Queen’s Speech

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and to agree with every word he said.

In these five days of debate on the Queen’s Speech we can talk about almost anything, but we are allowed to speak only once. I would have liked to have spoken last Thursday, in the debate on the constitution, to argue the case for a new, improved United Kingdom constitution based on radical federalism—I would have had some support from my left here—but instead I have opted to speak today in the debate on foreign affairs and defence. Even then, I am still tempted to speak about the European Affairs Committee, of which I am now a member, and which takes on a different but equally important role to that of the European Union Committee following the disaster that is Brexit. I will not go further on that. There are so many other issues I could cover, such as the despicable cut in development assistance, which is already devastating some key aid programmes, but I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and I could not say it as eloquently. Then we have the growing threat from Russia, and I am particularly concerned about the challenge of China, and other Members have today spoken about that.

However, I have decided to concentrate my remarks on just one important issue, in the hope that it might help to make a difference, and that is the situation in Belarus and, in particular, the plight of political prisoners illegally detained there by the Lukashenko regime. Belarus is the only European country not eligible for membership of the Council of Europe, because of its reactionary policies, including the retention of capital punishment. The 26-year reign of Alexander Lukashenko reminds me of the legacy of the autocracy and repression I saw in the old Soviet Union. Its failure to move towards democracy was underlined recently by two reports we had at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: one was an excellent report on reform of the electoral system by our own noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; and the other was by Ms Alexandra Louis on the many human rights violations in Belarus. Arising from these reports, PACE called on member states to make use of the universal jurisdiction of our courts here for acts of torture and to pass Magnitsky laws to impose targeted sanctions on these perpetrators of serious human rights violations. I hope the Minister in his reply might say something positive on that.

Even more urgently, I want to concentrate on the awful plight of the hundreds of political prisoners held illegally in Belarus. We can only imagine the feeling of injustice and despair, coupled with the sense of helplessness and hopelessness that arises from being detained illegally and held in solitary confinement in a jail in such a situation. Thankfully, around Britain and Europe there are dedicated people who, working with Libereco and Viasna, have arranged for MPs and Peers, along with Members of other parliaments in Europe, to “adopt” a prisoner to bring them some hope and let them know they are not forgotten.

I am pleased that my noble friends Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, Lady Crawley, Lady Smith of Basildon and Lady Massey, the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Balfe, and Tony Lloyd, John Howell and Tonia Antoniazzi from the other place have joined me in adopting a prisoner. I hope that other Members will think of joining us.

My adoptee is Stepan Lapitov, an arborist, who followed his father and grandfather in this profession. He was arrested on a trumped-up charge because one of the chemicals he uses regularly in his work could also be used in the manufacture of explosives. My noble friend Lord Winston will understand how that can happen.

As a result, Stepan is detained without trial in isolation, unable to continue his important work and not knowing what fate awaits him. He and the other political prisoners are under great psychological pressure and treated as common criminals just because they are not seen as loyal supporters of the regime. Any contact that they are able to have with the outside world is therefore a comfort, knowing they are not forgotten and that members of parliament around Europe are not just seeking their release but are keeping in regular touch with them.

I have written twice now to Stepan and get reports of his situation, as do all those who have joined the adoption scheme. I have let him know that I have raised his case in Strasbourg and am raising it today in the British Parliament. He knows that I am speaking today.

Of course, we can and should intensify our campaign in support of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and her legitimate demand for democratic reform in Belarus, but it is equally important to remember each individual who is suffering under the dictatorial regime and who yearns for the advent of democracy in what remains a redoubt of autocracy in Europe. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will add that the fate of each of them is also in the thoughts of Her Majesty’s Government.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

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

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual helpful and comprehensive introduction. Like my colleagues, I have a number of concerns about the Bill, but today I want to concentrate on the power given to Ministers to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights, which seems like an encouragement to do so. I raise this as one of the delegates from the United Kingdom Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the convention. Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, I believe that universal human rights apply under all these circumstances.

This debate gives the House of Lords yet another opportunity, as we have had with so many Bills, to consider in detail the provisions of this Bill, in a way that the Commons did not. I hope we will amend and improve it before we send it back. There are good intentions behind the Bill—in particular, to protect our Armed Forces from vexatious claims—but in its current form it is not fit for purpose as it does not do what the Government claim, as others have said.

May I also take this opportunity to commend my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, in both the Commons and the Lords? In dealing with this Bill, they have consulted widely with all the stakeholders, including bodies representing officers and other ranks—the Royal British Legion and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, for example. Their aim has been to build a broad consensus. Many of these organisations have sent representations to us, and I have been particularly impressed and moved by those from the Quakers, Freedom from Torture and Survivors Speak OUT.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which, as I said, I am one of the UK delegates, actually elects the judges to the European Court of Human Rights in one of the most impressive democratic processes. Indeed, we will be electing the judges from two countries—Greece and Switzerland—from nominees put forward by their Governments, at the hybrid meeting of the assembly next week. These judges then sit on the court, which considers cases involving breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights referred from any of the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe, including Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. It is significant that only Belarus is not a member—and, given its current actions, not qualified to be a member.

If we pass this Bill in its current form, our position in the parliamentary assembly will be undermined, as the Quakers say in their submission to us. The representations from Survivors Speak OUT and Freedom from Torture add:

“The presumption against prosecution is incompatible with obligations under the ECHR.”


So, if the Bill is passed in its current form, British delegates at PACE would find it much more difficult to pursue violations of human rights in other member states, as we have done with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, the arrests of journalists and opposition leaders such as Alexei Navalny in Russia, corruption in Azerbaijan, and many more. This is just one of many concerns about the Bill as drafted. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that we will be able to remedy it when we get to Committee and Report.

Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I will need to offer to write to the noble Baroness with the specific information she requests. I can confirm that, across the United Kingdom, the MoD, through MACA response, has supported all parts of the United Kingdom, including the devolved Administrations.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

Will the Minister confirm that these schemes are of mutual benefit and that the forces get experience of planning, reconnaissance, deployment and evaluation? Will she say what effect this had had on recruitment? How many extra people have been recruited to our forces as a result?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

Yes, the personnel from the MoD participating in MACA responses have had hugely positive emotions in understanding the contribution they are making and seeing at first hand the appreciation of the public for their efforts. On the important issue of recruitment, I am pleased to say to the noble Lord that the intake to the regular Armed Forces in the 12 months to 1 July 2020 was up 12.9% compared with the previous 12 months, which is a very gratifying situation.

Armed Forces Personnel from Commonwealth Countries

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I was not aware that I had used the word “flexibility”, but I defer to the noble Baroness. What I did indicate was that there is a range of measures available at the time of recruitment to inform and educate those who seek a career in the Armed Forces as to what lies ahead if they then wish to be discharged and to reside in this country. As I have indicated, it is recognised that there are sensitivities and the department is actively investigating the position.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, but this is a monumental muddle that is causing great distress. Why does the Minister, who is well respected in the House for her diplomatic skills, not just say to the House that after Question Time she will go back to the Ministry of Defence, contact the other departments involved and get this resolved as quickly as possible?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks—he perhaps attributes to me greater powers than I actually possess. He is right to emphasise the significance of the issue, and I reassure him that I do not have to reiterate that to the department. There is active work under way, and I hope that something positive will emerge from that.

Royal Navy: Frigates

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I understand why the noble Lord should ask that question, but it is hypothetical. At the moment, we think we have the right assets in the right places but, as I said, we keep our deployments and our tasking under review.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, with no disrespect to my excellent, gallant and noble friend, is it not the case that we now have two admirals for every ship we have serving? Is it not about time we did some trimming of the admirals?

[Lord West of Spithead]

Noted!

Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz: Merchant Shipping

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I should correct the noble Lord on one point. Contrary to some media reports, we have not deployed any additional forces to the region as a result of the latest attacks. I completely understand why the noble Lord asked about rules of engagement, but I hope that he does not expect me to set out what those rules are. However, I can assure him that appropriate force protection measures are in place and are subject to regular review as the situation evolves.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, has been very helpful in this area and that we should be proud of all its work, whatever the Daily Telegraph may say about a potential Tory leadership candidate?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on security matters, but I can tell him that investigations into the incident in the Strait of Hormuz are ongoing. Further information should be forthcoming in due course.

Afghan Interpreters: Security Clearance

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

Yes, I agree very firmly. The Government remain grateful to all locally employed staff who played pivotal roles in Afghanistan. Many served bravely alongside our military forces on patrol in dangerous situations and we regret deeply that some had to pay the ultimate price for freedom. We use our best endeavours to expedite these assessments as quickly as possible, but my noble friend will understand that sometimes it is important to get to the facts of the case, which does take some time.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, with respect to the Minister—whom we all respect—this has been dragging on for a very long time. Can he confirm when it was first raised?

[Earl Howe]

The issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was brought to our attention only in the Times report. Of course, the wider issue of the packages available to former Afghan interpreters has been long-standing, but I believe the Ministry of Defence has a very good case to present.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2019

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know how often we debate the consequences of the Bill of Rights 1688, but, as the noble Earl said, this is one of them. The Bill prohibited a standing army without the consent of Parliament—a reaction, I suspect, to Cromwell’s stewardship.

When I was a young MP, we had an annual Army Act, which provided an opportunity to raise any issue concerning the Armed Forces. It was a day out for old warriors, from Colonel Wigg up or down, as the case was, to bait Jack Profumo, Christopher Soames and other War Office Ministers. I joined in, despite my limited experience as a Welch Fusilier subaltern, whose occasional job was to be in charge of 10 men, fully armed, taking the night train from Hanover to Berlin, with the blinds down, in order to assert our right to go from the British zone to the Berlin sector. Fortunately, World War III did not break out. Now, instead, we debate annually a statutory instrument, as the Minister said, with the same opportunity to raise any issue concerning the Armed Forces.

The 2006 Act is subject to a quinquennial review, and the next Bill will be in 2020. Knowing this, and following the case of Sergeant Blackman, I took the opportunity to alert the Ministry of Defence to my concern with some aspects of the court-martial system. I did this through Questions in September and October 2017, and a short debate in November 2017. I thought that my dual experience as both a Defence Minister and Attorney-General might be useful.

I was fortunate in my timing with the reply from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who said that,

“the Government have decided that the time is now right for an independent and more in-depth look at the service justice system so that we can be assured that it is as effective as it can be for the 21st century”.—[Official Report, 23/10/17; col. 766.]

I was not alone in criticising some aspects of the court-martial system. Indeed, the Judge Advocate-General, Judge Blackett, did exactly that, and I pray in aid his comments.

The MoD moved with unparalleled speed after I raised the issues in the House—I suspect that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was behind this—by appointing a retired circuit judge, the former Chief Naval Judge Advocate, His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons, to conduct the review. I was fortunate, through the good offices of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd —the former Lord Chief Justice, as we all know—and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to meet Mr Lyons and to raise with him some of the issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said in the November 2017 debate that,

“we look forward to the report of his review in around a year’s time”.—[Official Report, 23/11/17; col. 390.]

Specifically I ask, now that we are in February 2019— 15 months on—and because there has been no public consultation, could noble Lords see the report if it is ready now, before any more work is done on the next Bill?

As the Attorney-General, I initiated and signed a protocol deciding, in those cases where civilians are involved, the most appropriate judicial machinery. I trust that the protocol is working well. Given the reduction in the size of the Armed Forces, despite the fact that various courts have held military courts to be human rights-compliant, there is a case for bringing military courts more into line with civil courts, particularly for the most serious cases, which are my concern. Experienced military prosecutors will ensure that the services’ general discipline needs will be protected. I emphasise that it is the most serious cases, such as murder and rape, which should be tried by a jury, with a judge appointed by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, who allocates members of the High Court Bench for the more serious cases in our courts, where he or she sees the need. This should be a routine matter as opposed to an occasional departure. The very fact of the rarity of murder and rape cases reinforces my view that an unfair burden is imposed on the judge advocate when such cases are the day-to-day business of High Court judges, who deal with these matters, and licensed senior circuit judges.

