| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown): I will be supporting the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the
Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), but the hon. Gentleman is indulging in disgraceful weasel words. He has tried to stand on both sides of the fence at the same time. He represents the Opposition Front-Bench team, which hopes one day to form a Government. If it cannot give leadership one way or the other, it is not fit to govern.
Dr. Reid: First, I have already made it plain that, for Labour Members, there is a free vote. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman can accuse me of many things tonight; one of them might not be representing Labour Members behind me, but to suggest that it shows cowardice or a lack of courage to put the argument that I am advancing is nonsense.
I do not underestimate those arguments about civil liberties, but there is another argument that, if that was controversial, is, I appreciate, even more sensitive, but must be put because it is felt generally to be important by members of the armed forces. I accept that their views are not sufficient to continue a ban, but they are one of the necessary elements that must be considered.
The argument involves a genuine concern that was put to me by a female soldier and it crystallises the case, so I can be brief. She said, "Dr. Reid, even in the imposed social intimacy of the Army, you and your colleagues at Westminster would defend my right to refuse to share the most intimate experiences of sleeping, sharing and bathing with a man. You would do that not because you assume evil intention on the part of the man, but because it offends my sensibilities as a woman, because it may offend my sense of privacy or decency or because I may feel that I am the object of inquisitive sexual observation by the man, but all the reasons why you would give me that right would be on my perceptions, not on the intentions of the man. If you change this rule, will you give me the right to protect my privacy if I refuse to shower with one of my lesbian colleagues?" I did not have a satisfactory answer for her then and, frankly, I do not now.
That sums up the second intractable conflict between trying to give the homosexual rights of privacy while balancing them with the heterosexual rights of privacy in the armed forces.
Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East):
Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that those of us who served on the Select Committee and who talked to serving men and women think that some of their views, although my hon. Friends might not agree with them, deserve better consideration than being denounced as mere homophobia, and that they are genuine concerns? Their concerns about operational efficiency led me, him and other hon. Friends to put our names to the report.
Dr. Reid:
I agree. Individuals have a range of feelings that are often difficult to classify because they range from irrational prejudices to moral perceptions. Sometimes, that distinction is not made, although I must say to my hon. Friend, who has been helpful, that there are hon. Members who will be in the same Division Lobby as me tonight who sometimes seem incapable of presenting a logical argument because they are blinded with prejudice.
There are logical, objective grounds for qualifying what is a very valuable civil right to preserve effectiveness. However, it is honourable and legitimate to say that the
weight of the civil liberties argument is sufficiently great to overcome both the operational reduction in effectiveness and the case for privacy for heterosexuals. There is nothing dishonourable in making that balance and in arriving at a judgment that is different from mine, but the Labour Members of the Select Committee were not persuaded that that change was necessary.
Mr. Michael Brown:
I fully understand the particular responsibility that goes with the hon. Gentleman's position, the more so because he aspires to occupy the Treasury Bench, but the country needs to know what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) would do if they ever became Ministers and were forced to act as a consequence of a European Court of Human Rights directive.
Dr. Reid:
I was coming to the European Court of Human Rights, although I think that the hon. Gentleman will be slightly disappointed.
We have not argued that the position will never change. It will obviously be reviewed again during the next Parliament. No one here could be stupid enough to think that the issue will go away. I cannot imagine that it will not recur for reconsideration. It is not our job to guess the what the European Court of Human Rights will do, but we are aware that it is likely to be asked to issue a ruling on this matter during the next Parliament. We will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North):
Although I will be in a different Lobby from my hon. Friend tonight and disagree with what he says, I respect the way in which he is putting his argument. On returning to the issue in future, does he agree that, if the new clause is defeated tonight, the people who believe, as I do, that the current position is wrong--and that should include the Government--must go out and sell the case to the armed services that they should no longer peddle prejudice as an excuse for excluding people from the armed services?
Dr. Reid:
If I were advocating the case to members of the armed services, I would first stop trying to portray them as a bunch of redneck, thick-skulled and prejudiced bigots, although I am not saying that my hon. Friend is doing that. It is not helpful when they live in particular circumstances, deprived of the right to leave. Any of us tonight can choose which room to leave. We can choose to go if we do not like the company that we are sleeping with. In the morning, we can remove ourselves from a position that we find offensive. We do not have to shower with people. Members of the armed forces cannot make those choices. Let us recognise at least that their views are of merit, even if we must weigh in the balance the great issue of civil liberties.
Do not let us pretend--I do not think for a minute that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has done so--that there is an easy or painless answer. Whatever decision is taken tonight or in the next Parliament, people will be hurt. Homosexuals or heterosexuals will be disappointed, perhaps angry. Whichever way the vote goes, one group or another will have their rights diminished, but, for the majority of hon. Members, it will not be a decision that is taken lightly because the curtailment of liberties or the loss of lives are considerations that rank highest in everything that we hold to be precious in the House. Whatever happens, the people who will then be asked by us to remain the ultimate defender of both those liberties and those lives will be the men and women of our British armed forces.
Mr. Soames:
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) on the sensible, measured and passionate way in which she introduced this important debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes(Mr. Brown) and thank him for the extraordinary courtesy that he has shown me during the time that we have been discussing what is a very difficult matter for the armed forces.
We have had a useful debate and many of the most important issues have been aired. I propose to deal with them. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for providing with their amendment this opportunity to have a debate that has been waiting in the wings for several months. I am sure that they will have a pretty good idea of what I am about to say.
The services' policy on homosexuality is hardly a secret, and nor are the reasons underpinning it. That said, I shall start, perhaps surprisingly, by saying that much of the new clause causes us very little difficulty. Much of it is already unnecessary. We announced in 1992 that we had accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on the previous Armed Forces Bill that homosexual acts which were legal in civilian life should no longer constitute offences under service law. The only extra condition was that the act should not involve the commission of a service offence such as the abuse of rank or other behaviour prejudicial to good order and discipline. That change in policy took immediate effect, but we were not able to make the necessary change to the legislation under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
It is difficult to see how the first part of the amendment adds to what Parliament has already achieved. However, we have to vote on the whole amendment and my hon. Friends have insinuated into the middle of their amendment a sentence that is designed to change the services' policy on the exclusion of homosexuals, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee which has been considering the Bill. I shall concentrate the rest of my remarks on the Government's response to that issue.
The current policy of excluding homosexuals from the armed forces is not--I repeat, not--the result of a moral judgment. The prime concern of the armed forces is the maintenance of operational effectiveness and our policy derives from a practical assessment of the implications of homosexual orientation on military life. I do not believe that the services have a right to be different, but I firmly believe that they have a need to be different.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |