---

Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman is much respected on both sides of the House, not just for his position but for his interest in military matters over the years. He spoke of the genuine and serious difficulties caused by the inter-operation of the convention and the concept of command of the military by an elected Government. Let us put aside either party's concerns about Europe--or, perhaps, lack of concerns. Does he not believe that a serious issue is involved, which needs to be addressed in a larger forum in conjunction with other Governments: how far the operation of the convention can be allowed to interrupt a Government's obligations to those who elected them, in terms of the defence of the realm? Is that not a bigger issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It probably is a bigger issue, but today we are debating the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not argue with me from a sedentary position when I am on my feet. I am merely reminding the House that this is principally a debate about the Bill. Allusion to the convention is in order, but this is not a debate about the convention.

Mr. George: I was about to reply, but I shall now leave it until the end of my speech.

By the end of the year, the Select Committee will have undertaken a wide-ranging inquiry into personnel matters in the armed forces, including discipline and grievance procedures. Paragraph 29 of the report, which was published yesterday, states:

"We anticipate examining the ways in which Service personnel have access to rights which are considered appropriate and necessary for civilians in the UK, and the extent to which differences are necessary for the special circumstances of military life."

17 Feb 2000 : Column 1149

We hope to report before the next quinquennial review is undertaken. I assure hon. Members that I have concerns, but I sympathise with the Government, who simply had no option. I would have hoped that Opposition Members appreciated that.

The Bill went through the Lords and I read the speeches with some interest. In the Defence Committee, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to congratulate Baroness Symons, a civilian, on withstanding the charges of the Third Shock Army of the Warsaw treaty organisation--virtually every living retired chief of defence staff. I said that, despite the pressure, the "thin fur line held". Not only did it hold, but by the end of the debate the assailants were in rapid retreat and did not vote. That was not because of a tradition of not voting against the House of Commons--that is a fairly recent tradition from my reading of the Lords Hansard. The reason why they flew in the opposite direction was that someone had pointed out existing legislation to them. They realised that the wind had been taken out of their sails. As good military men, they realised that, when on a loser, it is wise to get out of the way before there is a rout. That was why they hauled up the white flag: they had lost the argument. Opposition Members should use different advisers this time, otherwise, they will have the same bump on the nose in front of the House of Commons Committee as their colleagues in the House of Lords in December.

Dr. Godman: Is not the heart of the matter the legitimacy of proceedings that are undertaken against someone who is alleged to have committed an offence? Much concern has been voiced by Opposition Members about the need to protect the integrity of commanding officers, but I remind my hon. Friend of the observations of the Director of Personal Services (Army) when giving evidence to the Committee; they appear on page x of the report:

"Genuinely, I believe, and I think this is the experience of most commanding officers, good soldiers will entirely accept that they have done wrong, they will be in front of the commanding officer and they will take their punishment".

That was my experience all those years ago. I talk to young soldiers now. As long as they have trust and respect for their commanding officers, it will be fine.

Mr. George: I agree and respect what my hon. Friend says. He has a background in the Royal Military Police, understands service discipline and what a little pressure from good men such as him can have on recalcitrant soldiers.

Mr. Viggers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: Yes. I was about to criticise the Minister and shadow spokesman for their verbosity and now I am subject to the same criticism from anyone who follows.

Mr. Viggers: It is not in any sense a party political point, but may I say, representing as I do a garrison town, that, although the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) rightly pointed out that young service men will accept summary punishment, when they get home, their wives may be pretty upset and say, "If there is an appeal procedure, why not follow it through?"? I suspect that there may be such pressure.

Mr. George: In giving evidence, the MOD discussed the extent to which it thought that that appeal system

17 Feb 2000 : Column 1150

would be activated. It was fairly reassuring. We formed a coalition to maintain the hon. Gentleman's town as a garrison town, at least with regard to the hospital there. We share many views, but people talk about a licence for barrack-room lawyers. For God's sake, it is institutionalised barrack-room lawyering.

If people cannot have easy recourse to professional lawyers, they may seek advice from fellow soldiers, sailors or airmen, which might put an additional burden on the system that is being created, or re-created. I can see that being a problem, but, as a devotee of Kipling, who wrote much on barrack-room lawyers, perhaps I do not perceive it with the repugnance that other people might.

Mr. Hancock: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that Brigadier Ritchie, speaking for the Army, was questioned at length about the right of appeal, the way in which sentencing would be handled and the keeping of regimental traditions on how punishment was dished out, but said that the key thing was that, under the Bill, for the first time, there would be some consistency, which would be recognised and understood throughout the armed forces? That was the crucial change, which was essential to make the system work.

Mr. George: I am glad to be reminded of the content of our questioning of MOD witnesses.

Looking at the Committee report, I hope that, when the next legislation is introduced, the Government will avoid sending it to the House of Lords first--thereby providing justification for the four-star generals who were ennobled to prove that they still exist--and send it to the House of Commons first. I hope that they will activate the advice of the Leader of the House and the Select Committee on Modernisation that legislation be issued in draft, especially if it is basically uncontentious. I cannot believe, despite the rhetoric of Opposition Members, that it is a truly contentious Bill. When the next legislation is introduced, I hope that it will conform to that advice.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation warned the House of Lords that certain rules and regulations in the Bill could be modified without parliamentary scrutiny. It referred to clauses 8 and 22. It said:

"the time may come when Parliament will wish to consider whether the more important provisions should be subject to Parliamentary control."

The powers of the Defence Council to make, in essence, statutory or subordinate legislation should come before the House properly. The Defence Committee will watch for anything that comes out of the MOD that takes the form, in essence, of subordinate legislation and then seek the MOD's views, even though perhaps the House as a whole will have abandoned the principle of scrutiny.

Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I am almost at the end of my speech. Some Opposition Members to whom I have spoken thought foolishly that the European Court of Human Rights was part of the European Union and were going to vote against the measure on principle. I remind them that it is not part of the EU.

17 Feb 2000 : Column 1151

When people talk about anything European, their eyes glaze over. It is just like what happens with a full moon. A similar metamorphosis is contained in Lon Chaney's "Wolfman", where it was said:

"Even a man who is pure of heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolf bane blooms and the moon is shining bright."

When the moon shines bright and Europe is mentioned, people descend to a plain of rationality that is almost certifiable. The fact that the court is in France and almost in Germany should not lead to its condemnation out of hand.

It is important to accept--the Minister and Mr. Woodhead explained it in some detail--the distinction between a reservation and a derogation. The horse has bolted. There is nothing we can do about it. As I have said, the French came into it late. To alter what we signed would require an immense effort.

I hope that the Minister will do some legal research and explain the position to the Committee. I am sure Opposition Members will be interested, although hardly any of them are here. I will not be on it; absolutely not. I have done my bit for military justice until the 2001 Bill is introduced. As I said, I hope that the Minister will do that research, and explain to the wolfmen on the Opposition Benches what difficulties there would be in trying to secure a renegotiation of the convention.

The wheels of the Ministry of Defence, like those of the millennium wheel, turn slowly. As I said, I do not think that the Ministry should be blamed completely for its rather retarded process of consolidation--which is something that it will have to do.

Video-conferencing is one of the detailed matters dealt with in the Bill. Since we got out from east of Suez, British troops have not served in a vast number of places with jungles. Although I accept that there might be some difficulty in inserting a plug into a socket in some parts of the world, I should have thought--the Committee was given an explanation that should satisfy any rational person--that if there is any difficulty in charging someone immediately, it should not happen immediately. The person should be charged when the unit returns home.

There was some nonsense on that point in the House of Lords. The fact is that, if someone aboard a Trident is suspected of an offence, the submarine will not surface so that the person can be taken ashore by Ministry of Defence police. It will not happen like that. If there is a crisis, the person will be charged later. I cannot see the problem with that.

When the Defence Committee visited the Walter Reed hospital, in Washington, we saw an operation being performed in which a surgeon, in Washington, was advising a medic who was 8,000 miles away. Although I would not like to be a recipient of that type of operation, if it is possible to perform major medical operations in that manner, it should not be beyond the wit of even the Ministry of Defence to devise a similar technical system. The Committee considered such technical issues.

I reiterate that I very much hope that, by the time that the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill is constituted, we shall have a better idea of whether Opposition Members' rather fearful prognostications are justified. Perhaps there will be an opportunity in that Committee to do any necessary fine tuning.

17 Feb 2000 : Column 1152

I have one request, which may not be popular, and on which I have not approached the Defence Committee, so I have no authority to make it, although the Committee has made it previously. Will the Minister give some consideration--in which he will certainly have to consult the Opposition--to constituting the Committee that eventually examines the Armed Forces Bill so that it includes not only the Defence Committee, but is augmented by a Minister, a shadow Minister and, if necessary, one or two other hon. Members? There is logic in that arrangement, and I hope that the Minister will consider agreeing to it.

The Select Committee will examine in detail many of the issues that have been raised by Opposition Members, and we shall have far more time to deal with them than we had in our cursory analysis of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. However, I assure the House that we shall examine them in considerable detail. I hope that we--if we on the Defence Committee are burdened with the task, which I am pretty confident that we would be more than prepared to accept--will then be able to formulate some recommendations on them.

---