Key Facts

• Amendment 23 calls for inclusion of UAVs or RPAS operated from British Isles in support of overseas operations.
• Since 2007, about 3,700 RAF drone missions have killed 1,000 terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.
• The UK Government approved the drone acquisition programme at a cost of £816 million in 2016, with an additional estimated £325 million added earlier this year.
• Drone operators face a high risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder.
• General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith envisions future combat as an integration of 'boots and bots'.
• The UK government is funding research into unmanned combat aircraft with France, aiming to replace Typhoon from 2030.
• Drone operators are often deployed year-round without breaks, exacerbating psychological stress.
• The use of UAVs is governed by a legal framework including rules of engagement.
• Ministers sign off on airstrikes with legal justification before they occur.
• Missions can be aborted at the last minute based on new information or changes in situational awareness.
• The principle is that part 1 should cover personnel who may come under attack or threat of attack in overseas operations.
• The UK-based drone pilots are considered part of an overseas operation but would not face personal risk of attack or violence.
• The amendment seeks to provide additional protection for these operators, which the MP argues is unnecessary based on the current circumstances.
• The amendments aim to change '5' year limits to '10' years in various clauses.
• Amendments include changes to clause 1, page 2, line 2; clause 1, page 2, line 4; clause 5, page 3, line 19; and clause 5, page 3, line 36.
• Stringer emphasizes the need for the Bill to address root causes of stress faced by armed forces personnel.
• The Bill proposes a five-year limit on prosecution of alleged offences committed overseas.
• Originally, the Government proposed a ten-year deadline for prosecutions.
• Countries like France and the US do not give military personnel special status in criminal law.
• In July 2020, the Defence Committee Chair sent a letter to the Secretary of State raising concerns about the Bill's five-year limit on prosecutions.
• The Labour party aims to stop vexatious claims against armed forces personnel but finds flaws in the Bill's approach.
• The Bill does not help cases like Major Bob Campbell's.
• Professor Richard Ekins testified that the Bill places no obstacle on continuing investigations.
• Dr Jonathan Morgan stated that Major Campbell’s case would not be addressed by the proposals.
• New clause 8 is about limiting the investigation period for minor offences.
• The debate should focus on new clause 8 and its three amendments, as per Stringer's ruling.
• Judge Blackett was not consulted during the drafting of this Bill.
• The proposal seeks to change the time at which the presumption comes into effect from five to 10 years.
• Public consultation showed support for a 10-year timeframe but also concern that it was too long.
• Five years is suggested as an alternative based on public feedback.
• Amendments 14, 2, and 56 aim to improve the investigative process.
• New clause 6 proposes setting a six-month deadline for preliminary findings by judge advocates.
• Judge advocates have powers to cease investigations based on lack of serious harm or insufficient evidence.
• The statement is part of a Public Bill Committee discussion on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.
• Amendments 14, 2 and 56, as well as new clauses 6 and 7 were debated but not formally discussed beyond initial mention.
• Graham Stringer states that voting can proceed to amendment 26.
• The committee was debating amendments related to clause 1 of the Bill.
• There was a misunderstanding about whether amendments could be formally moved after initial debates.
• Graham Stringer will consult with the Clerk to clarify procedural issues.
• The statement refers to Major Campbell's experience of 17 years of investigations.
• General Nick Parker’s evidence is cited, emphasizing the importance of investigating misconduct promptly and efficiently.
• The Defence Secretary announced a review on October 13, 2020, to ensure proper handling of complex and serious allegations against UK forces overseas.
• The statement criticises the exclusion of key military figures like the Judge Advocate General from early stages of the Bill's development.
• Mr Stringer references the service justice system review and its recommendations which should have been incorporated into the current Bill.
• He mentions concern over political motivations behind pushing this legislation rather than addressing issues comprehensively in a future armed forces bill.
• General Sir Nick Parker stated nobody wants people who behave badly on the frontline to get away with it.
• He also noted that the process has to be quick, efficient and effective in removing suspicion of malicious allegations as quickly as possible.
• The MP agrees with the notion that the impression some try to give of armed forces wanting to be above the law is incorrect.