Mr.
Redwood: Has my hon. Friend noticed that there is a
provision for quinquennial review of the scheme? Does he believe that
the Minister will take the review seriously? What would be the criteria
for an effective review?
Dr.
Murrison: Yes, I welcome the fact that the measure will be
reviewed. It is the Opposition’s job to welcome reviews of
legislation, but I do so wholeheartedly in respect of this measure. It
will be interesting to find out how many minors were recruited into
British armed forces and, indeed, how many recruiting officers needed
to rely on the defence that the Minister has built into the
legislation. I do not want to make a big deal of this, but the Minister
raised the issue. It is clearly a sensitive point, because it is
specifically covered in the legislation. We need to tread extremely
carefully.
There are
even more difficulties concerning those who seek to join with parental
consent. If we cannot establish people’s age accurately, it will
be even more difficult to get parental consent when that is necessary,
and to ensure that the consent is legitimately that of a parent, and
the relevant parent at that. I mention that because I believe that
there will be some problems with the measure, particularly as it looks
likely that we are going to continue to recruit a significant number of
soldiers from other countries to serve in the British armed
forces.
4.57
pm
Mr.
Jones: I agree totally with the comments made by the hon.
Member for Westbury in support of our armed forces. He is a strong
advocate, and I wanted to put that on the
record. Having
dealt with this legislation for so long, I am reminded of the film
“Groundhog Day”, in which someone relives the same day
over and over again. The same arguments keep coming back. The issue of
commanding officers was dealt with at great length by the hon. Member
for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in Committee.
Some 90 per
cent. of disciplinary matters will not be affected by the proposals.
The 2006 Act—I said this when the Committee considered
it—strengthens and protects the commanding officer. It does not
take the responsibility away from the individual because, at the end of
the day, he or she will be the person who eyeballs the potential
recruit, even with the involvement of the service police.
The measure
protects the commanding officer. The Defence Committee, on which I
served, held a review into Deepcut. The early collection of evidence
and the early recollection of events would have helped the situation
tremendously. Likewise, the measure would have strengthened the role
of, and protected, the commanding officer in some of the cases that we
have seen in Iraq. The service police would have been involved at an
early stage, ensuring that witnesses were interviewed and that evidence
was gathered so that we knew what happened. Trying to go back and do
that at a later stage is difficult. I do not see that this will weaken
the role of the commanding officer. I agree with the hon. Member for
Westbury. I do not want an explosion of lawyers or law in this area,
and I have said that on the record before. This will lead to support
for commanding officers to ensure that the facts and information are
gathered at an early stage.
The hon.
Gentleman raised a few other points, and I come now to the issue around
the Smith case. Quite rightly, the Ministry of Defence and the service
chiefs take human rights very seriously. There is concern
about the implications of the Smith case. The Chief of the Defence Staff
is on record outlining those concerns in his message to the armed
forces. The only thing I can say at the moment is that it has raised
issues that need to be dealt with, and the Department is urgently
considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords. In terms of
manuals and training, one of the criticisms of the last statutory
instrument I was involved in was the issue around why the Bill has
taken so long. It is the complexity that has led to the delay. I am
told the manual will be produced by July. It is being drawn together by
service personnel and will be in the form of a booklet in plain
English. One of the issues that the Committee quite rightly raised is
that it is okay to have this new Act, but it is important that the
people on the receiving end understand what it means for them
individually.
Bob
Russell: I think I heard the Minister say that it will be
ready by July, which is one week away. Will it be available in a
week’s
time?
Mr.
Jones: I asked for that assurance. However, as the hon.
Gentleman has dealt with the MOD for a number of years, he knows that
delays sometimes occur. I want to make sure it is in place. I am sure
that once we get it, the hon. Gentleman will be free to study it and
then, perhaps we can test him on the implementation of
it. I
am also told that once the manual is produced in July, there will be
regional road shows to ensure that the training is in place. That will
go alongside career courses for servicemen and women to ensure that the
implications of the Act are pushed out among our armed
forces.
Dr.
Murrison: I am slightly concerned. We may or may not get
this publication in the next week, but the armed forces traditionally
have a period over the summer when a lot of people take leave, so
things tend not to be programmed in. If we are talking about road
shows, briefings and so on, it leaves very little time between now and
31 October when the measure is meant to come into force. Does he
realistically think that people will be adequately briefed on
this—he has admitted that it is complex and that that is why we
now have it in plain English evidently—so that we do not mess
up, or does he perceive any
difficulties?
Mr.
Jones: I understand that the Director of Service
Prosecutions and the Judge Advocate are also making sure that separate
arrangements are in place to ensure that staff are trained. It would be
remiss to go away with the impression that nothing has been going on
for the last 12 months. Work has been done, not just messaging the
armed forces internally, but also with those who will be responsible
for this, in terms of making sure that people are brought up to speed
on the broader issues in this case. Clearly, commanding officers are
the key area that will be targeted. I am assured that that will take
place. As someone who has spent the past four or five years on that
Act, I think it is important. During its passage through the House, I
made the point that it was not just a matter of getting it through this
place, but that it was important that those on the receiving end who
would be using the new provisions got that information.
The hon.
Member for Westbury referred to the human rights issue. When the right
hon. Member for Wokingham, who has now left the room, also raised the
issue, I thought I might throw the red meat of Europe across the table.
I am sure that no other European country has any significant exemptions
from the human rights legislation. I understand that even Russia has
now accepted the benefits for its armed forces. None the less, it is
important for the Ministry of Defence to ensure that as this type of
case law grows, we monitor it to ensure that it does not impact on the
operational efficiency of our armed forces.
Finally, with
regard to the recruitment of 16-year-olds, I would not like to give the
idea that somehow we are recruiting individuals to Her Majesty’s
armed forces, whether in this or in Commonwealth countries, without
making the issue of age very clear, and investigating people’s
ages. The regulations cover the issue when a mistake is made. It gives
protection to the recruitment officer, which is needed—I do not
think we can have a situation whereby we do not give that
protection. I
reassure hon. Members that the situation is quite clear—we do
recruit 16-year-olds and many benefit from the service life. Certainly,
anyone who has been to the defence college at Harrogate will have seen
the tremendous benefits that 16-year-olds get from joining the armed
forces. But it is important that we protect vulnerable young people. I
am satisfied that there are safeguards in the legislation to do that,
and that is somebody who has spent nearly a year on the duty of
care inquiry on the Select Committee on Defence in the last Parliament,
ensuring that 16 and 18-year-olds—that vulnerable
group—have the right protection. I did that along with my hon.
Friend the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton), who
helped to introduce the service complaints commissioner. With those
comments, I commend the regulations to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Enlistment)
Regulations 2009.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Part 5 of the
Armed Forces Act 2006) Regulations
2009.—(Mr. Kevan
Jones.) Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces, Army, Air Force
and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order
2009.—(Mr. Kevan
Jones.) 5.9
pm Committee
rose.
| 
