| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simpson: I am sorry; I am winding up my comments.
The Government are in danger of losing the confidence of our service personnel. All hon. Members should support the principle that serving service personnel do not involve themselves in party or partisan politics.
I assure the House that, if any serving officer who intended becoming a Conservative candidate wished to criticise the Army, I would advise him immediately to leave the Army and pursue his point as far as he could in a political career. That is now a well-established tradition. In the past, serving personnel were allowed to sit in Parliament. That was to the detriment of the services, and it caused all kinds of disruption and, indeed, some disloyalty. It also threatened civil-military relations.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson):
I am grateful to the hon. Member forMid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who has allowed us the opportunity to explain the Army's handling of the Major Joyce case and to reiterate the Government's position on the issue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the letter from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope to deal with some of the points covered in that letter, in addition to those raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I must say at the outset that I reject absolutely any suggestion that there has been any "political top cover" in this case. I shall cover some of the principles involved in the case and then give a brief account of the events of the Joyce case.
Major Joyce is a serving officer of the British Army. He is the author of a discussion paper from the Fabian Society--a society, which, incidentally, is not a Labour party body--published in August 1997 and entitled "Arms and the Man--Renewing the Armed Services". The personal views contained in that paper are, in a number of respects, critical of the present management of the Army.
The action being taken by the Army against Major Joyce is of an administrative rather than a disciplinary nature. I am sure that the House will understand that, in my comments today, I must take care not to prejudice the outcome of that management action.
Major Joyce's actions were of concern to the Army not because of the content of his article, or, indeed, of his subsequent articles, but because the manner of its release showed complete disregard of Queen's regulations and of his commanding officer.
Mr. Cohen:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that a consultation process on the strategic defence review was about to begin at the time in question and that that consultation process itself was still under discussion? I recall going to a meeting with his predecessor and
Mr. Henderson:
There is a clear distinction between the responsibilities of an Army officer in discharging his duties, expressing his views, being consistent with Army policy and seeking approval for the expression of those views in any form, and the privileges that a citizen of this country has in being able to express views on any subject that he wishes. An Army officer, like any citizen of this country, has the right to free expression, but he must be able to draw that distinction. It is an important distinction, which I hope that all our Army personnel would recognise. It is certainly one that I confirm as crucial in the execution of the Army's responsibilities.
The Army is, after all, a part of society, and its values must reflect those of society. However, it is a cohesive and disciplined force. Its effectiveness--and, ultimately, the safety of every individual soldier in it--depends on individual and collective respect for that discipline.
The sort of requirements imposed by Queen's regulations on serving personnel are not novel. They mirror those that apply throughout the civil service and elsewhere in the public sector. They require that anyone wishing to publish views and opinions seek permission in advance. The regulations pertaining to political activities by serving members of the armed forces have been clearly explained to Major Joyce, and it is therefore disappointing that he has chosen not to act in accordance with them.
The decision to investigate the authorship by Major Joyce of a publication and some newspaper articles which were critical of aspects of defence policy and recruitment was taken by the Army chain of command. Such action simply followed established Army procedures. Ministers were not at any time involved in either the decision to investigate Major Joyce's actions or in the course that the inquiry took. The temporary suspension of Major Joyce in August 1997, while an investigation was conducted, was not a disciplinary action, and was not recorded as such.
The completed investigation report was forwarded by Major Joyce's chain of command to the Army prosecuting authority for consideration. The report was not copied to, or seen by, Ministers. I should like to reassure the House that the Army prosecuting authority is independent of, and cannot be directed by, the military chain of command or, indeed, Ministers on any cases that it is asked toconsider. It is subject only to legal oversight by the Attorney-General.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Henderson:
I shall give way, but the hon. Gentleman is taking up some of the time that I need to explain the background to the case.
Mr. Blunt:
Will the Minister confirm that the Lord Chancellor's letter was seen by the Army prosecuting authority before it came to its decision?
Mr. Henderson:
I cannot confirm that because I do not know what information the Army prosecuting authority had in examining whether there was a case against Major Joyce. It is quite rightly a matter for the authority, not for Ministers.
The decision whether to prosecute a case referred to the Army prosecuting authority is based on the realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction based on the evidence, and on whether a prosecution is in the interests of the public and the service. It will depend on an assessment of all pertinent legal, evidential and procedural issues. The tests are essentially the same as those applied to the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk agrees that it would not be appropriate to disclose the basis on which the Army prosecuting authority reached its decision not to court-martial Major Joyce. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to be aware of that basis, let alone disclose it.
Major Joyce returned to work in September 1997, when he was posted to a job appropriate to his rank in the Adjutant-General's Corps at Worthy Down. That move was deemed necessary because Major Joyce had irrevocably undermined the confidence of his former employing officer. Major Joyce continued to seek and receive media attention in continued disregard for Queen's regulations. That behaviour led, in October 1997, to a formal warning.
In February 1998, Major Joyce was formally interviewed by his commanding officer, in which he was informed of his commanding officer's recommendation to the military secretary that he should not be employed further in the Army. Major Joyce was then sent home. He has remained away from work since that time. He has made no application to resign or retire from the Army. The recommendations made by Major Joyce's commanding officer to the Army chain of command concerning his future in the Army should be properly confidential between the two parties. However, I would reassure the House that Ministers have played no part whatever, either formally or informally, in the process, which is on-going.
The time taken to conclude the review of Major Joyce's future in the Army is regretted, but not without explanation. The procedure is considered and measured, and gives the individual the fullest opportunity to make representation at every stage of the process. Until the process is complete, an officer properly continues to be paid, and his terms and conditions of service remain extant.
The matter is being considered at Army board level by two non-ministerial members of the board who have not previously been involved in handling the case. Major Joyce has seen, and had the opportunity to comment on, all material before the board, save only for legal advice. He has been offered the opportunity of an oral hearing with the board later this month, at which his solicitor may be present if he so wishes. The decision on Major Joyce's future in the Army will be taken exclusively by those Army board members. Ministers have no involvement in the process unless Major Joyce is dissatisfied with the Army board's decision in respect of redress of a complaint and petitions the sovereign. In that case, the Army's submission would be forwarded to the Palace through the Secretary of State.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |