Armed Forces Bill

The hon. Gentleman and I can conclude this discussion only by saying that we will have to agree to disagree. I do not accept that there is a new duty. Military commanders have always had to satisfy themselves that they are behaving consistently with United Kingdom law and with international rules. It is interesting that the service commanders sought their own legal advice in relation to the conflict in Iraq. It was sensible of them to do that. As an aside, if the House ever had to return to a similar situation, we should seek our own independent advice, as distinct from that of the Attorney-General, who advises Her Majesty’s Government. It seems to me that that is the parallel or the lesson to be learned. I agree with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Canterbury and others that there have been prosecutions, or at least investigations, causing great distress to individual service men and women and their colleagues, in circumstances that anyone who stepped back and realised that split-second decisions had to be made would recognise were cruel and unfair. I contrast what happened at a tube station in London, in relation to which no prosecutions, arrests or charges have been made, with what happens to our soldiers, in respect of whom investigations, suspensions and arrests take place. I find the double standard amazing. What happened in a south London tube station has been fudged by the British establishment, the Metropolitan Police and particularly the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who seems to me to have a disproportionate command and capacity to decide what happens in this country. Individual soldiers, however, who must make immediate decisions where they and their colleagues are clearly under threat—in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Iraq or any other area of conflict or peacekeeping—often face arrest. I find the disparity unacceptable and illogical. I also want to interest the House in one other matter. I have tabled questions during the lifetime of this Labour Government about the Bermuda Regiment. Clauses 359 and 373 contain references to military outfits whose existence arises from the decision or part funding of a legislature of an overseas territory. This is an ambiguous and unsatisfactory area. In essence, the Bill says that where someone in, say, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment or the Bermuda Regiment is alongside, training with or operational with the mainstream British armed forces, he or she is subject to that military discipline. It also indicates that the legislation can be transferred by Order in Council to an organisation such as the Bermuda Regiment. This is unsatisfactory. I think that it suits the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government of Bermuda—I deliberately distinguish between the Government of Bermuda and the Government of Gibraltar—to have that grey area. That is extremely relevant, because unless there has been a recent change that has not been drawn to the attention of the House, Bermuda has compulsory national service for men. That immediately flags up to Members of the House the fact that there is gender discrimination. In addition, those who refuse to serve are not just arrested but taken in chains, United States-style, in jumpsuits, and with both their feet and arms in manacles. I find that humiliating, and it is contrary to our obligations, particularly under the European convention on human rights. Before someone points out to me that Bermuda is not in Europe—I do know that—we still have a moral commitment, as we say that we are signed up to that convention, and Bermuda is an overseas territory, not an independent country. It chose not to go for independence. The Governor of Bermuda, who is the commander-in-chief of Bermuda and therefore of the Bermuda Regiment, is appointed by Her Majesty’s Foreign Secretary. I imagine that this is the first time that the dear Minister sitting on the Front Bench has heard this. He is a decent man and I hope that he will go away and say, ““Is what Mackinlay says remotely true?”” Grudgingly, those whom he asks will have to say yes. I hope that the Minister will respond by saying that the position is unacceptable, and that the Government cannot tolerate a complete ignoring of our obligations under the European convention on human rights. After all, the Bill carries a certificate—dealt with, I would guess, rather routinely and ritualistically by the Lord Chancellor, or whatever he is called now, and the Attorney-General—stating that it complies with the convention, but it does not in respect of Bermuda. I think it is time that we decided on the status of that regiment. I made a distinction between it and the Gibraltar Regiment because, owing to the sheer nature of Gibraltar, the men and women who serve in the Gibraltar Regiment are daily closely integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom forces. They share training and a key location, and have done all that they can to identify themselves with the British Army.