Armed Forces Bill

This has been a fascinating debate. It is to the great credit of the House that it has been able to conduct such an informed and well-argued debate despite the fact that this 375-clause, 250-page, 15-schedule Bill was made available to us only 10 days ago and the explanatory notes only last week. The debate has been better than we might have anticipated. In a spirit of generosity, I thank the Under-Secretary for making available himself and his Bill team to brief some hon. Members last Thursday. I should like to add to the compliments that have been extended already to those in the Bill team for the work that they have done. However, it is worth making the point that the Government have had a long time in which to prepare the Bill, that the Defence Select Committee has not had a draft of the Bill and that the Opposition have had even less time. However, we have had a good debate with a lot of contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) welcomed the proposals on the redress of grievances, but she did not think that they went far enough. She, like many other hon. Members who have spoken today, supports the reinstatement of the annual review. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) broadly supports the Bill. He was concerned that we must not undermine the armed forces. Nevertheless, he thought that a few provisions might be needed that some hon. Members might feel would lead to that effect. He, too, is in favour of an annual review. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), with whom I had the privilege of serving on the Defence Committee of which he was an assiduous member, argued the case for creating an independent commission, which is very much in line with what the Select Committee has been proposing. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)—a former distinguished Minister for Defence Procurement, now the even more distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence—faithfully argued the cause espoused by his Committee in saying that he wanted an independent commission and an annual report, two things of which the Committee has been strongly in favour. He drew on his own experience of the Mull of Kintyre issue as evidence to support his case. My right hon. Friend made an interesting point about the tri-service nature of the Bill. It is accepted that a 50 per cent. increase in courts martial is likely in respect of the Royal Navy, as a result of the changes to that service. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, the Royal Navy is the service that is most affected by the proposals. A matter of keen further debate in the Select Committee is likely to be whether we have got the arrangements right and whether the prize of harmonisation, as Captain Crabtree described it in evidence to the Defence Committee, is worth the price that is being paid by the Royal Navy. The jury is out on that issue, and we must examine it in more detail later. My right hon. Friend drew further on the importance of the Defence Committee being represented on the Committee that will consider the Bill, and I am sure that that will be the case. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) duly praised the Select Committee—always a good start—expressed her concern for the parents who have lost their children as a result of tragedies in the armed services and referred to the need to remove what she called the stain of Deepcut. I do not intend to dwell very much on the Deepcut issue, but I am well aware that it is of very great concern on both sides of the House. Of course, Deepcut lies just over the border of my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) made a very spirited contribution. I am extremely grateful to him for the very detailed work that he has done on the Bill and for drawing my attention to clause 35, on annoyance by flying. As an aviator, I have to say that he is absolutely right about the risks that the Royal Air Force could be exposed to by a literal interpretation of that clause. I am sure that that matter will be explored in even greater detail—it certainly will be if I have anything to do with it because, as I read it, even in Farnborough, I have constituents who are likely to be annoyed by anything that flies in the air, and I am sure that the situation is even worse in other constituencies. I think that we will have to revisit that one. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend noticed this, but interestingly enough the penalty for a person found guilty of the offence would be up to and including dismissal from the service. There is thus a pretty draconian penalty attached to the offence. My hon. Friend drew attention to the crucial role of chaplains. As a churchwarden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, I have the privilege of working with military chaplains. It is entirely right and proper to put on the record the fantastic work that is being done by chaplains, especially Army chaplains, in the difficult theatre of Iraq. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) welcomed the tri-service aspect of the Bill. He wants it to restore morale, which he says has taken a knock on the question of whether a military or civilian approach should apply. I was sorry that I missed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I gather that he made a typically trenchant speech, and he certainly gave me encouragement during my earlier interventions. He apparently said that behind the Bill lies what he called an ugly trend of civilianising the armed services, and he was right to issue such a warning. He also expressed concern about removing the powers of commanding officers, which is a matter to which I hope to return in a moment. I gather that he would like us to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, but that will depend on the progress that is made during the Select Committee proceedings.