Armed Forces Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I rise to speak to group 7, which comprises government Amendments 38 to 42, 45 to 47, and 67 and 68, in my name. I will speak also to Amendments 43, 44 and 66, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

I thought it would be helpful if I started with something of a scene setter on the report of the review conducted by Sir Richard Henriques. As noble Lords will be aware, on 13 October 2020, the Secretary of State announced the commissioning of a review by Sir Richard Henriques, to build upon, but not reopen, the recommendations of the service justice system review by His Honour Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy.

The aim was to ensure that, in relation to complex and serious allegations of wrongdoing against UK forces on overseas operations, defence has the most up-to-date and future-proof framework, skills and processes in place, and that improvements can be made where necessary. The review was to be forward looking and, while drawing on insights from the handling of allegations from recent operations, it was not to reconsider past investigative or prosecutorial decisions or to reopen historical cases.

I am pleased to say that Sir Richard submitted his report at the end of July 2021 and, as I had committed to do at Second Reading, we published it on 21 October, with a supporting Written Ministerial Statement, to enable your Lordships to have chance to consider it during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill. It goes without saying that we are very grateful for the comprehensive and considered work that Sir Richard has undertaken, and we particularly welcome his recognition of the need for a separate system of military justice. In summary, the report contains a total of 64 recommendations, approximately a third of which are focused on taking forward the establishment of a Defence Serious Crime Unit—DSCU—originally recommended by Sir Jon Murphy.

There are also a number of operations-related recommendations, including for protocols between the service police, the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Judge Advocate-General for processes relating to the timely and effective investigation of allegations of unlawful killing and ill-treatment by UK forces on overseas operations. There are also recommendations for improving the technical IT systems supporting the military courts, and a number of recommendations relating to summary hearings.

As set out in our ministerial Statement, we have prioritised taking forward the recommendations to establish the Defence Serious Crime Unit, and I am extremely pleased that we were able to take swift action to table the government amendments for the key DSCU recommendations—one, two and seven—because they require primary legislation.

We have also committed to taking forward work over the coming months on four other recommendations, which will: amend standard operating procedures to ensure that service police are informed with minimum delay of reportable offences; establish a serious incident board within the Permanent Joint Headquarters; create or upgrade an operational record-keeping system; and adopt a uniform approach in respect of training of service legal personnel prior to their posting to the Service Prosecuting Authority.

The remaining recommendations, including among other things legal support to personnel, improved technology and IT for the service courts and improvements to the summary hearing process, raise wider implications relating to policy and legal and resourcing issues. These will be considered further by the department over the coming months. Where appropriate and necessary, legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. I will of course update your Lordships on progress.

Our goal will be to ensure that, in considering and taking forward work on Sir Richard’s recommendations, we continue to maintain operational effectiveness and the swift delivery of fair and efficient justice for victims and offenders.

The amendments in my name contain the necessary changes to primary legislation to give effect to the Government’s plans for a new tri-service serious crime unit, headed by a new provost marshal for serious crime. This is an important set of amendments that demonstrate the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to the highest investigative capabilities for the service justice system. Through this, we are rapidly taking forward the most important set of recommendations from Sir Richard Henriques’s recently published review.

The amendments make the following key changes. The new clause provides that the new provost marshal for serious crime is subject to the same rules about appointment as existing provost marshals. This means appointment by Her Majesty and the requirement that they be an officer in the service police. The new clause also provides that the new provost marshal for serious crime will be responsible for ensuring that investigations of the new tri-service serious crime unit are independent.

The new schedule contains consequential amendments relating to the clause and provides the new provost marshal for serious crime with the same investigative powers as the pre-existing provost marshals for the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force and service police. I should underline that these are not new investigatory powers for the service police. This is about ensuring that the existing service police investigatory powers are available for the new arrangements. We expect there to be a similar consequential exercise for changes needed to secondary legislation.

Sir Richard’s recommendations supported those made by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy regarding the implementation of a Defence Serious Crime Unit. He further recommended: that the Defence Serious Crime Unit be an operational unit; that it should be commanded by a provost marshal for serious crime; and that the provost marshal for serious crime should have a duty of operational independence in investigative matters owed to the Defence Council, on the same terms as that owed by the service provost marshals under Section 115A of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

The Ministry of Defence has been working on the Defence Serious Crime Unit model since the recommendations made by the Lyons and Murphy review. There were non-legislative ways of implementing the recommendations from Lyons and Murphy under consideration. However, the recommendations from Sir Richard require primary legislation, particularly as far as they concern the operational independence of the unit and the new provost marshal.

The Defence Secretary is adamant that we should progress these aspects of Sir Richard’s report with the utmost speed, which is why we are bringing these amendments before your Lordships today. With the support of noble Lords, we will be able to implement these critical recommendations and, in tandem, we will progress the remaining recommendations which focus on the functionality, remit and operational considerations for the unit.

With the establishment of the new provost marshal for serious crime and the tri-service serious crime unit, the MoD will be in a stronger position to respond to serious crime. We will be able to combine resources and specialist skills from across the single services under one unit and will build an independent, more effective and collaborative approach to policing across defence.

This reinforces the decision by the Secretary of State for Defence that the existing principle of jurisdictional concurrency between the service and civilian jurisdictions should be maintained. That of course is a position that Sir Richard Henriques has also supported. The service justice system is capable of dealing with the full range of offences when they occur, in the UK as well as overseas. These changes to service policing will support that capability into the future.

I hope that this explanation assures noble Lords of our commitment to the improvement of policing across the service justice system and our intent to adopt the recommendations provided in the judge-led reviews. I therefore urge your Lordships to support the proposed amendments in my name.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness give way for a moment? She admits that she is not implementing all the recommendations in the Henriques report in relation to the prosecution and then she said that the Government would consider them with utmost speed. I recognise all these wonderful phrases. Then she said that she would bring forward amendments when parliamentary time allows. That seems to me to kick the matter down the road. Some of his recommendations that are not part of this new clause need to be implemented as early as possible. I am sure the Minister will eventually find that “when parliamentary time allows” normally means in many years’ time.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am just checking back to see what I actually read out. I was pointing out that this is roughly broken into three sectors. One is what we are taking forward today with the amendments. The second concerns four other specific recommendations that we are taking forward. Then the remaining recommendations, as I said, raise wider implications for policy, resourcing and legal issues. I said that these will be considered further by the department over the coming months and, where appropriate and necessary, legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.

That is not kicking the can down the road. That is to simply say to the noble Lord that we recognise that we still have research, inquiry and investigation to do in the department to understand the consequences of these recommendations from Henriques. We want to be clear about that but, equally, we are very positive about Sir Richard Henriques’ report. I said that our goal will always be to ensure that, in considering and taking forward work on his recommendations, we keep an eye on operational effectiveness and the swift delivery of fair and efficient justice for victims and offenders.

I hope that explains to the noble Lord why I cannot really go any further than that today. I certainly dispute his analogy of kicking the can down the road. This is a serious and substantial piece of work. We are prioritising the most important part, which we think will make a big difference to policing within the service justice system, and we are being canny about how we then progress the other bits of the report.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister to be more specific and tell us which of his recommendations in relation to this specific part raise policy implications that will have to be considered over some time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. I rise to deal with the key issue of independence. It is, as I said on the previous day in Committee, essential to two things. One is public confidence—one cannot overestimate the importance of that—but it is equally important to the morale and well-being of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

I think we have established a very clear structure for the independence of the Director of Service Prosecutions and the three distinguished holders of that office, Bruce Houlder, Andrew Cayley and Jonathan Rees, the current DSP, have ensured that it happens. Now, how do we deal with the independence of the police? It seems to me very important to look at the problems with the independence of an investigation. Many us will have forgotten—or were not alive at the time—when there were serious problems in the civilian police, particularly with watch committees and other mechanisms that were meant to ensure that the police were accountable and independent. It did not work. Various things were tried and eventually we came up with the police and crime commissioners, as Sir Richard notes in his report.

Looking at independence, and having had to fight for the independence of the judiciary from time to time, I can assure noble Lords that what you need is a structure behind you—someone independent to go to on whom you can rely. In the case of the judiciary, one can obviously come to Parliament. That is ultimately what is provided for. That is why, it seems to me, the independent strategic board proposed is absolutely the key part of this. There should be an absolute duty for an independent investigation, which should not be qualified in any way, but you need an institutional structure.

What I wholly fail to understand from the Minister’s observations is why that cannot now be put in place and, in the way that police and crime commissioners have been made part of the statutory mechanism that looks to the police, why we cannot have a statutory mechanism for the Armed Forces. Surely they are entitled to the same sort of protection as ordinary civilians—as us all. I do not understand why we always expect the Armed Forces to have second best. There can be no reason why these issues have not been fully considered and why the Government cannot go forward.

This has been a long-standing problem. One has to go back only to the awful problems of the Iraq and Afghan wars, with the sticking-plaster solutions—if I may be so bold as to describe them as that—of bodies such as IHAT, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. If you lived through cases on that, you would appreciate the need for a structure and something that we can be proud of to protect independence.

Given the history of the way in which the Armed Forces from time to time behave, if you do not do something now, you will have a problem in the future. I urge the Government to grapple with this now and deal with it by putting in provisions, as Sir Richard recommended. If one reads his report carefully, one sees the importance of the strategic board as the guarantor of independence. As the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, how is independence to be secured without some form of mechanism?

The second area on which I want to comment briefly is witness and victim care. This seems to me an important part of a statutory protection. If there is a witness or victims’ unit, there is someone to go to. Again, why are the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to have second best? Why is there not statutory provision, just as there is in the ordinary criminal justice system? I urge the Minister to look at this again with the objective of protecting the Armed Forces for the future and giving them what the rest of us have.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in making the valuable and very firm points that he made. The question he asks is far from rhetorical. Why should members of our Armed Forces settle for second best? Why should we expect them to be less entitled to systems of justice that ordinary citizens can access?

I have vivid memories of the overseas operations Bill from this Session of Parliament. That was another Bill that came from the House of Commons, where the debates were dominated by a Minister demanding total obedience to every dot and comma of the Bill on the grounds that if you were against it, you were against the British Army, thereby allowing through provisions that might well have led to British soldiers and other members of Britain’s Armed Forces appearing before the International Criminal Court. Eventually, the Government woke up, but not without huge pressure and a lot of distinguished Members of this House making sure they got a very firm message. I do not want to embarrass the Minister too much, but I know that she played a role in getting common sense seen in that debate.

When we look at legislation being brought forward by the Government, we are wise to be cautious about what the Government say in their own defence. Therefore, when the Minister says that there are elements in the Henriques report which require attention and I ask which of those have policy implications, I would expect the department to be able to tell us. I recognise the phrase “when parliamentary time allows”, because I am sure I used it during my ministerial career. There is usually very little parliamentary time available for primary legislation, which is what would be required to enact the remaining aspects of the Henriques recommendations.

I follow my noble friend Lord Coaker in what he says and his detailed questions. The key question concerns the fact that, while Henriques made a number of recommendations, 13 of them have not appeared in the amendments to the Bill in this Committee. He is right to ask this question, which I repeat: which of these require policy consideration, because that could take a very considerable period to come forward as well?

The stories in the Sunday Times, both last Sunday and the Sunday before, should, frankly, horrify all of us. What is described there is disgraceful, disgusting and completely indefensible. I am not a lawyer or a soldier, but I cannot understand why action is not being taken and investigations into this particular incident are not taking place. We are being told that only if the Kenyan authorities start to make their inquiries will anything happen in this country, when there seems to be clear evidence around, involving British citizens and members of the British Armed Forces involved in this. Why has there not been some investigation? Just as members of the Armed Forces are perfectly entitled to be treated like other citizens in this country, victims also have a right to the kind of justice and investigation that we would expect for anyone else in the country.

We should not allow the Sunday Times to develop this story, week after week, with hugely damaging effects on the reputation of our Armed Forces, the recruitment of people into them and the country as a whole. Although it is not, strictly speaking, the business of this Committee, it is a matter of public concern. It has alerted the public in general to the whole question of service discipline. Therefore, the business of this Committee and Bill, detailed and arcane as it is in some ways, has now become a matter of public attention. It is up to the Government and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to pay attention to that and resolve it so that they protect the reputation of the country and our distinguished Armed Forces.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank noble Lords for an interesting and stimulating debate, as ever. I shall endeavour to respond to the points raised. I certainly hope that the fate that befell Admiral Byng, so colourfully described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, does not befall me, or the proceedings would come to a summary conclusion.

I will first address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who said, quite correctly, that perception is important. I agree with that, but so is legal exactitude, which is, I accept, tedious to some but none the less absolutely vital in the framing of legislation. I will come to that in a little more detail shortly.

I say to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Robertson—who, with the best of intentions, I know, raised the appalling situation of the Kenyan lady —that I am constrained. This is a live investigation in Kenya, and it is sub judice. I can say that the Secretary of State has offered our full co-operation, but it is essentially a Kenyan investigation. We are prepared to offer any co-operation that we can when they request it. We have to let the investigatory process continue.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reverted to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, about the remaining Henriques recommendations. I looked at again at what I said and double-checked where we are. I do not want to be discouraging or disappointing, but I can put my hand on my heart and say that approximately 40 of these recommendations require policy and legal analysis. That is factual, and I cannot accelerate that at the moment, but I am happy to give your Lordships an undertaking that I shall certainly monitor and report back on progress. I hope that will reassure your Lordships that this is not some somnolent process that will fall asleep once Committee stage is over. I am very happy to place that on the record and offer to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 66A. I will not cover all the ground covered on the overseas Bill; I merely want to say that I look forward to what the Minister has to say about delivering what she said at the time. Aspects of the welfare of our people should be looked at and some implementation of policy achieved.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 and will follow what the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said. I will say why the amendment and more care for mental illness are required.

I live in a town in Scotland called Dunblane. In 1996, a gunman used a private armoury to kill schoolchildren and their teacher. At that time I was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and lived in the town. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, was the local Member of Parliament. We came together that day. It was by any standard a traumatic day. We did everything together after that to handle the issues that came up in the media. The following day, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition came to the town.

Within days I was back at work, which you do: it is traumatic, but you get through these things. I thought, “Well, I’m tough enough”—I had been a politician in Scotland for long enough, after all. You think you can take it all. But gradually I came to realise that I was not coping with it at all. I remembered that the Secretary of State for Scotland had offered counselling to those who had been affected. We were also made the same offer as individuals. I went to see the counsellor because I found I could not mention the events of that day without breaking up, and this was not something that was convenient or natural when you were in the bearpit of Scottish politics. I took up the offer and went to the counsellor. I spent a morning with an experienced counsellor and I was fixed. It took only a morning, but that lady was quite remarkable in the way she treated me.

Fast forward two years and I am Secretary of State for Defence. The Omagh bomb exploded in that small town in Northern Ireland. I went across as Defence Secretary with the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler, and spoke to the troops that day. The troops based there who had helped in the aftermath were pretty hardened infantry soldiers—as tough and as hard as you can get, and they had been in Northern Ireland for some time—but they were deeply affected by what they had seen that day. They could cope with most things, but the sight of a baby torn in pieces was something they were deeply traumatised by.

I told them my story that day to say that they had been injured by what they had seen and that they needed to take the counselling that was going to be on offer. Although they were tough and hard, if they had been told after being shot in the shoulder to put a sticking plaster on it and it would go away, it would not have seemed sufficient even for them, yet they had been injured in another way, and there were ways in which they could be treated. I hope that had an effect that day and persuaded some of them to take that treatment, which they probably felt was not something they would ever really need.

Since then, of course, the traumas of Afghanistan and Iraq have come along and many more of our Armed Forces have been severely affected. Therefore, this amendment, which, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, maybe does not go far enough, alerts the Ministry of Defence to the necessity that is there to make sure that more attention is paid to that aspect of medical welfare.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think anybody can disagree with the intention of these amendments. Indeed, I agree entirely and am pleased to have heard about the progress made by the MoD in recent years when it comes to mental health—and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, the differing approach that we have taken to mental health and physical health over many years. It begs the question as to whether there is anything about physical health in the Bill, if we are potentially about to put something in about mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 50 in my name, which is in this important group of amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, for their amendments in this group. I very much support and appreciate them.

I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief to give other noble Lords time to speak. This is a crucial set of amendments. The Committee will know that homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until January 2000. That is quite astonishing, given that the law was changed in 1967. The ban was lifted by the then Labour Government and I was very pleased. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was Secretary of State at that time. If he was not, he would no doubt have been working towards that. The fact that homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until January 2000, some 33 years after the 1967 Act, is shocking.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that I left the Ministry of Defence in October 1999, so I cannot claim the credit.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I would say that my noble friend laid the ground for it.

My serious point is that it has left a situation in which thousands upon thousands of ex-service men and women were dishonourably discharged, or quite outrageously forced from the service, simply because of their sexuality. It is simply unbelievable given the standards we have now and simply unacceptable that it happened. The practical impact of that discrimination —loss of pension, loss of livelihood et cetera—let alone the mental health damage and the stigma attached to it, was simply unacceptable and unbelievable. I want to draw attention to that. I would be interested to know from the Minister what the Ministry of Defence’s estimate—the Government’s view—is of the number of people impacted by this. I have seen estimates in the press of up to 20,000 people. I do not know whether that is correct; maybe noble Lords have better information than me, but it will be interesting to know what the actual figure is.

We have heard the Government say that there will be a restoration of medals. That seems good, but its progress has been slow. What will the Government do more of to try to accelerate that progress? There is clearly a need for further compensation, for pensions to be reformed and all those sorts of things. The Minister must now consider the restoration of ranks, pensions and other forms of compensation to honour appropriately those who have served our country with courage and distinction. That is what Amendment 50 seeks to do. Fighting With Pride gave compelling evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill about the damage that the ban on homosexuality has done to LGBT+ veterans. What steps will the Minister take to proactively identify those who were discriminated against? What discussions has she had regarding further forms of compensation for those affected?

I was grateful that the Minister in the other place said so clearly that

“the historical ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong and there was horrific injustice as a consequence of it.”

I could not have put it better. It is absolutely shameful for our country. How do we go about fixing this injustice? That is what we all want to do. The Minister said that the Government would resist a similar amendment as it would

“complicate our efforts to address at pace this injustice.”

I do not understand what was meant by “complicate”. Surely the amendment would give a clear direction and encourage action. The Minister then said that fixing this injustice

“is at the heart of our veterans’ strategy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/21; col. 929.]

When will we get to see this strategy and will the idea of compensation be included?

When giving evidence to the Bill’s Select Committee, Craig Jones from Fighting With Pride said:

“When people were found or suspected”,


of homosexuality,

“they were arrested, often late at night, by the Royal Military Police. They were taken away for questioning, and that questioning … went on for days. Many of the people who were questioned had no legal support, or no ‘accused’s friends’, as we sometimes call that in the Armed Forces. They were searched, and the process went on for a very long time. After they had been charged, many were taken to military hospitals for medical inspections, which were a disgraceful breach of trust between members of the Armed Forces and the officers whom they were in the care of.”

I could not agree more with the Bill’s Select Committee’s report, which stated:

“Diversity is a source of strength for the Armed Forces and all should welcome and encourage a more diverse Armed Forces.”


Surely part of that is righting this historic wrong.

I was moved by an article that I hope noble Lords saw in the Mirror a few weeks ago. It outlined some of the case studies of some former veterans, forced to leave the Armed Forces after some years of service. It was heartbreaking and unbelievable. It brings tears to your eyes when you read it. We were all shocked by it, but what we want is speedy action from the Government.

I will mention one positive sign: is it not great that finally in our country, on Remembrance Sunday this year, Fighting With Pride will be able to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph? That is a symbol of the change that we all want and the action that needs to be taken, but it needs to take place sooner rather than later. I press the Minister not only to share our shame and sense of outrage at this injustice but to explain to the Committee what we will do about it to end it more quickly than we seem to be at the moment.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I think it may have been noticed that my noble friend has strayed from Amendment A into Amendment B. I think it would be wise to allow the Deputy Speaker to deal with Amendment A before we move on to Amendment B. I might be able to persuade my noble friend to keep her opening speech short for Amendment B as it has been given already.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the clarification by the Whip on the Bench. I am going to talk about Amendment A only at the moment, but the Minister clearly was trying to save us time by conflating everything into one. I thank the Minister for her co-operation and help during the course of this particular issue. My prevailing sentiment at the end of this process is relief. I am happy to accept the government amendments that have been put down that discharge the decision taken by the House in its earlier session.

It is a relief that we have, in doing so, saved the Government and, more importantly, the country from the embarrassment, maybe even the humiliation, of challenging international humanitarian law, which would have been the import of where we were going. It was, however, not easy to persuade Ministers and their somewhat acquiescent majority in the other place that this aspect of this Bill would cause more trouble than it would solve. It took two chunks of parliamentary time to persuade them to come to this conclusion this evening, but, finally, sense has prevailed. Our troops, sent overseas in our name, will now not be singled out as being above the law that they seek to uphold. They will not face the prospect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Nor will we, this United Kingdom, become the precedent for every warlord or war criminal to say that our presumption against prosecution after five years would give them some sort of carte blanche to be let off the hook. Improving—some might say saving—this Bill represents the conclusion of a tenacious campaign to draw public and parliamentary attention to its manifest defects.

In particular, I pay tribute to John Healey MP, the shadow Defence Secretary, and Stephen Morgan MP, who sought in the other place to demonstrate the weaknesses of the Bill. I also thank David Davis MP— who I once was in hand-to-hand combat with as his shadow in the days of the Maastricht treaty—who was, in this case, a powerful voice in changing the legislation. I also pay tribute to Dan Harris in the PLP office, who gave so much advice and support to me and my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Touhig, as they campaigned vigorously during this Bill. I also pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Alton, who were my co-signatories on the key amendment.

I would also like to mention the Financial Times, the Daily Mail and Nick Cohen in the Observer, who also joined in the campaign to change the Government’s mind on this case. A number of NGOs also played a major part in drawing attention to what we are talking about here this evening, and I single out Steve Crawshaw at Freedom from Torture, who did a huge job here. The Bingham Centre, the Law Society, Liberty, the APPG on Drones and the British Legion all offered detailed advice and intelligent, perceptive and constructive criticism of the Bill. It was a Bill that sought to do a commendable service for our fighting forces but which almost ended up leaving them liable to trial in The Hague.

As I said originally, my overwhelming sentiment now is relief, and I welcome the Government’s amendments tonight. Elegantly, they make it clear that war crimes, improbably committed by British troops serving overseas will be subject, as they are in international law, to no time limit at all. I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her understanding and indulgence, and I am so pleased this evening to be able to give her support in relation to Motion A.

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

My Lords, between the two items of business on defence matters, the Government Chief Whip pointed out that there are three pieces of legislation still going back and forth between your Lordships’ House and the other place. With regard to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, I suspect that this will be the last iteration in either Chamber because, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, so eloquently pointed out, the Government’s amendments in lieu of this particularly important amendment basically give everything that we have been asking for at various stages.

I will not rehearse the litany of people that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, had either supported the amendment or given advice on it, other than to say, in line with his sentiments, that the omission of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and torture had potentially created a lacuna in the Bill that could have been detrimental to service personnel and veterans. While the stated intention of the Bill, to deal with vexatious claims, was a good one, the original framing of the Bill was less good. With this amendment, we have moved a long way towards making the Bill fit for purpose and we certainly support the amendments that the Government have brought forward at this stage. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his tenacity in bringing the amendment again and again, and I thank the Minister for listening and for the representations that have gone back and forth between the Chambers. At this stage, I welcome this Motion and expect to see the Bill passing relatively soon.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

Leave out “1A to 1Q in lieu” and insert “1A to 1G, 1J, 1K, 1M and 1N, do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1Q and do propose Amendment 1R as an amendment thereto, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 1H, 1L and 1P and do propose Amendments 1S to 1U in lieu thereof—

1R: In paragraph 31B(1), leave out from “1957” to end of sub-paragraph (3) and insert “(grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions) is an excluded offence.”

--- Later in debate ---

1U: Schedule 1, page 14, line 9, leave out from “crime” to end of line 12 and insert “as defined in article 8.2””

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

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s opening statement today. I, and many others, have a genuine sense of relief that the voice of this Chamber last week, so overwhelmingly expressed in the debate that took place, has been listened to with such clarity. There was a feeling then, before the Bill was amended, that it would have produced a situation that is profoundly embarrassing to the nation we live in, is unhelpful to the troops we send abroad and generally does no good for anyone at all.

The Government have now recognised the strength of the argument. By including genocide, torture and crimes against humanity in the excluded areas of the presumption against prosecution, they have rescued their own reputation. Of course, until today, they had excluded war crimes from those exclusions; at that point, we faced the ludicrous contradiction that meant that we would have seen a presumption against prosecution for some of the most heinous crimes that come under the definition of war crimes yet no limitation for torture or genocide—in contradiction, therefore, to international humanitarian law, which recognises no form of limitation of time or jurisdiction on such crimes. This is why I tabled the amendment that would include war crimes in those exclusions: so that there would not be a presumption against prosecution for some of the most terrible crimes that still could be committed—though they are unlikely to be—by British troops.

The Government listened to the chorus of criticism that took place. Why was it so widespread and deep? Why did so many of the military veterans of senior rank in this House vote for the amendment last week? It was principally because they believed that the reputation of our Armed Forces would be damaged by singling them out for what the Law Society called a “quasi-statute of limitations”. Importantly, it was also because, had we passed the Bill unamended, our troops would have been subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

At the weekend, the chief prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, wrote to the right honourable David Davis on this very subject. She repeated what she had said previously:

“If the effect of applying a statutory presumption was to impede further investigations and prosecution of the Rome statute crimes allegedly committed by British service members in Iraq—because such allegations would not overcome the statutory presumption—the result would be to render such cases admissible before the ICC.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Again, I thank and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his assiduous attention and perseverance in respect of this issue. I endeavoured to engage widely, and I thank noble Lords for the recognition of that engagement. I was anxious to do my level best to understand where the concerns really lay.

I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have extended to the Government’s change of position on this. As indicated by the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I welcome the recognition that there was a balance to be struck. I now detect, quite clearly, I think, that your Lordships are seeing the Bill reach a shape whereby it is a positive advance, providing clarity and greater certainty to our Armed Forces personnel. As I said in my opening speech, the Government will not oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and they will table an amendment in lieu to ensure drafting accuracy.

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

I am delighted with what the Government have said and with the support that has been given to this amendment in this House. We are doing absolutely the right thing by our troops. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, makes the strong point, which I have heard from a number of military officers, that to have left any vestige of possibility that our troops might have appeared before the International Criminal Court would have been a disgrace, entirely wrong and very damaging to the morale of those who are still deployed to defend this country and its interests.

