Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

On Amendment 6, the provisions that are set out in the statement which I read indicate quite clearly that the situation that is provided is much better than what would be done by the sort of detail which is provided in Amendment 6. The whole system indicates, as set out in that statement, that the matter is dealt with as a detailed attachment to the particular case and that what is required in each particular case may be very different in one from another. Therefore, in my submission, Amendment 6 is not an improvement on the Bill and I do not think that there is room for, or need for, an elaborate system of care other than what is provided in detail by the statement that I have read.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to offer whole-hearted support to Amendments 1 and 6 which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, also put his name to Amendment 1, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Dannatt, put their names to Amendment 6.

First, I wish to say something about the statement to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has referred. I was going to comment on it later in the context of the new duty of care in Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has taken the trouble to read the statement in full, and it is therefore no doubt fresh in the minds of noble Lords, perhaps this is a convenient moment to express two considerable concerns that I have in relation to the statement by the Secretary for Defence. The first is in relation to legal aid and the second is in relation to mental health support.

In relation to legal aid, there is a very serious ambiguity—perhaps not even an ambiguity, perhaps a straightforward gap—in the support that is being offered to service personnel in relation to legal aid. I refer your Lordships to the part of the passage that reads,

“where the chain of command accepts funding responsibility, this is means-test exempt and therefore no personal contribution will be required. The Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority will act as a conduit for the provision of publicly funded legal representation on behalf of the chain of command including all aspects of the financial and case management, however”—

I emphasise “however”—

“if available evidence suggests the individual was doing something clearly outside the scope of their duty then it would not be appropriate for that person to receive this chain-of-command funding.”

So this non-means-tested automatic funding that does not require a personal contribution is not available to personnel and veterans facing the gravest peril from investigation and prosecution. This is hardly comfort to those to whom this Bill is supposed to be addressed. It is those who face the gravest allegations who principle suggests should have the greatest legal support, for it is those who are facing charges that they were doing something clearly outside the scope of their duty who are losing sleep at night as they may face dishonourable discharge and very serious criminality and consequence. This is the very group who are being let down and denied automatic non-means-tested legal provision. I have to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about the Defence Secretary’s statement offering very much comfort at all to serving Armed Forces personnel or indeed veterans for the reason I set out: those in greatest jeopardy are left with least protection by way of legal aid.

Secondly, in relation to mental health provision, we know and the statement makes clear that to put someone in harm’s way in these circumstances is almost automatically to expose them to great jeopardy in relation to their mental health. Here is an ambiguity rather than a clear gap because at various points in the passages of the statement referring to mental health provision there are caveats about “where needed” “pathways in the community”, “best practice” and “local population needs”. I do not know what these words mean and no doubt the Minister will be able to clarify them in a moment, but to me it looks as if, subject to signposting and pathways, these people are being left, broadly speaking, to take their chances in a Cinderella part of the NHS. It does not seem clear from this statement that all serving personnel and veterans are given automatic mental health support. It is all “subject to clinical needs” or “subject to local population needs” and all of those caveats. That is what I would have said later about the need for the duty of care in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.

Returning to Amendments 1 and 6, Amendment 6 and the proposed new clause seem to me to address exactly what the Bill was supposed to: the problem of delayed, shoddy and, therefore, repeated investigations, which cause so much concern to members of the Armed Forces and veterans. Tackling this head-on, with some comprehensive statutory provision to push investigations to be timely and adequate, is a very good idea. Of course, the amendment has very distinguished and gallant supporters.

In relation to Amendment 1, respectfully, I could not disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, more than I do. It replaces the presumption against prosecution with a very common-sense consideration of fair trials and whether they have been compromised by the passage of time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, says that you cannot expect a prosecutor to make those determinations and that it is not appropriate, but this is what prosecutors up and down the land do every day. It is completely within, and absolutely core to, a prosecutor’s duty to consider whether it is possible, in light of the passage of time and the possible deterioration of evidence, for the accused to have a fair trial. This would be crucial to both the evidential test and, indeed, the public interest test, which all prosecutors have to consider. If that is the case—if these are normal prosecutorial factors—this might lead some noble Lords to ask why they should be put in the Bill. They should be because we have been told repeatedly during the passage of the Bill to date that a lot of what is required is comfort—clear statutory comfort to personnel and veterans that they will not be let down by the system and that they will be protected.

Putting this fair trial consideration, and including the passage of time, alongside the new provisions offered on investigations is a very good idea. As others—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in particular—have said, the five-year rebuttable presumption is rebuttable. Perhaps with the triple lock it is very difficult to rebut that presumption, but it will still leave concerns in the minds of personnel and veterans that a lengthy or late investigation may lead to a prosecution. It is so much better to protect people in the way offered by those who tabled these amendments. It is a far greater protection against late, shoddy and repeated investigations than the so-called triple lock that is causing so much concern. Normally, when employers and people seek to protect those who have been under especial pressure at work and in their service, it is support, not immunity, that is offered. That is the common-sense approach offered in these amendments.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 1, to which I have put my name. As a former prosecutor, I do not think that the task it sets the prosecutor is likely to be all that difficult, given that it must proceed on the information available to the prosecutor at the time the decision has to be taken. It may be that the information is relatively slender at the very beginning, when he is considering whether to bring proceedings, but such as it may be, it is the information that he should take into account. If one considers the stage at which proceedings are continuing, which this clause also covers, he is likely to be in possession of a good deal more information. So I do not think that there is anything wrong in the wording of Amendment 1. The essence of it lies more in what it takes out than the simple wording of what it seeks to put in. What it takes out is the presumption. I have no difficulty with the way in which the presumption is expressed in Clause 2, but I do object to it in principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. It is a simple amendment to Clause 15, seeking to put into legislation the promise made by the Government that the same protections in relation to prosecutions of veterans of overseas operations will apply to those who served in Northern Ireland—that is, to the 300,000 service personnel involved in Operation Banner from 1969. The amendment requires the Government to report on progress to that end before the necessary commencing regulations under subsection (2) are made. I hope that progress will come early rather than later, although I recognise that it will require courage within government—the same kind of courage as was displayed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Johnny Mercer MP, who took this Bill through Committee in the other place.

On Second Reading, I explained that the Army and the police stopped a civil war breaking out in Northern Ireland, for which they get little thanks, just vexation, prosecutions and unending reinvestigations—largely due, ironically, to the overinterpretation of the right to life in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They paid a colossal price in blood: some 700 soldiers, including in the UDR, and 300 RUC officers were murdered. The equivalent number of police officers killed on a UK-wide basis would be 10,000; that figure says it all.

In reality, the Bill is limited in its provisions. Reinvestigations will not be ended but I hope that they will be curtailed. It does not constitute an amnesty, although it is worth pointing out that, since the Belfast agreement, we have already had many elements of an amnesty, including the early release of all paramilitary prisoners and the letters of comfort for IRA members on the run.

Now the only matters investigated and coming to prosecution are those involving Army veterans, half a dozen of whom are awaiting trial in relation to events 50 years ago. That process has taken a very long time. Much of the investigation evidence appears to be based on files in the National Archives at Kew, where the Troubles archaeology proceeds apace. The IRA did not leave any paperwork to be excavated, of course.

The Bill before us carries in Clause 1 a permission for prosecutors to consider

“whether or not any proceedings against a person for a relevant offence should be continued”.

This is a key provision that must be extended to Northern Ireland and just might enable the persecution to cease. Our Amendment 18 is grouped with 17 others, all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, from whom we have just heard. Those 17 amendments are a pre-emptive strike against the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland, which is what my amendment wants. It is being pushed hard by the legal academics at Queen’s University and the CAJ, who all seem to be more obsessed with persecuting veterans than real justice.

In the Member’s explanatory statement, the noble Baroness states that the Bill is incompatible

“with the provisions of the Belfast Agreement that require incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Irish law”.

However, in my view, she misinterprets the 1998 Belfast agreement. It said nothing about the prosecution or non-prosecution of members of the security forces. Yes, the UK Government undertook to incorporate the ECHR into British law; they duly did so in the November of that year when the Human Rights Act received Royal Assent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said at Second Reading,

“nothing in the Bill could be interpreted as undermining the commitments contained in the Belfast agreement, and nothing that would diminish the essence of the protections that the Human Rights Act currently offers to the people of Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 9/3/21; col. 1585.]

The Government gave a promise. I strongly want to believe that promise but I am afraid that some of the things that have happened in Northern Ireland recently show even more that there is a need for this Government, and us in your Lordships’ House, to show that we mean what we say. That is why I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept my amendment and put it into the Bill.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the collection of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It does not take me to remind your Lordships that this is a very difficult moment in Northern Ireland and not one to be doing anything to undermine, or anything that could be interpreted as undermining, the Good Friday agreement.

I hear the endorsement from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, of the Government’s position: that the Bill must do nothing to jeopardise the ECHR and the agreement. With respect, however, that view is not shared by human rights analysts in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland and internationally. Of course, in this respect, even the perception of jeopardising the convention, and therefore the agreement, is a significant problem.

In the context of Northern Ireland, the problem stems from going down this road of de facto—or attempted—immunities and statutes of limitation in the first place. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, further demonstrates the difficulty with opening this Pandora’s box and going for limits on prosecution and on suits against the Government rather than bolstering the robustness and timeliness of investigations and providing adequate support for veterans and serving personnel.

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

My Lords, all the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has put before your Lordships would delete from this Bill its application to Northern Ireland. In other words, the result of these amendments would be that this defence Bill would not affect Northern Ireland.

It is vital that all defence legislation for the United Kingdom applies to the United Kingdom because the purpose of that body of legislation is the protection and defence of the whole United Kingdom. Therefore, whatever solution may be necessary for what the noble Baroness speaks of, it certainly cannot be to delete from the defence legislation of Northern Ireland an Act that will affect the defence legislation of the rest of the United Kingdom. I strongly suggest that this is not a feasible way of proceeding. I am all in favour of her having a meeting with the Minister in early course— I hope that the Minister will have time for that—but I do not think that we in your Lordships’ House can possibly accept this solution.

So far as the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is concerned, the question of how to deal with this matter is very tricky indeed. I have been anxious about it for a long time, and I do not see it getting any easier to solve. I do not feel able to comment on the wisdom of that amendment at this time, but I would be happy to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

--- Later in debate ---

I join the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, in asking why the Government cannot be persuaded that they are simply in the wrong place on this? Perhaps the Minister could offer a response to these views so clearly held by the UN and many others and, even at this stage, indicate a change of heart.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I had intended to involve myself deeply in the passage of this important Bill through your Lordships’ House, although I hesitate to speak on matters about which I am much less qualified to pronounce than the learned and gallant noble Lords who have made such a great contribution to our debates on the Bill. I have found it difficult to keep up with and to remain fully involved in this Bill as well as in the Financial Services Bill. For most of my working life, I have been a full-time banker; on the other hand, my military experience is limited. I was a TA soldier for 10 years and, more recently, have been honoured to act as an honorary air commodore in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

I very much welcome the Government’s decision to introduce the Bill and to deliver on our manifesto commitment to end vexatious legal claims. I also understand and agree with the Government’s intention in Part 2 to ensure that claims are brought sooner. This should mean that service personnel and veterans will not be subjected to criminal investigations that may be triggered by civil claims. I therefore cannot support Amendments 7 and 8 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, which have the effect of wrecking this part of the Bill in its entirety.

However, I am impressed by arguments by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the courts should continue to be allowed to hear personal injury claims against the Crown even after the six-year time limit has expired. I know enough about the culture within the Armed Forces—a major reason for the high regard in which they are held—to agree that it may also create situations where someone may be told that he cannot make a claim, when actually he can, but he will still believe and accept that he cannot. I am therefore sympathetic to the purpose of Amendment 13 but look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response to the powerful arguments put forward in its support.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support these amendments, with a very strong preference for Amendments 7 and 8, although I understand that they will not be pressed; half a loaf is better than no bread. It is clear to me that a combination of rules and discretion is what the law is. This is the protection against arbitrary action, and I have heard no compelling argument whatever at any point in the proceedings relating to this legislation for limiting the discretion of the courts completely, particularly in the light of the sorts of cases described by my noble friend Lord Hendy.

However, I was interested in the newly expressed concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, about discrimination; his view of equal treatment under the law is novel to me. He seems to be concerned about discrimination in relation to a Bill, which he supports, that is inherently discriminatory. He is concerned about giving extra protection to a particular class of claimant—namely, veterans and personnel, who are supposed to be protected by this legislation. But he is not concerned, it would seem, about giving special protection to a class of defendants—the MoD, the Executive—which is the initiator of the legislation as well as the civil defendant. He is not concerned about giving special protection and limitations to criminal defendants in the military, but he is concerned to give the protection offered by Amendment 13 when it is not being offered to overseas civilians, yet he does not support Amendments 7 and 8. This is not levelling up; it is levelling down.

As I say, I would very much prefer Amendments 7 and 8 to be pressed, but in their absence I will support Amendment 13. The Government brought forward this legislation with a promise to give protection to service personnel and veterans but, instead, if they do not go along with at least Amendment 13, it will protect the Exchequer—the Ministry of Defence—from the very people that it claims to protect.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13, to which I have attached my name. Its purpose is to ensure that service personnel are not debarred by time from pursuing claims against the Government for harms suffered on overseas operations. It seems strange to me that a Bill with the avowed purpose of providing government reassurance to service personnel seems intent on preventing those very personnel from seeking redress from that same Government. This may not be the intention, but it is one of the potential consequences of the Bill as it is currently worded.

In responding to a similar amendment in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland, argued against it because it would have very limited effect. At Second Reading, the Government said that some 94% of service personnel and veterans who brought claims relating to events in Iraq and Afghanistan had done so within six years. He later confirmed that this figure included those who had brought a claim within six years of the date of knowledge. My response is to repeat the question that I posed on that occasion, and which was never answered: are we to assume then that, had the proposed timescale been in effect, the Government believe that it would have been acceptable for the other 6% to lose the opportunity to pursue their cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister’s statement. As I have reminded the House, the Government’s justification for this clause to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 was to reflect the undertaking of a ministerial Statement by the then Defence Secretary, and repeated in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on 10 October 2016. If the Government still stand by it, it is worth recalling parts of that Statement. It explained that in overseas operations our personnel have had to face growing legal uncertainty and an unprecedented level of litigation. The Statement said that

“the resulting uncertainties have been distressing to many current personnel and veterans, and military advice is that there is a risk of seriously undermining the operational effectiveness of the armed forces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/16; col. 3WS]

I draw attention to the risk mentioned in that Statement—the risk of seriously undermining the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces when engaged in conflict.

The Bill does not adequately address the growing concern that commanders of whatever rank may, for fear of later legal challenge or charge, be unsure or inhibited in the orders or directions they give to engage and defeat an enemy in the course of conflict. Statements about combat immunity in relation to human rights legislation lack the precision required for conflict. To state that a court should be

“very slow … to question operational decisions made on the ground by commanders, whatever their rank or level of seniority”

lacks precision for commanders at the time, on the spot. Even before a case reaches court, the accused will be subject to worries and uncertainty for weeks, months and even years while evidence is collected, witnesses identified and prosecuting authorities decide whether to take the case to court for trial. Some might even describe this as mental torture.

In Smith, the judgment was that there is a “middle ground” between close combat on the one hand and political direction on the other about the allocation of resources, where the actions or omissions of individual service personnel can be determined only on the evidence ex post facto—that is, a review far removed in time, place and emotion from the possible extreme dangers of the moment.

I am not questioning these well-argued legal judgments but drawing attention to a mismatch—and I think it is important to draw attention to it—between the disciplinary dictates of the Armed Forces Act and human rights legislation that may arise when service personnel are at or near to war. I drew attention to this in 1998, when debating what is now the Human Rights Act 1998. Regrettably, this Bill does not address this issue, in spite of the Defence Secretary’s Statement. One must hope that the human rights review now being undertaken by Sir Peter Gross—he has assured me that the issue of combat immunity will be considered—will provide a workable solution.

Meanwhile, Clause 12 provided for no more than was originally and clearly stated at the time the Human Rights Bill was being debated in 1998. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, said, and these words are well rehearsed already:

“I also remind your Lordships and the noble and gallant Lord—


that is me—

that under Article 15 of the convention a state may, in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, take measures derogating from its obligations under the convention to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation.”—[Official Report, 5/2/1998; col. 768.]

The noble and learned Lord further asserted that the human rights convention was a flexible instrument. I fear that is now rather a dubious claim. Clause 12 added nothing to what was made clear in 1998, and I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his persistence with this, and I especially thank the Minister, for her gracious concession.

It was just a few weeks ago that the former Prime Minister Mrs May warned the Government, in another place, of what she described as the

“fine line between being popular and populist”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col. 78.]

I wonder whether that line is quite so fine. To be more explicit than the noble and learned Lord, dog whistles are bad enough in politics, but they are a lot worse in legislation and worse still when they are by way of legislative amendment to the Human Rights Act—our modern Bill of Rights. To turn the power to consider derogation into an express statutory duty, but not to import the appropriate legal test for such a derogation, was a very dangerous dog whistle indeed. I am very glad that it has been withdrawn. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I hope that the Government continue in this positive vein and consider other fundamental concerns about the Bill in general.

I do not want to be churlish. This is an important concession from the Government; to treat the Human Rights Act in this way, and to set a precedent for creating duties to derogate and put them in the Act, would have been very dangerous and would have sent a bad signal about the Government’s commitment to human rights at home and internationally.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

I thank the Minister for her pragmatic approach to this. I entirely agree with the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that the real issue was Article 5 and the right and ability to detain on the battlefield. There was a real problem there and, with respect to the Government, they were right to consider it. The unfortunate thing is that they chose the wrong route. I do not think that they considered carefully enough the decisions of the Supreme Court in Al-Waheed and Serdar Mohammed. But, if a problem remains, I am sure that it will be looked at sympathetically because, for the protection of our troops, it is necessary to take a realistic view of the ability to detain on the battlefield or in close proximity to it. Again, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his clear analysis of this, and the Minister, for her wise decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boyce (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as speakers ahead of me, and especially my noble friend Lord Dannatt, spoke eloquently in support of this amendment, I will not tax your Lordships’ patience by repeating all that has been said. However, I wish to reinforce the point that we need something of a more permanent nature by which the Government may be held to account rather than a set of conventions and understandings, including defence instructions and notices. These can be easily changed or cancelled without any significant effort or recourse to Parliament. That is why, although I have very carefully read the Ministerial Statement that the Minister laid before us this morning, which sets out what is available to Armed Forces personnel, serving or veteran, I am afraid that it does not offer the guarantee of permanency of the responsibility of the MoD for the duty of care that this amendment proposes.

I also share, by the way, some of the concerns about the Statement expressed earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Furthermore, regarding that Ministerial Statement, I am incidentally unclear of the definition of “legacy cases” that the Army Operational Legacy Branch has been created to deal with. That also raises the interesting question of why exemption from means testing for legal aid cannot be applicable for criminal cases arising from all overseas operations, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.

This Bill, which sets out to relieve the strain on personnel under investigation, must surely reflect the fact that the MoD has a statutory obligation for the care of such people. I therefore support Amendment 14.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, in support of the vital amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. It is vital because there does not seem to be anything quite like it on the statute book.

While the Bill, controversially, attempts to protect the MoD from civil suit and individual members of the Armed Forces and veterans from criminal prosecution, it does not provide actual support for them. It does not provide mental health support, legal support or anything else mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.

I will not repeat what I said earlier, but even the Statement that was made today clearly to reassure your Lordships that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, is not necessary gives me cause for concern. There are holes in the automatic non-means-tested legal advice and support, which should be automatic and non-means-tested for any serving member of the Armed Forces or veteran, whether they are facing investigation or prosecution or are a potential witness. That was the biggest problem I found.

Even the mental health support was less than specific or certain and seemed to be about signposting people to general NHS services, even though we all accept that people serving overseas are under particular strain. If their mental health is under particular strain and they are especially exposed to the law, as the Government maintain, why do they not get specific statutory and automatic support?

This is perhaps one of the most important parts of the debate today, and this amendment is possibly one of the most important that has been tabled. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, will press it to a vote.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I start by adding my thanks to the Minister for the time and trouble she has taken since Committee to listen to the concerns that my noble friend Lord Dannatt and the other movers of this amendment, of whom I am one, have sought to address. The Government have argued, and no doubt will continue to argue, that what we are trying to achieve is both unnecessary and dangerous. I am unconvinced and I shall try to explain why.

In her response in Committee, the Minister pointed to the mechanisms and processes already in place to support service personnel and veterans. There are indeed both official and charitable structures set up for this purpose; they do a great deal of excellent work, as today’s ministerial Statement made clear. But as I tried to explain in Committee, the situation of those accused of criminal activities and subject to the corresponding and prolonged investigations is particularly difficult. I pointed out that the stresses on these individuals and their families are profound and enduring.

These people are not just accused of a crime; they are charged with trampling underfoot the values and ethos that are an essential element of the special body of which they have been a trusted part. They are suspected of betraying their comrades and bringing them into disrepute. I ask noble Lords to imagine what sort of impact all of that has on people who are members of such a close and unique community.

It is alas true that in some cases the opprobrium will be deserved, but we also know that in such circumstances the innocent and the guilty will suffer alike. Even a subsequent and unequivocal demonstration of innocence will not entirely remove the shadow from their lives or allow them to feel quite the same ever again.

Given such horrendous and, in some cases, undeserved consequences, is it so unreasonable to seek a special degree of support for these people? Is it unreasonable to ask that the requirement for and processes to deliver such support should be codified? After all, Part 1 of this Bill is itself mostly about codifying procedures that nearly everyone agrees a competent prosecuting authority would follow in any case. If these need to be set out in the Bill, why not the processes for ensuring the appropriate source of support for service personnel and veterans? To argue in favour of the former and against the latter would strike me as strangely inconsistent. Just to be clear, I do not believe that defence information notices constitute adequate codification.

The dangers that the Government seem to think lurk within this amendment apparently derive from the legal rights it would afford to those it seeks to protect. The accused could sue the Government if they thought that they had been inadequately supported—and who is to say what level of support should be considered adequate? The only beneficiaries, it appears, would be the legal profession.

Well, my first response would be that if the Government failed to provide the appropriate support, then they should be liable. It seems that in this day and age, we are keen to afford justiciable rights to just about everyone—except our service men and women. As to the definition of adequacy, I entirely accept that Amendment 14 as worded may not have adequately circumscribed this, but is it really beyond the wit of government lawyers to come up with a form of words that would do the trick? Surely, the concept of reasonableness and the appropriate kinds of test are not alien to our legal system.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said that this amendment would do nothing to prevent future Shiners, and I agree with him. I also agree wholeheartedly that tackling the difficulties caused by the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act is essential. None of this, though, obviates the need to support those who need our help.

The Government’s argument appears, in essence, to be, “We don’t think this amendment is necessary because we already do what it suggests, but we’re rather afraid of being sued for not doing what the amendment proposes.” This does not strike me as a tenable position. I urge the Government to think again.