Armed Forces Bill

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I would be happy to look at that myself and to take it up with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who will be at the Dispatch Box on Wednesday.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

The Government have committed to level up the country, and in particular the north of England. Given the risk that covid will level us down, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that in Wednesday’s spending review, the Chancellor will reform the Green Book, replace the local growth fund with the shared prosperity fund and deliver the investment needed to tackle regional inequalities?

[Matt Hancock]

The Treasury has already updated its Green Book, which is a significant step, and I know that the Chancellor has been discussing this further. The levelling-up agenda is even more critical after the pandemic than it was before. It is the agenda on which all Government Members were elected with enormous enthusiasm about a year ago, and we look forward to putting it in place with renewed vigour once this pandemic is over.

Integrated Review

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly the purpose of this announcement. It is a long-term plan that allows us to reform our defences. They must be reformed and they must be improved, while allowing us to project force and stability around the world. That is what it is designed to do. It simultaneously creates tens of thousands of jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom. So it has a big economic benefit as well.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the commitment to additional future funding, but we should not forget that British boots are on the ground in Afghanistan today. A consequence of President Trump’s threat to reduce troop numbers would be that the UK needed to play a greater role in building peace, security and resilience. So does the UK stand ready to meet that challenge and ensure that the people of Afghanistan are afforded the opportunity of a more peaceful and prosperous future?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and I recognise and admire the service that he has given to this country in our armed forces. He is completely right to point to the issue of a proposed potential American draw-down in those areas. We are watching it very closely, and we will be working with our American friends in the new Administration to do whatever we can to protect the stability and security of those troubled countries.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

For the sake of time, I will not speak to every single amendment.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Go on!

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend says, “Please do,” but I am sure that other Members want to contribute to this debate.

Since speaking on Second Reading and in Committee, it has been my aim, and that of the Labour Front-Bench team, to try to improve the Bill. In my nearly 19 years in this House, I have been someone who is proud of our armed forces, considers myself a friend to them and wants to help them in any way I can. I stand up for them, and I speak passionately, I think, in defending not just them but the case for defence.

It has therefore been disappointing that the Government have not really engaged to amend the Bill. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said to the Defence Secretary that he wished to work with the Government to try to improve the Bill today, and he got a single-word reply: “No.” We then had the reply from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans in response to a question on the Bill when he said that he would be

“happy to work with anybody to improve this Bill, but we must operate in the real world.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 13.]

The only problem with that is that it is the real world according to the Minister, and that world obviously has a different colour sky from the one that we all live in. The idea that, somehow, as long as he is saying it, it has to be true, even when his evidence is counter to that put forward by various witnesses in Committee, is telling. What was sad in Committee was that all the Minister did was read out his civil service brief to us in response to the various amendments. He was reluctant to accept any interventions, even from rottweilers such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). When it comes to the Government Members on the Committee, I must congratulate the Whips Office on selecting so well, because those Members must have taken a collective vow of silence, which would have been admired by any silent ecclesiastical order. We had no contribution whatever from them, so it has been very difficult trying to engage with the Government on this Bill. The line is, clearly, that this is the answer, irrespective of what has been raised in Committee. We had some very good witnesses before us in Committee, but the Government are just not interested in changing the Bill, because the world and this Bill are perfect, according to the Minister and the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I declare an interest as a veteran. It is a pleasure to be called in the debate and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I do not share his analysis on this occasion, but it is a pleasure to follow him none the less.

I begin with what I hope is a point of agreement across the whole House. We all appreciate and understand the strength of feeling and high regard that Members across the House have for those who serve in our armed forces. Sadly, we are all too familiar with stories of our armed forces personnel being hounded for years and years. The Bill seeks to address such abuses but—here is where I part company with the Minister and the Government—in a manner that I believe will see Britain reneging on its international legal commitments. I will focus my remarks on the exception of torture from the Bill.

Torture, aside from being wholly ineffective, is illegal, immoral and inhumane. However, having listened to the Government’s arguments throughout the passage of the Bill, I remain convinced of the need for safeguards on torture. For the most part, Ministers have sought to dismiss the suggestion that the triple lock will weaken our stance on torture, yet an ever-growing number of legal experts, military figures and parliamentarians on both sides of the House think there is a need for a rethink.

It is obvious to see why there is a problem with the Bill. In my view, the Government have taken the correct decision to exclude sexual offences from the Bill. They could not have been more explicit when doing so. In response to the public consultation, the MOD said:

“the use of sexual violence or sexual exploitation during conflict is never acceptable in any circumstances.”

I believe that the same applies to torture. It is never acceptable in any circumstances. When pushed on that matter, Ministers have argued that an allegation of torture could arise as a consequence of the unique and often dangerous tasks that soldiers are instructed to carry out on overseas operations. That is just not correct. The rules on detention and interrogation are clear. The British Army’s training on detainee handling and tactical questioning is rigorous and leaves no room for doubt.

There is no debate on what constitutes torture, nor can an act of torture be conducted in error or as a result of a split-second misjudgment. It is a premeditated action for which there can be no justification. There is a reason why our soldiers are taught where the line is: we lose our legitimacy if we sink to the level of our opponents. By not excluding torture in the Bill, the Government are taking another step backwards on international law and on human rights.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making points with which I absolutely concur. The prohibition on torture is absolute. I have witnessed first hand the training given to our armed forces personnel on the issues that he has described. Does he share my concern, which was expressed in Committee, that not excluding torture in the way that the Government could have done, and have done on sexual offences, puts our armed forces personnel at bigger risk of being taken to places such as the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which nobody wants to happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly valuable point. That is a real risk and an unintended consequence of the Bill. I hope that the Minister gives pressing thought to that during the remainder of its passage through the House.

My hon. Friend will have seen the excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which raised significant concerns that the Bill breaches the UK’s international legal obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law. The Committee recommended that at a minimum, the Government should exclude torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide from the Bill’s presumption against prosecution. That is precisely what the Government should be doing.

When I spoke to the Minister before Second Reading, he said that he was amenable to looking at such changes. I am sure he believes, as I and many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House believe, that torture is incompatible with the values and standards of our armed forces.

[Jack Lopresti]

There is nothing in the Bill that prohibits any investigation within or after the five years for any such acts. There is nothing that favours them; there is no amnesty, no pardon, and no statute of limitations. By the way, I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s book, which I read a couple of weeks ago, but I have to say that on this occasion, he is mistaken.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments towards the end of his remarks. There is a weight of expert opinion. I am reassured about the strength of the case that I and other hon. Members are seeking to make today by the contacts I have had with my former colleagues who are still serving in our armed forces. There is a genuine debate still to be had about this. I am sure that the Minister will want to engage with the substance of the debate. Let us keep talking about it.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

When the Defence Committee was looking at the matter in the previous two Parliaments, it recommended a Bill of this sort provided that the time limit was qualified by the absence of compelling new evidence. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that he does not feel that that proviso is in the Bill? If that proviso is in the Bill, if there were compelling new evidence that had not come forward in the first five years but came forward afterwards, then indeed a prosecution could proceed.

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I certainly assume that all of us attend this debate and seek to make contributions in good faith, and I think there is a genuine desire from Members from all parts of the House to improve this Bill. The Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that in good faith he wants to have that continuing conversation with Members about how we can improve the Bill. There is still time to do so, and I very much hope that we will not miss out on that opportunity.