Armed Forces Bill

The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. The standard of proof is, of course, supposed to be the same, but the case is decided not by a jury, but by a group of military officers. All the evidence suggests that it is almost impossible to bring a jury case against soldiers in an active theatre, because most members of the jury would not be willing to take the risk of going out there. The system, which is designed to underpin the chain of command, is inquisitorial and makes it easier to get a conviction, but we have removed the safeguard of COs allowing such cases to proceed and introduced the 2001 Act, which means that a CO may become culpable when something, in which he may not have had a hand, takes place, merely because he has allegedly suppressed evidence. The Bill goes against a basic, underlying principle in English life. Since the Magna Carta, one of the key principles of our jury system has been trial by one’s peers. Who are the peers of a man or woman who has been sent into a combat zone, which may involve a hostile land, being outnumbered or, as the Secretary of State has said, the complicated situations created by modern asymmetric warfare? The answer must be, ““Other members of the armed forces.”” The current system involves a random selection of members of the armed forces being put on to a panel, which provides a degree of independence that echoes a jury trial, albeit within an inquisitorial system. The Bill will introduce a standing court martial, which, bluntly, will consist of a group of case-hardened officers who conduct such cases all the time—it may be that such officers have not seen active service for some time, if they have done so at all. It will make it easier to get convictions. In a statement about the failure of the case against seven members of the Parachute Regiment, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) said:"““This case has shown our determination to ensure that justice is done irrespective of the difficulties.””—[Official Report, 7 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 22.]" I think that he meant that justice is being done in a way which will appease left-wing elements in the media, who seem to think that our armed forces are responsible for a chain of atrocities. It is true that there have been a small number of genuine incidents in which there has been genuine public concern, but it should not have led to a situation in which our forces feel under ““legal siege””—not my words, but those of a former Chief of the Defence Staff speaking in another place in July. The Bill includes many measures, some of which are welcome, but three major changes have occurred or are occurring to the balance of probability of a conviction: first, the Bill removes the safeguard of scrutiny by the CO, the man who really understands the situation; secondly, the 2001 Act specifies that if COs do not process the papers on a case, they may be done for war crimes; and thirdly, the Bill contains a ridiculous proposal to move away from a proper selection of officers for a court martial towards the ghastly idea of a kangaroo court, which a standing court martial could easily become, of officers who do nothing else over a long period. The Government should have heeded the warnings that the six chiefs of staff gave us in July about the pressure that the armed forces feel under from the legal profession at a time when they are being worked extremely hard and facing considerable dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is extraordinary that the Government should introduce a Bill that will increase those pressures and make it much easier for members of the armed forces doing their duty in Iraq to be convicted of offences that in some cases are not even recognised in any previous form of English law. This is a bad Bill. I hope that we manage to achieve some changes in Committee, but if not, I sincerely hope that we will vote against it on Third Reading.