| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Godman: I do not believe that the court martial appeals court has ever sat in Edinburgh, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would make good sense for a Scottish judge to sit on the courts martial appeal court when it is hearing an appeal against a decision taken at a Scottish court martial?
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend has thrown me a question as helpful as the one that the Minister was thrown on European courts by the Member for Shoreham. The frank answer is that I do not know. I can see the appeal of that, but nevertheless a judge in Scotland will by definition, as my hon. Friend knows, be practised and expert in Scottish law. Therefore, he will operate under a system that is different from English law, not only in detail, but in its first premise.
I am not a lawyer, and I am in a minority in the House in not being one, but I understand from the recesses of my memory that Scottish law is based on Roman law, which has a first-principle and philosophical basis--the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will keep me advised on that--whereas English law is determined by case law. I think that generalisation is probably true. I can see the attractions of what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot give an answer in detail without giving it further consideration. I assure him that I will give the question further consideration before I next speak from the Dispatch Box, if he is in the Chamber. I thank him for pointing us in a constructive direction.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East):
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will definitely be on the Committee now.
Dr. Reid:
Yes, my hon. Friend has made a good case for being on the Committee.
There is a further, perhaps more important, point on courts martial. Extending access to an appeals court comprising senior civilian judges would improve the present position under which appeals are made to the same panel who set the sentence. While we generally welcome the change, it raises some other problems. As usual, the minute we move in one direction, we raise unexpected problems from another quarter.
Many aspects of service life are unlikely to be taken into account in the approach of civil courts, and in any case the services may still take consequential administrative action. We require some clarification on that point, especially when we recall that the system of appeals has already been found to be in breach of the European convention on human rights on the basis that anyone held must be allowed to appeal against the
unlawfulness of his or her detention. The Minister will be aware of reports in the press on one case as late as Monday this week.
I wish to mention the separate and general, but recurrent, issue--which might merit consideration--of past miscarriages of justice in the courts martial system, especially those that have affected large numbers of people. This is not an easy issue, but it has been raised in the House, most consistently by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has championed the cause of many executed during the first world war, among many other veterans' causes. I understand that he will address that subject, should he catch your eye, Sir Geoffrey.
The subject was highlighted again this year by the case of those were accused and convicted of mutiny at Salerno. I understand why people ask what purpose opening the subject serves. They argue that it may undermine discipline, and, after all, the people are dead. The reason for opening the subject was brought home to me because the family of John James MacFarlane, one of the so-called Salerno mutineers, are constituents of mine. I understand the anguish felt by that family. He had fought for his country, and had won gallantry medals. It is now accepted by everyone that, through a mistake at best--let us hope that it was not intentional--by his commanding officers, he and others were deprived of their medals, dishonoured, demeaned and dismissed. That is still deeply felt by that family in Hollyton in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has already made our misgivings known about the sentences that were passed in that case. At the very least, we should not accept the bland dismissal of the right to rectify miscarriages of justice merely because of the passage of time. That seems to be the position that has been accepted by the Prime Minister and the Government. Why it should be considered as an appropriate--indeed, honourable--course of action to rectify miscarriages, even posthumously, in civil society but not in military society is frankly beyond me. I would go further--the ability and will to recognise miscarriages of justice, even posthumously, reinforces the legitimacy of the justice system in the military.
In some areas, problems in the services reflect problems in society in general--for example, the problem of drugs. We supported the Government in the introduction of random drug testing in the armed forces because of the peculiar and unique nature of the armed forces, with people handling guns, explosives and armaments. However, we are perturbed that, despite the efforts of the Government, there are continuing reports of apparently large-scale misuse of drugs within the armed forces.
I am even more perturbed by reports, which I hope the Minister will be able to deny, that the Government intend to adopt a softer line on recruitment policy for those with previous drug convictions. I accept that there can be no absolute prohibition on those who have one conviction for the use of soft drugs, and I have no intention--because it serves none of us well--to sensationalise the subject with cheap sloganising. But, whatever pressures are created by the shortfall of personnel, we should send no signals that drug misuse is an acceptable background for enlistment in the armed forces, especially when we are trying to stamp out the practice among established personnel. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us that assurance tonight.
There is a policy of no tolerance of drugs within the armed forces, and I think that it should continue. By 15 November this year, 6,968 Army personnel had been tested for drugs; 133 had failed; and 200 to 300 tests are outstanding. However, in 1994, 490 soldiers were reported for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, despite the no-tolerance policy towards offenders. As I have mentioned, those people are in charge of potentially lethal weapons, so let us press forward with the no-tolerance policy.
Race recruitment is another issue that comes up at every quinquennial review. The 1990 report commissioned from Peat Marwick McLintock still holds true today. Racial stereotyping and language are the most important factors in low application rates from black applicants. Only 233 applicants from the black, Asian and other ethnic minorities chose to apply to join the Army in 1992-93--the last year for which I have figures--of whom a mere 50 were accepted. That represents about 1 per cent. of the Army's strength--a negligible increase since the last review.
I do not question the Government's commitment, but we must accept that we are not making great headway. As the armed forces struggle to compete against civilian institutions for skilled personnel in the labour market, the MOD must improve its recruitment efforts and improve conditions in the workplace. That is not just morally and socially sensible, or a reinforcement of the link between civil and military society, but necessary given the skills needed by the armed forces.
Is the MOD examining recruitment patterns in the south-east and the west midlands, the regions with the highest proportion of ethnic minorities? Given the almost twofold increase in the Army's advertising budget, are resources being directed at strengthening ties with industry and further education institutions to identify recruits from ethnic backgrounds? We will raise such questions in Committee, and I hope we will reach a conclusion on them. We would like the current armed forces monitoring process to continue.
The Minister would not expect me to rush through even a short speech without mentioning sexual equality--a matter in which I know he takes a great interest. It is a subject to which the Committee considering successive Armed Forces Bills has returned consistently in recent years. We accept that efforts have been made in the past few years and accept that problems arise because of the strength of tradition and at times, to be frank, because of prejudice inside the armed forces. To be even more frank, it is difficult for Ministers--there is nothing personal in this--to trail-blaze when their attitude to service women has not always been marked by an enlightened disposition. Their blundered handling of the issue of pregnant service personnel has proved that prejudice can be costly financially--now to the tune of more than £50 million--as well as socially.
Lest anyone says that he was not warned, I know that several of my hon. Friends brought up the issue of pregnant service women during the 1981 quinquennial review, so the Government had a 14-year warning about it.
Women are still inadequately promoted and protected against discrimination in the armed forces, especially in terms of advancement to higher posts. We welcome the
advent of women fighter pilots, but we want further progress to be made quickly. We will pursue that matter in Committee.
On combat forces, the Opposition take the general view that a woman should be judged by the same criteria as a man--gender-neutral criteria. They should be judged according to their standard of personal fitness for and operational effectiveness in the role in question. We accept that there are those who feel that my second criterion--the operational effectiveness of Army, Navy or Air Force units--has the potential to allow discrimination. We must start, however, by accepting that the raison d'etre of our Army, Navy and Air Force is as fighting units. Any other starting position would undermine the raison d'etre of our armed forces. That is why we include operational effectiveness as one of the criteria against which service personnel must be judged.
Homosexuality in the armed forces has been discussed in the past few years. The Secretary of State has established a review on that issue, and we will comment when it is published.
Clause 26 empowers the Secretary of State
We therefore do not believe that sweeping away section 7 of the 1869 Act is sensible. We are not prepared to give a carte blanche to any Secretary of State to get rid of that building, willy-nilly, as he or she sees fit. We will consider compromise proposals, but we will oppose the complete repeal of section 7.
The Minister referred to clauses 2 and 25(2). I am slightly unclear--or should I say slightly suspicious?-- about the motives behind those clauses. Existing legislation already covers all classes of personnel, other than those in the armed forces, who might require to carry arms in support of military operations. Under the Firearms Act 1968, persons such as gunsmiths and armourers can be in possession of a weapon without holding a certificate. Police officers carrying out their duties are already exempt from the 1968 Act. Who are the persons referred to in clauses 2 and 25, and under what circumstances might they be required to carry arms? Two possible categories of person suggest themselves.
First, an amendment to the 1968 Act would allow the arming of the Ministry of Defence's guard service, which was mentioned by the Minister. That body of civilian guards was established on the recommendations of the Defence Select Committee after the tragic Deal bombing. The arming of the MGS has been mooted on previous occasions, but each time it has been rejected as politically undesirable. What has changed the situation now, other than a desire to save money?
"to grant a lease or otherwise permit occupation of the Royal Naval College Greenwich and other land in the vicinity of the College"
by repealing section 7 of the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869. We are not opposed in principle to the change of use of that building, provided that it is in keeping with its traditions, history and architecture. Section 7, however, already offers ample scope to permit occupation of the building, subject to certain limitations and the ultimate availability of it, if necessary, for the purposes for which it was originally intended.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |