| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): Speaking as a former barrack-room lawyer--
Dr. Godman: I shall not respond to that. I am asking a question.
Can the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) give us an example or two of designated advisers? In the case of a private soldier, would the adviser be a regimental sergeant-major or, perhaps, a civilian?
Mr. Key:
The hon. Gentleman, who I understand was a redcap, is aware of the issues. I promise him that I will come to his point, if he will hold his horses for a moment.
As always, Conservative Members have an eye on how things operate in the real world, rather than on the clean-cut, perfect fairytale land in which the Government seem to think our armed forces operate. We tabled our amendment with an eye on how forces discipline works in practice.
When the matter was considered in another place, my noble Friend Lord Attlee tabled an amendment similar to this one. As a serving member of the Territorial Army, he felt strongly that the new system allowing the accused to choose court martial for almost any offence was open to abuse by the accused's seniors. He feared that they might try to persuade the accused to opt for a summary trial on the grounds that it would be cheaper and quicker, and also that they might want to keep the matter "in house". The persuasion could take the form of superiors' making it clear that the accused's life could be very difficult in future, or suggesting indirectly that the accused's career prospects could be, shall we say, curtailed.
There was an extensive debate in the other place on 18 January, the report of which my hon. Friends will find in columns 1012-14 of Hansard. I shall not delay the House by quoting from it.
At present, there are no safeguards to prevent undue influence from being exerted on the accused. As the opportunities for courts martial increase, so does the potential for abuse of the system, but the Government seem to have done nothing to eliminate the possibility of such abuses. The Bill overlooks the realities of life in the services, just as it overlooks so many other things. Several times the Opposition have raised the spectre of "behind the barrack block" discipline. It happens now, it is wrong, and there is no doubt that the Bill will only increase the
likelihood of its happening. We hope that the amendment will introduce additional protection, and that the Minister will accept this simple but important measure.
Let me respond to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) by saying that we understand that the matter should not be in the hands of members of the chain of command. That would not comply with the European convention on human rights. We were told--indeed, my noble Friend was told in another place--that there would be access to lawyers independent of the chain of command. However, that in turn raises the issue of who the lawyers are to be.
Members of the Army legal service, for example, are not perceived by the forces to be truly independent. They are independent legally, but they are part of the chain of command. We must therefore fall back on independent civilian lawyers, but that is a problem, not least because the Ministry of Defence is very bad at paying them. Before Christmas, the Lord Chancellor's Department changed the rules, which inhibits the proper working of the process. There is also the practical problem of how to get civilian lawyers to members of the forces in such circumstances. The situation is fraught with difficulty. That is why we are asking the Government for an assurance about how the process can be made to work.
Dr. Godman:
I will be brief because I hope to speak in the next debate, but I want to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that, if the amendment is put to a vote, I shall not support it.
I have just returned from Kosovo, where I spoke to officers and other soldiers. I know that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has also been in Pristina and elsewhere. I think that those soldiers are doing a remarkably fine job, along with our RUC officers; but I am concerned about, say, the young soldier who is apprehended for some misdemeanour, and who might feel entirely alone and defenceless in a guardroom, surrounded by regimental police officers who are not always as sympathetic as military police officers. Will the Minister assure me that young soldiers and others who are caught up in such circumstances will have access to advice?
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
I confess to some surprise at the notion of "Be a carer: join the redcaps". Such a slogan would not be immediately recognised by many who have served in the armed forces as a reflection of their own experience.
There is a problem here, although I am not sure that the amendment is the way to deal with it. Someone who had opted for court martial could easily find himself or herself the subject of pressure. If the other provisions of Army discipline provided that such pressure constituted an offence that could itself be subject to disciplinary proceedings, that would afford a measure of protection. Perhaps the Minister will be able to illuminate the matter by reference to some such provision elsewhere, but I think that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has drawn attention to a possible problem, which might cause certain individuals not only embarrassment, but something rather worse.
I shall be interested to hear what solution the Minister has, if--in accordance with what might be described as the immaculate conception of the legislation so far--he refuses yet again to accept an amendment.
Dr. Moonie:
It is difficult to discern the underlying purpose of the amendment. I accept that its intention is to provide additional safeguards, rather than imposing restrictions on an individual's right to seek advice--which it could equally be read as doing.
The point relating to the offence is legitimate, although we did not consider it when drafting the Bill. It would be dealt with more appropriately by the Committee that will consider the quinquennial review next year, as by that time we shall have had a chance to see how the new law is working in practice.
Mr. Campbell:
I think the Minister is right about the potential effect of the amendment. It could be interpreted as prescribing a very narrow range of people from whom a person who opts for court martial would be entitled to seek advice. That would clearly be contrary to the intention of the amendment. There is a possible problem, but the amendment may not be the best way to deal with it.
Dr. Moonie:
I agree. If the list included the sergeant-major and no one else, we would all have a bit of difficulty in accepting that.
The current system provides that an accused charged with an offence will be given a pamphlet outlining his rights. He will also be afforded the services of an accused's adviser of his choice, who is normally an officer or warrant officer. Thus, from the outset, the accused will be made fully familiar with his rights under the disciplinary process.
Under the present summary discipline system in the Army and Air Force, once the commanding officer finds that the charge has been proved, an accused may have up to 24 hours to decide whether to elect for trial by court martial, in accordance with provisions in Queen's Regulations. In the Royal Navy, before the evidence is heard by the commanding officer, the individual is given at least 24 hours to consider whether he wishes to exercise the option for trial by court martial, in cases where he has the right to elect.
I admire the intention behind the amendment but, having read and reflected on it, and in view of the other provisions that we have made, I think that it is unnecessary.
Mr. Key:
The quinquennial Bill has at last appeared--the Christmas tree has been decked--so we await with interest the results of the assessment of how the new law is working in practice, as the Minister put it. I am glad that he has accepted that the intention was wholly constructive: to ensure that no undue pressure is put on people who might be persuaded to change their minds after their initial choice. Given that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Key:
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 34, line 1, leave out clause 12.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 20, page 41, line 30, leave out--
and insert--
No. 8, in page 41, line 41, leave out--
'no more severe than that originally awarded'
'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
'no more severe than that originally awarded'
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |