Armed Forces Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I am the last Back-Bench speaker in this important debate and I will confine myself to one clause, Clause 18, to which some reference has been made but which I would like to talk about a little more fully. Clause 18 redresses, as far as is possible, the hardship and suffering inflicted in the past on gallant servicemen who happened to be homosexual. I speak not only for myself but also for my noble friend Lord Cashman, who cannot be in his place today, and for our indispensable colleague, Professor Paul Johnson of York University, who has a fuller understanding than anyone else of the laws which, over the centuries, created hardship and suffering for homosexual servicemen.

Five years have passed since the three of us called for the action which Clause 18 will at last now authorise. Back in 2016, during the Committee stage of the Policing and Crime Act, which became law in 2017, provision was made through amendments passed in this House to grant posthumous pardons under certain conditions to individuals convicted or cautioned for certain offences that have now been swept from the statute book. I pointed out in December 2016 that the legislation would not make adequate provision for the Armed Forces. Pardons were made available for offences now repealed under civil law going back to the famous Henrician statute of 1533, but for service offences only the period since 1866 was covered. It goes without saying that all families who want justice for homosexual forebears or relatives should have the same possibilities of redress made available to them.

Some improvement was made in the final stages before the 2017 Act became law. Posthumous pardons for naval personnel were extended back to 1661, but in the time available it was not possible for Professor Johnson to locate all the relevant statutes under which homosexual servicemen suffered for so long. After additional work had been carried out, further legislation to accomplish what had been left undone in 2017 was drafted in the form of two Private Member’s Bills which the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, introduced in this House. Clause 18 represents the completion of a long process for which my noble friend the Minister and her officials deserve sincere thanks. It has been a formidable undertaking. The clause covers a period in which some 300 separate enactments, comprising the annual Mutiny Acts and Marine Mutiny Acts as well as numerous iterations of articles of war, regulated the Army and Royal Marines. We do not know how many servicemen were convicted or punished for engaging in same-sex sexual conduct which would be lawful today. Whatever the number, a posthumous pardon will, so far as is possible, acknowledge and address the grave injustice done to them and wipe the stain of that injustice from their memory.

I would like to say that Clause 18 ends the matter. Unfortunately, it does not. These posthumous pardons cover only those convicted of civil offences under service law. Many Armed Forces personnel were convicted under specific service discipline offences, such as the offence of disgraceful conduct, for engaging in consensual same-sex acts which would be lawful today. Again, we do not know the number, but it is substantial, and for every one of that number a career was damaged or destroyed. Service discipline offences are not covered by the current pardon and disregard schemes first introduced in 2012. Why should the brave people harmed by them be excluded from such measures of redress as have been belatedly devised to help restore the reputations of the unjustly condemned? I intend, therefore, with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, to table amendments in Committee to address those further historical injustices.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

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

My Lords, we now come to Amendment 3. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 6: “Relevant offence”

Amendment 3

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it must be a rare thing in nature, and in life, for so many doves and hawks to fly together. I agree with every speech that has been made so far in this part of the debate, with perhaps the small caveat that I disagree with the protestations by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that he lacked the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—he certainly did not.

I need not repeat the various points particularly regarding the coalition of disapproval in relation to refusing to, at the very least, put war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture in an excepted category. Like others, I cannot understand the Government’s intransigence, especially as they are so well served in relation to the Bill in your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

As the Minister spoke gently to me with her usual charm earlier in the debate, I will speak respectfully to her in return. Five years is a very short time indeed in the context of war, covert operations or peacekeeping operations that may be ongoing five years after an alleged atrocity, so in practice this triple lock will make it very difficult to prosecute some of the gravest offences that unfortunately sometimes arise in conflict. As we have said repeatedly during the passage of this legislation, the Government have already conceded the need for certain excluded offences, particularly sexual offences, which have been placed in Schedule 1 to the Bill so do not become subject to the five-year limitation. So it is inexplicable that in the light of everything that has been said to the Government, in the most constructive tone possible, they should not listen to your Lordships’ House and add the offences mentioned in this amendment to that list.

Whenever the Minister has been asked about the distinction between these grave offences and sex offences, she has presented a response from the department about the importance of sending signals and giving confidence in relation to sex offences and overseas operations. We need that comfort and those assurances on these grave offences, not least to avoid the perversity of a situation where, in the context of sexualised torture—sadly, we know this has been perpetrated in conflict situations even by allied forces in recent decades—a veteran or a serving member of personnel could be prosecuted for indecent assault when the allegation is of sexualised torture because the five-year period had passed. That is absolutely perverse.

I urge the Minister yet again to listen to this coalition of opinion from people who do not always agree with me by any stretch of the imagination on human rights matters. Hawks and doves are in complete agreement about this. I urge her to think again. My noble friend Lady Blower may not be a lawyer or a military person, but she is an educator. As she spoke I wondered how we will explain this legislation to our children and grandchildren, let alone to the various hard men of the world cited by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who will be applauding the opportunity that the duplicity of our position on these crimes presents them whether in China, Myanmar or elsewhere.

I can only support these amendments and hope that the distinguished signatories to them will, if the noble Baroness does not concede, test the opinion of the House.

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

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We have no connection at the moment, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I am taking the opportunity to express my concerns about this Bill, particularly the five-year window for prosecution and the ability that that will have for the Government to meet their long-standing human rights obligations.

I support Amendment 3. I want to remind everyone that there is already an exclusion in this legislation for rape and other sexual offences. It is there correctly. I suspect that the Government, in putting this Bill together, had their ears bent by women in their own ranks saying, “You can’t possibly put off rape allegations simply because they haven’t been put forward within the five-year window.” There are many reasons why you could not bring a prosecution within that window of five years in relation to sexual offences, which we are now much more willing to recognise as one of the horrors of war. The reasons why people do not come forward and are not able to put their case within short order may be fear or lack of resources. They are often in denial about the horror they have experienced. They may be experiencing coercion or threats or a desire to avoid reliving the past. I am afraid I know all this directly. The reason why evidence is gathered over time to become strong enough to bring cases—it does not happen with speed—is because it is difficult, hard work involving sensitivity to victims. The same is true for victims of torture and other grievous war crimes.

Without the present exemption, the vast majority of rape victims, largely women, would be barred from accessing justice through no fault of their own. Victims of other forms of abuse and violence, such as torture, should be afforded the same opportunity to seek justice on their own terms and in their own time. For example, we are now gathering evidence from places such as Syria—a war that started in 2011. The triple I investigatory processes are gathering that evidence. Prosecutions will happen much further down the line; that is the nature of this.

We have led the world in advocating for the rule of law. I have met the most wonderful lawyers in the ranks of the British Army working for the British Army. They are champions of the rule of law. We should recognise that we have been at the heart of creating the well-established principles and provisions of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. It is a source of pride to me and should be to everybody. We lose our moral authority by going down this road.

I work closely with the United Nations Human Rights Council on matters of law. Senior officials are shocked, deeply alarmed and disappointed to their hearts that the UK of all nations should be retreating from this high ground, so I want to emphasise the implications of this on our standing in the world. The United Kingdom has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations convention against torture. We have heard about the convention in relation to genocide, of which I have spoken many times in this House. They all mandate the absolute prohibition of torture. The absolute nature of the prohibition is at odds with the restrictions in this Bill.

I speak with sadness that we have come to this place. In answering the questions, “What has persuaded the Government? How have they come to be in such a wrong place?”, I think this Bill was put together at a time in relation to matters to do with Iraq, and of course with memories and considerations in relation to Ireland. Courage was given to this Bill by the fact that in the United States of America there was someone like Donald Trump, who had such little respect for the rules-based international order and wanted something somewhat different. He was not interested in international law or international courts. We stand as one of the nations that has been true to those things. We have been one of the few nations that has not experienced fascism, and perhaps that has given us the experience of sticking with law and knowing why it is so important. The value of our commitments becomes meaningless and rings hollow across the international stage by bringing this Bill into being.

The people who experience torture end up deeply traumatised. The families of those who have experienced the horrors of these terrible crimes are traumatised. It takes time to work with them to put together evidence to consider prosecutions. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has also found that a state’s lack of response to an investigation of a complaint is in itself a violation of the prohibition of torture.

We are coming up against a whole body of law that we have been at the heart of creating. What are we thinking about? I wonder whether there are other lawyers in government like Elizabeth, the great lawyer in the Foreign Office who was really alarmed over the Iraq war, who are experiencing the same anxiety that something of serious consequence is being lost here. In its present form, this Bill will not only violate individual procedural human rights and create a culture of impunity for torture and inhumane treatment, but will diminish our capacity to influence in the international human rights sphere, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, described.

I urge this House and the Government to have a rethink because the consequences of this legislation will be far-reaching. Here we are trying to speak in a world that is currently dealing with the horrors perpetrated on the Uighurs and those in Myanmar and the anxieties and fears about what is going on in Hong Kong. We need to have our voice strong in the world right now. Look at Belarus, look at the different places where horrors are taking place; we need to be a voice for values.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the debate on Amendment 14 will now resume. I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

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

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Robertson and Lord Browne of Ladyton, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem have made powerful speeches with which I totally agree. I will confine myself to looking more closely at the nature of the offences we are discussing.

The United Nations convention on genocide of December 1948 came about as the result of campaigning by Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term in 1943 after witnessing the horrors of the Holocaust, in which every member of his family except his brother was killed.

Article II of the convention defines genocide as an act

“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

The acts include

“Killing … Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group … Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

No one in this country has ever been accused of genocide.

It is different with war crimes. I watched a corporal in the British Army plead guilty to a war crime in the Baha Mousa case, namely torture. He was acquitted of murder and received a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.

War crimes are defined as grave breaches of the Geneva conventions—

“acts against persons or property protected under the provisions”

of those conventions. They include wilful killing, torture, wilfully causing great suffering, unlawful deportation, the taking of hostages and other acts. To suggest that, where there is evidence sufficient to found a conviction on any of these matters, a prosecution could be avoided by a presumption against prosecution, is grotesque: “rotten law”, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said a moment ago, and I totally agree with her.

The thought that, if the DSP had decided there was sufficient evidence that a prosecution was in the public and the service interest, the Attorney-General could nevertheless block a prosecution, holding their hands up and saying that it was not a political decision, is equally demeaning. As the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, put it, it is a disgrace that it should be included in a Bill to be passed by Her Majesty in Parliament.

The picture is that there is somebody in government who has decided as a matter of policy that he or she could not block the prosecution of sexual offences with a presumption of prosecution. Why? What is the justification for selecting that category of offences when we have the types of offences not excluded? It is an arbitrary choice, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds put it. Why is there this anomaly? I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It is a mistake, is it not? I certainly hope so.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 17 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to Amendment 18. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 18

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this is a self-contained point rather outside the mainstream of the other issues that we have been dealing with, but an important amendment trying to provide a degree of certainty to military personnel engaged in overseas operations. The amendment seeks to provide that, where a minor offence is committed that would be triable within the Armed Forces criminal justice system, there should be a six-month time limit from the date the offence is committed for bringing proceedings. So, after six months have elapsed from the date of the offence, if no proceedings have been brought it cannot be prosecuted. This provision mirrors Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and reflects the sensible proposition that, in relation to minor offences, you should know where you stand.

I am not sure whether the drafting has precisely achieved this; I would be interested in the Minister’s views on whether we need to make any changes. However, I am absolutely sure that the principle is sound: in relation to minor offences, there should be a shortish time limit of six months, so that the system is not cluttered up with old offences of a certain lack of severity. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 19. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 8: Restrictions on time limits to bring actions: England and Wales

Amendment 19

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, at this time of the evening it would be very easy simply to agree with everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has just said and be happy to move on, but that would do a disservice to our service men and women and veterans, because the points these amendments speak to and the words the noble and learned Lord has just uttered are extremely important. It is surely appropriate that we treat our service personnel and veterans with respect, and that they should not be disadvantaged because they have been service men and women.

Clearly, incidents and dangers can happen in the field of battle that will not be legislated for in a conventional civilian sense, but there might be other issues—hearing loss, for example—associated with having been in the Armed Forces which become clear only later. It seems very strange, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, that people should have different rights according to whether the problems arose while based in the UK or on overseas operations. Can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, who appears to have taken over from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, say what work the Government have done in looking at the potential ramifications of this limitation?

This Bill has been put forward by the Government as something supposed to help our service men and women, but this limitation seems to limit their rights. I know the Minister will have been told that it is very important that cases are brought swiftly and issues are dealt with promptly, that it is in everybody’s interest to do so and that delaying things is in no one’s. But neither is curtailing people’s rights.

The Royal British Legion sent a briefing picking up in particular on the Armed Forces covenant, quoting the point:

“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services … In accessing services, former members of the Armed Forces should expect the same level of support as any other citizen in society.”


Assuming that Her Majesty’s Government still support the Armed Forces covenant, can the Minister explain how the proposals in Part 2 of the Bill live up to its commitments? Can he tell us what additional thoughts the Government might be willing to have on looking again at this limitation?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29 in support of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Stirrup. The de facto six-year time limit for claims being brought against Ministers and the MoD arising from active service abroad seems at first sight far from protecting our people, but rather reducing the rights of individual service personnel. Those injured as a result of negligence during overseas operations, unlike in the UK, will have less protection under the law. Veterans and service charities, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, are very worried and have been taking quite a lot of notice of this. The British Legion and other charities are very concerned.

To keep this short, it seems that the Bill seeks to protect the MoD from claims by our servicemen, rather than trying to look after them. Again, I am absolutely sure that that is not the intention, and this amendment tries to rectify that problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boyce (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 29 and the subject of a six-year time limit being imposed by the Bill on those who have been engaged on overseas operations in their ability to bring any grievance against the MoD. This would have the perverse effect of limiting individual service personnel’s rights by restricting their access to legal remedies for harms caused by their employers, while it would not apply to their counterparts not engaged on overseas arrangements. Surely it must be beyond argument that such a situation should not be allowed, and I thus support Amendment 29.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who is next on the list, has withdrawn, so I call the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

--- Later in debate ---

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, finally, we come to Amendment 20. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Clause 11: Court’s discretion to extend time in certain Human Rights Act proceedings

Amendment 20

Moved by

Cadet Forces

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

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

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

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

British Armed Forces: Iraqi Interpreters

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question. I call the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.

Integrated Review: New Ships

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

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

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

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

War Widows Pensions

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

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

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

I repeat the request for brevity.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

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

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

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

D-day: 75th Anniversary

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, how fortunate we are that my noble friend Lord Reay chose to make his maiden speech in this debate so that he could remind us of the wonderful exploits of his grandfather Lord Lovat, who was so distinguished a figure in the Second World War.

In opening this important debate my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House reminded us powerfully of the truly breathtaking scale and extent of Operation Overlord, whose 75th anniversary we are commemorating today. By happy coincidence, it comes a few days after the 225th anniversary of the Battle of the Glorious First of June, when my noble friend’s renowned forebear, the 1st Earl Howe, smashed the fleet of republican France in the Atlantic.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, referred to a fine sailor of the Second World War, Admiral Ramsay. I strongly agree that his huge contribution to victory should be more widely known and recognised.

I shall devote most of my remarks to the great man who was indispensable to victory: Winston Churchill. He agonised over the opening of a new front in northern France. He was haunted by the memory of the long, bloody, inconclusive battles of the First World War and feared their repetition. He told the King, and his indispensable Soviet ally Stalin, that he was prepared for casualties of around 10,000 on the first day alone, but as,

“the supreme climax of the war”,

as he described it, drew near, the great man was in buoyant mood. His principal military adviser, General Alan Brooke, a man much given to gloom, recorded on 5 June that,

“I found him over optimistic as regards prospects of the cross Channel operation and tried to damp him down”.


The doubt-ridden general did not succeed.

Churchill, who was also Minister of Defence, wanted to be associated as closely as possible with his troops as the greatest armada in human history sailed to its destination. So, too, did the monarch, King George VI. On 30 May, they agreed that they would both be present on D-day, aboard HMS “Belfast”. The King was quickly dissuaded. His Private Secretary, Alan Lascelles, asked him whether he was seriously prepared to advise Princess Elizabeth on the choice of her first Prime Minister in the event of her father and Churchill being sent to the bottom of the English Channel. The King then told Churchill that his life was far too precious to be put at serious risk. For several days his entreaties had no effect. Lascelles noted,

“the trouble is that none of those who have access to Winston can influence him once he is set on a course, not even Mrs Churchill nor, apparently, his anointed King”.

The Prime Minister eventually gave way with the utmost reluctance. He made his feelings plain later in his war memoirs:

“As a result of what I saw and learned in the First World War, I was convinced that generals and other high commanders should try from time to time to see the condition and aspect of the battle-scene themselves”.


Was it not only right and just, he added, that,

“when sending so many others to their deaths he may share in a small way their risks?”.

It was here in this Chamber, then being used by the Commons, that Churchill delivered the first official statement on the events of D-day. Harold Nicolson, a National Labour MP and a marvellous diarist, recorded the scene here on 6 June 1944:

“I go down to the House, arriving there at about ten to twelve ... Questions had ended unexpectedly early and people were just sitting there chatting, waiting for Winston. He entered the Chamber at three minutes to twelve. He looked as white as a sheet. The House noticed this at once, and we feared he was going to announce some terrible disaster”.


Two pieces of typescript were placed on the Dispatch Box. Churchill spoke first of the liberation of Rome two days earlier by General Alexander’s conquering army.

“Alexander gets a really tremendous cheer”,


Nicolson noted. Churchill took up his second sheet:

“I have also to announce to the House that during the night and the early hours of this morning the first of the series of landings in force upon the European Continent has taken place”.


He spoke for some seven minutes in confident terms:

“Everything is proceeding to plan. And what a plan! This vast operation is undoubtedly the most complicated and difficult that has ever taken place ... Complete unity prevails throughout the Allied Armies. There is a brotherhood in arms between us and our friends of the United States”.


To these stirring remarks, the House listened “in hushed awe”, in Nicolson’s words.

Does not awe remain the right emotion 75 years later—awe at the precision and attention to detail with which this vast operation was put so successfully together; and awe, mingled with gratitude, at the courage of those drawn from many different countries in Europe and around the world who served under D-day’s banner of freedom?

I was one of a small group who submitted a rough draft for Margaret Thatcher to consider as she prepared a speech for the 40th anniversary of D-day in 1984. She stressed the importance of retaining for ever the great war-time alliance that was later to be enshrined in NATO.

This is a moment above all for honouring our fellow countrymen for their valour in June 1944. My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, who pressed for this debate, is sadly unable to take part in it today. He is in Normandy, accompanying one of the veterans we are still lucky to have among us. My noble friend has asked me to say this on his behalf: Corporal, later Sergeant, Les Birch of the Royal Engineers landed at Asnelles on Gold beach on D-Day+1 to begin the work of building the Mulberry harbours, commissioned personally by Churchill, which were so vital for the success of our early operations in France. In recent years he has returned faithfully on 6 June to pay a silent tribute to those of his friends who fell and to give thanks for the success of Overlord. He will be doing the same again on Thursday. On 6 June 1944 Les Birch was one of many thousands to whom General Montgomery sent this message:

“To us is given the honour of striking a blow for freedom which will live in history; and in the better days that lie ahead men will speak with pride of our doings”.


That pride will surely be safeguarded faithfully by those who follow us throughout the generations to come.