When the Government brought this Bill forward, their aim was to end vexatious claims against former service personnel and the Ministry of Defence, but the evidence does not bear out what the Government say is the scale of the problem. No service personnel, present or former, deserve to be investigated and prosecuted for a crime they did not commit, or to be repeatedly investigated without good reason, but the figures, as the Government well know, are not of a scale that would justify the proposals in the Bill.
In relation to Iraq, only a handful of prosecutions have been brought against junior personnel.
Of the civil prosecutions against the MOD over the past five years, just 0.8% related to Iraq. The Minister has said, in relation to the majority of the repeat investigations or delayed prosecutions, that
“one of the biggest problems…was the military’s inability to investigate itself properly and the standard of those investigations…If those investigations were done properly and self-regulation had occurred, we probably wouldn’t be here today”.
Rather than put forward proposals to tackle the real reason behind any repeat investigations or delayed prosecutions, the Bill instead proposes unprecedented and dangerous legal protections, which will create a legal regime that secures immunity for serious offences and inequality before the law for victims of abuse and armed forces personnel.
5.15 pm
The former professional head of the armed forces, Lord Guthrie, has said that he is dismayed by the proposals. The Bill, in his view,
“provides room for a de facto decriminalisation of torture”,
which, in turn,
“would be a stain on Britain’s standing in the world.”
It is noted that sexual violence is exempt from the time limitations, but not murder or torture. Not only does that undermine the fundamental credibility of the Bill, as General Nick Parker, former commander of the land forces of the British Army, has said, but it risks undermining Britain’s long-standing and proud adherence to a number of treaties and conventions, notably the Geneva convention. How do this Government think that the Bill, as it stands, in decriminalising torture, enhances the standing of our armed forces? It is more likely to risk British service personnel being dragged into prosecutions at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. That is not my theory, but that of Judge Advocate General Lord Blackett, our most senior military judge.
If the true aim of this Bill was to support serving or ex-forces personnel, it would not have included the time limit on the ability of service members to bring claims against the MOD for negligence and maltreatment. There is plenty of evidence to show how the impact of overseas operations on service personnel is not immediately apparent, with post-traumatic stress disorder especially taking a long time to diagnose—often years after service has ended. How is this fair or just, and how is that helping our armed forces personnel?
It is a fact that the MOD benefits most, and this Bill will make it harder for anyone, civilian or soldier, to hold the Ministry of Defence to account for unlawful
actions and human rights abuses. Why does the Minister continue to ignore the impartial advice of the British Legion that the Bill risks breaching the armed forces covenant, and will he not take another look at the amendments that will prevent that from happening? Unamended, this Bill benefits only the Government and offers no support to our armed forces, and I cannot support it.