere in our position.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes the point that we are expeditionary by design. I understand that, but I do not see how that links to the issue addressed by Lords amendment 1B, which is essentially that, where the offence is committed in the United Kingdom, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, which might involve an expeditionary issue, there should logically be a presumption that the starting point is dealing with it in the civilian system. What contradiction is there between the expeditionary nature of our armed forces—under certain circumstances, but not all—and a rebuttable presumption that the civilian system should hear offences committed in the United Kingdom?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend makes the case for flexibility, and I am pleased to confirm that we retain that flexibility through the protocol we have legislated for. The bottom line is that the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say, and it is principally for that reason that I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 1B.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand what the Minister says about the civilian prosecutor’s ultimately having the final say, but an issue was raised last time about the role of the Attorney General, and whether there was a dangerous jurisdictional aspect in the Attorney’s consent being involved. The amendment removes that stumbling block. With that removed, and given what the Minister has said about flexibility, what now is the objection to the amendment in lieu, as opposed to the original Lords amendment?
Leo Docherty
The objection principally is about our need for an expeditionary system that should not be salami sliced. If we start to take components out of our service justice system, it would undermine the confidence that those serving should have. That is an additional reason for us to reject the amendment this evening.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister is discussing an incredibly important issue, but in terms of “doing the right thing for the armed forces”, does he share my belief that it is also important that the Ministry of Defence resolve with the Home Office the outstanding question of the free visa applications for servicemen and women who are of non-UK nationality? Does he share my belief that the current proposal of 12 years’ service before such a free visa is available is too long a period for those involved, for us and for the wider public?
Leo Docherty
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised such an important question. We are hugely grateful for the amazing contribution that our foreign and Commonwealth servicepeople make. I cannot pre-empt the Government announcement on the results of the consultation, but return of service is an important principle and I think it will be at the heart of the Government’s policy when it is announced in due course.
Dr Lewis
I am glad to be such a cause of pleasure to my hon. and gallant Friend. I am not a lawyer, so this might be entirely irrelevant, but I do not think so: before he leaves this first amendment, could he say whether those serious cases of murder abroad, such as has been reported in relation to an incident in Kenya some years ago—I appreciate that that case may still be live—are affected by this tussle between the upper House and this House on the question of whether such matters should be considered by court martial or civilian court? In other words, where there is a failure of the local police in another country, is it the Government’s case that the court martial system or the civilian legal system is better able to deal with it?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s contribution; that is a very good case in point, and points to circumstances—although the numbers may be very small—in which the British military has to deploy to ungoverned spaces, let us say. Of course, that is not the case with regard to Kenya, but there are definitely advantages to the expeditionary capability of our service justice system.
I move now to Lords amendment 2B, which would require a report to be laid within six months of this Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, setting out the implications of not applying the new covenant duty to central Government. The Government have already committed to reviewing the operation of the covenant duty to inform us on whether other policy areas or functions could be usefully included. Having listened carefully to the issues that have been so vigorously raised, and recognising the strength of feeling across both Houses, I can now commit to going further.
Indeed, we are going further than Lords amendment 2B in the scope of the review we have in mind. We will review the operation of the new duty across the UK and will consider whether it would be beneficial to add to its scope. That will include specific consideration of whether central Government and any of their functions could usefully be added. The Government will report on the review as part of the covenant annual report in 2023, 18 months after the new duty is expected to come into effect. That timescale is more realistic than the six-month timeline from Royal Assent suggested by their lordships, which in our judgment is too short a period for any meaningful review to take place.
Given that we expect to see the new duty standing up in law by the middle of 2022 at the earliest, we also need to allow for an implementation period to give local authorities time to adjust to their new responsibilities. We therefore believe that to conduct and publish a review at the 18-month point of the new duty having been in operation is most appropriate. However, given the level of interest in the new duty, we will provide an interim update in the covenant annual report in December 2022, some six months after the duty is expected to come into effect. At that point, we will be able to say more about the scope and methodology for conducting the review, and MPs will have the opportunity to assess and comment in the 2022 covenant report debate.
The Government are committed to ensuring that parliamentarians from both Houses can contribute and give their views as part of the review process. I put on record my thanks and appreciation for the contributions of Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Craig of Radley. They, like us, want to see good law put in place to support our armed forces. In the light of the commitment that I have given, I urge the House to support the Government in resisting Lords amendment 2B.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
In February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, set out the Labour party’s core principles for our defence and national security, which are based not on party politics but on Britain’s strategic national interest. They are: an unshakeable commitment to NATO; non-negotiable support for our nuclear deterrent; a resolute commitment to international law, universal human rights and the multilateral treaties and organisations that uphold them; and a determination to see British investment directed first to British industry not just because of how we think about defence and national security but because we seek to build a more resilient economy and a country that can stand more firmly on its own two feet. At the heart of those four principles lies a commitment to our armed forces personnel: the men and women who are the lifeblood of our defence and national security; those who serve to protect us.
The Conservative Government have been complacent when it comes to our armed forces and our national security more widely. Just as threats against the UK are increasing, the Prime Minister decided to break an election promise and cut the size of the Army by 10,000. Under the Government and this Prime Minister, our country is becoming less safe and our brave service personnel increasingly undervalued and under-rewarded.
I was only recently appointed to the shadow Defence team, but standing at the Dispatch Box to highlight the weaknesses that sit at the heart of the Bill is already starting to feel like groundhog day. The Bill is a missed opportunity. It was a one-in-a-Parliament opportunity to ensure that our world-class armed forces are supported by world-class legislation, but glaring gaps at its heart mean that it will fall short and fail to live up to its full potential. If the Government had chosen to support the Lords amendments, we would have been guaranteed a more robust approach to dealing with serious crimes committed by service personnel, and we would have had clear accountability and transparency about the role of central Government in delivering the armed forces covenant.
Labour supports the Bill, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure that its content matches the ambition. As I set out last week in this Chamber, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel and veterans, and their families. To that end, we have worked closely with hon. Members in this place, noble Lords in the other place and service charities to amend the Bill in the interests of our service personnel.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can the hon. Member help the House by explaining what he thinks the Government might be able to do but could not if the Bill had the protections that he wanted over central Government action?
Stephen Kinnock
As I will address a little later in my remarks, the huge disconnect here is between the level of accountability that local government will be held to compared with that for central Government. So we end up in an absurd situation where a school governor has a greater level of accountability for the covenant than the Defence Secretary. I am not sure what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) thinks about that, but it appears to be a bizarre state of affairs.
I pay particular tribute to Lords Mackay, Thomas and Craig for their efforts in working with us in our attempts to improve this legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Labour party has been pushing the argument strongly that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration, should be tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK. The case for that is overwhelming, because the investigation and prosecution of those crimes within the service justice system simply does not work.
The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that between 2015 and 2020 the conviction rate for rape cases tried under court martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. Moreover, more than three in four of the victims were women, and seven in 10 held the rank of private. By rejecting Lords amendment 1B in lieu, the Government are not only letting down women in the lower ranks, but undermining their own policy of seeking to recruit more women to the armed forces. The Army has committed itself to a 30% target by 2030 for female recruits, but has not yet produced a clear plan of how that will be achieved. The Government therefore need to think carefully about the message they are sending by resisting this amendment, because until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a minority will continue to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces and will continue to have a chilling effect on female recruitment.
We do, however, welcome the fact that the Minister has today acknowledged the need to publish data on all the offences listed in this amendment—murder, manslaughter, domestic abuse, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration; for that data to include under-18s for the first time; and for that data to cover both investigations and prosecutions at all stages of the service justice system, including reports of incidents, how many are referred from service police to service prosecution authority, how many the service prosecution are able to prosecute, how many go to court martial and how many convictions there are. But I must tell the Minister that Labour remains committed to moving these serious offences into civilian courts, and we will continue to push the Government on this issue.
This matter is not closed; our concerns have not been allayed. There remain many unanswered questions, so I ask the Minister: what will the Government do if conviction rates for one or more of those serious crimes is concerningly low? Will the Government reconsider this approach? Why will they not commit to a performance review, based on this data? We view this issue as unfinished business, and we know where the weight of opinion lies in this House. As the Conservative hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) clearly stated last week in this Chamber:
“Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact…The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 104.]
We therefore hope that Ministers will reflect again on the recommendations from the Government-commissioned Lyons review, as well as the proposals made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Select Committee on Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us”. We must improve conviction rates, and moving these offences into civilian courts offers us the best chance of doing so.
Perhaps the most unfathomable aspect of this Bill is the Government’s decision to offload responsibility for the armed forces away from central Government and on to overstretched local authorities—it is utterly illogical and indefensible. The Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, so it is impossible to understand why on earth those responsibilities should not apply to central Government. We are faced with a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, do not.
As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, many of the policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national Government based on national guidance. Organisations such as Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities, alongside Members from both sides of this House and in the other place, have lined up to criticise Ministers for shirking their responsibilities.
The Bill was an opportunity for the Government to lead by example and to demonstrate that credible leadership depends on accountability and on practising what they preach, but they appear to be intent on palming off all the responsibility to local government. Social care, pensions, employment and immigration are on the long list of areas not covered by the legislation, and the exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies means that the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. The Government are already hitting many servicemen and women with a real-terms pay cut this year.
As I said at the Dispatch Box last week, we are left with a Bill that will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water; the veteran struggling with their mental health and waiting times for treatment that are more than twice as long as Government targets suggest they should be; or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting into work. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable national standards that local authorities and agencies are held to. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
The Government’s concession of a review of the operation of the duty and whether central Government should be added is welcome, but ultimately, it is a recognition that the Bill is drafted too narrowly. How will parliamentarians be involved in the review? I recognise that the Minister mentioned that, but we need a clear assurance about it. Knowing the strength of feeling on the issue, I encourage him to ensure that parliamentarians from both Houses and the Chairs of relevant Select Committees are involved in and can give evidence to the review. We will keep a close eye on the review process, but we still believe that the due regard principle should be broadened to cover all areas of potential disadvantage for servicepeople.
The Opposition have been clear throughout the process that the Bill must become statute, not least because we must provide our armed forces with the solid and stable legal basis that they require to be able to operate. Although we welcome the concessions that the Minister has promised today, we remain profoundly disappointed that the Government have continued to resist the Lords amendments, thereby running the clock down. Let me be clear that it is unfinished business.
The Minister knows full well that there is deep unhappiness about the way that the Government have handled the process and profound concern about the way in which the weaknesses in the Bill will ultimately lead to it failing to serve the best interests of our services personnel. I therefore assure the House that Labour, as the party of the armed forces, will robustly hold the Government to account. I put the Minister on notice that he has not heard the last from us on these matters.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this important debate. The Armed Forces Act 2006, which the Minister mentioned, needs to be upgraded, so the Bill needs to pass in this House. It was introduced in January and here we are, almost at Christmas. I will stand corrected—perhaps he can clarify—but if we do not pass it, the armed forces are not beholden to Parliament. Given the experience of Parliament and Government in recent weeks, it would be unwise to have an untethered armed forces at this juncture.
Bills often ping-pong backwards and forwards between here and the other place, but we should bear in mind who it was in the other place that actually scrutinised this Bill. They are senior figures in the justice system, but they are also ex-senior military, who understand the very issue in detail. This has not been thrown back to us just to test the will of this House; it has been thrown back, now for a second time, because there is something serious going on here. I think the Government now find themselves in isolation, and on their own compared with all the charity groups, the Opposition and indeed—dare I say it—the Defence Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has taken through, over the last 18 months, the women in the armed forces inquiry, which reported only last week. The Minister has very kindly responded to that—not least here in this House, but also in a Westminster Hall debate—but we know all the arguments and what is on either side of this.
The Minister mentioned salami slicing, saying that if we were to go down the road of allowing the civilian courts to deal with murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault, it would somehow dilute our ability to hold the armed forces to account. By their very nature, our armed forces are expeditionary in what they do, but he knows perfectly well that the yellow card, and indeed the rules of engagement, work extremely well overseas. This is to do with what happens here in the UK, and there is a disjunction between those who actually go through the civilian courts and those who go through the military courts. I am afraid that there is an absence of military experience in dealing with such difficult cases, which is why we are seeing such a disconnect between the conviction rates for civilians and those for the military.
I look to the Minister and say thank you for moving this far, but time is running out and we need to get this Bill through. I do hope that he will hear the concerns not just of this House and of the Committee, but of Justice Lyons. He did a service justice review for the armed forces when I was in the Veterans Minister’s shoes. When I was sitting on the Front Bench as Minister for the Armed Forces, I asked Justice Lyons to consider where this should go and what was his conclusion. His recommendation was exactly what we are calling for today. So I ask the Minister to recognise the wealth of encouragement, and also to recognise that this is nothing to do with salami slicing. This is to do with services for our armed forces personnel, and that is what we are calling for today.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
There is a debt of gratitude that we owe to members of the armed forces, and we have seen that acutely over the last few days as they mobilised to help with the vaccine booster campaign. I received my booster on Friday, and there was certainly a large armed forces presence there. As well as thanking members of the NHS, I would like to extend my gratitude to members of the armed forces who are contributing to that campaign over the next few weeks.
As we renew the Armed Forces Act, it would have been great if we had done so with some provisions that delivered a real impact for members of the armed forces. I suppose the litmus test for this is: will members of the armed forces notice any real difference as a result of this legislation? I think that for the majority the answer, sadly, is no, and that is disappointing.
The Lords amendments today are a final attempt by those in the other place to flesh out the provisions of this Bill, and to attempt to improve what had been billed as a great opportunity to improve our offerings to those who serve. It is disappointing that the expertise of Members of the other place, which was mentioned by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), has essentially been disregarded. That is not how this should work. I am not a great fan of the other place myself, but I must admit that there is real legal and military expertise there that was not listened to or paid attention to, which is disappointing.
What would we have liked to see? We would have liked to see improvements in service accommodation. As the Bill progressed, the SNP put forward very modest amendments on this, such as asking that the basic standards of accommodation for social housing should also apply to members of the armed forces. That was a reasonable amendment, but it was thrown out. We saw no movement on visa fees for Commonwealth service personnel. There was the idea that they should serve for 12 years before we even consider this, but that is utterly unrealistic; it is not a reasonable position for us to take.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Could those who wish to make separate contributions stand so we know how many there are?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker
The debate finishes at 6.29 pm and we would like to hear from the Minister at the end, so I ask everybody to be conscious of the need to get everybody in.
Sir Robert Neill
I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I welcome my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister’s tone. He has sought to be constructive. I appreciate that he has made a number of concessions, and I am glad the Government have done that. In particular, I welcome his tribute to the noble Lord Mackay and others. Anyone who knows anything about the law and Government does not lightly mix with James Mackay, and I am glad that has been recognised. I also welcome and endorse the comments made about the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in this regard.
On defence justice issues, I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee. There has been movement and I am glad about that, but I am still not convinced by the salami-slicing point. I cannot for the life of me see how Lords amendment 1B creates any difficulty.
My real concern—the additional point I was going to make beyond the interventions I have already made—is about the way the defence serious crimes unit will be structured. Hopefully, there will not be a large number of cases to prosecute, but those involving rape and serious sexual offences in particular will almost invariably require great sensitivity in handling the investigation and the presentation in court, both in prosecution and in defending. Inevitably, such cases—where a member of the forces is either a complainant or a victim, or perhaps both—will by their nature, very properly, engage the highest level of public interest in the broadest sense. The concern is whether a small prosecuting body will ever be able to gather the critical mass of expertise to adequately do justice in those cases, whatever the good intentions.
Sir Robert Neill
Just the once, because we need to get on.
Carol Monaghan
Does the hon. Gentleman share the other concern raised regarding the gender composition of courts martial? Unless we have gender parity, it is very difficult for all-male or majority male courts to understand properly the experience women may have had in that situation.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand the point, and I am sure that as more women advance into the senior ranks of the armed forces that will be dealt with. In fairness, however, I should say that if those cases were to be dealt with by a jury in the civilian justice system, there is not a quota on gender parity in juries either. So while I take the thrust of the hon. Lady’s point, I do not think there is an exact comparison to be made.
My bigger concern is that I hope the Minister will accept that the sensible thing to do would be for the service system, at the very least, to bring in expertise from the independent Bar, from the independent legal sector, to deal with these cases, rather than try to do something and not admit that we may not have the capacity to do it effectively ourselves. There are plenty of experienced people who could do that, and that would be an important step forward.
There are also other bits of unfinished business. It would be helpful if the Minister committed to bringing forward the remaining items of the Henriques review that are not covered in the Bill. That would give us a comprehensive approach. Nobody wants to delay the Bill, but I hope the Minister will reflect on my regret that we have not taken up one of the key points of the review by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons. Just as one does not trifle lightly with Lord Mackay of Clashfern, it is difficult to think of anyone who has had more experience, both as a naval officer—as a lieutenant commander and so on for a number of years—and then as a senior circuit judge licensed to try all cases relating to murder, rape and serious sexual offences. I do not know of anyone else in my legal career who combines the two in a greater degree than Shaun Lyons. I am therefore disappointed that, having accepted so much else, we have not followed through on the final and critical element of his report. I hope the Minister will accept that the Ministry should not be too grand as to close the door to that, because I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why that element of Judge Lyons’s recommendation was not taken forward.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Bill is excellent and much needed. It will improve the lives of service personnel while modernising our military for the future. I support the Bill and commend the Minister for getting it through so far.
I want to focus on Lords amendment 1B, which would see murder, manslaughter and rape with penetration tried in a civilian court. The House is aware that the Defence Committee’s inquiry into the experiences of women in the armed forces opened up a catalogue of harrowing evidence around sexual assault, rape, gang rape, poor standards of investigation, and the manipulation of power to deliberately disadvantage servicewomen in complaining or seeking justice. Indeed, the Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Government-commissioned, judge-led Lyons review, which stated that rape should be heard in civilian courts. Given the evidence, I do not believe the proposed concurrent jurisdiction protocol will be good enough to cut through the laddish culture that is entrenched in the military system as it stands. I welcome the Minister’s comments on transparency, but I fail to see how collecting even more data on serious offences, as proposed by the MOD, will translate into improved outcomes for victims of rape. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) explored, I would like to see how we will improve the lot of women in our military based on collecting data, but I am pleased with the establishment of the defence serious crimes unit, which is a mammoth step forward for the MOD.
Last week the House rejected an amendment that would have mandated all rape cases to be heard under civilian jurisdiction except in extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Attorney General. The MOD rejected the amendment on the basis that it would have politicised the process. Lords amendment 1B accepts and rectifies this by leaving responsibility for the decision to the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultation only with the Attorney General. This removes the MOD’s objection, and I am not convinced by the argument of expeditionary salami-slicing. The amendment means that cases of rape perpetrated in the UK would primarily be heard in civilian courts unless there are exceptional circumstances. I know that the 4,200 women who contributed to the Defence Committee’s inquiry and people across the country—both military and civilian, and both men and women—who believe in British values of fairness and justice will want the MOD to consider this point.
John Redwood
I will be supporting the Government, as they have made welcome progress on creating better conditions and support for our armed forces, but I would like to press the Minister on housing. When we wish to recruit and retain the best people in the future as we have in the past, it is important that we provide something better on housing than we traditionally have. It is a disgrace if armed services personnel, after providing substantial service to our country, cannot afford to buy a house of their own, and instead have to scramble to get rented accommodation, which they often find difficult.
I hope the MOD can do more through its potential and current schemes to promote home ownership, and to promote buying property nearer home base, for example, so that people leaving the armed forces have a property of their own. If service personnel are not able to do that, a surrogate scheme is needed so that when they leave the armed forces after holding important jobs and earning reasonable money, they are not debarred from the private housing market and they do not come to see their service career as a gap in making those contributions and building up savings in a house of their own. They should have as much opportunity to own their own property as the rest of the community.
Yes of course we need an expeditionary service and service personnel may need to serve in a variety of places abroad, but that should not get in the way of either having a home of their own with their family or having the wherewithal to have a home of their own when they leave the armed services. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will sympathise and do more to make sure it can be true. I do not think we need a legal requirement, but we need a firm pledge of intent from the Government.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
This is the first time I have contributed to this Bill. There are a number of experts in the Chamber on both the legal processes and the military who have far more to say than I do, but as an assiduous parliamentarian I have kept up with proceedings as best I can. As I watched last week’s debate on almost exactly the same amendment, a couple of questions struck me as a layperson that I hope the Minister may be able to answer.
First, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who last week was unfortunately put in the impossible position of either having to defend and vote with the recommendations of her own inquiry or lose her Government job as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I commend her for her integrity and fortitude in doing what she thought was the correct thing.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the constructive contributions from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Aberavon will hold the Government to account and help to mark our homework alongside us. That scrutiny is welcome.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East rejected the notion that there was a risk of salami-slicing the service justice system. He rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, and I join him in that. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West suggested that there should be more women on the boards of courts martial. That is good, because that is exactly what the Defence Secretary has committed to. That is a very important commitment and he will be held to account on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made some interesting remarks about the defence serious crime unit and made an appeal for independent expertise to be drawn into it. That is exactly what will happen. He paid a fitting tribute to Justice Shaun Lyons, who is, I entirely accept, an extremely credible voice with regard to matters of jurisprudence. However, we also have huge regard for Justice Henriques, and his support for the maintenance of concurrent jurisdiction guided our thinking in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham reflected on her own inquiry. Again, I put on record our gratitude for that hugely important piece of work, which we will use as a lever to accelerate institutional change to ensure that women can thrive in military careers, given that since 2018 every single role has been open to women to serve in. She questioned the validity of increasing and expanding our reporting on data, but that will be a mechanism for holding the Government to account, and we welcome that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) asked a good question about housing. I can give him absolute confirmation that that is at the heart of the covenant provision. That is why, along with education and healthcare, it is one of the pillars of the statutory obligation in the statutory guidance. We are putting a huge injection of cash into accommodation provision not just for service families but for single servicemen and women. The highly successful Forces Help to Buy scheme has helped thousands of service personnel to buy their own homes. The Government have put more than £400 million into that. I do not need to tell the House that the military has been an engine of home ownership and social mobility for some 400 years. We look forward to maintaining that magnificent and deeply honourable tradition.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) attempted to draw an analogy with the Metropolitan police. He ignored the fact, however, that our armed forces are designed to go around the world and defeat the nation’s enemies, which the Metropolitan police is not required to do.
We have listened and we will be judged by our performance, which is why we have set up an admirably transparent system for reporting on our data, and we welcome that scrutiny. We should say very clearly that we have confidence in the provisions in the Bill and in what it delivers. Ultimately, it will deliver a tangible, practical benefit for those serving and for our magnificent veteran community. It is a Bill for the armed forces; we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and we should be very proud.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment 1B accordingly disagreed to.
Lords amendment 2B disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1B and 2B;
That Leo Docherty, Alan Mak, James Sunderland, Suzanne Webb, Stephen Kinnock, Liz Twist and Carol Monaghan be members of the Committee;
That Leo Docherty be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now pause momentarily in order that people may leave the Chamber in a covid-safe manner.
Subsidy Control Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 22 September 2021 (Subsidy Control Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Paul Scully.)
Armed Forces Bill
Tuesday 14th December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (14 Dec 2021)
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motion B.
Your Lordships will understand that the Bill is essential. It must pass this week or the Armed Forces Act 2006 will cease to have effect. As my honourable friend Mr Leo Docherty, the Minister in the other place, made clear yesterday, we have been listening to the concerns of noble Lords and honourable Members and the Government have responded to them. We recognise that all Members of this House want to do the best they can for our Armed Forces and to support them in the vital role that they play.
I turn first to the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I think we all agree that criminal wrongdoing must be robustly and swiftly addressed for the sake of our service personnel and for the victims of crime. We respectfully maintain that the provisions in the Bill will meet these concerns. They will require civilian prosecutors across the United Kingdom to agree with the Director of Service Prosecutions protocols for determining in which jurisdiction cases should be heard. The Bill provides that civilian prosecutors will always have the final say on the choice of jurisdiction under those protocols.
The Government therefore agree that civilian prosecutors should be able to decide whether a case proceeds in the service or civilian jurisdiction. However, we are unable to agree that a role for the Attorney-General is needed, and we consider that it is wrong for there to be an explicit and inbuilt bias towards one system or the other. Each system is and should be capable of dealing with all types of offending, with decisions made by prosecutors on a case-by-case basis. The service justice system will be dealing with all offences when they occur overseas, and it really makes no sense to truncate our capability in this area and create the very real risk that the system could be seen as second class if serious offences such as rape and serious sexual assault can be dealt with in the service justice system overseas but not in the United Kingdom.
There was some discussion in this House last week about the implications of this amendment for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The earlier amendment applied only to England and Wales, giving the role of authorising a service justice prosecution to the Director of Public Prosecutions after consulting the Attorney-General. The latest amendment retains that feature but creates rules for Scotland and Northern Ireland, giving the authorising function to the Lord Advocate in Scotland and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
Let me be clear that this formulation remains unacceptable to the Government. As I have said, the provisions of the Bill already give the final say on jurisdiction to the civilian prosecutors: the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Lord Advocate, and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Our objection remains to any involvement of the Attorney-General or Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and to any inbuilt bias towards either system, for the reasons which I have explained.
We recognise, however, that we could increase confidence in the service justice system by being more open and transparent about the cases that the system is dealing with. This is why a specific commitment was given in the other place yesterday to improve our annual statistical update on offences contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and historic sexual offences dealt with in the service justice system to include other serious offences. Our bulletin in spring 2022, published on the GOV.UK website, will, in addition to reporting on rape statistics, now include granular data on cases of murder and manslaughter, and for sexual offending those cases involving personnel serving in the Armed Forces who are under 18 at the time of the offence. Furthermore, from January 2022, we will start to record separately information about domestic violence and child sexual abuse offences in the service justice system so that these too can be reported in our spring 2023 bulletin.
Greater reporting will enable the Government to be held to account and to transparently monitor the health of the service justice system so we can make adjustments and improvements where necessary. We know of course that the service justice system deals with a significantly lower number of cases than the civilian system and that small variances in the data can produce seemingly large swings in performance when expressed as percentages. However, low case numbers aside, the service justice system has trained police investigators, prosecutors and judges who are experienced and capable of dealing with the serious offences which are of concern here. We are strengthening and improving investigative capability through the defence serious crime unit.
I now turn to the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on the need for a report to be laid within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, setting out the implications of not applying a new covenant duty to central government. I appreciate the sincere desire that lies behind the original amendment. As the Minister explained in the other place yesterday, the Government have already committed to reviewing the operation of the covenant duty to indicate whether other policy areas or functions could be usefully included. We have listened carefully to the views expressed in both Houses and, recognising the strength of feeling across both, the Government have now committed to going further and have set out in clear terms how such a review will occur. I am pleased to repeat these clear terms, to share that commitment, and to set out as follows how we see such a review progressing.
The review will encompass the operation of the new duty across the UK, going further than your Lordships’ proposals, and it will consider whether it would be beneficial to exercise any of the powers conferred by this Bill to add to its scope. This will include specific consideration of whether central government and any of its functions could usefully be added. The Government will report on the review as part of the covenant annual report in 2023, 18 months after the new duty is expected to come into effect. This timescale is more realistic than the six-month timeline from Royal Assent suggested by your Lordships, which is too short a period for any meaningful review to take place.
Once the Bill is passed, elements of the new duty, such as the statutory guidance, will require further statutory consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. We expect to see the new duty standing up in law by the middle of 2022 at the earliest, which is around the time that your Lordships’ amendment would have required a report. We also need to allow for an implementation period to give local authorities time to adjust to their new responsibilities. Therefore, to conclude and publish the review at the 18-month point of the new duty having been in operation is most appropriate.
Recognising the level of interest in this new duty, we will provide an update in the covenant annual report in December 2022, some six months after the duty is expected to come into effect. We will be able to say more at this point about the scope and methodology for conducting the review, and Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to assess and comment in the 2022 covenant report debate. We are committed to ensuring that parliamentarians from both Houses can contribute and give their views as part of the review process.
I have sought to reassure this House where I have been able to do so. We are up against time, the Bill must pass, and I urge noble Lords to support the Government. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Thomas of Gresford
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 1D as an amendment in lieu—
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civilian court unless, by reason of the circumstances, including but not limited to specific naval or military complexity involving the service, trial by court martial is directed by—
(a) in England and Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultation with the Attorney General;
(b) in Scotland, the Lord Advocate;
(c) in Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, after consultation with the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the Justice Minister, Dominic Raab, speaking on “Today” this morning, said:
“I’m proud of our tradition of freedom in this country. We believe in liberty under the rule of law … We want to reinforce our typical British liberties like freedom of speech, the liberty that guards all the others … trial by jury, that’s a common-law right, very much part of the British tradition.”
In another part of the thicket, the Defence Secretary, Mr Ben Wallace, is seemingly against trial by jury and is acting contrary to the advice of his advisers and the judgment of his departmental Ministers, as Johnny Mercer, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans until April of this year, told us last week. Mr Wallace refuses to accept that, where charges are brought against a person subject to service law for serious cases of murder, manslaughter, rape or serious sexual offences allegedly committed in the United Kingdom by a person subject to service law, there should be a presumption that the accused should have the “common-law right” to trial by jury. Let us spell it out clearly again. If you join the services, you lose the common-law right to trial by jury—which is very much part of the British tradition, as Mr Raab would have it.
In the Commons last week, Sarah Atherton, the Member of Parliament for Wrexham, who has made her way up from the ranks of the Intelligence Corps to the green Benches in the other place and to the chair of the defence sub-committee charged with studying this issue, voted against her own Government and in so doing lost her ministerial appointment.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, it is with pleasure that I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It has been a long campaign since I first initiated a series of debates following the case of Sergeant Blackman for murder. I also note, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, the proposals of the Lord Chancellor to embed the right to trial by jury in his reforms, as was referred to this morning. It would be gravely inconsistent of the Government to declare this right in statute while denying it to service men and women.
The right to trial by jury—the right to trial by one’s peers—goes back to Magna Carta, with all the protections that have been hammered out over the years for majority verdicts, announced publicly, with everyone knowing exactly what is happening and the careful directions that are given to juries. It should be the right of every serviceman and every servicewoman, too.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I rise to support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The key issue is trial by jury. I completely accept the improvements in the service justice system—I saw them in my former role as Lord Chief Justice. However, the Minister does not grapple with the fundamental issue: why take away the right to trial by jury? It is important, because sometimes Ministers misspeak on the “Today” programme, to see what the Deputy Prime Minister wrote in this morning’s Times:
“Trial by jury is another ancient right, applied variably around the UK, that doesn’t feature in the ECHR, but will be in our bill of rights. We should be proud of our history of liberty—and preserve a human rights framework that promotes it.”
It seems inconsistent with that declared policy of Her Majesty’s Government that the Ministry of Defence opposes the fundamental right of trial by jury for those who put their lives at risk for our country. That is what this amendment has at its heart.
It seems to me that by their support of this amendment in the course of debate, the Opposition have accepted that a mistake was made in 2005 when the right to trial by jury was taken away from those in the armed services for these very serious offences. Why does the Ministry of Defence not have the courage to admit that a mistake was made and restore the fundamental right of every member of the Armed Forces to trial by jury for these most serious offences?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I give a cautious but warm-hearted welcome to the remarks and undertakings from the Dispatch Box by the Minister about my amendment. She will recognise that the amendment last week required a report from the Secretary of State about why he, and so central government, should not have statutory authority or due regard. As the Government have stated in both Houses that they have reached the view that legislation is not necessary, it should not have been unduly onerous or difficult for them to explain why in a report to both Houses in the six-month timeframe. Now, however, I sense a changing view and the need for a longer period before making a report.
This change of view is most welcome. It has effectively been demonstrated since Report by the decision of the MoD to refer the case of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps to the Home Office, from one central department to another, dealing with a veterans issue that could not be gripped at devolved or local authority level. However, the MoD must continue to discharge its responsibilities to those veterans. It must continue to take an active interest in their plight until the Home Office responds. Will the Minister give that undertaking now? It should not need to wait for further consideration under the Nationality and Borders Bill when it comes to this House. My hope is that the Government will take “nonne” or a “ne” rather than a “num” approach in answering the request and reporting on why central government must have a legal covenant duty of due regard.
I am very conscious that time is pressing to gain Royal Assent, without which the Government have no statutory right to military forces. I was also somewhat reassured by the Minister’s statement in the other place, so I have not moved any further amendment. I thank the Government for conceding that the role of central government must be considered and reported upon to Parliament.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, let me say once again that Her Majesty’s Opposition support the Bill; we have sought only to challenge the Government to improve it. I believe that, including today, it has been a very good debate in your Lordships’ House, with important contributions from all parts of the Chamber. As we have seen, this has led to many important clarifications and further commitments from the Government. In this, the House has been helped by the approach of the Minister, who has been both engaging and constructive in the work that she has done.
We accept the Government’s Motions A and B as sent back to the House today, but we remain determined to hold the Government to account as we go forward, ensuring that commitments made on the record—both in this House and in the other place—are indeed met. We remain disappointed that the Government have not agreed to Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which we have supported all along.
We will want to test the Government on the commitments that they have made on transparency. Leo Docherty MP talked about all sorts of statistics, which were now to be used by the Government to enhance transparency with respect to serious violence, serious sexual violence, the recording of sexual offences against under-18s and so on—and these will be included in the annual report. When reporting those statistics, however, what will happen if problems remain despite the Government’s belief that the service justice system, as it is to be constituted, will improve the situation? What if the situation does not change? Will that be the time, perhaps, for the Government to consider Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon? It would be helpful if the Minister could say how the Government will judge the statistics that they are committed to publishing with respect to dealing with sexual violence and sexual offences within the criminal justice system.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and, much as he has done, welcome the changes and further commitments that the Government have made on reporting with respect to the covenant, its scope and its extension to government—so that government itself must have due regard to it—with the first annual report to be published in 2023, and an interim report in 2022. We welcome that, but what happens if these reports show that change is needed, and how will they be reported to Parliament?
We believe that the Government have moved forward, making concessions and additional commitments. We thank the Minister for ensuring that the debate has taken place and has been used to inform decisions in the Ministry of Defence; I am sure that all your Lordships welcome that. However, as the Minister knows, serious questions remain around the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We look forward to seeing how these will be dealt with as we go forward.
It would not be appropriate for us to allow the Bill to pass today without once again praising the bravery and professionalism of our Armed Forces. As well as their duty abroad, they are once again to be called upon to help in the fight against the pandemic. Whatever discussions and debates we have, they should know that this Chamber, and all your Lordships, recognise that duty and service as we pass this Bill. We will never, and should never, take that for granted.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, because throughout the Bill’s progress in this House, we have genuinely had well-informed debates which have been extremely helpful in the scrutiny of the legislation. I again pay tribute to all who have facilitated that positive review of it. I also thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
Let me try to deal with some of the points which have arisen. In relation to the service justice system, there was a sense of reprise of previously presented arguments. I know they were presented in good faith. Some have now been addressed by the Government, but, as your Lordships will be aware, others they reject. We have a fundamental point of principle here, which is that some of your Lordships feel that there should be a bias and an explicit tilt towards the civilian system, while the Government are not convinced that that is in the interests of the service justice system or of those who would have to use it. What matters is that the service justice system is robust, which it is, and this Bill introduces many improvements to it.
I do not want to bore your Lordships by repeating the arguments I have previously adduced as to why the Government support the approach of concurrency of jurisdiction. I simply observe that trial by jury is not a part of the service justice system, but we require a system which works both overseas and across the United Kingdom, is professional and has capability and capacity. That is what this Bill provides.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked me specifically about publishing the detail of the protocols. I would direct him to Clause 7, creating a new Section 320A, and to subsection (8) of that, which directs that the current version of the protocol must be published in whatever manner the directors think appropriate.
I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his kind remarks and his acknowledgement of the Government’s willingness to hear his concerns and to seek to address them. I am not a position to deal with the specific point that he raised, but he will know that announcements are likely in the near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised two issues. He asked what would happen if the publication of the more detailed data and statistics for the service justice system caused concern. I said that we are very clear as a Government that that additional data will help to inform us as to where we may need to make adjustments or where improvements may be necessary if issues arise which occasion concern.
On the covenant, the noble Lord asked a similarly aligned question about the reports: what if they suggest that the positive progress we all want is not being made as effectively as we would hope? First, that will inform the Government, but, secondly, as his honourable friend in the other place said, it is the job of opposition to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise. I absolutely agree with that; that is what the Opposition exist to do. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is an exemplar of holding me as a Defence Minister to account, and I am sure that formidable and tenacious approach will continue.
What this Bill and our debates are all about, and what we try to do in improving this legislation, is of course for the benefit of our Armed Forces. All of us are very conscious not only of what they have done over time, of the sacrifices they make and of the commitment they give, but, perhaps very particularly at this time, of the extraordinary support they have been giving to the country during the pandemic. I know that your Lordships will want on behalf of this Chamber to express our unqualified appreciation—
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I would be grateful if she could write at some point saying why trial by jury is not being conceded for members of the Armed Forces. It may require some legal argument. I would be delighted to read it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will address the noble and learned Lord’s point in a moment, but if I may continue with my tribute, it is very important for this House to send a message to our Armed Forces that we absolutely value everything they are doing. I am particularly conscious of that at this time. Their contribution is extraordinary and invaluable to the country, and we would want them to know just how much we appreciate that.
The noble and learned Lord will be aware that the jury system is not part of the service justice system. It is the view of the Government that the service justice system is robust, that this Bill will make distinct improvements to it and that it has to operate in a manner which makes it fit for purpose both overseas and across the United Kingdom. That is what this Bill does. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
If the Minister will allow me, will she deal with the inconsistency between the Lord Chancellor’s remarks this morning that he seeks to embed the right to trial by jury in statute and the fact that, at the same time, this is being denied to service men and women?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think the noble and learned Lord overlooks the tradition of the service justice system and why we have such a system. That has been one of its characteristics over decades: that is the character of the system. It exists to serve a particular purpose, which most people in this Chamber acknowledge, and that is why it has different characteristics from the civilian justice system.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. Many fine words have been said and two issues have really come forward. The first is the denial of the right to trial by jury to members of the Armed Forces—they sign away that right when they join up. This issue will not go away but will rumble on and on.
The second issue relates to victims and the problems so clearly delineated to Sarah Atherton’s committee. She had representations from more than 4,000 women serving in the Armed Forces, all going the same way. Indeed, one person from an NGO which helps them said she was looking after 600 servicewomen, none of whom wanted trial by court martial; all wanted their right to have a trial in the ordinary courts so that the alleged transgressors could be brought to justice in the ordinary way.
This is absolutely fundamental to the constitution of this country. Regarding what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said a moment ago, in his press release today Mr Raab talked about the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Slave Trade Act and so on, calling them to his aid in supporting the right to trial by jury. It is a simple point.
I am very conscious that there are good things in this Bill that I have worked for for ages, such as majority verdicts in courts martial. I do not want to see this Bill fail, nor do I want the military to be let loose at this particular time by this Bill falling for lack of time. Therefore, I do not propose to press my amendment, but I hope we will come back to this issue. I hope that that will not be in five years’ time with our next Armed Forces Bill but that, once statistics emerge and show us the true situation, the Government will have the guts to admit that they were wrong.
This is not a historic thing going back decades. Jurisdiction was given to courts martial to try murder, manslaughter and rape in 2006, so this is barely 15 years old. Consequently, it is not a great military tradition— if it is being presented in that way. Up until that time, the service justice system insisted that offences committed by servicemen in the United Kingdom, on the soil of this country, should be tried in the ordinary courts. I hope we get back to that very quickly. I will not press the matter and beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 15th December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 50-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (29 Nov 2021)