Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th March 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, suggested that this Bill divides your Lordships’ House into two parts: those who wish to see the Bill disappear in its entirety and those who wish to amend it substantially. I think that the situation might be a little more nuanced than that, but like the noble Baroness, I would place myself in the camp who believe that the Bill should probably go through, but heavily amended.

On this occasion, I want to associate myself with the suggestion that Clause 12 should not stand part. Obviously, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has signed that he will suggest that it should not stand part, alongside the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. On Tuesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rather hoped to kill the Bill. I think that removing this clause is important. It is neither necessary nor desirable, as almost all noble and noble and learned Lords who have spoken already have pointed out.

Some severe issues are raised by this clause, in part about what message we are sending internationally. The United Kingdom left the European Union last year. We have said that, as a country, we still respect human rights and the rule of law and that we wish to play a global role. We are still an active player in NATO and in the United Nations, but what message are we sending if we say, “We might want to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights”? Do we really want to derogate from human rights laws? Is this not a siren call? Is there not a danger that this is trying to speak to a domestic audience? I know that the Minister does not like the concept of lawfare and that she does not care for the term. However, in some ways, the clause as it stands and the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seem to suggest that this is about speaking to an audience that wants to say, “We should not be too worried about human rights. Let us strike down some of these rules.” Surely our role in the international arena should be precisely that of supporting human rights. We will not do that by derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights.

As various noble and noble and learned Lords have already pointed out, in particular the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord Hope of Craighead, this clause is unnecessary because it is already possible to derogate. Can the Minister explain why she feels that it is necessary? If there is no good reason, the Liberal Democrat Benches will certainly not support the clause.

However, there is always a danger that, however much we might want to remove a clause, it cannot be done and amendment to it might be more appropriate or feasible. To that end, it is clear that Amendment 26 tabled by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer and Lord Hope, my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, is important. If derogations were to be proposed, it is clear that the appropriate people to make that decision are parliamentarians. It is hugely important that the Government should remember the appropriate relations between the institutions of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. At times over recent months and years, it has appeared that Her Majesty’s Government seem to think that only the Government should make decisions. If any derogations were to take place, they should be brought forward for a decision on an affirmative vote by both Houses of Parliament. I strongly support Amendment 26.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the informed proposal in his amendment and other noble Lords for their genuinely thought-provoking contributions. I will try to address them in detail, although I realise that to the perception of some I may do so inadequately.

Amendment 26 would require designated derogation orders proposed by the Government in relation to overseas operations to be approved by Parliament before being made. It is important to begin by repeating the fact that, as some noble Lords have noted, the Government already have the power to derogate some aspects of the ECHR without reference to this Bill, and the Bill will not change that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is correct that the bar is set high to justify derogation, but it can still be done. It is important to remind noble Lords that Parliament already has a crucial role in approving any derogation decision. It is not the intention of this Bill to change the existing robust processes which the Government and Parliament follow if and when a decision to derogate has been made.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and my noble friend Lord Faulks asked why we have Clause 12. The clause merely ensures that all future Governments will be compelled to consider derogating from the ECHR for the purpose of a specific military operation. There is no sinister or malign agenda here, as was implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. This does not create new law in relation to the ECHR or the procedures for designating a derogation order. In effect, it puts the intent of the 2016 Written Ministerial Statement on to a statutory footing and it will ensure that operational effectiveness can be maintained, for example, by enabling detention where appropriate for imperative reasons of security in a time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nations.

It is worth reflecting on the procedure that attends a derogation from the ECHR. If such a decision is ever made, the Human Rights Act requires that the Secretary of State must make an order designating any derogation by the UK from an article or a protocol of the ECHR. The Secretary of State must also make an order amending Schedule 3 to the Human Rights Act to reflect the designation order or any amendment to, replacement of or withdrawal from that order. Crucially, for those concerned that Parliament does not have a say in the process, I would remind noble Lords of the procedures that are already in place. A designation order to derogate ceases to have effect—it evaporates effectively—if a resolution approving the order is not passed by each House of Parliament within 40 days of the order being made. This means that both Houses will always be able to approve or reject any derogation order within 40 days of a decision. That is the process and these are the procedures.

In addition to the requirements laid out in the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government must also communicate a decision to derogate to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. This should include details of the measures taken and the reasons for taking them. The Secretary-General should also be informed when derogations have ceased. These existing measures provide for the appropriate level of parliamentary debate and approval of a decision to derogate. To the best of my knowledge, successive Governments have not sought to change that. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will correct me if I am mistaken.

However, requiring a parliamentary debate on a decision to derogate ahead of time, instead of after it is made, as Amendment 26 proposes, could undermine the operational effectiveness of MoD activity or compromise covert activity that we would not wish hostile operators to be aware of. It is generally accepted, without reference to derogation powers, that military action must at times be taken without gaining the prior consent of Parliament—for example, in situations where the Government’s ability to protect the security interests of the UK must be maintained, and in instances when prior debate and disclosure of information could compromise the effectiveness of our operations and the safety of British service personnel. I submit that the same principles apply here: requiring a debate before an order is made could, similarly, have a detrimental impact upon operational effectiveness. It would effectively shackle the MoD, preventing it from doing what it needs to do, when it needs to do it. It would defeat the purpose of derogation in relation to overseas military operations, which should enhance operational effectiveness. I cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would wish to impose that stricture. I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Although I have argued against the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill, it has more logic than Amendment 26. I wonder if it is a mischievous stratagem to make the Government look at Clause 12 again. I listened to the noble and learned Lord with great care and I will look at his arguments again. When they are advanced with the lucidity with which he is rightly associated, they have an allure.

Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulks, is intended to prevent claims connected with overseas operations being brought in England and Wales under the Human Rights Act, whether from service personnel, local nationals or any other claimant. I thank my noble friend for an incisive analysis of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. He rightly identified the need to bring clarity to an issue that has been dogged by uncertainty and the divided opinion of senior legal personnel. His analysis and conclusions richly inform the debate around the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, but I will comment on his amendment, which I thought was unfairly characterised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was a little more charitable. I detect that she is warming to the Bill, albeit with reservations.

In relation to Amendment 27, the Human Rights Act’s extraterritorial application mirrors the scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction under the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, it is important to note that, whatever the position under domestic legislation, as a signatory to the ECHR, to which the UK remains committed, we would still be under an obligation to ensure compatibility with the convention. My noble friend acknowledged that. We would still need to provide an effective route for people to bring claims in the United Kingdom in relation to any alleged breach of their convention rights. This was recognised by Professor Ekins during the House of Commons committee’s evidence-gathering session for this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister has reminded us that, when Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon said:

“before embarking on significant future military operations, this government intends derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights, where this is appropriate in the precise circumstances of the operation in question.”

In her letter of 26 February, the Minister indicated that Clause 12 was included to reflect this undertaking. Significantly, Clause 12 does not give the same weight to a decision to derogate as was indicated by Mr Fallon. If that is what is intended, should it not say so in words that reflect the commitment explained by Mr Fallon? What is the Government’s intention? Is it to seek to have in place an effective form of combat immunity for active operations overseas? That would be welcome but, at present, as many noble Lords have said, Clause 12 seems worthless and should not form part of the Bill.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The Bill has been drafted to reflect the overall policy intentions to try to reassure our service personnel that, before overseas operations are committed to, careful thought is given to them. As the noble and gallant Lord understands, because of the deliberate way that the Bill is drafted, the impact of Clause 12 is merely to consider, not to compel, derogation. I simply repeat my undertaking to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead: I will look very carefully at these arguments.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not putting this short question clearly enough in my earlier remarks. Do the Government agree that the new duty in Clause 12, which would become the new Section 14A of the Human Rights Act, on the Secretary of State to consider derogation a judicially reviewable duty? Will it be, as I suspect it will, open to challenge in relation to the Secretary of State’s considerations, so that litigants will be able to judicially review the adequacy of the considerations, whether or not the operations were significant, and the Secretary of State’s decision not to derogate—or, indeed, to derogate—in relation to every single potential overseas operation?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The way in which I anticipate Clause 12 operating is that it is simply an ex facie reminder on the face of the Bill that a Secretary of State, if he were contemplating an overseas operation, should consider derogation. I suggest to the noble Baroness that thereafter, the existing law would govern whatever subsequent activity took place and whether or not the designated derogation order was deployed. The law is there and it is clear as to what is to be done. I think the acceptance of ministerial power to make these decisions is understood. As I have said before, that is with reference to parliamentary scrutiny, which has a very public capacity to call Ministers to account. I therefore merely ascribe to Clause 12 a reassurance that a Minister will give thought to this, but is not obliged to derogate.

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

[Inaudible.] The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, asked an incredibly clear question and I think the House is entitled to an answer. Would an exercise of the power to derogate in accordance with this new section of the Human Rights Act be judicially reviewable? Although the Minister gave a long answer, she did not answer the question directly. I can understand why she feels uneasy about answering it without a clear steer from officials, but I think it would be appropriate if she wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the rest of us with the answer to that very important question.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Smith of Newnham, for their support for Amendment 26 or for the clause not standing part. I also note that the Minister said on behalf of the Government that they would consider the allure of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that this clause should not be part of the Bill at all. I am grateful for that and I think the House will be interested to hear her conclusions.

The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was interesting but broadly irrelevant to Amendment 26 and whether the clause should stand part. I understood him to say that actually, the problems that have arisen in relation to overseas operations will never be addressed in any real form by any sort of possible derogation under the Human Rights Act, and that he could not therefore see what derogation has to do with the problems the overseas operations Bill is addressing. He then went on, in an interesting speech which I profoundly disagree with, to say that the problem is not whether or not derogation is possible but whether or not the Human Rights Act should extend to overseas operations generally.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, absolutely put his finger on it when he asked the Minister, if derogations are not intended—if derogations cannot give combat immunity—what is the point of them? As the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, it is plain from what the Government are accepting has been said in this debate that combat immunity is not on offer from derogation. I strongly urge the Minister to drop this clause, because it is a pretend clause. It pretends that derogations can help with the problem this Bill seeks to address, when they plainly cannot.

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 26.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment. When I responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I did not have before me specific information relating to her question. I am now informed by my officials that if there were a derogation under Clause 12—or, presumably, a decline to derogate—this could be subject to a judicial review. I thought it preferable to share that with the House at this stage. That is without prejudice to my previous remarks that I undertake to consider everything that has been said in the debate, perhaps most significantly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this is a very important amendment and I support it thoroughly. I should declare to your Lordships that I am still chairman of the Association of Military Court Advocates. Although I am not in receipt of legal aid in respect of any case at the moment, I have received legal aid on many occasions in the past. In my experience, the legal aid authority was excellent, probably ahead of its civil counterparts in supporting counsel and solicitors who were defending servicemen, whether in this country or abroad.

There are particular circumstances that apply in this field which do not apply in ordinary civil practice. First, there are a limited number of military court advocates, mostly people who have some experience of the service. Secondly, the courts are at a distance. Catterick and Bulford—or occasionally Colchester—are at opposite ends of the country. There is also a very experienced military lawyer in Northern Ireland who deals with issues that derive there. In addition to court appearances, it is necessary to give protection to soldiers facing charges and to Air Force and Navy personnel. It is necessary to be in at the beginning, which requires driving long miles to various bases to be present at interviews, to be present when a person is charged and to give advice. There are particular exigencies in this type of practice. Full support from legal aid, which in my experience has been given in the past, is essential for the system to work well. As in every part of the justice system where people are properly represented, a fair result is likely to be arrived at.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising this issue. I have looked at his proposed new clause in Amendment 30, which would indeed require the Government to commission and publish an independent evaluation of legal aid for service personnel and veterans in relation to the criminal legal proceedings covered by the Bill. I repeat the assertion to which the noble Lord himself referred: the MoD has a long-standing policy that, where a serviceperson or veteran faces criminal allegations in relation to incidents arising from his or her duty on operations, the MoD may fund their legal support and provide pastoral support for as long as necessary. We offer this because it is right that we look after our Armed Forces, both in the battlefield, where they face the traditional risk of death or injury, as well as in the courts, particularly if they face the risk of a conviction and a possible prison sentence. Because of the risks our service personnel and veterans face, our legal support offer is very thorough. I will set out some of its provisions.

The legal aid provided by the Armed Forces legal aid scheme provides publicly funded financial assistance for some or all of the costs of legal representation for defendants and appellants who, first, appeal against findings and/or punishment following summary hearings at unit level, including applications for extensions of the appeal period by the Summary Appeal Court, for leave to appeal out of time. Secondly, it covers those who have a case referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions for a decision on whether the charges will result in a prosecution. This includes offences under Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006 referred directly to the Director of Service Prosecutions by the service police, as well as matters referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions by the commanding officer. Thirdly, it covers those who are to be tried in the court martial of the Service Civilian Court; fourthly, those who wish to appeal in the court martial against the finding and/or sentence after trial in the Service Civilian Court; and, fifthly, those to be tried in a criminal court outside the UK.

If I have not responded to all the questions asked by the noble Lord, I apologise, and I shall look at Hansard and attempt to respond further. I will explain that the legal aid scheme applies equally to all members of the Armed Forces, including the Reserve Forces when they are subject to service law, as well as to civilians who are or were subject to service discipline at the time of an alleged incident. Importantly, this system is based upon the same basic principles as the civilian criminal legal aid scheme in England and Wales. The Armed Forces scheme is designed to mirror the civilian scheme while making necessary adjustments to take into account the specific circumstances and needs of defendants and appellants in the service justice system.

As a result of that system, I am confident we already ensure service personnel and veterans are properly supported when they are affected by criminal legal proceedings. A review of legal aid, as proposed by the amendment, is unnecessary, given how comprehensive our legal support package is. In these circumstances, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their support in this area. Turning to the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, which I shall read with care, it seems we are not grasping the circumstances of this Bill. The situation is about overseas operations and the problems of defending oneself against criminal action in some overseas theatre—vastly more difficult than in the parallel civilian situation in the UK. I note she said the support “may” be provided. The Minister may mean “always”, but for servicemen that word sounds like “perhaps,” like some or all of the necessary support only “may” be provided.

We should think back to who we are talking about. Service personnel are different from ordinary citizens. I was involved, when Labour was in power, with drawing up the first statutes to cover slavery. When we had got over the shock that we had to try and define slavery, we suddenly realised that we had to have some exceptions. One of them was the Armed Forces, because we expect absolute loyalty from our Armed Forces, including to the point of dying. That is a very special loyalty. Surely, when they are caught up in difficult situations, there should be almost absolute support in defence of them to make sure, in all the subsequent legal action and the necessary support—which will be coming in the next group—that they lack for nothing, ensuring both that they are pastorally supported and that there is sufficient legal support for there to be a genuine equality of arms.

I will look at the noble Baroness’s response with care and listen to her response to the next group. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we stand four-square behind our troops and, therefore, four-square behind Amendment 31. We want to work with government and colleagues from across the House to get this legislation right. Our country owes a huge debt to our service personnel, yet many have not got the pastoral, mental and well-being support that they require when it is most needed.

Troops and their families who have been through the trauma of these long-running investigations have too often felt cut adrift from their chain of command and the Ministry of Defence. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, this gap was clearly identified by multiple people in Committee in the other place, but it has not been identified in the Bill.

When asked if the MoD had offered any support when he was facing eight criminal charges, Major Campbell said: “No, there was none”. General Sir Nick Parker said that

“one of the key things that we have to do is to produce mechanisms that establish a really effective duty of care for those who are placed under the spotlight by malicious claims.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 96.]

He stated that, as drafted, the Bill does not do this.

When asked if the MoD does enough to provide a duty of care to those service personnel who go through investigations and litigations, BAFF executive council member Douglas Young said:

“In our opinion, the answer is no ... we are simply appalled by the experiences of some people who have absolutely been through the wringer for many years.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 5.]


Lieutenant Colonel Chris Parker said that there was certainly a need for

“a broad duty of care with some resourcing for the impact on families and the individuals themselves … It is something that the MoD would have to bring in.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 108.]

The MoD has let down too many personnel with a lack of pastoral, mental health and legal support when they face investigations and pursue rightful compensation. For every member of the Armed Forces who does not receive the proper support and advice during an investigation or litigation, it is not only sad but a failure of the MoD’s responsibility to its employees. We cannot deny that the MoD has lost trust among our brave service personnel, and a statutory duty of care, with regular reporting to Parliament, is a key step in rebuilding that trust. Only then will personnel have the confidence that the MoD will be on their side and support them through the difficulties and stress of an investigation or litigation.

We owe it to our excellent Armed Forces to do better. The MoD owes it to them to provide a statutory duty of care standard for legal, pastoral and mental health support, and that is why we strongly support this amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an important debate, and I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his careful presentation of his amendment, which covers a very important issue. I also thank him for his supportive commentary on the Bill.

Amendment 31 proposes that the Ministry of Defence should establish a “duty of care standard” for current and former service personnel and, where appropriate, their families, and that the Secretary of State should be required to report on this annually. I have looked at the specific components of the amendment, and I hope that I may be able to provide some reassurance to the noble Lord and those other noble Lords who raised genuine concerns.

I start by saying that we take extremely seriously our duty of care; the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, rightly identified that important component of how the MoD deals with its personnel. We do take it extremely seriously; we have a duty of care to our personnel, and pastoral and practical support will always be available to them. In particular, veterans of events that happened a long time ago may have particular support requirements and concerns, in which case we can put in place special arrangements for them.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, spoke eloquently about the effect on personnel of repeated investigations and accusations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, my noble friend Lord Faulks and, just recently, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. We have a responsibility to take reasonable care to ensure the safety and well-being of our personnel.

I covered the comprehensive legal support that we already provide to service personnel and veterans in relation to legal proceedings during our previous debate, so I will not repeat them here. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, was rightly concerned about such provision, but I trust that, if he looks at the remarks that I made in the earlier debate, he may feel reassured.

In terms of mental health, welfare and pastoral care, a range of organisations are involved in fulfilling the needs of personnel, which will vary according to individual need and circumstance. The potential impact of operations on a serviceperson’s mental health is well recognised; the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, spoke powerfully about that. There are policies and procedures in place to help manage and mitigate these impacts as far as possible.

Despite the clear processes for categorising personnel as medically suitable for deployment, it is recognised that an operational deployment can result in the development of a medical or psychiatric condition. Therefore, specific policy and mandated processes exist for the management of mental health and well-being before, during and after deployment. These provide overarching direction on the provision of deployment-related mental health and well-being, with briefings designed to provide enough information about deployment-related mental ill-health to allow individuals, peers and family members to take steps to avoid such an outcome, to recognise the early signs of mental ill-health and to facilitate help-seeking from the right source at the right time.

We also regularly seek opinions from Armed Forces personnel and their families about the level of support. It is important to refer to that, because the MoD is not operating in some kind of vacuum; we actually have very good communication strands with our Armed Forces personnel, and I will cover a number of them. The Armed Forces continuous attitude survey—AFCAS—is an annual survey of a random sample of service personnel. The 2021 survey was conducted from September 2020 to February of this year, and the results are due to be published in May. There are no specific questions relating to legal proceedings, but questions related to welfare support are asked.

Within the welfare section of the survey, questions are asked on satisfaction with the welfare support provided by the service for both the serviceperson and their family, as well as the support that the serviceperson’s spouse or partner receives while the serviceperson is absent. Questions are also asked about operational deployment welfare package for service personnel.

Questions on satisfaction levels with the variety of welfare support systems in place are also asked, with the list unique to each service—for example, families federations, welfare teams, officers, community support teams, et cetera. Further questions within the deployment section ask for satisfaction levels with welfare support received by both service personnel and their families when the serviceperson returns from their last operational deployment. We also have the annual families continuous attitudes survey—FAMCAS—for the spouses and civil partners of service personnel. It is in field from January to April and the 2021 report is scheduled for release in July. Again, there are no specific questions on legal support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Browne, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, for bringing forward this important amendment and debate. I understand my noble friend Lord Browne’s concerns about the mismatch between the future-focused integrated review, which has had long delays but will be hopefully published next week, and the legislation we have in front of us.

Technology is not only changing the kinds of threats we face but changing warfare and overseas operations in general. In Committee in the other place, Clive Baldwin of Human Rights Watch neatly summed this up by suggesting that

“we are seeing a breakdown in what is the beginning and the end of an armed conflict, what is the battlefield and what decisions are made in which country … The artificial distinction of an overseas operation with a clear beginning, a clear theatre and a clear end is one that is very much breaking down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 67.]

How is this reflected in the Bill?

When the Prime Minister gave his speech on the integrated review last year, he rightly said that “technologies …will revolutionise warfare” and announced a new centre dedicated to AI and an RAF fighter system that will harness AI and drone technology. This sounds impressive but, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, as military equipment gets upgraded, we do not know how the Government plan to upgrade legal frameworks for warfare and what this means in terms of legal protection for our troops.

We must absolutely tackle vexatious claims and stop the cycle of reinvestigations, but how will claims against drone operators or personnel operating new technology be handled? Do those service personnel who operate UAVs not deserve to be protected? And how will legal jeopardy for our troops be avoided?

As new technology develops, so too must our domestic and international frameworks. The final report of the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence stated that the US commitment to international humanitarian law

“is longstanding, and AI-enabled and autonomous weapon systems will not change this commitment.”

Do the Government believe the same?

I would also like to highlight the serious impact on troops who might not be overseas, but who are operating drones abroad. A former drone pilot told the Daily Mirror:

“The days are long and hard and can be mentally exhausting. And although UAV pilots are detached from the real battle, it can still be traumatic, especially if you are conducting after-action surveillance.”


The RUSI research fellow Justin Bronk also said that, as drone operators switched daily between potentially lethal operations and family life, this could be extremely draining and psychologically taxing. What mental health and pastoral support is given to these troops currently? Drone operators may not be physically overseas, but they are very much taking part in overseas operations. With unmanned warfare more common in future conflicts, I would argue that failing to include those operations in the Bill may cause service personnel issues down the line.

I would like to hear from the Minister how this legislation will keep up to date with how overseas operations operate, and whether she is supportive of a review along the lines of Amendment 32—and, if not, why not?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for tabling this amendment, which is fascinating and raises substantial issues. One only had to listen to the informed but very different contributions from the noble Lord himself, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, then to a different perspective from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, and, finally, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to get a flavour of both the depth and the technical complexity of these issues.

There is no doubt that the increasing adoption of new and innovative technologies on the battlefield is changing how military operations are conducted. Gone are the three domains; we are now in the five domains. Military effects can now be delivered in cyberspace, and precision weapons systems can now be operated remotely from the UK and from third countries. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is motivated by a genuine interest in these new technologies, how they influence military operations and the implications for our Armed Forces personnel involved in overseas operations—and that is an important question to ask.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I do not know whether it was a sense of exhaustion but, until the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, set out what their amendments meant, I did not fully understand them. I understand them a little better now, and we will give them consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, said that they may find a better home in the 2021 Armed Forces Act. The Minister may give an indication of whether that is sensible.

As this is the last group, I will use it to ask this of the Minister. She has committed to writing a positive library of letters; it would help if she could copy them electronically to all noble Lords who have taken part in Committee so that we can all share her wisdom. With that, I thank her and her colleagues, and all noble Lords, for making this a civilised and thoughtful debate over the last two days.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank your Lordships for your kind comments and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his helpful and kind observation. Yes, I will undertake to distribute electronically any letters that have been copied to the Library. I am sorry if that was overlooked and it would have helped him and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to be aware of the correspondence that I have entered into.

The amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, seeks to consolidate the provisions found in Part 1 of the Bill into the Armed Forces Act 2006. I quite accept that, while consolidation can have real and practical benefits for those who work with the law by making the statute book more accessible, there are many significant factors to consider before drawing together different legislation into a single Act.

One of the principle considerations has to be whether the law concerned is suitable for consolidation into a particular Act. The Armed Forces Act 2006 established a single system of service law that applies to the personnel of all three services, wherever in the world they are operating. It covers matters such as offences, the powers of the service police and the jurisdiction and powers of commanding officers and the service courts, particularly the courts martial.

In contrast to the Armed Forces Act 2006, Part 1 of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill covers matters relating to the wider civilian criminal justice system and is about decisions made by territorial prosecutors. As we are all now aware, the intent of the Bill is to bring in measures to help reduce the uncertainty faced by our service personnel and veterans in relation to historic allegations and claims arising from overseas operations. For that reason, it is more appropriate to have it as a standalone Act; I feel that that makes clearer the issues to which it is directed and that it seeks to address.

I also observe that, as we are aware, the procedure for the Armed Forces Act is one of regular renewal: a quinquennial renewal by Parliament and, in the interim years, a renewal by a statutory instrument. A consolidation of Bills could make that renewal much more complex, and we have to be cognisant of the implications of that because the last thing that any of us wants is to obstruct or make more obtuse, in any sense, legislation that we believe in—I know that there is universal support for the Armed Forces Act, and I have always enjoyed the renewal debates. We want to make sure that we are keeping our issues clearly distinct and encompassed within appropriate statutes, so that there is a clear identification of what it is that these individual Acts are trying to do.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has been committed to this objective, and he has been very determined in bringing the matter before your Lordships’ House. I hope that, by my explaining the genuine difficulties and challenges that I anticipate would accompany such consolidation, he will understand that there is more to this than meets the eye. In these circumstances, I trust that he would be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

I will move on to Amendment 35, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton. It seeks to extend the territorial extent of the Bill to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and overseas territories, thereby mirroring the territorial extent of the Armed Forces Act 2006. I know that this is a matter of some importance to my noble friend, and, as he indicated, I have written to him to respond to his concerns about the territorial extent of the Bill. However, I am grateful that he has tabled this amendment because it gives me the opportunity to address this issue with your Lordships.

I say to my noble friend and, in turn, reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Smith—whom I thank for their very kind comments; at this stage in the day, the Minister gets weary and such encouragement is very much appreciated—and all noble Lords that careful consideration has been given to the ways in which the Bill will impact on the British Overseas Territory forces. Some legal background might assist with this.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

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

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

The debate has been very impressive. I take this opportunity to make special mention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. I was Solicitor-General when he was the Attorney-General. As he pointed out, he served in the Armed Forces and was an incredibly effective Attorney-General, and he proved to me that as the Attorney-General you can ensure that the law is complied with in circumstances where you have a profound understanding of the pressures on the military.

There are, in effect, two proposals before the House in this group of amendments. One is to extend the period of presumption from five to 10 years. The other is to get rid of the presumption altogether. This part of the Bill deals only with criminal offences. I think that everybody in the House is of a like mind in the following two respects.

First, Members of the House have no desire whatever to authorise in any way members of our Armed Forces committing very serious crimes, such as crimes against the United Nations convention against torture or any other sorts of war crimes, or murder or manslaughter.

Secondly, and separately, everybody in the House understands the oppression of there being what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti described as shoddy, lengthy and repeat investigations. Nobody wants our Armed Forces to have to go through shoddy, lengthy and repeat investigations. What I think everybody wants is that there should be timely, effective and thorough investigations, and that when the timely, effective and thorough investigation is completed, the soldier or other military personnel can be confident that that is the end of it.

That is not the position at the moment. The proposal for a presumption against prosecution after five or 10 years does not deal with that problem. The best way to deal with the problem is to have effective investigations and, after the investigation is over, for there to be a limitation in some way on any further investigation unless compelling evidence comes to light that justifies reopening an investigation which the military personnel who is the subject of the investigation can otherwise be entitled to assume is at an end.

I have no idea why the Government are going about trying to deliver on what everybody thinks is a laudable aim—namely, to protect military personnel from shoddy, repeat and inadequate investigations—by this presumption. There appears to be agreement among those who would know that the proposal that is being advanced by the Government does not deal with the problem. Johnny Mercer, in Committee in the other place, said:

“I want to reassure Members that the presumption measure is not an attempt to cover up past events as it does not prevent an investigation to credible allegations of wrongdoing in the past, and neither does it prevent the independent prosecutor from determining that a case should go forward to prosecution.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/20; col. 154.]


Judge Blackett, who used to be the Advocate-General—the chief judge in the military justice system—said:

“a presumption against prosecution would not stop the knock on the door and the investigation. That is the whole point. The presumption against prosecution does not stop the investigation; the investigation happens.”

The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, said that we should not be too legalistic about this. I think he meant that we have to produce a solution to the problem. I completely agree. Later amendments in the group make it clear that there should be reinvestigation only where there is compelling evidence. Some of the amendments suggest, for example, that a judge would have to authorise further investigations to give the protection that is required and, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to take away the dark shadow of prosecution.

I am very interested in these amendments. I am very keen to deliver on the purpose of the Bill, as is everybody else. I do not believe that the five-year presumption does that, and I would be very interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, respond to the points made by Johnny Mercer and Judge Blackett as to the fact that the Bill does not deliver on its purpose.

Three other points militate against either the five-year presumption or any presumption at all. First, this will create a special category of defence. It will in effect lead to there being a special category of criminal offences for which there is a presumption against prosecution. John Healey in another place put it very well when he said:

“Let us just step back a moment from the technical detail. This is the Government of Great Britain bringing in a legal presumption against prosecution for torture, for war crimes and for crimes against humanity. This is the Government of Great Britain saying sexual crimes are so serious they will be excluded from this presumption, but placing crimes outlawed by the Geneva convention on a less serious level and downgrading our unequivocal commitment to upholding international law that we in Britain ourselves, after the Second World War, helped to establish.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; cols. 997-98.]


We should not be doing what John Healey described. We should be doing what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, hopes we should be doing. Let us do it in a direct and effective way rather than in this oblique, obscure and ineffective way.

The second reason why the presumption does not work is that it may be illegal. I would very much like to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has to say about the points made in the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ ninth report of this Session, which says that it offends against Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention against Torture, the Rome Statute, and customary international law. The report is basically saying that, if you could have a presumption against prosecution where there is evidence that would justify a prosecution and the public interest favours it, why is that not contrary to the five commitments that the country has made legally?

The third point is the involvement of the International Criminal Court. We as a country ought to be prosecuting these offences, not the ICC. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know that the ICC’s chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said last week in a letter to the British Government that the presumption against prosecution could

“render such cases admissible before the ICC.”

How have the Government reached such a different conclusion to that of the ICC’s chief prosecutor? Does the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, believe that the ICC has misunderstood the Bill? Is she confident that the consequence of the Bill will not be to replace one uncertainty with another, namely that our military personnel may well face long investigations and then long prosecutions in the ICC, which nobody wants? I believe it is incredibly important that our justice system and in particular our military justice system produces an answer to the problem that this part of the Bill seeks to address, but I am anxious that it will be ineffective in doing that, it will send out a signal that we are not complying with international law, and it will lead to more prosecutions in the ICC.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and all other noble Lords for their contributions to a wide-ranging and—I certainly accept—thought-provoking discussion this afternoon. I have listened to the debate closely. We have covered extensive territory across the principles of the Bill. Before I turn to the individual amendments in the first group, I will address the range of Clauses 1 to 7 of Part 1, which a number of your Lordships would wish to remove. It may be helpful if I clarify the Government’s intent in proposing these provisions, and perhaps I should restate why there is a Bill at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading, where I said that our Foreign Office should release

“dispatches from our observers who watch war anywhere around the world.”—[Official Report, 20/1/21; col. 1231.]

I realise that Part 1 is absolutely the key issue of the Bill. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether she will confirm that, when the Bill becomes an Act, in whatever form, it will be drawn to the attention of the United Nations, particularly the UNHRC in Geneva and the International Criminal Court, as well as all other relevant official bodies involved with alleged war crimes, wherever they may be?

I ask this because of current evidence that the UNHRC has not been fully briefed by Her Majesty’s Government concerning British military attaché evidence taken in 2009 in relation to the war in Sri Lanka. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence in the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka, dated 12 January 2021. I thank the Minister for listening to this important but rather unusual dimension.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his contribution. I am not terribly well equipped to deal with the specific aspect of his comment and inquiry in relation to Sri Lanka and the apparent lack of evidence that he argues is the case in relation to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I can certainly undertake to investigate that, and it may be a matter to which my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon might wish to respond.

As for drawing the attention of international bodies to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill when enacted, I think—from the responses that we are aware of—that it has already attracted widespread comment from international organisations. I am sure that, as part of their public affairs monitoring, they all take account of legislation coming out of various countries. However, the noble Lord makes an interesting point, and I shall reflect upon it.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, taken together, many of the amendments that we have just discussed certainly seem aimed at emasculating and, indeed, wrecking the Bill. I have no doubt whatever that the Bill is necessary: it lances a long-standing boil and fulfils a promise to our military. The issue has proved too difficult to tackle, time and again, and it is about time that it was tackled. The Bill must go forward.

We need the Bill so much, and I think the amendments we have discussed should go. There are a number of amendments that will resolve the wrinkles, but is it not the case that we will touch on some of the things already discussed in later amendments, when there will be a chance to correct them?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his very candid assessment of both the situation that we seek to address and how the Bill seeks to do so. In my role as Minister for Defence in this House, I have certainly pledged to engage with your Lordships; it has been my pleasure to engage with a considerable number of you.

In my remarks on Clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill, I indicated that I am aware of the profound concerns of many Members of this House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord West, that it is my desire to continue my engagement. I shall listen very closely to the contributions during the rest of the debate on the groups of amendments that we are scheduled to deal with today. It is not a cosmetic interest; I understand the depth of concern, and, in reflecting on all the contributions, I shall consider whether some avenues are available to me to try to assuage some of these concerns.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an extraordinarily rich and challenging beginning to our consideration of the Bill. I thank the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect—I know that she is concerned about all these issues—for her detailed response. However, there are some things that are still unclear and about which I have doubts, and I shall come on to those in a moment.

We have had a particularly enlightened debate, with huge depths of knowledge from the perspectives of law, military engagement and political practice. I totally respect all of that and listened to it with great interest. The bottom line is that we want to make things better for our Armed Forces, which do have our respect. I do not think that the Bill has all the answers. Many noble Lords—too many to name—have demonstrated that. We have heard about the challenging aspects of investigations, in the risk to the Armed Forces and legal structures, and much has been covered in this one debate. I wonder what else is to come.

I have been waiting for the Minister to answer all the many excellent points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The noble Baroness has been very eloquent, but I am left with some queries. I shall read the noble Lord’s questions and the Minister’s answers again carefully, but I am not totally convinced, for example, by her arguments about the proposals for public consultation. I really do not understand the reasoning behind that—and there are other aspects, too. The debate has left us all with much to ponder and decisions to take about future action. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the problem of investigations—as well as of late and inadequate investigations—should be addressed and the process sharpened up. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, told us this a moment ago and I thoroughly agree with him. The problems have been very clearly outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I echo the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who emphasised that justice must be done based on thorough and prompt investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, is sure that investigations have improved in recent years; I hope that that is true.

I stress first of all the inherent difficulties of investigations into alleged conduct arising out of overseas operations. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, believes that they should be timely and of quality—of course they should. In the United Kingdom, most crimes are investigated by one or more of the 45 or so police forces within their area of operations. Local police forces can readily pull in extra investigatory resources, including scientific investigations, if they need them.

By contrast, investigations by the military police may occur anywhere in the world. Co-operation by the civilian population or even the civilian police cannot be guaranteed. There are usually significant linguistic and cultural problems in the collection of statements from witnesses. It may be that a complainant—a foreign national—has his own axe to grind. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, reminded me, with the Baha Mousa case, of another problem, where the judge said in his closing remarks that there had been a closing of ranks; that is a problem with the natural desire of soldiers to support each other.

There can be security problems. When in 2005 it was decided that an inspection of a dusty Iraq village was desirable, a whole company or more of 200 soldiers was deployed to provide protection for the dozen or so sheepish lawyers who attended. I was not one of them: the MoD was not prepared to insure the silks in the case. There is no immediate access to the support that a civilian police force in this country might expect. It follows that delays are inherent and inevitable, but they are not desirable. Yet we can read the whole of this Bill and find nothing which deals with the essential preliminary to any prosecution: a thorough, prompt investigation.

This group of amendments suggests various pathways to ensuring that the length and efficiency of an investigation is controlled. Amendment 17, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Smith, sets out a practical route for putting the investigation under the control of the Director of Service Prosecutions. An investigator must, within six months of the complaint, provide a preliminary report to the DSP of the progress of his investigation. As may well happen informally in any event, the DSP may give guidance on the lines of inquiry which would be appropriate.

In my amendment, if, on an assessment of all the papers, the DSP sees no future in the investigation, he would have the power to terminate it then and there. If he orders the investigation to continue, there would be regular reporting to him of the progress of the inquiry, again with the possibility of him calling a halt. I have discussed this with the former Judge Advocate-General, Judge Blackett. He is of the view that control of the investigation is highly desirable but that the power to stop an investigation should rest with a designated judge, not with the DSP. A moment ago, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggested that this might not be satisfactory and that a more independent person should be involved in supervising an investigation. I am not really worried about what way one approaches it, but there should be control of an investigation to ensure that it is proceeding at a proper pace and in a proper direction. I think there was a modicum of support for that amendment even from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton. Since the DSP has the undoubted power to decide not to prosecute on the conclusion of an investigation, I do not see any problem with the DSP controlling the steps leading up to the final report.

I have also added my name to Amendment 3 on the basis that, at the very least, in deciding whether to prosecute, the DSP should have in the forefront of his mind whether a fair trial has been materially prejudiced by delay or by the quality of the investigation. I have in the past made submissions in court that a fair trial is impossible through delay, pre-trial publicity or matters of that sort, but never with success. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, criticised Amendment 3 as too soft. I do not think so, if it is given a statutory formulation. It would be given weight as an important consideration for the DSP at the time of his decision whether to commence proceedings at all. I submitted earlier this afternoon that a presumption against prosecution is not the way forward. Whether a fair trial is possible should be an important consideration before the prosecution commences.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, once again we have all been struck by the quality of the debate, which has penetrated issues that are legitimately at the heart of the Bill. Noble Lords who have raised issues related to the Bill are rightly seeking clarification and reassurance about what different components of the Bill mean, and particularly where the whole issue of investigations lies in relation to it.

I will begin with Amendment 3, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The Government’s intention with the measures that we have introduced in Part 1 of the Bill is to provide demonstrable reassurance to our service personnel and veterans. It is not only a worthy aspiration but a necessary one. It is a demonstrable reassurance in relation to the threat of legal proceedings arising from alleged events occurring many years earlier on operations overseas. This has meant balancing the need to introduce protective measures for service personnel and veterans and remaining compliant with our domestic and international obligations.

On the one hand, the measures set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine that a case should be prosecuted, as well as ensuring that the adverse impact of overseas operations will be given particular weight in favour of the serviceperson or veteran; on the other hand, as I have previously said, the measures do not and cannot act as an amnesty or statute of limitations, do not fetter the prosecutor’s discretion in making a decision to prosecute, and are compliant with international law. I believe that we have achieved this balance, this equilibrium, in the combination of Clause 2, the presumption, and Clause 3, the matters to be given particular weight. We are providing the additional protection that our service personnel and veterans so greatly deserve, while ensuring that in exceptional circumstances individuals can still be prosecuted for alleged offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we stand foursquare behind our troops and we want to work with the Government to build the broadest consensus possible on the Bill—tailored to supporting our Armed Forces members and safeguarding human rights. The amendments in this group aim to probe an understanding of what particular weight a prosecutor must give when considering a prosecutorial decision related to alleged conduct during overseas operations. As we have heard, Amendment 4 would remove the requirement on a prosecutor to consider the adverse effect on the person of the conditions they were exposed to. Amendment 7 would remove the requirement on the prosecutor to consider any exceptional demands and stresses, while Amendment 8 would remove the definition of any adverse effects, including making sound judgments or considering mental health.

The amendments are based on concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights which stated:

“We do not consider that there is any solid basis for including additional requirements that could risk granting de facto impunity.”


If mental health is already considered by prosecutors, as indicated by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, why do the Government believe it necessary to include it in this Bill? As the Minister will see, these requirements have not been considered by prosecutors before. Also, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer asked in the previous group, why have the Government not included a requirement for prosecutors to give weight to the quality and duration of relevant investigations? The Armed Forces Judge Advocate, General Jeff Blackett, has said:

“Clause 3 is engaged after five years. It seems bizarre to me that in deciding whether to prosecute, you have a post-five-year test, but not a pre-five-year test.”


Why have the Government drafted Clause 3 in this way? What independent legal advice was given in relation to the drafting of the clause? Vexatious claims are a serious problem, but we fear that the focus on a presumption against prosecution misses the point: it is the current cycle of investigations. We can see that from how the Government have failed to give particular weight to the quality and duration of the investigations in this clause.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and all other contributors to the debate for a fertile discussion. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I shall probably repeat some of the themes to which I have already referred.

In relation to these amendments, I would comment that we ask a huge amount of our service personnel. We send them to undertake high-threat, high-risk operations in defence of our country and its people. They do their duty in the clear knowledge that they may be injured, maimed or even killed. That is the unique nature of their job and is what sets them apart from the rest of us. The Government believe therefore that it is absolutely right and reasonable to require that in return we ensure that a prosecutor, when coming to a decision to prosecute, must give particular weight to the unique circumstances of overseas operations and the adverse impact that these may have on a service person’s capacity to make sound judgments and on their mental health at the time of an alleged offence. This will be in addition to considering the existing evidential sufficiency and public interest test.

Let me make it clear that this is intended not to excuse bad behaviour by service personnel but to ensure that prosecutors give full recognition to the significant difference in the circumstances surrounding an alleged offence committed on operations overseas as compared, for example, with situations where the alleged criminal conduct occurs in a domestic, civilian setting.

Although differing views to the attitude of the Government have perhaps been expressed in the debate, as far as I could ascertain, contributors acknowledged that the conditions referred to in the Bill could indeed be personal impairments that might attach to Armed Forces personnel in the course of their operations overseas. That is why the prosecutor must consider the presumption against prosecution in Clause 2 and determine whether the case meets the exceptional threshold. The prosecutor must also, as required by Clause 3, give particular weight to matters that may effectively tip the balance in favour of not prosecuting.

--- Later in debate ---

We support these amendments in the hope that the Government will explain the need for a triple lock on a prosecution decision and whether the Attorney-General’s decision would depend on the numbers demonstrating in Parliament Square.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this has been perhaps a narrower debate in relation to interesting legal issues but none the less, once again, productive and fertile. I realise that these amendments are the product of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thoroton, who has applied his considerable legal gifts to their drafting.

As has been explained, Amendments 10, 11 and 12 to Clause 5 seek to place a requirement on the Attorney-General to report to Parliament with the reasons for granting or withholding consent. The requirement in Clause 5 is that the consent of the Attorney-General for England and Wales, or the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, has to be given before a case of an alleged offence committed by a serviceperson more than five years earlier on an overseas operation can proceed to prosecution. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked what the Attorney-General was doing in this Bill. We have introduced the consent function because it is important for service personnel and veterans to be confident that their case will be considered with care at the highest levels of our justice system.

The Attorney-General is left to discharge that obligation independently. As the Committee is aware, requiring the consent of the Attorney-General for a prosecution is not unusual. She already has numerous other consent functions, including for the institution of all prosecutions for war crimes offences under the International Criminal Court Act 2001—nor does it mean that the Government have any role to play in a decision on consent. It is a constitutional principle that, when taking a decision on whether to consent to a prosecution, the Attorney-General acts quasi-judicially and independently of government, applying the well-established prosecution principles of evidential sufficiency and public interest. I seem to remember that on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Faulks articulated that position very eloquently, and I think that it is generally understood.

We feel that it is not appropriate for the Attorney-General to comment on any individual or ongoing investigation or prosecution. I am aware of no statutory requirement anywhere else for the Attorney-General to report in relation to individual casework decisions. We do not believe, therefore, that it would be appropriate to introduce such a requirement in the Bill. As I have said elsewhere, preserving the independence and discretion of the prosecutor is vital to the Part 1 measures. Without this, we cannot ensure that cases are treated fairly, nor can we prevent the ICC from stepping in. Adding a measure to the Bill that would require the Attorney-General to make a public statement before Parliament about specific prosecutions would quite simply interfere with that discretion. That would be an unusual and, I suggest, unwise innovation. Interestingly, critics of the Bill have expressed concern that giving the Attorney-General a role in Part 1 risks introducing politics into what should be a criminal justice process. Indeed, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Chakrabarti, voiced these concerns. We do not agree that this is true for the Bill as drafted, but I pose the question: surely these amendments risk that precise outcome. Certainly my noble friend Lord Faulks confirmed that apprehension.

Amendments 11 and 12 would require the Attorney-General to make a prediction about whether the International Criminal Court will exercise its competence in a particular case, make a judgment about whether a prosecution would

“lead to a breach of international law”,

and then compel her to act in a certain way. I think that even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would agree that both these amendments would be an unprecedented extension of the normal consent function that the Attorney-General has in relation to the prosecution of offences. The International Criminal Court is an independent body, and it would be inappropriate for the Attorney-General to speculate about or pre-empt decisions that the International Criminal Court might make. Again, my noble friend Lord Faulks commented on that. The phrase “international law” is included in Amendment 12 but is undefined. It is not clear which international laws the amendment is attempting to incorporate into the Bill.

In my opinion, we should allow the evidence that has been produced to the prosecutor, and the public interest, to speak for itself in each individual case, considered by an independent prosecutor, using their discretion. We should not force the Attorney-General to potentially compromise his or her independence in a particular case by adjudicating on these other matters. For that reason, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

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

I am obliged to everyone who participated in the debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the care with which she answered the questions raised.

As the debate went on, I became increasingly concerned about the involvement of the Attorney-General. I am a very strong believer in the necessity for a Minister in the Government who has functions to protect the rule of law in the way in which the Attorney-General does in the Government of the United Kingdom and the Lord Advocate does in the Government of Scotland. In relation to the criminal justice system, including for the military, it is critical that the Attorney-General is, and is seen to be, politically independent of the Government in a way in which the current Attorney-General, Suella Braverman, did not seem to be in relation to the Dominic Cummings question. There are also questions over the Lord Advocate in Scotland in relation to the redaction of Mr Salmond’s evidence to the constitutional committee.

What is being proposed here is, in effect, a circumstance in which the Attorney-General will override the view of a prosecutor. If the Attorney-General agrees with the prosecutor on bringing a prosecution, and the decision will only come to the Attorney-General once a decision has been made to prosecute, he or she will be overriding that decision. If the provision is to remain in the Bill, only if the Attorney-General or the Advocate-General explains why he or she is doing that will there be a sense that politics has not intervened. Only if he or she gives reasons that stand up to scrutiny will a sense of political involvement be removed.

I completely accept that my proposal is novel and would not constitute formal advice, and I accept the point made by a number of noble Lords that it would break with precedent. However, it is so important to preserve the evident independence of the Attorney-General. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that in performing this function, the Attorney-General would be acting entirely independently of government. If he or she says no to a prosecution that a professional prosecutor has said should go ahead, they should explain.

I will of course think carefully about what noble Lords have said in this debate but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I cannot express more strongly the support of this side of the Committee for Amendment 14.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, predictably this debate surrounding Clause 6 and Schedule 1 has given rise to the passionate, informed and powerful advance of arguments, which I was expecting. I have listened to the sentiment and emotion that have accompanied the articulation of the arguments and I would have to be completely mute not to hear the force of those emotions. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, indicated, the Minister has come to her winter of discontent—an apt description because the debate around this part of the Bill has encapsulated the major areas of anxiety and concern.

As I set out earlier, Clause 6 details those offences that are excluded from the measures in Part 1 of the Bill. Those are set out in Schedule 1, including offences committed against a member of the regular or reserve forces. All the excluded offences listed in the schedule are sexual offences. I shall come to that in a moment; a number of questions have been posed about it but it reflects the Government’s strong stated belief that the use of sexual violence or sexual exploitation during overseas operations is never acceptable in any circumstance.

The exclusion of sexual offences from Part 1 does not mean that we will not continue to take other offences such as war crimes and torture extremely seriously. I realise that some may dismiss these as mere words and feel unconvinced. I should say that the presumption against prosecution still allows the prosecutor to continue to take decisions to prosecute those offences, and the severity of the crime and the circumstances in which it was allegedly committed will always be factors in their considerations.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked why we have not excluded torture offences from Part 1 measures and why we have excluded sexual offences. In the course of their duties on overseas operations, we expect our service personnel to undertake activities which are intrinsically violent in nature. They fight, they use force, they may use lethality, and they may detain. All these activities are predictable in an overseas operation. What is not predictable, and has no place in an overseas operation, is committing a sexual offence. However, the other activities to which I referred can expose service personnel to the possibility that their actions may result in allegations of, for example, torture. If the prosecutor, having received the results of an investigation, considers that there is no case, he will not prosecute, but if he considers that there is a stateable case, Part 1 of the Bill will not prevent prosecution of torture. That is why we have made the distinction between the two different characters of crime: one that you would never expect to find in an overseas operation, and one that could arise because of action that may have been taken in good faith by Armed Forces personnel believing that it was legitimate and proportionate.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, on the strong emotions which this part of the Bill has elicited, I am aware that certain interpretations have arisen, with the suggestion that the continuing commitment to upholding international humanitarian and human rights law, including the United Nations convention against torture, is somehow undermined by the Bill. I submit that this is a misconception, which I am happy to address and correct.

The UK does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It is worth remembering that, whenever a prosecutor currently makes a decision to prosecute an offence, including offences under the International Criminal Court Act, they must consider the public interest factors in the prosecutor’s full code test, in addition to making a judgment about the strength of the available evidence.

The public interest factors include the severity of the offence, the level of culpability of the suspect, the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim, and the suspect’s age and maturity at the time of the offence. There is no suggestion when exercising this existing discretion that our prosecutors are not acting in compliance with international law, and we consider that the same is true when they will, in future, be required to take into account the measures in Part 1 of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and other noble Lords raised the matter of the International Criminal Court and the recent letter, which I have read in detail. It is interesting that the letter postulates that where the effect of applying a statutory presumption be to impede further investigations—the Bill does not do this—or to impede prosecution of crimes, because such allegations would not overcome the statutory presumption, the ICC would want to monitor what was happening. This is a perfectly legitimate position for the ICC to adopt. Given that this was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Robertson, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, Lord West and Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, it might be helpful to note here the relationship between the UK and the International Criminal Court. Some of your Lordships may be unaware of what the current relationship is, which suggests to me that something arising out of the blue would, frankly, be beyond credibility.

In accordance with International Criminal Court procedures, a preliminary examination would first need to be initiated by the Office of the Prosecutor to decide whether to take that step. In practice, in the event that the OTP was to raise issues with us about a possible investigation, that would trigger a long and very detailed preliminary examination of the situation, within which we would be consulted at each step of the way, for the OTP to determine whether it was necessary to open any investigation. That means that we would have many opportunities to prevent UK service personnel from being prosecuted at the ICC. We would be able to show that the UK national system was both willing and able to conduct investigations and prosecutions, thus rendering unnecessary the ICC’s jurisdiction over UK service personnel. I offer that additional information in the hope that it will provide some reassurance that these activities are not all operating in silos. There is a co-operative and positive relationship with the ICC.

