Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stephen Morgan

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that provision is vital? In the evidence sessions for the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act we heard moving testimony from Major Bob Campbell, who was reinvestigated over many years. One stark thing that he said was that he felt abandoned by the MOD. Supporting individuals who are going through these investigations is vital, and without what is being proposed, individuals such as Major Campbell will continue not to get the support that they deserve.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. He was a tireless advocate for the points that he raised in the Bill Committee and I know that we will continue to work together to make sure that the Government listen to our demands.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stephen Morgan

Wednesday 31st March 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

We do not believe that is a satisfactory response from the Minister. Ministers from successive Conservative Governments have promised a solution on this forever and a day. Commonwealth veterans should not have to wait until some time never for a consultation to kick off.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister did not tell the Committee that since 2010 the fees charged have increased from £840 to £2,389, which has made a real difference in the burden? Those decisions were taken by the coalition and Conservative Governments.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. I alluded to some of the figures in my speech. Regrettably, the Minister did not cover that in his response. That is why—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is designed to provide greater transparency on the strength of our fighting forces, following the Government’s broken promises on armed forces cuts. It would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each quarter on the fighting strength of our armed forces, including on the number of battle-ready soldiers per infantry battalion.

As the Committee knows, the Prime Minister promised to end the era of retreat, and that no further cuts would be made to the Army. Instead, he has further eroded our fighting strength: 45,000 personnel have been cut since 2010, and the forces were 10,000 below target strength. Now the integrated review and the Command Paper have confirmed that the Army will be further reduced to just 72,500 by 2025—smaller than at any time since the 1700s. That has been compounded by a leaked MOD report suggesting that 32 to 33 infantry battalions are short of battle-ready personnel.

The Chief of the Defence Staff said in 2015 that the ability to yield a single war-fighting division was

“the standard whereby a credible army is judged”.

Recently retired British generals have said that further cuts to the Army would mean that the UK is no longer taken seriously as a military power and would damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO. The Royal United Services Institute recently reinforced that point, suggesting that the cuts mean that the UK can no longer be considered a tier 1 or full-spectrum military power.

These sweeping changes to our armed forces represent a huge gamble with our national security. Although the battlefield is undeniably changing, it remains to be seen whether the investments made in cyber, space and electronic warfare will be enough to keep us competitive on the world stage.

Government cuts to the conventional strength of our forces today, with the promise of jam tomorrow in the form of pioneering technology, are nothing new. Tory Ministers promised the same in the 2010 and 2015 reviews, but they failed to deliver. In 2010 they promised a future force by 2020, and in 2015 they promised a war-fighting division with a strike force by 2025. It is now being promised in 2030. A recent Defence Committee report on the Army’s armoured vehicle capability says that the division will be “hopelessly under-equipped” and overmatched by adversaries.

While we wait to see whether the Government finally deliver a coherent strategy for our national security, it is vital that we have a clear understanding of our fighting strength. Successive Conservative Governments have talked up their commitment to our armed forces, but they have broken their promises at every turn. Our adversaries will exploit continuing holes in our capability, and Labour is determined to ensure that our country can protect itself properly now and in the future.

[Mr Jones]

I rise to support this new clause because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South has outlined, promises have been broken not just by this Government but since 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party argued for a larger defence budget, an increase in numbers, more equipment, and a commitment to the armed forces of our country. Since then, we have not just seen the size of the Army reduced; we have seen cuts in numbers in the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, and in the Royal Air Force. Under the coalition, we had the terrible situation where brave members of our armed forces were made compulsorily redundant—again, something that was never promised in 2010. Certainly, if a Labour Government had implemented that policy, Members on the Tory Benches would have opposed it and would have been highly critical of the Government for doing so.

The overall size of our armed forces does matter, not only in terms of the Army being able to deploy individuals but to ensure that, for example, the Royal Navy has enough personnel to put ships to sea. We can have as much equipment as we want, but if we do not have the individual servicemen and servicewomen to support that equipment, it is useless. In the past few years, we have seen naval ships tied up because of a lack of trained strength, so it is important that we have this report annually and also that it talks about trained strength, because the Government do play fast and loose with the numbers.

It is not just a matter of the overall size, but what the overall capability is and how many members of the armed forces can actually deploy. There has been a decade of decline in the UK’s armed forces, and although the Minister and others champion the idea that they are supporting members of the armed forces, they have been part of a Government that have not only cut pay—as we have already spoken about this morning—but cut the actual numbers of the armed forces.

Another aspect I would like to raise is the lack of opportunity this will mean for many young people in constituencies such as mine, who proudly join the armed services to not only serve their country, but ensure they can have a career that they can be proud of and take those skills back into civilian life. The cuts will have an impact in constituencies across the country that provide men and women for the armed forces, because there will be a lack of opportunities. A lot of negative things are said about service in the armed forces, but I see service as a positive thing, where the people joining not only contribute to the safety that we all take for granted but, more importantly, get great career opportunities and opportunities that they would never have in civilian life. Once they leave, that expertise helps those individuals, and also helps local communities such as mine in North Durham. These cuts will limit the opportunities for those people, which saddens me, and is something we should bear in mind.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stephen Morgan

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 22nd October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Mundell. I rise to speak to amendment 89, which stands in my name. During the proceedings so far, there has been much discussion in recognition of the role that mental health plays in the cases to which the Bill applies. Although the Opposition recognise the importance of the Bill in cases where the court is given discretion to disapply the time limits of three years, the court must also have particular regard for the likely impact of the action on the mental health of any witness or potential witness who is a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces. There is still more to be done here. There is an imbalance in the consideration of civil claims in the Bill. I will say it once again: where the Opposition see that the Bill can be improved, we will highlight it.

We have tabled the amendment to ensure that both witnesses’ and claimants’ interests have been secured. The Bill asks the courts to have

“particular regard to the likely impact of the action on the mental health of any witness or potential witness who is a member of Her Majesty’s forces”,

but we can do better. It is important to ensure that there is equality under the law and that the interests of the claimant are also considered. The intent of the amendments is to balance the considerations UK courts must have particular regard for in determining whether to disapply the standard Human Rights Act limitation period so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their claim proceed is not illegitimately subordinated.

Over the last few days, we have received written evidence highlighting this very issue, including the submission from Rights and Security International, a charity which works to promote just and accountable security policy; it has over 25 years’ experience working in the field of human rights and national security policy in the UK. In its evidence submission, it said that it is concerned about the creation of a one-sided discretion to disapply the standard limitation period within the six-year mark.

“First, the proposed considerations have a discriminatory impact against the claimants. This is because they are illegitimately weighted in favour of the MOD operating solely to the detriment of claimants. They are overly focused on factors tending to preclude claims with no reference to the interests of the claimant in having his or her rights vindicated. This has the effect of creating a hierarchy of values and subordinating the claimant’s interest in bringing the claim”.

Secondly, RSI says that there is a requirement that the court give particular regard to the likely impact of the action on the mental health of the witness or potential witness who is a member of Her Majesty’s forces. They argue this is an inappropriate and disproportionate test because it is heavily weighted in favour of precluding claims from proceeding. This is because giving evidence is almost always stressful to any witness be they members of Her Majesty’s forces or not. It continues:

“It is disproportionate because there are many alternative ways to support vulnerable witnesses that do not have the effect of preventing access to justice for potential victims of human rights abuses, wrongful death or personal injury. Were the Government really serious about protecting members of Her Majesty’s Forces, ensuring the provision of such support services would be the focus of reforms to the law, rather than provisions which have the effect of protecting first and foremost the MOD.

Third, it is questioned whether it is really necessary that the court gives particular regard to the likely impact of the operational context on the ability of individuals to remember relevant events or actions fully or accurately. This is because it has been determined that effective legislation can still take place way after the event occurred. For example, the Malmo litigation proceeded over 50 years after the incident. The courts were still able to identify systematic rights abuses and systematic flaws on the part of the Bill relevant to the British colonial administration. This is evidence of the fallacy of the allegation that effective investigations can never take place well after the fact due to a loss of evidence or decreasing reliability of evidence over time”.

That is a lengthy quote, but I think it makes some very important points, which I will take in turn. Once again, we have heard that the Bill is not designed to protect our service personnel but to protect the Ministry of Defence. The legislation is heavily weighted against the ability of service personnel to proceed with civil claims. These are not my words or Labour’s; they are from a highly respected organisation that has covered the issues raised here for many years and is highly experienced in this area.

In light of this, will the Minister recognise the mistake that is being made here for the sake of our service personnel? Why is he so intent on rushing through the House a Bill that will disadvantage our troops? There is another theme here, which we have covered before—something that we have called into question before in other areas of the Bill: fairness and balance.

In its current form, this part of the Bill would create a serious imbalance of fairness within the equality of the law. If the Minister will not address these issues for the sake of our armed forces personnel, will he not do it for the sake of equality under the law, for which our country is so well respected and renowned?

We received further written evidence highlighting this problem of an unbalanced weighting. The Centre for Military Justice is a charity established to advise current and former members of the armed forces, or their bereaved families, who have suffered serious bullying, sexual harassment, sexual violence, racism, or other abuse or neglect. In its evidence, the charity outlined the need for the Bill to take into account the mental health of claimants, not just their witnesses. Specifically, the CMJ said that

“there are often very good reasons why some claims or parts of them need to be issued 6 years after date of knowledge or diagnosis; or where some of the damage would have been caused outside of the 6 year limitation period and some within it. If you are suffering from PTSD you may become aware that there is something seriously wrong within the limitation period, but it may be very hard for you to get help then or even for some time after.

Imagine if you are a veteran with undiagnosed PTSD—you are drinking heavily, or having a lot of personal problems (because of what you have been through)—you may know there is something wrong—you may even go to your GP—so that might be said to be your date of knowledge for limitation purposes—but you may not be able to take the next step of getting properly diagnosed and/or be able to get legal advice. Those are the kinds of cases that need to have the option of applying to the court to extend time and it makes no sense to add a hard ‘long stop’. If there are good reasons to extend time, the claimant should be allowed to try and persuade the court and the court should be allowed to apply the existing criteria.

Last year, The Times reported the case of Mark Bradshaw, 44, who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since he was involved in a friendly fire attack in 2010 while serving with the Royal Artillery. Despite the immediate onset of nightmares and hypervigilance, the veteran was not given a formal diagnosis until 2016. By then he was drinking heavily, had suicidal thoughts and had left the service and become alienated from his family. He was eventually awarded a settlement, but not without a fight, and he fears that the proposed legislation could discriminate against those who do not develop PTSD, or receive a diagnosis, until many years later. He called the plan to impose a time limit on claims ‘horrendous’. The Times reported him saying, ‘I got pushed to the GP. How many people sick with mental health won’t go to the GP?’”

That tragic case, which we have already heard about in Committee, shows that we need a proper and fair weighting of both witnesses and claimants. I hope this will make clear to the Minister the changes required in the Bill. In the light of the fact that his legislation is heavily weighted against the ability of service personnel to proceed with civil claims, will the Minister, for the sake of our service personnel, recognise the mistake that is being made here? Why is he so intent on rushing through this House a Bill that disadvantages our troops? If he will not change his mind for the sake of our armed forces personnel, will he not do so for the sake of the equality under law for which our country is so respected and renowned?

[Mr Jones]

Do I understand that we are also debating schedule stand part?

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stephen Morgan

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. She hits the nail on the head: we want to work constructively with the Government to get the Bill right. Sadly, we are not seeing that engagement, and that concerns us. Are Ministers not concerned that the very Bill they claim is devised to help our armed forces is said to be doing the very opposite by an organisation as distinguished as the Royal British Legion?

We heard from other important witnesses. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, a not-for-profit organisation representing injured serving and ex-service personnel, said:

“This Bill leaves our veterans with less rights than prisoners.”

I will repeat that because it is so important:

“This Bill leaves our veterans with less rights than prisoners.”

That is a damning verdict delivered by lawyers who devote their lives to representing our troops. Our armed forces serve the nation with distinction. They deserve more than to have their rights stripped away.

I say to the Minister: do not dismiss the warnings of the legion and APIL; work with us to address them.

Let us take a closer look at what part 2 means. The Limitation Act 1980 results in the armed forces community and civilians being treated equally in seeking a claim for personal injury. A three-year cut-off point is in place. The courts retain the right to grant an extension to forces personnel. Section 33 provides the court with discretion to override the current three-year limit, but this Bill deliberately snatches courts’ ability to show discretion if the case relates to an overseas armed forces action. It makes a deliberate change to the Limitation Act. That makes no sense. There are already structures in place to ensure that only appropriate claims are brought. Courts routinely manage out-of-time proceedings and frequently throw out cases where delay is unjustified. The detailed criteria set out in the Limitation Act 1980 already address cases that do not have reasonable grounds or are unjustified. Why is the Minister actively removing an aspect of the Limitation Act that offers courts the right to grant an extension in cases relating to armed forces personnel?

[Mr Jones]

As I said earlier in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, the nuclear test veterans case is a good example. There was a limitations hearing in which the MOD argued that the case was out of time because the incident took place so long ago. In that case, Judge Foskett argued that new evidence meant the date of knowledge was current and he allowed it to be admitted. I accept that the numbers are not huge, but it is the exceptional cases that are important.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope the Minister addresses the points that he makes so eloquently later on, in his summing up.

The Bill removes the ability of our armed forces personnel to bring forward a civil claim at all after six years, even where it would have passed judicial scrutiny. Under the Government’s proposed changes, civilians will retain the right to pursue a civil claim against their employer. Armed forces personnel will not, which clearly breaches the armed forces covenant. Non-discretionary time limits undermine justice and arbitrarily prevent legitimate claims from proceeding. We must hear the Minister’s business case for setting that time limit.

We have established that part 2 of the Bill is flawed. It introduces a six-year time limit for any claimant or bereaved family in bringing civil claims against the Ministry of Defence. That means that if someone suffers personal injury or even death owing to employer negligence and in connection with overseas operations, they can take no action after a six-year time limit. That is deeply concerning because a great many conditions might not come to light until after the time limit: for example, post-traumatic stress disorder.

Last year, The Times reported the case of Mark Bradshaw, aged 44, who had suffered from PTSD since being involved in a friendly-fire attack in 2010 while serving in the Royal Artillery. Despite the immediate onset of the condition, the veteran, who lives in Newcastle, was not given a diagnosis until 2016. By then he was drinking heavily and had suicidal thoughts. He had left the service and become alienated from his family. He was awarded £230,000 in a settlement, but feared that the proposed legislation could discriminate against those who do not develop PTSD or receive a diagnosis until many years later. He called the plan to impose a time limit on claims “horrendous”.

I have another example.

[Mr Jones]

Another issue concerns human rights cases. The impression being given is that they are always brought by people against the MOD and include litigants and people in foreign countries and so on, but Human Rights Act cases are also brought against the MOD by armed forces personnel. When Hilary Meredith gave evidence, she said:

“There is a difficulty putting a time limit on the Human Rights Act—I do not even know whether we can do that constitutionally”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 18, Q30.]

The Minister seemed to brush aside the fact that section 33 will be ignored in terms of time limits. Does he also think that that constrains the rights of veterans and service personnel from bringing cases against the MOD, which they can, under the Human Rights Act?

[Stephen Morgan]

We could spend all afternoon on different cases. That is why the amendment is so important. I have another example. It is about how legislation would have denied justice to a former royal marine with noise-induced hearing loss, according to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. The former marine received nearly half a million pounds for a noise-induced hearing claim on the grounds that his hearing loss and tinnitus was caused by a negligent exposure to noise. During his career the marine served in Northern Ireland, the Gulf and Afghanistan, and he was exposed to noise from thousands of rounds of ammunition, thunderflash stun grenades, helicopters and other aircraft and explosive devices. His claim related to his entire service.

When he left the Royal Marines in 2012 because of problems with his hearing, he was unaware that he was able to make a claim for compensation. He eventually spoke to a solicitor in late 2014, seven years after he was first aware that he had problems with his hearing. The MOD admitted liability and made no argument about his case being brought out of time. The time limit in this Bill, however, would have eliminated all aspects of the claim relating to the Marine’s extensive service overseas.

[Stephen Morgan]

The claim could have been made only in relation to negligent exposure in the UK. It might not have been possible to isolate the extent and the effect of negligent exposure in the UK, making it very difficult to claim any redress at all. Why are some medical conditions worthy of justice, and not others? Many other medical conditions are likely to fall outside the cut-off point, and there are conditions such as long-term deterioration of joints resulting from carrying heavy equipment.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Minister is saying cannot be the case? He cannot give any guarantee that such cases will not be resisted by the MOD. He cannot direct the MOD, because he will not be there when he leaves the MOD, and no one else can do it either. It is about protecting future cases. In the two cases referred to, the Bill would allow the MOD to legitimately turn those cases down because they were out of time. Those two individuals would have no recourse to law in order to enforce their rights.

[Stephen Morgan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We are saying it time and again, but the Bill protects the MOD; it does not protect our troops. I hope the Minister will take that point on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I would like to clarify what my hon. Friend just said. The report did not say that UK personnel were involved in the torture of individuals, but it was clear that they were present and that there were cases where rendition was conducted on behalf of the United States. However, I do not think there was any evidence that people were directly involved in torture.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his clarification. I am quoting from the charity, but I thank him for putting that on the record.

Reprieve’s written evidence continues:

“In the period between these acts of mistreatment occurring and their exposure by the ISC, survivors of these abuses would have been barred from redress by this bill.

UK courts already have powers to strike out civil claims that disclose ‘no reasonable grounds’, including those which are vexatious or ‘obviously ill-founded’. The Court’s discretion to extend the limitation period for civil claims under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 is already subject to a full and rigorous assessment of all the circumstances of the case, including the reasons tending against extending time such as the impact of delay on the quality of the evidence available. Moreover, claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 must be brought within a year unless good reason can be shown as to why the claim was not brought sooner—a far tighter limitation period than almost all other areas of law.

Far from protecting soldiers’ interests, the bill, designed to benefit the Ministry of Defence, will fundamentally harm UK soldiers…The bill will have a very significant impact on the ability of UK soldiers and former soldiers to bring claims of this kind…As former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has highlighted, this raises the real prospect that the beneficiary of this bill ‘is not so much the personnel of the armed forces but the government, which is thereby protected from facing what may be wholly deserving late claims.’ Reprieve recommends that the Overseas Operations Bill be amended to ensure that survivors of abuses, as well as UK soldiers, do not face absolute time bars to bringing claims for serious human rights abuses, such as torture. ”

The evidence—not just from Reprieve, but from the Government’s former Attorney General— makes it clear that this legislation will not ensure the proper rights that are our service personnel deserve. Indeed, it is true to say that the path to justice would become more difficult and protect the MOD, not our service personnel. Does the Minister really intend to pass a Bill that would actively build barriers to the route to justice for the victims of torture and servicepeople with other injuries? Is that what our armed forces deserve?

Those are not the only examples of where potential injustices of this nature could occur. Take the case of Mark Bradshaw, which was reported in The Times last year and which we heard about earlier today. He was awarded £230,000 as a settlement, but he fears that the proposed legislation could discriminate against people who do not develop PTSD or receive a diagnosis until many years later. He called the plan to impose a time limit on claims “horrendous”.

We also heard earlier about the claim from the marine who left service due to hearing loss. The MOD admitted liability and made no argument about his case being brought out of time. However, the time limit in the Bill would have eliminated all the aspects of the claim relating to the marine’s extensive service overseas. The claim could have been made only in relation to negligent exposure in the UK. It might not have been possible to isolate the extent and effect of negligent exposure in the UK, making it very difficult to claim any redress at all.

Is the Minister willing to turn his back on those troops? Why are some medical conditions worthy of justice, and not others? I urge the Minister to work with us. Put party politics to one side and build a consensus around the Bill that is worthy of our troops, who set out to achieve what they need to achieve. Does the Minister really intend to pass a Bill that would actively build barriers to the route to justice for victims of torture and servicepeople with other injuries? Is that what our armed forces deserve? Finally, is he satisfied that the Bill in its current form will prevent troops who are suffering from conditions such as PTSD, or even torture, from receiving justice?

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stephen Morgan

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark. We also learned last week from the witnesses that, while veterans may welcome the intent of the Government to take forward action, when they looked at the detail of the Bill, they were not so satisfied with its contents.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West raised the issue of evidence, but the most moving statement last week was from Major Bob Campbell, who went through hell for 17 years. Even he admitted the problem in his case was the reinvestigation investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that remark. It is very clear that the Bill in its current form will not help that case if that is repeated ever again.

The Government have let us down on the Bill. It is becoming ever clearer in Committee not only that it fails to fix the problems that it intends to fix, but that the Government have failed in the due diligence for our armed forces personnel and their families that they deserve. The Government should be developing legislation by properly conducting consultation, analysis and identifying the best way to deal with the issues at hand.

Sadly, it seems that the Government are inclined to make policy on the hoof. It is exactly this failure to identify the root causes of the issues that our armed forces personnel face that has been continually highlighted in Committee. As Professor Richard Ekins, head of the judicial power project at the Policy Exchange, highlighted in evidence last week:

“It certainly does not stop investigations. In fact, if one were to make a criticism of the Bill, one might say that it places no obstacle on continuing investigations, which might be thought to be one of the main mischiefs motivating of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Military Personnel and Veterans) Bill, 6 October 2020; c. 35, Q60.]

We also heard from Major Bob Campbell about the unimaginable stresses he faced in a 17-year investigation that eventually did not lead to prosecution. I know the entire Committee will join me in thanking him for his service and offering our condolences for the terrible process he has been put through. Once again, we heard that the Bill does not deal with the key problem of addressing investigations. The specific case of Major Bob Campbell would not be covered by the Bill.

Last week, Dr Jonathan Morgan also stated that Major Bob Campbell’s case would not have been addressed by these proposals. He was prosecuted in 2006 in connection with an alleged offence in 2003, which would have been within the five-year period for bringing a prosecution. It is only in 2020, after 17 years, that he has finally been cleared. Several hon. Members made the point on Second Reading that perhaps the real vice is not so much late prosecutions but the continued investigations by the Ministry of Defence, without necessarily leading to a criminal prosecution at all.

If I have understood the facts of Major Campbell’s case, it rather shows that a five-year soft cut-off for prosecutions will not solve that kind of problem at all. Are the Government really prepared to abandon decorated armed services personnel like Major Bob Campbell? Is that really what the Government have set out to achieve?

In summary, I hope that the Government will listen to the points raised here—including the extensive evidence that we have heard that the five-year limit is at best arbitrary—refocus the Bill on dealing with investigations, not just prosecutions, and work with us to protect our troops and get this Bill right.

I ask the Minister, what evidence or advice have the Government received to change the deadline to five years? Why not six or seven? I ask the Minister to provide evidence on why that specific timeframe was selected. Are the Government really prepared to abandon decorated armed services personnel like Major Bob Campbell? Is that really what the Government have set out to achieve? Why does the Bill not deal with the issues in investigations that the Minister has identified? What is the Government’s reasoning for ignoring the Judge Advocate General in this Bill, raising serious concerns about the problems he raised about the five-year limit on prosecutions?

[Mr Jones]

Are we dealing with the group together, including my new clause 8?

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Stephen Morgan

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

I am not bad, actually. I am just trying to be helpful and to improve the Bill, but the Minister seems determined to push it through unamended. He might not like it, but this is the purpose of Parliament: it is about scrutinising legislation. I have tabled amendments that I do not necessarily agree with, but I have done so because we need to demonstrate to the public that all opinions have been aired in Committee. That is an important part of our democracy. Even with a Government majority of 80, a Minister cannot simply determine that their proposals go through on the nod. Likewise, just because something comes out of his lips, that does not necessarily make it right. Perhaps I can give the Minister some advice: he might be in a stronger position if he was prepared to stand up and argue, in a friendly way, some of the points made in the Bill. All he seems to be doing, however, is reading out a pre-prepared civil service brief. This is the first time I have seen that done in a Bill Committee.

On the presumption against prosecution, we have got things the wrong way around. As Judge Blackett said, by looking at prosecutions we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I think there are ways in which we can ensure that people do not have to face lengthy reinvestigations or an inordinately long wait before being taken trial, and, if they meet the threshold for prosecution, that they are not disadvantaged by the passage of time. It is worth exploring those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South asks, through the new clause, a reasonable question about time limits. If this is not the way to do it, what is?

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 1. I have said many times throughout this process that the Opposition will work constructively with the Government to get the Bill right, to protect armed forces personnel and their families. We believe that the intent of the Bill is well placed, but it has been poorly executed to achieve what Members on both sides of the House want—an end to vexatious claims that are misplaced, that are drawn out for years longer than they should be, and that place our troops and their families under incredible amounts of stress and pressure that they simply should not have to expect.

Our world-class personnel and their families deserve so much better. That is why it is so important that we get the Bill right. However, the presumption against prosecution does not resolve the issue that we all recognise. It does not afford our armed forces personnel the protection that they deserve. That is why, where the Opposition see an opportunity to improve the Bill, we will seek to highlight it. It is why we have tabled new clause 1, which we believe is fair. Crucially, it tackles the key issues of bringing to an end many of the vexatious claims against our armed services personnel—we want to make that commonplace—and of ensuring that decisions to prosecute are brought to a swifter conclusion. For that to happen, clause 2 in part 1 of the Bill must be removed and replaced by a new clause that replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement for a prosecutor who is deciding whether to bring or to continue a prosecution to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.

The principle of a fair trial and consideration of the length of time that has passed during an investigation of our armed forces personnel is important for two reasons. First, it focuses on fairness. It ensures that our world-renowned legal system’s reputation remains intact. It does not undermine our international reputation and avoids the potential repercussions of our armed forces personnel being dragged to The Hague for violating international law. Secondly, it tackles the issue of lengthy investigations, which, sadly, some of our armed forces personnel have experienced and still are experiencing. More specifically, it requires the prosecutor to consider whether the passage of time in such investigations has materially prejudiced the chance of a fair trial for our armed forces service personnel and veterans.

It is not just the Opposition who have identified the flaws in clause 2 and where it could be improved. The International Committee of the Red Cross has raised these concerns, submitting them in written evidence. For context, and for those who are not aware, the ICRC is an impartial, neutral and independent organisation whose mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and others in situations of violence and to provide them with assistance. The ICRC is also the origin of the Geneva conventions, an international agreement of which our country is a proud original signatory.

In its evidence, the ICRC acknowledges that there are occasions on which discretion has developed to address cases in which prosecutions are not taken forward. At international level, article 53 of the International Criminal Court statute sets out a procedure to follow if,

“upon investigation, the Prosecutor concludes that there is not a sufficient basis for a prosecution because…A prosecution is not in the interests of justice, taking into account all the circumstances, including the gravity of the crime, the interests of victims and the age or infirmity of the alleged perpetrator, and his or her role in the alleged crime”.

The written evidence goes on to say, however, that the ICC Office of the Prosecutor said that

“only in exceptional circumstances will the Prosecutor of the ICC conclude that an investigation or a prosecution may not serve the interests of justice”.

Finally, under the heading, “The presumption in favour of investigation or prosecution”, the OTP notes:

“Many developments in the last ten or fifteen years point to a consistent trend imposing a duty on States to prosecute crimes of international concern committed within their jurisdiction”.

The written evidence gives rise to a number of considerations. Clause 2 states that there should be exceptional circumstances for a prosecutor to determine whether proceedings should be taken against armed forces personnel. However, as outlined in the ICRC submission, does the prosecution in the interests of justice, including the gravity of the crime, the interests of victims and the age and infirmity of the alleged perpetrator, sound like an exception to the rule of when proceedings should be brought forward? Indeed, it seems more likely to be exceptional for such a case to not be progressed and brought forward. The OTP compounds that point by stating that

“only in exceptional circumstances will the Prosecutor of the ICC conclude that an investigation or a prosecution may not serve the interests of justice.”

Under the Bill as drafted, it will not be exceptional to not prosecute such cases. Indeed, it risks undermining our international reputation and legal obligations, and, as a consequence, risks our armed forces personnel being tried at the International Criminal Court instead of in British courts. That gives rise to the question: why are the Government so intent on taking this risk, undermining our reputation and legal obligations, and leaving our armed forces personnel exposed? Why have the Government included a clause that risks undermining a historic, momentous international convention in which our country played a key role and of which it is an original signatory? That is something that our country and armed forces are proud of, and it is a reason for the high regard in which we are held across the world. Why risk breaching it, particularly when this clause could put our armed forces personnel at greater risk of vexatious claims? The Bill would not protect them, as it intends to do.

Furthermore, according to the evidence submitted by ICRC, the OTP also notes that many developments

“in the last ten or fifteen years point to a consistent trend imposing a duty on States to prosecute crimes of international concern committed within their jurisdiction”.

Why would we wish to deviate from our colleagues and international security partners on such an important issue? What is the Government’s reasoning for this?

That is not the only evidence received by the Committee that underlines the issue of clause 2. During last week’s evidence sessions, we heard from Judge Blackett, the former Judge Advocate General, the most senior military judge in the country, who said:

“I have three concerns about the Bill. One is the presumption against prosecution”.—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 116-17, Q234.]

He went on to say:

“I do not think that there should be a presumption against prosecution”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 121, Q248.]

Quite simply, if the most senior military judge in the country has clearly outlined that there should not be a presumption against prosecution in the Bill, what more do the Government need to understand that clause 2 should be removed? What advice and evidence have the Government taken to support their approach? Was the Judge Advocate General consulted? If not, why not? In summary, I hope the Government will listen to the points raised, remove clause 2, uphold our international reputation and obligations, and work with us to protect our troops and get this Bill right.

Finally, I ask the Minister to clarify what advice and evidence have the Government taken to support clause 2? Why do the Government wish to deviate from our colleagues and international security partners on such an important issue? What is the Government’s reasoning for this? Why have they included a clause that risks undermining a historic and momentous international convention in which our country played a key role and of which it is a key signatory? Why are the Government so intent on risking undermining our reputation and legal obligations and leaving our armed forces personnel exposed? I hope the Committee will get some answers from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments to clause 3. When I became a Member of Parliament, in the nation regarded as the birthplace of modern parliamentary democracy, I never once thought that I would have to argue the case for retaining Great Britain’s commitments against war crimes. This country was built upon principles of fairness, equality and justice. We have stood against torture and other war crimes, with a proud tradition of taking direct action when we see violations against human rights being committed. From world war two and the Nuremberg trials to Bosnia and The Hague, this country has a reputation for standing against torture and crimes against humanity. It is part of our identity and is part of what makes us British, which is why it is so concerning that this Bill in its current form, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said earlier, puts all of that at risk.

Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out what constitutes excluded offences for the purposes of presumption against prosecution. Torture is not included and neither are other war crimes listed in article 7 of the Rome statute, apart from sexual crimes. That is morally wrong. It breaks our commitments to international law, it risks dragging our troops in front of the International Criminal Court, and it is entirely avoidable with some common-sense amendments to the Bill.

Let us consider that first point. I know that everyone in this room would agree that it is morally wrong in any situation to commit an act of torture—it is the most serious of crimes and has no moral justification in any circumstances. When we look at schedule 1, we see that the offences excluded from legal protection are sexual offences. Labour agrees that these offences should be utterly condemned and are inexcusable, and that they should be excluded from any presumption against prosecution. However, schedule 1 fails to exclude terrible crimes such as torture and genocide. The Government have provided no good explanation or justification whatever for excluding only sexual offences from the scope of protection under the Bill, particularly as no service personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan have been accused of genocide, yet it is not excluded as an offence in the Bill. As a former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, put it:

“This could create the bizarre outcome that an allegation of torture or murder would not be prosecuted when a sexual offence arising out of the same incident could be.”

As the Minister wrote the Bill, can he take us through sub-paragraphs (a) to (k) of article 7(1) of the Rome statute and explain why each provision is legally needed? What is the legal necessity of including each of those provisions?

That brings me to Labour’s second ground for objection to the Bill’s exclusion of torture and other war crimes. Britain has always had an unwavering commitment to the law of armed conflict. The Geneva conventions are known in most households in Britain, and the Bill tramples on our commitments to them. We have heard from judges and generals, witnesses who have trained our armed forces and provided them with independent legal advice, and ex-service personnel. We have received written evidence from the International Committee of the Red Cross. All those individuals and organisations have said two things in common. First, they are clear in their duty to uphold the law of armed conflict and instruct others to do so. Secondly, they are clear that the Bill risks eroding our commitment to those laws and have expressed grave warnings on the consequences. First, it would irreparably damage the moral credibility and authority of the UK to call out human rights abuses worldwide. Secondly, it would undermine the hard-won reputation of UK forces as responsible and reliable actors. Thirdly, it risks reprisals against British troops, particularly service personnel who may be captured and detained on operations.

I am reminded of the evidence last week of the Judge Advocate General, who said:

“You will remember that six Royal Military Police were killed…in 2003. If those responsible were identified today, would we accept that there would be a presumption against their prosecution? Would we expect the factors in clause 3(2)(a) to be taken into account? Would we be content that a member of the Iraqi Government’s consent would be needed to prosecute? Would we accept a decision by that person not to prosecute? In my view, there would be outrage in this country if that occurred. In all areas of law, you have to be even-handed.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 128, Q278.]

It is hard to disagree with those words. To demand justice from others when our men and women on the frontline need it, Britain must be at the forefront of defending that system, underpinned by international laws and the principle of equality under the law.

Labour is deeply concerned that the Bill sets the UK on a collision course with the International Criminal Court and that the Bill risks our troops being dragged to The Hague. Last week, we heard from a witness who represents and is the voice for thousands of veterans, who said that

“there is without a doubt greater fear of a non-British legal action coming against people than of anything British.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 110, Q219.]

Going back on our commitments to the Geneva conventions risks our forces personnel being dragged in front of the International Criminal Court, only confirming the worst fears among veterans discussed by Lieutenant Colonel Parker. Why would the Minister not prefer to have trials for British troops in British courts rather than The Hague?

The Bill as it stands is flawed. It is fundamentally at odds with British values by failing to offer an absolute rejection of torture. It tramples on our commitments to international doctrines that we helped to write, and it fails our troops by risking action by the international courts.

There is a way out. Protecting troops from vexatious claims does not need to be at odds with our commitments to international humanitarian law. There does not need to be a trade-off between safeguarding our armed forces and standing against torture. That is why we have tabled these amendments, which will address those imbalances.

First, the amendments would ensure that, under schedule 1, the forms of crime listed in the Rome statute, such as torture, genocide and crimes against humanity, were—alongside sexual offences—excluded from the presumption against prosecution. Further amendments would ensure that any breach of the Geneva conventions and other international laws also fell outside the scope of that. Labour’s amendments, by bringing the Bill in line with international law and doubling down on our commitments against torture, would protect our troops from international courts and protect our nation’s reputation.

The Minister said at the witness stage, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

[Mr Jones]

What my hon. Friend proposes in no way changes the Bill in effect; it strengthens the Bill. Does he agree that it is a simple thing which might assuage a lot of the critics of the Bill?