The offences under Article 8.2 of the Rome statute are protected in international law as being without limit of time. To have invoked any presumption against prosecution for those offences would have been to be in breach of international law and international humanitarian law. If that had happened, it would have been a stain on our country, or, as one of the senior military representatives said, a national embarrassment.

This country has also been saved from the use of this legislation by every dictator and warlord in the world, who would have used it as a precedent for their own illegal actions. Even in the last few weeks, we have seen a number of countries subject to the ICC jurisdiction praying in aid this draft of the legislation. We have been saved from that as well.

I, of course, admire and respect those who serve in our name in conflicts overseas. They do so bravely, tenaciously and professionally. As Defence Secretary and then Secretary-General of NATO, I often had to make decisions about the deployment of these individuals and place them in harm’s way. These were never easy decisions to make, but I was comforted by the fact that our Armed Forces always act within the law. To single them out as being somehow above these laws would have done a disservice to them and to their purpose.

I thank the Minister for her consideration and for listening, the Secretary of State, who listened to the voices that have come from such a wide range of opinion, and all those who have helped in this particular argument. I look forward to seeing, before they are tabled, the drafting amendments that the Minister promises will be brought forward for the amendment in lieu in the other place. As a matter of form, I beg to move Motion A1.

Motion A1 agreed.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

3: Clause 6, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) An offence is not a “relevant offence” if it amounts to—(a) torture, within the meaning of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture); or(b) genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime as defined in section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (meaning of “genocide”, “crime against humanity” and “war crime”).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture.

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

My Lords, Amendment 3 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord West. The amendment will provide that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture.

Maybe after a lifetime in politics I was affected by some uncharacteristic naivety in thinking that the Government, faced by almost universal and expert opposition on this aspect of the Bill, would by now have changed their mind. Reasonable and knowledgeable people can only be dismayed by the obduracy of Ministers in this situation, and it is why there is a more than normal responsibility on this House to ask the Commons to look again, reflect and change the Government’s mind, before lasting and serious damage is done to the interests of our Armed Forces and the reputation of this country.

The objective of the Bill is clear and understandable: it is to protect our troops in foreign operations from vexatious prosecutions. Who could reasonably object to that? Certainly not me. But sadly, the Bill does not do what it claims to do and instead actually harms those whom we seek to protect. At best it would prevent only 1% of prosecutions, but it would not prevent seemingly endless investigations. Not only would this legislation not do what it claims to do but it would single out our Armed Forces for a privileged protection previously unknown in British law—what the Law Society, in its submission to us today, calls a “quasi-statute of limitations”.

For the first time in the history of British law we would be creating a two-tier justice system in which troops acting for us abroad would be treated differently from other civilians in society. That is serious enough, and alone should make Ministers worry about what they are embarking on, but, additionally, by saying that there is a presumption against prosecution for the most serious of all crimes—namely genocide, crimes against humanity and torture—the Bill undermines some of the most basic international legal standards for which this nation was renowned.

It does not end there. As a result of this quasi-statute of limitations, our troops might, for the first time, have to appear in front of the International Criminal Court. The chief prosecutor of the ICC, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, has said that

“were the effect of applying a statutory presumption be to impede further investigations and prosecution of crimes allegedly committed by British service members … the result would be to render such cases admissible before the ICC”.

The next chief prosecutor of the ICC is a British nominee, Mr Karim Khan, and the irony might be that among his first cases could be a British one.

Like so many of my predecessors as Defence Secretary or NATO Secretary-General, in these positions I had to take weighty decisions about foreign deployments and sending people into harm’s way. These were never easy or lightly thought decisions, and there were many sleepless nights involved. No one should underestimate my feeling when I say that I believe that this Bill is bad for our troops, bad for our British legal system and very bad for our national reputation.

I ask the Minister today to reflect for a moment on a few additional factors. First, there was unanimous criticism from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and my noble friend Lord West, in the last debate that we had. Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, former Conservative Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and former Conservative Attorney-General Dominic Grieve, have all publicly opposed this measure. What about General Sir Nick Parker, former commander of British land forces, who urged Ministers not to damage the reputation of British Armed Forces overseas? Then there is Bruce Houlder QC, a former Director of Service Prosecutions, who told the Financial Times that the five-year limit would be “an international embarrassment”. On top of all these salvos, just yesterday the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, issued a statement of real significance, saying that this Bill

“in its current form, risks undermining key human rights obligations that the UK has committed to respect.”

I remind the House of the report of the non-partisan committee of both Houses of the British Parliament, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which considered this Bill and said that

“we have significant concerns that the presumption against prosecution breaches the UK’s legal obligations under international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict), international human rights law and international criminal law. It risks contravening the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute and international customary law.”

Those are devastating comments.

Perhaps, in my naive hopefulness, I allowed myself to think that no Government, still less one ostensibly committed to the interests of our Armed Forces, would pursue a measure which would harm them, their reputation and the reputation of our country as a stalwart upholder of the highest international legal standards. That is why I hope that now, at the last minute, the Minister will recognise the forces of reason arrayed against her and, in good military parlance, make a tactical retreat. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. I wholeheartedly endorse his comments. He has made the case so well, having spoken with all the advantage and experience of high office in government and NATO, that I can be relatively brief.

In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, pointed, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson did, to the broad coalition inside and outside this House which spans from well-experienced military personnel to the United Nations, human rights charities and former Defence Secretaries. Those diverse voices have cogently argued that we should extend the exclusions from the presumption to cover genocide, torture and crimes against humanity. Echoing those concerns when speaking earlier today on a previous amendment, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead also set out some of the compelling reasons why the House should support Amendment 3.

I will say a few words about the crime of genocide. Following the overwhelming support which the House gave to the all-party amendments on genocide that I recently moved to the Trade Bill, the House will have noted that many of the same arguments advanced during those debates about strengthening the rule of law also apply to Amendment 3.

Reflect for a moment that the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor has urged the United Kingdom

“to ensure that the exemption clause extends to all crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court”.

Are we seriously going to ignore this admonition? What calculation have we made of the reputational damage and the danger of being accused of being Janus-faced when we call out genocide in places such as Xinjiang, against the Uighurs, or Myanmar, against the Rohingya, but do not hold ourselves to the same stringent test?

Showing contempt or disdain for the ICC is something that we usually associate with authoritarians and dictators. We should be leary of being found in such disreputable company. It also stands in stark contradiction to the vaunted claims in the integrated review that the United Kingdom will be a world leader in promoting British values and a rules-based international order. Global Britain will be measured by its actions and not as a slogan.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor has said that, as this Bill stands, the result would be to

“render such cases admissible before the ICC”,

and that the UK would

“forfeit what it has described as its leading role, by conditioning its duty to investigate and prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law, crimes against humanity and genocide on a statutory presumption against prosecution after five years.”

As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, added her voice only yesterday, urging us, as parliamentarians, to heed warnings that, in its current form, the Bill risks undermining key human rights obligations that the United Kingdom has committed itself to respect. She urged us to ensure that the law

“remains entirely unambiguous with regard to accountability for international crimes perpetrated by individuals, no matter when, where or by whom they are committed”.

She went on to pay tribute to our courts and what she called

“the independence and fairness for which they are known around the world”.

She urged us to maintain and strengthen our judicial approach to atrocity crimes—to strengthen, rather than diminish, their standing and reputation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and all other noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. We heard some exceedingly powerful speeches on these issues in Committee, and they were echoed today. I recognise the understandable concern and emotion that accompany the arguments that have been adduced. This is an extremely important matter, perhaps the most passionately debated part of the whole Bill, and I do not underestimate the scale of my task to address the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his supporters, but it is my job to try. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a telling point about perception, and it is my job to try to address that issue as well.

I reassure the House that the Government have given considerable and careful consideration to the offences that are excluded from the measures in Part 1. The intent of the Bill, as drafted, ensures that the Part 1 measures will apply to as wide a range of offences as possible, in order to provide that necessary reassurance to our service personnel that the operational context will be taken into account, in so far as it reduces a person’s culpability, in the circumstances of allegations of criminal offences on historical overseas operations. The broad objective of the Bill is to support our Armed Forces personnel, and I accept that that has been recognised across the Chamber. The divergence of opinion is on how we can deliver that reassurance.

In considering the provisions of the Bill, the Government gave careful thought to the physical environment of an overseas operation. As noble Lords who have served on such operations will know, the range of activity is diverse and the threat of danger ever present. It is a lethal environment in which our Armed Forces are called upon to deal with unimaginably challenging situations, and it is predictable that, arising from such activity, allegations of wrongdoing may be made. The one type of activity which can never have any place in such an operation is the commission of a sexual offence, so I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that is why sexual offences are excluded from the Bill. She referred to that as a presumption: it is not a presumption—it is an explicit exclusion.

Some have argued that such an exclusion means that the Government are relegating other crimes to a lower classification of gravity. We are not. We are acknowledging that in an overseas conflict, because of the inherent nature of such activity, there is a predictability about allegations being made that crimes have been committed. The Government are neither defining nor categorising what these crimes may be, we are merely creating a clearer framework and structure as to how such allegations are to be handled. It goes without saying that of course we shall take other offences, such as war crimes and torture, extremely seriously. I repeat that the Government’s decision to exclude sexual offences only, as I set out in detail in Committee, does not mean that we will not continue to view with the utmost gravity other offences such as war crimes and torture.

Nor will the Bill somehow provide an excuse for poor behaviour or enable impunity for very serious crimes allegedly committed by our Armed Forces personnel. I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his comments in that respect and I am pleased that many noble Lords recognise that the presumption against prosecution does not amount to either an amnesty or a statute of limitations, nor the creation of a de facto immunity. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that a bar on prosecution in gremio of the Bill would be an amnesty—it would be a statute of limitations and a de facto immunity— but there is no such provision in the Bill. I remind noble Lords that the severity of an alleged offence will continue to be an extremely important factor for a prosecutor in determining whether to prosecute. We should remember that the presumption is, of course, rebuttable.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Kennedy, referred to the five-year period. I just observe that the period was informed by the response to the consultation carried out on the Bill. Interestingly, the period of five years was visited at an earlier stage, in Committee, and has not been revisited.

I have listened to the very real concerns expressed by many in this House, including references to many third parties holding similar views, that the Bill undermines the United Kingdom’s continuing commitment to, and damages our reputation for, upholding international humanitarian and human rights law, including the United Nations Convention against Torture. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that I seek to assuage these concerns and to reassure once more on this point: the United Kingdom does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Our Armed Forces will continue to operate under international law, including, of course, the Geneva conventions, and we will continue to expect that others will do the same.

I would like to explain further why the Government’s view is that Amendment 3 should be resisted. First and foremost, we are concerned that it would undermine the reassurance that we are seeking to give to our service personnel and veterans by excluding a considerable list of offences from the application of the measures in Part 1. The Bill does not prevent such offences being investigated nor prosecuted. Indeed, in relation to prosecution, the gravity of the crime will be a cogent factor. It is perhaps also worth adding that, in the interests of clarity and to preserve the structure of the Bill as currently drafted, we believe that all the excluded offences should be listed in the same place in the Bill, and that the appropriate place is Schedule 1, instead of being spread across the Bill, as the noble Lord’s amendment would provide.

I have endeavoured to present the Government’s position and, in these circumstances, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to consider withdrawing his amendment.

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

My Lords, I do not have to repeat the respect that the House has for the Minister, but she does not speak with any great enthusiasm. That is not surprising because her case is so weak that enthusiasm and passion certainly cannot be part of her argument. I do not want to take up a lot of the time of the House at this stage, but let me quote what General Sir Graeme Lamb, the former director of Special Forces in the British Army, said in the weighty Policy Exchange document that was critical of this Bill. He said

“good intentions are not enough as the Bill as it stands may fail to protect our troops adequately … it does nothing to address the problem of repeat investigations.”

Then there was Bruce Houlder, the former Director of Service Prosecutions whom I quoted in my original speech, who told the Financial Times that the five-year limit would be an “international embarrassment”. I did not quote what he added, which was that

“the idea that we then treat torture and other grave crimes including homicide as excusable, and legislate in effect to make it difficult in the extreme to prosecute after five years, is really outrageous.”

The Minister has not quoted anybody in support of her contention that what the Government are saying is reasonable. I and other noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords have quoted endless examples of those who say that what is happening here today in this Bill is outrageous. Even today’s Daily Mail editorial condemns the Government for apparently legitimising torture in the way that the Bill does.

In light of the fact that the Minister has given no defence whatever, I insist that we test of the will of the House on this amendment.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

14: Clause 6, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) An offence is not a relevant offence if it amounts to—(a) torture, within the meaning of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture); or(b) genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime as defined in section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (meaning of “genocide”, “crime against humanity” and “war crime”).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture.

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

My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and my noble friend Lord West. It provides that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity or torture.

I am an instinctive supporter of our Armed Forces and the civilians who support them. I always was, but as Secretary of State for Defence and then Secretary-General of NATO, and with the heavy responsibilities that both posts impose, my regard and admiration grew and was magnified. In those posts, it is a huge responsibility to bear in the duty of care, not only to the staff who work for and to oneself but in carrying responsibility for the safety and security of those who we and they seek to protect. In the light of those factors and the fact that I have had personally to make the decision to deploy forces into danger overseas, I was almost automatically in favour of legislation that would have prevented vexatious investigations and prosecutions that make life a misery for so many of those we send to defend the country’s interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, this is an important Bill, but it has to be examined closely so that it does not create more problems than it sets out to solve. Ordinarily, I would almost instinctively be in favour of legislation that gave protection to our troops from vexatious legislation and the miseries of legal ambulance chasers. My association with the Armed Forces has left with me a huge respect and admiration for those who wear the British uniform and the crucial civilians who support them. In my time as Secretary of State for Defence, I had to issue orders to deploy troops abroad, and I shouldered that responsibility with enormous care and sensitivity.

I fear that aspects of this legislation suffer from the law of unintended consequences. In a brief speech, I can only mention a few of my reservations about this Bill. First, I believe that this is the first time in legal history in this country that a specific group of citizens will be the subject of a statute of impunity. There may in some people’s minds be a justification for such a break with such long-standing tradition and precedent. However, I personally do not think that curtailing the rights of vexatious lawyers justifies that kind of unprecedented change. Even if there were justification, there needs to be a much bigger, more profound debate on the import of this kind of decision, occasioned by this kind of Bill.

Secondly, I strongly agree with those in the Commons, and in this debate, and in the country, who cannot see the justification for exempting torture and war crimes from the list in the Bill. By including torture and war crimes, this new apparent statute of impunity seems incongruous and indefensible. My own former Chief of Defence, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, has made it clear in an open letter to the Times, and in articles, that torture is indefensible in a civilised military, as well as ineffective as a tactic. We should listen to his wise words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, who has just spoken, as well.

My third objection—here, the law of unintended consequences really comes into its own—is that the International Criminal Court will now claim jurisdiction for the first time in Britain because we have introduced these apparent immunities. I was in Government when we signed up to the International Criminal Court; we did so safe in the knowledge that the integrity of our fair, impartial legal system would mean that the ICC could not act against our troops in conflict. I fear that the changes in UK law in this Bill would render our forces liable to be investigated and potentially prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. We now know that the ICC prosecutor has already made that point—that threat—as well.

The Policy Exchange is the Government’s go-to think tank, and this week it published a document with a foreword by Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb, who said,

“good intentions are not enough as the Bill as it stands may fail to protect our troops adequately.”

We do a disservice to our troops, now and in the future, if we put them on a different legal basis to the society they represent and defend. We can and should make improvements in this House. The Government should take some time before they bring the Bill back to consider it. In that way, we might avoid that iron law of unintended consequences. We have a duty to do so.

Covid-19: Security Risks

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

We have not used the Rapid Air Mobility initiative at all, so the Turkish flight was not one of these flights. However, we have deployed our assets to respond to NATO requests.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, over these last few weeks during this emergency, NATO has especially proved its worth. I put on record what I think is our collective gratitude to the UK delegation to NATO for its work, especially on social media, to make people aware of what NATO is doing at this point. However, is the Minister as shocked as I am by the recent public opinion survey by King’s College London, which showed that among the over-60s in this country, only 41% said they had any knowledge about NATO, and that this drops to 25% in the under-35s? Surely the Government have a responsibility, indeed a duty, to let the British public know how valuable NATO is to their safety and security. Should they not do more in the information field?

[Baroness Goldie]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. With the universal distraction of Covid-19, minds may very well be less focused on NATO and more focused on issues of health, well-being and personal safety. I shall certainly look at the survey, which sounds interesting, and we shall reflect on whether more activity could be engaged in highlighting and heightening NATO’s profile.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. We have listened with great interest and admiration, and in much agreement with what she says. She brings a unique experience to this House in all the fields that she has served, and she comes from a part of the United Kingdom which deserves her voice in its affairs. She was quoted recently in the Irish Times as saying:

“Politics… is about serving, it is about reflecting, it is about representing. And I believe the House of Lords offers that opportunity”.


In that, and in many other things, she is absolutely right. We look forward to hearing more from her in the future.

This Government came to power last month with a mandate and a majority gifted by, let it be said, the incompetence and stupidity of the Labour leadership. But even if the Prime Minister has power, he has serious dilemmas to face as well. Leaving aside the claim of “getting Brexit done”, which cannot be done in the promised timescale, he also has on his plate a series of promises and spending commitments that will require serious and very difficult choices to be made, and made very soon. He has promised inside a finite budget more money for education, health, the police and more for the north of England, and then Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will also make demands to keep the union together. He is also committed to at least 2% of GDP for defence and he has to live within the legal straitjacket of 0.7% for overseas aid.

What the Prime Minister does not have is any kind of national consensus on what the country thinks should be the priority on these often competing and occasionally contradictory ambitions. Without some form of consensus, someone, some group, some region, some special interest, some needy area or some raised expectation is bound to be disappointed and let down, and thereafter any popularity will vaporise.

