Armed Forces Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

G7 and NATO Summits

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are increasing our funding for girls’ education to £430 million, which is about a 15% increase and an outstanding thing for this country to do in very, very difficult times. By the way, may I congratulate my hon. Friend because I think that her proposal for banning under-age weddings, which she brought to me, is now being carried forward. I thank and congratulate her on her work in that matter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. Will he outline the steps taken to inform the members of the G7 summit of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, which seems to have gotten confused? I refer in particular to American President Biden and French President Macron. Will follow-up instructions and information be sent to help them grasp the fact that Northern Ireland was, is—in this centenary year—and will continue to be an integral part of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I think it is important that everybody understands that, although the media accounts of what took place differ very much from what actually happened at the summit where this was not really much of a topic of discussion. None the less, I think people do understand that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom for economic and all other purposes.

Covid-19 Update

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, absolutely. The distinguished former Health Secretary will, I am sure, know that there are now 50,000 more people working in the NHS this year than there were at the same time last year, including about 11,000 more nurses, already, and 6,700 more doctors, but we are going to get even more.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, particularly for those who have lost family members; I am very conscious of my wife losing her mum, and we all grieve for her especially.

The involvement of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the inquiry to look back at this is very important, and I welcome it. Will the Prime Minister outline what discussion has taken place between the devolved regions to ensure parity of travel restrictions so that every area of the UK can be accessed safely? Will he confirm that help will be made available to make travel affordable and encourage people to go to Northern Ireland over the summer so that people can make the most of the great British summer staycation throughout every area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. We of course regularly consult all the devolved Administrations about making sure that travel can continue to flow freely through our United Kingdom. He makes a superb point about the attractions of Northern Ireland as a holiday destination and I hope people take him up on it.

Debate on the Address

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Today we see a Queen’s Speech full of headlines. This Government are good at painting headlines, yet those headlines are often lacking when it comes to detail. I spend my time—privileged as I am to be Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—doing the maths. We have levelling up, but does that mean levelling down for cities such as mine, here in London, and an attack on the poorest there? We have promises of high-quality education in the Gracious Speech, while teachers are being laid off and children who are in touch with social services are more in need than ever before. Both those budgets are stretched to squeaking point.

We have a promise of more homes, but every housing programme that the Public Accounts Committee has looked at over the past six years or more has shown a lack of delivery, and a failure of that promise. The Gracious Speech mentions finances being returned to a sustainable path, but there is a sting in the tail because until we see the detail of how that will be paid for, none of the other promises can be guaranteed. I do the maths, and I will continue to do them. I will support bits of the Gracious Address. I will support any policy that benefits my constituents, but I will watch like a hawk the detail, the money and the delivery, because the delivery is what matters.

On fire safety, we need the new building safety regulator, and I welcome the fact that that is in the Gracious Address. However, as the Public Accounts Committee has highlighted, along with our sister Committee, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, we need skilled people to do the safety work. We are already four years on from the tragedy of Grenfell, yet there are not enough people to do the work, assess the need, and carry out remediation. The cost to leaseholders is extraordinary. It is damaging their futures, it is putting their lives on hold, and I concur completely with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley): we must tackle this issue now. The Government need to step up, be more imaginative, and ensure that those homeowners who have sunk their life savings into their future and their homes are rescued. This is a generational failure in fire safety and regulation, and it must be tackled. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I are the beginnings of a campaign on that issue, so the Prime Minister had better watch out.

So we need more homes. Again, that is something I want to support, but will they be affordable? Rights for renters—yes, but that can come with a sting in the tail if not done well. It must be properly done. On homes and homelessness, in the past week alone I have been on the doorsteps of two women whose story I should tell. One is a victim of domestic violence, with the glass on her front door still broken. She is living in a one-bedroom flat, with her 13-year-old son still having to share her bed. Another woman, who I have met before said, “Now you are on my doorstep, see my big boys.” Her teenage sons came to the door. She lives in a one-bedroom flat with her two teenage sons and her husband. That is not unusual in my constituency.

It is a living tragedy that people go through their whole childhood and adolescence, and into adulthood, sometimes sharing a bed with a parent, and certainly living in severely overcrowded conditions. At any one time, we have more than 3,000 people in temporary accommodation—a number that has grown exponentially. The promise of new housing rings hollow to those people, and the Prime Minister needs to look at the reality of people’s lives, not just in some parts of the country but particularly in its expensive parts, such as the city where he was Mayor and where he believed that “affordable” housing was 80% of private rents—80% of £1,500 or more a month for a one-bedroom flat.

In my borough, a typical new two-bedroom property comes in at £750,000. If we take a generous view of house prices, the average house price is 17 times the average local salary. We must bear in mind that in my constituency there are some generous local salaries in the mix; the City workers will make that figure lower. The poorest—people in a good retail job or working as a nurse in a hospital—just cannot afford a new home. So renting is out of reach for many people; they need that good-quality, properly affordable housing in order to keep our city going. If levelling up means anything, it does not mean levelling down or keeping people in my constituency and in London squeezed into inappropriate and overcrowded accommodation, in order to build nice, identikit, three-bedroom houses with gardens elsewhere. Of course, I want everybody to have opportunity, but not at the expense of those in London.

I welcome some of the changes on leasehold reform. I declare an interest, in that I am a leaseholder and I live in a property with dangerous cladding—happily, my developer is removing it and paying for the whole thing, so I am one of the lucky ones. I welcome the ground rents reform, which is long overdue, but where is the wider leasehold reform? We need to see that. It is not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, and I hope that is just because it is not in enough detail. I think I have made my point on unsafe cladding.

One of the great hopes, and a cross-party one, was that we would finally see some movement on social care, which we have been discussing for 30 years and more—we have seen multiple reports of that. Again, we see the headlines from the Government—the promise of something, at some time. It was a promise made in 2015 by a Conservative Prime Minister. It was a promise made by this Prime Minister in 2017, yet four years on and ticking, there is nothing to be seen. It is crucial that we start this now and that we reach across the Aisle and find cross-party consensus to tackle this, especially because of the shameful approach to social care and care homes in the pandemic, whereby people were exported from hospital with covid, spreading it rapidly through care homes. As the Public Accounts Committee said, they were thrown to the dogs. Let us also not forget domiciliary care; more of us will have care in the home than institutional care, and we need to make sure that is wrapped up in the mix as well. The PAC has a list of asks on this issue, which I commend to the Prime Minister.

I want to touch briefly on identity checking for elections. I was the passport and identity card Minister in the last Labour Government. We concluded then—and the Act of Parliament that set up the ID cards was very clear—that having an ID card would never be required to access a public service. Yet we see this Government proposing what seems to be a plethora of alternative paperwork that is costly and out of reach for, as I recall, about 10% of the population: passports, which are more than £90 each; and driving licences, which people cannot have unless they can learn to drive and have a car, or have the money to do that. They will need those in order to vote—to access a public service.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On that subject, we have had the rules in place for some time; we have had ID cards, which the Northern Ireland Assembly brought in, with a small charge of £2 to £3. So there are ways of doing this that are suitable for people’s pockets. It has worked in Northern Ireland, and we should take that as an example.

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman and I could have a completely separate conversation about ID cards, but I absolutely agree with what he says; I used to use that as an example of how it can be done affordably and well. But we have a disconnect in government on this issue. We have discussions about vaccine passports and talk about ID, but not ID cards. We have talk about vaccine passports by an app, but without ID. If vaccine passports are ever going to work, we need some form of verifying ID card. So it seems to me that the Government are arguing, counter to their 2010 position, for abolishing not just ID cards but fingerprints in passports, which took us way below the international standards on identity verification. We need to see a proper, coherent approach to this, not an approach that just stops the poorest from voting and cuts people out of exercising their basic democratic right, when the percentage of in-person fraud is minuscule. Yes, we could do more to tackle postal fraud and the harvesting of votes, but not this.

I want to touch on some of the environmental issues that are touched on in the Bill, although we do not yet know the detail. I am pleased that the Environment Bill is being carried over, but let us hope that we see more detail and more meaningful steps towards action on this issue. The Public Accounts Committee has spent some time over the last year looking at environmental and climate change issues, and we have found the Government wanting. They have been promising the Earth with big broad-brush headlines, but potentially really damaging the Earth through their inaction. There is no planet B, so we have to get it right now. Ambitious projects such as stopping production of petrol and diesel cars within nine years make great headlines, but there is a lot to be done in the nine years between now and then, and very little detail. So it is vital that that is got right, and I think that there is, or should be, cross-party consensus across the aisle that we need to tackle this generational issue for our planet.

On green jobs, again the Government make promises, but I have been looking at this for at least a decade. With COP26 on the way, we can expect a flurry of stage-managed headlines, but the detailed plans to achieve all these things are not there. Over the last decade or so, we have seen the privatisation of the UK Green Investment Bank, and even the removal of its absolute requirement to deliver green investment; we have seen the failed green deal, which cost over £100,000 per loan; and we have seen a fourth contest launch for carbon capture and storage, which would help to tackle some of our energy intensive industries. The first three fell at the first hurdle.

I want to touch on immigration. I proudly represent a constituency that is the world in one borough. We hear tough talk from the Home Secretary on this, and then we hear talk about how she is going to support the Windrush victims. We should be proud of our record of accepting people from the old empire, from the Commonwealth and from across the world when they are fleeing persecution to come to this country. We need to continue to support those people to find sanctuary where they are fleeing challenge, but we also need to better support those who are legally here but are unable to fully participate as citizens because of the barriers that are put up.

The cost and complications of our immigration system have gone through the roof. When I was elected 16 years ago, people had to apply for indefinite leave to remain. They then got five years and they could then apply for citizenship. It then went down to three years, so they had to apply twice to reach their five years for citizenship. They now have to apply three times, each time paying a fee. The Prime Minister talks about making Britain great again and about Britain having a big place in the world, so why is it that when someone comes from outside Britain to contribute to our country, we put these barriers in their way and make life difficult for them and, worse still, for their children?

I am proud to be working with We Belong and with my constituent, Chrisann Jarrett. This organisation represents young people who arrived in this country as toddlers or young children and who have now found that, because they are unable to pay these fees and their citizenship fee, they are excluded from university and often from the workplace. They are legitimately here in most cases, but they are being priced out. That is a crying shame and a stain on our country.

This Queen’s Speech has bits in it that I want to support, but I want to see the detail and I want to see delivery. I want to see movement on social care, on housing and on green jobs, of course, but on the basis of the last 11 years, we have seen failure after failure, promises made and not delivered and—crucially, from a public accounts point of view—lessons not learned and mistakes repeatedly made. Cheap headlines over substance just let people down. I will back what is good for my constituents, but on the basis of this Government’s record, and despite the Prime Minister talking about hope, change and opportunity, I am not very hopeful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Just this week, I had the example of a farmer who is selling his cattle in the Carlisle markets. He has been told that if he does not sell his four pedigree cattle, he will have to house them in veterinary premises in Carlisle in the UK for six weeks at a cost of £50 per piece because of the Northern Ireland protocol. Is that not ludicrous?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I know that the Prime Minister places a high premium on strengthening the Union, and we welcome the measures in the Gracious Speech that are designed to strengthen the Union. We embrace the levelling-up agenda—we want to see Northern Ireland benefit from it, and we want investment in our infrastructure—but my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If our farmers, our businesses and our citizens find that doing business with the rest of the United Kingdom is becoming increasingly difficult, that is a levelling down for Northern Ireland, not a levelling up. Great Britain is our biggest market, and the supply chains between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are vital to the economy.

The European Union has stated that its desire is to protect the Belfast agreement and the peace process in Northern Ireland—yet, as I have warned in this House, harming the economy of Northern Ireland and undermining our ability to deliver prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland undermines the peace process, because peace and prosperity go hand in hand. It pains me to see young people out once again on the streets of Northern Ireland, engaging in violence against the police. It pains me to see the instability that is arising because of concerns around the protocol. To be clear, violence is not the way to address this, but politics has to be seen to be working.

The Government must listen to those of us who have a political voice, heed what we are saying on behalf of the people who represent us, and understand the depth of concern that exists in Northern Ireland about the protocol, its impact on Northern Ireland and our economy, and its impact in undermining our place within the United Kingdom. Article 1 of the Belfast agreement is clear: there shall be no

“change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent…of its people”.

There is no consent for the Northern Ireland protocol; indeed, the consent mechanism within the Northern Ireland Assembly has been changed by the protocol in a way that diminishes the safeguards that were built into the agreement in the first place. That is intolerable, and the Government need to address it in their current and proposed legislative programme.

I value the Union, like the rest of my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, and I want to see Northern Ireland prosper within the Union. The world’s fifth largest economy is the United Kingdom, and our United Kingdom provides us with the support and resilience that we need through difficult times, and with incomparable opportunities when times are good. I believe that the case for the Union is strong. It is a case that I want to make and that my colleagues want to make, but the protocol undermines that case in a way that is harmful to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.

The Gracious Speech also touches on the matter of legacy—the legacy of our troubled past in Northern Ireland. We recognise it as an issue that needs to be tackled. For too long, the innocent victims of the dreadful violence that we endured in Northern Ireland have not been given the priority that they deserve within the context of the peace process. Today, we have had a verdict delivered in the coroner’s court in Belfast on the inquests in the cases of what have been described as the Ballymurphy families. They have waited many years for this moment, and the coroner has issued his verdict today. We recognise that there is a desire across all innocent victims in Northern Ireland, whatever their background, to get to a moment where they can have a better understanding of what happened to their loved ones and to pursue justice.

We believe it would be wrong to deny people the opportunity of pursuing justice. That is why we will oppose any measure that seeks to introduce an amnesty in Northern Ireland for crimes such as murder. Sadly, our troubled past is marked at times with injustice that has occurred in Northern Ireland. The act of terrorism itself is a great injustice, and the hurt, the pain and the tragedy that it has inflicted on people in Northern Ireland and on many families is an injustice, but we must not compound injustice with further injustice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who in the short time that she has been here has certainly made a name for herself as an excellent MP for her constituency.

I am grateful to be able to take part in today’s debate on Her Majesty’s programme for government. Can I say what an honour it is to be here today for the Queen’s Speech and to hear Her Majesty’s remarks? As always, I offer thanks to her and prayers for her continued health each day.

Although we have not yet had the information that we were looking for and cannot speak to the detail of the proposals, there are a few areas that I would like to highlight and seek some clarification on if possible. As the Democratic Unionist party spokesperson on health, I was pleased to see reference to changes to strengthen the NHS. However, I had hoped to see specific reference to the mental health needs that are rife across this nation—something that perhaps has not been mentioned today. Information from the Royal College of Psychiatrists shows that we are seeing record numbers of referrals to mental health services, with the most recent figures for December 2020 showing an 11% increase compared with the same time last year. The “UK Household Longitudinal Study” found that during the peak of the covid crisis average mental health distress was 8.1% higher. Looking towards the delivery of the five-year forward view for mental health, the Government have set targets that so far have not been achieved. NHS public data shows that two out of three extra posts are unfilled, so we have more pressure on this unstaffed sector. I would be grateful if the Government would set out how they will seek to address this shortfall legislatively rather than aspirationally. In Northern Ireland—indeed, in my own constituency—we are facing a mental health crisis like we have never seen, and we must know that we can and will deliver better. I urge the Government to give this the priority that it warrants and designate a mental health Bill specifically to turn aspirations into legal obligations.

I am pleased that the Prime Minister referred to his commitment to a social care Bill. That is good news. In the weekend just past, I had a family approach me where the lady has advanced dementia. Her house is going to have to be sold and the family may go into debt to try to deal with these things. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) referred to this and I want to highlight it as well.

I also want to highlight the petition that is going about for increasing the moneys for carers. Those who leave good jobs and then try to take on the position of carers in looking after family members find that they are on about £70 a week—a massive drop. I ask respectfully that the issue of increasing the wages for carers is looked at.

Another issue is the lost learning referred to in the Queen’s Speech. I welcome that, because it is really good news, especially for those in early years. The Duchess of Cambridge has recognised that the lack of support for parents in this area is a huge issue. The effect of the pandemic on lockdown babies who have never attended a mother and toddler group, never learned to play and share with another child and never sung a nursery song in a group in a room has a huge impact that will carry into other years.

A teacher in my constituency who specialises in early years and reading has told me that she can tell the difference between a child who has been socially active and one who has not. She can tell when a child was read to regularly, and for those who have not been, it can take intense therapy to get this right. For the 14, 15 or even more months that have been lost, too many children will be impacted not only in learning their letters but in social behaviour and mixing. It is imperative that we make free-of-charge, safe classes available through every trust and even through willing faith-based groups hosting mother and toddler groups through the summer, when these things usually end. That is in the Queen’s Speech, and it is good to see it, but we need to work with the voluntary sector to address the issue of lockdown toddlers before it becomes a crisis.

I also want to speak about the Union, which is vastly important. I am sorry that colleagues from the Scots Nats party are not here. My reading is that the polls were clear. The majority of people in Scotland said that they were not in favour of independence and the figures indicate that. A majority of seats for the Scots Nats does not mean that a majority of all the people in Scotland voted for them. There is a task for Government and us all to do to sell the good points of the Union for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By doing so, we can hopefully convince our Scots Nats friends that their future does not lie in independence with the EU; it lies with us in this House and the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I note that the Queen’s Speech referred to strengthening economic ties through rail and bus links, but I do not see a terrible lot coming for Northern Ireland in that, so what is happening there? I have referred to the air passage to Northern Ireland and the importance of connectivity and a reduction in air passenger duty. We need to see those things.

I commend the Government for their proposed voter ID legislation. We have that in Northern Ireland and it has not stopped people voting. Indeed, it has given people identification for other purposes, such as travelling. With the ID cards, it turned out to be a small fee for a photograph and that was it. I am also pleased to see the welfare strategy and the commitment to having a carbon-neutral nation. That is good stuff in the Queen’s Speech and things we should all welcome, and I am pleased to see them. It is important for the transport sector to deliver sustainable change. These are all good things, as is the commitment to human rights and a global effort to get 40 million girls across the world into school.

Finally, I will speak about the armed forces covenant being passed into law, the proposals for additional national insurance contribution breaks for veterans and the treatment of veterans in Northern Ireland. I assume that Her Majesty’s reference to addressing the “legacy of the past” is directed at correcting the lack of progress in the last Session, but my party and I are very clear about what we were looking for. We were waiting with great anticipation for the work to bring into line all veterans, regardless of when and where they served—that is, in certain spheres of the world, but in Northern Ireland as well.

I ended the last Session highlighting the needs of Northern Ireland veterans, and I start this one in the same way. Veterans who served in uniform and operated legally, with honour, great courage and great fortitude, deserve to be treated with equality. I ask the Government to please do the right thing and bring forward legislation on this issue. Let us show that our moral and legal obligation extends to those who have served on every occasion and from every region of this great nation of ours, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. An assurance was given, and now is the time to see the evidence of it.

I thank the Government for the Queen’s Speech and the programme they have set out, which seeks to bring us through covid to better times with the bounce for the economy that we are all looking for, and looks to what we can all achieve and enjoy together. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I am confident that, in the near future, legislation will be brought before the House from the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that we see no more prosecutions of Op Banner veterans, and I know that he will share that expectation.

I turn to Lords amendment 5B on the duty of care. The Government continue to believe that it would not be practicable or desirable to define a legally binding standard of care in relation to the matters referred to in the amendment. As I said previously, the Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans. Over the years, we have established a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support for service personnel and veterans, and we have come a long way from the early days of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our welfare provisions were clearly laid out in the Defence Secretary’s written ministerial statement of 13 April. We are aiming for a gold standard and are improving our provision all the time without the requirement for legislation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I know that he is committed to this; I have no doubt whatsoever about that. In my constituency and across Northern Ireland, a number of young service personnel who have served well have taken their own life due to post-traumatic stress disorder. Can the Minister assure me that when it comes to legal, pastoral and mental health support, everything that is necessary is in the Bill?

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. I can reassure him with confidence that we are aiming for a gold standard in welfare provision. It does not require legislation. It requires constant improvement and a deep interest across Government, and that is what the Ministry of Defence is committed to delivering alongside the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.

Additionally, we are deeply concerned about the potential unintended negative effects of Lords amendment 5B if it is included in the Bill. Notions of pastoral and moral duties are extremely difficult to adequately define, and there is a real risk that attempting to do so will lead to more, rather than less, litigation and greater uncertainty for our armed forces people. We are also concerned that, as investigations and allegations arise and often occur on operations, the amendment might have the unintended consequence of undermining our operational effectiveness.

The Government do agree with Lord Dannatt on the need to set out clearly the benefits of the Bill to the armed forces community. He has asked for a commitment that the Government will communicate the measures of the Bill down the chain of command. I am, of course, delighted to give that assurance now. We will ensure that all service personnel understand the positive effects of the Bill and the legal protection it affords them. We will explain how the measures in the Bill are beneficial to individual service personnel who have deployed or will deploy on overseas operations.

Part 1 of the Bill will reduce the number and length of criminal investigations, and our armed forces personnel should be reassured that the unique context of overseas operations will be taken into account when criminal allegations against them are being investigated. The longstop measures in part 2 of the Bill mean that we should never again see the industrial scale of civil claims that we saw in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. These measures are delivering on our manifesto commitment and our solemn pledge to protect our armed forces personnel and our veterans and to bring to an end the shameful cycle of vexatious legal claims brought against our finest asset—our defence people. Together, both parts of the Bill will give greater certainty to service personnel that they will not have the shadow of legal proceedings hanging over them for decades after they return from doing their duty on overseas operations.

We will be clear, of course, that the Bill will not stop service personnel being held to the highest standards that we would expect from all our armed forces, and that they will still be subject to domestic and international law when they deploy on overseas operations. Similar, we will make it clear that the limitation longstops will also apply to claims by them that are connected with overseas operations, and emphasise that they should bring any civil claims connected with overseas operations within six years of either the event or their date of knowledge. The vast majority have historically already done so, but it is important that this message is understood so that, in future, an even greater percentage of service personnel bring their claims in a timely manner.

In summary, the Bill delivers for our armed forces and protects our people, but I do not believe that setting a standard for the duty of care in the Bill is necessary or desirable, so I urge the House this afternoon to disagree with Lords amendment 5B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Jim Shannon —Please resume your seat no later than 4.27 pm.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I echo the comments by others in relation to those who served in Northern Ireland and the protection that we need. The Minister has responded on that very positively, but we also need a timescale for that to happen.

In the short time that I have, I want to refer to the legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel who are involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations. I am aware of this because I am aware of a young fellow in my constituency who served overseas and fought with many demons in his own life. I am not blaming the MOD for it, but I ask the question: could we do more? Lords amendment 5B on the duty of care to service personnel could give them the level of care that is earned from putting the uniform on. Subsection (6) of the new clause inserted by the amendment states:

“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.”

When it comes to mental health and the effects on people’s families and lives, our moral obligation should and must be to go the extra mile. That is why I support the premise of the amendment. It reminds us of our moral obligation, which is as important as our legal obligation, to those who serve in uniform.

A five-year programme of study has been carried out in tandem with Queen’s University. The results show—and I want to have this on the record, in Hansard—that more than a third of all military veterans in Northern Ireland are likely to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Those are the stats, according to this study. More than 1,300 veterans responded to the survey, with 36% reporting signs of PTSD and the same number reporting problems with alcohol.

We have many charities in Northern Ireland that help out. I think of Beyond the Battlefield, in particular, which reaches out to those whom other charities perhaps miss; that is not to take away from the importance of other charities. Some of those cases are incredibly complex, and there are lots of issues for not just the individuals but family members. We need to address the duty of care, both morally and legally.

This is not helped by the fact that those who served in Northern Ireland continue to see no movement. They seek protection, which is very important to have in place for those who served in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister has given a commitment, but could he tell us where discussions are with the Secretary of State?

I usually say that I will not rehearse previous speeches, but this, I believe, bears repeating. Veterans who served in uniform and operated legally with honour, great courage and great fortitude deserve to be treated with equality. I say to the Government: please do the right thing and bring legislation on this issue forward in the Queen’s Speech in May. Let us show that our moral and legal obligation extends to those who have served on every occasion and from every region of this great nation of ours, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for all Members’ contributions. I thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his constructive tone. I am happy to confirm that I will communicate to Justice Henriques the concerns that he has raised. Of course, it is an independent review, but we would be happy for Justice Henriques to consider those concerns within the scope of his review.

We heard contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I look forward to receiving the right hon. Gentleman’s letter, and I will give it due consideration and respond in due course. We also heard contributions from the hon. Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), as well as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); I thank him for bringing his personal experience into the debate.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Returning to the question of Northern Ireland veterans, I would like to be clear. I mentioned earlier that Her Majesty’s Government intend to bring forward legislation in relation to Northern Ireland. The House will understand that I cannot comment on any ongoing legal matters, but I will give the reassurance that we are absolutely committed to delivering on our commitments to veterans of Op Banner as soon as possible.

In closing, I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to the Bill team, who have been first class throughout, and in particular to the Bill manager, Richard Hartell. It is to their great credit that we have brought the Bill to this point. If the House accepts the Government amendments in lieu and rejects Lords amendment 5B, the Bill will allow us to deliver on our manifesto commitment—our solemn pledge—to protect our armed forces personnel and our veterans and bring an end to the shameful cycle of vexatious legal claims brought against our finest asset: our people. I commend the Bill to the House.



Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 1R but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.

Government manuscript amendments (d) and (e) made.

After Clause 12

Duty of care to service personnel

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5B.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention. I acknowledge his significant service on operations in Northern Ireland, and I know that he will share my keen expectation that we will, through legislation, in due course, deliver the protection that our Op Banner veterans so richly deserve.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Minister on coming into his post and very much look forward to working with him, as I did with his predecessor. I wish him well. Obviously, we owe a great debt to those who have served in Northern Ireland, including the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I reiterate that we in the Democratic Unionist party and Unionist people as well want to put on record our thanks to all those who served and made a contribution. We very much look forward to that legislation coming through, which we feel is only correct and right for everyone.

[Leo Docherty]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and I agree entirely with him. Those who have served are the finest among us, and this Government are resolutely committed to delivering through legislation the protections that our veterans of the troubles of Northern Ireland deserve.

I turn to the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1. The Lords amendment adds a new subsection to clause 6 that has the effect of excluding genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture offences from the measures in part 1 of the Bill. In proposing the Government amendment to include genocide, crimes against humanity and torture in schedule 1, I repeat what has been said many times during the passage of the Bill: the decision to exclude only sexual offences from the measures in part 1 did not mean that the Government would not continue to take the international obligations in respect of other offences extremely seriously. I should like to reassure hon. Members once more on that point. The United Kingdom does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. However, the Government have listened to the very real concerns expressed by many in both Houses. I would like to express my thanks to Lord Robertson of Port Ellen for his constructive and collegiate approach on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Government at last agreed to table an amendment to exclude torture, genocide and crimes against humanity from the scope of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill before us today. While I am thankful for this, the fact that such provisions were considered in the first place is outrageous, and raises a number of red flags about the Bill’s intent and its remaining contents, especially in the context of the recent chilling Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021.

It is great that the Government now agree that torture should never go unpunished—I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless campaigners who have forced this U-turn on them—and I am pleased with the Government amendment to exempt genocide, torture and crimes against humanity from these new legal safeguards for British troops serving overseas. However, the Government amendment fails to exclude war crimes from the scope of the Bill, which will leave UK service personnel at risk of prosecution in the International Criminal Court.

Unless this Bill is changed, it will undermine the country’s commitment to the Geneva conventions and other international treaties by bringing in a presumption against prosecution after five years to cover torture and other war crimes. In that light, I am pleased to speak in favour of Lords amendments 1, 3 and 4, and I appeal to the humanity of Members across the House and ask them to join me in voting for them. These amendments are an absolute basic threshold for ensuring that this legislation does not damage the rights of overseas victims of crimes and of service personnel.

However, we must be clear that the Bill as a whole remains highly problematic for the UK’s adherence to domestic and international human rights norms. Unamended, it would damage the standing of the armed forces by acting contrary to established legal norms both domestic and international. By introducing a threshold that would be near impossible to meet, as claims for many serious crimes are made after five years, it would afford effective impunity for UK overseas military operations in many regards.

Indeed, the Bill signals that rather than adhering to a strict human rights framework in the rules of engagement, the UK is prepared to relax—or worse, disregard—protection from many serious crimes. It risks contravening the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and other legal instruments. It would also restrict the ability of servicepeople to bring claims for personal injury and death during the course of overseas actions. Rather than protecting and enhancing the rights of service personnel, it would weaken their key avenue for justice.

As it currently stands, this Bill could also prevent British armed forces personnel from holding the Ministry of Defence to account when it fails to equip troops properly or makes serious errors that lead to the death and injury of British forces overseas. As was raised by the Royal British Legion when it gave evidence, it may also breach the armed forces covenant. We must be absolutely clear where our troops and those leading them have breached the law. From Northern Ireland to Iraq, they must be held accountable and justice must be served. The Bill in its current form threatens to undermine this principle, while also undermining support for current and former service personnel.

I take this opportunity today to call on the Government to think again and take time to make further changes to the Bill to overhaul investigations, set up safeguards against vexatious claims that are consistent with our international obligations, hold all war crimes to the same judicial standard, and guarantee troops retain their right to compensation claims when MOD failures lead to the injury or death of our forces overseas.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate.

First, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the birthday of the head of our armed forces, Her Majesty the Queen. When I put on the Ulster Defence Regiment uniform in Operation Banner, it was done to serve Queen and country, and I still honour her today, on the Floor of the House. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Her Majesty and the royal family on this very, very difficult milestone day.

This issue is difficult and complex. The obligation to fulfil our duty under article 2 of the ECHR is vital. Among the chatter I have heard, there seems to be confusion between a legal investigation following appropriate procedures and an investigation that gives what the family feel to be the right result or justice. This Bill is not designed to be the answer to every death involving a member of the armed forces; it is designed to ensure that the killing was unlawful and is still able to be prosecuted. At the same time, it protects against the sustained, erroneous and vexatious prosecution of service personnel such as those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan or Northern Ireland.

As DUP spokesperson on human rights, I welcome the Government changes to the provisions regarding torture as suggested in Lords amendment 1 to clauses 6 and 7. The Government’s acceptance of this in their own proposals is welcome, as is clarification as to why war crimes have continued to be exempted. I look to the Minister for some clarity on that. I have further questions on Lords amendment 4 regarding the ability of service personnel to make a claim against Government. I have been struck by the Royal British Legion’s reasoning in the briefing sent to me. The shadow Minister mentioned this, as did many others. We are all aware of new clause 13, “Restrictions on time limits: actions brought against the Crown by service personnel”. That amends part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitations on courts’ discretion that the part imposes in respect of actions relating to overseas operations. It could therefore potentially go some way to addressing the issues raised by the Royal British Legion, other external experts and members of both Houses in relation to the impact of part 2. Again, I seek clarity on this.

My next point will be of no surprise to anyone in this Chamber—equivalence of service personnel. For those who currently serve or who have served in the past, we have, as is the title of Lords amendment 5, a “duty of care to service personnel”. My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) both mentioned this. It is really important for those of us who have served in the armed forces and those who represent Northern Ireland in particular. It is so simple and yet so effective, and unfortunately patently untrue. There is a duty of care to service personnel, unless of course they were called to serve in Northern Ireland.

At this stage, I wish to personally thank the former Minister for Veterans and Defence People, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for his honourable actions, his passion and his commitment in the job that he had, and also for the help that he gave some of my constituents personally. I would not want to embarrass him by saying it here in the Chamber, but he really did reach out to some of my constituents in a very, very personal way. I really appreciate that and I want to put it on record.

We have today not parallel legislation where we are working through the kinks, but nothing for those brave personnel who served in Northern Ireland. I asked the Minister earlier about the legislation in respect of protection for Northern Ireland. I do not want to embarrass him but I am going to tell him what I saw as I was sitting here just before I was called. Tracey Magee says:

“NIO source tells me there are no plans to bring forward legislation in the Queens Speech on NI veterans ‘at this stage’.”

To be fair to the Minister, who I respect greatly and have affection for, if that is the case, then we really have to address this issue. If it is not in this Queen’s Speech, then when will it be? If he does not mind, I am going to hold his feet to the fire on this one and say that we really need to have a commitment on legislative time and a timescale to work towards. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is committed to this, but we need to have the involvement of Government and the Northern Ireland Office and to see it the Queen’s Speech. We need to be reassured. If there is a legislative programme, then we need it to be confirmed today and to be told what it is. That is breaking news in the past few minutes.

No matter how the republican agenda seeks to rewrite history to make it appear that there is no difference between a terrorist whose every action is a crime, and whose causing of loss of life can only be murder, and a serving member of the armed forces who may cause loss of life while legally carrying out duties, let me be quite clear: they are not the same. Legislation needs to be in place to ensure that that is not the case.

There is much in the Bill that is right and proper, but I find it harder and harder to understand and support those who persist in belittling and traducing the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. The passing of the Bill will not be complete, and will not have the full assurance and confidence of everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, unless those who served in Northern Ireland have very same rights—every soldier who served, every family who grieved. Across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, every MP no doubt has in their constituency families of those who served and died as a result of their service in Northern Ireland. For them, for the MPs in Northern Ireland, for my party and for the people of the Province, we want to be assured that legislative change will come in the House from this Government and that it will be forthcoming soonest. We want to hear about it right away.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Bill aims to address issues that rightly need to be addressed on potential vexatious investigations and litigations, but was the Bill needed? No, it was not needed. All those issues could have been addressed in the Armed Forces Bill, which is currently going through the House. The Bill was brought forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) said, as a clear piece of election gimmicking and as part of the worst aspects of what we have seen from the present Conservative party trying to get culture wars going.

We saw that on Second Reading in the wind-up from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Somehow, to criticise the Bill in any way meant that you were in favour of ambulance-chasing lawyers and against our brave servicemen and service- women. I take great exception to that. In June, I will have been in the House for 20 years. I think most people know that I have a long record in this House, like other Labour Members, of speaking up and arguing for members of our armed forces. It is worth reminding the House that many of the people who would be affected by the Bill are from northern constituencies—Liverpool and everywhere else. They are proud members of the armed forces and they need protection. The Bill is fundamentally dishonest, because it does not do what it claims to do.

Members have congratulated the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View today. Let me put this on the record. I have had my disagreements with him, but I do not for one minute question his integrity or passion in trying to get everything right for members of the armed forces. However, I have to say that the way he took this Bill and the Armed Forces Bill through was his way or no way. He was not prepared at all to countenance any view that was different from his, even when, on many occasions, it was completely wrong against the evidence we took.

Likewise, I understand what has been said about the hon. Gentleman’s campaign in Northern Ireland. It is one that I sympathise with, but he now tries to portray himself as a great champion of Northern Ireland veterans. He said last night, “Politics does this”. Well, I say to him, “Wake up. You are a politician. You were in a position to do something about it and you didn’t.” Not only did he stop the Armed Forces Bill taking written evidence from Northern Ireland veterans, but he voted against my amendment to look at Northern Ireland veterans in the Armed Forces Bill. So I shall take no lessons from him on that.

The key problem with the Bill is this: if we want to stop vexatious investigations and litigation the way to go about it is to address investigations, but the Bill is silent on that. In Committee I tabled new clauses 6, 7 and 8, which would have addressed investigations. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View told me that investigations would be not be considered in this Bill but that they would be included in the Armed Forces Bill. Lo and behold, when I was on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I found that investigations were not included because they are now part of the long-term review. That is a gaping hole in this Bill. That is why I welcome Lords amendment 2.

Nuclear Test Veterans: Service Medal

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Long ago in a far off place, men who were just a short step from boyhood took risks, without recognising them, as they served their nation. The things they did in those distant days have stayed with them for all the years since. They were the servicemen who are now our nuclear test veterans. What they did for their country in the 1950s was of inestimable value; what we have done for them since pales by comparison.

As a Cabinet Office Minister, I persuaded the then Prime Minister David Cameron and then Chancellor George Osborne to make an ex gratia payment—funds of £30 million, indeed—available to nuclear veterans. Those payments were administered through the Nuclear Community Charity Fund, which was established back then, to go some way to recognising the price the veterans paid in declining health and diminished wellbeing. The veterans have struggled with all kinds of conditions attributable to their exposure to radiation during the time of the nuclear tests; worse still is the pain they feel having unknowingly passed those conditions on to their descendants.

I speak today for those aged men and their deserving families to ask for simply this: that the Government recognise Britain’s 22,000 nuclear veterans with a much deserved medal to mark their patriotic service. They were at the forefront of Britain’s foray into the atomic age. Atomic veterans not only risked life and limb then, during the course of their duties, but those brave British personnel faced radioactive smog and searing nuclear heat which altered their very DNA.

At a time of great scientific advancement, mankind’s discovery heralded a destructive power that the world did not then fully comprehend, for the lethal dangers of radiation were not at first fully understood. In the darkness of our ignorance, nuclear test veterans were drafted into a programme in which they stood just a few miles from apocalyptic explosions, flew through nuclear winds, walked through radioactive sand and drank contaminated water.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward; he is absolutely right to ask for this medal. Does he agree that it is right and proper that these veterans, like most of our veterans, have appropriate recognition for their service and, further, that although the 2018 reformation of the Advisory Military Sub-Committee was welcome, the delay is not? This must be dealt with as a priority because, as we have seen from the death of one of the last remaining second world war veterans, His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, every month is precious.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The debt does not disappear just because the years roll by, and the debt that we owe these people can be marked in precisely the way that I have recommended and that he has endorsed.

Nuclear power is an extraordinary force, sufficient to warp the cellular building blocks of man, but that is something that the veterans now—the servicemen then—could not possibly have understood. This was their duty. They were part of a mission to develop a safe and effective nuclear deterrent for Britain that would keep the nation safe and strong throughout the cold war; the fruits of that mission defend the realm to this very day. The details of what nuclear veterans endured in service to their country have been set out time and again over the course of a long campaign to grant them appropriate recognition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Member. She is not correct; there is no formal role for Ministers to play in this decision-making process. There never has been for medals. It is important that the AMSC is able to determine for itself which medal claims should be reviewed. The terms of the sub-committee are clearly laid out, and any new submissions that might have been provided have been passed to the sub-committee. The decision on whether the case will be reviewed will be shared with campaigners by the AMSC in due course. This is not the end of the line. Those reasons will be shared.

As I have said, the medallic system is outside the control of Ministers, and it always has been. It is rightly in that position, protecting the integrity of the medals system—this is important—and of those who have received honours in this country. However, I am determined to continue to do all I can to support this cohort of veterans. It is fundamental to me that there is no tiered approach to veterans in this country, that those who have served for any period, in any circumstance, are recognised and supported as veterans. Therefore, although there are no dedicated compensation arrangements for UK nuclear test veterans, all claims have been and continue to be considered under the war pension scheme.

Any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation under this scheme, and I encourage them to do so. War pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury as a result of service in the armed forces before 6 April 2005, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Decisions are medically certified and follow consideration of available service and medical evidence, and carry full rights of appeal to an independent tribunal.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the risk. I am not sure whether everybody here watches “Call the Midwife”, but on Sunday night past they had an article in the paper and it was about this very thing. I know that it was a drama, but it illustrated the effect on not only the soldiers, airmen and navy personnel, but the families. When it comes down to risk, is there not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, an obligation to deliver?

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Gentleman gets to the nub of the problem. I have seen some of the drama on Sunday night in “Call the Midwife”, and it is clearly a good and emotive production. The difficulty the Government have is that the evidential basis linking conditions such as that to these tests is with the scientific community and in its opinion it is not of the standard whereby we can draw clear evidential proof. That is the problem we have. That is not a decision for a Minister—that is not a decision for me. I have my own views on medals, and I have worked hard to support this cohort in other ways. That is the nub of the problem, and it is a difficult one, because I know it is frustrating for the families and for campaigners. That is the situation we are in, and work continues to identify the links between illnesses that people think they received from nuclear tests and the actual radiation exposure itself.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

It is always difficult to sum up a man of such years, dignity, service and honours as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, and any attempt by me will fall short. Members who have spoken before me have so wonderfully given a glimpse into his career, so in my short tribute today, I will highlight a few of the numerous facets that made up Prince Philip that I admired the most.

The first is His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, the veteran. As a former Ulster Defence Regiment member, I could not help but look up to a man who served with distinction during the second world war, and whose service continued up until last year. He was truly a man of courage and bravery. The tributes from the armed forces could not be clearer. His service continued in the form of encouragement and inspiration, and his loss is felt deeply by so many veterans and service personnel. His service was unparalleled; he was, indeed, a colossus.

The second is His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme founder. It is a tremendous scheme, founded and driven by the Duke, which has seen young people—many from my own constituency of Strangford—getting an opportunity to drive themselves and excel outside of pure academia. It has been a worthy addition to many people’s CVs: they have valued that coveted award and the meaning, work and dedication behind it. In Northern Ireland alone, in just one year of the award—2019-20—participants volunteered a total of 85,293 hours in non-profit community activities, offering an estimated financial equivalent of £371,025. Extrapolated over the 65 years of the award, the good to individuals and communities is truly immeasurable, including the young lives that were changed—I know some of them—by being given this opportunity. His charitable contributions will, through the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme, last long after he has passed away. His environmental interests, including through the World Wildlife Fund, show that he was a man truly ahead of his time.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip was Her Majesty’s strength and stay: a strong man, an intelligent man, a dynamic man, a forward-looking man, and a man who understood that the step behind the Queen was not a slight, but an absolute honour. My heart aches for Her Majesty over the loss of her confidant, her smile-bringer, her wisdom-imparting best friend. On behalf of my constituents in Strangford, I can confidently say, “Your Majesty, you and all the royal family are in our thoughts and prayers. You have our deepest respect and greatest admiration, and we share a semblance of your sorrow.”

I first met Prince Philip when I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and the Assembly reconvened in 1998. The Queen and Prince Philip attended the Assembly that time. The Queen came up one side of the Great Hall and Prince Philip came up the side that I was on. He looked over at me and saw the badge in my lapel. He said to me, “What’s that badge?” I said, “Prince Philip, it is a badge that says ‘Defend the RUC. They defended us.’” He looked at me, maybe with a mischievous smile, and said, “Well you know, it’s just a wee bit late.” His wit, his understanding and his loyalty were clear. He loved Northern Ireland.

Let me make my final point. His Royal Highness The Prince Philip was a man of loyalty and one of a generation whose service, duty, honour, fortitude, dignity and good humour we must all aspire to. Those are watchwords that we all associate with Prince Philip. He was beloved by the people of Strangford, beloved by the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, and beloved by the Commonwealth.

I hope it is not too late now to say, “Sir, I respected you as a man, second only to my own father, and you will be missed greatly, but your legacy will live on.”

Integrated Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed, my right hon. Friend is right in what he says about the ODA commitment and right in what he says about China. Of course we will keep that under review, although, as I said, the balance has to be struck. He is also right that the UK Government should stick up for British citizens, and I thank him for everything he did during his tenure as Foreign Secretary to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It is a disgrace that she remains effectively in captivity in Tehran, and on 10 March I raised that very matter with President Rouhani myself.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Will he outline the strategy to bring back into line recruitment of foot soldiers post covid, as well as recruitment of cyber-soldiers? May I highlight that the centre for cyber security in Europe is Belfast in Northern Ireland, with trained staff and low rates? Will he consider basing security in Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

The first point to make about the armed forces is that there will be no redundancies under this plan. There will be massive investment in our land forces and particularly in cyber-forces. We are taking the tough decisions needed to modernise and improve our armed forces. Yes, it is expensive—it requires £24 billion to do it—but it means taking historic and difficult decisions now, and that is what we are doing.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, do not envy the Chancellor. How do we get the balance right of supporting the business sector and supporting the vulnerable while ensuring that we do not add further to the deficit? I believe he has delivered a Budget that is suitable for these times and the special circumstances of coronavirus. It is not easy to do that, but he has tried hard.

My little grandson, Max, and my granddaughter, Freya, who were born during the pandemic as lockdown babies, will most likely be paying off this debt through their taxes for their entire adult lives. What a burden on our children and grandchildren, yet the Chancellor has addressed some of the tax issues to deliver some of the moneys that will be needed to pay back the debt and take the burden off our grandchildren.

The Chancellor also referred to the kickstart programme, which I support. I wish we had it in Northern Ireland. For whatever reasons, Ministers in Northern Ireland have not delivered it, and I have been in contact with the Department to find out why.

I am also pleased to see the extension of furlough, and I believe extending it to September is correct. My concern is that the devolved nations are coming out of lockdown at different times, and therefore there should perhaps be a wee bit of flexibility.

I also welcome that there is no increase in fuel duty. Coming from the rural constituency of Strangford, and knowing my constituents’ need to be able to travel, I think that is a good news story, too. There are many other stories to which I could refer, such as the VAT reduction and the rates relief. This is a pro-business Budget, and they are all positive measures.

I congratulate the Government on how they have delivered the response to coronavirus, but we need further work on health. Those with cancer, motor neurone disease, organ failure and many others are in need of palliative care, and the Marie Curie campaign has highlighted that over 82,000 people in Northern Ireland have been bereaved during the covid-19 pandemic, and the number requiring palliative care has doubled over the past 10 years. The need for investment in palliative care must feature in any plan and Budget, and I gently suggest that, although the money for covid-related issues is absolutely right and appropriate, there is also a need for investment in cancer research and palliative care. I would like to see that feature more prominently in the Budget, and I gently and constructively ask that it be taken on board.

I also highlight the financial backing for cancer research and what can be achieved through the superior expertise of British science working alongside international colleagues to produce results. We have seen what is possible through single-minded focus and hand-in-hand support on covid-19.

As with any Budget, there is much to be welcomed and much to be desired. We need to balance the books as best we can in this world, which is so out of kilter. I look forward to the Government offering greater support to those who need it most at this time.