| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Banks: He is not even listening.
Mr. Spearing: I hope that he will listen. I hope that administrative action will be reviewed as a result of the
debate;, and I hope that the Minister will tell us why he cannot accept new subsection (1)--if not now, at a later stage--rewording it as he wishes, but concentrating on responsible use of these wonderful powers that we all have, rather than contravention of good order and military discipline.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): When the Minister replies, I hope that he will touch on the report of the homosexuality policy assessment team to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) alluded, and, in particular, the experience in Australia, where the ban was lifted in 1992--notwithstanding the objections of a number of members of the joint chiefs of staff in Australia, who expressed the view that relaxation of the rule would be unacceptable.
According to the report, in Australia, after the initial outcry, homosexuality has become a non-issue. Exercising a flawed logic, however, the report then sets out a conclusion that is at variance with that statement:
Where has the Ministry of Defence been? It is based in London, for goodness' sake.
It is the conclusion of that report that has informed the Government's response to the new clause. It is time for Britain to fall in line with Australia, New Zealand and the other European countries, and it is time for the House to support new clause 1.
Dr. Reid:
It goes without saying that the subject of homosexuality in the armed forces was the most sensitive subject, and certainly the most intractable, with which the Select Committee had to deal. It forced us to make a judgment, on balance, between a general principle and a specific duty, both of which are dear to the majority of hon. Members.
The general principle is that sexual orientation or preference, in itself, should not exclude a person from the opportunities that are available to others. Most hon. Members probably support that principle. The same applies to the specific duty--the burden of duty placed on hon. Members to ensure that those whom we may ask to risk, and possibly sacrifice, their lives in the defence of this country are given the maximum support in securing maximum operational effectiveness, and thus the minimum number of casualties. That judgment, on the relative priorities to be given to civil rights on one hand and military imperatives on the other is never easy, but it often has to be made in military life.
There will be a free vote on this issue, so I can speak only for the Labour Members of the Committee. We approached the problem with three initial premises. The first was that it was no part of our task to make moral judgments on sexual orientation; nor are there grounds for questioning the professionalism, dedication, courage or patriotism of homosexuals, individually or as a group.
The second premise was that we were dealing with a practical decision which takes effect not in general, not in the abstract or in civilian life, but within real life in the British armed forces. Finally, we are dealing with today's armed forces. In Britain, however enlightening foreign or historical comparisons may be, there is no perfect blueprint that can be automatically transposed, although, God knows, sometimes we wish that there were.
On the basis of those premises, when we cut through the fog, the propaganda and the prejudice, three essential questions remain. First, would allowing homosexuals openly to join the armed forces tend to weaken operational effectiveness? Secondly, would it be possible in the imposed social intimacy of the armed forces to guarantee the right to privacy of the sexual preference of homosexuals and the right to privacy of heterosexuals? Thirdly, is there an obvious compromise that might satisfy both sides?
I shall deal first with the question of operational effectiveness. As we know, the army's purpose is to fight. Whatever additional tasks it is given and irrespective of what other armies are constructed for, the purpose of the British Army is to fight and to win. Humanitarian or civil tasks are in addition to that, not a substitute for it. The burden that Parliament places on the members of our armed forces is to fight and win, even if they have to sacrifice not only their liberty but their lives.
The fighting power of a force consists of three elements. There is the conceptual element of tactics, doctrine and strategy; the resources element, which means the physical resources that we provide; and morale.
In military life, morale fulfils a purpose that is different from its normal usage. In military terms, it is both more specific and more comprehensive. It includes not only matters such as belief in a just cause or pride in the regiment's traditions but also, and crucially, ordered relations within a unit, absolute trust in one's comrades and absolute confidence in one's leaders. Those are the qualities that motivate a soldier to fight, and fight better than his enemy. If they are diminished, so is the command structure, the cohesion and the operational effectiveness of the military unit.
Among the factors that are most likely to undermine that mutual confidence, obedience and cohesion is the existence or the perceived existence of a special relationship between particular members of a unit, especially a relationship of a romantic or sexual nature.
Mrs. Currie:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if a relationship was seen in any way to be damaging to discipline, I would be against it as well? What concerns us is that, when no such relationship is going on and discipline is not damaged, these people can still be dismissed.
Dr. Reid:
I shall cover that when I deal with the hon. Lady's clause. I shall later deal with the difference
Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead):
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Reid:
I shall certainly do that when I have finished this part of my speech.
Relationships which damage cohesion, such as those of a romantic or sexual nature, are particularly damaging. In situations in which such special relationships are most likely to develop in the armed forces, personnel are separated by gender. Therefore, as a matter of course in the armed forces, in the most intimate situations that are likely to lead to special relationships, a heterosexual is separated from the potential object of his or her sexual preference. Precisely the opposite circumstances would obtain for homosexuals, as they would be integrated in units with members of their own sex. That is the key problem, and it does not relate to prejudiced allegations of increased potential for promiscuity among homosexuals.
Mr. Galloway:
I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his difficult job with his brief. He must be aware of the inherent and enormous contradiction between what he is saying and the obvious fact that it is possible and acceptable to be a homosexual member of a war Parliament or a war Cabinet, or a homosexual Secretary of State for Defence but not to be a homosexual private in the Royal Corps of Signals. There is an inherent absurdity in that proposition.
I put to my hon. Friend another contradiction in case he is not aware of it. I shall put to him a fantastic hypothesis. Suppose there were two homosexual members of a war Cabinet. Would that mean that that war Cabinet's effectiveness in waging and directing war might be compromised by a special relationship that might exist between those two Cabinet members?
Dr. Reid:
I shall reply to my hon. Friend's points in reverse order. My hon. Friend asks about a war Cabinet. It is obvious that he completely missed the distinction that I drew between civilian and military life. My hon. Friend has given me a poisoned chalice. Without being facetious, I shall try to answer his first point. The difference between a Secretary of State for Defence and a member of an army unit is that the Secretary of State does not have to sleep every night with the Minister for Procurement or the Armed Forces Minister. [Laughter.] However, the member of an armed unit might have to sleep with a comrade.
"Australia enjoys a multi ethnic, multi cultural society with a considerable willingness, in the metropolitan areas at least, to accept sexual behaviour which, in the UK, is still regarded with a considerable degree of suspicion."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |