Armed Forces Deployment (Royal Prerogative) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Earl Attlee

Friday 8th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill brought forward in the name of my noble friend Lady Falkner. It comes at a very appropriate time. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I plan to support the Bill. I note that he said that, had things not been so busy in the last seven to 10 days, he would have tabled a fatal Motion. So for those of us who were rather keen that the UK should vote to remain in the European Union—I assume it was the referendum that deflected the noble Earl—there is at least, if not any sunlit upland, a little glimmer of light coming from the fact that no fatal Motion was tabled. For that we can be grateful.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, if I had tabled a fatal Motion, a difficulty would have been that it might well have had to be debated in prime time. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, would have been thrilled to bits by that. She would probably not have been that worried about the end result and we would have had a much bigger debate—so I was actually being a bit cruel by not tabling a fatal Motion.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, this is actually a very serious Bill. Decisions to go to war and engage in military conflict always necessitate deep reflection, expert intelligence and other appropriate military advice. They must be taken responsibly and with due regard to not just the short-term military intervention but the medium and long-term consequences. We should never engage in military conflict without thinking through what the exit strategy might be. Leaving failed states behind is clearly not acceptable or morally right.

Of course, the decision to go to war is a prerogative power—but, as we have already heard, a convention has emerged in terms of consulting Parliament. Other states with written constitutions have rather more clarity in this regard. Finland, Spain, Ireland and Italy all require parliamentary votes before going into military conflict. Unless there is a direct attack on Germany, it has an even higher threshold of a two-thirds vote in Parliament before engaging in military conflict. Clearly, we do not have a codified constitution. It may be appropriate to have such a thing, but that is not something for a Private Member’s Bill. But surely clarity would be helpful.

I share some of the concerns outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Even Members of Parliament who are well informed and have been led to understand some of the military implications of a decision will not be the same as a Cabinet sitting round the table, fully briefed with all the relevant military intelligence. But the Bill of my noble friend Lady Falkner addresses some of these issues as it explicitly refers to emergency and security conditions. So if we are talking about issues that necessitate significant amounts of military intelligence that cannot be divulged to 650 Members of the House of Commons, that is presumably an area where the Prime Minister would be able to say that action would be taken under the existing prerogative.

Arguably, this leaves the Prime Minister with slightly more wiggle room than we as Liberal Democrats would want, because our party policy is very clearly that a decision should be taken by the House of Commons before going into military conflict, but I think that the balance is about right with the inclusion of the emergency condition and the security condition.

One key thing is that there should be clarity of thinking ahead of military decisions, but that does not always seem to have been the case. In the last few days, we have heard that the decision to intervene militarily in Iraq was taken without an adequate plan being in place and without adequate reference to intelligence, even if at the time it was thought to be there. Somebody has to take responsibility for decisions to go into military conflict. That could be left to the royal prerogative but, since we have a representative democracy and we have parliamentarians to take decisions for—

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in Grand Committee I welcomed a probing amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which referred to a duty to report on civilian casualties. At that point I raised certain questions. In particular, the noble Lord’s amendment sought working definitions of “civilians” and “combatants” every three months. It almost suggested that there would be rolling definitions.

At that time, the Minister undertook to write to me to explain the Government’s working definitions of “civilians” and “combatants” in the context of wars in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. I am not sure whether the letter got lost in the post—there are rather a lot of Smiths in your Lordships’ House—but I certainly have not received a letter of that sort. Therefore, I should again like to ask the Government to explain how they define “combatant” and “civilian”. It may appear that they are definitions that can be produced from a dictionary, but the point is that some of our partners—particularly the United States—may have a rather looser definition of a combatant than one might expect in ordinary civilian life, and that it might include young men who are adjacent to conflicts but who may be seen as combatants. Therefore, I would very much welcome an explanation of how Her Majesty’s Government understand the term “combatant”, particularly as there appears to be a marked discrepancy in the figures. Eleven of the 12 partner countries have said that they have not caused any civilian deaths. The United States has acknowledged 41 deaths, yet Airwars has said that there have been 1,118 civilian casualties in the war against Daesh. Therefore, there is some disparity there and I wonder whether it is due to a difference in the definitions.

I do not intend to test the patience of the House by testing its will or by detaining your Lordships for very long, but one point to bear in mind is that the Armed Forces Minister in the other place, Penny Mordaunt, committed in defence Questions on 29 February to review any reports of civilian casualties, and she is apparently looking for ways in which this can best be done.

The purpose behind Amendment 13 is again to suggest a type of reporting system. But, given the difficulties with definition, we could tighten the wording slightly and suggest that there should be reports on civilian non-combatant casualties, which is belt-and-braces wording. Clearly, this is not something we are expecting to take to a vote, but we believe that it is very important that the people of the United Kingdom and our coalition partners in the fight against Daesh have certainty on what we believe to be civilian casualties, and that the belief that we have not caused any civilian casualties is actually correct, on an ordinary definition of “civilian”.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, with these issues, it is always difficult to measure casualties. That is not necessarily an argument against the amendment from the noble Baroness. Just to be really helpful to the Minister, of course, there are lawful combatants and there are unlawful combatants. So that is another issue.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Earl Attlee

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I was not able to speak at Second Reading, and I would like to briefly reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that the Liberal Democrats have no intention whatever of trying to sabotage this Bill in any vainglorious or other way. We are committed to the Bill, and, like other Members of your Lordships’ Committee, to ensuring that the Bill becomes as good as it can be.

We do not wish to civilianise the Armed Forces, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said on Tuesday: we certainly have no intention of doing that. However, there are some concerns about this amendment. Although I accept that it is a probing amendment, we share the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that there is a danger in either a blanket limitation or looking at things that are any sort of military operation. There may be cases that clearly should not be dealt with after 20 years; there may be other cases that need to be looked at. In cases of murder, rape or the sort of crimes that we were talking about in previous amendments, it would seem extremely strange to service men and women and their families if we somehow said, “If this happened in civilian life, you might get closure, but if it happens while your son or daughter is overseas engaged in military operations, there is a 20-year cut-off, and the rule of law no longer holds”. I ask the Minister whether it would be possible to find a way of dealing with the genuine concerns that have been put forward in the amendment that would ensure that service men and women and their families felt reassured that they were not going to lose the rule of law as would normally be expected.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I am particularly concerned about putting retired servicemen in the frame again after there has been a judicial inquiry. It might be that a subsequent judicial inquiry comes to a different conclusion, but once you have had a judicial inquiry and no prosecutions have arisen, servicemen ought to be able to carry on with their duties, retire and not worry about further legal action; they should not be worrying about further legal action for the rest of their natural lives. I very much support the general thrust of his amendment, therefore, but perhaps it needs some more tests—in particular, in relation to the case we are obviously talking about but not mentioning, that there has been a judicial inquiry.