Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Touhig: I thank colleagues for their contributions to a short but useful debate. It is important, and it has helped air a few issues to which I will try to respond and to which we will return when we eventually publish the new Bill. I begin by making clear what we aim to do with the new Bill. The fundamental purpose of the military justice system is to foster and promote the discipline and self-control required to maintain the capability to act as efficient fighting force. In other words, it is essential to operational effectiveness. The authority of the commanding officer is critical to the delivery of operational effectiveness, so he or she is at the centre of the system of discipline and responsible for the behaviour of those under his or her command. A single system of service law is needed for services that increasingly train and deploy on operations together. That view is shared by the Select Committee that examined the last Armed Forces Act. A major consideration is that a single system of service law will enable commanding officers to apply discipline fairly, efficiently and consistently to all under their command, whichever service they come from. Proposals on discipline do not affect the fundamentals of the current system. They preserve its focus on the commanding officer, with most cases dealt with summarily and more serious cases tried by court martial. We have the full support of the service chiefs. The harmonisation and modernisation of summary and court martial powers and processes has been agreed among the services after extensive consultation and discussion of possible options. The approach has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The Bill will also deliver a consolidated and modernised system of law that is much more coherent than the current Acts, which have been amended in a piecemeal way in past years. A harmonised approach to service law is about enhancing operational effectiveness: that is the prize that we seek, and I hope that when we introduce the Bill and debate it in Parliament, we will be able to demonstrate and advance that argument. The hon. Member for Blaby was right when he talked about the ethos at the heart of our services, which is important. He spoke about the subject recently in a debate that I answered, and we have benefited from his service experience this morning. He touched on the case of Colonel Mendonca, but he recognises that it would not be appropriate for me to respond at this stage. He also mentioned the issue affecting Trooper Williams, which we also debated in the Chamber some time ago. When the Bill is published, I shall try to work with colleagues on both sides of the House because we have a tradition in this place of seeking cross-party support for major legislation affecting our forces. I do not have all the answers, but we will put before the House a coherent proposal for legislation, which will be subject
The hon. Member for Blaby said that the Bill might fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the three services. I do not believe that it will. The services have been closely involved in the work to prepare the Bill from the outset, and it is fully supported by the service chiefs. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill would lead to an increase in Royal Navy courts martial, which he said were time consuming, and that the central role of the commanding officer in discipline must not be undermined. On the first point, there may be an increase in Royal Navy courts martial, but the Royal Navy fully supported the proposals, and in the Select Committee evidence the point was made that the increase was manageable and worth it for the benefit of a single system of law. On the second point, the hon. Gentleman and I share the concern that the central role of the CO in disciplinary matters should not be undermined. As I said, we are clear about the need for a separate system of service law, and a vital element in that is the role of the CO at the centre of the disciplinary system, with responsibility for the conduct of those under his or her command. We are not seeking to undermine that, and when the Bill is published I hope that we will demonstrate that and show that we are underpinning that duty and responsibility. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) touched on training, which is hugely important if our forces are to operate in often difficult circumstances and respond quickly to all sorts of incidents around the world. I welcome his comments, which I think reflect general support for the thrust of our proposals. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned redress, and asked what the new Bill would provide. We recognise that complaints will be resolved by the chain of command whenever possible, but at the same time we must simplify the present arrangements by which every complaint may be taken in successive stages right up to the Defence Council. We are still closely involved with the services in developing a fair and speedier system. The hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) welcomed our harmonising approach to the Bill, and I thank him for that. He also underpinned his comments by saying that the Army and the RAF were often closely involved in working together. When I was at Portsmouth for the international festival of the sea last weekend, I saw for myself the integration of the working relationship between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. It is important that we recognise that. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out some of the problems that we have had, and still have, with the educational shortcomings of people recruited into the forces. In my constituency youth unemployment has fallen dramatically, but we have a reservoir of young people—this will be confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who shares a borough with me—who lack basic literacy and
I stress to the hon. Member for Gosport that the services have been fully involved in the preparation of the legislation and I take on board his comments about how important it is that the services help to drive forward the agenda in the Bill. I will try to assuage his fears that this might be some sort of civilianisation. I was in local government for 20 years and ran a number of newspaper and publishing companies before coming to the House, and all too often we would go out and seek the views of consultants who knew nothing about our business and get all excited about some report that they produced, only to find that it took us down a track leading to a blind alley. It is important to take on board the views of those in the serving forces when developing our proposals for the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central referred to an issue about which he wrote to me recently. I found the issue distressing and had great sympathy with the remarks that he made in his letter and with those made by his constituent to him. I can only say that the officer concerned has apologised. On behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I reaffirm our apology for that wholly inappropriate situation. Matters of great sensitivity were highlighted and aired in a public place with little regard for the delicate nature of the subject involved. As for whether that officer will be subject to any discipline, I have responded to my hon. Friend and it is not appropriate for me, as a politician, to start directing the military on how to discipline serving personnel. It has certain procedures and regulations by which it acts. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend still seems somewhat concerned, I will review the case and if I think that there is anything that it is appropriate for me to, I will communicate that to my hon. Friend, and I hope that that will satisfy him. My hon. Friend, in an intervention, said that the change in the Army discipline system in January introduced new arrangements for major and minor offences, and asked whether that would extend to the Navy and Royal Air Force. I think that he was referring to the introduction of new arrangements for administrative action in the Army. That has the benefit of expeditious dealing with minor matters, which can properly be dealt with without the use of formal disciplinary legal proceedings. The services have been discussing how different approaches to administrative action can be sensibly introduced in joint units. We will have more to say about that, and about the Select Committee’s report, when we publish our response next week. After the recess there will be a huge focus on such matters. We will bring forward perhaps the second largest Bill before the House this year, with 300 or 400 clauses. We will have to consider how we will handle that piece of legislation, and there will be discussions through the usual channels. The other place will, of course, consider the Bill as well. I believe that we will take the right approach. We will take the agenda
Peter Viggers: As the Minister has touched on the manner in which the legislation will be handled, can he tell the Committee whether it will be handled in the same way as the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, with the quinquennial review? In other words, will the Committee that sits to discuss and consider the Bill have the opportunity to take evidence? The Chairman: Order. I do not think that that is relevant to the order. Mr. Touhig: I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s question, Mr. Benton, but it has registered and I am sure that we will reach a proposal that everybody will be able to support. I am keen that all parties should be able to support the legislation when we consider it. We have done that very well in the past. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. Mr. Robathan: As I said earlier, the Conservative party were minded to put down a marker of our concerns and the concerns expressed by the Select Committee in its report about the Government’s proposals. We have no problem with the order itself. Column Number: 16 I was much encouraged by what the Minister said, especially by his remark that change would be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. That allays many of my immediate concerns. The Select Committee has said that it would like to see some detailed proposals, as we all would, but we have heard that that will not happen until after the recess. I hope that when we finally see the proposals, they will take account of the differing circumstances of the three services. Of course everybody must be subject to the same law in the broadest sense, but the law relating to different places varies, and it must vary depending on whether one is in a ship or on land. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport made an excellent contribution based on his enormous experience. I was particularly taken by his point, which I should have raised myself, about the danger of making modernising changes that may lead to unnecessary grievance procedures. I have observed that although the Government are often very reasonable, the end result is perhaps not always what was intended. I reiterate my concern about the Attorney-General being involved in military discipline. Nevertheless, the Minister has gone a long way towards assuaging my concerns. I have put down my marker verbally, and we will not force a Division on the order, which we essentially support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at twenty minutes to Ten o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 8 July 2005 |