Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the well-made points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, and I certainly take them on board. I am going to speak briefly to the opening amendments and the general feel of the Bill. I do so having also taken on board the wise words of my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup. I look forward to hearing more about his reservations on the Bill.

I was enormously impressed by what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Their words are, I contend, in the interests of our armed services, given that clarity on the fairness that these matters require helps to give confidence that proceedings involving service personnel are thorough. We desire them to be thorough and universally admired. If they are, that only helps our service personnel. I look forward to hearing other speakers and the reply of the Minister to those concerns.

I turn to a slightly wider landscape. We hear virtually every week in your Lordships’ House about disturbing events in, for example, Myanmar, Hong Kong and China, as well as, even nearer to home, the recent case of the American woman claiming diplomatic immunity after her tragic road crash. There were the cases of the assassination of Mr Khashoggi, the poisonings in Salisbury, Sergei Magnitsky and the current detention of Mr Navalny. The point that I am making is that in all those cases it takes time for the facts to emerge, even to be dug up. The case of Baha Mousa could easily have taken six years, but I salute the efforts that were made. I am afraid that the facts often take longer than five years to emerge. Still more importantly, I contend that our remonstrations about these cases is all the stronger if the way in which we deal with our own employees is as beyond reproach as possible. That is why I worry that five years is too short and why I have real concerns over the presumptions against prosecutions contained in the Bill.

Finally, I stress that I accept that the terrible things that happen in the heat of battle are quite different from the premeditated use of torture. It is that matter which particularly concerns me and to which I shall return when we reach Amendment 14.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is conventional to say what a pleasure it is to speak after whichever noble Lord has preceded one. On this occasion, it genuinely is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, because I tended to agree with most of what he said. I am winding up on this group of amendments very much from the same place as when I was winding up at the end of Second Reading from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

On this occasion, my name is attached to some of the amendments, but I will none the less restate, for the avoidance of any doubt before I get into their substance, that I am not proposing that we throw out the Bill. The amendments to which my name is attached are intended for debate in Committee. I support the amendment to change the timescale from five to 10 years, but I am not necessarily at the point of suggesting that, when we get to Report and voting, certain clauses should not stand part of the Bill. Nor am I going to support, much to her disappointment, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and say that I shall vote against the whole Bill at Third Reading. That, to the best of my knowledge, is not the Liberal Democrat party line. We have not said that we will vote against the whole Bill. Rather, there are aspects of the Bill which we and many other noble Lords right across the Chamber argued at Second Reading were flawed and which need to be addressed in amendments in Committee that presumably will be voted on on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 6. Its purpose is simple—that the decision that the prosecutor makes takes into account the quality, thoroughness, independence and accountability of the investigation. It may be said—as appears from the Minister’s letter—that these matters are being looked at by Sir Richard Henriques in the review that he is conducting. No doubt the detail of all this can be gone into at that time—for example, how independence is to be safeguarded and accountability achieved. No doubt we will need to look at the position in other states. All that is for the future.

However, this Bill is being brought forward now. One matter that must be addressed now is that prosecutors, in deciding whether to continue, have to take into account the quality of the investigation in the respects I have set out in the amendment. I have put this forward based on my own experience of three cases that came before me when I was a judge. In the military context—and the civilian context is exactly the same—they pointed to the importance of thorough, well-resourced investigations.

The first case related to the deaths of 24 people in what is now Malaysia during the communist insurgency in 1948, which came back to the courts in 2011. That very unhappy series of events came back because the initial investigation was not thorough, a subsequent investigation was stopped before it was completed and, by the time the matter came before the courts, there was clear evidence that the original explanation of what had happened—namely, that these persons killed had been shot trying to escape—had been given by soldiers on instructions and that 24 people were killed in cold blood.

The second illustration relates to invents in Iraq and what happened in numerous cases, the most significant of which is the death of Baha Mousa. That is a paradigm example of how a poor investigation can be so terrible that it sometimes takes a very long time to see what went wrong.

The third and perhaps more surprising example is the conviction of Sergeant Blackman for shooting a member of the Taliban. When it originally came before the court martial, there had not been a sufficiently proper investigation of the circumstances, the stresses he underwent and his perception of the support he got from his command. That came out only afterwards and was one of the matters that, as appears from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, led to his conviction being reduced to manslaughter.

The thoroughness and independence of the investigation are critical in any decision to prosecute. A similar reflection can be obtained from ordinary cases; where things have gone wrong or there is a problem, it is the investigation. It is important that an investigation is fair—that is why it is listed—and thorough. And it should be fair in both senses: to the accused and to those who say a crime has been committed.

Independence is of equal importance. Any detailed consideration of the Malay case to which I referred and of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Blackman case shows how independence and accountability are also important. Therefore, what must be taken into account as a matter of principle—not of detail, that is for later—are these matters relating to the investigation. It may be said, “Well, things have got a lot better”. However, we all know that even the most well-organised body can make mistakes in the conduct of an investigation, and accountability and independence need to be of a very high level in certain types of case.

I am putting forward this amendment to show that this nation has regard to the covenant and the support it is necessary to give to our Armed Forces, but also to show that we must be seen to do justice, because the doing of justice is equally important. The quality, thoroughness, independence and accountability of the original investigation, if there has been one, or of the more recent one, should be at the forefront of the prosecutor’s decision.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as I said in my comments on the first group of amendments, the vagaries of parliamentary procedure mean that in some ways the groups of amendments are being debated in a less than helpful order. I hope that this group of amendments and the suite of proposals will reassure the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead and Lord Lancaster, and others who had any concerns that perhaps supporters of the first group might be seeking to eviscerate the Bill in its entirety.

This suite of amendments is intended to be constructive. I will speak predominantly to Amendment 17, in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and myself, and Amendment 28. They are both about investigations. If the purpose of the Bill is to stop unnecessary investigations and investigations being brought many years later, these two amendments in particular seek in clear and specific ways to give substance to the Government’s stated aims.

Amendment 17 gives a very clear outline of what could be done in terms of investigations: how they should be taken forward and, after they are completed, moved to prosecution. We have not heard huge numbers of veterans saying they have been prosecuted many times, but we have heard concerns about people being investigated and never getting closure. Amendment 17 gives a very clear outline of how investigations could be dealt with.

Amendment 28, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, puts limitations on reinvestigation. That surely goes to the heart of what the Government say that they wish to do. If the Government really wish to have the best legislation to serve their own stated aims and fulfil the needs and expectations of current service personnel and veterans, could they please consider these amendments?

In your Lordships’ House, the Minister often feels the need to say that, however laudable the goals of the amendments are, they do not quite fit the approach that the Government want to take. If the Minister does not feel able to support the detail of the amendments, might she consider coming back with some government proposals on how investigations and reinvestigations could be dealt with in a way that would enable the Bill to do what it says on the tin?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this group. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for the clarity with which he introduced these amendments.

I turn first to Amendment 3, which effectively seeks to remove Clause 2. That clause, the “presumption against prosecution”, is very powerful. I of course accept that this may not have the legal force it implies to some laymen, not least because of the other measures in the Bill, but it does indicate a very clear change of direction. If one of the aims of this Bill is to offer reassurance to our service personnel and veterans, this is a very powerful clause.

Amendment 3 seeks to delete this clause and effectively replace it with a guarantee of a fair trial. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, this would happen as a matter of course. I have never met a service man or woman whose concern has been that they will not receive a fair trial in the United Kingdom. So, on the face of it, it does not seem to be a particularly good trade. Removing a presumption against prosecution from Clause 2 and replacing it with a fair trial does not send a particularly powerful message—but I do understand why it is being proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to listen and to speak, however briefly, on Amendment 14, which is clearly the vehicle for correcting one of the significant flaws of the Bill. I acknowledge that I have no military experience and but limited knowledge of the law in comparison to many noble Lords in this House.

As other Members of the Committee have said, this amendment is necessary as it provides that the presumption against prosecution will not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture. As others have said in this debate, it would restore our obligations under the Geneva conventions, the UN Convention against Torture and the Rome statute to investigate and prosecute grave breaches of humanitarian law.

I am indebted to the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, on whose material I have drawn to make these few remarks. It says that,

“although rare, abuses by the military do happen”,

and that

“The UK has a long and proud reputation of decisive action against war crimes … We do not protect British troops … by hiding from the truth or acting with impunity.”


On Second Reading I quoted Martin Luther King Jr, who famously said that

“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”.

Sally Yates, the US Deputy Attorney-General appointed by President Barack Obama in 2015, added a caveat to this quote, saying that it does not get there on its own. That is why we have international and humanitarian law.

This amendment would correct what is clearly a flaw in this Bill as originally drafted. I cannot possibly rise to the erudition of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, or my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. But I insist that it must be seen in the Bill that there can be no presumption against war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture in terms of prosecution. For this reason, I fully support this amendment.

I ask the Minister, who is clearly much admired in your Lordships’ House, to outline once more why she feels that such a presumption is appropriate and why it does not send a very bad signal that undermines the trusted nature of our legal system and our international reputation. As has been said by so many Members of the Committee, it has the potential to open our military personnel up to proceedings in the International Criminal Court—which is absolutely not where we wish to be.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, unlike the first group of amendments, this group—particularly Amendment 14—has very broad support across your Lordships’ House. That is scarcely surprising because one of the very clear omissions from the Bill was precisely the group of crimes so eloquently outlined in the opening remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen.

It is clearly right that one of the exemptions from the presumption is sexual violence—that is fine—but it is a glaring omission to leave other war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and genocide off the face of the Bill. Indeed, it has been raised at every stage of the Bill. It was raised on Second Reading in the other place and many times on Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. I have only one question to ask the Minister: how can she and the Government justify this omission?

As Members across the Committee have said, it is so important for the reputation of our country that we abide by the rule of law and the conventions which we have signed up to and have so often led. As a country, we pride ourselves on supporting certain values, including opposing torture, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is inconceivable that we should say that this is anything that the Armed Forces or we as a country should condone.

My only sense from the Minister, in private meetings and her response to the debate at Second Reading regarding having sexual offences going against presumption but not other war crimes, was that there would never be a case on the battlefield when use of sexual violence was sanctioned. That seems to suggest that genocide, torture or other war crimes could be sanctioned. Surely that is not what the Minister meant or what the Government mean. Were there ever to be a case of torture or genocide—God forbid—surely we should be leading the way in ensuring that it is investigated and prosecuted. The reason it is so important to have this in the Bill is precisely to demonstrate our commitment to upholding human rights and not falling down any cracks.

I am absolutely sure that nobody would willingly commit any of these crimes, and I do not think that very many cases would ever even be investigated, but the amendments need to be in the Bill to ensure that we are not resiling from the conventions that we have signed up to. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who I do not think has participated on this group of amendments, earlier prayed in aid Major Bob Campbell, who had said that he would not be taken to the ICC, and it might have been better to be in front of the ICC than subject to protracted and repeated investigations. The reason that service men and women and veterans from the United Kingdom have not been taken to the ICC is precisely because of our respect for international law.

Why are the Government creating a piece of legislation that leaves such a large hole and potentially damages our reputation? It would be much better to amend the Bill, to have it include war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture, and ensure that if anyone were accused of such a crime, it would be investigated and prosecuted if necessary and there would not then be a stain. A great problem is the sense that there is a shadow hanging over somebody and the feeling of “If only it hadn’t been for that presumption” or “Because of that presumption, we are now being taken to the Hague”. Surely that is not a position the Government want to leave anybody in.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an incredibly instructive debate. Every single speaker has spoken in favour of Amendment 14 in a debate that has lasted an hour, and they could not have been more diverse in their experience: lawyers, military people, senior politicians. We have had the whole range, and they have all spoken in favour of Amendment 14.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]]

We move on to a different part of the Bill, which seeks to impose more rigorous time limits for bringing civil actions, whether in accordance with the ordinary law of tort or contract, or under the Human Rights Act. Although I am slightly oversimplifying, the Bill essentially seeks to impose a six-year unextendable deadline for bringing civil claims in respect of the conduct of the military, except where knowledge occurs after the six years, in which case there is a further 12-month extension. This is in contradistinction to the normal position whereby a claim would be brought not arising out of overseas operations where the court would have an ability to extend the time for bringing a claim if it were equitable to do so.

In these amendments, we focus on two particular circumstances. First, where a claim is being brought by someone within the military against, in effect, the Government for a breach of human rights or a tortious claim, we take the view that we should not be providing additional limitation hurdles in respect of military personnel bringing claims against the MoD—for example, for the negligent provision of defective equipment. I should be interested to hear why the Government think that there should be such a limitation. As a subgroup, primarily dealing with military personnel but able to deal with others also, if, in relation to an identical claim that had occurred in the UK, somebody could bring a claim and have the limitation period extended if it were equitable to do so, we cannot see any reason why in identical circumstances such a claim could not also be brought, even though the circumstances or damage arose in the course of overseas operations.

For example, if the Ministry of Defence provided defective equipment to a soldier and, as a result, the soldier suffered serious injury in an exercise on Salisbury Plain, why should a soldier who suffers precisely the same injury while on an overseas operation because of the negligent provision of defective equipment by the Ministry of Defence have a shorter and harsher limitation period than the soldier who was injured in precisely the same circumstances for precisely the same reasons in an exercise on Salisbury Plain? For example, they were both injured not necessarily because of the activities of enemy insurgents against them but because all the forms of transport provided were defective in a way that was the fault of the Ministry of Defence. The injury would have occurred whether one was driving along a road in Wiltshire or a road in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is unfair that there should be different limitations for precisely the same sorts of injury.

Two questions arise on this group of amendments. First, why should there be different limitation periods for the military bringing claims against the Ministry of Defence? Secondly and separately, even if there is a reason for that, why should there be a different limitation period for precisely the same injury, the only difference being that it was caused in the course of overseas operations rather than at home, for example? We are aware of the problems that have arisen in relation to many claims being brought—and many failing—arising out of overseas operations. We are all aware of those circumstances, but we are very concerned that, in trying to deal with that multiplicity of claims, the Government are unfairly depriving military personnel of their legitimate right to protect their rights against the Ministry of Defence.

It is very important that the limitation period be fair for claims by military personnel because, for a whole variety of reasons that those engaged in the military will be aware of, there may be very good reasons why a member of the military takes a long time to discover either that they could bring a claim or that they are in an emotional or mental position to bring a claim because of their experiences. We think these provisions are very detrimental and unfair to military personnel and require amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, at this time of the evening it would be very easy simply to agree with everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has just said and be happy to move on, but that would do a disservice to our service men and women and veterans, because the points these amendments speak to and the words the noble and learned Lord has just uttered are extremely important. It is surely appropriate that we treat our service personnel and veterans with respect, and that they should not be disadvantaged because they have been service men and women.

Clearly, incidents and dangers can happen in the field of battle that will not be legislated for in a conventional civilian sense, but there might be other issues—hearing loss, for example—associated with having been in the Armed Forces which become clear only later. It seems very strange, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, that people should have different rights according to whether the problems arose while based in the UK or on overseas operations. Can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, who appears to have taken over from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, say what work the Government have done in looking at the potential ramifications of this limitation?

This Bill has been put forward by the Government as something supposed to help our service men and women, but this limitation seems to limit their rights. I know the Minister will have been told that it is very important that cases are brought swiftly and issues are dealt with promptly, that it is in everybody’s interest to do so and that delaying things is in no one’s. But neither is curtailing people’s rights.

The Royal British Legion sent a briefing picking up in particular on the Armed Forces covenant, quoting the point:

“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services … In accessing services, former members of the Armed Forces should expect the same level of support as any other citizen in society.”


Assuming that Her Majesty’s Government still support the Armed Forces covenant, can the Minister explain how the proposals in Part 2 of the Bill live up to its commitments? Can he tell us what additional thoughts the Government might be willing to have on looking again at this limitation?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, not being a lawyer, I shall take the approach taken by the lawyers and be very brief in my comments. I have the same question as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer: what is the purpose of “particular regard” in this respect? There is a time limitation already. Is the “particular regard” intended to truncate the ability to bring proceedings even further, so that if there is a suggestion that somebody’s memory has been impeded by overseas action, it makes it even less likely that proceedings can be brought?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am again grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. The Bill introduces three factors that the courts must consider and pay particular regard to when deciding whether to allow Human Rights Act claims connected with overseas operations to proceed after the one-year primary limitation period has expired. We feel that these factors are an important part of the Bill, because they ensure that the unique operational context in which the relevant events occurred is taken into account by the courts when considering limitation arguments in claims connected with overseas operations.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, pointed out very early in his submission, the courts will do this already; the courts will have regard to these things. Part of their consideration of whether to allow a claim to proceed beyond the primary limitation period includes assessing whether the claim is, in the language of statute,

“equitable having regard to all the circumstances”.

But our position is that putting these three factors on the face of the Bill will provide a guarantee for service personnel and veterans that appropriate consideration will always be given by the courts—whether that is for Human Rights Act claims or for personal injury and death claims—to these significant points, which are different from those which would apply in peacetime.

We believe that in situations where claims are connected with overseas operations, the courts should pay particular regard to the reality of these operations: the fact that opportunities to make detailed records at the time may have been limited; that increased reliance may have to be placed on the memories of the service personnel involved; and that, as some personnel may suffer from mental ill-health as a result of their service, there is a human cost to them in so contributing.

This is what the additional factors that the Bill introduces seek to do. They consider the extent to which an assessment of the claim will depend on the memories of service personnel and veterans; the impact of the operational context on their ability to recall the specific incident; and the likely impact of the proceedings on their mental health. We believe that it is right that the operational context is at the forefront of the mind of the court when considering whether to allow claims beyond the primary limitation period. Noble Lords will know that we are also introducing these factors for personal injury and death claims, and we must ensure that Human Rights Act claims connected with overseas operations are treated in the same manner.

Particular emphasis was placed on the word “particular” in the course of this short debate. I undertake, in light of the submissions made in the time available, to consider the terms of the drafting and to weigh the suggestions made by noble Lords in relation to that particular adjective in the context of the provision. I will look at any connotations that might flow from it and might be adverse to the intention of the Bill. At this stage, however, I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is very frequent that Ministers talk about wide-ranging debate when they are summing up. In winding up for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I indeed comment that this has been an extremely wide-ranging debate on one of the shortest statutory instruments that I have ever seen, but clearly one that is very important.

However, it appears that legislation linked to defence and the Armed Forces is a bit like buses, in that we have three pieces of legislation almost simultaneously: the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021, the Armed Forces Bill 2021—currently in the other place—and the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Inevitably, there is some overlap between those three pieces of legislation. While, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I will focus primarily on the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021 today, it is necessary to think about the other Bills—precisely because, while I, like other noble Lords and clearly the Liberal Democrat Benches as a whole, fully support this continuation order, it is vital that we have our Armed Forces. Given that they may not be maintained within the kingdom without the consent of Parliament, in line with the 1688 Bill of Rights, it is vital that this order goes through.

It is also vital that the Armed Forces are not just maintained legally, with the support of Parliament—although that is vital—but supported with money and the support that is needed for service personnel to enable them to fulfil their functions. The continuation order might be primarily about service discipline, but, as many noble Lords have pointed out this afternoon, there are issues around recruitment, retention and the size of our Armed Forces. In particular, while this order simply agrees that we should have Armed Forces, I have several questions that I would like the Minister to answer this afternoon, if possible; they are particularly associated with the size of our Armed Forces.

As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem pointed out, there is an essential question of a standing army, there are questions and concerns about shortages and various noble Lords have asked questions about the size of the budget. They have pointed out in particular that the size of the defence budget, in and of itself, is not the only issue that matters; what matters is ensuring that we are supporting our Armed Forces, not simply putting money into capabilities such as tanks. I note that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, is not speaking today, but, if he were, he would probably be talking about ships.

However, we also need to consider the size of the Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, raised the issue brought up by the United States about the size of our Armed Forces, suggesting that 80,000 was too small. Could the Minister confirm whether it is indeed correct that the size of our Armed Forces is due to slip to 72,000, and what assessment the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State has made of their size and whether this is appropriate for the United Kingdom, particularly at a time when the United Kingdom Government are talking about global Britain?

