Armed Forces Bill

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) for his past service as Under-Secretary. I believe that the Prime Minister has treated him shabbily by taking away the job after he piloted the Bill almost to the finishing post. It is something when one is deemed, at 58, to be too old to be the veterans Minister. However, I warmly welcome his replacement, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson). As has been said, he performed spectacularly tonight and I wish him well in the future. We welcome the Bill. It has been a long haul and it now goes to the other place, where there will be an opportunity to do the fine tuning that perhaps some people feel is still required. I join other speakers in thanking the Bill Committee team for all their work in briefing hon. Members and helping them through the various Committee stages. I say ““various”” because it is the first time that I have served on a Committee that evolved in such a way, through Standing and Select Committee structures. I found it very useful and informative, and I hope that it will become the pattern for future Bills. The Bill will bring about the harmonisation of military disciplinary matters going back decades, if not centuries. It is not only the armed forces discipline Acts of 1955 and 1957—half a century ago—that are being updated. Certain measures go right back to the 19th century. It is right that, in the third millennium, we should have disciplinary procedures for the military that are fit for purpose, and that reflect the changing times and the increasing tendency for our armed forces to be on joint deployment, as we found when we visited British troops in Oman, Cyprus and Iraq as part of our investigation. I was impressed to see in Cyprus, for example, the military police from all three services working successfully as a single unit. In Iraq, we met helicopter pilots drawn from the RAF, the Army and the Navy working as a single unit. Joint deployment must not take away from the fact that each service has a special ethos, however. A naval helicopter pilot, for example, needs training and disciplines in maritime conditions, whereas those in the Army—such as those in 16 Air Assault Brigade from Colchester—need to operate rapid attack helicopters to get troops in at low level. I was delighted that, in addition to visiting Iraq, Cyprus and Oman, the Committee had the good sense to visit the military corrective training centre at Colchester. It sets an example that the prison service could follow, in that it provides a good way of training young men—and, occasionally, young women—who have committed misdemeanours but who are nevertheless an important part of the military, and of getting them back into military service. It is a special privilege to represent a garrison town, and I am particularly interested in the welfare of military discipline matters. We have heard a lot today about the command structure. In our garrison towns, we have garrison commanders. However, by the end of the year, they will no longer be there, because the reconfiguration will result in brigade commanders taking over the role. I discovered that yesterday, and I also found, to my horror, that Colchester’s garrison commander, Colonel Tony Barton, will no longer be there. In fact, he is leaving the service because he feels that he is being forced out. That cannot be right, because garrison commanders are all part of the chain of command, and garrison boundaries and brigade commanders’ boundaries are not always coterminous. I foresee problems arising from this change. I would like the Minister to comment on another matter, which I have raised in Committee. It is the potential conflict between Ministry of Defence police and the civilian police as a result of the growing tendency, following the forced privatisation of married quarters by the previous Tory Government, to sell the houses on. There is now uncertainty on one Army estate in Colchester as to what is military and what is civilian, and whether the MOD police or the civilian police should prevail. I am sure that the problem can be worked out, but it does need to be addressed. I am disappointed that our debate today dragged on in the way that it did, because it meant that we did not reach the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). However, I hope that his proposal will come back at another time in another place. Will the Minister also confirm in his summing up that the disciplinary procedures will apply to the Gurkhas serving in the British Army? I mention that because I want to put on record that the United British Gurkhas Ex-servicemen’s Association from Nepal presented a petition at No. 10 Downing street today about the injustices and unfairness suffered by those veterans. I hope that the Minister will confirm that today’s Gurkhas will be treated on equal terms with the rest of the British Army. One interesting aspect of military discipline that was new to all of us on the Committee was AGAI 67—it is just as well that it was not two more than that. Anyway, it stands for Army general and administrative instructions, which are low-level disciplinary procedures that can be carried out by sergeants and corporals as a form of immediate disciplinary action. I understand that the Bill will enable the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force also to introduce AGAI 67 minor sanctions. The Liberal Democrats support the Bill. It is important, however, that the ethos of the different services and the distinctiveness of the Army, Navy and Air Force are maintained and retained while at the same time harmonising disciplinary procedures, especially when we have joint deployments. I wish the Minister well as he takes the Bill through the House.