Iran and the Middle East

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I shall speak to my colleagues at the Home Office about the march. Obviously, how that is policed and what is done about it is rightly a matter for the relevant authorities. On the IRGC, I remind the House that we commissioned a legal report on this, and the recommendation was that the UK Government do not at present have the ability to sanction the IRGC in the way that we would want to, and we are committed to making the necessary changes to allow us to do just that.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood that the tensions in Lebanon and what is happening in Iran will lead to a flood of people seeking safety in Europe? Are we prepared for this, and are we having discussions with our European friends on how best to handle such a flood of people seeking safety?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right, and I am particularly worried about Lebanon and what is happening there. Yes, we are mindful of the impact that this can have on the movement of people—and yes, of course, we are talking to our partners and friends in the European Union about this.

80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Friday 9th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, this is clearly a day for memories: the memories that came to those of us who were around on VE Day. I was 12 years old, and I remember celebrating in the streets of Manchester, in Piccadilly. I am bound to say, had I been a bit older, I would have enjoyed the day even more—I was 12; I was innocent. This debate gives us a chance to reflect on some of the issues of the war and subsequently.

As a refugee who arrived in London at the end of June 1939, one of my first memories, having left Nazi-occupied Prague, with German soldiers everywhere, was seeing the ATS women marching in Hyde Park. I do not know why that made such a big impact on me, but I thought, “Well, Britain has women in the Army; there’s something going for Britain”. It really impressed me, and it is one of those things in my background.

Then, of course, I remember the barrage balloons and the ration books, which have already been mentioned. I remember that, in 1942, every child in the school I went to got three oranges. I had not seen oranges for three years, and it was quite a thing to have them. Going back a bit, I remember listening to Chamberlain indicating that we were at war with Germany. I suppose I had learned enough English by then to understand what he was saying. Of course, I remember the election campaign of 1945 but, given the broad consensus in this House, I do not want to reflect too much on that particular election campaign, although I think I knew, from the posters that were up in Manchester, the name of every Labour candidate in the various constituencies in Manchester. I think most of them won, but I must not go down that path too far.

In a more serious vein, we began to hear the shocking stories of what happened when some of the concentration camps were liberated, when the British Army went to Belsen. We heard about the horrors of the people in the camps and what had happened to them—some of them walking corpses—and the piles of the dead. The shock it must have been to the British Army when they liberated Belsen and the other camps; I am sure some of them were traumatised for life by what they saw on that occasion.

In more recent years, I visited the beaches of Normandy. I also visited, with the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, the battlefields of the Somme. We went to Ypres, and the Irish wanted to see what happened to the many Irish who had fought in the British Army in 1914-18 and, indeed, in the more recent war. There was also the contribution by the Commonwealth, which has been referred to, and, of course, there were the Poles, the Czechs and the French. All of them fought with us in the war, helping to win it.

The question is: have we learned the lessons? That, I suppose, is a sombre thought. We still have antisemitism, not just here but across Europe. We have Islamophobia. We see a dreadful conflict in Ukraine, with encouragement from some countries that we should appease the Russians—never must we do that. Then we have the tragedy in Israel on 7 October, the tragedy of what is happening in Gaza at the moment, and the increasing conflict in India and Pakistan, with two nuclear powers facing each other in a position of conflict. Looking back upon VE Day, I do not think we have done all that well as a continent. We could have done a lot better. In some ways, we have let down the people who fought and gave their lives for a better future than we are seeing at the moment.

I will briefly make two other points. One has not been mentioned before. We should pay tribute to the way the Germans have come to terms with their past. It must have been a horrible thing for them when they realised, during the war and subsequently, just what was happening. I have met the German ambassador to London at various events commemorating the Holocaust and I think Germany deserves credit for having come to terms with the most horrible past. On the whole, it has done it pretty well. I was invited to Berlin about a year and a half ago. There was a commemoration of the Kindertransport and the Holocaust, and I thought, “Really, this country is doing well in dealing with such a difficult past”.

Finally, I think this is a fantastic country, even though some of us criticise and have been critical of what is going on. It is thanks to the people who fought in the war that it is still a free country that is not under Nazi oppression. I give my thanks to the people of Britain for giving me safety.

Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I reassure my noble friend that a keen eye will be kept on funding. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the MoD is currently computing costs to inform discussions with the Treasury—and, yes, we will certainly make sure that bills presented are paid. We are satisfied that this deployment does not in any way impinge on or prejudice our ability to carry out our broader MoD responsibilities on behalf of the nation.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, the Answer suggests to me that the Government have not thought this through. It makes all sorts of vague comments like

“are currently being worked through”

and

“will be made known in due course”.

Has this even been discussed with the French authorities? Without co-operation with the French, we are not going to get anywhere. Lastly, the Answer keeps talking about “illegal” people. If they are refugees or claiming to be so then they are not illegal; they are people who have an entitlement to claim asylum status.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I have endeavoured to refer to them as “migrants” because that is what they are. The MoD’s role is to assist the Government’s broader objectives in approaching immigration policy by dealing with this particular aspect in the channel, which has caused such concern and has been such a source of heart-breaking tragedy and worry to the migrants themselves. The noble Lord asked whether this plan had been thought through. Obviously, the detail has to be worked out but it is very positive that the MoD is gladly taking on this role, and Defence Ministers have committed to providing a Statement to both Houses once the plans for implementing defence primacy have been thoroughly worked through and refined.

Afghanistan: British Equipment and Training

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Obviously, the situation is constantly under review by us and our international partners and friends, not least within the United Nations. But this is a very difficult situation on the ground and that is a reality we are having to deal with.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, how can the Minister be so sure that the kit left behind is of no military value? Can it not be converted for use, as the Taliban appear to be capable of doing? Does what she says apply to the American equipment left behind? Is the danger not that we have left a highly equipped Taliban army there—perhaps the best equipped army in the region?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I think there is little I can add, in response to the noble Lord, to what I have already said. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, astutely identified, this is a broader challenge than the United Kingdom; it is a NATO challenge. It is part of engaging in conflict that certain risks have to be taken; otherwise, we would never seek to intervene in any way whatsoever —and that is an unacceptable premise. What we have done in Afghanistan in co-operation with our NATO allies, we have done as responsibly as we can, and we have endeavoured to ensure as we left Afghanistan that we did not leave a legacy of equipment with military potential.

Royal Yacht

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

There may be much speculation about the name of the ship but it is premature to discuss that just now. It will be announced in due course. The noble Lord makes an important point about the underlying purpose and function of this flagship. He is quite right that it is to be mobile and a maritime asset. Many of the major cities in the world with which we wish to engage for trade purposes are coastal; he is therefore correct that we anticipate this vessel’s role to be mobile. It will go to where the need is and where we wish to engage, at the time we wish to undertake that engagement.

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, everybody wants to boost British shipbuilders, but does the Minister not agree that other ways of doing it are more relevant for the purposes of our defence? The Minister talked about investment and boosting trade. Is not this whole project a vote of no confidence in the good work that our embassies and consulates do throughout the world? Is it not a way of saying, “You’re not good enough—we’re going to find a different way of doing it”?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I disagree with that last assessment by the noble Lord. This is entirely complementary to what we currently do with our Diplomatic Service and through our trade ambassadors and trade emissaries—an added facilitator to help support these important endeavours. It is all about finding investment and orders for the UK, boosting UK jobs and bringing that investment to this country. That is a collective government responsibility and I therefore anticipate that this vessel, although being built under the aegis of the MoD, will be operated and work closely in conjunction with our overall government endeavours and ambitions.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I start by saying that I accept a number of the arguments that the Government have advanced against it. I do not think that the Bill is intended to provide UK forces with a blank cheque for torture or genocide; nor do I consider that, as currently worded, it has that legal effect. Investigations into and prosecution of those suspected of such offences should and could be pursued even after the five-year limit, provided that the evidential case is sound. I am in no doubt that those involved in such decisions would consider the facts carefully and conscientiously before coming to a decision one way or the other.

I do not regard the exclusion of sexual offences, and not of torture or genocide, as attributing any hierarchy of seriousness to these crimes. I accept that in claims of torture or genocide, the admitted outcome—the death or wounding of individuals—might reasonably be the consequence of legal military action. Sexual assault, on the other hand, can never be the result of anything but a criminal act. There is a logic behind the distinction. Nor do I accept the argument that the Bill as worded would make our own military personnel more likely to be tortured themselves. During the first Gulf War, I commanded aircrew who were shot down, captured and tortured. The Iraqis did not have, nor did they require, the incentive and cover of this Bill for their actions. I seriously doubt that future captors of UK military personnel would be likely to say to themselves, “Well, I would not ordinarily have tortured these prisoners but, in view of the UK overseas operations Act, I now will.” Regimes that are going to torture captors will; those that are not, will not. I do accept, however, that this Bill might make it harder for us to protest such actions or subsequently to hold the perpetrators to account.

My concern about this part of the Bill has less to do with its legal intent and effect, and more to do with the perceptions it may create and the consequences of such perceptions. I have said that in my view, the Bill does not diminish the seriousness with which we view or treat torture or genocide, but it is clear that many people disagree, and that they will not be persuaded by any words of mine or of the Government. This is important. What people think about such matters is crucial, regardless of whether we regard their interpretation as correct. Reputations, national as well as personal, depend on perception as well as on fact, and the UK’s reputation in the international arena is not something to be taken lightly or to be hazarded without great cause.

One possible consequence of a diminished reputation for an unswerving opposition to torture or genocide could be the increased interest of the International Criminal Court in accusations against UK military personnel—an outcome that I would regard as disastrous. I have heard the arguments against this likelihood, and I am unconvinced by them. I have in the past heard similar arguments advanced about the negligible impact that human rights legislation would have on military operations, only to see those confidently expressed opinions proved dramatically wrong. The Government no doubt feel that they are on firm legal ground with regard to the International Criminal Court, but that view has yet to be tested. Meanwhile, risk must be measured as a combination of probability and consequence. Even if the chance of challenge by the ICC is not large, the severe damage it would cause demands that we do all we can to guard against it.

The risks that I have identified might nevertheless be borne if they were sufficiently outweighed by the advantages that Clause 6 offers, but I do not believe this to be the case. The underlying problems that need to be addressed are the protracted and repeated investigations of speculative and malicious claims, along with the extension of human rights legislation into areas for which it is ill-suited. The Bill, of necessity, comes at these issues obliquely and is therefore likely to be of limited value. I know that the Government believe that the measures proposed on prosecutions will have an impact on the timeliness of investigations. I hope they are right, but the potential benefit is not obviously overwhelming. So, while I support the Government’s aim, and while I understand the logic behind the drafting of Clause 6, I believe that the current wording poses risks that far outweigh the potential benefits. Unless I hear in this debate a far more compelling argument than has so far been made against it, I shall support Amendment 3.

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, as well, indeed, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy in the arguments they have put forward. The House has enormous respect for the Minister. I share that respect but it is noticeable that, despite her arguments, she had no support in Committee. I looked at her closing arguments then and found this one:

“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”.


That seemed to be the justification for this provision: that force has to be used. I do not believe that force is the same as torture. If there were to be confusion between the two, it would be up to the courts to make a decision. It would not be up to a government Minister to say whether an action was unacceptable or, indeed, appropriate for it to be excused altogether by the provisions of this Bill.

In her closing remarks—she was trying to be helpful—the Minister also said:

“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.”—[Official Report, 9 /3/21; cols. 1575-77.]


I am not sure that anything has happened about that commitment. I understand why Ministers make such commitments and why she did so; perhaps she was not comfortable with the Government’s whole argument. However, I am not clear what she has done to assuage our concerns; I do not believe she has.

As has been said before, the reputation of this country is at stake. One thing we surely value very much is our reputation for adhering to the rule of law—for having a proper system for considering it and, indeed, being implacable in our opposition to any breach of it. That reputation is surely worth preserving, yet it is now at stake. We deal all the time with countries that do not observe the rule of law, be it Hong Kong, China in respect of the Uighurs, or Myanmar in respect of the Rohingyas—or, indeed, of their own citizens. There are too many examples of the rule of law being breached; we can ill afford to join the ranks of countries that breach it. We have had severe warnings that we might find our service men and women up before the International Criminal Court—which would be mortifyingly embarrassing and absolutely appalling were it to happen.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which made a detailed assessment of the Bill and its various provisions and produced a report. At paragraphs 63 and 64, the report says that

“we have significant concerns that the presumption against prosecution”

runs the risk of contravening

“the UK’s legal obligations under international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict)”

and

“international human rights law ... It risks contravening the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute and international customary law.”

The report goes on to say:

“At a minimum, the presumption against prosecution should be amended so that it does not apply to torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.”


Nothing could be clearer than that.

We have also heard quoted today Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. She said:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”


I can think of no clearer comments than those I have quoted. I fully support this amendment.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we have heard some very distinguished speeches this afternoon and the passionate speech from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, destroyed any case that the Government might have. As an old soldier—a national serviceman—and a Defence Minister many years ago, I yield to no one in my concern to protect the armed services from vexatious investigations and prosecutions. As Attorney-General, I played a very small part in encouraging the late Robin Cook’s successful advocacy for the setting up of the International Criminal Court. As an active member some years ago, I advocated successfully at the IPA conference in Cape Town for the international recognition by all nations of the offence of torture. I believe I was kicking at an open door when the paper that I had prepared was accepted. All civilised countries now accept that the offence of torture is unique; likewise, of course, genocide.

My noble friend Lord Robertson comprehensively and eloquently moved the amendment. The Bill proposes a presumption against prosecution of torture and other grave crimes after five years, except in exceptional circumstances. As my noble friend states, this risks the creation of de facto immunity after that time. That is the bottom line. Unfortunately, the result is that our troops risk being open to prosecution by the International Criminal Court. The effect of the Rome statute is that the court can prosecute where there is no robust domestic civil process. Perhaps the Minister will say specifically what the danger is of our troops being brought before the International Criminal Court?

As a former law officer, I had the task of advising Her Majesty’s Government on international law; I cannot see how we can avoid process before the International Criminal Court. May I make a practical suggestion to the Minister? Before Third Reading, will she consult the law officers and get their views—if they have not given them already, as I suspect they may have—on the point raised by so many Members of this House, without opposition, that we are in danger of allowing our troops to be hauled before the International Criminal Court?

I strongly support the exclusion of the most serious crimes, such as torture, war crimes and genocide, from the immunity proposals. Put simply, in international law—I can only emphasise this—there is no expiry date for the prosecution of torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment. The bottom line is that there is no expiry date for the prosecution of these offences. It may not have been the intention, but the unfortunate consequence is that our troops might find themselves before the International Criminal Court.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1, 2, 9 and 13 in this group. The thrust of these amendments is to provide that the presumption against prosecution applies only after 10 years instead of five years.

First, I thank the Minister for her explanatory letter, which touches on issues raised by these amendments and, of course on the whole Bill. It was a very clear letter, and I know that she is committed to working collaboratively and will be sensitive to concerns, so I look forward to productive sessions.

My noble friend Lord Dubs and I will speak from the perspective of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which last year carried out an inquiry on the Bill and produced a report in October. These amendments today address specific issues but it is worth saying that the committee, informed by expert opinion, had many overarching concerns about the Bill and seeks reassurances. We felt that the Bill creates problems for compatibility with the UK’s international legal obligations and simultaneously does not resolve any of the concerns that are supposedly the rationale for the Bill—that is, repeated MoD investigations.

The committee came to the conclusion that Clauses 1 to 7 could lead to impunity, violate the right to a remedy for genuine victims and undermine the UK’s international obligations to prosecute international crimes. These issues are covered in chapter 3 of the JCHR report. Of course, other noble Lords will speak on these clauses shortly. The Government argue that the Bill merely introduces a presumption against prosecution rather than a statute of limitation. However, there may be difficulties in bringing a prosecution after only five years. The prosecutor must only prosecute in exceptional circumstances; the prosecutor then needs to give “particular weight” to the adverse, or likely adverse effect on the person of conditions suffered during the demands of operations overseas. There may be a situation where a person has been previously investigated and there is no new compelling evidence. Another hurdle is that the consent of the Attorney-General is required.

The Law Society in its written evidence to the committee concluded that the presumption against prosecution creates a “quasi-statute of limitation” which is “unprecedented” in the criminal law and presents a “significant barrier to justice”. As the JCHR report points out, the MoD consultation in 2019 proposed a presumption against prosecution after 10 years; in the Bill, that has been halved to five years. That is a very short time in the circumstances of overseas armed conflict. There are many other practical reasons why a prosecution may not be possible in this time due to the protracted nature of the conflict, unlawful detention of the victim or persistent physical or mental distress. The British Red Cross has pointed out that safe access to evidence in such scenarios is difficult to obtain. Paragraph 64 of our report states:

“At a minimum the presumption against prosecution should be amended so that it does not apply to torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.”


The Minister discusses many of these concerns in her letter and points out that most claims by service personnel are brought within the six-year date of knowledge timeframe. That does not satisfy the concerns of the JCHR, or indeed those of other organisations such as the UN Commission on Human Rights. Other amendments in this group oppose the question that Clauses 1 to 7 stand part of the Bill. The amendments I present here are less drastic but, taken together, they would ensure that the “presumption against prosecution” does not apply until 10 years instead of five years after the day on which the alleged conduct took place. I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Massey, as a fellow member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I appreciate that this House has a wealth of military experience. I am humbled by the knowledge that there is such experience in the House, and I fully respect the Members who have served so gallantly and at senior levels. I cannot match that, but I did once pay a very brief visit to Afghanistan, to Camp Bastion and Kandahar, during difficult times there, and saw for myself for just a few days the conditions there during a tense period. It hardly qualifies me to be an expert, but it means that I have some strong visual impressions of what the situation there was like.

My noble friend Lady Massey has already spoken to amendments that would have the effect that the presumption against prosecution would apply after 10 years instead of five. My amendment would remove the presumption against prosecution altogether, as recommended by the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, although I am bound to say that many of the arguments used in relation to five or 10 years would also apply to removing the presumption altogether.

The Service Prosecuting Authority has been in charge of the prosecution process, and there is no suggestion of excessive or unjustified prosecutions. Indeed, there are already some safeguards. The Service Prosecuting Authority would bring a prosecution only, first, where there was sufficient evidence that the accused committed the offence and, secondly, where the prosecution was in the public interest. These seem to be pretty good safeguards and would prevent vexatious or unfounded prosecutions.

As they stand, Clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill would contravene the United Kingdom’s international obligations under international humanitarian law, specifically the law of armed conflict. They could also contravene the United Nations Convention against Torture. There would be the risk of prosecution of our armed forces under the laws of another state and, above all, the risk of prosecution under the terms of the International Criminal Court. That court has the jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide perpetrated by UK personnel if the UK is “unwilling or unable” to do so. It would be hazardous in the extreme to pass a Bill with measures in it that would run the risk of our service men and women being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

The reputation of our Armed Forces has traditionally been second to none. I am concerned that, all over the world, people are looking at this legislation and wondering whether there is not some constraint on the reputation of our Armed Forces or, indeed, whether that reputation might not suffer through this legislation. I very much hope that, when we come to it, we shall be able to amend the Bill so as to strengthen the position of our Armed Forces, either by getting rid of Clauses 1 to 7 altogether or at least increasing the time period from five to 10 years. I am happy to be a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and our report has set a very good basis for the debate that is to follow.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to discuss only the question of whether it should be five or 10 years. It has to be remembered that this is in relation to a prosecution, so the only outcome of this is a criminal sanction. It does not of itself do any good to anyone else but, of course, gives a feeling of justice when the sanction is in accordance with what the people who have complained have suffered. Against this, it has to be remembered that the strain that comes with waiting under a dark shadow of a possible prosecution is quite considerable.

I have two experiences that I remember very well in relation to the feeling of strain associated with the possibility of a prosecution. The first was shortly after I became Lord Chancellor, when there was a huge allegation of fraud in relation to a company group. The number of people in the prosecution was quite large. The learned judge who presided decided that the case was too big to be dealt with by a single jury, and therefore decided that a good part of the case should be postponed until the first part had been tried. I received a considerable number of complaints that the pressure of waiting—it was not five years, but it was quite a long time—was sufficient to make it very difficult for people who were ultimately found innocent. The delay is something that has to be taken into account as an addition to the strain on the people involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness. I am grateful to her for, dare I say, reaching out during the last group of amendments and attempting to reach some common ground. I think we are seeking to achieve similar things, albeit coming from very different perspectives, since I was a practitioner, as it were, in the past. I looked very carefully at the amendment and, for fear of being damned with faint praise by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, there are aspects that I absolutely understand.

As ever, though, the problem has just been hit on the head by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, and that is the application. It is one thing to say that people who are suffering should not be put into a war zone, and that is absolutely right. However, the application matters when you are already in a war zone—a distant FOB—and within a small group with no ability to blow a whistle and stop the war in order to be withdrawn from the situation, along with the gradual deterioration of the condition over a period of time. This will not necessarily be seen by those around you because they are suffering similar things. It is not quite as easy to put into practical application during operations, which is why we need to be careful.

When I was training to become a bomb disposal officer, I knew absolutely what I was letting myself in for. Having served on operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, most recently in Afghanistan while I was a Member of Parliament, it is not always possible to see these deteriorations. It is important to realise that a medical or psychiatric condition may or may not be recognised at the time. Prosecutors are already required to have regard to any significant mental or physical ill-health or disability as in some circumstances this may mean that it is less likely that a prosecution is required. Clause 3 simply seeks to ensure that such considerations are put on to a statutory footing within the unique context of an overseas operation.

I recognise that I come at this from a different angle and I can see the precise way in which noble and noble and learned Lords are looking at the Bill, but I will go back to the comments I made earlier. This is also about sending a message. By putting this on to a statutory footing in the Bill, it will send a clear message to members of our Armed Forces that the Government and Parliament understand that we are asking them to do extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances. This would be a recognition of that.

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I also speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which produced the report on this Bill, and it is what is in that report which will influence the brief comments that I shall make. I support what my noble friend Lady Massey has said.

I accept fully that it is most unlikely that the Armed Forces would send someone abroad who was not capable of making sound judgments. The issue, as evidenced by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, just now and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is whether people in a war zone, in very difficult and dangerous circumstances, might develop a condition where their judgment was not as sound as when they were sent there. However, my understanding is that soundness of judgment is something that underlies all prosecutorial decisions in the criminal law of this country anyway, so I am not clear as to why we should treat soldiers differently from the way that the law normally works.

I can do no better than to quote from paragraph 79 of the JCHR report:

“The mental health of a defendant is already borne in mind as part of the prosecutorial decision as to whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution. We do not consider that there is any solid basis for including an additional requirement that could risk granting de facto impunity to those who have committed crimes on the grounds that the perpetrator lacked sound judgement, or could not exercise self-control, beyond the threshold already established in criminal law. For this reason, we would recommend deleting clause 3(2)(a), 3(3) and 3(4).”


The key words in this are

“beyond the threshold already established in criminal law.”

If we believe that the threshold in our criminal law is adequate, we do not need this extra provision. That is the basis on which I will support what my noble friend Lady Massey said at the beginning of this debate.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

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

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

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

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recently produced a report on the Bill and the whole issue. I hope this will be helpful later, in Committee and on Report. I acknowledge that many Members of this House who have spoken have enormous senior military or ministerial experience in defence. I cannot claim to emulate that, but I will mention one thing. A few years ago, I was invited by the MoD to join a delegation to visit Afghanistan; we went to Camp Bastion and Kandahar. Although I spent only a few days there, it was a totally revealing, fascinating and helpful experience. I came away with an even greater respect for our Armed Forces than I had at the outset. They dealt with very adverse conditions; their morale, friendship and positive attitudes were pretty good. At that time, there were some concerns about the quality of the Army’s equipment, and I asked them about that. Very loyally, they would not bite and did not want to comment at all about whether their equipment was up to standard. My respect for the Armed Forces was enhanced enormously, and they deserve a bit better than this Bill.

I will look at two considerations in particular. First, what does the Bill do for the reputation of the Armed Forces? Not all that much. Secondly, what does it do for our international reputation? The international reputation of this country is at stake and I fear that, as drafted, the Bill will lead to damage to how we are seen abroad. The House has already heard many mentions of the possible problem of members of the Armed Forces being brought before the International Criminal Court. The Bill makes that much more likely.

The JCHR learnt that MoD investigations were frequently prolonged and that there were repeat investigations. This is quite unacceptable, because there was no sense of finality for the soldiers charged; it put them in an impossible position. It was generally agreed that MoD investigations had not been adequate. This is not addressed in the Bill, but I understand that the Government have agreed to look at it. This is really urgent because it is disgraceful that our Armed Forces have to put up with this type of threat when it is simply the inefficiency of the investigation system that is putting them in this difficulty.

I do not like the five-year period for presumption against prosecution. If the MoD Service Prosecuting Authority is satisfied by the evidence, why is there a need for a further limit? Surely what is in the public interest must be the test, not an arbitrary time limit. Initially, this was going to be 10 years, but the Government reduced it to five. I wonder why.

My most fierce anxiety, which has been reflected in many of this afternoon’s speeches, is that the presumption against prosecution does not exempt torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The presumption must surely be amended so that it does not apply to these. This is the most disgraceful part of the Bill and, judging by the debate so far, it is reasonable to predict that this House will reject it. Let us hope that it does, because it is a slur on this country, and the Armed Forces, that we have to protect them in this way when the likelihood of any of them being subject to this provision is very small, and that is my concern.

The JCHR report says that

“the introduction of a presumption against prosecution may mean that members of the British Armed Forces are at risk of being prosecuted either in another State or before the International Criminal Court. This is a real risk if it is considered that this presumption (combined with the existing concerns about the inadequacy of MoD investigations) leads other States or the ICC to conclude that the UK is unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute for war crimes.”

We have heard quite a lot about the need for powers to strike out vexatious claims. They are utterly reprehensible but, fortunately, very rare. In any case, the MoD Service Prosecuting Authority has the power to strike down such claims, as I am sure it has done and will always do.

Finally, I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Hain said about Northern Ireland. We will have some tough debates about it in the future. He certainly set down some clear indications of how many of us will wish to debate that issue.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I found absolutely heartbreaking the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the school in Wolverhampton where young girls were written off in the middle of their school careers as having no future. I know that she was talking about some years ago, but it is a sign of how much our education system needs to do better in the future so that this does not happen again. My noble friend Lady Jowell added an element of real vision to this debate.

I will make two brief comments before I move on to the referendum. First, I am delighted that the new process for appointing the Secretary-General of the United Nations will be more transparent than before. We have discussed this in this House, and the Government played their part in ensuring that it would be more transparent. That is positive progress. Secondly, the Foreign Office has been very helpful to the All-Party Group against the Death Penalty in helping us to visit countries that have the death penalty and to engage in discussions with them in the hope of persuading them to reform it and, in the end, to abolish it. I do not know whether we will get more support from the Foreign Office in the current financial year. The Minister’s smile suggests everything.

There is one country in the EU that would be more dismayed than any other if we were to leave, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to it. Ireland, our closest trading partner, would be absolutely appalled at the thought. If we were to leave, it would be the one border between the United Kingdom and the EU—a border that many people have spent years trying to get rid of, with all the associated violence. I am not clear how we could leave the EU and not have a border in Northern Ireland with some form of passport or other checks. At the moment, we are in the common travel area. Would it be possible to have that if we are not in the EU and Ireland is? I do not understand how that could happen. That alone seems to be a sufficiently positive argument for saying that the people who want us out ought to explain what they are about. We have seen so much violence and devastation in Britain and Ireland as a result of the Troubles, and putting the border back is too awful to contemplate.

Some years ago, when the G8 countries were trying to join the EU, I talked to a senior Minister. I forget which country he was from. He said: “One of the great things about the accession process is that it is making us do much more rapidly the things we ought and need to do anyway”. By that, he meant human rights, the rule of law and all the values that are dear to members of the EU. That this Minister said it was helping them on their path and that they were doing it quicker is a tribute to what the EU is about. There is a danger that the public will still see the debate as being within the Conservative Party or between it and UKIP. We on this side of the House must put that right. It would be a disaster if it was seen as not relevant to people who are not active conservatives.

When I watched the Andrew Marr programme on Sunday morning, I was shocked, along with other Members of the House, to hear a Cabinet Minister denounce Turkey. She said that its membership of the EU was inevitable, which of course it is not, and that if it was a member, all these criminals would come here. It is our partner. We might not like Turkey’s human rights record or be happy that Cyprus has not been resolved yet, but, for heaven’s sake, they have been NATO allies for a long time, and to denounce them in those terms is very offensive to any country. We are trying to persuade Turkey of the benefits of moving to a better position on human rights. In any case, I was looking at some statistics about the prison population. I know that the Turkish prison population is larger than ours, but we have a larger prison population than any other EU country. The EU countries do not say, “We don’t want the Brits living here, because they’re all criminals”, yet that is the conclusion one could draw. Ministers who want us out should be more careful.

Some months ago a Norwegian Minister was interviewed on television. Of course, Norway is not a member of the EU. He said that Norway had to abide by all the EU rules and regulations anyway in order to keep trading. He said, “Please, Britain, stay in, because you understand our position and you can speak for us in Brussels”. I know that some of those advocating getting out of the EU say that we should not be in the single market at all. I hate to say, “What are we going to be like, Albania?”, but that seems to be pretty appalling.

We have a difficult decision to make as a country. I hope to heaven that we make the right one.

Child Refugee Resettlement

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

It is not a question of the smallest number we can get away with. I hope that I have indicated that we are pursuing this amendment in its proper spirit. We have always been clear that we share the objective of identifying and protecting vulnerable refugee children wherever they are—our efforts to date have been designed to do just that—and we have heard many times about the measures that the Government have taken, particularly in the Middle East.

However, we were very clear that setting an arbitrary target, particularly one as high as 3,000, was the wrong approach. We cannot simply wade in and select some children whom we think would be better off in the UK, especially when some local authorities already care for very high numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—which in some cases is stretching services to breaking point. That is why we believe that the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is the right one. We have to consult with local authorities before we can determine the number that we can accommodate, and we must observe the best-interests principle as well.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much appreciate the way in which the Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and Home Office officials have put me in the picture throughout this process. It was gratifying, not in a triumphalist sense, to see the Home Secretary’s name on the amendment in the Commons yesterday evening.

The Minister put his finger on the right phrase—that the Government intend to accept not only the letter but the spirit of the amendment. I will plead only that, given that we now have officials working with the French authorities, it might be possible to speed up the process of identifying children in Calais who have relatives in Britain and to help them to get to Britain in time for the school term in September. Surely that would be the right thing to do. The Minister cannot make a promise but I hope that he will accept the spirit of what I am saying and that the Government will do their best accordingly.

[Earl Howe]

I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Clearly it would be desirable to ensure that those children who are most vulnerable and in need of help and support can arrive in this country in time for the school year, but he will understand that at this stage of the exercise I cannot give firm undertakings to that effect. All I can do is to say that we will use our best endeavours in that direction.