We have heard about the many very important roles of the Armed Forces, to which I pay tribute. Some of them have been domestic: one of them was at the 2012 Olympics, but they also supported the NHS in relation to vaccinations and other authorities in relation to flooding. Internationally, they have dealt with humanitarian questions, and they also deal with all those other defence issues that one expects the Armed Forces to be dealing with: humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping and military involvement, supporting NATO and the United Nations. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the size of the Armed Forces and our global commitments? Are they fit for purpose, or should we be looking for an expansion of our regular forces? As has been suggested, at a time of pandemic and rising unemployment, there may well be a pool from which to recruit people.

However, there is also a question of retention. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the facilities available to the Armed Forces? In particular, is service accommodation now fit for purpose? The National Audit Office suggests that it perhaps is not and that SLAM accommodation needs to be looked at; what assessment have the Government made of this?

Finally, there is a whole range of issues that the Liberal Democrat Benches and Members across your Lordships’ House will clearly wish to raise in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill and, in particular, the Armed Forces Bill—so these are just a few questions to flag up concerns that will come forward over the coming weeks and months.

Integrated Review: New Ships

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the scale of the shipbuilding capacity contemplated for the next decade and beyond is a very positive message for jobs. We all acknowledge that when shipbuilding orders are placed, the companies and communities around them benefit. We have seen that to good effect on the Clyde, the Forth and other shipyard locations south of the border, and that is very welcome. The estimate of jobs for the new craft is difficult to determine at the moment. There is an estimate that the Type 32, for example, represents an investment in UK shipbuilding of over £1.5 billion for the next decade and that would create and sustain roughly 1,040 jobs.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, defence is a reserved matter; shipbuilding is not. Will the Minister tell the House what is the likely impact on shipbuilding procurement on the Clyde and the Forth if Scotland were to become independent?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My Lords, our industrial partners in Scotland, principally BAE and Babcock, are trusted industrial partners doing what is acknowledged to be tremendous work in shipbuilding the Type 26 frigates on the Clyde and the Type 31 at Rosyth on the Forth. The plans for independence at the last referendum were shrouded in total uncertainty by those who advocated independence. The noble Baroness is right to raise the concern, because it is pretty clear that an independent Scotland would not be able to commission work to the scale that we currently see placed with yards in Scotland.

British Armed Forces: Global Britain

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I pay tribute to our Armed Forces’ regulars and reserves for the work they do internationally and at home: dealing with Covid, the floods and now trying to play a key role in global Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, urged the Minister to say that the Government would keep up the major humanitarian efforts, but he also noted that the problem is that the UK is seen as here today and gone tomorrow, or here one minute and gone the next. That reflects the danger of Prime Ministers—David Cameron did this quite often—and others going somewhere and making a commitment without necessarily a clear strategic objective. Could the Minister clarify what the strategy behind global Britain will be and reassure us that it will not cause overstretch, further damaging our Armed Forces’ morale?

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I start, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, by paying my debt of gratitude to the Armed Forces, to our service personnel and to the veterans and their families. One thing that unites everyone who has spoken in this debate is our commitment to our Armed Forces and the sense that it is vital that they have the support they need.

As the Minister pointed out in her opening remarks, the Government had a manifesto commitment to try to deal with vexatious claims. Although the remarks of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford may have suggested that these Benches would like to throw out this Bill at Second Reading—that seemed to be the understanding of the noble Lord, Lord King—that is not the case. We are certainly not proposing suddenly to demand a vote at Second Reading against the Bill.

I am slightly less sceptical than my noble friend on first reading, but the Bill appears on the face of it to be dealing with a problem which many noble Lords have pointed out is particularly difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, said, we want to deal with vexatious, venal and vile cases but, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth pointed out, there is a very significant difficulty with this piece of legislation. There is a marked difference between what Her Majesty’s Government say that they wish to do—that the Bill delivers the Conservative manifesto commitment to address vexatious claims, as said on the fact sheet that the Secretary of State’s special adviser sent to speakers in this debate this morning—and what is actually in the Bill.

There are serious concerns about unintended consequences. As my noble friend Lady Northover pointed out, the Bill is very seriously flawed. She suggested that she did not think that she had ever participated on a piece of legislation that was so flawed. It has been pointed out that the legislation passed through the other place unscathed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, put it, and unamended. However, that was not because it was not flawed; it perhaps passed because the Government have an 80-seat majority. Very important amendments were put forward by David Davis and Dan Jarvis, many of which I believe I and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and noble Lords across the House will seek to retable in Committee, because there are many problems with this Bill.

Dealing with vexatious claims is important. Nobody wishes members of our Armed Forces to be subject to vexatious claims, nor do repeated investigations serve anybody well. However, there is a very serious question and concern about this Bill, about whether it does anything at all to stop vexatious claims and whether it will stop repeated investigations. The only point that offers some hope that it might deal with vexatious issues is in Clause 3(2)(b), which deals with previous investigations. Beyond that, the Bill does not talk about investigations; it talks about prosecutions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seemed to suggest that the higher threshold for prosecutions was going to deal with the problem of investigations. I could not understand the logic of that point. Could the Minister explain whether she thinks that the points in the legislation about prosecution will do anything at all to deal with the number of investigations, which is what causes the mental stress for so many of our service men and women and veterans? The issue of dealing with vexatious claims may not be helped by this legislation and, as many noble Lords have pointed out, including the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, there is a concern that the ICC may take an interest in our service men and women if our legislation is changed in accordance with the Bill. Surely that is an unintended consequence that the Government do not wish to come about.

There are various problems with the Bill. One is the basic presumption against prosecution after five years but, in particular, the concern that many noble Lords talked about: the exclusion of torture from Schedule 1. I do not understand why torture, war crimes and genocide are not there, and that seems to be very much the view across the House. The Minister in her introductory remarks seemed to suggest that sexual offences were part of Schedule 1 because they would never be authorised in war or any other context—they are always illegal. Surely torture is always illegal. When do Her Majesty’s Government ever envisage saying, “Go ahead, please torture”? Surely the exception to the presumption should also be included in Schedule 1. An amendment to that effect is necessary. My right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael MP said in the other place that he wanted to focus on the use of torture because it illustrates well the lack of logic in not including torture in Schedule 1. Where there is evidence of torture, no prosecutor sitting in his or her office should say, “Well, there’s evidence of torture but it is presumed that we would not prosecute it.” What sort of signal does that send?

We can see that the Bill’s architecture is such that torture is clearly designed to belong in Schedule 1, along with sexual offences. That makes perfect sense. It is a matter of logic, not law. The provisions in that schedule cover eventualities whose use is never in any circumstances acceptable. Does the Minister agree that torture is never acceptable? Will she consider taking back to her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence a suggestion that torture needs to be added to Schedule 1? If the Government do not bring forward an amendment, she can rest assured that these Benches and noble Lords across the House will bring forward amendments.

Clause 12 on the derogation from the European Court of Human Rights is also a clause too far. It is an area where the Liberal Democrats will certainly bring forward an amendment.

The Bill might have good intentions but, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, suggested, the optics of Part 1 are not good. Indeed, the optics of most of the Bill are not good. We need to think what signals we are sending, both to our allies across the world and to countries that we might think of as our opponents or enemies. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford asked, how would we feel if other countries adopted the same provisions that the Government are putting forward here, and we were told that cases could not be brought in allegations of torture of our own service men and women or, indeed, anybody else, precisely because there was a presumption against prosecution?

The measures that we are putting forward will have global resonance. Is that the sort of leadership that global Britain wants? Should we not seek to lead by example? On the day in which Joe Biden was inaugurated as President of the United States and said that the US should seek to

“lead not merely by the example of our power, but by the power of our example”,

should the United Kingdom not seek to draw on our long legacy of leading calls for the prohibition of torture and say that we will always stand up against torture and include that in Schedule 1?

The Bill is deeply flawed. For it to pass your Lordships’ House and be appropriate as a piece of legislation for the United Kingdom, it needs significant amendment. At present, it is not acceptable. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, I hope that together we can bring forward legislation that is worthy of support. I hope that the Minister might provide some amendments in Committee in order that we can indeed take the Bill forward.

UN Mission in Mali: Armed Forces Deployment

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, today’s repeat of the Mali deployment Statement is very much welcomed because, whenever British forces are deployed, it is right—indeed, absolutely necessary—for Ministers to come to Parliament to explain the reasons, outline the objectives and answer questions. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that the noble Baroness is here to listen to the views expressed and to respond to questions the Statement made in the other place gives rise to.

Britain has rightly been described as a soft power superpower, and around the world many millions of people owe their quality of life today to support from Britain over many years now. In a report published in 2014 entitled Persuasion and Power in the Modern World, a Select Committee of this House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was tasked with examining the use of soft power in furthering Britain’s global influence and interests. The report is well worth further examination, stressing as it does the need for Britain to remain a top-rank player or face being outwitted, outcompeted and increasingly insecure.

The Mali deployment means we are sending our troops into the most dangerous UN mission in the world today. Our forces go with the respect—and more, the affection—of everyone in these islands. Our forces deploy to an area of the African continent that was in former times part of the French colonial interests. No matter the divisions and travails closer to home over Brexit, we go to Mali as part of the UN mandate —yes, we do—but we go in support of our French friends and allies, and that is how it should be: a common interest and a common responsibility to help bring peace and stability.

Our troop deployment is more successful thanks to the Royal Air Force at Brize Norton. Here I echo the words of Brize’s station commander, Group Captain Emily Flynn, who said that the deployment was a good example of the important and often unnoticed work that is carried out by personnel there. Brize Norton is the centre of a world network supporting Britain’s military operations across the globe and we should be proud of that.

We are told that our 300-strong Light Dragoons task group will be helping protect people from violence and encouraging political dialogue. Can the Minister tell us something about the latter role of encouraging political dialogue that our forces will engage in?

In the Statement, we are reminded that in South Sudan British forces were engaged in building hospitals, bridges and roads. This work, of course, requires the deployed forces to possess specialist skills in building and construction. Can the Minister say, thinking of that role, how we might engage in it in partnership with forces from other countries in Mali?

The Statement tells us that the region in which our troops are deployed is the worst place on earth to be an adolescent girl as it accounts for 7% of the world’s population of primary-age girls who are not in education. What plans, if any, do we have to help address this? I can still remember when, together with my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, I attended a lecture given by the then Chancellor Gordon Brown in Edinburgh almost 15 years ago, when he powerfully argued that the greatest gift and help that we can give the developing world is free education.

In a world ever more watchful of threats from terrorist violence, Mali, as the Statement emphasises, poses a real danger by creating a space for developing new terrorist threats. Without going into any great detail in a security-sensitive matter, can the Minister confirm that our forces will work closely with our allies, sharing intelligence gathering to the mutual benefit and protection of the citizens of the nations who have deployed troops in Mali?

Finally, as we approach the Christmas season, the whole House would echo the Statement’s grateful thanks and good wishes to our troops there. In this awful Covid time, when families across Britain cannot be together, that separation is even harder to bear for our service personnel and their families. Can the Minister assure the House that every preparation is in hand for our troops in Mali to be in contact with their loved ones here at home over Christmas? I am sure that I am not alone in believing that, if the families of our service men and women at home are happy, our troops, wherever they may be asked to serve around the world, will be happy and content. In an uncertain world, Britain’s soft power capability and our long-established and respected role as a peacemaker have never been more important or more needed.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I start by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the Secretary of State in expressing my gratitude to our service men and women. In particular at this time we send our thanks and best wishes to those serving in Mali and deployed anywhere else in the world in the run-up to Christmas. In particular, we send our thanks and gratitude to the families of our service men and women, without whom they would find doing their job serving our nation so much harder.

The deployment to Mali is, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said, to be welcomed. It is one that the previous Secretary of State for Defence flagged up in the middle of 2019, so it is not a surprise; it is part of an international UN mission, and clearly something that our service men and women are trained for. It is precisely the sort of mission that is to be welcomed but, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, pointed out, it is in one of the most dangerous parts of the world. In his Statement, the Secretary of State suggested that our service men and women were well trained and equipped for the mission and have the right training, equipment and preparation to succeed in a complex operating environment. Could the Minister confirm that she believes that those deployed to Mali are appropriately kitted out and that they are not placed in any greater danger than is inevitably the case in such a deployment?

As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, also pointed out, Mali is a country where it is extremely dangerous, because of terrorist activities, but particularly difficult to be a woman—or a girl being educated. To what extent will the change to humanitarian aid impact on Mali? The Minister is clearly responding primarily for the MoD but she is replying for the Government, so can she confirm that the Government remain committed to supporting women and girls?

In particular, what is the Government’s wider approach to sub-Saharan Africa? I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, will speak later. She admirably chaired the committee of your Lordships’ House on which I sit, and which produced a report on sub-Saharan Africa in July. We have not yet had the opportunity as a House to debate that report, but one issue that the committee kept coming across was a difficulty in understanding whether the Government actually had a strategy for Africa. It would be helpful to understand from the Minister how far Mali fits into such a strategy. Clearly, the UK is playing an important role here as part of a UN mission, but does that fit as part of the Government’s wider strategy?

Overall, this is clearly a welcome mission, even if it is very unfortunate that Mali requires such intervention. It is welcome that the UK continues to play a global role. It is also notable that so much of that role is with our allies, including France and Sweden. Can the Minister reassure the House that, as we move forward, such security relationships will continue to be as deep and fully fledged as they have been? Those relations matter, regardless of the UK’s relations with the European Union. If the deployment to Mali fully reflects what our service men and women should be doing, sending the Navy to deal with French fishermen is perhaps not the best use of our resources.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, very much for their helpful and constructive comments. On behalf of the Government, I also thank them for their tribute to our Armed Forces personnel and, as the noble Baroness so rightly pointed out, their families. Our thoughts are certainly always with our Armed Forces personnel and their families when there is any deployment at all. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised a number of points, which I shall try to deal with as comprehensively as I can.

The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, raised the issue of encouraging political dialogue and how we might contribute to the need for construction and engineering skills. I say to him that the whole reason that the United Kingdom is contributing to this United Nations mission in Mali is that the underlying instability means that it is very difficult, in the face of that turbulence, to move on to the more positive and constructive issues to which he refers. We recognise that while our contribution to the security response is important, security interventions alone will not address the instability in the Sahel. We continue to advocate for state-led progress on the peace process in Mali, and for political and institutional reform in the wider region, with greater ownership and leadership of reform efforts by G5 Governments. I reassure the noble Lord that he raises an important point, but the priority at the moment is trying to address the issues of instability and lack of security.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness also raised the issue of women. It is the case that women have been badly impacted by the consequences of the instability and turmoil. However, it is also the case that there is some cause for optimism. Over the past five years, we have seen progress. Widespread fighting between the parties has not returned, the reconstitution of a national army from members of the former armed groups and—this is the important point—the inclusion of women in the peace process, including MINUSMA’s role as mediator, have been critical to this relative stability. Important points were made about the position of women, how such civil unrest can impact on them and how we can do our best, as a contributing country, to encourage a more enhanced role for women.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked what our objectives are. The Foreign Secretary recently chaired a review process looking at all the strands of the UK ODA budget. The review safeguarded support for five ODA priorities: the very poorest—that is, poverty reduction for the bottom billion; climate change; girls’ education, which will, I hope, reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness; Covid-19; and the role of Britain globally as a force for good.

The noble Lord also raised the important issue of how we work with other forces from contributing countries and allies. Indeed, the noble Baroness also talked about that and about our security relationships. I commend them both: they have touched on something really significant. At the heart of this is the fact that we are part of a United Nations mission and we are proud to play our role. We want to be a positive influence to help those countries that have suffered such insurgency and insurrection, particularly Mali, to move on to a better and more stable course. We want that because it is good not just for Mali but for the broader security of the region and the world at large. As the noble Lord alluded to, if we can bring greater stability to that area, we can begin to introduce more robust political processes. If we look at the country’s infrastructure, a great deal of progress has been made in taking the country forward.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness will be aware that we work closely with France in particular. We are part of the Operation Barkhane mission, which is operative in the Sahel. Unlike MINUSMA, Barkhane is a counterterrorism mission, of course. It has a different purpose but it is an example of the importance of working with allies whom we know well, with whom we get on and with whom we are very proud to work in partnership to improve the overall situation.

I think that I have managed to cover the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. If I have omitted anything, I shall have a look at Hansard and undertake to rectify it. Again, I express to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness my appreciation of their constructive comments, particularly their recognition of the tremendous role that our Armed Forces are asked to play.

Trident Nuclear Programme

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the extension of the Trident programme is clear and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out, it has recently been reaffirmed by the other place. Could the noble Baroness tell us how Her Majesty’s Government view the extension of Trident in terms of their priorities for the RevCon of the NPT?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I did not quite get the last bit of that question but, perhaps instead of the noble Baroness repeating it, I will undertake to look at Hansard and give her a full reply.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I asked about priorities for the NPT; if we are extending Trident, how do we fit that with the NPT commitments?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the question. The Government take the view that, under the non-proliferation treaty, we remain compliant with international law and in compliance with Article VI of that treaty. We have a very good record of contributing to nuclear disarmament; we have managed to reduce stocks by about 50% from their Cold War peak and we are the only recognised nuclear weapons state to have reduced our deterrent capability to a single nuclear weapons system.

Nuclear Weapons

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I simply observe that the commitment to the deterrent is very significant in terms of defence capability, planning and cost, and is a long-term commitment. We deploy our best scientific and technical skills to that programme, and there is no proposal to distract from that activity.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister suggested that there is probably a different philosophy between those who believe in a non-proliferation regime and those who believe in a prohibition regime. Can she tell the House what work the Government are doing to take us down the nuclear ladder and reduce the amount of nuclear capabilities, because surely the aim we all have is a multilateral solution to ending nuclear weapons?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Let me offer some cheer to the noble Baroness by agreeing with her last point. The difficulty lies not so much in the objective, which is shared by many people, but in the journey to reach it. That is why the United Kingdom believes that the non-proliferation treaty not only offers focus but is a treaty entered into by all the nuclear states. I am not aware of any nuclear state joining the prohibition treaty. It is entered into because those nuclear states believe that the non-proliferation treaty provides focus and verification, and that it has a record of delivering.

Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord very much for his tribute to the Armed Forces, which I am sure is endorsed throughout the Chamber. In 2020, there were 420 MACA requests, 341 of which were Covid-related. The MoD is currently supporting 41. As to future projections, we stand ready to offer support, but are awaiting invitations to provide it. On the important matter of the vaccine, I confirm that the Ministry of Defence has already deployed military personnel to the Vaccine Taskforce, supporting the central organisation and exploring how Defence could bring logistical support to the national rollout of a future vaccine.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I similarly pay tribute to the Armed Forces in this week of remembrance. Could the Minister say what impact work on Covid might have on the other activities of the Armed Forces and whether training is carrying on as normal? Clearly other threats will not decline.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

In relation to our current obligations, we have conducted prudent planning against a range of potential risks facing the nation over winter. We have a package of 7,500 personnel placed at heightened readiness to enable rapid response to HMG requests at this time of national crisis. Clearly the pandemic has disrupted some activity, but the MoD is endeavouring to ensure that we return to normal, in so far as that is consistent with the safety of our personnel. We ensure that whatever our personnel are asked to do is compliant with Public Health England.

HMS “Queen Elizabeth”

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I reassure the noble Lord that the deployment of the carrier strike group 21 does not leave the Navy short-handed for other priorities. The Royal Navy has sufficient ships and submarines to meet its global commitments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his inimitable reassuring way used to suggest that the support vessels would come not necessarily from the Royal Navy but from our allies. Have the Government assessed whether the support will be there from our allies in the context of the likely or possible outcomes of the American elections?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Baroness’s crystal ball must be bigger than mine, because the answer to the outcome of the United States presidential election is unclear to me. As she will be aware, the United States is of course a very important ally. It is very significant to our defence relationships across the world. We work with Administrations of whatever hue. That is what we have done in the past and will do in the future.