| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Soames: I am grateful for the chance to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for our exchange of correspondence. I hope that he accepts that I replied in good faith, and I am happy to elaborate on my comments now.
The new clause seeks to place members of the United Kingdom forces who are attached to the Gibraltar Regiment under the command of the regiment's commanding officer for disciplinary purposes. That may seem logical at first sight, but to accept the new clause would run counter to the established practice of not allowing non-United Kingdom officers to have disciplinary powers over British troops--I know that my hon. Friend understands that definition.
I should explain that the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment could be either a British officer or an officer of the regiment. In the latter case, the commanding officer would hold a Governor's commission rather than a Queen's commission. The current practice is that when the commanding officer is a member of the United Kingdom Regular forces, he has command over members of the UK Regular forces who are attached to the regiment, as well as over members of the colonial force. However, when the commanding officer is a member of the colonial force, disciplinary command over UK Regular Army personnel is vested in an officer on the staff of the headquarters in Gibraltar who holds a Regular Army land forces commission.
We want that practice to continue so that members of the UK Regular forces are under the disciplinary control of other members of the Regular forces, which will prevent them from potentially facing trial by a court martial composed of members of the colonial force or facing summary disposal by a person who is not a holder of the Queen's commission.
In acknowledging the espousal by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside of an issue that I know is dear to many people in Gibraltar, I am bound to tell him, I am afraid, that his new clause is unacceptable to the Government. However, the Government are actively considering the wider question of the status of the Gibraltar Regiment. If, as a result of that consideration, it is decided to alter that status and to make the regiment part of the UK Regular forces, disciplinary matters such as the issue that prompted my hon. Friend's new clause will fall into line.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be persuaded to withdraw his new clause. If not, I must ask the Committee to reject it.
Mr. Colvin:
In the light of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, which has opened up a completely fresh debate about the future status of the Gibraltar Regiment, which I trust that the House will not embark on today, I shall withdraw the motion.
I ask my hon. Friend to proceed with caution down the path that he has embarked upon and to engage in the widest possible consultation--not only in Gibraltar, but in this country--about the possible changed status of the Gibraltar Regiment. I do not think that such changes
should be embarked upon without full consultation and without taking into account the views of the people of Gibraltar.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (South Derbyshire):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
A few moments ago, the House was expressing its concern about dead soldiers. Now it is time to express our concern about the welfare of living soldiers, men and women who are serving in the armed forces right now. New clause 1 has two main elements. Part of the new clause spells out a proposed new code of conduct. It would apply to all inappropriate sexual behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It would protect women as well as men. It would protect young people, and it would protect those in junior ranks who might be at risk of sexual harassment. It would make it clear to heterosexuals as well as to lesbians and to gay men that no inappropriate behaviour would be tolerated.
The other part of the proposed new clause provides that the armed forces shall not discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation. The supporters of the new clause want to make it absolutely clear that we disapprove profoundly of irresponsible behaviour--by whomever, and whatever their sexual orientation might be. We would prefer to see each case dealt with on its merits or demerits, on the details of the case as presented.
All discrimination is inefficient--which is one reason why I, as a Conservative, object to it. But this discrimination, in particular, costs the taxpayer a great deal of money. It has been worked out that each investigation takes approximately 30 working days, and longer in the case of officers. The costs of basic training, including salary and administration, have been estimated at £30,000, and training costs for officers who are dismissed are substantially higher. Specialised training costs are, of course, much higher. Recently, for example, four Nimrod pilots and navigators were discharged, and the cost of replacing them must be absolutely astronomical. Hundreds of trained men and women are discharged, yet we are told that the MOD is short of money.
What type of people are being discharged under the ban? They are hardly ruffians or criminals. They are, in fact, the type of serving men and women we should be very proud to have in our armed forces. Let us consider the cases of several people who are currently taking the MOD to the European Court of Human Rights.
Lieutenant Commander Duncan Lustig-Prean enlisted in 1983 and was discharged in 1994. The officer's report on him, from Commander Mussey, of 31 December 1993 stated that he was
The word "trust" features in that.
Jeanette Smith, a senior aircraftwoman and nurse, is from Derbyshire. She enlisted in 1989 and was discharged in 1994. Her discharge report said:
yet that qualified nurse was dismissed.
John Beckett, from the Royal Navy, was a weapons engineer mechanic serving on HMS Collingwood. He enlisted for 22 years in 1989 and was discharged in September 1993. Sir Michael Layard, Second Sea Lord, Chief of Naval Personnel, said of him:
Sergeant Graeme Grady, of the Royal Air Force, enlisted in 1980 and was discharged in 1984. His squadron leader, Squadron Leader McDevitt, stated:
He was
'.--(1) After section 69 of each of the 1955 Acts and after section 39 of the 1957 Act there shall be inserted the following section--
"Sexual conduct to prejudice of good order and discipline
. (1) Sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, shall not constitute an offence under any provision of this Act unless that conduct--
(a) is prejudicial, or may be prejudicial, to good order and discipline; or
(b) undermines, or tends to undermine, command relationships; or
(c) involves the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours or to coerce or encourage another person or persons to take part in sexual activity; or
(d) constitutes a civil offence.
(2) No person who is subject to military law shall be subject to any investigation, disciplinary proceedings or discharge solely on the ground of his or her sexual orientation, whether that person has a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or lesbian orientation.".
(2) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows--
(a) In section 146 (extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy) subsection (4) is repealed; and
(b) In section 147 (homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland) subsection (3) is repealed.'.
. (1) Sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, shall not constitute an offence under any provision of this Act unless that conduct--
(a) is prejudicial, or may be prejudicial, to good order and discipline; or
(b) undermines, or tends to undermine, command relationships; or
(c) involves the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours or to coerce or encourage another person or persons to take part in sexual activity; or
(d) constitutes a civil offence.
(2) No person who is subject to military law shall be subject to any investigation, disciplinary proceedings or discharge solely on the ground of his or her sexual orientation, whether that person has a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or lesbian orientation.".
(2) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows--
(a) In section 146 (extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy) subsection (4) is repealed; and
(b) In section 147 (homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland) subsection (3) is repealed.'.--[Mrs. Currie.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
"A most able, conscientious and industrious officer. His engaging and warm personality allows him to communicate effectively at all levels . . . Resourceful, versatile and perceptive, he is a most effective manager and organiser . . . his magnanimous and conciliatory nature fosters genuine trust and support . . . has great all round potential. He is an outstanding prospect for early promotion to Commander."
"SAC Smith has an above average understanding of trade knowledge . . . There is no evidence to suggest misconduct, corruption, blatant or promiscuous activities or unnatural behaviour on service establishments",
"We accept that he was a loyal and patriotic man and that he has not committed a civilian or naval disciplinary offence."
"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."
"recommended to any future employer",
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |