← Back to House of Commons Debates
Armed Forces Bill - Lords amendment 1 and government amendments in lieu
21 April 2021
Lead MP
Leo Docherty
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Defence
Other Contributors: 38
At a Glance
Leo Docherty raised concerns about armed forces bill - lords amendment 1 and government amendments in lieu in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Minister moved to disagree with Lords amendment 1, which aims to remove the presumption against prosecution for war crimes committed by UK service personnel. He highlighted the need to maintain the current framework that protects soldiers from being prosecuted for actions taken in combat situations, emphasising that such prosecutions would undermine the morale and well-being of troops.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Thanked the Minister for allowing him to intervene. He expressed hope that the new legislation will treat veterans equally, recognising the service of those who served in Northern Ireland as equally important.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Congratulated the Minister and welcomed his concession on veteran treatment. Emphasised that it is right to acknowledge the service of those who served in Northern Ireland, including Bob Stewart.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Asked why the Government retained the presumption against prosecution for war crimes. Highlighted the risk that this could lead to UK troops being summoned to the International Criminal Court in future conflicts.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Welcomed the Minister's appointment. Emphasised concerns about war crimes prosecution, stressing that bringing UK soldiers before the International Criminal Court would be shameful for them and the country.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Welcomed the Minister's appointment. Criticised the ad hoc approach to addressing reinvestigation issues of veterans, arguing that judicial tests should be included in the Bill rather than waiting for a review.
Eleanor Laing
Con
Chigwell
Congratulated the Minister on his appointment and welcomed him to the Dispatch Box. Offered support but did not provide detailed arguments beyond this.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Questions the Minister's claim about Lord Mackay, stating that Lord Mackay supported George Robertson’s amendment. He suggests this reinforces the strength of the amendment.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Questions why war crimes are not excluded from the Bill when other serious offences have been, suggesting it undermines the UK's moral authority and risks international embarrassment.
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Emphasises the historical importance of conduct during WWII in establishing Britain's moral authority at Nuremberg trials. Supports the need to exclude war crimes from presumptions against prosecution.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Clarifies that a war crime is distinct and includes acts like executing surrendered enemies, supporting exclusion of such acts from the Bill’s presumptions against prosecution.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Supports Lord Dannatt's amendment on duty of care and proposes judicial oversight for timely investigations, arguing this would reduce the number of unnecessary investigations. Urges inclusion in future legislation.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Highlights that the previous Minister promised to include investigation reforms in the Armed Forces Bill, which did not materialize, indicating missed opportunities for improvements.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Critiques the bill as benefiting lawyers and discriminates against former service personnel by limiting their access to justice under the Limitation Act. Urges reconsideration of the bill's stance.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Davis supports the Government on Lords amendment 1 but criticises the exclusion of war crimes from the list of offences. He cites that military leaders, including Lord Robertson, advocate for the inclusion of war crimes in order to uphold civilised values and maintain a robust rule of law.
John Healey
Lab
Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Intervened, mentioned the bishops' stance on the issue.
Stressed that under the proposed measure, individuals like Marine A would face the International Criminal Court rather than a fair trial in Britain. He argued this is undesirable as it undermines national judicial fairness and accountability.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Emphasised the gravity of war crimes, using the term 'murdered' in reference to Marine A's case, reinforcing the necessity for excluding such acts from the presumption against prosecution.
Carol Monaghan
SNP
Glasgow North West
Ms. Monaghan supports Lords amendment 1 and 3, but criticises the lack of inclusion for war crimes within these amendments. She also supports Lords amendment 2 which aims to ensure proper investigations are conducted, though she believes it falls short of expectations due to the absence of independent investigators. For Lord Dannatt’s amendment (Lords amendment 5), Ms. Monaghan fully endorses the provision for care and support for personnel involved in investigations.
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Mr. Stone interjected to agree with Ms. Monaghan's point regarding Lord Thomas’s amendment 2, emphasising the potential disincentive it poses for current serving personnel staying in services and future recruitment due to concerns over duty of care.
Mr. Jones interjected to support Ms. Monaghan's critique, highlighting the heartbreaking evidence from Robert Campbell and stressing that without proper investigation reforms, similar cases could reoccur, undermining the Bill’s objective of reducing vexatious claims.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Welcomed the Government's move to change their approach but expressed concern about whether they have gone far enough. He supports the intention of the Bill, but is concerned about the possibility of international prosecution at the International Criminal Court if the Bill reduces domestic prosecutions. Emphasised the need for internal consistency in the legislation and questioned why certain offences are excluded while others are not.
Dan Jarvis
Lab
Barnsley North
Declared his support for Lords amendment 1, which aims to remove torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes from the scope of the Bill. He expressed relief at the Government's concession but urged Ministers to accept Lords amendment 1 in full because it is the international standard.
James Sunderland
Con
Bracknell
Welcomed the new Minister for Defence People and Veterans, Leo Docherty. He supports the original Bill but is concerned about some of the Lords' amendments such as excluding war crimes from the five-year rule and introducing artificial timelines for investigations. He believes that the MOD has robust service justice systems and opposes some amendments as they would create anomalies compared to civilian processes.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Expressed concerns about the composition of senior military officials in the MOD, stating that it could leave a gap for other personnel.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Congratulated the new Minister and expressed support for the protection of veterans who served in Northern Ireland. He supports Lords amendment 1 but asks the Government to extend similar protections to war crimes as well. Robinson also requested the Government to reconsider Lords amendment 5 on duty of care for legal, pastoral, and mental health support.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Stewart expressed concern about the absence of war crimes in the Bill and supported the inclusion of such provisions. He highlighted historical examples of war crimes committed during World War II to emphasise the importance of addressing this issue. Stewart also reinforced the Ministry of Defence's responsibility towards veterans from Northern Ireland, expressing hope for positive developments soon.
Emma Lewell-Buck
Lab
South Shields
Lewell-Buck criticised parts of the Bill as making legal protections worse rather than better. She supported Lords amendments 4 and 5 which seek to ensure armed forces retain same rights as civilians for civil claims against MOD, introduce a duty of care for service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, and protect veterans from repeated investigations without justifications. She highlighted the negative impact on injured or bereaved members of the forces community due to current provisions.
Adam Holloway
Con
Gravesham
Holloway congratulated the Minister for Defence People and Veterans on their efforts to deal with vexatious legal actions. He highlighted the importance of ensuring no British soldier has doubt about prosecution for war crimes and supported renewed efforts in support of Northern Ireland veterans.
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Welcomes the Government's change of heart on Lords amendment 1, which outlaws torture. Emphasises the importance of maintaining high moral standards in the armed forces to retain a position of moral strength. Quoted Lord Stirrup's view that service personnel should be investigated thoroughly and fairly when suspected of crimes. Supports extending national standards of care and safeguarding to families under investigation.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
Supports Lords amendment 5, which establishes a duty of care standard for legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel under investigation. Cites conversations with veterans from Operation Banner facing significant strain from investigations. Emphasises the need for wraparound care for those in peril from vexatious prosecutions.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield Hallam
Expresses scepticism about the Government's proposal and highlights that some war crimes remain relevant under the Bill. Supports Lord Robertson’s amendment, Lords amendment 1, to uphold international reputation. Criticises the Bill for failing to address investigation and reinvestigation of cases adequately and opposes government proposals on veterans' wellbeing.
Geraint Davies
Lab
Swansea East
Argues that the Bill is bad for armed forces and undermines their international reputation. He provides statistics, indicating that of 1,000 cases in Iraq over 17 years, only 217 were withdrawn or struck out as unmeritorious, suggesting that the issue of vexatious claims is exaggerated. He also raises several individual case examples where legitimate complaints would be dismissed under the six-year rule, such as a constituent who faced military abuse leading to lifelong mental health issues and a cadet sexually abused by her instructor.
Nigel Evans
Con
Cannock Chase
Briefly acknowledges the previous speaker without providing substantial arguments for or against the amendment.
Beth Winter
Lab
Poplar and Limehouse
States that she voted against the Bill at every stage due to its implications on Britain's standing worldwide. She supports Lords amendments 1 and 4, which exclude torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes from the scope of the Bill, ensuring these acts are not decriminalised after five years. Additionally, she emphasises that the six-year limit for service personnel claims is inappropriate as some conditions take years to manifest, thus limiting their ability to seek proper compensation.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Jim Shannon acknowledges the Queen's birthday and supports the Government changes regarding torture as suggested in Lords amendment 1. He seeks clarity on why war crimes remain exempted and questions the ability of service personnel to make claims against the Government under new clause 13. Shannon emphasises the need for a duty of care towards service personnel who served in Northern Ireland, including support for legislation protecting those veterans.
Kevan Jones
Lab
Durham, Bishop Auckland
The Bill is fundamentally dishonest as it fails to address the issue of vexatious investigations. The proposed amendments would provide judicial oversight and ensure protection from international prosecution. Kevan Jones supports Lords amendment 1 and 2 which he believes are necessary improvements to protect armed forces members.
Nigel Evans
Con
Ribble Valley
Welcomes the new Minister to his post. No specific arguments or interventions mentioned in the provided text.
Leo Docherty
Con
Wells
The MP clarified that part 1 of the Bill does not prevent investigations or prosecutions, ensuring UK's ability to investigate war crimes without being seen as unwilling or unable by the ICC. He highlighted existing comprehensive welfare and legal support for service personnel and veterans.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.