Amendment 14, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, seeks to add wording to Clause 6(3) to explicitly exclude further offences from being a “relevant offence” under Part 1. These are torture, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime under the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made a very powerful submission in support of Amendments 36 to 45, which in combination would have a similar effect by ensuring that torture offences contained in Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, under the law of England and Wales, and the offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the Geneva convention contained within the International Criminal Court Act 2001 as it applies in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, were listed as excluded offences in Schedule 1. These amendments would amount to a comprehensive list of very serious offences to be excluded from the application of the measures in Part 1. The noble and learned Lord advanced his case cogently and with purpose, as one would expect, and others did likewise in their support of the amendments.

I am fully aware of the deep concerns that have been expressed that the Bill does not exclude these offences, and I have already set out the Government’s reasoning for excluding only sexual offences from the coverage of Part 1. I believe the perception has arisen that the absence of crimes from Schedule 1 has been equated with the non-prosecution of such serious crimes because it is assumed that the Bill will bar such prosecutions. However, I reiterate that the severity of an alleged offence will continue to be an extremely important factor for a prosecutor in determining whether or not to prosecute.

I realise that my response may be regarded by your Lordships as inadequate, so I will endeavour to provide some concluding thoughts. I have argued that the measures in Part 1 will require a prosecutor to give additional consideration to some specific matters—most importantly, the unique context of overseas operations. However, quite rightly, these measures will not prevent the prosecutor determining, having considered all the circumstances of the case, that it is appropriate to prosecute. The presumption in Clause 2 may be rebutted where it is appropriate for the prosecutor to do so.

The Bill as drafted ensures that the Part 1 measures will apply to a wide range of offences. That is to provide reassurance to our service personnel that the operational context will be taken into account, so far as it reduces a person’s culpability in the circumstances of allegations of criminal offences on historical overseas operations. I believe that we can take this approach in the knowledge that the prosecutor retains their discretion to make the appropriate decision on a case-by-case basis, including in respect of the most serious offences.

The Government have felt that, with the exception of sexual offences, all other crimes should be covered by the measures in Part 1. However, I am in no doubt as to the strength of feeling expressed by the Committee, which was neatly encapsulated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because I did not find too many supporters speaking up for my side of the argument. I undertake to consider with care the arguments that have been advanced and to explore if there is any way by which we can assuage your Lordships’ concerns. I hope that, in these circumstances, that will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to withdraw his amendment and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, not to move his.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I apologise for the confusion.

There was a further amendment: Amendment 15. It deals with Clause 6(6), which is the delegated power provision. That provision is there to ensure that the Government are able to respond to new developments and fresh concerns that may emerge in relation to potential offences in future overseas operations without the need to seek primary legislation every time a change is required.

Legislation that confers such a power to amend the list in the schedule to an Act is not unusual. Schedule 1 lists the offences excluded from the requirements set out in Clauses 2, 3 and 5, and the power is limited to amending this list of offences, so it has a very narrow scope. It is also not unusual that any exercise of the power to amend the schedule to an Act be subject to the affirmative procedure before any regulations can be made.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Tunnicliffe, have been supportive of this amendment. Its aim seems to be to further narrow the scope of the power in response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

I believe, however, that the concern over the power contained in Clause 6(6) has possibly arisen from the wider concerns regarding the requirements set out in Clauses 2, 3 and 5. I have tried to allay these concerns, and I have detected a growing acceptance that the Bill does not represent an absolute bar to future prosecutions of serious crimes. The delegated power will allow future Governments to adapt Part 1 of the Bill according to the lessons they may learn from overseas operations in future. To limit the scope so that offences can only be added to Schedule 1, as the amendment would wish, could have an impact on the Government’s ability to implement the lessons learned and adapt to what is likely to be an evolving operational landscape.

The power already has a very narrow scope and its use will still require the express approval of both Houses of Parliament. In these circumstances, I urge noble Lords to not move this amendment.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what I can call only a predictably clear and gracious response. Because the Minister has agreed to reflect on this evening’s debate and consult her colleagues thereafter, I will just press her for a moment longer on the distinction between sexual offences and torture in particular, not with a view to further back and forth this evening but in the hope that it might influence her discussions with her colleagues.

The last 20 years have taught us that when torture is practised as a weapon of war, sexual torture is often one facet of that torture. It is not a nice thing to discuss. The other side of the coin is that of false allegations and clouds hanging over innocent and brave members of Her Majesty’s forces. Our Armed Forces, when overseas, can be as easily subject to false allegations of sexual offences as to false allegations of torture or any of the other offences that are not barred from the presumption against prosecution in the Bill.

If this is not about false allegations, there must be, as I understand the rationale, some kind of thinking, perhaps at the Ministry of Defence or elsewhere, that because our Armed Forces are engaged in violence, there is some kind of fine line, or borderline, between the violence in which we understand they are engaged and torture. If that is the case, I find it very troubling indeed. Are we back in the Bush White House? Are we back with the legal advice that it is not torture when it is enhanced interrogation, for example?

It seems to me that international law and our own ethical and legal norms are very clear on the distinction between the kind of violence that is sadly necessary in war situations and genocide, crimes against humanity and torture. There is not a borderline against torture, and that tacit acceptance of a grey area is just the kind of thinking that got people into such difficulties on both sides of the Atlantic over the last 20 years. So I humbly ask the Minister, in the spirit of genuinely trying to improve this, to examine that distinction between sex and torture, and sexual torture and other forms of torture, in particular, when she goes back to her colleagues in the department and elsewhere.

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

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Yes. I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said, and I undertake to look at her contribution in detail.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very clear exposition of how one can get around some of these difficulties. I am delighted that she is going take this back and look at it, but I ask her to ask her officials: what are the benefits for the UK of excluding these from the list? What are we gaining by that? I used to find quite often, when I was standing at the Dispatch Box for three years, that when I prodded in that way, I would find that there were no benefits, but that they were defending their position wonderfully. I am not asking for an answer now, but can she prod that to see what benefits we actually get by not having those listed?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Again, I undertake to look carefully at the noble Lord’s remarks.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her gracious reply and for her willingness to take this matter away and reflect on this and other debates. I am glad that she recognises that, among the 800-odd Members of the House of Lords, the Government could not mobilise one single Member of the House to come and defend the position on this amendment. I am not surprised, and I can see the difficulty that she has in putting forward the argument.

I listened to see whether I could be persuaded by what she said—after all, some of the officials who used to work for me may still be there and producing the rationale for her this evening. However, to say simply that there is no bar to prosecution for war crimes, torture and crimes against humanity is to state only the technical argument. The fact is that the Bill gives a presumption against prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture, and that is what is going to be noticed, not the technical argument that there is no actual bar. There are barriers or, as the chief prosecutor of the ICC said, conditions laid down which will be well noticed.

Perhaps I may also say that when the Minister goes back to the Ministry of Defence and faces those who want to take a stand here, it might be worth avoiding the mistake that we make all too often in foreign relations, which is mirror imaging—looking at an issue through our eyes. In this case, if those who want to take a hard line would look at this issue through the eyes of the torturers, the war criminals and those who would perpetrate torture and crimes against humanity and see what sort of signal they are getting from the United Kingdom and its legal system, that would paint a different picture from the rather Panglossian view that just been put forward.

I feel strongly about this, more strongly than I have felt about many other things, because I feel for my country. I feel for its reputation and the credibility of our standing in the world and our reputation for adhering to agreements that we have come to. So all of us hope that the Minister will go away, think and expect others in the department and the Government to think again. On that basis, I am willing to withdraw the amendment, but I have no doubt that we will come back to the issue at later stages of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Good Friday agreement is central to the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland. We all have a vital role to play in safeguarding the Good Friday agreement and building on its promise, and we must ensure that this Bill, or any other Bill, protects it. However, the Government have demonstrated a reckless approach to the Good Friday agreement. We need only to consider their actions with the internal market Act, which threatened the agreement and resulted in resounding international criticism, including from the new President of the United States.

The Good Friday agreement is one of Labour’s proudest achievements in office. The courage of the people and communities in Northern Ireland made peace happen and has allowed an entire generation to grow up free from conflict. We must build on it, not weaken its foundations. The amendments in this group aim to ensure that the Bill cannot be interpreted in a way that undermines the Good Friday agreement’s requirements for the Government to complete incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law.

Rights and Security International has said that the Bill risks undermining the agreement as the presumption against prosecution

“extends to criminal offences which are also considered violations of the ECHR, such as torture … Under the ECHR, there is a procedural obligation to … prosecute and punish”

these acts, and the Good Friday agreement

“requires that this procedural obligation be incorporated in the law of Northern Ireland.”

Does the Bill make it harder for breaches of the ECHR to be prosecuted? Rights and Security International has also said that the six-year longstop impacts on

“the Good Friday Agreement’s requirement that the UK ensure direct access to the courts”.

Have the Government received independent legal advice on the impact of the Bill on the Good Friday agreement or carried out their own impact assessment of the Bill on the agreement?

When considering Northern Ireland, we must also remember that the Bill does not cover operations in Northern Ireland as originally promised. Last month, the Leader of the House in the other place said that

“the Government will introduce separate legislation to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland in the coming months in a way that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of reinvestigations into the troubles in Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/21; col. 496.]

However, it is now exactly a year since the Northern Ireland Secretary made a statement promising the same. What is causing the delay? When will it be published? The Good Friday agreement must endure, must be strengthened and must continue to guarantee peace. Whether it is in this Bill or any other, the aims must be supported, not undermined.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, Lady Suttie and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their contributions. These amendments seek to ensure that the Bill cannot be interpreted in a way that undermines the Belfast agreement. As they all indicated, the Belfast agreement was, of course, an incredible achievement, and the Government remain fully committed to the agreement and the constitutional principles it upholds, including the institutions it established and the rights it protects. The agreement has been the foundation for political progress, peace and stability in Northern Ireland over the last 22 years, and it will be protected going forward.

I listened with interest and care to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and I reassure him that nothing in the Bill could be interpreted as undermining the commitments contained in the Belfast agreement, and nothing that would diminish the essence of the protections that the Human Rights Act currently offers to the people of Northern Ireland. My noble and learned friend may be aware that the UK has already fulfilled the commitment under the agreement to incorporation by enacting the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides for direct access to the domestic courts to vindicate convention rights, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides that the Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate only in a way that is compatible with convention rights and that Northern Ireland Ministers must act compatibly with the convention rights. I would say that the measures in this Bill are considered to be compatible with the convention rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have little to say in respect of this amendment. I believe that summary offences should be dealt with summarily, and that is what this amendment seeks to achieve.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is interesting that we conclude our consideration of Part 1 of the Bill with a genuinely interesting proposition from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, so neatly encapsulated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

The amendment seeks to introduce, via a new section to be inserted in the Armed Forces Act 2006, a six-month limitation period between an offence being committed or discovered and any proceedings being brought, where certain conditions are satisfied. As I understand the proposal, the amendment would create a six-month limitation period for all offences capable of being dealt with at a summary hearing under Section 53 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. It is worth observing that this category of offence includes a large number of matters that are specific to a military context.

Section 53 covers, for example, the offence of being absent without leave, under Section 9 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; the offence of disobedience to lawful commands, under Section 12; the offence of contravention of standing orders, under Section 13; and the offence of disclosure of information useful to an enemy, under Section 17. These, and many more offences like them, are vital to maintaining discipline and operational effectiveness in the Armed Forces. The amendment proposes that none of these should be capable of leading to punishment after six months. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that that is unwise.

During any investigation, it is not always clear at the outset what the charge will be, but this is made harder for investigations on overseas operations, particularly where the injured person or witness is a local national. As I have already set out in response to other investigation-related amendments, investigations on overseas operations are subject to greater complexity than those conducted back in the UK, and delays can occur. However, placing what is actually quite a short time limit on investigations is unhelpful. In my view, we should not be seeking to do anything that would fetter the investigative decision-making of the service police. A time limit in these circumstances would do just that.

Even the most minor offences take on a greater significance in an operational environment and, if we reflect on some of the offences to which I have just referred, I think your Lordships would understand the import of that. A minor offence is not necessarily a simple matter that can be dealt with quickly by a commanding officer, and minor offences committed against local nationals can have a disproportionate effect in an operational setting.

I think that this amendment is modelled upon the provisions that exist in relation to summary-only matters in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which is why I find it problematic. The Magistrates’ Courts Act codifies the procedures applicable in the magistrates’ courts of England and Wales. This legislation is not written to accommodate the extraordinary demands made of a system operating in an operational context where, as I have already said, delays can sometimes occur as a result. Applying civilian timescales to an operational context is therefore not appropriate.

I appreciate that the amendment has been offered in good spirit by the noble and learned Lord. I thank him for the breadth of thought in investigating that aspect, but I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for her very careful reply. I understood her to make two particular points: first, that six months may be too short, particularly in an overseas operational environment and, secondly, that it may not be appropriate in dealing with certain sorts of military offences, for example, disobedience to orders, particularly in an overseas context.

I hear what the noble Baroness has said and I will think very carefully about two things. First, does one need a longer period and, secondly, should one exclude certain specifically military offences? However, if it were possible, I would be keen to find a way forward on this because although the points she makes have some degree of validity, I also think that for comparatively minor offences it is disproportionate for military personnel still to be investigated for some months or even years after the comparatively minor offence has been allegedly committed. Of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Cadet Forces

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lingfield (Con)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my charitable interest as chairman of the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation, a post I took over from the noble Lord, Lord West.

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

My Lords, the cadet forces are following the overarching UK Government and, where applicable, devolved Administration rules and guidance on Covid matters. Throughout the pandemic, cadet headquarters have accelerated virtual training programmes, through innovative IT solutions. There will be a cautious but progressive return to face-to-face cadet activity. Based on previous experience and the development of Covid-safe practices, the cadet forces are well placed to return to normal activity as soon as conditions permit.

[Lord Lingfield (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her helpful—indeed, hopeful—reply. Does she agree that there seems to be no reason why cadets should not parade as soon as possible, now that schools are back? Does she also agree that cadet activities, whether Army, sea, Royal Air Force or CCF, are not just a welcome recreation for young people, but for many, especially in areas of deprivation, a route away from trouble and the youth justice system, and a pathway towards vocational skills and possibly employment?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I thank my noble friend for his support of and interest in the cadet forces. Taking his latter point first, I entirely agree that the proven benefit to young people of being in the cadet forces is demonstrable; it has an extremely beneficial effect on them in the development of their personal skills and as they prepare for life in the future. As to return, we shall require to be informed by the relevant guidance and rules at the time. There is certainly an appetite to resume face-to-face activity.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I am most familiar with the Army Cadet Force, because I am a former member and I benefited much from that in my teenage years. The guidance and instruction I received stayed with me. However, it is extremely difficult for cadet forces to function properly without face-to-face activity. Will the Minister assure the House today that the ACF and other cadets—and, indeed, other voluntary youth organisations, which are an intricate part of society—will be given every assistance when some normality returns? Where does she see the ACF and other cadets on her list and what is the indicative timetable? Please will the Minister help us with that information?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a specific timetable, but I can reassure him that there is certainly a desire throughout the United Kingdom, where the cadet forces are such an important presence for our youth in the four nations, to let them resume their activities as soon as guidance and rules permit.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, like many, I started my uniformed career as a cadet, in my case an Air Force cadet at Kimbolton School Combined Cadet Force. I have no doubt that the discipline it gave me helped me in my modest academic achievements. One of the great success stories in recent years has been the cadet expansion programme, with 500 new cadet forces created by 2016. Will my noble friend update the House on how the target of reaching 60,000 cadets by 2024 is progressing?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I reassure my noble friend that the expansion scheme has been a great success, exceeding time limits for achievement. Obviously, the pandemic has had an impact, not least on our school recruitment, because we have missed the September 2020 date, for example. But there is a strong partnership between the MoD and our cadet units in schools and we are mindful of that. That is partly governed by the Department for Education as well. I thank my noble friend for raising the issue. It is an important programme and we are confident of it making positive progress.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the cadet forces constitute one of the finest youth organisations in the land, but they are crucially dependent on the adult volunteers who organise them and run their activities. These people have come under increasing pressure in recent years, because of growing regulatory and other burdens, and have found their roles becoming less rewarding. Can the Minister assure the House that, in the wake of Covid, the Ministry of Defence will place sufficient emphasis on recruiting and retaining these adult volunteers, without whom the cadet forces simply would not exist?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. We are very mindful of the significance of the role played by our cadet force adult volunteers, to whom I pay tribute for their extraordinary achievements during the pandemic. Undeterred, they have continued to encourage and engage with the cadet forces and are deserving of our highest admiration. We recognise that within the MoD and will support them in every way that we can.

[Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I wish everyone a happy St David’s Day and put on record my interests as president of the Army Cadet Force Association in Wales. Army cadets play an active role in the community through the citizenship training that they receive. They do this thanks to the contribution of our cadet force adult volunteers, who inspire these young people, but these volunteers need to be supported, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has just said. Last year, the Army Cadet Force Association made grants totalling £200,000 to volunteers who faced financial hardship because of Covid. So I ask the noble Baroness what specifically the MoD is going to do to help these men and women whose voluntary work makes such a great contribution to the physical, mental, social and economic health of Great Britain.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I reassure the noble Lord that we shall support them in every way that we can. As he is probably aware, there is a youth and cadets team within the Reserve Forces and cadets division of the MoD, which engages with the DCMS and the National Youth Agency in England. We are doing everything that we can to consult, collaborate, co-operate and support.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the cadet health check team, where we have seen tremendous commitment, creativity and sheer hard work from staff and cadets, in creating inspirational online activities in lockdown. As has already been mentioned, the cadets are particularly important for disadvantaged young people, who learn skills, self-respect, leadership and other qualities through active engagement with others. The Minister’s previous answers suggest that she might not be able to say, but what more particularly do school cadets need to do to convince people that they can resume their life-changing work?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

As the noble Baroness understands, the environment of a school is within the jurisdiction of, initially, the head teacher of the school and, secondarily, the Department for Education and its counterparts within the devolved nations. There is a recognition of the valuable work that cadets do and a universal desire to support their return to face-to-face activity.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Government’s excellent objective to increase cadet forces in state schools could be greatly assisted by drawing on the long experience of independent schools? Are the Government actively promoting collaboration between the two sectors of education in this vital area?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I say to my noble friend that we are always anxious to learn. He is quite correct that one of the welcome developments of the expansion programme has been to extend and increase cadets’ presence in the state school sector. I think he will also acknowledge that there are commonalities of interest. Regardless of which sector of education the cadets are in, there is a desire to share experiences and mutual learning.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, last year, the Government published a review of the Reserve Forces and cadets’ associations, which recommended that the council of the RFCAs and the 13 RFCA bodies should be merged into a single executive non-departmental public body. Can the Minister provide an update on this?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord is aware that the MoD committed to implement the recommendations of the report. It has established a programme team to take forward the review’s recommendations, which we are doing in conjunction with the RFCAs. The report has many positive suggestions, which points to a very healthy future for the reserves and cadets.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as a former Army cadet, I ask the Minister whether she agrees that it is so important to get young people to take plenty of exercise, from both a health and morale point of view. In addition, does she agree that the well-established and efficient way of controlling cadets would minimise or prevent the spread of Covid among them?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My noble friend is absolutely right: the experience of cadets and the activities in which they engage are conducive to good physical and mental health. We ensure that their activities are Covid-compliant. When face-to-face activities resume, we shall follow whatever the prevailing rules and guidance are.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, in the West Midlands, we have four Army Cadet Force detachments, three RAF Air Cadet detachments and, even in landlocked Birmingham, 23 Sea Cadet detachments with over 1,000 cadets. They are an important force in the local community. I urge the Minister also to engage with local universities in the summer resumption of face-to-face contact, to ensure not only that the work continues but that new recruits are found.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

The noble Baroness makes a very interesting suggestion, which I will certainly reflect on. Given that the age range for cadets goes up to 18, our principal engagement is with schools, but I will look into this further.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

That the draft order laid before the House on 18 January be approved.

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

My Lords, a few days ago many of your Lordships will have listened intently to and reflected on the debate on the Armed Forces Bill as it passed through its Second Reading in the other place. I hope your Lordships were struck by the number of very positive things that the Bill proposes to do, including embedding further into law the Armed Forces covenant; implementing the sound recommendations born out of the Service Justice System Review; introducing flexible service for reservists; and addressing the issue of posthumous pardons. These are just a few of the subjects that many of your Lordships are rightly passionate about.

As was explained during the Bill’s Second Reading, Parliament renews the Armed Forces Act 2006 every five years through primary legislation. However, in the intervening years an annual Order in Council must be made and approved by both Houses for the Act to continue to remain in force. The 2006 Act is currently due to expire on 11 May this year, so a further annual order is needed to keep it in force. The draft order we are considering will keep the Act in force until the end of 2021. Primary legislation, in the shape of the Armed Forces Bill, is needed to keep it in force beyond 2021.

If the 2006 Act expires, certain major problems arise. For example, it would be impossible to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies. Service personnel do not have contracts of employment and so have no duties as employees. Their obligation is essentially a duty to obey lawful commands. If the 2006 Act expired, members of the Armed Forces would still owe allegiance to Her Majesty, but there would be no sanctions for disobeying orders. Moreover, other disciplinary offences would cease to exist, commanding officers and service police would lose their statutory powers to investigate offences and enforce discipline, and the service courts would no longer function.

Discipline in every sense is fundamental to and underpins the existence of our Armed Forces. Indeed, it is the reason for their success in the discharge of their remarkable range of duties, whether here at home, tirelessly supporting the emergency services, local communities and assisting with the mass vaccination across the UK during the pandemic; supporting our British Overseas Territories by delivering vaccine doses; protecting our safety and security; tackling the ongoing threat of cyberattacks posed by hostile states; actively safeguarding the world’s main waterways and escorting ships to deter the scourge of modern piracy and ensure freedom of navigation in disputed waters; playing their part to counter terrorism or to combat drug smuggling and people trafficking; taking a central role in the ongoing United Nations peacekeeping operations in Mali; distributing vital humanitarian aid; continuing the war on terror by assisting and building capacity with partner nations to defeat the likes of Daesh in Iraq and Syria; maintaining our forward presence in the Baltic and northern Europe to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security; or monitoring our sovereign air space to identify any threatening presence. All that reflects a huge and remarkable range of diverse activity.

The requirement for Parliament to regularly consent to the maintenance of the Armed Forces dates back to the Bill of Rights in 1688, when the existence of a standing army was contentious. While this is no longer the case, the debate on this order to keep the 2006 Act in force is also an opportunity for us in this House to record our thanks by permitting the Armed Forces to continue for another year.

That is a summary of the background to the statutory instrument. I hope that your Lordships will support the draft continuation order. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon; it has been both passionate and constructive, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. What has shone through without exception is a shared desire to do the right thing by those who do right by us—and a shared determination to recognise our bravest citizens. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, that it is because they are our people that we will do the right thing by them. I also seek to reassure my noble friend Lord Robathan that, according to NATO criteria, we are the highest defence spender in Europe; these criteria are established and robust.

It is worth reminding noble Lords that the purpose of this debate is to provide for the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as it currently is, not as it would be if amended by the Armed Forces Bill, which, as has been noted, had its Second Reading in the other place on Monday night. This House will have a full opportunity to debate the provisions of that Bill when it comes to this House in due course. Having said that, the Bill has been introduced and I understand why noble Lords have found comment irresistible. I will therefore say a little this afternoon in response to some of the points raised, knowing that we will return in much greater detail to these topics later in the year.

I was pleased to hear the support for the Bill, though the acceptance from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was just a little grudging, if I might say so. I hope that, as we proceed to a fuller debate later this year, we will be able to reassure him of the many positives in the Bill. It takes forward matters of considerable importance relating to the implementation of the service justice system review and the Armed Forces covenant. I note the areas in which noble Lords feel the Government could be taking a different approach in the Bill. I have listened to the comments on topics such as the covenant being too narrow in its scope and its legal duty not being strong enough and concerns raised over aspects of the service justice system. I will try to deal with these accordingly.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and other noble Lords argued that the scope of duty for the covenant is too narrow—that it should be broadened beyond housing, healthcare and education. We have chosen these remits carefully and, importantly, in consultation with the Armed Forces community, because we know that they will make the greatest improvements to family life. Significantly, the Bill contains provisions for us to expand this scope into other areas through secondary legislation at a later date. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and your Lordships, that the scope of this provision will be reviewed regularly. This is not the end of our legislative effort; it is the beginning.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and a number of other contributors, argued that the legal duty is not strong enough. They were concerned that creating a legal duty to “pay due regard” to the principles does not, in their estimation, give enough clout. There has been talk from the Opposition Benches in the other place of needing to set “measurable national standards”. Throughout this, our challenge has been to try to strike a balance. On the one hand, we wanted to ensure delivery against the covenant principles but, on the other, we wanted to avoid the sort of prescriptive approach that puts bureaucratic barriers in the way of practical delivery. I assure your Lordships that public bodies were consulted extensively. Our decision also reflects the diverse nature of public services across the United Kingdom, not least in the devolved nations, as a number of noble Lords referred to. The devolved nations have responsibility for these areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the issue of awareness of implementing the covenant obligations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. These changes will make the impact of the covenant more local. That will possibly raise a desire to make more obvious just how that is benefiting Armed Forces personnel and veterans. I remind noble Lords that the Bill honours the promise to give the covenant the legal standing needed to deliver for everybody in the Armed Forces community, right across the whole United Kingdom.

I move on to the service justice system, about which a number of comments were made, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The Government have considered the reviews of His Honour Shaun Lyons and Professor Sir Jon Murphy. It is their recommendations that underpin the improvements to the service justice system that we are taking forward in the Bill. I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, welcomes the broad thrust of the improvements, but I noticed his particular concerns and look forward to him pursuing these matters when we debate the Armed Forces Bill later in the year.

Noble Lords raised a range of issues in their contributions. I will try to deal with these as best I can. The noble Lords, Lord Reid, Lord Campbell, Lord Truscott and Lord Rosser, my noble friend Lord Robathan, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other noble Lords all raised the size of the military. The integrated review, which is not yet published but is expected soon, will detail the forward shape of our whole defence capability as we look to a new age of threats. Any speculation about Army force structure at the moment is purely that—speculation. I reassure noble Lords that we are confident that we have the numbers and the capabilities to do the job. We have discharged our core obligations to protect and secure the nation against threat, despite the challenges of Covid. That has been entirely down to the professionalism, competence and commitment of our Armed Forces personnel.

I want to include the reservists in that. My noble friend Lord Lancaster helpfully outlined the extremely positive position in relation to the reservists. We hope the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill will be a further encouragement to them.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, raised a matter which is dear to his heart: a consolidation of Armed Forces legislation; a desire to see it all under one legislative umbrella. He was, perhaps, imputing to me a view which I have not yet formed. I want to look at this issue in considerable depth. The noble and gallant Lord has approached me on the matter, and I will respond to him on it, but I make clear to your Lordships that I have not formed any view on it at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the important matter of training of our Armed Forces personnel. There were echoes of the overseas operations Bill when the noble Lord made that point. I can confirm that serious regard is given to training and we deliver all necessary training. It is important that all our service personnel, at all levels, fully understand the obligations placed on them by both UK law and applicable international law. I can confirm that the training is also reinforced ahead of deployment on operations. For example, civil servants deploying in key roles to operational theatres and in key operational policy roles in the MoD also receive training in the law of armed conflict. In addition, each commander deployed in a military operation will have a dedicated military lawyer available at all times to give them specific legal advice. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that we endeavour to service this important issue in the best possible way.

The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, raised the issue of pensions to dependants. I undertake to write to him separately on that matter.

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, that is the accepted lexicon of any wide-ranging and interesting debate, but that is just what this rather unusual continuation order debate has been. It is unusual because the debate is on continuing the current Armed Forces Act 2006 but, in doing so, we have an opportunity to see the Government’s proposals for the future of the 2006 Act. Today’s debate has made it clear to me that there will be an extremely interesting and lively debate on the Armed Forces Bill later in the year.

In the meantime, there is the much simpler task of continuing the current Armed Forces Bill. Everyone in this House agrees that we owe our men and women in the Armed Forces a tremendous debt of gratitude. We have seen them at their very best, particularly in the past year. The support of noble Lords for this draft order not only contributes to Parliament upholding the constitutional position—so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—that the Armed Forces may not be maintained without the consent of Parliament but it reflects the deep affection this House holds for our servicepeople through its support of the draft continuation order.

Motion agreed.

British Armed Forces: Iraqi Interpreters

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that Iraqi interpreters are being targeted by militia groups because of their work with foreign militaries; and what steps they are taking to protect such interpreters who have worked for the British Armed Forces.

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

My Lords, although the Ministry of Defence does not employ interpreters directly in Iraq, its contractors are held to the highest standards. The MoD takes any breach of personal security extremely seriously, and we are currently investigating the allegations.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, last year’s breach of security data revealed interpreters’ IDs and car number plates, increasing their exposure to death threats, including at Covid-19 checkpoints. Can the Minister confirm that the private contractors who should be responsible for the interpreters’ safety are included within the scope of the investigation? Also, will she persuade her Home Office colleagues to upgrade their assessment of the risk to interpreters, currently rated as low, so that those who want a UK visa stand a chance of getting one?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the investigation will involve speaking to the contractor. Steps have already been taken to interview personnel concerned with Operation Shader who were in the camp between January and March 2020. The position is a little complicated in that the contractor changed, and therefore it is necessary to speak to the former contractor as well. We hope to be able to give an update by the end of February, and I undertake to report to the noble Baroness at that time. We constantly assess the risk that our interpreters are exposed to, and we have protections in place with our contractor to ensure that the best possible safeguards are afforded to them.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, life for Iraqi British Army interpreters has always been terrifyingly hazardous. At least 40 have been brutally murdered by militia groups. They are targets only because they work side by side with British soldiers. We know that and we should have the evidence to prove it. The resettlement scheme that they might have used closed in 2010, and now they have no accessible visa or asylum route to safety. They deserve real and prompt action, not just words. I invite the Minister to contrast the treatment of Iraqi interpreters with that of those who have British national overseas status in Hong Kong. Why can they not be offered equal treatment?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I confirm to the noble Lord that when the MoD uses a third-party contractor to source interpreting services, strict conditions of contract apply, and these are incorporated into the contract. These are standards set down by the MoD for contracting requirements and deployed operations. Very particularly, they require that the operational circumstances within which the contractor capabilities are delivered to the MoD must be as safe, secure and reasonable as possible for the workforce. They set out obligations both for the MoD and the contractor to ensure that that happens, and we take those obligations very seriously.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, these brave people have already put themselves in harm’s way. Can the noble Baroness say how many Iraqi interpreters and their families are at risk of retribution in Iraq? Can she confirm to your Lordships’ House that the British Government owe a duty of care to those who have provided such a valuable service to British forces in times of conflict?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I cannot give the historic number of interpreters employed in Iraq, but I understand that at the time of this incident, which is currently being investigated, there were eight UK national interpreters in Iraq and eight locally recruited interpreters.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, may I first welcome the Minister to answering this Question? Given that she had a jab only a few hours ago, she looks remarkably well.

Perhaps I may follow the previous question in relation to the families of the interpreters. Surely the Government have an obligation not only to the interpreters, many of whom have been killed, as has been identified, but to their families, to provide some form of assistance to them as well.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]—and I recommend that everyone should get it done the moment they get the invitation.

We take these obligations very seriously. In Iraq, as has been referred to, a scheme to cover the tranche of interpreters who were employed directly by the Government closed in 2016. Schemes in Afghanistan, where we also relied heavily on interpreters, have continued with the Afghanistan ex gratia scheme, which has enabled relocation of, so far, more than 1,300 Afghans to the UK with their dependants. We are currently about to launch the Afghan relocation assistance policy in April, which will have regard to the wider interests of the interpreters and their families.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in raising this issue, I am very conscious of the dedication that our late noble friend Lord Ashdown showed over many years to ensure that the UK did right by Iraqi interpreters. This is a reminder of how long this issue has gone on for. Will the Minister tell us what contact has there been with the 16 people whom she referenced, who have been providing interpretation to our forces? Have the Government assessed their security protection, and will they look at granting them immediate visas to the UK?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I cannot pre-empt or prejudge the outcome of the inquiry that is currently taking place. I have already offered to update the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and I can update the Chamber as well, by the end of February, I hope, on the progress of the investigation.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I start by recognising what great champions the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have been for the rights of interpreters for many years, as I experienced myself during my time as a Defence Minister. While I understand why the Government have delegated the responsibility of contracting interpreters to private companies, such as thebigword, will my noble friend reassure me that the Government have not also delegated their duty of care?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

Yes, I will I certainly offer that reassurance to my noble friend. Part of the reason that we are currently carrying out this investigation is that we want to know what happened and, if unacceptable breaches took place, why they happened and how they came about. We share a duty to our interpreters who are employed by a contractor, and the measures in place ensure that if contractors assess that the measures are not sufficient, they are entitled to highlight these immediately to the MoD. Ultimately, if these concerns are not addressed, they can withdraw their workforce without penalty. However, we hope that that situation would never arise. We take our responsibilities very seriously.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has said that the Government hold the contractors to the highest standards. What mechanisms and processes are in place to ensure that this is sustained over the long term? Threats to interpreters can arise some years after their employment; meanwhile, the contracting company may well have changed. Who then is responsible for their safety and support? I have some difficulty in seeing how this will work in practice.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

Mindful of the vital job that interpreters do when they assist our Armed Forces on overseas operations, we would be very vigilant in trying to ensure that they were not placed at a disadvantage. The noble and gallant Lord focuses on an important point, which is part of what we consider to be our wider responsibilities. We would expect interpreters to express their concerns to us, even if they were no longer working for the contractor within the country. We still have a diplomatic presence and we would expect interpreters who were concerned to communicate either with the MoD or with the diplomatic presence.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government accept that they owe a duty of care to the Iraqi interpreters we are talking about. But does she believe that the US air strikes against a top Iranian military commander and Iraqi militia leader last year have made it more dangerous not only for Iraqi interpreters but for UK personnel in Iraq?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]—give rise to concern. But, as the noble Lord will know, we are part of a concerted endeavour against Daesh and we are there at the invitation of the Government of Iraq, who wish the coalition presence to continue.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

As a previous Member has highlighted, 40 Iraqi interpreters who worked with the British Army have been killed since the fall of Saddam Hussein. What support, if any, has been provided for their families in Iraq? If private contractors that are now employing interpreters have been found to breach the data in any way, no matter how unwillingly, how will Her Majesty’s Government hold them accountable?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

We will certainly await the outcome of the investigation. If unacceptable conduct is exposed, we shall then determine how best to deal with that. We would take any such breaches extremely seriously.

Integrated Review: New Ships

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement on the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy by the Prime Minister on 19 November 2020 (HC Deb, cols 488–9), how many of the new ships have been ordered; and, if none, when the first orders will be placed.

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

My Lords, the department is currently developing plans for a new class of frigate and research vessel to support UK interests. Following the concept phases, yet to be launched, programme and procurement strategies will be determined. However, the Type 32s will be UK-built—a clear demonstration of both this Government’s and the shipbuilding tsar’s commitment to supporting UK industry and to ensuring the Royal Navy continues to have the modern ships it needs.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. She will not be surprised that jam tomorrow has been a regular feature of defence reviews. I am concerned that the financial pressures the MoD is under, despite the welcome four-year settlement and additional funding announced last year, will affect build programmes and impact on the already small and ageing frigate force. The recent NAO review of the MoD equipment plan states that it remains “unaffordable”. The MoD estimates a £7.8 billion shortfall, but it could be as high as £17 billion. Leading up to the long-trumpeted integrated review, has there been any discussion about putting the capital costs of the deterrent submarine replacement once again outside of the defence budget, where it was until placed inside by Chancellor Osborne in 2010? It would resolve the MoD funding problem at a stroke.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My Lords, all MoD obligations and commitments, including the nuclear deterrent, are budgeted for in the MoD budget. While I understand the noble Lord’s concern about the cost of the equipment plan, I reassure him that the department is taking important steps to address that. I think he is looking through his glass half-empty, rather than his glass half-full. Quite simply, the recent financial settlement for the MoD and the Prime Minister’s commitment to new naval assets mean that not only will our fleet grow for the first time since World War II, but its high-end technological capabilities will allow it to provide a better contribution and to retain a first-class Navy up to 2040 and beyond.

[Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Prime Minister in his Statement on the integrated review said that it will ensure a “renaissance of British shipbuilding” across the United Kingdom—in Glasgow and Rosyth, in Belfast, Appledore and Birkenhead—and it would guarantee jobs. This is most welcome, but how many jobs are guaranteed and, with 1.7 million unemployed, where is the focus on job creation?

[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.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, defence’s integrated operating concept highlights the need to deploy fully our assets on a persistent basis. As we discussed last week in Grand Committee, this can only help defence’s contribution to global Britain. Given the obvious success of the deployment of HMS “Montrose” to Bahrain, where it will be for a number of years, does this mean that we will now see Royal Naval assets forward deployed, perhaps, to Gibraltar, Singapore or elsewhere?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My noble friend raises an important point, which effectively goes to the heart of why we have Royal Naval assets and what we think their primary purpose is. I reassure him that we are actively expanding the model of permanent forward deployment of ships such as “Montrose”. For example, HMS “Forth”, like her predecessor “Clyde”, is currently forward deployed to the Falkland Islands; a further Batch 2 offshore patrol vessel “Medway” is operating in the Caribbean region; and the recent operations of HMS “Trent” in the Mediterranean and Atlantic have been centred on our permanent joint operating base in Gibraltar. We intend to build on this model in the coming months and it is a key consideration for the role of the new Type 31.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests in the register. Despite the very welcome uplift in defence spending announced last year, the affordability of much of the new capability promised, such as new ships, rests on the need to retire current capabilities quite quickly—some arguably prematurely. Will the Minister inform the House of when such decisions will be made and which capabilities will be affected?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in the timetabling of shipbuilding and the estimated dates for taking delivery and for vessels being in service, a close eye is kept on the need to maintain our key operational obligations. That eye is vigilant and I reassure the noble and gallant Lord that the issues to which he refers are very much at the forefront of MoD thinking. We consult our industrial partners frequently to ensure a smooth transition.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

The Prime Minister said that he was breaking free from a vicious circle. He said that

“we ordered ever decreasing numbers of ever more expensive items of military hardware, squandering billions along the way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 488.]

He now wants to spend an extra £16.5 billion in the “teeth of the pandemic”, as he put it. Given that the Conservative Party has been in control of defence spending for over 10 years, what “important steps”, to use the Minister’s words, have been made to date in procurement and auditing to avoid further squandering?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord raises an important question. Of course, for five of those 10 years, his party was part of the coalition Government, sharing responsibility for the Ministry of Defence. His important point merits attention and we look carefully at how we now procure. For example, the model for the Type 31 procurement achieved a concept—a placing of order—extraordinarily quickly, because there had been a recognition that we needed to be much more effective and swift in our approach to procurement. The noble Lord raises an important point and I reassure him that it is very much before the MoD and we are applying measures to implement good practice.

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My noble friend’s initial response referred to supporting UK industry. The fact is that the building of warships has been irregular and sporadic and it has been very difficult for companies to sustain a qualified workforce, because of the nature of the orders. Will the Minister assure the House that this time business and orders will be given and spread over the UK, including to Harland & Wolff in Belfast so that shipbuilding can be sustainable in the long-term, rather than reacting to sporadic and irregular orders?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

It is right to refer to what the Prime Minister said because he recognised what had been, frankly, a corrosive problem in the way in which the procurment of Royal Naval assets was embarked on. The National Shipbuilding Strategy identified the challenges and weaknesses to which the noble Lord has referred, and the strategy was clear that a much more stable approach had to be adopted in respect of UK shipbuilders. What is happening currently is clearly good news for UK shipbuilders, and the noble Lord has rightly raised the matter of cross-UK activity. I am pleased to say that, with Harland & Wolff taking over the Appledore shipyard, the Government are working closely with the company to understand better how we might support our shipbuilding industry throughout the United Kingdom. That is the commitment made by the Prime Minister and it is one that we will see being sustained by the recently announced intentions for Royal Naval assets.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.

British Armed Forces: Global Britain

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lancaster on securing this valuable debate and thank your Lordships for a stimulating discussion. I know your Lordships felt constrained by time, and trying to listen to your excellent contributions was rather like listening to a constantly beating staccato drum—so, if I do not manage to include everyone in my remarks, I apologise.

My noble friend laid out very well the extraordinary contribution that our Armed Forces make to the security and influence of the UK, not least our support of humanitarian and peacekeeping work and training. Globally, the Armed Forces truly are ambassadors and defenders of the UK’s values, prosperity and security. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, both acknowledged and paid tribute to that, for which I thank him. Particularly, he asked that we build closer links with friends and allies. I agree and confirm that India is indeed a valued ally.

To illustrate the range of activity I can report that, over the festive period alone, more than 6,000 military personnel were deployed on 39 operations in 46 countries. That eloquently underpins the concept of global Britain. As global competition deepens, as the challenges of Covid-19 put strain on the international system, as nations seek to find an edge—through fair means and foul—we face an unprecedented and accelerating challenge. While the Armed Forces already make an indispensable contribution to our security, prosperity and values, and to global Britain, we can and will do more. We shall be more globally engaged: actively competing and collaborating to defeat and deter our adversaries, working ever more closely with allies old and new, extending our reach to new theatres and domains, and tackling global challenges to our safety and prosperity. That is why the Prime Minister announced more than £24 billion for next-generation military capability, cementing our place as a leader in NATO, defending our people from new and evolving threats, operating globally, protecting the world’s most vulnerable, and bringing jobs and prosperity to every part of the United Kingdom. That is something of which we can all be proud; it means that global Britain is not some empty piece of rhetoric but a very solid concept. The MoD and our Armed Forces are certainly demonstrating —dramatically—just how solid a concept that is and how valuable it is to the rest of the world.

My noble friend Lord Lancaster raised a number of important issues that were echoed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and many others. I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, that humanitarian response and United Nation peacekeeping will continue to be an important component of the MoD’s engagement activity. As my noble friend is right to point out, the integrated review proposes a transformation in the Armed Forces to increase our presence and engagement across the world. Two important components of this will be agility and persistence. It is vital that the Armed Forces are flexibly deployed into the situations where they can deliver the greatest value, whether this be supporting United Nations peacekeeping and French counterterrorism operations in Mali, or delivering humanitarian aid to the Caribbean. The Armed Forces will do more to deliver this Government’s integrated approach to foreign policy and soft power, a point that my noble friend specifically mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, in connection with current and recent issues, raised the very important matter of Gibraltar—a key defence base that occupies a special place in our affections. As he pointed out, it is of huge strategic importance. Around 440 military personnel, from all three services, are supporting Gibraltar. We are pleased that they can look to the future with greater certainty as a consequence of the outlined agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, raised Mali and mission creep. I seek to reassure him that the terms of deployment are clearly defined and they are over a specific time. Mission creep is not something that we would ever want. He is right to raise that prospect because there have been painful lessons in the past, but we are very cognisant of how these deployments must be closely described, defined and monitored. Indeed, in Africa, some 300 British troops and RAF Chinook helicopters are working alongside French and United Nations colleagues to support counterterrorism operations and a United Nations peacekeeping mission. In Somalia, 65 British service personnel support peacekeeping and training missions with Somali forces. As my noble friend Lord Lancaster said, that is another indication of the dimension and the broad spectrum of the support we can give.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised languages. I totally agree with her: it is an essential support that we value. I did not make a detailed note of the point she raised, but I will look at Hansard and endeavour to respond to her.

Many of your Lordships raised the broader questions of international security, international influence, how we deploy our resources and what our objectives are. In among all that, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, raised international aid. As I said, the Government are committed to our aid and support role, and our Armed Forces play an important role in the discharge of that obligation.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and other noble Lords raised the issue of activities and influence, the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned south-east Asia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about coherent activity. The best illustration of that is possibly the carrier strike group, which I feel illustrates the point well. The United Kingdom reached a major milestone in December, when it declared that its carrier strike programme had achieved initial operating capability. The Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, and the US acting Secretary of Defense, Christopher C Miller, co-signed the UK-US joint declaration for the carrier strike group 2021 deployment. This declaration paves the way for a successful inaugural operational deployment of the UK carrier strike group alongside its allies. The joint declaration supports the UK carrier strike group, led by the UK’s aircraft carrier HMS “Queen Elizabeth” on its inaugural deployment later this year.

This deployment embodies the strength of our bilateral ties and reflects the depth and breadth of this vital defence security partnership. It will include the Indo-Pacific region working together with allies to send a clear signal of our commitment to the region. But this will not be a flash-in-the-pan activity, as some of your Lordships, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were concerned about; it is all part of a coherent approach. The deployment supports the UK’s deep and enduring defence relationships, such as the vital Five Eyes partnership, our ongoing commitment to supporting United Nations operations in the region and our desire to advance bilateral security co-operation with ASEAN nations.

My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns raised the important matter of Afghanistan, as did a number of your Lordships, and I will just cover the points that she raised. She referred to her committee’s work on the recent publication of the International Relations and Defence Committee report, The UK and Afghanistan. I pay tribute to my noble friend and her committee for a very useful report. It seemed a most comprehensive review of everything that has happened, with some very useful pointers as to where we ought to be looking. I reassure her that we remain committed to supporting Afghanistan in its journey towards lasting stability and security. The United Kingdom is the third-largest troop contributor to the Resolute Support Mission, with around 850 personnel deployed. We remain committed to building Afghanistan’s stability and security, committing £70 million in military funding and £155 million in development funding for 2021. Again, that is a useful indicator of the Government’s intention relating to their overseas responsibilities.

Our valued contributions make us well placed to influence our NATO allies and our partners, including the new United States Administration. We look forward to engaging with President Biden and his Administration. It is already clear that the United Kingdom and United States have much in common on a range of issues. I reassure my noble friend that we will seek that engagement at the earliest opportunity to reiterate our continued commitment to Afghanistan.

A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Touhig, Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised the integrated review and the issue of defence spending and budget. We are increasing defence spending by an additional £16.5 billion over the next four years—the biggest investment in the UK’s Armed Forces since the end of the Cold War. That marks the first outcome of the integrated review. It will enable modernisation of the UK Armed Forces, with at least £6.6 billion for research and development. The full conclusion of the integrated review will be announced in the coming months.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth raised the matter of our veterans—a matter dear to the hearts of us all. We offer support and advice across a range of areas through the Office of Veterans Affairs and our support for veterans’ charities. The case that he referred to was troubling and, if he wishes to provide me with more information, I shall investigate.

This has been an excellent debate. It has highlighted the broad contributions of the Armed Forces to global Britain. The value of the defence contribution to global Britain, as I have already said, cannot be overstated. This year will be a turning point: not only will it see the inaugural deployment of the carrier strike group, to which I referred; it will be a demonstration of the United Kingdom’s technological and industrial prowess, and a sign of our enduring commitment to allies across the world. It will also see the publication of the integrated review—a very important development, setting in motion the transformation of the reach and impact of our Armed Forces across the world and delivering a global Armed Forces ready for a global Britain.

I thank my noble friend for calling this debate and all noble Lords for their very interesting and thought-provoking contributions.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

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

My Lords, it is with pleasure that I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I begin by paying tribute to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, who protect this country and our security, day in and day out. These exceptional individuals are often called upon to perform their jobs under extraordinarily difficult and dangerous circumstances, enduring great hardship, being exposed to injury and risking the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives.

Similarly, I want to pay tribute to the families of current and former personnel. They keep homes together, bring up children and attend to the care of older relatives, giving the precious members of our Armed Forces the peace of mind to do their duty. We owe the Armed Forces and their families our utmost respect and support, and we must reflect that in how we treat them. They must know that, when they are taking necessary and appropriate action to protect us and the freedoms that we value, we in turn will not shy away from taking the necessary and appropriate action to protect them.

However, the reality is that, having asked these personnel to risk life and injury in the most unforgiving of environments in overseas conflicts, they have returned home to face a dark shadow of uncertainty: an enduring, corrosive uncertainty about whether or not they will be called into criminal or civil proceedings many years down the line. They do not know whether they will be required to relive the traumatic events of, and defend their actions in, a conflict that took place many years previously.

That shadow endures because such potential proceedings are not always constrained by the passage of time. That is neither reasonable nor appropriate. However, it reflects the increased pattern of the judicialisation of warfare, evident over the last 25 years. Equally, we must take action to ensure that our commanders on the ground in the field of conflict, having to make potentially life-or-death split-second decisions, do not feel inhibited, or, worse, distracted, by concerns about how their actions may be perceived many years later—that is clearly profoundly undesirable.

Let me also be crystal clear that those who commit criminal acts or behave negligently must face justice and must expect to be called to account. However, that should be done without undue delay: periods of delay stretching over years are simply not acceptable. Delay does not serve the interests of the victims, for whom the most certain route to justice is to bring forward a criminal allegation or a claim for compensation as soon as possible before evidence disappears or becomes stale or before memories become opaque.

The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill seeks to address these issues. It deals with the issue of unreasonable delay, but it also endeavours to provide greater certainty to our service personnel and veterans that the unique pressures—and they are unique—placed on them during overseas operations will be taken into account when decisions are being made as to whether to prosecute for alleged historical offences. These are the objectives that the Bill seeks to deliver.

I have been struck by commentary on the Bill: some people think it is necessary but does not go far enough, while others think it is unnecessary and goes too far. The Government have endeavoured to strike a balance that recognises the position of victims and our Armed Forces and seeks to be fair to both. In my discussions with many of your Lordships, I detect broad sympathy with the Bill’s objectives. I acknowledge that a number of your Lordships have concerns about some of the individual provisions in it and will wish to press the Government for clarification and reassurance as to how these will impact in practice. I look forward to this debate as an opportunity to explore these.

I make clear that the measures in this Bill are not the only work being taken forward in respect of these matters. The Government are progressing recommendations from the service justice system review, and the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill is expected to contain provisions relating to key recommendations from this. I am pleased to confirm to your Lordships that the review by Sir Richard Henriques of the conduct of investigations relating to overseas operations and the prosecutorial process, which was announced by the Secretary of State in October, is under way and due to report in the summer.

This is a journey that started in the early days of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is important to recognise that we have already come a long way since then. That journey has involved intensive scrutiny and legal challenge, and both the service police and the Armed Forces have learned important lessons on better resourcing, supporting and professionalising investigations on operations. The Ministry of Defence is also constantly reviewing its policies, training and practices to help to ensure that we comply with all applicable legal obligations on future operations.

I turn to the Bill itself and what it seeks to deliver. First, it is important to be clear about what it does not do, because it seems to me that a somewhat distorted version of the Bill has achieved a degree of currency. The Bill is not an amnesty or a statute of limitations: prosecutions can still go forward after five years from the date of the alleged incident and it does not prevent allegations of offences being made and investigated after five years. There may be circumstances where victims are unable to report their allegations quickly after the event, and that is recognised. The Bill does not abolish, eradicate or eliminate the rights of victims of crime, nor does it deny the rights of those who seek redress in the civil courts, whether they are Armed Forces personnel, MoD employees or other parties.

I will move now to what the Bill does. Part 1 introduces measures dealing with criminal matters, which includes a presumption against prosecution where five or more years have passed since an alleged offence on an overseas operation. With Part 1, the Government have sought to strike a balance: on the one hand, introducing protective measures that set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine whether a case should be prosecuted and ensure that the adverse impact of overseas operations will be given particular weight in favour of the service person or veteran; and, on the other hand, ensuring that, in circumstances where our service personnel fall short of the high standards of personal behaviour and conduct that is required and expected of them, they can still be held to account. This is one of the reasons that we have not proposed an amnesty or a statute of limitations. Let me be very clear: the presumption against prosecution after five years is not an absolute bar to prosecution. We have also sought to avoid fettering the prosecutor’s discretion in making a decision to prosecute and have ensured that the measures are compliant with international law.

Clause 1 sets out the circumstances in which the measures in Part 1 apply to decisions about whether or not to prosecute criminal cases. In short, the measures apply only once five years have elapsed from the date of an alleged offence by service personnel that took place on relevant overseas operations. For the purposes of Part 1, the Bill defines what constitutes relevant overseas operations.

Clause 2 introduces the presumption against prosecution, the effect of which is that it should be “exceptional” for a prosecutor to determine that a service person or veteran should be prosecuted for alleged offences that occurred on operations outside the UK more than five years previously. While the presumption introduces an “exceptional” threshold, it is important to note that the presumption is rebuttable; the prosecutor retains their discretion to determine that a case is exceptional and should be prosecuted.

Clause 3 requires the prosecutor to give particular weight to certain matters. These include the adverse impact of overseas operations on a service person, including on their mental health, and, in cases where there has already been a previous investigation and there is no new, compelling evidence, the public interest in cases coming to a timely conclusion.

Clause 5 requires the consent of the Attorney-General before a prosecution can proceed to trial. Clause 6 provides a definition of the “relevant offences” to which Part 1 applies and introduces Schedule 1, which lists the offences that are excluded from the presumption.

The offences listed in Schedule 1 reflect the Government’s strong position that there can be no conceivable link between operational duties and the use of sexual violence and sexual exploitation on overseas operations, and that the “exceptional” threshold in the Bill should not apply in such circumstances.

We have not excluded other offences, including torture, because, in the course of their duties on overseas operations, we expect our service personnel to undertake activities which are intrinsically violent in nature. Where service personnel are engaged in combat, detention and interrogations, they have faced and will continue to face allegations such as of torture and war crimes because of the unique nature of warfare. They may deny and refute these allegations, but they can still expect to face them.

Critics of the Bill believe that this signals that the Government no longer view with gravity offences such as war crimes and torture. Well, we most certainly do: these crimes are appalling and, as I have already emphasised, the prosecutor retains their discretion to determine that a case is exceptional and should be prosecuted.

The measures in Part 1 will not therefore allow service personnel to act with impunity; they do not impact on the willingness or ability of the United Kingdom to investigate or prosecute alleged offences committed by our service personnel. These measures are consistent with our international legal obligations and, as such, they will not put our service personnel at risk of being investigated by or prosecuted in the International Criminal Court.

Part 2 of the Bill makes changes to the time limits for bringing tort claims for personal injury or death, and Human Rights Act claims, relating to events that occur in connection with overseas operations. Again, the Government’s intent with the measures in Part 2 is to ensure that claims are brought promptly so that the courts are able to assess them when memories are fresh and evidence is more readily available. This will help to ensure that service personnel and veterans will not be called on indefinitely to recall often traumatic incidents that they have understandably sought to put behind them. It will also mean that, where such claims make allegations of criminal behaviour, these can also be considered expeditiously by the service police.

Clauses 8 to 10 introduce Schedules 2, 3 and 4, which introduce new factors that the courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland must consider when deciding whether a claim for personal injury or death can be allowed beyond the normal time limit of three years. These new factors ensure that the “operational context” in which incidents occurred is properly taken into account. They weigh up the likely impact of the proceedings on the mental health of the service personnel or veterans who may be called as witnesses.

The provisions also introduce an absolute maximum time limit of six years for such claims. For personal injury or death claims, that time limit will be calculated from the date of incident or from the claimant’s date of knowledge. The provisions also ensure that, where the law of another country is to be applied when the court is assessing the claim, the maximum time limit of six years still applies.

Clause 11 introduces three factors for the courts to consider when deciding whether to extend the one-year time limit for bringing Human Rights Act claims and an absolute maximum time limit of six years. It also introduces a date-of-knowledge provision for a Human Rights Act claim in connection with an overseas operation, so that it can be brought up to 12 months from the date of knowledge, even if that 12-month period ends after the six-year period has expired.

Finally, Clause 12 will further amend the Human Rights Act to impose a duty on government to consider derogating from—that is, suspending—some of our obligations under the ECHR in relation to significant overseas military operations. This measure does not require derogation to take place, but it requires future Governments to make a conscious decision as to whether derogation is appropriate in the light of the circumstances at the time. The Bill does not change any of the existing parliamentary oversight that currently applies to derogation orders.

These measures are consistent with court rulings that claimants do not need to be provided with an indefinite opportunity to obtain a remedy. Once again, the purpose of the limitation long-stops is to encourage individuals to bring claims promptly, while evidence and memories are fresh.

In conclusion, this a necessary and important Bill. It seeks to reduce the uncertainty faced by our service personnel and veterans and looks to the future, providing a better and clearer legal framework for dealing with allegations and claims arising from future overseas operations and recognising the unique burden and pressures placed on our service personnel. It strikes an appropriate balance between victims’ rights and access to justice on the one hand and fairness to those who defend this country and our values on the other. It delivers on a manifesto commitment by the Conservative Party to our Armed Forces and veterans. It is based on strong support for the proposals, as evidenced in the response to the public consultation and by clear majorities in the other place. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to participate in and listen to this debate. I want to express my appreciation for the thoughtful and profound contributions that have been made, as well as for the tributes and gratitude extended from all parts of the Chamber to our Armed Forces, recognising the vital job that they do. They are at the heart of what we are discussing; we must not forget that.

Predictably, a wide variety of views has been expressed about the Bill. On the part of some, there is disagreement with there being a Bill at all; that seemed the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. While I respect their views, I cannot support them. For me to bridge that gap would obviously be challenging.

I detected a slightly different nuance from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but I detected on the part of many other noble Lords a recognition that there is an issue that should be addressed—even if there is a multiplicity of views on how that should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, accepted that premise, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and my noble friend Lord Lancaster. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth accepted that principle, although he had significant reservations about other aspects.

The noble Lord, Lord West, was explicit about the need for legislation, although I noted his mark of five out of 10 for the Bill. In this broad context of the questions of whether there is an issue and whether we need legislation, two of the most balanced contributions came from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot.

Your Lordships have assisted in amending some of the misconceptions about what the Bill does, but I detected a continuing theme of reference to perceived wrongs created by the Bill when, I suggest, some of the more extravagant descriptions are not supported by a clinical dissection of it. My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater identified that and spoke helpfully about it. I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for whom I have great respect, that the Bill is not a statute of amnesty. Having said all that, there are sharp divergences of view about the provisions, their legal interpretation and how that relates to international law. This has been an informed and thought-provoking debate. I cannot deal with every contribution in the time available, but let me try to address the principal issues raised.

To start, the issue of investigations was raised by a number of your Lordships, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Liddell, Lady Buscombe and Lady Jones, the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. It is correct that the measures in Part 1 of the Bill do not have a direct impact on repeated investigations. Credible allegations will continue to be investigated. However, over time, prosecutors may be able to advise the police earlier in the process on whether the new statutory requirements in Part 1 would be met in a particular case and whether investigations are likely to be worth continuing. The Government are committed to ensuring that we have the best possible processes for timely and effective investigations into allegations arising from military operations overseas. As I mentioned, the Bill will work in parallel with the recently announced review, led by Judge Henriques, which will focus on the processes of overseas operations investigations and prosecutions.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, that the review by Sir Richard Henriques will not revisit past investigations or prosecution decisions. Instead, the focus will be on the future, allowing the consideration of options for strengthening internal processes and skills while ensuring that our Armed Forces continue to uphold the highest standards of conduct when serving on complex and demanding operations around the world.

The presumption will not prevent investigations. These are necessary to provide prosecutors with the information upon which to make their decisions. Allegations of serious offences, including breaches of the Geneva conventions, must, and will, continue to be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted.

There were some comments about the quality of investigations. In the early part of operations in Iraq, there were certainly very limited numbers of service police and investigators were competing for scarce resources, such as helicopters to visit scenes and troops to provide force protection. These investigations were taking place in the most complex and hostile of environments. In these circumstances, some investigations took place that were later reviewed and identified as having shortcomings. Where appropriate, these matters were subsequently reinvestigated, but much was learned from these experiences. All branches of our Armed Forces, including the service police have taken the lessons identified and have been seeking to improve how they operate.

A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised concerns that the prosecution provisions in Part 1 of the Bill amounted to impunity from prosecution. I reassure them that the five-year timeframe for the measures in Part 1 is not a time limit, after which service personnel cannot be prosecuted. The presumption against prosecution is not an amnesty or a statute of limitations and does not amount to an unwillingness to investigate or prosecute alleged offences. It leaves open the possibility of prosecution of all cases, subject to the prosecutor’s decision. Service personnel who break the law can still be held to account and the presumption does avoid interfering with prosecutorial independence. It will still allow for prosecutions to proceed where appropriate. It definitely will not allow personnel to act with impunity. As I indicated earlier, the Bill does not prevent investigations or prosecutions taking place.

The issue of international law compliance was, understandably, a source of both interest and concern for many of your Lordships. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Robertson, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Jones, also asked questions about whether the Bill increases the risk that our service personnel would be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. We are confident that the Bill does not increase the risk of our service personnel or veterans being prosecuted by that court or in any other jurisdiction. While Article 17 of the Rome statute makes provision for the International Criminal Court to step in and investigate or prosecute if it assesses that a state is unwilling or unable to do so, the presumption is not an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel. It therefore does not amount to an unwillingness or inability to investigate or prosecute, and the presumption is consistent with the Rome statute. UK Armed Forces will continue to operate under international law, including, of course, the Geneva conventions, and we will expect others to do likewise. The Bill cannot be used as an excuse for offences committed by others against UK Armed Forces personnel.

A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Smith, raised the question of whether the presumption against prosecution breaches the Geneva conventions, the Rome statute, the ECHR and other international agreements, including the United Nations Convention against Torture. I can reassure them that the Bill does not diminish the Government’s commitment to upholding and strengthening the rule of law. Military operations will continue to be governed by international humanitarian law, including the Geneva conventions, taking into account the UK’s obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The UK Government unreservedly condemn the use of torture and remain committed to their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, including the United Nations Convention against Torture. The UK does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose. We believe that preventing torture and tackling impunity for those who do torture are essential components of safeguarding our security and are integral to a fair legal system and the rule of law.

I now turn to Schedule 1 and the inclusions in it. This proved to be an area of considerable concern for many of your Lordships. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other Members of your Lordships’ House raised a number of important concerns on the subject of torture, and it is important that I try to deal with them. The exclusion of sexual offences from the application of the Part 1 measures does not mean that we will not continue to take other offences, such as war crimes and torture, extremely seriously, because they are extremely serious crimes. Indeed, in my opening speech I described them as appalling.

We have not excluded torture offences because this goes right to the heart of the environment of overseas operations: what we call on our personnel to do when they are required to serve in that arena. In the course of their duties on overseas operations, we expect our service personnel to undertake activities which are intrinsically violent in nature. These activities can expose service personnel to the possibility that their actions may result in allegations of torture. By contrast, although allegations of sexual offences can still arise, the activities we expect our service personnel to undertake on operations overseas cannot possibly include those of a sexual nature. It is for this reason that we do not believe it appropriate to afford personnel the additional protection of the presumption in relation to the allegations of sexual offences.

In relation to other offences, the presumption against prosecution still allows the prosecutor to continue to take decisions to prosecute, and the severity of the crime and the circumstances in which it was allegedly committed will always be factors in the prosecutor’s consideration.

Many of your Lordships also alluded to the matter of the Attorney-General’s consent. This was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and by other Members of your Lordships’ House. They were concerned that this somehow undermines the independence of the prosecuting authorities, but I suggest that this is absolutely not the case. In deciding whether to grant consent to prosecutions, the Attorney-General will act quasi-judicially and independently of government, applying the well-established prosecution principles of evidential sufficiency and the public interest. This means that the Government will play no role in the decision on consent. The Attorney-General acts as guardian of the public interest in other issues; there are already a number of offences and circumstances for which the Attorney-General’s consent for prosecution is needed, including for war crimes and the prosecution of veterans through the service justice system if they have left service more than six months previously.

My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier also asked why the Lord Advocate for Scotland had not been included. The consent mechanism does not extend to Scotland because there is no requirement for it to do so; all criminal prosecution decisions in Scotland are already taken by or on behalf of the Lord Advocate in the public interest.

I will move on the Part 2 and the civil litigation restrictions. Again, this was a source of fertile debate, with a multiplicity of views being offered. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised the point that not all claims are unmeritorious. I agree: many, though not all, of these claims had merit, but the scale of them and the fact that they were brought years after the events has prompted us to look again at the legal framework to ensure that it is applied consistently and promptly to deliver justice for all concerned.

The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, asked whether the measures in Part 2 that place an absolute time limit on civil claims breach the Armed Forces covenant. This was also of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The Bill does not breach the Armed Forces covenant: the new factors and limitation longstops apply only to claims in connection with overseas operations, and they will apply to all claimants in the same way.

A number of points were raised by various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, about the Bill removing the discretion of the court to extend the time for compensation beyond six years. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, argued that, for the past 15 years, only one in 25 cases was brought by alleged victims against our troops. I do not recognise the figures he referred to, but I would be pleased to hear from him if he can provide me with further information.

It is important to note that the Bill will apply to only a subset of claims made by UK Armed Forces personnel. The vast majority of claims brought by them are not brought in relation to overseas operations and would therefore not be impacted. Among claims brought against the MoD resulting from overseas operations in Iraq, claims from local nationals far exceed those from service personnel. There were over 1,000 claims from local nationals, compared with 552 from service personnel, arising from our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. An analysis of the available figures indicates that around 94% of these claims brought by current and former service personnel relating to incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan were brought within six years.

As such, the longstops are not designed to prevent meritorious claims being made against the UK Government, whether by our personnel or anyone else. They are included as part of a number of measures to provide a better, clearer framework for dealing with claims arising from historical operations overseas. Indeed, this may arguably encourage claimants to bring claims within a reasonable period, which will certainly benefit them, as memories will be fresher and evidence less likely to have gone stale. It will also help to provide our personnel with greater clarity that they will not be called upon to give evidence about historical events.

Many have suggested that the measures in Part 2 will benefit only the MoD. This is not the case, because the six-year longstops will help to reduce the uncertainty faced by service personnel, who may be called on to give evidence in civil proceedings about often traumatic experiences many years after the events took place. Again, I think the measure would be beneficial to claimants because there is a better likelihood of success if the claims are made as soon as possible after the event or date of knowledge.

The Bill does not change how the time limit is calculated for death and personal injuries claims. That time limit will still be calculated from the date either of the incident or, importantly, of knowledge.

Derogation powers were the other matter that attracted considerable debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, with many others, asked whether derogating from the ECHR would weaken the UK’s reputation and put soldiers at greater risk on the battlefield. We disagree that considering derogation for significant future operations would put our soldiers at risk. The derogation measure does not undermine the UK’s commitment to human rights and liberties, domestically and internationally; we fully intend to maintain our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The UK remains committed to the ECHR.

My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier asked how “significant” is defined. The duty to consider derogation arises only in relation to overseas operations that the Secretary of State considers meet a minimum threshold. The operation must be significant; whether it is will depend on its nature. This is intended to avoid imposing a duty in relation to any operations that manifestly would not meet the criteria for derogation set out in Article 15 of the convention.

I am conscious of the time. I have been unable to cover a number of specific technical points, but I will undertake to look at Hansard and write to your Lordships with responses to any substantive issues that I have not managed to address.

In conclusion, I want to deal with the important issue of Northern Ireland. A number of your Lordships —the noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Dodds, my noble friend Lord Caine, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others—asked for an update on the Northern Ireland legacy Bill. As elegantly put by my noble friend Lord Caine, veterans who served in Northern Ireland are not covered by the Bill, which focuses on improving the legal framework for overseas military operations. The Government have been clear that they will bring forward separate legislation to address the legacy of the Troubles that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of investigations. We are committed to making progress on this as quickly as possible. The Government remain committed to making progress on legacy issues and engaging as quickly as possible with the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland parties and civic society, including victims’ groups, on the way forward.

This has been an excellent debate. I have tried to address the main areas of concern, because many technical, legal issues have arisen out of the debate. As I said earlier, I am aware that I have been unequal in covering them, but as I indicated I will look at Hansard and address by letter any points of significance that I have omitted to deal with.

It remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The debate has certainly teased out a lot of issues and provided matters that require reflection. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who said he hoped I was minded to engage. I wish to reassure him: I am very happy to engage with your Lordships, and I give that undertaking. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords very much for their participation. I look forward to reading Hansard and to engaging with your Lordships further.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UN Mission in Mali: Armed Forces Deployment

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to those who serve in Mali and wish them a safe return.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, referred to the report of our Select Committee on International Relations and Defence, The UK and Sub-Saharan Africa. In it, we welcome

“the UK’s increased attention to instability in the Sahel”

and its decision to contribute troops to the MINUSMA mission. However, we received evidence that

“the UK still had ‘lessons to learn from Iraq and Afghanistan’, including those relating to equipment, regional understanding and engagement with local counterparts.”

Can my noble friend the Minister say what the MoD has learned from that experience, which is now informing its approach to the support we are giving to MINUSMA’s important mission?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for raising a very important point. I also pay tribute to her role as chairman of the International Relations and Defence Committee and to its very positive and useful report, The UK and Sub-Saharan Africa: Prosperity, Peace and Development Co-Operation. My noble friend was in discussion with the FCDO. I think she received a fairly full letter of clarification about the points she felt were not addressed. I hope that has gone some way towards reassuring her of the Government’s good intent to make a positive contribution in this region of Africa.

Preparation and equipment are very important. There has been analysis of the tasks the UK contingent will conduct on mission, particularly the terrain and the threat they will face. For example, the deploying vehicles have been specifically selected to address these singular and challenging demands. There will be a number of vehicle types used for different tasks. They have previously been tested on operations and will include the Foxhound, Ridgback, Coyote and Jackal. When I read these, I wondered whether we were talking about a zoo, but we are talking about mechanical devices on wheels that will clearly be a very important support to our forces out in Mali. These vehicles have been chosen for a specific purpose. The analysis identified these types of vehicles as being most appropriate for the terrain and the tasks faced.

Our Armed Forces are professional and well trained. This is a United Nations mission, so they are under the command of Lieutenant General Gyllensporre, who is the Swedish commanding officer. I say to the noble Baroness that, yes, previous conflicts have identified the particular challenges of operating in difficult terrain—in coping with extremes of heat or cold—and lessons have been learned from that. I reassure my noble friend that our Armed Forces and their commanding officers are very mindful of that before asking troops to deploy to any region in the world.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that more than 200 MINUSMA troops have been killed and others wounded? This deployment to a faraway country of which we know little is risky. For the record, and to reassure the families and loved ones of any UK casualty, will the Minister explain why deploying in Mali fully justifies these acknowledged dangers to our forces? Have our rules of engagement been agreed with the UN force commander?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises a very important point. We very much hope our Armed Forces remain safe and that they will not come under threat of loss of life or of injury. He is right to inquire why they are there, what we expect them to do and how we expect them to do it. As I said earlier, this is part of our contribution to the security response. We recognise that security interventions alone will not address the instability in the Sahel and continue to advocate for state-led progress in the peace process in Mali. As I said earlier, that involves political and institutional reform in the wider region.

We believe it is very important the United Kingdom supports the United Nations in attempting to deal with this area of instability. It matters because if that instability is not addressed then it has an effect of contagion. Instability is a threat that can spread. It can allow hostile operators to flourish and can encourage them to take their unwelcome activities to other countries. That could include the United Kingdom. There is an underlying purpose and we believe it is important that the United Kingdom supports the United Nations in this important mission.

I said earlier that the mission, being a United Nations mission, is led by a civilian—a special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General. The peace- keeping force element involves our own military and highly trained soldiers. Because it is a peacekeeping mission, and our forces are principally concerned with reconnaissance, this is clearly slightly different from an operation such as Operation Barkhane. But our force will provide critical capabilities at a vital time. MINUSMA was selected as a mission on the basis that it was where the UK could provide maximum benefit based on the expertise the UK Armed Forces have to offer. I reassure the noble and gallant Lord that this is a carefully constructed contribution from the UK; it is for a specific period; it involves an identified, set number of personnel; and it is a contained contribution.

[Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the struggle against poverty and for development in the Sahel requires peace and security in that increasingly troubled region. No country has invested more in development in ECOWAS than the United Kingdom. So, will the Minister recognise that, in addition to enjoying the support and appreciation of these brave men and women this House offers, the whole of the ECOWAS region, anglophone and francophone, welcomes their deployment? Will the Minister also take the opportunity of the review of ODA and the newly created FCDO to strengthen our military diplomacy in our missions in Africa as part of our development offer?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for alluding to an important point. He is right; I outlined earlier the principal objectives identified by the Foreign Secretary for ODA. In respect of our military activity, it is important we align these two so that there is a complementary effect. He is correct that these are not problems that one solution will address; there has to be a multifaceted approach.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this is a most dangerous peacekeeping mission, which has seen 220 fatalities already, together with many injuries. I welcome the range of vehicles to be provided as part of force protection, but that will not be the only element of force protection required. Is the Minister in a position to give us more detail on that matter?

Returning to the matter raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the rules of engagement are extremely important in a theatre of the kind we are discussing. Will the forces there deployed be acting under the rules of engagement of the United Kingdom or the United Nations?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My understanding is that the direct line of command will be to the overall commander, Lieutenant-General Gyllensporre. But, obviously, our deployment unit has a commanding officer as well. As for specific rules of engagement, these would not normally be disclosed, but I seek to reassure the noble Lord that there is clarity as to why our deployment is there, what it is there to do and how it is intended it should do that.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I declare my interest as a member of the Army Reserve. I would like to explore the Government’s attitude to risk. After years of campaigning in Iraq and Afghanistan, risk was mitigated through a sophisticated use of ISTAR, enhanced medical capabilities and air cover operations to name but a few. But these mitigations are unlikely to be as sophisticated or mature in Mali. Are the Government prepared to take more risk, as many in the military would like them to do, or are we going to have to limit the scale of our operations in Mali, even if, ultimately, that means we will limit the impact the UK can have?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

We take assessment of risk extremely seriously and we will keep mitigation and management of risk under continuous review. On the specific issue of medevac capability, as in all United Nations missions, United Nations member states are relied on to provide the nations’ capabilities, including helicopters and aeromedical evacuation teams for the benefit of all United Nations troops on MINUSMA. The facility is there. It is the collective responsibility of the United Nations to provide that. We constantly assess risk and keep mitigation and management of risk under review.

[Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, common interest with France, a close ally, is welcome co-operation. The Sahel belt has long been a hotbed of Islamists, separatists and appalling banditry, with recent unrest in Niger and Katsina state in Nigeria, in addition to that in Mali and beyond. The Minister stated that instability could spread but suggested that the United Kingdom’s involvement would be for a limited period. However, will the Government urgently join in planning and implementing a Sahel-wide strategy—[inaudible]—the regional mix of the US and Morocco, having engaged in a major arms deal, together with the just-announced recognition, has the potential to further regional alienation, by some, of Western Sahara—by the US and Morocco.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I slightly missed a bit in the middle of the noble Viscount’s question, but I will try to deal with the overall concept of his question as to what we are doing in the Sahel. Our objectives are to contribute to improving the situation. We recognise a number of different actors already present in the Sahel. We aim to work with them to better deliver for the people of the region. The UK’s deployment to MINUSMA is a vital part of our work in the Sahel to build stability, bolster conflict resolution, improve the humanitarian response and strengthen partnerships between the international community and regional Governments.

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that this is an important UN mission that we must support. I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Touhig’s remarks. The Sahel region is beset by an increasingly dangerous and violent Islamist insurgency, and in the east of Mali militants repeatedly attack French, European and local armed forces, including 50 killed in 2017 in a suicide attack on a military base. The Minister said that lessons had been learned from previous missions. How certain can she be that Mali will be very different from, for example, Helmand? I clearly recall similar assurances to those she has given being given to us in the Cabinet in 2006 on a straightforward mission, yet 454 soldiers, including British ones, were subsequently killed in combat operations against the Taliban.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

That was indeed a very sad outcome. It is one we remain mindful of, and that we cannot and will not forget. The answer to the noble Lord’s question is probably best explained by returning to the role of the United Nations, because this is what we are part of. The United Kingdom believes in peacekeeping as a way to stabilise and contain conflict. Our contribution to MINUSMA, alongside our enduring commitment to the United Nations’ peacekeeping operation in, for example, Cyprus, and the staff officers we have employed in other operations, is the UK playing its part in a multinational effort to contain the worst consequences of violent conflict and to help build confidence in the political processes.

As I said, we constantly assess and after 18 months we will review this mission. We will analyse what has been happening and assess our role as a contributor to the mission. The noble Lord is right to be alert to what we must always be on our guard against. We want to be very sure that our presence is positive and that the contribution we make makes a difference to providing a more positive future for Mali. That is something we will constantly keep under consideration.

[Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I echo the apprehension of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. We have sent only some 300 of our elite soldiers to fight against the Islamist terrorists in Mali. We must remember that it took more than three years and massive military support to subdue the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq when it sprang into action in April 2014. We must also remember that the French have been battling against the Islamists who seek to overthrow the secular Government in Mali since September 2013. Can we be sure that, if necessary, the British will add to their commitment and their force to see that this job is done at least in the case of Mali? Africa is now a big target of the Islamic State, which would put paid to the hopes of the African people.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The last part of my noble friend’s question encapsulates why the United Nations is there and why we are proud to make to our contribution to that mission. Our force may be 300, but that is part of a force of thousands, reflected by the other contributors to the mission. My noble friend is quite correct: there is a challenge—we do not diminish that—but it is best addressed in partnership with like-minded nations working together. Acting under the umbrella of the United Nations is a constructive and positive way in which to do that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, on March 12, in evidence to the inquiry on sub-Saharan Africa of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which has been referred to already, General Sir Richard Barrons said that the UK’s role in MINUSMA, the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali, was

“not in support of a strategy of any kind other than ‘We should do a bit more UN peacekeeping’”.

When the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, answered my Question on 17 June, he said that our strategic approach would

“help tackle the underlying causes of poverty and conflict in the region”

but he said nothing about the role of jihadists from both al-Qaeda and Isis, who have been referred to by a number of noble Lords. What has changed since General Barrons made his remarks in March about the lack of a strategy? Given the history of jihadism in Mali, including terrible attacks on women and the destruction of Sufi monuments in Timbuktu, will the Government be clear about who and what we are fighting in Mali and why, and reflect on the dangers of mission creep?

[Baroness Goldie]

I go back to what we are doing and why we are there. We are part of this United Nations mission. It is important to remember the umbrella character of that mission. I fully agree with the noble Lord that mission creep would be undesirable, but there is a minimal risk of that happening for the reasons which I stated earlier. This is a mission for our UK deployment of finite time—it is three years; there will be a review after 18 months. It is a fixed number of personnel; it is a peacekeeping mission—our role is one of reconnaissance. There are therefore clear boundaries round what we are doing there. That is not to say that our presence is ineffectual or not capable of achieving anything substantive—I would totally disagree with that as an assessment. As part of this broader commitment organised by the United Nations, we are contributing to addressing the issues which have made the country so challenging and dangerous. The noble Lord is quite correct. I do not seek in any way to diminish the threat, the dangers or the difficulties—they are real and they are there—but I am proud to say that, in so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we have highly-trained, very capable and professional soldiers. I am confident that they will make a singular and important contribution to the broader objectives of the mission.

House adjourned at 9.25 pm.

War Widows Pensions

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association.

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

My Lords, the Government continue to examine alternative methods to see whether we can mitigate the impact on those survivors who remarried or cohabited before the introduction of the pensions-for-life changes in 2015. Much progress has been made and the issue remains a priority for the Ministry of Defence, but it is very complex.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, but I am very disappointed. I am sure that she herself is tired of having to repeat it. It is shameful that 200 war widows are still waiting for their pensions to be reinstated. In the last five years, 100 widows have, sadly, died while waiting. What has happened to the plan that was meant to have gone from the Secretary of State for Defence to the Treasury, and when will we see a timetable for meaningful action in this matter?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I pay tribute to her commitment and passion on this issue and I understand her frustration. It might help her if I explain the nature of the complexity. Quite simply, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to make retrospective payments by government to individuals. That has been an established position and I think that many Members of your Lordships’ Chamber who have been Ministers will understand that. It means that, although I, the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff all personally want to try to find a solution to this, we are not able to act unilaterally. We are investigating a number of options, but as yet none of these has been confirmed as avoiding the challenges to which I have referred.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, what bearing does the Minister think the Armed Forces covenant has on this issue? The covenant, quite rightly, says:

“Families … play a vital role in supporting the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces.”


So our moral obligation is not just to members of the Armed Forces; it is also to their families. Times and attitudes change. Rules from the past are no longer regarded as acceptable. We should not let concern about retrospection be a barrier to what we all now regard as the right thing to do.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

Of course, I reaffirm that the Government recognise the unique commitment that service families make to our country and we remain sympathetic to the circumstances of those who remarried and cohabited before 1 April 2015. But the Ministry of Defence is not able to act unilaterally because, in doing that, it could well compromise the position of other government departments and it might unintentionally interfere with or prejudice active litigation in which other departments are involved. That is why I thought it important to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, the nature of the complexity. This is not something that the current Government have dreamed up and it is not an artificial obstruction that the Ministry of Defence has created; it is, I am afraid, the consequence of established policy covering such matters as payments when a request is made to make these retrospectively.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

But does the Minister understand the contrast between the actions of a Government, who, up till yesterday, were willing to break the law but today will not modify slightly a policy to benefit 200 citizens whose spouses gave their service on behalf of this nation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

It is not a question of whether the MoD chooses to break the law, which it would never wish to do; it is a question of established government policy. The noble Lord has been a Minister in government and I think he will understand why that policy exists. That is why the MoD cannot act unilaterally on this. It has been investigating a range of options. I have discussed this matter personally with the Secretary of State, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Permanent Secretary to try to find a way round the obstacles. That means exploring a range of options, including hardship payments and ex gratia and statutory schemes. That is what we are currently engaged in doing, but these are complex, challenging issues and they have to be dealt with carefully.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I repeat the request for brevity.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, as president of the War Widows’ Association, I am enraged by the failure of government to find a solution. Is it the Government’s intention to procrastinate for so long that these few elderly widows will all be dead?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

No. I say to my noble friend that of course it is not. I have no wish to be evasive. That is why, at the risk of incurring the displeasure of the Deputy Speaker, I thought it important to give the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, as full an explanation as I could of the complexities. I am being very frank with the Chamber. This is not about a lack of will on the part of the MoD to find a solution; it is about recognising the challenges of getting a route towards a solution. That is the difficulty. These are not manufactured complexities; they affect the whole of government.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I salute the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Fookes, and it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Baroness Fookes, who has given so much to the cause. I share her disappointment that the Government have not found a solution to this problem, which has been on the table for so long.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I merely seek to reassure the noble Lord that active investigations are taking place, options are being explored and indeed, the President of the War Widows’ Association met with the Secretary of State on 30 November. Therefore, very recently he was able to explain to her personally that this is nothing to do with lack of political will or of a personal determination to find a solution. It is a question of trying to navigate a way through the reefs and shoals of the complexities.

[Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in an interview in The Yorkshire Post on 8 May, the Veterans Minister, Mr Mercer, said:

“You’ve got to remember that the military is as much about families as anything else … which is why we take families welfare so seriously.”


The whole House will applaud him for that. Therefore, can I ask the Minister if she will go back to her Department and remind the Veterans Minister of his words, and together park their tanks on the Treasury lawn and insist that the Chancellor of the Exchequer do as my noble friend Lady Crawley and others have asked and resolve this problem once and for all?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord and share the sentiments of my colleague Johnny Mercer. The noble Lord is realistic in recognising that the difficulties to which I have referred are not of the MoD’s making. He gives a powerful message. I am sure it will be relayed, and I shall play my part in promoting its relaying.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I too am a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association. As a military wife I moved 24 times, so I had no chance of a career. Military wives were totally dependent on their husbands’ incomes and pensions. It was particularly distressing when the pension the husband had built up for his widow was cancelled if she remarried. With so few widows still in the frame of this cruel policy, how can the Government use retrospection as an excuse for inaction when the 2019 Northern Ireland victims’ payments Act allows payments to be made in respect of past periods?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I understand the noble Baroness’s frustration and anger and I have no wish to seek to diffuse that. All I can say is that the difficulty to which I have referred real: it is not of the MoD’s making, and the MoD is trying to find a way round it. I am not familiar with the scheme to which she refers, but I shall make inquiries about that.

[The Lord Bishop of Peterborough [V]]

My Lords, David Cameron, under whose premiership the new rules came in, has admitted that the current situation is a mistake and was not intended. It is manifestly unjust and betrays those who have served our country. The ridiculous rule that people could rectify the situation by divorcing and then remarrying undermines the institution of marriage. Does this not make it entirely justifiable to overturn, or at least suspend, the policy to which the Minister refers?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I thank the right reverend Prelate; he too delivers a powerful message. I totally uphold the institution of marriage. He refers to an anomaly that many of us find completely unacceptable, and I can only reiterate what I have said. I undertake to ensure that his sentiments are conveyed to the department, and they will form part of our endeavour to find a solution.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.