Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2021

Votes: Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

On 13th April 2021, the House of Lords debated the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which Bishops took part:

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill: Bishop of Leeds raises concerns on prosecution limits

On 21st March 2021, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. The Bishop of Leeds spoke in support of amendment 14, which would provide that the presumption against prosecution in the bill does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture:

The Lord Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, I understand the stated rationale for this Bill and I state at the outset that I have enormous respect for the noble Baroness the Minister, but I am struggling. I am not a lawyer, but I would like to focus on a couple of specific questions. I understand the difficulty with vexatious and untimely litigation, which is a curse, but legitimate litigation, however inconvenient, is surely the blessing of a free and civilised society that honours international law and a rules-based system in more than words.

The basic reason why I speak in support of Amendment 14 is that I fear the law of predictable or conscious consequences more than the law of unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to explain clearly this anomaly, which I cannot get my head around: this Bill, as currently drafted, will make it possible for an incident of torture or murder not to be prosecuted while a sexual offence committed in the same incident would be subject to prosecution. That suggests to me either that the reference to sexual offences is arbitrary or that torture and crimes against humanity and so on should also be admitted in the same category.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill: Bishop of Portsmouth speaks at second reading

On 20th January 2021, the Bishop of Portsmouth spoke at the second reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, questioning the effectiveness of the legislation and potential repercussions on legitimate claims against members of the the armed forces:

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth [V]: My Lords, reflecting on the Bill, its intentions and likely legal effect reminded me of something I learned during my time as chaplain of Wadham College, Oxford, during the febrile days of the 1980s. Wadham was then, as now, a crucible of intellectual innovation, not least in literary studies. Its senior English fellow then was Terry Eagleton, who interested himself in a method of criticism known as deconstruction. This meant, I think, that the story we thought we were reading or being told was undermined by another narrative hidden within the text, so what we might have thought meant one thing often meant something entirely different.

The Bill before the House represents a model of deconstruction. The Government’s stated intention is, as we heard in the gracious Speech,

“to tackle vexatious claims that undermine our Armed Forces”.

I regret to say that I cannot see how the Bill, as drafted, fulfils that intention. The Government may then deserve two cheers for acting when other Governments have not, but action is not the same as outcome. The good intentions of Ministers and their statements in Parliament and the media do not match what the Bill will do. The Bill would do what the Bill states, not what the Government would like it to do, or what an MoD press release announces as its objectives. I leave it to other noble Lords far better qualified than I to reflect on the very troubling risk that the Bill might lead to crimes of torture going unpunished as well as providing an attractive precedent for those countries that have historically accepted lower standards than our own.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: