Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

On one occasion, I spoke in Committee for an hour and 10 minutes.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Could the right hon. Gentleman take a moment to reflect on what he said in his opening remarks, when he said there was near silence from Conservative Members in Committee? I was there, and I did not hear silence, but his contributions probably put us to sleep. With respect, could he think about it again for one moment?

On our side, we had valuable contributions from Members of Parliament who have served this great country of ours, like my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). They know what they are talking about. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to think again about saying they were silent?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us get this straight. Interventions will also be brief this afternoon. We want interventions because there is a serious debate to be had. As I look around the Chamber, I see experienced parliamentarians and others who understand that this is a very important Bill, and much of it is very sensitive, so let us try to behave with sensitivity and consideration for others.

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

Sarah Dines Excerpts

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

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went on to say:

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

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

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

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly to new clause 1. As a new Member, I find the quality of the new clause disappointing. It does a disservice to the intentions of those who tabled it, so I invite them to withdraw it. The wording is far too vague and subjective. It is without guidelines and substance. Its incredible vagueness would make for a very unworkable piece of legislation. I believe in proper scrutiny in Committee, and the quality of the new clause is not good. It is a lawyer’s gift and would be subject to countless legal challenges and much litigation, which is exactly what the Bill is meant to stop.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Dines]

I am just finishing. I respectfully ask for the new clause to be withdrawn.

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

Sarah Dines Excerpts

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

If we were to deal with the matter next year as part of the armed forces Bill we would look at the situation in the round, in terms of not just prosecution but investigations. There may be a view that it is possible to do things in isolation in this regard, but it is not. We have already seen the implications that changing one thing will have elsewhere. Ideally it would be best to act next year.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The scope of the Bill clearly does not encompass a wide-scale investigation of the present investigation process. Will the right hon. Gentleman explore a little more and explain what he did in his tenure as a Defence Minister to look into the matter?

[Mr Jones]

I will say this to the hon. Lady: if she wants a long rundown of the positive things that the Labour Government did for the armed forces I can start with the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004.

[Miss Dines]

But on investigations?

[Mr Jones]

It is related, because it is related to people who were serving on operations. For the first time ever it brought forward a modern system of lump sum payments, which were never there before, for Falkland veterans or anything else. I actually extended that in 2007 to cover issues to do with mental health provision. Our record was that each year but one of that Labour Government we accepted the finding of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, as opposed to the Conservative Government’s cutting pay. We maintained our armed forces spending at a level above inflation. The 2010 Conservative Government cut the defence budget by 16%.

We also had the armed forces welfare pathway, which I started in—

Covid-19 Update

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I can tell him that we are already working with the Liverpool City Region on improving local test and trace. His suggestion is very apposite and one, I am sure, that will be taken forward in the course of those conversations.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

We are seeing a very unwelcome trend from the Labour party, which backs the Government’s sensible measures one week, only to flip flop and change its mind the next week. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and several constituents from Derbyshire Dales who say that what they want to see is this House working together on sensible policies rather than political point scoring?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. What the people of this country want to see is unanimous support for measures that restrict the spread of the virus. We have had that before, and I hope that we will have it again. I also hope that Opposition Members who are calling on me to do more in Greater Manchester will prevail on the authorities there to come into tier 3 and to help us to get there.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt]

I am very sorry, Chair. I know that you have let me get away with it once or twice before, and it is right that you are stern. Getting back to this important point about political advice, and in the spirit of co-operation, I would say that I am proud of the Union. I am a Unionist. My Welsh grandfather fought for Britain in the second world war, and I love every nation in the United Kingdom, and that includes Scotland. I want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, but I respect the fact that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has a different view, and I respect him and all his people.

However, one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), denigrated this country, entire and whole, on Monday, saying that we have a history to be ashamed of. He went back over the past 200 years and found different reasons why we should be ashamed of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at a time when we reflect upon the battle of Britain and how it was Scottish pilots, Ulster pilots, Welsh pilots and English pilots who made the most decisive intervention. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath says that we are a country of chancers and lawbreakers, but we should be proud of the fact that we made a decisive intervention in standing up to the most evil regime in modern history. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire should reflect upon that.

Going back to clauses 46 and 47, I do not see a power grab. I see greater opportunities for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and also the people of England and the constituency that I represent, because we all have crazy examples of how the structural funds have been spent in the past. Let us come together as a House and frame the way that money is spent and invest it in our communities.

I am not surprised that the Labour party has taken a position that seems to be slightly contrary to supporting the Union, because we know that some Opposition Members see no problem with mocking St George’s flag. I found it interesting on Sunday night that a shadow Front Bencher was mocking new Conservative MPs for being proud of the Union flag and for having the Union flag in their backgrounds while they were speaking. I am as proud of the Union flag as I am of St George’s flag. I rest my case.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). Having followed the debates on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, it would seem that everyone who once wore a wig and a gown, and many others who have never even read a law book, have suddenly become experts in international law. I make no such claim—I am just a humble divorce lawyer—but a lot of my lawyer colleagues on these Benches have asked me for my views. As a divorce barrister, it is through that prism that I look at the withdrawal agreement and this Bill. That simple fact is that the United Kingdom has divorced itself from the EU, and let us not pretend that it was a no-fault divorce. It was an abusive and exploitative relationship, and one which the United Kingdom just had to leave.

As a divorce lawyer, I am all too aware that bullying and unreasonable demands sometimes complicate the end of a relationship, and I know attempts at coercive control when I see them. This House legislated against domestic coercive control earlier this year. We are legislating this week and next week to prevent the EU’s attempt to coercively control the relationship within our family of nations in the United Kingdom.

As you will know, Mr Evans, it is famously said that a week in politics is a long time, but we forget at our peril the fact that this Parliament was elected and sits for one reason and one reason alone: to deliver Brexit. The British Parliament can make law. It can amend and repeal laws. It can make treaties, and it can unmake treaties. The legislation before us, including clauses 46 and 47, will cut away once and for all the dead hand of the EU from British sovereignty.

The present stance of the Opposition parties is just the latest, and perhaps the last, device aimed at delaying or diverting Brexit. It has to be seen as such. The European Union has repeatedly misread the British public. There will be no foreign borders within the United Kingdom. There will be no border down the Irish sea, separating our precious countries within this precious kingdom. If the EU so desperately wishes to have a hard border, let it construct one wherever it desires, but it will not be within our United Kingdom. The hard-won peace process in Northern Ireland just means too much to us. We will protect that peace and the Belfast agreement. There will be no hard border from us. The EU’s attempt to invoke the Good Friday agreement in order to coerce trade concessions is outrageous on so many levels. What an insult to the peace process and to us peace-loving citizens of the United Kingdom! The EU’s true colours in trade negotiations have been shown.

[Anna McMorrin]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Miss Dines]

No; there are many Members still to speak before the end of the debate.

The EU has broken international commitments. Germany has broken international commitments. The Irish Republic has broken international commitments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) is right when she points out that international law is essentially a political construct—and, goodness me, the EU is very good at it.

Clauses 46 and 47 allow the UK to meet commitments that otherwise would be funded through the EU. They give the UK Government back the power to provide financial assistance for economic development anywhere in the UK. I cannot see how anybody would object to that. That power formerly sat with the EU, and I know who I would prefer to have it: the people who vote in this Chamber. The importance of this power has been demonstrated in UK-wide events such as emergency flood responses—we have heard about Storm Ciara—and the response to covid. However, people like the good people of Derbyshire Dales often get overlooked.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Miss Dines]

No, I will not; there is not much time.

The dreadful flood in November 2019 along the River Derwent led to the loss of a life. The former high sheriff of Derbyshire, Annie Hall, died in those floods. The powers brought back from the EU under the Bill will enable more money to assist in that sort of area.

Clauses 46 and 47 will enable us to be freer to invest in economic development—for example, to produce the much-awaited bypass in Ashbourne in Derbyshire Dales. We will be able to invest economically at home as we will it. These powers are totally in line with the Conservative Government’s manifesto commitment to level up the regions, from Matlock to Moffat, from the Menai bridge to Moy. We are one Union. There are good British citizens at the moment all around the UK who are in despair at the opposition to this Bill. They want their country back and their powers back. They want the UK to protect their markets—that means all of them—and to bargain hard with the EU. These clauses bring powers home. They bring our sovereignty home. We must back this Bill.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

On 23 June 2016, the British people voted to take back control from European Union. Parliament prevaricated, and for the next four years we had dither and delay—to coin a phrase—elections, and what seemed like millions of votes in this place on the same thing, over and over again, under three Prime Ministers. But here we are, still talking about the same thing, albeit hopefully coming to the end of this period, when we can finally decisively put this issue to bed. On 12 December 2019, the people of Mansfield voted overwhelmingly to get Brexit done, and the rest of the country agreed. We want to be a free trading, independent country that is in charge of our destiny and, vitally, in charge of our own borders. This Bill is vital to ensuring that we can do that.

On Monday, Labour once again sided with the European Union rather than the British people, and rather than backing the people that the party once considered its core voters, who rejected it in droves in December. Labour failed to prioritise the structural integrity of the UK and instead advocated giving away more control to Brussels. Thankfully, we on this side of the House were able to ensure that the Bill was given its Second Reading.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Sarah Dines Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. He knows a great deal about this matter, and it is of great importance that we go through the legal procedures, as we will. As things stand, however, in addition to the potential blockade on agricultural goods, there are other avenues that the EU could explore if it is determined to interpret the protocol in absurd ways, and if it fails to negotiate in good faith. We must now take a package of protective powers in the Bill, and subsequently.

For example, there is the question of tariffs in the Irish sea. When we signed the protocol, we accepted that goods “at risk” of going from Great Britain into the EU via Northern Ireland should pay the EU tariff as they crossed the Irish sea—we accepted that—but that any goods staying within Northern Ireland would not do so. The protocol created a joint committee to identify, with the EU, which goods were at risk of going into Ireland. That sensible process was one achievement of our agreement, and our view is that that forum remains the best way of solving that question.

I am afraid that some in the EU are now relying on legal defaults to argue that every good is “at risk”, and therefore liable for tariffs. That would mean tariffs that could get as high as 90% by value on Scottish beef going to Northern Ireland, and moving not from Stranraer to Dublin but from Stranraer to Belfast within our United Kingdom. There would be tariffs of potentially more than 61% on Welsh lamb heading from Anglesey to Antrim, and of potentially more than 100% on clotted cream moving from Torridge—to pick a Devonshire town at random—to Larne. That is unreasonable and plainly against the spirit of that protocol.

The EU is threatening to carve tariff borders across our own country, to divide our land, to change the basic facts about the economic geography of the United Kingdom and, egregiously, to ride roughshod over its own commitment under article 4 of the protocol, whereby

“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”

We cannot have a situation where the boundaries of our country could be dictated by a foreign power or international organisation. No British Prime Minister, no Government, and no Parliament could ever accept such an imposition.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

How will my right hon. Friend ensure that Derbyshire Dales lamb, grown in our country, can be enjoyed by our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland, which is part of our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. The best way for us all to be sure that such lamb can be sold throughout the whole United Kingdom is to vote for this Bill, and to protect the economic integrity of the UK. [Interruption.] To answer the questions that are being shouted at me from a sedentary position, last year we signed the withdrawal agreement in the belief, which I still hold, that the EU would be reasonable. After everything that has recently happened, we must consider the alternative. We asked for reasonableness, common sense, and balance, and we still hope to achieve that through the joint committee process, in which we will always persevere, no matter what the provocation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the considerable powers that are being devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but England has also seen significant devolution and that is a process that continues with further deals in the pipeline and the Government’s commitment to a White Paper on devolution in England. I suggest that devolution has given Scotland the best of both worlds: localising decision making, but being able to access the collective resources of a strong United Kingdom.

[Miss Dines]

More than 60% of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK. That represents three times more than the rest of the EU. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we emerge from this pandemic, trade between all four of the home nations is going to be critical not only to Scotland, but to the rest of the UK?

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight these figures. We do not need the barriers and division that separation would bring, nor do we need the reckless talk of effectively closing the border when tourism in Scotland needs all the help it can get.

UK-EU Negotiations

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted to visit Craigavon, Lisburn or anywhere in the hon. Lady’s beautiful constituency to reassure her that Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the rest of the UK.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that if the Government accepted the EU proposal of a skewed definition of a level playing field, the UK would be bound to questionable European courts indefinitely, which would be simply unacceptable to the British people, who voted again last year to restore British sovereignty?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Of course we are not going to resile from our high standards; our standards will be higher than ever before when it comes to consumer protection, workers’ rights and the environment. What we can never accept—what no independent sovereign nation could ever accept—is the jurisdiction of a foreign court on those matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue with me. Of course it is right that these decisions are independently made by Ofgem, but I appreciate the problem that she raises and we will do whatever we can to ensure that it is sorted out as fast as possible.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Q6. My right hon. Friend will know that the quarries of the Peak district provide a huge proportion of the national building and mineral needs of this great nation. We would be delighted to see him in the Derbyshire Dales, so that he can see at first hand the men and women who work at the quarry face, who will be at the heart of the post-Brexit economy, and look at the need for my local Ashbourne bypass—this is necessary to deliver Brexit to the people. Does not this support for these hard-working people show who the real Conservatives are and that this party is the party of the working man?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that Prime Minister’s questions is going to run on because of this and that we must have short questions? I will work with Members, but Members have to work with the Chair.