Bob
Russell: From the hon. Gentleman’s experience as a
reservist in Her Majesty’s armed forces, for which we applaud
him, will he describe what would be the thinking of the RAF and the
Navy if somebody with an Army background took over the post? Could it
be argued that the first appointee on the unified disciplinary code
coming from the outside is an advantage, rather than a disadvantage? I
am not making that point, but merely asking the
question.
Dr.
Murrison: I understand the point. The whole purpose of the
2006 Act was to unify three very separate systems. That is why we were
prepared to support it. Only first-hand experience of those systems or
part of them would allow one to appreciate quite how much they differ.
There certainly is a need to bring the three together. The worry is
that, in an environment increasingly characterised by jointery, the
pressures on commanders generically might not be appreciated fully by
the director. That is the crucial
point. Many
people engaged in doing the Minister’s and the
Government’s bidding in extremely challenging circumstances have
the perception—if it is not the reality—that they have a
lawyer sitting on their shoulder. The general concern is the same for
many commanders, whether on a destroyer in the northern Gulf or in a
battle group in south-east Iraq. That is why the hon.
Gentleman’s Committee was concerned about the appointee being
somebody with no first-hand experience of the armed forces generically,
rather than specifically. However, I take his point that the three
environments are distinctive and
separate. This
legislation seeks to bring some commonality. The impetus behind the
2006 Act was a recognition that, over the past decade or so, there has
been far closer working between the three armed forces than previously.
That has rather made a mockery of the need for separate judicial
services within the three armed forces. Perhaps that is why the measure
has been introduced now—rightly so—rather than 10, 20 or
30 years ago, when the three operating environments were quite
separate. I
trust that the Minister has fully hoisted on board the concerns
expressed to him by the top brass and those at the coal face on the
onward march of “lawfare”. He is a very reasonable
person, so I am sure that he is as concerned as everybody else that our
armed forces should not feel under more pressure operationally than
they do currently. I am sure that he, too, hopes that the worry of
lawyers breathing down necks unreasonably will not add to that
burden. The
Minister will understand that the context for this debate is a string
of failed prosecutions for alleged human rights abuses in Iraq. The
director of service
prosecutions will be superintended by the Attorney-General, and that is
not likely to give the men and women of our armed forces much comfort.
They will be especially fearful of the influence that the
Attorney-General might have, since she will be consulted on all major
cases by the director of service prosecutions. I hope that the Minister
will indicate that he understands the concerns of the men and women of
our armed forces about the risk that they run of being hung out to dry
for their conduct, while doing the Minister’s bidding in
circumstances that most people in this room cannot begin to
imagine. 4.51
pm
Bob
Russell: It is a supreme pleasure to be here,
Mr. Hancock, under your
chairmanship. I
endorse the order before us. It is, of course, a consequence of the
2006 Act. I am bound to observe that, so far, I have not heard any
negative feedback on that Act from members of Her Majesty’s
armed forces. I am not saying that there is no negative feedback, but I
have not heard any. Following on from the point just made by the
Opposition, will the Minister explain why the measure has taken so
long? That is a valid question. I intervened earlier to explain why the
Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill recognised that, if a
civilian came in as director of service prosecutions, there would be a
need for acclimatisation, but acclimatisation lasting upwards of a year
is probably longer than we would have
expected.
The
Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed. It
was pleasure to hear his
contribution. 4.52
pm Harry
Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Let us hope that it is
a pleasure to hear me say a few words, too. Let us first deal with the
comments made by the Opposition spokesman about the armed forces being
under pressure operationally, with lawyers breathing down their necks,
and about trying to get lawyers away from them in a way. That is coded
language in this context for, “They should not be prosecuted if
they commit or are involved in atrocities or actions such as
torture”. The Opposition spokesman is giving the Committee a
coda.
Dr.
Murrison: To un-encrypt what I said, anyone who abuses the
trust placed in them should face the full might of the law. I hope that
the hon. Gentleman will come on to explain why there have been so many
failed prosecutions against members of our armed forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Surely, he must attempt to examine that and to ask why so
many cases have been brought and yet so few prosecutions have been
successful.
Harry
Cohen: I certainly will come on to that. It is mainly
because the lawyers and the investigating officers are not breathing
down their necks. A lot of allowances are made for operational matters,
and the Army Prosecuting Authority has been incompetent in many
prosecutions. There is one other matter that I wish to come on
to—the reason that I wanted to speak—but I will deal with
it in a minute. Any sort of coda that lets atrocity and torture be
acceptable among the armed forces does not do our armed forces any
favours. It damages the
war effort and hurts other troops who are operating within the law and
to proper, decent standards. The law of the land should apply to the
armed forces; most soldiers do not want to be free from the restraints
of the law. Let us get rid of that coda and that
argument.
Dr.
Murrison: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get rid of
the argument. I have made my position absolutely clear. There is no
code or encryption. Anyone who is guilty of abusing their position of
trust within the armed forces must face the full rigour of the law. I
hope that he will accept that, and accept that I was not coding
anything. Words mean what they say, and I have made my position
clear.
Harry
Cohen: I hear that, and I agree that those involved should
face the full rigour of the law. Not enough of them have when they have
committed atrocities, and that relates to the efficiency of the armed
forces prosecution
services. I
shall move on to Mr. Bruce Houlder. He is not taking up his
statutory duties until October 2009. Will the Minister give us an
assurance that Mr. Houlder will not be moonlighting over
that period, doing other jobs that he is paid for at the same time as
he is paid by the taxpayer? I would welcome such an assurance. He will
clearly have time on his hands over that period. I have noted that the
Minister has said Mr. Houlder will do some training packages
and bring a prosecution authority into being. He has a lot of time to
do that. I suspect he will still have some on his hands. I have raised
this in the House and had a big argument about it. The Minister and the
Government should call for a report from him, while he has that time on
his hands, into the operation of legal aid for armed forces personnel.
This arose from the case of Baha Mousa who was savagely beaten and
killed in Iraq. There was an admission by the Ministry of Defence, an
apology and the payment of compensation. It admitted what we all knew
had
happened.
The
Chairman: Order. I have to draw the hon.
Gentleman’s attention to the narrowness of the order that we are
discussing. I will allow him to make his point, but to develop it much
further will not be helpful to the work of the
Committee.
Harry
Cohen: I will make this point very briefly. A war crime
was admitted to. Only one was convicted. All the others got off
scot-free, because they received £8.8 million in
legal aid. At a time when my constituents are having their legal aid
money cut back—I suspect the Minister’s constituents are
as well—it was an outrage, quite frankly, that they received
that amount of legal aid. Money buys justice in this country for a lot
of people at the top end and taxpayers’ money bought the
acquittal of those people in a matter that shamed Britain. It also
increased the prosecution costs substantially, although nowhere near
that figure. In those circumstances, with this man having time on his
hands and it being pertinent to the prosecution authority’s
role, I think the Minister and the Government should call for a proper
review of legal aid for armed forces personnel, and we should all see
the outcome.
4.58
pm
Mr.
Jones: May I respond first to the hon. Member for
Westbury? I understand that the number of statutory instruments began
at 65. It is now 80. If there are others as the work goes on, I shall
obviously inform the hon. Gentleman if there is any change to that
number. I give him that undertaking.
The
hon. Gentleman asks what Mr. Houlder has being doing in
terms of induction. He has visited the service police and the military
corrective training centre at Colchester—something that we on
the Defence Committee also did, and we found it a very interesting
institution. More widely, he has visited command headquarters and also
units based in the UK and Germany. He has also been on operation in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand that he has had quite supportive
visits in terms of support from the armed forces.
We
covered the issue of whether the holder of the first post should be of
military background. I understand to a certain extent where the armed
forces are coming from, but I learned very early on the Defence
Committee how different the three services are. Controversy may well
have been added if we had appointed someone from one of the three
services. Therefore, to have someone who is clearly independent, with
good strong legal qualifications and with the induction that he has
had, is the best way forward. In response to those who give the
impression that this person has been foisted on the armed services, I
should say that the vice-chief sat on the appointment panel. So it is
not the case that the armed forces were not represented in the
appointment of Mr. Houlder.
From
January onwards Mr. Houlder will not be sat twiddling his
thumbs or going through more training. If we agree to the order today,
he will have all the statutory duties under the existing Acts, but his
powers under the new Act will not come in until later next year. He
will be working under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the
Naval Discipline Act 1957 from January 2009. I must also make it clear
to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead that he will not
be moonlighting. He will have a big enough job pulling together the
extensive work that he needs to do with the existing
organisation.
The
line argued by the hon. Member for Westbury—this also came out
in the Public Bill Committee—was that this was about lawyers
sitting on the shoulders of our armed forces, trying to second-guess
what they are doing or making their lives more difficult. If that were
so, I would not support it, and I do not think that the Government
would support it. We value the operational integrity of our armed
forces. Under the existing Acts and the new Act, we are making the
point of focus the commanding officers themselves. People are not
coming in from outside to dictate to the armed forces what they can and
cannot do.
The
hon. Gentleman also referred to the implementation of the 2006 Act. The
delay has been a concern to Ministers, but we have it on our radar
screens to ensure that the timetable for information is kept to. The
new service justice board will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the
Minister for the Armed Forces, who certainly has it on his radar screen
to ensure that the timetable does not slip any further.
The hon.
Member for Colchester asked why this has taken so long. I spent three
months of my life on the Armed Forces Bill, along with the hon.
Gentleman, and
so we understand its complexity. Not only does it draw together the
different strands of the three services, but it tries to change the
culture. I certainly think that getting the training right is
important. He and I emphasised that point in the Public Bill Committee.
It was not just a matter of getting the Bill into law. The big task was
to ensure that not only commanding officers, but individual servicemen
and women understood the Bill. We perhaps did not appreciate that at
the time. It is important that the new timetable is adhered
to. On
the larger points about legal aid, the only thing that I would say is
that, when servicemen and women are accused of whatever crime, they are
entitled to the same professional and legal advice as anyone
else.
Mr.
Jones: Indeed; it would be unfair for them to be at any
disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts. To underpin the
support for members of our armed forces, it is important that we do not
offer them any less than they would get anywhere
else.
Dr.
Murrison: Would the Minister assign the string of failed
prosecutions against people who have been serving in Iraq to a failure
of the prosecuting authorities? That is the thesis of the hon. Member
for Leyton and Wanstead. Does the Minister think that that is
reasonable, or does he think there was insufficient evidence against
them?
Mr.
Jones: No. We had a long discussion about this when we
considered the Bill. A number of cases were raised. There are
difficulties in prosecuting some of the cases in Iraq. Without naming
an individual case, collecting evidence was perhaps more challenging
that it would be in this country. That does not get away from the fact
that it was right to prosecute those cases. It is important that
justice is seen to be done. Sanctions were taken against individuals,
and people were
acquitted. One
thing that I learnt from serving on the Public Bill Committee was how
expertly the military police carry out investigations in very
challenging circumstances. To investigate a murder in leafy Surrey
might be pretty straightforward, but to do it under fire in Basra or
Afghanistan is very challenging. In spite of that, those individuals
did a first-rate job. I would not want to belittle those professionals
who dedicate their best efforts to try to bring justice. Members of the
armed forces have to be supported, but where wrong is done it must be
prosecuted.
The
Chairman: I thank the Minister and hon. Members for their
help in considering this matter this
afternoon. Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Alignment of
Service Discipline Acts) (No.2) Order
2008. 5.6
pm Committee
rose.
| 
