Armed Forces Bill

A powerful case has been put for each side of the argument. I intend to explain clause 116, and then try to deal with some of the key points that have been raised. The clause determines to whom a service policeman refers a case once he has investigated it. It also determines to whom a service police force refers a case that has been referred to it by a United Kingdom or overseas civilian police force. Its purpose is to ensure that the most serious or sensitive cases are referred to the service prosecuting authority. Subsection (2) requires a service policeman who considers that there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with a schedule 2 offence—that is, one of the most serious offences—to refer the case directly to the prosecuting authority without first passing it to the person’s commanding officer. When a service policeman considers that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with another offence in the context of circumstances ““prescribed by regulations””, he will also have to refer the case to the prosecuting authority. When the offence is not covered by schedule 2, and no prescribed circumstances apply but the service policeman considers that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with some other offence, subsection (3) requires that it be passed to the person’s commanding officer. Subsection (4) requires a service policeman to consult the prosecuting authority before referring a person to his or her commanding officer if it was originally thought that a schedule 2 offence might have been committed, or that prescribed circumstances might exist. That ensures that in such a case the service police’s decision on whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to be referred to the prosecuting authority will be made on the advice of the prosecuting authority."Many Members have raised specific points. First, let me deal with the ““risk-averse”” points. We have heard a number of quotations from Lord Boyce and various others. If I understand the argument correctly, what is being suggested is that clause 116 will create a politically correct brigade of lawyers who will be profoundly challenging to the roles played by service personnel. The argument is that personnel will be more risk-averse in the field of combat and in operations, and that they will be inhibited from operating effectively in theatre. I understand those arguments, but on reading the transcript of the debate in Committee, I wanted to test the issue for myself. Last week, I visited the Coldstream Guards and asked them whether they felt inhibited by the rules of engagement and thought that a new culture was developing in the forces. Their commanding officer afforded me time to talk to infantrymen who had been on the front line, and from their CO down I did not get that impression."