The membership of the court martial is hierarchical, and I am told that the most junior member is asked to express his conclusions first. This is not an easy task for a junior member of the court martial, who might be sitting for the first time. Secondly, court-martial verdicts are decided by a majority. You can be convicted of murder or other serious offences by a three to two verdict. This is hardly 21st-century stuff. Thirdly, the voting is secret. In New Zealand in recent years, using the UK system as a model, they have decided that convictions must be unanimous. In our civil courts, there are strict procedural rules for juries to endeavour, first of all, to reach a unanimous verdict and, if they fail to do so, to reach a verdict by a majority of 10 to two where there is a jury of 12. Lastly on that point, the voting figures are made known to the public, to the court and particularly to the accused.

I trust the review will address the problems which I raised in some detail in 2017, and be bold despite the findings in the past on human rights compliance with the existing procedures; and also fulfil the Government’s aim, as the noble Baroness said in November 2017, of a court-martial system that is effective and also fair, in my words, for the 21st century.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exceptionally helpful introduction to this important issue. As he said, this is a vital matter, which we review through an Act every five years and a renewal every year. It illustrates the fact that this is a parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. Sometimes, some people, particularly down the other end, forget that this is a parliamentary democracy; Parliament’s role needs to be emphasised, as it is in this continuation order. It is much better than a presidential system, where the president is the commander-in-chief and has more extensive—almost unlimited—powers than the head of Government in the United Kingdom, in a parliamentary democracy. I welcome that.

I want to take the opportunity to raise a related matter. I thank the Minister for his recent excellent written replies regarding an accident that took place in Scotland on 1 September 1994. Someone who saw his replies remarked, “These are exceptional”. Normally, written replies from Ministers, particularly in the House of Lords, are scanty, whereas these were full and helpful.

The incident took place on 1 September 1994 when RAF Tornado ZG708 crashed on a low-flying exercise. Flight Lieutenant Peter Mosley, the pilot, and Flight Lieutenant Patrick Harrison, the navigator, were both killed instantly. The nephew of one of the flight lieutenants, Jimmy Jones, has written to me again. I raised this issue in the other place in 1994 when I was a Member of Parliament and I have raised it on a number of other occasions, because the board of inquiry into the accident was completely inadequate and the relatives received no explanation of why their loved ones were killed and no indication of the cause of the accident.

In Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, will know, the fatal accident inquiry procedure does not commence automatically in relation to such incidents, and there was no such inquiry. This is an astonishing situation. I do not know if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, recalls the situation but he will certainly know the general legal framework in Scotland, where we do not have automatic FAIs into these military accidents. It seems a strange anomaly.

In thanking the Minister for the written replies, I ask him now, in the light of the plea I am making, to pursue this matter further with the Scottish Government and the Law Officers in Scotland to see whether something can be done, even at this late stage, to satisfy the relatives’ concerns. It is important that we are seen to be fair to these two men, who were prepared to fight, and ultimately to give their lives, on behalf of the United Kingdom. We should give some explanation to their relatives.

I would like to return to some of the provisions of the order. It says:

“The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories except Gibraltar”.


Why is Gibraltar excluded? Our soldiers, sailors and airmen presumably serve there. They may be covered by some Gibraltar legislation, but it is important to know why Gibraltar is excluded from the order. I think that is my only question.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to the other government amendments in this group.

Government Amendments 1 to 4 return to the issue of the proper scope of the new designated area offence provided for in Clause 4. I thank the Opposition for their constructive approach to this provision. It was clear from our earlier debates that there was general support for the principle of a designated area offence to help protect the public from a real terrorist threat, such as we have seen as a result of UK nationals and residents travelling to conflict zones in Syria and Iraq. The area of dispute was how we protect those who have a legitimate reason for travelling to a designated area.

On Report, the Government sought to provide greater reassurance by building on the existing reasonable excuse defence and setting out an indicative list of such excuses. However, your Lordships preferred an alternative approach, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which excludes from the scope of the offence travel to a designated area for one or more specified purposes. The list of such specified purposes matched the Government’s list of indicative reasonable excuses, but with a power to amend the list of specified purposes by regulations.

It is clear that, while the Opposition and the Government took different approaches to the challenge, we were ultimately striving to achieve the same result. I am pleased to say that, on reflection, the Government are content to accept the approach put forward in the Opposition’s amendment. Having consulted our operational partners, we consider that this change would not materially affect the operation of the offence. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that, on Report, I indicated that, from the perspective of an individual returning to the UK from a designated area, the two approaches would, in one sense, not look very different. Either way, the police would still need to investigate to determine whether, under one approach, an exclusion from the offence applied or, under the other, whether the subject of the investigation had a reasonable excuse.

I also reminded your Lordships that the police have made very clear that they will investigate any person returning from Syria to establish what risk they may pose to the public, given the high level of terrorist threat associated with that region. It seems reasonable to expect that this is likely to be the position in relation to any area that might be designated in the future under this power, as part of the police’s basic responsibility for protecting the public. This is aside from the question of whether a person returning from such an area may have had a legitimate reason for travelling under Clause 4. I accept, however, that an individual with a legitimate reason for travelling to a designated area would take greater comfort from knowing that they had not committed the offence in the first place than from knowing that they had a defence to the offence.

The Government must ensure that the law is as clear as it can be. These four amendments will help to achieve this. Amendment 1 is intended to make explicit in the Bill that there are exemptions from the offence—namely that an individual would not commit an offence if they leave a designated area within one month of the area being designated; that an individual enters or remains in a designated area involuntarily; or that an individual enters or remains in such an area in connection with one or more specified purposes.

Amendments 2 and 4 simply ensure that, consistent with the drafting of the Terrorism Act 2000, the parliamentary procedure for the new regulation-making power is set out in Section 123 of that Act rather than in new Section 58B. This in no way changes the operation of the regulation-making power or the parliamentary process for approving regulations made under it.

Finally, Amendment 3 provides for a definition of “terminally ill” where a person enters a designated area to visit a terminally ill relative. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on Report. This amendment will provide greater clarity for individuals who may pray in aid this reason for travelling to a designated area.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to raise a particular point about the amendment: why six months? Why was six months chosen rather than three months, a year or any other period? I wondered whether there was a clear medical or legal reason for that or whether it was just taken out of the hat. What is behind the choice of six months in particular?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness, the noble Earl, and their Whips and officials for the way in which they have, at least to some extent, listened and responded to the concerns that we have raised. It was interesting, having been completely opposed at one stage, to find a government amendment in accordance with the arguments we had made coming in at the next stage of the Bill, but surprises are sometimes good ones.

However, we are still concerned that a dangerous precedent is being perpetuated by this Bill adding to the list of criminal offences where those acting completely innocently commit an offence for which they can be arrested and charged, and only have a defence once they have been charged. We note that the Government, in accepting the Labour amendment excluding people with legitimate reasons from the scope of the designated area offence, recognise those concerns to some extent. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, with whom I jousted on this issue, that this is a matter to which we will return when we debate the Offensive Weapons Bill in the coming weeks.

We are still concerned about people being criminalised by this Bill for what they think rather than what they do, or for being foolish or unwitting; that people can be detained at our borders without any reasonable grounds for suspicion; and that, in the exercise of these powers and the operation of Prevent, black and minority ethnic people and Muslims may be unfairly targeted. We believe the Bill amounts to a further erosion of civil liberties, and that is something the Liberal Democrats will continue to fight to prevent.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I would like to ask him whether he would have been able to give that speech in exactly the same way when the Liberal Democrats were part of the coalition.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful for the question. All I can say is that it is a hypothetical question and I did not hold a Front-Bench position during the coalition.

RAF: Operational Conversion Unit

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister will consider reopening the base in Belize as part of the reconsideration? I declare an interest as president of the All-Party Group for Belize.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we recognise the utility of Belize as a training area, and it is indeed one of the options we are looking at.