Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-04-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Olivia Frances Blake Dagnall (Labour, Centre-left): I start by congratulating the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), on his promotion. I welcome him to his new role Article 8.2 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court defines the term "war crimes" in two ways: as "grave breaches" of the Geneva convention or "serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict" Under those two headings, the article provides 31 different offences. Here are just some examples: "Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives"; "Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion"; "Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments"; and "Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" I list some of those crimes because if we accept only the Government’s proposal, instead of the amendments from the other place, they will remain "relevant" offences under the Bill. I am incredibly sceptical about there being a presumption against prosecution just because a crime was committed abroad, but it is unclear to me why anyone would support a time limit or presumption against prosecution specifically on the charge of attacking defenceless towns or killing people who have surrendered. Why rule out torture but not physical mutilation or scientific experiments on enemy combatants The concessions that Ministers and the MOD have made on torture, genocide and crimes against humanity are very welcome, but they do not go far enough to ensure that some of the worst crimes a person can commit are excluded. I agree with the many Members who have signalled that adopting Lord Robertson’s excellent amendment, Lords amendment 1, wholesale would be the best approach to uphold our international reputation On the issue that Ministers say the Bill addresses—the wellbeing of veterans—it also falls well short. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) mentioned Lord Boyce’s remarks, and I will reiterate them. A presumption against prosecution helps no one. The issue that needs to be dealt with is the investigation and reinvestigation of cases. The Lords amendments provide a mechanism for dealing with those reinvestigations, yet the Government are opposing them. At the same time, Ministers propose to make it harder for veterans to bring cases against the MOD and oppose any attempt to provide a duty of care to ex-service personnel involved in legal cases Without the Lords amendments, the Bill fails across the board and falls well short. Instead of playing politics with human rights, the Government should guarantee access to justice for all victims of war, from the victims and survivors of war crimes to those ex-service personnel failed by the MOD. That is why I will vote for the Lords amendments today.