UK Parliament / Open data

Armed Forces Bill

Proceeding contribution from Gerald Howarth (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Armed Forces Bill.
We have had an interesting and good debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) brought passion and personal experience to it, which, along with the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), illuminated our discussions. They both showed that the perspective from which we must view the Bill is not that of what happens in a brawl on a Saturday night in Aldershot or Colchester, but what happens on the front line on operations. Our armed forces have never been so involved in operations as in recent years. We have all seen— because television is there today—the circumstances in which they fight. We therefore have a duty to examine the provision from the point of view of its impact on our armed forces on the front line. It is inevitable that we are more concerned with the Army than the other two services because of the way in which the Army fights. The Royal Air Force pilot who fires a missile will not see the enemy. Those on a naval vessel who use bombardment may not see the enemy, but the soldier does. Indeed, the soldier is often required to engage in hand-to-hand combat. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), not only for his kind support to me but for the way in which he opened the debate a couple of hours ago. I am most grateful to him. He is right that the clause and the associated provisions—we are holding only one stand part debate, but several related clauses go to the heart of the measure—represent the most significant change that the Bill makes to existing practice. The chain of command is at the heart of that key debate. The expertise of senior officers on the ground who have first-hand understanding of the conditions that their troops face has long been essential in deciding whether split-second decisions made by soldiers in danger should lead to prosecution. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury graphically illustrated that from his experience. Until now, we trusted those in a position of command to decide whether those under their command should face prosecution for their actions while carrying out their duty in good faith. As I have said previously, the Bill removes that trust. Under current arrangements, commanding officers examine an incident and are informed by their knowledge of the military context—the operational circumstances—in deciding whether there is a case to answer. Under the Bill, if an incident occurs or an accusation of a serious offence is made, the case will be passed by a service policeman directly to the service prosecuting authority for a perhaps lengthy investigation. In the Select Committee, I asked the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) whether he could guarantee that the arrangements would not lead to more investigations that resulted in legal proceedings. He could not give me the cast-iron guarantee that I sought. Let me therefore pose the question again and perhaps the Under-Secretary can assist. Will the service prosecuting authority resemble its civilian counterpart in that it will base its decisions to prosecute on the likelihood of securing a conviction rather than on a proper understanding of the circumstances that led to the alleged event? Lord Boyce has been much quoted this evening. I shall quote him accurately, for the benefit of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). When he gave evidence to the Select Committee, he said that there was a ““feeling of legal encirclement”” among members of our armed forces. He said that the removal of the power of a commanding officer based on the facts and the situation on the ground to dismiss a charge against a serviceman risks adding to that feeling. Let me put Lord Boyce’s remarks in context. He also said:"““There is a feeling of risk averseness out there now. There is a feeling of legal encirclement… It is certainly the culture of litigation and the blame culture that pervades our life today. The ""answer to your question is yes, I am concerned about risk averseness. There is absolutely no question in my mind that this is out there.””"
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c1271-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top