| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Banks: Does hon. Gentleman accept that there is undoubtedly a considerable number of homosexuals within the armed forces now? He must know that to be a fact. How is that affecting operational efficiency now?
Mr. Soames: There may well be some homosexual personnel in the armed forces but they choose to keep that to themselves. That is a matter for them. [Interruption.]I will deal with that later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes mentioned the European Court. One can only speculate about what the European Court might say in several years' time because the issue has never been tested before it. We have considered the issue thoroughly, both as to what is required as a matter of national policy and the potential legal consequences. Our decision, in legal terms, is entirely respectable. We believe that our decision is the right one, and we will defend it robustly in any court.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland):
When considering their position, did the Government consult other Governments, in countries such as Australia, where the law has been changed in the way suggested in the amendment and where they apparently have not experienced the practical difficulties that have been referred to by those who oppose the amendment?
Mr. Soames:
The answer is, yes, we did consult other Governments. I shall deal with that point later, because it is extremely important.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire mentioned costs and the cost to the taxpayer. The basis of all the various figures that are bandied about is uncertain. What is clear from the review report is the significant adverse effect that a change of policy would have on recruitment and retention--I urge the House to accept that that is true--with the considerable cost penalties that would result.
Several hon. Members mentioned agent provocateurs. Evidence was given to the Select Committee by witnesses in the Ministry of Defence that the service police are not
allowed to carry out agent provocateur activity when inquiring into allegations of homosexual activity. I wish to assure the House that I will not tolerate such action.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised the question of a code of conduct.
Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing):
On the use of resources, does my hon. Friend agree that it would not be a sensible, economic or efficient use of resources to identify those who are homosexual and who, in his own words, wish to keep it to themselves?
Mr. Soames:
Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend.
While a new code of conduct might appear to be symmetrical in its effect on heterosexuals and homosexuals, it would not solve the problem of anticipated loss of cohesion or operational effectiveness caused by the knowledge or strong suspicion of the sexual identity of homosexual personnel. We do not believe that a code of conduct, no matter how rigorously enforced, would adequately address the issues of privacy or decency and it would not be possible or desirable to provide separate facilities for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston):
What the Minister has just said is tantamount to saying that this is gesture politics. I am one of the diminishing band of hon. Members who went through the whole of the second world war. There was no discrimination then. I was in no fewer than seven troop ships carrying men and women to the four corners of the globe to fight on behalf of the nation. There were no questions about homosexuality then. What the Government are saying is the height of hypocrisy. If there was a war tomorrow, there would be no discrimination against homosexuals or lesbians. They would be dragged in just as they were in 1939.
Mr. Soames:
That was a splendid sally from the hon. Gentleman. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."]I will, if I may develop my argument in my own time.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East(Mr. Campbell) asked about other countries, and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has just done the same. The report went into great detail on the matter and covered many different countries, and we are aware that in some countries homosexuality is not a formal bar to service, although there may be restrictions on the areas in which homosexuals are employed and on their career progression.
However, we do not consider that the policies of other countries towards their armed forces are necessarily relevant to our own, as they may be influenced by other factors, such as conscription and domestic employment laws. The situation in other countries simply cannot be compared with that of our armed forces, which are, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland knows, wholly different from conscript armies and other foreign operators.
Several hon. Members have referred to comparisons with race and sex discrimination. However, the review report shows that homosexuality creates insoluble problems of decency and privacy, as race and gender do
not. I shall quote an extract from a report by General Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in America:
Mr. Soames:
No, I must get on.
I now wish to return--
Mr. Betts:
Will the Minister give way?
I wish now to return to the subject of Great Britain. The High Court recommended that we should review our policy in the light of changing social circumstances, and of the experience of other countries where homosexuality is not a formal bar to service. Accordingly, the internal review was carried out.
The review took into account the policies and practices of overseas armed forces, the views of serving personnel, the advice of senior military commanders and the full range of evidence presented in the report. The report of the assessment was placed in the Library on 4 March.
After detailed consideration of the available evidence, the assessment team concluded that homosexuality remained incompatible with service life, if the armed forces were to be maintained at their full potential operational effectiveness. The team recommended that there should be no change in current policy. My Department has accepted that recommendation and, as I said earlier, the Select Committee, after much careful deliberation, agreed that there should be no change in the policy.
Both the evidence contained in the assessment team's detailed and thorough report, and that given in open session to the Select Committee, show that the presence of openly homosexual men and women in the armed forces would have an adverse effect on morale and unit cohesion.
Mr. Betts:
Will the Minister give way?
That presence would also affect operational effectiveness. That we cannot risk, and we shall not accept it.
Uncertainty and suspicion about the sexual orientation of fellow service personnel are just as likely to cause unease, polarise relationships and disrupt unit cohesion as overt homosexuality.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Soames:
No, I will not. I must get on.
It would be quite wrong to ignore the strongly held views of the majority of service men and women that the admission of homosexuals would have a detrimental effect on operational effectiveness, and I shall not do so. In the face of all the evidence presented by my Department, of substantial submissions both oral and written from those who wished to change the policy, and also of the evidence that it gathered privately, the Select Committee concluded that the policy should continue.
Mr. Soames:
It is not rubbish.
It is significant and perhaps inevitable that the most widely reported spokesman of the homosexual movement, Sir Ian McKellen, took exactly that attitude. He said:
The not so hidden agenda of those who want to change Ministry of Defence policy is to steamroller aside the judgments, experience and wishes of the military.
Although we have no desire to discriminate against homosexuals, or indeed against any other minority, the Government will not capitulate to such doctrinaire attitudes. What is special about the military is the fact that we expect them to exhibit commitment and self sacrifice beyond that of any other professional group and, if need be, to sacrifice their lives. They put their trust in the Government and it would be immoral, as well as operationally highly detrimental, to overrule or ignore them.
Let me make it clear--this is not about homophobia in the armed forces. Rather it is a clear indication of the ability of service men and women to differentiate between their own personal views on homosexuality--which are often tolerant and sympathetic--and what they nevertheless perceive to be the effect of homosexuality in a military environment. I know that no Member of the House will vote on the new clause without having carefully weighed up the issues. These are not simple, since they summon up an apparent conflict between individual rights and wishes--which none of us lightly sets aside--and the moral cohesion, effectiveness and fighting power of the armed forces.
The services of this country are very special, and they are a unique and extraordinary asset to our nation. They serve us faithfully and well, and they are--by and large--men and women of a quality not found in any other institution in the land. The extraordinarily gallant record of our armed forces--in the Falklands, through 25 years of exceptional gallantry and skill on the streets and countryside of Northern Ireland, in the Gulf, and today in Bosnia, Rwanda and Angola--is beyond compare.
"Unlike race or gender, sexuality is not a benign trait. It is manifested in behaviour. While it would be decidedly biased to assume certain behaviours based on gender or membership in a racial group, the same is not true for sexuality. We have successfully mixed rich and poor, black and white, male and female, but open homosexuality in units is not just the acceptance of benign characteristics such as colour or gender or background. It involves matters of privacy and human sexuality that, in our judgment, if allowed to exist openly in the military, would affect the cohesion and well-being of the force. It asks us to deal with fundamental issues that the society at large has not yet been able to deal with".
"Why are Ministers even asking the military?"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |