| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): The hon. Gentleman has referred to MOD police in his constituency, and to other non-Home Office forces. Is there not a case for regularising the position, so that a constable in those forces is not inhibited--as he or she is at present--in responding to an emergency that is outside the perimeter of their immediate jurisdiction before the arrival of a Home Office police officer? There are currently difficulties relating to insurance and liability, and the only powers of arrest available to such constables are the common law powers that are available to the hon. Gentleman and to me. The point needs to be clarified in the interests of police officers, quite apart from the interests of everyone else.
Mr. Key: That is an important point, but it was clarified pretty substantially by the 1987 Act, which gave constabulary powers to the MOD police. Nevertheless, I agree that some aspects need clarification. For instance, I feel strongly about the question of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. It is ridiculous that they must stand and watch someone who rushes off a train having murdered someone disappear into the wide blue yonder because they have no jurisdiction outside railway property. That, however, is not relevant to the Bill, and is not a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister.
I had the honour to be a Minister in the Department of National Heritage, and to observe the difficulties that arose in relation to the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869. The
ownership of Greenwich was in some doubt. A collection of buildings had been passed, if not from pillar to post, at least from one Department to another, under very peculiar arrangements. It was difficult to track down the ownership, and establish who was allowed to do what. I welcome this attempt to address the issue, and to make it crystal clear who can do what. I do not think that we should dismiss it as some ideological attempt to privatise the Greenwich royal naval college; I think that it is a much more sensible idea than that.
When I served in the Department of National Heritage, we were anxious to find the right use for the college. It was always clear that the Royal Navy would not have the use of all of it for all time. What was needed above all was a holistic approach. It was crucial for us somehow to recreate the wonderful vision of Greenwich that existed when it was built, including the observatory and the splendid park--for which I had the honour to be responsible when I was a Minister--and to tackle some of the enormous traffic problems in and around the college.
I feel passionately about that, because I spent many years singing in the Thomas Tallis choir in, among other places, the Greenwich college chapel, and I am very familiar with the buildings. I was relieved to read in the MOD's house journal in December 1995 that the defence land agent had said:
Sir David Hardy and Lord Lewin, his predecessor as chairman of the national maritime museum and the royal naval college jointly, proposed a preservation trust to run the royal naval college site, funded independently of Government through a trust. I gather that that proposal has the strong backing of the heritage lottery fund, which may contribute to the large set-up and conversion costs, and other arts and heritage organisations. We should give serious consideration to that proposal. Let us not simply say that the buildings are too important for us to do anything with them, and that we should maintain the status quo. Let us find an imaginative way to proceed. A trust may be the answer, so we must give it a fair wind. I am sure that we can examine that matter in Committee.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton):
I wish to raise three issues that relate to this Bill. The first is race and the armed forces.
Some ugly cases of racism have arisen. I asked a parliamentary question on that subject and received a full answer from the Minister, and inquiries are still going on. The Ministry of Defence is coming into the modern world
very slowly in recognising that racism in the armed forces exists and needs to be stopped. In the past, it has taken a silly attitude to racism and bullying in the armed forces. I was present when a former Defence Minister expressed the view that someone who complained about bullying or racism was a bit weak and therefore should not be in the armed forces in the first place, as his or her personality was flawed. That is the Army's peculiar way of blaming the victim and it is a recipe for racism and bullying continuing.
I welcome the fact that clause 20 allows service personnel access to an industrial tribunal on race grounds. But what exactly do the Government intend to achieve by that clause? The Minister said that internal inquiries would be held first. Whatever the findings of such an inquiry, could cases be referred to the Commission for Racial Equality, for example? It is time that the MOD fully complied with the Race Relations Act 1976 instead of its own peculiar version of it, which has to be constantly changed when Bills such as this are introduced.
The relevant figures show that recruitment to the armed forces is discriminatory. Promotion procedures also seem to be unsatisfactory. We still have nowhere near the equivalent of Colin Powell in the British armed forces, which says something about the promotion procedures.
Following serious allegations in respect of the Household Cavalry, an inquiry took place under section 49(3) of the Race Relations Act. Although the inquiry's result went to the Ministry of Defence earlier this year, we have still not heard what the Minister intends to do about it. We should have an explanation.
My second point relates to the MOD police. I support the comments that have already been made, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). We need a reliable MOD police service but it may be cut by a third under the Government's proposals, jeopardising its reliability. The Government want to replace MOD guards, particularly on armed duties, with military armed guards--often low-ranking service personnel--because they would be cheaper. They would also be much less well trained and would not have the essential policing experience required for many duties carried out by the MOD police, especially when they are armed.
Emphasis is placed on the MOD police's constabulary role, in which they have special legal powers. Ordinary soldiers will not have those special powers. The Government must explain the implications of the proposed changes, which could be serious. The option of replacing MOD police in their constabulary role with regular service personnel was dismissed by the recent Blelloch inquiry, yet the Government are proceeding down that road. That is wrong and unjustified.
My third point concerns the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces. Four individuals, all with exemplary service records, are challenging the legality of that ban in the court. Lieutenant-Commander Duncan Lustig-Prean of the Royal Navy, who enlisted in 1983, was discharged for his sexual orientation in January 1994. At the end of 1993, his commanding officer described him as
Jeanette Smith, a service aircraftwoman and nurse in the Royal Air Force, enlisted in April 1989 and was discharged in August 1994. Her discharge report said:
John Beckett, a weapons engineer and mechanic in the Royal Navy, enlisted in February 1989 and was discharged in September 1993. In September 1993, the naval personnel secretary said:
Graeme Grady, a sergeant in the Royal Air Force, enlisted in August 1980 and was discharged in December 1994. His squadron leader wrote:
Homosexuality in the armed forces was decriminalised in 1994, yet a blanket ban was retained. That was unreasonable. Heterosexual misconduct, even resulting in serious criminal convictions in the civil courts, such as rape, is treated as a discretionary disciplinary matter. Criminal-style investigations still take place, often following anonymous allegations. Those subject to them have their private property searched in a degrading manner and are subject to prurient sexual interrogation.
Many countries have lifted the ban. In the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Turkey are the only countries that have an absolute ban on homosexuals in the armed forces. Several NATO countries have no ban--Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and France. Germany has no ban for conscripts. Italy operates a ban on conduct but not orientation. Other countries that do not operate a ban include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria.
The United States of America has some sort of "don't ask, don't tell" compromise, which is unsatisfactory in my opinion, but even that is being challenged in the courts there, and some of those challenges have been successful.
The costs of the ban are extensive. Every investigation takes up a lot of officers' time, at considerable cost. There is the loss of the cost of training of those service personnel. It has been estimated that as many as 500 homosexuals may have been forced to leave the forces, or have left voluntarily, in the past four years. The cost of their training may amount to about £40 million of taxpayer's money--wasted as a result of that stupid ban.
The judges in the Court of Appeal who heard the four's case all called for an urgent review of the policy, especially in view of the experience of other countries that have lifted the ban. They commented on the complete lack of evidence that the ban was necessary.
In response to that court statement, the Ministry of Defence set up its own internal review to consider the ban, but the responses that came at the time that that internal review was set up were extremely unsatisfactory. The First Sea Lord publicly called for a campaign to retain the ban, and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces dismissed the argument of the Master of the Rolls as "politically correct claptrap".
I know that service personnel have been consulted, but there has been no guarantee in that consultation of anonymity. There are also marked signs that those who oppose the ban will be subject to face-to-face interviews and may find themselves in difficulties resulting from that. I therefore believe that the review process that the MOD set up in response to the judge's comments has already been seriously compromised, and has come dangerously close to conducting an exercise to encourage hostility to all existing serving homosexuals.
If the four ex-service people win their case, the MOD may be forced to pay compensation to more than 500 people. The organisation Stonewall estimated that that might cost more than £12 million. We have had the example of the women in the armed forces who were dismissed despite warnings to the MOD that it was acting outside the law, but the MOD would not listen and that resulted in large compensation payments, totalling £50 million. A similar position is arising in this case, but the Government appear intent on incurring that bill for the taxpayer. If they were in local government, they would be surcharged by the district auditor for that attitude.
"Supermarkets and suchlike would not get past the starting gate".
Of course not. I am sure that that is not the Government's current intention. What matters is the need to find a solution that will ensure the future of that magnificent set of buildings well beyond the millennium, possibly making them a world heritage site but also ensuring that they are used. I do not want Greenwich to become a museum; I want the buildings to be used and alive, so that young people in particular will appreciate them more and more as we move into the next century.
"A most able, conscientious and industrious officer. His engaging and warm personality allows him to communicate effectively at all levels. This is the cornerstone of his success; he is dynamic and extrovert, yet his magnanimous and conciliatory nature fosters genuine trust and support. Resourceful, versatile and perceptive, he is a most effective manager and organiser. He is a balanced
13 Dec 1995 : Column 1053enlightened and knowledgeable man who enjoys my complete trust in all matters. Lustig-Prean has great all round potential. He is an outstanding prospect for early promotion to Commander."
He was chucked out because of his sexual orientation.
"SAC Smith has an above average understanding of trade knowledge and the performance of her conversion course has been assessed as satisfactory. There is no evidence to suggest she is or has been involved in homosexual relationships with any member of HM forces, or that criminal offences have been committed during the course of the relationship. SAC Smith has confessed that she is homosexual, although there is no evidence to suggest misconduct, corruption, blatant or promiscuous activities or unnatural behaviour on service establishments."
Yet she was chucked out of the armed forces.
"Throughout his service Beckett's reporting officers have commented upon his efficiency, intelligence, dedication and ambition and there is every indication that had it not been for his sexuality his Royal Naval career would have blossomed."
Sir Michael Layard, Second Sea Lord, said:
"We accept that he was a loyal and patriotic man and that he has not committed a civilian or naval disciplinary offence."
Yet he was thrown out of the armed forces.
"Sergeant Grady . . . has been a loyal serviceman and a conscientious and hardworking tradesman who could be relied on to achieve the highest standards. He has displayed sound personal qualities and integrity throughout his service and has enjoyed the respect of superiors, peers and subordinates alike. He was promoted in 1990. Sergeant Grady is recommended to any future employer."
All four individuals clearly had sound records, yet the armed forces got rid of them because of their sexual orientation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |