Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

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

[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.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I find this disappointing. I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, was the subject of the previous amendment but, never mind, we occasionally stray from one amendment to another.

Let me deal with the substance of it. If we were talking, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has on previous occasions—although not tonight—about making use of Members of the Assembly to make general comments about policies in Northern Ireland, we would be in a different place. However, what we see today, under the pretext of giving the Assembly a new lease of life, is the picking out of one issue in the Bill and saying, “That is the way in which we should move forward”. If we want Members of the Assembly to be consulted, they should be consulted over the whole range of policies, rather than us picking the one policy which noble Lords do not like and saying, “We will proceed on that basis”. This is the wrong way to go about it and the principle of consulting the Assembly is negated by wishing to do it only in this partial sense.

We have already discussed the previous amendment and voted on it. I understand that feelings are strong—I respect them even if I do not agree with them—but it is quite inappropriate at this stage to deal with this sort of amendment. If Members of this House want to bring the Assembly back in some form another, let us talk about it—let us do it properly—not pick on abortion as being the pretext for doing it.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

The noble Lord will of course have in mind that the Assembly voted in favour of same-sex marriage. However, that is singled out, simply because the Assembly voted against it before. Therefore, if we are to respect devolution, in view of the suggestions that things have changed completely, it should be given a chance to say so.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Monday 14th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome how far the Minister has moved from Committee to today. I hope that noble Lords will not think it churlish of me to say that perhaps he might be persuaded to move a little further. I will speak first to Amendment 60, which seeks to oblige a local authority to provide advice and information about what can be done in the event of an emergency, or if needs change. I am specifically talking about what I think we have referred to before as people with fluctuating conditions and needs. We know that there are many millions of people in the country who have fluctuating conditions such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV, Crohn’s, colitis, epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease, and there may be many others. Therefore, we are talking about a significant number of people who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill.

Not long ago I was talking to a woman in a wheelchair who had MS. She was very lively, bubbly and sparky, and she said to me: “You know, I’m not always like this. Some days I go down and I can’t even get out of bed, so don’t judge my condition by the way you see me today”. I took that very much to heart, and it is clearly the sort of situation that this amendment is about. As the Bill is currently drafted under Clause 25, it would not really make provision for such situations.

This amendment is actually operationally simple. It would help to ease the pressure placed on formal and informal carers, and would give them more certainty. Not only will it ensure that individuals get the timely care that they need when they need it but, equally importantly, it has the potential to prevent costly and unnecessary hospital admissions. If this amendment is not in place, there is always the possibility that with a downward fluctuation in condition, the person without the support will then have to be hospitalised. That in itself is costly and is utterly undesirable from the point of view of the person who could be helped in the home if this amendment were to be passed.

Local authorities are surely in a position to provide better tailored care, to promote confidence and control and allow people to prepare for such rises and falls in their care needs. The current drafting does not allow for it. A snapshot was taken by the NRAS—the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society—which indicated that currently more than 30% of respondents with rheumatoid arthritis have been admitted to emergency care as a result of a flare-up in the disease in the past year. This is something which I trust could be prevented if we changed the way in which this clause was to operate. A survey of 1,000 people with MS revealed that 95% of respondents felt that better services during a relapse or a sudden deterioration of their condition would help them to maintain their independence. More than 80% said that they want to be able to plan their care and support in advance of that care being required. This amendment would help people whose conditions might suddenly worsen and, as I said earlier, would potentially prevent unnecessary and costly hospital admissions.

I turn to Amendment 61. As the wording of the Bill in Clause 27 states, local authorities have the power to generally review care plans. However, they are not required to specify when they anticipate that these reviews will take place. This amendment seeks to put some certainty into the process. There should be an agreed date between the adult and the local authority upon which a review of the care and support plan would be offered. I envisage a discussion between the local authority and the person concerned about the best way in which their care needs can be met.

An anticipated review date, agreed between the local authority and the adults, would provide stability and certainty to those being cared for. It is not a large change but it would be beneficial for the people concerned. I do not want to spell out with examples where people have said what a difference it would make if they had this element of certainty. I would like this amendment to be passed, which will give the adult the confidence that their care would continue as agreed until the specified date or until the adult themselves chooses to request a review in line with Clause 27(1)(b).

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I generally support these government amendments, and thank the Minister for introducing them. There is just one small point I want to mention, which has been raised in my mind by the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in relation to Amendment 33.

I had understood paragraph (b) of Amendment 33 to carry the implication that if something was found that would benefit the person in question as a result of examination of what is in (b), the needs assessment would include that. However, I just wonder whether the last part creates the possibility that if the benefit can be received from something in the community, outside the provisions that the local authorities have made, that would be excluded; in other words, it would tend to reduce the needs assessment. I had rather thought that the proper construction of this phrase would mean that that also should be taken into account as included in the needs assessment, and that, where it was available, the cost of it should be included in the needs assessment. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to clarify that point for me.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

At present, the law states that prisoners are disqualified under an Act of Parliament and, unless and until that is changed by Act of Parliament, there is no question of having to cater for them in this Bill. If and when a Bill is produced to change the 1870 Act—although I understand what the noble Lord is saying about that—it should answer the kind of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has asked. Until that happens, the law is as it has been since 1870. I am not going to deal with the merits of the issue, except to say that we believe in the rule of law, part of which is our country’s subscription to the European Convention on Human Rights and obedience to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. That court has said in this case that a blanket ban is wrong, which leaves at least a certain amount of discretion to Parliament and the Government to decide what the change is to be. Until that happens, it is not for us here to speculate, because there is plenty for us to deal with in this Bill without introducing more material into a Bill that is not yet drafted.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has said. Let me therefore briefly add some comments. When the time comes, which I hope will not be too long, for the Government to bring forward their measure to give prisoners the vote, we will have to ensure that in that process we amend this legislation to accommodate it.