NATO and International Security

Debate between John Healey and Kevan Jones

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

No one on our Front Bench or in the House would disagree with that analysis. Our response was too little, and it was regarded as too weak. It was certainly too little and too weak to deter Putin’s belief that he could take the sort of steps that we have seen in the past three months in Ukraine.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree. We took our eye off the ball. But I will not have lectures from the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who was the one who withdrew our troops down in Germany in the rushed defence review. I remember he made a great statement at the time that we would never see tanks rolling across the east German plains again. We are actually back there, ruing the decision that was taken then.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. I really do not want to make these sorts of points this afternoon, but the Prime Minister declared in recent months, before the Ukraine invasion, that the period of tank battles in Europe was over and justified the Indo-Pacific tilt and the deployment of defence priorities to areas outside the NATO area.

The point that I want to make is in part to recognise the role that the Defence Secretary has played. We in Britain are a bigger force for good not when we act alone but when we act with allies. I take this example from the Ukraine experience. Britain’s supply of anti-tank and anti-air missiles to Ukraine is a fraction of the total weapons provided by the west, but we have helped a great deal more by calling donor conferences, co-ordinating the logistics of delivery and reinforcing the will of other countries to help. So Labour’s full backing for the Government in providing military assistance to Ukraine will continue as we shift from crisis management of the current conflict in Donbas to delivering the medium-term NATO standard military support that Ukraine will need for Putin’s next offensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right in many respects. Some of the most significant arms reduction and arms control treaties have been negotiated and signed by this country under Labour Governments. That was true under Wilson, whom he cites, and it was also true under Blair. He is also right to remind the House that part of our unshakeable commitment to NATO and to the deterrent has been a commitment to leading multinational arms control, reduction and disarmament talks. We may have lost sight of those in recent years—they have certainly commanded little attention over the last decade from the Conservatives—but they are part and parcel of pursuing the fundamental values of NATO, of this country and certainly of the party on this side of the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I concur with what my right hon. Friend has said, but is it not the case that we now need to be making the case for deterrence, so that when Putin is providing maps and threats of nuclear destruction for western Europe, we can say very clearly what the response would be? It is that deterrent stance that has kept the peace since the second world war, and we need to keep reminding him, when he makes those threats, of the reason that we retain a nuclear deterrent.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. Clear and consistent communication is part of having an effective deterrent in place. It is not simply about the weaponry at hand.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between John Healey and Kevan Jones

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Before turning to the amendments before us today, I want to place on record my thanks to all those who have worked so hard and so collaboratively on the Bill throughout its passage, although I have been dismayed at earlier stages when Ministers have tried to make the Bill a matter of party politics. I believed from the outset that Members on all sides in both Houses wanted the same thing from this legislation—that is, to protect British troops and British values.

The Lords have certainly approached the Bill in this constructive cross-party manner, and I want to thank in particular those on the Labour Lords Front Bench: Lords Tunnicliffe, Touhig and Falconer, and Lord Robertson for his tireless work on part 1 of the Bill, which the Minister has acknowledged. I also want to thank Lord Hope for his convincing arguments on the European convention on human rights, Lord Dannatt for his leadership of the duty of care amendment we are considering this afternoon, and Lords Stirrup and Boyce for their experience, their wisdom and their backing for all the Lords amendments that were sent to this House. I also want to thank the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Goldie, and indeed the new Minister himself for their similarly constructive approach.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments about their lordships, but does he agree that if some of the amendments that were tabled in Committee had been adopted, the Lords would not have had to redo the work on the Bill? Is he as disappointed as I am that the Minister at the time would not take into consideration any amendments in Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I also say to my right hon. Friend that it will not in the future either, because it will not, as the Minister said, stop vexatious claims coming forward, because they will have to be investigated? There is a huge hole in this Bill, which the former Minister refused to accept in Committee, about trying to case manage investigations, so people will still be investigated. There is nothing in this Bill to say that they will not be investigated, so it does not do what it says on the tin and it would be dishonest to people to suggest otherwise.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. I have described it as the big gap in this legislation. It is a big flaw in the Bill. We may not succeed this time around, but we will certainly return to it in the Armed Forces Bill, which I will come on to. The proposals before us in this amendment are simple, flexible, tried and tested in civilian law, and backed by all the leading military and legal experts in the other place.

I urge the Minister this afternoon to confirm what he hinted at last week, and what his colleague, Baroness Goldie, said she would not stand in the way of yesterday. The Secretary of State made an offer to me in conversation last week to formally ask Sir Richard Henriques to examine this proposal as part of his current review so that it can be considered alongside other recommendations from that review for incorporation into the Armed Forces Bill. The Minister’s predecessor said at the very outset of this Bill’s proceedings in this House, on Second Reading back in November:

“The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 258.]

Of course, they are not, but we will ensure that they are. I say to the Minister that I hope we will be able to work together constructively on that, in a way that proved so difficult with his predecessor.

[Mr Jones]

But it was not for lack of trying. I moved three amendments in Committee, and not only were they fiercely resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), but there was no explanation of how and when in future legislation anything around investigations would be addressed, even though my right hon. Friend is right that the former Minister had given a commitment that investigations would be addressed in the Armed Forces Bill.

[John Healey]

Yes indeed. My right hon. Friend has worked as hard as anyone in this House on this Bill and I am really grateful to him for that. He has been part of what the Opposition, certainly, are now set to do, which is to forge a consensus on the changes needed to the Bill so that it better serves the interests of British troops, British justice and Britain’s standing in the world. I believe that we, as the official Opposition, and we as a House, have a duty to try to make this Bill fit for purpose as the new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas. It falls short of that test at present. We will not let those matters rest.

This is a classic case of a Government who will win their legislation but have lost the arguments. When that is the case, the Government will find that those arguments come back again, not just from the Opposition but from all parties, not just from this House but from both Houses, and not just from Parliament but from all the range of outside organisations that together have been the chorus of criticism about so much in this Bill that is still left undone but will be done in future.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between John Healey and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman consults Lords Hansard, he will see that Lord Mackay was speaking to another amendment. I am talking about the four main amendments that are before us today.

I know there has been a long-running problem. The Labour party accepts and recognises the problem of baseless allegations and legal claims arising from Iraq and Afghanistan under both Labour and Conservative Governments. But the Bill, unamended, is not the solution, even though we have worked hard from the outset to forge consensus on the changes needed to make the Bill into legislation that best serves the interests of British troops, British justice and British military standing in the world. I take a perhaps old-fashioned view that it is our duty in this House and the other place to make this legislation fit for purpose, and ensure that it is a new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas.

I thank and pay tribute to the work of the organisations that have been most active in helping parliamentarians in both Houses during the passage of this Bill with their expertise and views. Those organisations include Freedom from Torture, Reprieve, the Royal British Legion, the Centre for Military Justice and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. I also pay tribute to Members on both sides of this House, particularly the 15 who served with our Front-Bench colleagues on the Public Bill Committee and who have contributed so fully to the debates that we have had so far.

Let me turn to the Lords amendments on which I will concentrate. The reason that no Tory peers spoke in support of the Government on these amendments is because the Bill just does not do what it says on the tin—that is, protect British forces personnel serving overseas from vexatious legal claims and from repeat investigations.

I turn to Lords amendment 2. More than 99% of the 4,000-plus allegations against our troops arising from Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been affected at all by this Bill, because it relates only to the prosecution’s process and the prosecutorial system. That is why Lord Boyce, former Chief of the Defence Staff, said:

“The Bill’s significant emphasis on presumption against prosecution as a way of relieving some of the stress of legal proceedings”

is misplaced, and that,

“it is the investigation and reinvestigation process that…so…wears people down.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1170.]

I turn to Lords amendment 4. Part 2 of the Bill strips forces and forces’ families of their current rights to civil justice and compensation if they suffer injury or even death as a result of MOD negligence. That is why Lord Stirrup, also a former Chief of the Defence Staff, said:

“It seems strange to me that a Bill with the avowed purpose of providing government reassurance to service personnel seems intent on preventing those very personnel from seeking redress from that same Government.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1222.]

I turn to Lords amendment 1. The presumption against prosecution after five years increases the risk of British service personnel being dragged before the International Criminal Court. That is why the former Judge Advocate General—the military’s most senior legal figure—said in evidence to the Bill Committee itself:

“What it actually does is increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 117-18, Q234.]

Of course, the ICC’s chief prosecutor has indeed written to the Defence Secretary while the Bill has been in Parliament

“to ensure that the exemption clause extends to all crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court”.

Otherwise it would “render such cases admissible” before the International Criminal Court.

I turn to Lords amendment 3. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the case for removing clause 12, which would have required Ministers to consider derogating from the European convention on human rights before committing British troops to overseas conflicts. We challenged this with a Labour amendment at the very earliest stage of the Bill’s passage through the Commons. The decision to drop the clause reasserts the UK’s commitment to an important treaty that Britain played a leading role in drafting. It is important too in allowing an avenue of justice for both British forces personnel and for victims.

Let me turn to the core of the debate and concern in the House of Lords, which is Lords amendment 1 and the Government’s counter-proposals before the House this afternoon. The Secretary of State’s decision to accept parts of Lord Robertson’s amendment to exclude torture, genocide and war crimes from the presumptions is welcome, and it is testament to the efforts of Lord Robertson, many other groups and, indeed, Members of this House. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who together have banged the drum about the importance of torture not being carved out from provisions in the future.

The acts that Lord Robertson and so many Members of the upper House were concerned about are illegal and immoral. Under all circumstances, they must be investigated and, if there are grounds for the allegations, there must be prosecutions and punishment. The Minister talked about rectifying an omission with the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1. However, the Government are still picking and choosing some of the crimes that are covered by the Geneva conventions. Today they have picked out torture and genocide, but they are excluding the more general case of war crimes.

Torture and genocide should never have been included as offences within this Bill. Like sexual offences, there is no justification—there can never be justification—for them, so the decision now to exclude them is certainly a good step forward, and we welcome it and will support the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1. But can I urge the Minister, in the time between the consideration of these Lords amendments in this House and their being discussed again in the other place, to accept in full those crimes specified in Lord Robertson’s amendment 1, including war crimes, as excluded offences?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Clearly those are the arguments we made in Committee, asking why sexual offences were excluded but these very serious crimes were not. If the Government have given way on two, I have not yet heard an explanation from the Minister as to why war crimes are not going to be excluded. It is not only right that they should be excluded but, in terms of the UK’s international reputation, it would save a lot of embarrassment. I want to avoid, and I think everyone wants to avoid, members of our armed forces ending up in the International Criminal Court.

[John Healey]

Indeed, my right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have touched already on the risk that this will undermine Britain’s international reputation for fully upholding and adhering to many of the international rules and laws that we were instrumental in drafting and creating after the second world war. The Minister describes torture and genocide as omissions from the provisions of the Bill, and he rectifies that with his proposed amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1, but it is not clear, as my right hon. Friend says, why other crimes covered by the Geneva conventions, particularly war crimes, are still omitted, because exactly the same arguments apply to those as to the ones the Government have rightly conceded on and reflected in their amendments in lieu.

Let me spell it out for the Minister. Article 8 of the Rome statute says that war crimes are:

“Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions”.

This dates back to 1949, just after the second world war. These grave breaches include:

“Wilful killing… Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury… Compelling a prisoner of war or other…to serve in the forces of a hostile Power”.

That is important because, as both the Judge Advocate General and the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and Members on both sides of the House this afternoon, have made clear, not excluding these offences makes it more likely that British soldiers risk being prosecuted and pursued in the ICC.

As my right hon. Friend rightly said, it is also about our adherence to and respect for international law. If we ourselves meet the highest standard of legal military conduct, we can hold other countries to account when their forces fall short. If we do otherwise, it compromises our country’s proud reputation for upholding the rules-based international order that Britain itself has helped to construct since the days of Churchill and Attlee.

I ask the Minister and his colleagues in the MOD, when the Bill returns to the other place, to include war crimes as excluded offences, along with the other exclusions that he lists in his amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has experience of conflict. I do not know whether a legal mind, which mine certainly is not, would regard that as wilful killing, but as such, it is probably an act that is beyond the categories of specific crimes cited in the Government’s amendment that excludes them from the provisions of the Bill. That underlines the case I am making, for which I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, that that category of Geneva convention-defined crimes, including war crimes, really must be excluded from the presumption in this Bill; otherwise, we face the risks that we are discussing this afternoon of exposing our forces to potential action from the International Criminal Court, which none of us wants to see, and of dragging down the reputation of this country for upholding in full and fully adhering to the international rules and standards of military legal conduct.

I turn to Lords amendment 2, on investigations. I said earlier that the Bill does not yet do what it says on the tin. We were told that this Bill would bring an end to the harassment of forces personnel through repeated legal claims, but because it deals only with prosecutions and not with investigations, it will not do that. Only 27 prosecutions arising from Iraq and Afghanistan have been registered, yet 3,400 allegations were considered by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and 670 from Operation Northmoor. Therefore, less than 1% of allegations were prosecuted. The problem here is investigations: the serious, consistent problems that lie in a system of investigation that has proved to be lacking in speed, soundness, openness and a duty of care to alleged victims or the troops involved. Those are all problems well before the point of decision about prosecution, which is the point at which the provisions of this Bill kick in.

The Minister describes the proposals in Lords amendment 2 as somehow premature and cites Henriques. I am aware, of course, that the Government have set up a review on this, but there have been three reviews already and he might want to ask his officials to dig them out for him. There have been three reviews in the past five years, with at least 80 recommendations on investigations that the Government could act on now. The Minister and his predecessor promised us that investigations reform would be a matter for the Armed Forces Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said, yet when that Bill was brought before the House nothing was included.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I have sympathy with the Lords amendment on investigations, but I think that the new clauses 6, 7 and 8 that I tabled in Committee would have been far better. My new clause 8—I think it was that one—sought to put a time limit on minor investigations; they could go before a judge and be dismissed, and that would reduce the numbers. The other thing is the need to have judicial oversight of the investigations. That is not saying that we do not investigate things; it is about having rigour in ensuring that investigations are being done in a timely way, and can carry on if more evidence needs collecting, and that, likewise, reinvestigations can be opened only where a judge determines that new and compounding evidence is brought forward. That is the gaping hole still in this Bill even if we agree to the Lords amendment, which I have sympathy with. Without that, my right hon. Friend is right: this Bill does not pass the Ronseal test, because it does not do what it says on the tin.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is a gaping hole. This is the gaping hole in this Bill, and it could be fixed. It could be fixed in the way that was proposed and passed to us by the Lords in their amendment 2. I guess the Minister might want to ask his officials to dig out my right hon. Friend’s new clauses 6, 7 and 8 from Committee, because, having served in this House for a long time with him, I can bet strongly that those new clauses will resurface in debate on the Armed Forces Bill, because once he gets his teeth into something, he is reluctant to let it go.

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend is correct, but the problem is that the previous Minister promised that investigations would be part of the Armed Forces Bill and, lo and behold, they were not there. The Government have therefore had two chances to put this right and clearly have still not done it.

[John Healey]

Indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to get tempted on to the Armed Forces Bill any further in case you call me to order. Let me address my remarks to this Bill and these Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 2.

I have to say to the Minister that I am pleased that the Secretary of State has now taken a personal interest in this Bill, because that is helpful all round and I hope it will ensure that we can see it go smoothly on to the statute book. Lords amendment 2 proposes a tried and tested mechanism to improve investigations. It is not arbitrary, as the Minister told the House earlier. It is not a time limit; it ensures timely, not time-limited investigations. It is not unrealistic, because it has been tried and tested in civilian law. This is one of the reasons why the former Judge Advocate General is so keen on it. I am conscious that the Secretary of State believes that the proposals in Lords amendment 2 are somehow novel or that they may prejudice independent investigations. So I say to the Minister, and I have communicated this today to the Secretary of State, that they are not novel and they will not prejudice the independence of investigations, for the following reasons.

In civilian law, which is the model and the principle that we take here, there is in section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 a six-month time limit on investigations for certain offences. It establishes the target, if we like, not a hard limit, and focuses the mind of the investigators. That is the principle that Lords amendment 2 seeks to establish.

On prejudicing independent investigations, the principle of judicial oversight of investigations has already been established, not just in civilian law but in military practice. I quote the former Judge Advocate General, who said in evidence to the Public Bill Committee:

“I introduced something called ‘Better Case Management in the Court Martial’, towards the end of my time as the Judge Advocate General. That puts time limits on investigations. The most important thing about it is that a case, early on, goes before a judge, and a judge then sets out a timetable of what various things should do.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 116, Q231.]

In other words, it is not novel and does not prejudice the independence of investigations. It is a principle that is already established in the military system and established in statute in the civilian system. I hope the Minister will therefore accept the intent of Lords amendment 2, and that it is workable, is certainly in scope, is implementable and gives us the opportunity to fix really long-standing problems. I hope that he and the Government will start to see our proposals in this area as being additional to the current content of the Bill, not a direct challenge to it.

Let me move on to Lords amendment 4 and part 2 of the Bill. I cannot for the life of me I understand why the Government are asking their Back-Bench Members to support something that will strip away the existing rights of forces personnel and their families. It seems to me to be simply wrong for those who put their life on the line serving Britain overseas to have less access to compensation and justice than the UK civilians whom they defend or, indeed, their comrades whose service is largely UK-based.

Lords amendment 4 to part 2 of the Bill was designed to ensure that claims by troops or former service personnel are not blocked in all circumstances after six years, as they would otherwise be under the Bill. There are already safeguards in the Limitation Act 1980—at not just six years but three years—but this Bill now penalises a group of people by applying to them a unique deviation from that Act. It clearly constitutes a disadvantage for those armed forces personnel, their families and the veterans affected, and it directly breaches the armed forces covenant, as the director general of the Royal British Legion confirmed himself in evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Frankly, it really does beggar belief that Ministers are looking to strip from forces personnel and their families their right to justice—to penalise them instead of protecting them.

Let me put this into perspective, because I have sometimes heard Ministers dismiss this issue as affecting such a marginal, small group of people that it does not matter. Some of the cases that have eventually secured justice are deeply moving, deeply troubling and would have been blocked by this Bill. Numbers matter, but they are not the only criteria. Nevertheless, in the most recent financial year, the number of claims by forces personnel against the MOD for injuries was 2,796—up 70% on five years previously. Almost nine in 10 of those claims were for noise-induced hearing loss.

In speaking of hearing loss in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the specialist forces solicitor Hilary Meredith said—and this points to the problem with the hard block after six years:

“In latent disease cases…it is not just about the diagnosis. Many people are diagnosed at death. It is about the connection to service. That connection to service may come much later down the line, and by that time they will be out of time to bring a claim.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 18, Q30.]

It is plain wrong, and I hope that the Government will, at this late stage, reconsider giving those who put their lives on the line for Britain overseas less access to compensation than the UK civilians they defend. Since 2007, there have been at least 195 cases of troops that would have been caught by the Bill and prevented from pursuing a successful claim.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only people who will benefit from this Bill are the lawyers? I cannot for the life of me think why a Government would want to put into statute something that will discriminate against former members of our armed forces. This will clearly be a test case in litigation, and I cannot see what justification the Government will use when that litigation goes ahead for why they have scooped out a certain section of our society away from the Limitation Act, as he outlined. It would be better if they gave up now, rather than spend a lot of time later on—which they will—when this gets tested in the courts.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend says that he cannot see why the Government are pursuing this, but the director general of the Royal British Legion could. When he spoke to the Public Bill Committee, he said:

“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]

He is right. When my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) pressed him and asked whether it would breach the armed forces covenant in his view, he said:

“That is what we think, yes.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 84, Q155.]

I turn to the last of the four main amendments at hand today, Lords amendment 5, which was moved in the other place by Lord Dannatt and is on the duty of care. One of the things that struck me most when talking to troops and their families who have been through the trauma of these long-running investigations is that they felt cut adrift—cut adrift from their chain of command and from the Ministry of Defence. The Public Bill Committee heard really clearly from Major Campbell. He gave dramatic evidence, and I am sure that the Minister has followed this; in fact, he was on the Committee, so he will have been there. When Major Campbell was asked what support the MOD gave him, he simply replied: “there was none.”

Of course, for veterans, it is even worse. For them, there is nothing—not even the chain of command—there for them. Although some of the previous decisions that the Government have taken—for instance, to cover the legal costs of those involved in the Iraq Historic Allegations Team investigations—were welcome, there should be and there can be a higher standard to reach for us in this regard.

When Lord Dannatt moved this amendment successfully in the Lords, he said:

“Defence priorities change; the fortunes of military charities fluctuate; Ministers come and go; but the law does not change. Amendment 14 would bring into law the good ideas and intentions of well-meaning Ministers and officials with whom we are currently united in common cause but who are strangely reluctant to enshrine the fruits of their endeavours in a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament and thus part of our law—a law to protect our people for all time from vexatious investigations and prosecutions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1244.]

The former Veterans Minister wrote in his resignation letter last night:

“I remain genuinely appalled by the experiences of some of the Nation's finest people who have served in the Armed Forces.”

I say to the Minister, we can do better than this duty of care, particularly when the MOD has forces personnel and veterans subject to investigation or prosecution. I hope he will now accept this, so that we can establish a new duty of care standard and that legal, pastoral and mental health support is made available as a matter of course and a matter of duty by the MOD for those who are put under pressure and under investigation or prosecution.

I am coming to my conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are now legislating for the future. The Bill is not a framework that is fit for that future point when we must again commit our forces to conflict overseas. The Government are still getting important parts of the Bill badly wrong. I continue to believe strongly that, ultimately, the Government, Labour and the armed forces all want the same thing: we want to protect British troops and we want to protect British values. That is not, and should not be, a matter of party politics.

I end today as I ended our debates on Report back in November by saying this: it is late, but it is still not too late for Ministers to think again about the best way both to protect service personnel from vexatious litigation and to ensure that those who do commit serious crimes on operations abroad are properly prosecuted and punished. I urge the Minister and the Government to do just that in the very final stages of this Bill in Parliament.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

Debate between John Healey and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John Healey]

I will give way one more time, but then—conscious that nearly 40 Back-Bench Members wish to speak—I will make some progress.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) mentioned budgets, but is not it a fact that the defence budget has been cut by nearly 25% since 2010? Even with the increase that has been announced recently, the defence budget is now 5% lower than it was in 2010.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course. There has been an £8 billion real-terms cut to the defence budget since 2010. That is part of the reason that we have seen 45,000 full-time forces cut over the last decade. I will return to some of those points.

For now, I want to make this point: we can destroy enemy forces with technology, but we cannot seize and hold ground without troops. Drones and robots do not win hearts and minds; they do not mend broken societies; they do not give covid jabs. These deeper cuts now planned could limit our forces’ capacity simultaneously to deploy overseas, support allies, maintain our own strong national defences and reinforce our domestic resilience, as we have seen our troops do to help our country through the covid crisis. Other countries have expanded troop numbers even as they develop technology. They do not see this as a “manpower or machines” question, but as personnel and technology together. Although high-tech weapons systems are essential, highly-trained personnel are simply indispensable, and size matters.

These planned cuts are damaging for four reasons. Let us call them “the four Rs”. The first is resilience. Cutting Army numbers reduces the UK’s national resilience by reducing our capacity to react to unforeseen circumstances at home and abroad—not just major wars, but insurgencies such as Afghanistan, international interventions such as Sierra Leone or Kosovo, and emergency support operations such as post terrorist attacks or during covid.

The second “R” is readiness. The rapid response required to the unexpected also requires highly-trained, adaptable, cohesive combat troops, which even the best reserves, called up as last-minute reinforcements, cannot provide.

The third “R” is renewal. The fewer troops and full-strength battalions we have, the less able the Army is to sustain long campaigns. Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq all required the long-term rotation of troops. We are a leading member of NATO. We are one of the P5 countries at the UN Security Council. We may again be called on to deploy and sustain forces away from the UK. We may not seek a major crisis, but we may well face a major crisis that comes to us.

The final “R” is reputation. The current Chief of the Defence Staff said in 2015 that the ability to field a single war-fighting division was

“the standard whereby a credible army is judged”,

yet the fully capable division mandated then, including a new strike brigade, will not be battle-ready for another 10 years according to evidence that the MOD gave to the Defence Committee in the autumn. A former CDS, General Sir David Richards, has said that further cuts to the Army would mean that the UK was

“no longer taken seriously as a military power”

and that this would

“damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO”.

My second argument is that this is not just about numbers. In the face of growing threats and the increasing ambition for the global role that our armed forces will play, there is a strong case against, not for, some of the Government’s short-term capability cuts. Taking two Type 23 frigates out of service in the next two years will reduce the Navy’s anti-submarine strength. Ending the RAF’s E-3 planes will leave a two-year gap in airborne early warning before the E-7 Wedgetails come into service in 2023. The Army is losing nine Chinook helicopters, 14 Hercules transporter planes and 20 Puma support helicopters.

The third argument is one that I am sad to have to make, and it is this: we are faced now with more of the same. After a decade of decline since 2010, which the Prime Minister called an “era of retreat”, the Defence Secretary promised that this defence review would be different from the last two Conservative defence reviews, which weakened the foundations of our armed forces. They were driven by finances, not by threats, cutting full-time forces by 45,000 and cutting critical defence capabilities and upgrades, alongside plans for full capability forces in the future that have not been fulfilled. I fear that this defence review simply makes the same mistakes of the past.

Fourth and finally, in November, when the Prime Minister announced the extra funding as part of a four-year funding settlement, we welcomed it as promising a long overdue upgrade of Britain’s defences, so we are dismayed now by more defence cuts, despite this £16.5 billion boost. But I guess it is not hard to see why. The defence budget was balanced in 2012, and the equipment programme was fully funded, but Ministers since then have lost control. The National Audit Office has now judged the defence equipment plan unaffordable for the last four years in a row and reports a black hole of more than £17 billion over the next 10 years. This black hole in the defence budget has grown by £4 billion in the last year, on this Defence Secretary’s watch. The MOD’s annual report and accounts suggest that the annual marginal cost for 10,000 Army personnel is around half a billion pounds. This deficit alone each year could cover the cost of maintaining Army numbers three times over.

The new defence budget is not all it seems. Ministers talk about the rise in capital funding but not the real cut in revenue funding over the next four years, which means less money for forces’ recruitment, training, pay and families. It means a possible cut of 40% to the budget of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. Worse still, over half this year’s £16.4 billion defence equipment budget is revenue-based for equipment support and maintenance. This revenue cut is the Achilles heel of defence plans. No other Whitehall Department is projected to have a cut in day-to-day spending between now and 2024-25. The Defence Secretary should never have agreed it.

This defence review and the defence and security industrial strategy announce nothing new that Ministers are doing to get a grip of the MOD’s budget failings and to make the most of this big, one-off opportunity from the extra funding. So I say to the Minister: get to grips with the budget, consider the concerns raised, rethink the plans and report back to Parliament before the end of June. Britain was promised better, Britain deserves better and Britain needs better from its Defence Department.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between John Healey and Kevan Jones

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

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in his tribute and thanks to the men and women of our armed forces—those deployed to standing commitments, from Cyprus to the Falklands; those serving as part of our NATO defences in Estonia or the UN peacekeeping in Mali; and of course those who are part of the largest ever peacetime deployment in this country, helping this country through the covid crisis. British forces are respected worldwide for their professionalism and for the values that we most admire: integrity, loyalty, discipline and service.

This Armed Forces Bill renews the legal basis for our armed forces and system of military law, and in turn also renews the nation’s commitment to our forces personnel through the covenant; and, with almost 70 speakers from all parts of the House, it is quite clear this afternoon that the House is determined, together, to do exactly that.

Labour supports this legislation. We share that aim, and we welcome the order that will follow this debate to extend the present Armed Forces Act from the end of May until the end of December, so that Parliament has the time to give the proper scrutiny to improving this Bill. As it stands, this Bill is a big missed opportunity—the opportunity to make good in full on the commitments in the armed forces covenant, so that Britain becomes the best country in the world to serve and to be a veteran; the opportunity to fix long-run problems for forces personnel, their families and veterans, which have become so clear over the last decade; and the opportunity to set a framework for the armed forces that is fit for the challenges and complex threats that Britain must face.

Let me make this point about the Armed Forces Bill, in particular to Government Members who are used to toeing the line on legislation. This Bill is different. This Bill is bipartisan and goes next to a Select Committee, not a Public Bill Committee. The Bill can be improved from all sides as it goes through Parliament. The Bill rests on the groundbreaking Armed Forces Act 2006, which consolidated half a century of service law. To stress the point, on Second Reading of that Bill, in 2005-06, a Government Back Bencher made a strong argument for a service complaints commissioner, which at first was knocked back by the Secretary of State, John Reid. However, by the time the Bill became an Act, the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) had been incorporated fully into the legislation. He will no doubt have fresh proposals for this Bill to put to this Secretary of State.

On clause 8, we stand fully behind the armed forces covenant and the aim to give it full legal force. In fact, in 2009 Labour in government consulted on introducing legally enforceable rights for the forces, their families and veterans, and our 2010 manifesto proposed to enshrine those rights in the armed forces charter. I am therefore pleased that the Secretary of State could say on publication of the Bill at the end of last month:

“For the first time ever we are putting into law the Armed Forces Covenant.”

The Secretary of State might just want to let David Cameron know that. In fact, he might be surprised to learn it, because he boasted in 2015 that he had already done so, saying:

“We are the first Government to put the military covenant properly into law”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 961.]

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am sorry that the Minister did not want to take interventions. He said that the armed forces covenant is now 10 years old, but it is actually a lot older. It started in 2008 with the Command Paper under the last Labour Government, and the document he referred to, which came out in 2009, referred not only to putting the covenant into law but giving it teeth. The proposal in this Bill does not have teeth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit strange that the weakened version that we have now has none of the proposals in the 2009 Green Paper? Let us also remember that this is the same Government who, in 2011, opposed the motion tabled by me and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) to put the covenant into law.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course. I want to stress, to the extent that I can, the cross-party, long-term and long-run support for many of these provisions. He is right that the covenant has its roots in the previous Labour Government—we called it a charter then, rather than a covenant—but over the past two decades, I believe we have made great strides in providing better services, support and opportunities for service personnel and veterans.

That is to the credit of Ministers who have made it their personal mission, of hon. Members on both sides who have championed the cause, of councils and local agencies that have delivered services to our veterans, and of service charities such as the Royal British Legion, Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, the RAF Families Federation, SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity and Help for Heroes, which have hugely improved Government policy, advanced public understanding and developed direct support for forces and veterans. Those charities welcome the Bill, as I do, but they are disappointed by the limitations of the legislation, as I am.

I must say to hon. Members that, if they read one background briefing for this Bill, they should make it the background briefing that the Royal British Legion has sent to us today. It rightly says that a decade’s experience of the covenant confirms that,

“the range of policy issues that have a significant impact on the Armed Forces community is wide and ever-changing: including health, housing, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, education, criminal justice and immigration”.

The Bill is too narrow. It covers only aspects of health, housing and education. The Bill creates a two-tier covenant. It applies only to local councils and local agencies, not to national Governments. The Government are letting themselves off the hook entirely when, as the Legion says, many of the areas in which forces personnel and veterans have problems are the responsibility of national Governments or are based on national guidance to delivery agencies.

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this. I think there is potential, as he indicates, for cross- party support for doing more than is currently in the Bill on the implementation of the covenant. The problem is not that it is prescriptive, but that it is prescriptively narrow at present, directed only at local councils and local agencies and not the responsibilities or services of national Government, and that it is too narrow, in that it mentions three areas when the lived experience of armed forces and veterans quite clearly raises problems on a wide range of other fronts. That is the lesson of the experience of the past decade and more—that is the challenge we must meet. This is a once-in-five-years piece of legislation and I want to ensure that we on the Opposition side play a part in helping Parliament to meet that challenge.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) read the Green Paper of 2009, which actually set out some real teeth there, including setting out a clear charter of what was in the covenant; the ombudsman’s role, so that people could have redress; armed forces champions, as already mentioned by the Chair of the Select Committee; and a five-yearly review to coincide with the Armed Forces Act, so that the disadvantage could be looked at. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is letting Government Departments and the MOD off the hook?

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. He mentions teeth, and I will come to that in a moment. Members on both sides of the House and the Select Committee can help the Minister with his personal mission to do best by forces personnel and veterans. We can make this stronger and better than the missed opportunity that the provision in clause 8 represents. It is too narrow. It creates a two-tier covenant, and it is too weak. It offers no definition of what “have due regard to” the covenant means, and it offers no enforcement for members of the armed forces community who feel they have been let down.

That makes the statutory guidance that the Minister promised at oral questions last week essential before the Bill’s Select Committee scrutiny stage. When only one in 10 judicial reviews succeed and the cost of unsuccessful judicial reviews is upwards of £80,000, proposals for easy, accessible redress beyond a judicial review are also essential before the Select Committee stage. I trust that all Members on the Select Committee will want to pursue those shortcomings with the Minister. Let us not allow this golden opportunity to reinforce the covenant remain a missed opportunity, as it is in the Bill.

I turn to the service justice system and clauses 1 to 7. In the five years since the last Armed Forces Act, the Government have extensively reviewed the service justice system, with his honour Shaun Lyons reporting early last year, backed by a service policing review carried out by Professor Sir Jon Murphy. Many of the recommendations from those reviews are in the Bill. Lyons rightly said:

“Independent oversight is a critical factor in bringing transparency and building confidence in policing.”

We welcome the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, modelled on the civilian police’s Independent Office for Police Conduct. We will want to ensure in the Select Committee that the Government get important details right on matters such as time limits for bringing complaints, protections for whistleblowers, scope to consider super-complaints and respective remits for the commissioner alongside the Service Complaints Ombudsman. We also welcome the expansion of the courts martial boards, with new rules on reaching qualified majority verdicts.

However, there are two big gaps. First, Ministers are missing the opportunity to improve confidence and results in cases of murder, manslaughter and rape committed by service personnel in the UK. As the Minister has conceded, Lyons recommended that those cases should be dealt with by the civilian justice system. He pointed out that the military courts secure convictions in only one in 10 cases of rape, while Crown Prosecution Service figures show that the civilian rate is around 50%. Such a move would restore the position that Parliament intended when the principle of concurrent jurisdiction was first introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Secretary of State has so far just said no but has offered no rationale for rejecting that recommendation, and the Minister this afternoon has again offered no justification for rejecting that recommendation.