CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I would like to start by paying tribute to our armed forces – and join colleagues from across this House – in expressing gratitude to those who serve.
They truly give us a reason to be patriotic.
Mr Speaker, there is consensus across the House here today.
Labour, the Government, and the Armed Forces all want the same thing.
We all agree that we must protect our troops from vexatious claims.
And, we all agree that we must defend those that serve our country overseas with courage and distinction.
Government promised to bring forward legislation to do just that in their first 100 days of government.
Now, 284 days later, they have disappointingly got crucial elements of this Bill badly wrong.
The question we must be asking is: what does this mean for our troops?
It risks breaching the armed forces covenant and rolls back on their employment rights.
It fails to properly protect against vexatious claims.
And, it undermines Britain’s proud adherence to the international laws like the Geneva Convention that we helped create.
But it is not too late.
There is still time for Ministers to work with us to get this right.
The Government’s introduction of a 6-year limit for bringing civil claims will prevent troops who suffer injury from taking cases to court.
Over the last 15 years, there have been 25 cases brought by injured British troops against the MoD – for every 1 case brought by alleged victims against our forces.
That means the main beneficiary of this Bill is the MoD. Not our personnel.
This Bill should be designed to protect troops, not the purse strings of Government.
So, I put it to the Minister, if this Bill is for our armed forces community, why does it deny them the same employment rights as civilians?
Mr Speaker, Labour is also deeply concerned this Bill does not meet its primary objective – it does not do enough to protect our troops from vexatious claims.
In letters sent to the Defence Secretary by the Defence Committee, the point is made that this Bill does nothing to prevent arduous investigations processes.
It just protects from prosecutions.
It does nothing to deal with the serious failings in the system for investigating allegations against British troops.
Something that the defence minister himself admits –
“Had they been done properly – and self-regulation had occurred – we probably wouldn’t be here today”.
This means that perhaps the toughest, most intrusive aspect of the vexatious claims process is not dealt with in this Bill.
And this is not the only way in which it leaves our troops open to ’lawfare’.
By going back on our commitments to the Geneva convention, it risks dragging our people in front of the International Criminal Court.
I put it to the Minister, does he really want to make it more likely that the ICC could open investigations against British troops?
Mr Speaker, there are also a set of wider issues here.
Vexatious claims are not the only major problem our forces face.
Action on this issue is not a licence to neglect others.
Low pay.
Ten years of falling morale.
A decade of falling numbers.
And a housing crisis across the tri-services.
If the Minister is serious about tackling its poor track record on Defence, we need to see action on all these issues.
This presents an opportunity to turn the tide, break the mould, and work with Labour to get this right.
Mr Speaker, in this country we are proudly patriotic.
And, reinforcing that patriotism, that love for our country, is the high regard in which our armed forces are held.
When you see Union Flags on the shoulder patches of service personnel overseas, that means something.
It means honesty. It means respect for the rule of law. It means justice.
From Sandhurst to Britannia Naval College, there is a reason is why countries from around the world send their officers to be trained in our military institutions.
But, Mr Speaker, this Bill puts all that at risk.
It is at odds with the rules based international order we helped create.
In its current form, this Bill would make Great Britain the only nation among our major allies to offer a statutory presumption against prosecution.
As the previous-chief of the defence staff, the ex-attorney general, and the former-defence secretary have said:
“it undermines Britain’s proud long-standing adherence to the Geneva convention.”
Great Britain has proudly stood, and must stand, against the use of torture – and against the use of rendition.
Mr Speaker, I urge the Minister:
Do not undo the work of Churchill.
Do not undo the work of Attlee.
Do not chip away at our nation’s proud reputation.
I put it to the Minister, how can we expect Great Britain to speak with authority on international law to China, Russia and Iran if we go back on our own commitments?
In years gone by, a commitment made by this proud nation meant something.
Last week this government tarnished that reputation by breaking international law with the Internal Markets Bill.
I urge the Minister to commit to working with us to make sure this Bill does not do the same.
So, Mr Speaker, unfortunately, the government has got important parts of this Bill badly wrong.
In its current form it risks damaging our reputation and failing to protect Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
But it is not too late. As I said, there is consensus across this House today.
There is still time for Ministers to work with the opposition to get this right.
Protecting troops from vexatious claims does not need to be at odds with our commitments to international law.
It does not need to be a trade-off between safeguarding our armed forces and eroding the reasons why we are patriotic.
As many Members of this House have said today, this should not be a matter of party politics or point-scoring.
Labour stand foursquare behind our troops.
We want to work with Government to build the broadest consensus possible around a Bill tailored to supporting our forces and safeguarding human rights.
If I have one message for the Minister it is this:
As this bill continues its passage through Parliament, commit to improving it alongside us.
Let’s work together to protect our troops, their reputation, and our country’s international standing.