A few weeks ago, I chaired a group of 20 distinguished experts, some from this House, appropriately held in the Cabinet War Rooms to discuss, under the auspices of the new Bletchley initiative, what should be our country’s role in a world of Presidents Trump, Putin and Xi. Each of our experts had to bring with them three specific ideas for the table, and the resulting discussion and report was fascinating and revealing. I am happy to supply a copy to anybody who wants it. But the main and unanimous conclusion was that there is an urgent need for a bottom-up national conversation on where our country is heading and its future place in the world. Brexit amplifies that particular need, but it is not its only driver.

If we want, as many in this debate will rightly demand, more money for defence, security and diplomacy, especially in what is an unpredictable, volatile and increasingly dangerous world, as we have seen even in the last seven days, the question is: what gives way in the shopping list of budget items to pay for it? If we genuinely need to spend, for example, more on education, the NHS and long-term care, crime and punishment, because all those items impact directly on every citizen, but we simultaneously need to spend more on defending and making safe those citizens, what do we give up to make it happen?

Some will say that the election fixed the priority orderings, but it certainly did not. Boris Johnson has an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons but based on only 44% of those voting. Indeed, given that turnout was 67%, he obtained only 29% support from the British electorate. So that, in our perverse way, provides a healthy Commons majority but not by any stretch of the imagination is there any consensus on national priorities.

Can a national conversation with unprecedented public consultation actually be had? The answer is “not easily”, but I believe that it should and can be done. In 1997 and 1998, I conducted with the late Robin Cook a strategic defence review based on building from first principles Britain’s defence on an agreed foreign policy baseline. We involved the public, Parliament, pressure groups, civic society and every level in the Armed Forces. The outcome was to be ambitious. It was trail-blazing and, most importantly, it was accepted. It lasted for an unprecedented 11 years.

Similarly, the Scottish Constitutional Convention was established in the early 1990s to build a consensus plan for a devolved Scottish legislature. It involved politicians—even from the two parties that boycotted the process—and a wide stratum of the public. At the end it provided a blueprint for the 74% endorsement in the 1997 referendum and 20 years of the Holyrood Parliament.

Then we can take President Macron’s radical consultation and conversation which followed the yellow vest protests last year. He and his Ministers went out to the country and engaged his citizens, putting the choices and listening to the answers. Notwithstanding some of the recent protests on pension reform, the yellow vests and their protests have now been marginalised, so it can be done, and in our divided country we desperately need to reach out with the dilemmas, the hard choices and the possible solutions which face us all and then to listen to what the people tell us.

NATO

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, we should all be grateful to the Minister for arranging this welcome debate, even if the short notice given has deprived us of a number of wise contributors who might otherwise have wanted to join us.

Those in 1949 who contemplated or even wanted a North Atlantic Treaty that would be time-limited would have been stunned but hugely impressed, 70 years on, at this anniversary today. NATO is simply a remarkable and unique alliance of free nations. Originally forged in response to the European dominoes tumbling to Joseph Stalin, NATO was, without firing a shot in anger, to see off its main adversary, the USSR. We then saw it become the bridge between the post-Soviet world and the West in the Partnership for Peace. Then we saw it using its military and political power to stop the carnage in Bosnia and to end and reverse the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. After that, we saw it join up with the European Union to prevent a bloody civil war developing in what is now known as North Macedonia—a good new story to cheer us in the 70th year of NATO, with that new country coming into the alliance. After the trauma of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States and, as the Minister said, the invoking for the very first time of the treaty’s Article 5, the alliance took over organising the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. That has been a quite remarkable evolution: from the birth of NATO in Washington in 1949 to the security challenges of today and tomorrow. Those challenges are, in many ways, as difficult and complex as those in NATO’s successful past, but they are challenges that, frankly, only NATO can face. NATO is our most precious and unrivalled asset in our fractious, unstable and highly unpredictable world.

No defence alliance in the history of our planet has survived, or indeed thrived, as long as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and I believe that it has done so for three principal reasons. The first is because NATO has the capacity to evolve and transform to deal with changing security landscapes. The second is because NATO has maintained its military credibility and deterrence capacity. Thirdly, NATO has nurtured and protected that towering strength which is the value set of its constituent nations: the rule of law and an independent judiciary; free speech and a free press; sustainable democratic institutions; separation of church and state; and a tolerance of contrary views. These are the foundations of our free societies and are what give us our moral authority and political advantage in the world. However, as the Minister said, none of these reasons can be taken for granted and NATO will always be a work in progress. So long as the world keeps changing and new threats to our societies emerge and mutate, then NATO, too, has to change.

As the Minister told us, the first Secretary-General of NATO—like me and like Lord Carrington, who came after him, a former British Cabinet Minister—was Lord Ismay, one-time general and chief of staff to Churchill. In his final speech in Bonn before he stood down, he said that,

“a defensive shield has been built up which, though not yet as strong as might be wished, is an essential feature of the deterrent to aggression. Who would have believed that sovereign States would entrust their precious armed forces to the command of nationals other than their own in times of peace? But this is what has come to pass”.

It was indeed extraordinary then and it was true as well, and it is just as remarkable and true today.

What should NATO do now? And what should the United Kingdom—whether in or out of the European Union—do to pay more than lip service to what government Ministers constantly call the cornerstone of Britain’s defence? Priority number 1, in my view, is to maintain the military effectiveness and deterrent strength of the alliance. The bad news is that the 2% of GNP target is met by only five of the 29 members of NATO, with some countries lamentably behind the freely made commitments that they took on. I was in Slovenia the week before last and Prague the previous week making the point about their inadequate responses to the 2% target—doing it in person and in theatre. However, gross figures do not tell the whole story, as 2% spent on the wrong capabilities adds very little to effectiveness. Of course, the good news is that, since the Wales summit, there has been a growth in collective defence expenditure in Europe of $87 billion, with half the countries now spending over the target of 20% on equipment.

Priority number 2, in my view, is addressing our weaknesses—the soft underbelly of an alliance which, in spite of the burden-sharing debate, is still formidable and outspends any potential adversary. That is why these adversaries, whether in states or as individuals, have turned their tactics to interfering in democratic processes, exploiting splits among us, hijacking public debates, dominating the cyber world and subverting electronic communications. That is why, in NATO and in its nations, we need more investment in intelligence, in cyber professionalism and in information dissemination. That information campaign might start here in this country. Can the Minister tell us why, while the Russian embassy has sent out detailed briefings to MPs and Peers on the Russian position on the INF treaty, and while parliamentarians receive in their post China Daily on a daily basis, we get little or nothing on NATO positions from our own Government?

Indeed, I took the opportunity of looking at the section on NATO and the UK on the Foreign Office website today. It has only two items dated 2019, although we are now into April, and both were dated 21 January: one was connected to the statement on Salisbury and the other to the Prime Minister’s statement on Brexit—that was one of very many statements on Brexit but only one is on the website. The only item on the INF treaty, on which a hugely important debate is ongoing in Europe and the United States at the moment, was dated 4 December and was simply a restatement of the NATO Foreign Ministers’ statement. We are not doing anything like enough to disseminate information about what is happening in NATO.

My priority number three is maintaining the nuclear element of the alliance. The American, British and French nuclear forces, along with the other weapons on European soil, have been the backbone of a posture that has made conventional war unthinkable. They are as important today as they ever were.

My priority number four is Russia. The NATO-Russia Council, of which I was the first chairman, should still be a powerful venue for dialogue. Resuming the formality and depth of the NATO-Russia Council would not in any way be seen as a concession to wholly unacceptable Russian behaviour in Ukraine, Crimea and Salisbury; instead, it would be a recognition that, in a hair-trigger nuclear world, we need to talk about what we agree on as well as why we disagree on other matters. The Russians and plenty of others in the world need to be reminded that NATO is, and always will be, a defence alliance; it does not represent a danger to any country or group that does not attack, threaten or subvert us. That message is as powerful and true today as it was on that April day in Washington in 1949.

My final priority is a plea for a return to American leadership. One of the saddest features of the Trump Administration has been their abdication from a global leadership role. Even America’s critics would concede that you do not really miss American leadership until it has gone. NATO is America’s best security bargain in its history. Let us hope that President Trump will take that point on board when he comes to London in December, and I hope that he will take on board, too, the point made to him today when Secretary-General Stoltenberg meets him in the Oval Office.

NATO is a precious legacy, left to us from a previous generation to be ours today. It is therefore our solemn responsibility to reinvigorate and reinforce this remarkable, irreplaceable alliance for the challenges that will face the next generation. That has to be the enduring message of this 70th anniversary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

I very much agree. We find the concept of EU or European strategic autonomy problematic if, as it appears to be, it drives an EU-exclusive or enclosed, institutionalised approach to security and defence that shuts out key strategic partners and could duplicate or undermine NATO. We see that exclusive approach prevailing in EU defence initiatives such as the European Defence Fund and PESCO, which otherwise have the potential to boost, in a coherent way, much-needed investment and support to capability development. That is exactly why we will continue to argue in favour of an open and flexible approach, to ensure that European security benefits from the capabilities and resources that the EU’s closest strategic partners can bring to bear.

My noble friend Lord Patten and the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Touhig, all spoke powerfully and with authority about Russia, undoubtedly NATO’s most significant long-term challenge. I listened with great respect too to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on this topic. The November incident in the Black Sea has shown vividly how serious the Russia challenge has become and how robust we must be in response. Noble Lords will be well aware that NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia, but recent Russian actions, including the Black Sea incident, have confirmed that NATO’s dual-track approach to Russia, of strengthened deterrence and defence backed up by hard-headed dialogue, is justified. We reaffirmed this approach at the Brussels summit last July, and will do so again at the foreign ministerial meeting in Washington this month.

As my noble friend said, Russia will continue to look for different ways to test NATO and its allies and partners. In both words and deeds, we need to be prepared to respond, and that is why NATO is already adapting its political and military posture. We are committed to driving forward efforts to modernise NATO, as I mentioned in my opening speech, enabling the alliance to respond to the threats it faces more effectively and with more agility. To test that agility and to enhance our contribution, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Attlee will have observed, the UK deployed some 3,300 personnel, as well as ships and planes, to Norway for NATO’s biggest exercise in 2018; exercise Trident Juncture had some 50,000 troops from 31 NATO and partner nations. This delivered undoubtedly a strong signal that allies can operate at an impressive scale and move across Europe in the event of a crisis. Again, my noble friend will be interested to know that, in spring and summer this year, we will demonstrate a robust posture in the Baltic region by our participation in the US-led BALTOPS exercise, Baltic Protector and a range of other military activities. We have also deployed 800 Royal Marines to Norway in 2019 to take part in cold-weather training. In March last year, a Royal Navy submarine took part in ICEX with the US Navy for the first time in 10 years, and the Navy will mount regular under-ice deployments in the years to come. There is much else that we are doing to up the tempo of our activity as a proportionate response to an assertive Russian posture.

We are also constantly looking at how we can build other structures that complement NATO as the bedrock of our defence. Last June, the Defence Secretary signed the comprehensive memorandum of understanding establishing the joint expeditionary force with our eight partners in that agreement. This year, the JEF signature activity will be the Baltic protector deployment, a large-scale maritime and amphibious exercise in the Baltic Sea, as I mentioned, between May and July 2019.

My noble friend Lord Cormack spoke with his customary sincerity about the need to ensure that we improve relations with Russia. On dialogue, NATO should continue to engage with Russia when it is appropriate and in our interests to do so, so that we can clearly communicate our positions. Periodic focused and meaningful dialogue through the NATO-Russia Council provides a means to avoid misunderstanding, miscalculation and unintended escalation, and to increase transparency and predictability.

In addition, to the NATO-Russia Council, we continue to use other fora, such as the OSCE and direct mil-mil links, to mitigate the risk of escalation and to voice concerns over Russian behaviour, including its failure to uphold treaty obligations. However, I have to tell my noble friend that, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reminded us, there can be no return to business as usual until there is clear, constructive change in Russia’s actions that demonstrate compliance with international law and its international obligations.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend, Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned China. It is instructive to remind ourselves of the words of the NATO Secretary-General in February this year:

“NATO and China have already worked together to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia. And our militaries are in regular contact. But China’s rise also presents a challenge. One example is of course the concern many Allies have expressed about China’s increasing investment in critical infrastructure, such as 5G. We have to better understand the size and the scale of China’s influence, what it means for our security. And we have to address it together”.


I would add that from the UK’s perspective China is an important economic partner. We do not expect to agree with the Chinese Government on everything, but we strongly support China’s greater integration into more of the world’s key institutions and organisations as its global role and responsibilities grow. We are committed to our relationship with China, which enables both countries to benefit and also allows us to be frank with one another on areas where we disagree.

The noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Bilimoria, spoke of the current difficulties in the relationship between the United States and Turkey. We have repeatedly raised our concerns at ministerial and official level about the proposed Turkish purchase of S-400 missiles. Turkey is a valued NATO ally on the front line of some of the UK’s and the alliance’s most difficult security challenges, and we readily acknowledge that defence equipment procurement decisions are for individual nations. However, all NATO allies have committed to reducing their dependence on Russian-sourced legacy military equipment, and we believe that the proposed purchase would pose real challenges for the interoperability of NATO systems.

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, spoke of the importance of ensuring that United States leadership in NATO is maintained and encouraged, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, expressed similar views. It is true to say that the White House in recent years has sometime proved unpredictable in its pronouncements, but my noble friend Lord Sterling was quite correct: President Trump has been clear about his commitment to NATO and Article 5. At January’s US missile defence review launch he confirmed that he was 100% behind the alliance. Those are not just words. We should recall that the United States continues to invest heavily in European security, spending $6.5 billion on the European defence initiative in 2018-19. The US also provides a huge proportion of NATO collective defence capabilities, including some which are unique to the alliance, such as strategic bombers, full-spectrum naval forces and strategic intelligence. Thanks to the EDI budget, there were in 2018 approximately 6,850 US troops in Eucom, and EDI is only one of a range of different pots available to fund approximately 80,000 US troops in Europe. Since 2015, there has been more than a sixfold increase in funding available through the EDI.

I was prepared to say a little bit about cyberdefence. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about that as I am reminded that time is short.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

I know that the noble Earl will come to my somewhat critical comments about the lack of information on NATO from the Government, especially to parliamentarians, but I exempt him from some of that criticism because he is a shining example of what Ministers should be doing, given his early morning briefings of all-party groups of MPs. I should like to put that on the record but it does not exempt the rest of the Government from a frankly pathetic effort in getting over information about what is happening in terms of British-NATO relations.

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments but am sure that no one listening to his speech will have overlooked a powerful point he made about government messaging in general. I had intended not to comment too much on that theme but rather to go away and report back to him on what we can and should do across government to address his powerful points.

I should like to cover the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling on shortcomings in NATO’s internal financial management. NATO bodies have been strengthening the areas of internal control and risk management, as identified by IBAN audits as areas of weakness to address. The Secretary-General has taken the opportunity of the functional review to do the same at the HQ, and the nations agreed the additional resources for him to do so in December 2018. The UK expects an enhanced internal control and risk management team to be established by autumn this year. Unfortunately, there is currently no consensus among allies on the implementation of the IBAN’s financial performance audit recommendations, which makes progress slow. However, I understand that NATO is looking to create a resource executive function—more or less a chief financial officer role—and is due to submit a recommendation on this matter to the North Atlantic Council this summer.

In my opening contribution to this debate, I quoted NATO’s current Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg. I will finish with the words of one of his illustrious predecessors. Dirk Stikker served at a tumultuous time more than half a century ago, with the Cold War at its height and the Cuban missile crisis taking the world to the brink of nuclear confrontation. He was also a great friend to the UK, having previously served many years as Dutch ambassador. Long after he stood down, he reflected in his memoirs on why NATO continues to play so vital a role in world affairs. He concluded:

“However great a nation, it never has all the pieces on the checkerboard. The checkerboard is vast. And the game without end.”


NATO’s achievements over the past 70 years have been remarkable. It has forged its member nations’ individual strengths into an alliance sufficiently formidable to deter all adversaries—those then and now who would impose their own norms of intolerance and authoritarianism on the free world. NATO has made an enormous difference—whether helping to end the Cold War, stopping terror or bringing reassurance to the vulnerable across the globe from Bosnia to Operation Ocean Shield in the Gulf of Aden. Sometimes this has meant conspicuous heroism on the battlefield or in the conflict zone, and sometimes quiet but tenacious work behind the scenes or under the oceans. As the right reverend Prelate so eloquently put it, NATO is not only a military alliance but a community of values—values that endure. Whatever form it has taken, NATO, as my noble friend Lord Attlee witnessed at first hand, has always done its work supremely well. So today we take the opportunity to pay tribute to the alliance and, in particular, we say thank you to all those men and women over the past seven decades who have served NATO with fortitude and honour. We owe them much. We owe them our peace.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th February 2019 Grand Committee

We need to keep this under review. Things change from time to time. Fashions change. Ways in which people choose to commit crime change. At the moment, on the evidence that I have, and I have done my best to ask the Government to show us their evidence, although I have not got much from them, which I suspect is because they do not have much evidence—

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

I am listening to what the noble Lord is saying and the assumptions he is making about the guns that are being talked about—or in this case, not talked about—and them not falling into the wrong hands. Why does he think the Home Secretary of this country said in the House of Commons that,

“according to intelligence provided by police and security services”,

these .50 calibre guns,

“have been possessed by criminals who have clearly intended to use them”?—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/18; col. 919.]

Does the noble Lord have better information and intelligence than the Home Secretary?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, if I might help my noble friend, it is possible that Ministers and Members in another House have been slightly inaccurately briefed. For instance, they were told that the effective range of a .50 calibre round is 6,800 metres, whereas in actual fact, it is only about 1,800 metres.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I was talking about the two forms of rifle which are specifically addressed in the Bill. These are not .50 calibre rifles, but lighter ones, which are adapted for use by disabled people and make it easier to reload the round using power derived from the previous shot. That is a .50 calibre, but again, the calibre alone does not tell you all you need to know about the rifle; you need to know whether a particular weapon is dangerous. The weapons used in target shooting tend to be heavy and cumbersome and the ammunition is not the same as that used in military operations.

I have asked for evidence. There may be evidence out there, but it has not made its way to me. My particular arguments are about the guns addressed in the Bill, as there is no evidence of misuse of those guns or available evidence showing that these are fundamentally more dangerous than other rifles. There is also no evidence that they cannot be properly secured through a mixture of physical security and the systems we have to ensure that firearms are only held by the people who ought to hold them.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

Before Hungerford and Dunblane, there had not been evidence of legally held handguns being used to massacre people. However, Hungerford and Dunblane happened, and after that, we passed legislation and the country is much safer as a result.

[Lord Lucas]

Absolutely. We need to keep these things under consideration. However, if one took the noble Lord’s argument to its logical conclusion, we would ban cars because they have been used deliberately to kill people. Any kind of weapon, including knives, presents a danger to the public. Because there is a legitimate use for these objects, we choose to look at how to balance the potential danger with the potential good. I hope that we will choose to do it on the basis of evidence, which says, yes, these things are dangerous, but we have systems in place which negate that danger. Rules on the weapons the public may hold legitimately, plus the safeguards we take, mean this is not the route through which weapons reach the people who will misuse them. In society as a whole, we have adopted a system which is safe and which allows us to live with the existence of those weapons. It seems to me that the evidence says that is the case at the moment. We do not have a recent history of misuse—of any degree at all—of the weapons which are currently allowed.

It is important to keep these things under review, but it is also important to be sensible. A lot of what is in our lives is dangerous. It is the business of legislators to balance that danger with utility and reach a conclusion; there are lots of different conclusions that can be reached. If we say that people are to have weapons of any description, it seems to me that the current arrangements for allowing people to have firearms are working very well. There is no evidence that incremental banning of particular types of firearm will produce any benefit at all and, as a matter of principle, we ought to take those sorts of decisions based on evidence, rather than because someone feels like it somewhere and no one quite knows why because it is buried in the decision-making processes that created this Bill.

My appeal to my noble friend is that we ought to be looking at where this process is going in the long term, at what we should be doing to make sure that firearms can be legally held, and at the security we want around that. Then, when we arrive at that conclusion, we can show that the weapons which fit within that are not a source of danger to the public, by their nature, because they are not what people who wish to commit crimes will go for.

A lot of guns are being recovered by the police, and by and large they are illegal guns because the guns that are being brought in are much more suitable for use in crime. People will not go for a hunting rifle to commit crime with. We are not talking about hunting rifles in the Bill, but the same considerations apply. If hunting rifles were being widely used in crime, we would be fussed about it, but they are not. The rifles that are the subject of this Bill are not used in crime. There is no instance of them being used in crime. There is nothing obvious about them which makes them more dangerous than other firearms in the context of the controls that we have. As a result of the deliberations in another place, our concerns about .50 calibre are under review. We ought to do the same with the other rifles that are mentioned here and come to a coherent, evidenced conclusion about where in this society we now choose to draw the line on the firearms that people may legally hold and on the purposes for which they may legally hold them. I am not saying that there is an absolute value to any particular place to draw the line; I am saying that we ought to do this on the basis of evidence, and nothing that my noble friends have been able to provide me with at the moment offers evidence that the rifles we are discussing pose any greater danger than the many other rifles that we permit people to hold. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying but this is a critical part of the legislation, where some strong views are held on both sides. Having sat through the debate so far, I also appreciate that we want to finish the business. I am not an expert in this field but I know that there are many experts around, who will undoubtedly contribute. This matter has excited a lot of interest outside the House.

First, I am not anti-target shooting. I was a member of the House of Commons rifle club, when it existed, and went target shooting in the subterranean depths of this building. Of course, I was Defence Secretary and then Secretary-General of NATO so I must have ordered huge quantities of guns of every description. As I said at Second Reading, I am a resident of Dunblane and became deeply engaged in the debate that took place after that shooting. I would contradict what was said about the banning of the private ownership of handguns leading to an increase in the amount of crime involving them. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has now left, also disagreed with that.

I am here to probe the issue of .50 calibre guns. In other contexts, they would be known colloquially as sniper rifles; they certainly have a destructive power over very long distances. I want to pray in aid what was said by the Home Secretary. I am not normally a great disciple of his—I think that he is running for Prime Minister at the moment, or at least leader of the Conservative Party when the vacancy eventually and inevitably occurs—but, as the Home Secretary, he has access to a lot of information that the rest of us do not. So, when he comes to the House of Commons and makes Statements, we should listen carefully.

We should also listen to what the Home Office had to say in preparation for the Bill. The department produces impact assessments—a very good innovation, whenever they were brought in, to describe the impact of legislation on costs, society and provisions on law and order. An impact assessment was done on .50 calibre rifles but, oddly enough, it is not in the Printed Paper Office. An impact assessment on the knife aspect of the Bill is available, but not one on the part about guns. If I can read its very small writing, the impact assessment which I found on the internet states:

“There is concern about the availability of .50 calibre and rapid-fire Manually Actuated Release System (MARS) rifles”—


as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—

“being available to some civilian firearms licence holders. The range and penetrative power of 0.50 calibre rifles makes them more dangerous than other common firearms and were they to be used in criminal or terrorist activities would present a serious threat to the public and would be uniquely difficult for the police to control. Due to the rate of discharge MARS rifles pose a comparable risk to the public and police as other self-loading weapons already banned in the UK. The Government need to intervene to ensure the purchase, ownership or possession is illegal”.

That Home Office impact assessment was delivered to the Government in preparation for the legislation.

In the House of Commons, the Home Secretary said when he presented the Bill:

“We based those measures on evidence that we received from intelligence sources, police and other security experts … According to the information that we have, weapons of this type have, sadly, been used in the troubles in Northern Ireland, and, according to intelligence provided by police and security services, have been possessed by criminals who have clearly intended to use them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/18; cols. 918-19.]


These are not my words or an exaggeration by anti-gun campaigners, but the words of the Home Secretary. He did not resile from these comments when he withdrew the clause from the Bill, under pressure from a large number of Back-Bench Conservative MPs. All he has said is that the matter would be subject to further consultation. The danger between now and the end of the consultation is represented precisely by the Home Secretary’s warning. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why the Committee should listen to outside experts when the Home Secretary of this country has given such a graphic description of the dangers presented by these weapons.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I hold the noble Lord in very high regard, but is he saying that Ministers and their advisers are infallible?

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

They are certainly not infallible—I speak from great experience on that— but the Home Secretary clearly did not come to the House of Commons unprepared and without checking thoroughly in advance. His statements are clearly there. His predecessor was misled and she resigned. I do not think that the present Home Secretary is likely to make that mistake again or that he has been misled; he said what he believed and what he had been told.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention in this debate. I declare an interest as a holder of a firearms certificate and the owner of a number of rifles, none of which would come anywhere near the type of muzzle energy we are talking about.

I support the description of our firearms licensing regime given by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It is generally accepted internationally that the UK has one of the most rigorous and best informed firearms licensing regimes in the world. It is also generally accepted that the shooting community respects and understands that the holding of a firearms certificate is a privilege that can be removed. Because of that, they are a very law-abiding section of the community. They are acutely aware that their sport and activity can be curtailed should they be involved in criminal activity entirely unrelated to the use of their firearms.

With that in mind, we have to be a bit careful of banning things because they are an easy target—forgive the pun. It is easy to work out where a particular category of firearm is and remove it from circulation. I hold no particular candle for the .50 calibre rifle and I am open to arguments about where the line should be drawn, because one indeed has to be drawn somewhere. We have acted in the past regarding handguns, fully automatic weapons and a number of other eventualities, but I very much support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s contention that before we ban something we have to have a closely argued, coherent case that is evidence based. Just banning something because we feel like it or because it is easy to do should not be a proper course of action.

Debate on the Bill has, on the one hand, largely been about very large numbers of people carrying knives, often using them and being closely tied up with the criminal fraternity, particularly drug dealers. On the other hand, the Bill talks about banning the use of a piece of equipment that is legally held when no recorded crime has ever been committed using a legally held rifle of such high-muzzle energy, as far as I understand it. I am open to correction by my noble friend and other Members of the Committee. We have to be very careful about that. Where do we draw the line?

I quite accept what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said: these are weapons of very high power and very high destructive capability. That is absolutely correct. On the other hand, their utility for criminals is much lower than that of many other sniper rifles. He described them as sniper rifles, and indeed they are. But they are not the typical sniper rifles used by the British Army, which are in calibres much closer to sporting rifles and are much smaller pieces of equipment. We have to put this in perspective and look at the actual threat.

When the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to what was worrying the Home Secretary about these rifles, it occurred to me to question whether he was worried about the theft of these 130 or so rifles, a tiny number, or about one of those firearm certificate holders turning bad. Or was it really about someone purchasing one of these—in America, for example—and turning it into a small number of machinery components, putting them in a container and smuggling them in, as a vast number of illegally held pistols arrive in this country. The real danger faced on the streets is from illegally held weapons, not legally held weapons.