Armed Forces Bill

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the clause because it raises issues that go to the heart of the one really major defect in the Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who fought his corner in the most doughty way—I should say not his corner, but the corner of the many people in the middle ranks of the armed forces who believe that a profound mistake is being made in the clause. He worked so hard in the Select Committee that that rare event, a tied vote, occurred. The amendment was not made only because of the Chairman’s casting vote. That prevents us from tabling that amendment to the clause in this Committee of the whole House. However, we have an opportunity to discuss the issues in a clause stand part debate. I hope that if we do not manage to reverse things here, they will be sorted out in another place. It is a sombre time for the armed forces. Week after week we hear the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions expressing sorrow at the deaths of more service personnel. I hope that it is in order for me to mention the death of Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill, who was educated in Canterbury and whose parents live just outside Canterbury. She was serving in the Air Force when she was killed, but she started her military service in the Territorial Army in the 3rd Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment in Canterbury. Those in our armed forces and their parents, wives, husbands and children look to the Committee to support them. At this late stage, following the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, I seek to persuade the Committee to understand why the clause is so badly flawed. I want to look at it from two angles. First, I want to try to show in general terms the damage that it does to the way in which the train of command operates, and secondly, I want to consider it specifically in the context of events in Iraq and, potentially, other theatres. On the chain of command, Lord Boyce commented:"““we interfere with the unique linkage between the commanding officer and his men at our peril.”” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1235.]" In the Select Committee, the Government made much of the support of the current chiefs of staff for the proposal, but any current or former chiefs of staff would say that they can only be as good as the chain of command beneath them. It is an old adage that a chain is as strong as the weakest link. All aspects—all levels—of the chain of command have to operate and have to feel confident in the system for it to work properly."We should all be concerned at the news in the Sunday papers over the weekend that a group of officers appears to be in the process of setting up a staff association to represent independently the views of the middle ranks. I do not applaud that and I certainly do not blame the chiefs of staff for that, but the Government should ask themselves whether the habit that has grown up during the life of this Government of constantly publicising the views and role of the chiefs of staff in a way that would never have happened a generation ago is healthy for the armed forces. In the old days, advice to Ministers was treated as confidential." The Government’s explanatory notes on the clause state:"““Its purpose is to ensure that serious cases are seen by the DSP but that all other cases are passed to the CO””." They go on to say:"““Subsection (2) requires that a service policeman who considers that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with a Schedule 2 offence (i.e. the most serious offences) must refer the case directly to the DSP.””" Therein lies the rub. In plain English, the clause boots the commanding officer right out of the picture; it is not just that a commanding officer’s power to dismiss charges is being removed. In Select Committee, the Government refused a moderate amendment that would simply have allowed the commanding officer to be consulted, which was supported by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and one Labour Member. There is enormous sympathy on both sides of the House for the work that our armed forces do. Imagine for a moment the position of a member of the armed forces. In a different context, I used to talk about a man who was frightened, tired and cold, but it would be more appropriate to talk about men and women in Iraq being frightened, tired and hot, which is not always the best framework in which to make decisions. The one safeguard that such people had in the past was the knowledge that before they could be charged with a serious offence, someone who really understood what they were going through—a commanding officer—would first have the chance to examine the situation and, if necessary, dismiss the charge. The clause not only removes that safeguard, but goes further by preventing service policemen from even consulting the commanding officer before sending charges forward. A great deal was made in Select Committee about the Trooper Williams case. The Committee will recall that Trooper Williams stopped an enemy terrorist who was found to be carrying a large quantity of ammunition at a road block. When the man ran off, Trooper Williams, at some risk to his own life, pursued him and, eventually, shot him to stop him getting away. The commanding officer dismissed the charges against Trooper Williams. When the Attorney-General referred to that fact, he said:"““The matter could not, because of the actions of the commanding officer, be dealt with by way of court martial. It was referred to me to consider further action.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2005; Vol. 671, c. WS 92.]" The then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), commented:"““Discipline is essential and we depend on service law to enforce it””." Astonishingly, on the basis on that one case, which was subsequently thrown out by a court martial, the ancient protection for our armed forces is to be thrown out lock, stock and barrel. It is extraordinary that there is such a vigorous programme of trying to bring prosecutions against members of our armed forces on the basis of a very small number of cases of abuse. That is happening to such an extent that the Judge Advocate-General made much-publicised comments last autumn when the case against soldiers from 3 Para was thrown out at the beginning of the court martial. The second strand of my argument relates to the specific circumstances of Iraq. Sadly, in time, al-Qaeda and others that provide plenty of networking will no doubt read across those circumstances to Afghanistan. With clause 116, the Government are essentially opening up a fresh route by which organised terrorist enemies may attack our armed forces, although they bomb and shoot our armed forces at the moment and try to set fire to their vehicles. The clause effectively guarantees that if false allegations are brought against members of our armed forces, they are bound to be considered seriously all the way up the system. Let me quote Lord Boyce again:"““The Armed Forces are under legal siege … They are being pushed by people schooled not in operations but only in political correctness.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1236.]" Those are damning words indeed from an outstanding head of his profession.