| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Key: After more than decade of representing many thousands of service men and women in all three services, I have come to the conclusion that it would be right to support the status quo tonight. I have given that pledge to my military constituents and their families, and to all my constituents.
The argument stems from the military ethos, which filters down through the whole chain of command, and says straightforwardly that the military are different. Historically, it has been different for a very long time, and certainly since the county regiments were established. That is a fact. To understand it and the implications that flow from it, one either has to have served in the armed forces, which I have not, or to have undertaken the sort of investigation carried out by the Select Committee of which I have had the honour to be a member for the past four months.
We, the members of the Committee, talked to service men and women on and off duty in England, Northern Ireland and Germany. Initially, I thought that it was a put-up job. I thought that all the people lined up for us to speak to must have been hand-picked and told what to say. As the week went by, we met scores of people who continued to say the same thing.
I came to realise that, in the British armed forces, there is a deep and genuine conviction that homosexuals have no place in service life. Other people may not like that attitude, but it is a plain fact. The courts may not like it, and they may seek to change it. My greatest fear is that change may be forced on the services too fast, with all the attendant risks of recrimination, victimisation and real unrest. We should not add to those risks by agreeing to the new clause.
Service men and women are not unreasonable people. I found it ironical that, while they were horrified at the thought of homosexuals in the forces, they accepted homosexuals in the rest of the community in civilian life. One service man told me that his brother was a homosexual, and that he had told him not to join the Army.
Recently, I was in Bosnia with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We visited forces from the United States, Canada and Holland. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I took the opportunity of asking about homosexuality in those forces. Only in the Dutch contingent did I find genuine acceptance of homosexuals.
In none of those forces did the nationals concerned believe that there was any threat to discipline, to undermining of command relationships or to operational effectiveness on the battlefield because of the presence of homosexuals. There was no suggestion in the British forces that in NATO British troops would not accept orders from those who might be homosexuals in other forces, or would refuse to serve alongside them.
I have much sympathy for the terms of the new clause. We shall return to the issue, but tonight is not the time to press it. The General Medical Council has been quoted, and I am disappointed that we have not heard from it. I fully understand that service doctors are part of the chain of command. The Standing Committee was told of harrowing events, such as the homosexual sailor who set off on a tour of duty of some months and realised after a few weeks that he had a genital problem. He realised that the ship's medical officer would be bound to take action leading to his discharge from the service. The sailor waited for four months before going to his family general practitioner at home. That is unacceptable and dangerous. It is dangerous to the sailor and to his colleagues. That is something that must be addressed.
Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak):
Would not the answer be to agree to the new clause? It seems that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and thatof the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood(Mr. Wilkinson), is that homosexuals are much more likely than heterosexuals to behave in an improper fashion sexually, or in a more coercive fashion. What evidence is there that that is so? If there is none, as I believe, surely the logic is that those who oppose the new clause are prejudiced. We should oppose their prejudiced views.
Mr. Key:
The answer is that there is no such evidence. If the hon. Lady will hear me out, she will understand why I take that point.
I talked about chaplains when the Bill was being considered in Standing Committee. There was a flurry in the national press, and then a rather tragic flow of correspondence in the Church Times. I had written to the Bishop of Her Majesty's forces asking for clarification from Bishop John Kirkham, the Bishop of Sherborne. The bishop replied on 1 May. His letter was duly published in the Church Times. The letter is important, because so many people were concerned that they could not trust chaplains.
The bishop wrote:
Whatever the courts may say, it is unacceptable and uncivilised for the forces of the Crown to recognise on the one hand that homosexuality in the armed forces is not a criminal offence, and then to make use of agents provocateurs or covert surveillance to expose homosexuals. The Select Committee was told that the Ministry of Defence has never discharged homosexuals for criminal offences; just being a homosexual is enough.
As a former military chaplain told the Church Times recently, those who have been offended by the practice of "outing" prominent people should remember that the Ministry of Defence has been doing it to its personnel for years. That is not something of which anyone can be proud.
Whatever the Committee decides this evening, we shall return to this issue.
Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon):
It is not fitting to condone prejudice and injustice in the armed
It would have been right for the Government to give the lead in seeking to undo the culture of prejudice within the armed services by banning discrimination on the ground of sexuality. Sadly, the Government have not chosen to do so. The new clause is plainly sensible and decent, and the Government should not hesitate to accept it.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent):
The points that I want to make have been succinctly set out in a letter that I wrote to the Select Committee on Defence. I shall repeat only one of them. What sticks in my craw, as much as anything, is the thought that, if a man has served in the armed service for perhaps 10 years--he may well have been decorated and subjected to the most extraordinary perils--and if by some mischance he has an accident and as a result of consequent medical examination is discovered to be a homosexual, even though he may have lived 180 miles away from the base and there has never been a flicker of a suggestion of improper, indecent or offensive behaviour, and he has been a model of discipline, he will lose his job. His livelihood and everything else will be lost. All he has done for the nation will be thrown away by sheer mischance and the prejudice that exists within the armed services.
It is not fair, it is entirely improper, and it flies in the face of the causes for which the armed services claim to stand.
Mr. Tony Banks:
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) on tabling the new clause. I also congratulate those who support her. The proposal has my support.
We have just heard a classic example of the theory of unsound time. Indeed, it has been put to us on two occasions, and both have involved the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). First, we were discussing the possibility of forgiveness and a pardon for so-called cowardice during the first world war. The hon. Gentleman showed no compassion. In effect, he said that it was too late. We have been told by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that it is too early to agree to the new clause. It is too late on one hand and too early on the other. It is never too late and it is never too early to do something that is proper. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has made that clear.
The House will have to come round to the matter. It will have to be decided. The barrenness of the arguments from those who oppose the new clause shows that up. Those who oppose it are scraping the barrel. They start by paying fulsome tribute to those homosexuals whom
they know have served the country and continue to serve the country. But still they say that they will, in effect, be condemned for their sexual orientation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton gave us the example of the three sub-human heterosexuals in Cyprus. Is it so wonderful to be heterosexual in those circumstances? They are the sort of people who bring shame to our armed forces, not those homosexual men who loyally serve their country and are ready to die for it, yet are still treated abysmally by the House and the Government.
On the amendment moved by hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the House revealed itself as having no compassion in terms of its majority. Now it appears to be revealing itself as homophobic as well. It is appalling to see the House of Commons behave in that way.
We have heard about the survey of the armed forces and told that somehow we must accept its results as sufficient evidence for the rejection of the new clause. I should like to know far more about that survey, although there is not time to go into the matter tonight.
I understand that no anonymity was given to those who were questioned. Who will come forward and say that they think that gays should be allowed to serve in the armed forces? Even if a person who did so was heterosexual, one could imagine what would be said to him afterwards. The finger of suspicion would be pointed at such people, whatever their sexual orientation. How can we possibly accept that the survey is socially just or statistically admissible?
"The position is quite clear and is fully endorsed by the Chaplain of the Fleet, the Chaplain General and the Chaplain-in-chief (RAF). Chaplains in HM Forces are commissioned as chaplains and their status as officers in no way prejudices their absolute duty of confidentiality on all matters as priests and ministers of their respective Churches. This position is recognised by the authorities in the three Services. If individual chaplains have failed in their duty of confidentiality, for whatever reason, that is a matter of extreme regret and they have contravened their duty as chaplains."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |