HC Deb 14 July 1983 vol 45 cc1072-81 7.40 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley)

I beg to move, That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 29 June, be approved. The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 which together provide the basis for the disciplinary arrangements in the three Services. The concept of annual parliamentary approval for the special legal position of the service man subject as he is to the constraints of military discipline, as well as the rule of civil law, is a long established one in British constitutional practice. Every fifth year, the opportunity is taken to review in depth the needs of the service disciplinary systems, and an Armed Forces Act is passed, making such amendments to those systems as are considered necessary. The most recent such Act was passed in 1981.

The Select Committee that considered the Act reported that it was satisfied with the procedures under which such Bills are introduced quinquennially with annual continuation orders, such as I am moving today, proposed in the intervening years are the right way to ensure that the working of the Service Discipline Acts is kept under review by Parliament.

Since the Armed Forces Act 1981 was passed we have seen the dedication, courage and professionalism of our armed forces amply demonstrated in the south Atlantic, and these qualities continue to distinguish their performance and conduct wherever they are serving around the world. The service disciplinary system is an important factor in ensuring that our armed forces measure up to the high standards which we expect and which they have shown.

I invite the House to approve the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1983.

7.42 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I welcome the new Minister to the Dispatch Box, making his first speech as Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I hope that all his speeches will as uncontroversial as the one today, but perhaps next week we shall find out.

Last year, the order went through on the nod, not because the then Minister or I did not wish to speak, but because of a procedural slip-up. A Division was called, and we were in our appropriate Lobbies when it was called off. The Whip, ever eager to get the Government business through, nodded his head when the order was read out. Therefore, if my speech is a little longer than I would have wanted, blame not me but the Government Whip of yesteryear.

As the Minister said, this is an important constitutional measure and it is right that Parliament should consider it properly. It establishes parliamentary and civilian control over the armed forces. Originally, this was done through annual Acts, but now it is done through quinquennial reviews, followed by yearly affirmative orders. The exercise of that democratic control by the House is proper and in 1976 the Select Committee on Defence, when invited to consider abandoning the affirmative yearly orders, quickly refused and jealously kept that power for the House. It would not consider abandoning the orders.

The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill of two years ago made a number of recommendations when it reported, and it would be interesting to see how much, if any, progress the Government have made. Most of the recommendations were made before the Falklands campaign. The Minister has, quite rightly, paid tribute to the forces that played a part in the campaign, and I readily add my applause. However, some of the matters that were raised merit consideration, and I hope that the Department now has time to consider some of them.

Some of the recommendations made by the Select Committee have been overtaken by a new sense of urgency. I shall attempt to deal seriatim with the report, with particular reference first to those recommendations for action by 1986, and then to those administrative matters that it said merited some consideration. First, there is the treatment of young service offenders, and two issues are involved here. The 1981 Act very properly arranged for young service offenders to serve sentences, where appropriate, in civilian and not service institutions. However, paragraph 7 of the report showed a serious omission, and difficulty. It suggested that there were not adequate social inquiry reports made on the background of young offenders. The general defence of the circumstances was that the commanding officer would, or should, know sufficient about the background of the men under his command, and that there would be ample opportunity for officers defending those involved to get a proper social report.

The Select Committee was not convinced and, when talking about the right of the officer to defend the young offender, said: We believe that these factors represent a reasonable protection of the accused's interests but recommend that consideration be given before the 1986 Armed Forces Bill is introduced to the evolution of a system under which social inquiry reports on young Service offenders could be made more readily available to courts-martial. We note that the Navy is already moving in this direction. As that recommendation is an administrative matter, it will be interesting to know what progress, if any, has been made by the Government.

It is interesting to note that the Select Committee thought, on the evidence, that this was not an enormous problem, as only about 25 young service men were likely to be involved. However, there has been a change because of the one-year youth training schemes for the three services, to become operative in the autumn. Over 5,000 young people a year will enter the services for 12 months, subject to military law and discipline. Although I hope that they will not, many problems may arise. There will be a need for a full social inquiry to be made available to the courts because, as the Select Committee pointed out, the traditional service view could not properly apply. If it did not properly apply to long-term recruits, it would not be of a great deal of help to young men and women who are merely in the Forces for 12 months.

My second point arises from clause 2 of the 1981 Act, which refers to the treatment of young people and says: Where a person … has attained seventeen years of age but is under twenty-one years of age". However, the statutory instrument creating the youth training schemes within the services talks about A person who has attained the age of 16 years but has not yet attained the age of 18 years". What happens in disciplinary matters for that young person between the age of 16 and 17? He may be treated in the same way as people in the young leader regiments and youngsters who are joining the services, but the point still needs to be cleared up because the main legislation under the Act deals with young people between the age of 17 and 21 and the youth training scheme applies to youngsters betwen 16 and 18.

Clause 17 of the 1981 Act abolished the death penalty under the Naval Discipline Act 1957 for civilians who spy for the enemy on board one of Her Majesty's ships or in a naval establishment abroad. The Government argued, and the Select Committee tended to agree, that the death penalty should be kept. It said: Retention of the death penalty is necessary as a deterrent given that a potential offender on the battlefield, where death may result from obeying orders, is unlikely to be deterred from assisting the enemy by no more than the possibility of imprisonment". I do not want to rehearse last night's arguments, but the Select Committee commenting on the definition of the word "enemy", to which it turned its attention—that is, all persons engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces, including all armed mutineers, armed rebels armed rioters and pirates"— said that it seems open to an alarmingly wide number of interpretations". Last night, the House refused, by 116 votes, to approve capital punishment for murders resulting from acts of terrorism, by 81 votes for the murder of a police officer during the course of his duties, by 96 votes for the murder of a prison officer during the course of his duties, and by 170 votes in the case of murder as a result of shooting or causing an explosion. One can only repeat and emphasise that the definition, which the Minister seeks to maintain and which the Select Committee said was open to an alarmingly wide number of interpretations", needs careful attention. We expect to have an early statement from the Government about their intentions, following last night's votes, and bearing in mind the way in which the Army has been employed recently.

The Select Committee then considered drug and alcohol abuse. The Committee felt that more money should be spent on the remedial treatment of alcoholism, propaganda, and information which might help to reduce the amount of heavy drinking in the Services. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have been prepared to spend more money on that.

Perhaps one of the most interesting matters raised by the Select Committee concerned the number of drug offences. The report said: The number of drug offences committed is well below one per thousand Servicemen a year and most offences are with soft rather than hard drugs and are committed by men who have not tried drugs other than on an infrequent basis". It is certainly true that the Crown's forces do not have the problems of drug abuse that exist in other nations' Services, and I am sure that that fact has much to do with the fact that we have a highly professional volunteer service. However, it exists to a certain extent, and the Navy, taking the problem on board, started to use specialised drug squads. The Select Committee recommended that the Army and the Air Force should follow the Navy's lead in this matter, and should do so before the 1986 Armed Forces Bill was introduced. As this is a continuing item, it would be interesting to know what has happened.

The Committee also recommended that courts-martial procedure should again be examined, and considered whether service men should be tried at least by some of their peers, and not merely by commissioned officers. The Ministry's argument was that it would not be necessary, and that generally service men preferred to be tried not by their peers but by a commissioned officer. However, the Committee felt that that was too easy a reply, and pointed out that not since the Lewis committee and Pilcher committee reports in the 1940s had the matter been properly examined. It believed that a full review should take place of all courts-martial procedures before the introduction of the next quinquennial review. Clearly, such a review takes a great deal of time and care, as so many issues are involved. Accordingly, the Government should now be thinking about setting up such an inquiry. It would he interesting to know what progress has been made.

On the question of professional legal staff, the Select Committee drew attention to the different practices in the services. It pointed out how the Navy took commissioned officers and then sent them to train, as selected volunteers, to read for the Bar, whereas the Army and the Air Force tended to recruit already trained solicitors and barristers. It felt that the Navy's system was perhaps cheaper and that the other two services should consider following that procedure.

The Select Committee further considered whether more civilians could be used in courts-martial in both prosecution and defence roles. The general attitude of the services, particularly in prosecution cases, has been that a knowledge of military law and military lore would be of far more advantage, and that a civilian prosecutor might be at a disadvantage in certain cases. However, there must be many cases in the armed services similar to cases in civilian life, except for the fact that the person alleged to have committed the offence wears a uniform. As the Committee said, there might be a saving in time and money if more civilians were employed. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress, if any, has been made.

Clause 13 provided for the treatment of servicemen and people in service employ who suffer mental illness or disorder while abroad, and tried to lay down the legal procedure to be followed before a person was returned to the United Kingdom for treatment under the Mental Health Act. The Committee felt that where two medical men were certifying a patient, it would be helpful if one were a civilian, preferably with psychiatric training. Obviously, it recognised that in many cases that would not be possible, but it recommended that wherever possible that should be done. It would therefore be interesting to know the number of cases in which that has been done, and indeed whether the recommendation has been followed.

The Committee also dealt with the problems of children and young people in care abroad, who are likely to be ill-treated and exposed to moral danger, or are beyond control. It pointed out that although a fine legal procedure had been laid down for people suffering from mental disorder, the Department had not followed the example given in clause 13 in clause 14. It recommended that the Ministry should give urgent consideration to the construction of a legal framework analogous to that found in clause 13, within which such situations can be regulated. In any event, the Government should report to the House before the 1986 Armed Forces Bill, either in a Defence White Paper or in an appropriate defence debate on the working of these powers. We should therefore like to know when we are likely to have those reports and the way the procedures have been going.

There are three other matters that are not of such great importance and so can be dealt with quickly. First, there is the assimilation of the women's services into the armed forces. It said that that was going well, except for the enormous anomaly, pointed out on various occasions in the House, and by the former Member for Eton and Slough, Miss Lestor, over the position of the Charity Commissioners in connection with the Royal Star and Garter home. They said that women could not be treated there, even though they were part of the armed forces. The trustees felt that they could not appeal against that, and the Committee recommended that the Government should find some way to intervene in the matter, either legislatively or otherwise. Perhaps the Government have already dealt with the matter, and my former colleague has not informed me of it. Nevertheless, that must be looked at.

My final point relates to detention centres. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) is here. We met some of his colleagues when we visited the Falklands. The detention centre there was very different from that in his constituency. It is smaller, with no service men in it, which is rather fine. What progress has been made in the building of the new military training correction centre?

I apologise if I have spoken for rather a long time on a matter that would normally have been dealt with more quickly. Nevertheless, this is an important order of constitutional importance and some matters need consideration. In particular, we must consider the position of young people and the Government's attitude to capital punishment within the armed forces following the votes in the House last night and the decision that there should not be capital punishment for many cases that are presently cited in the Discipline Acts. If capital punishment should not apply in civilian life to murderers of prison officers and police officers, acts of terrorism and others, it should not apply in military life.

8 pm

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box other than at Question Time. I wish him well.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) posed some interesting questions. Before dealing with those, I echo what the Minister said about the Falkland Islands. Discipline and courage were shown by our forces during the campaign. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made an interesting point about parliamentary control of the armed forces. That is of historic interest and practical importance. It is paramount in Britain that the armed forces come under the control of Parliament.

We used to have debates such as this every year, but once every five years is adequate. If one reads the small print, it can be seen that this is a narrow debate and one must be careful not to overstep its boundaries. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about youth training and the discipline to which 16-year-olds are subject. Only the Minister can answer that. As I understand it, when they join the forces they will be in the same position as a bandsman or anybody else and the general Act will apply to them in the same way as to anybody else.

I am not prepared to enlarge on the subject of the death penalty. I expect that the Minister will explain the position.

I have not had much experience of courts-martial and defence but I have been on a court-martial. In many cases it might be an advantage for the accused to have a civilian to defend him who has some knowledge of law rather than someone from the Judge Advocate General's department. The accused should choose whom he elects to defend him.

I want to refer the Minister to a matter which was raised at c. 470 of Hansard on 13 May, which affects my constituency. I thank the Government for their undertaking to rebuild Victoria barracks, which will have an effect on morale and improve what is at the moment an unsatisfactory position. Service men have to come into the constituency in full kit and then assemble in barracks which are not theirs. I welcome the fact that the Government will renew the undertaking that they gave in the previous Parliament to rebuild those barracks.

I am sure that the Minister will answer the detailed points that have been raised so far and that he will also wish the youth training scheme in the Army every success. That is as far I am allowed to go if I understand correctly the limitations that have been imposed on the scope of the debate.

8.4 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I want to ask the Minister three questions. I assure him that I have some knowledge of military discipline as my national service was with the Royal Military Police.

Mr. Robert Atkins (Ribble, South)

Get your hair cut!

Dr. Godman

Despite that intervention, I am sure that any ex-service man in the House would readily acknowledge that the men serving in the Royal Military Police are among the finest, most honourable and fair-minded people in the land.

My experience is somewhat dated. What is the legal and military status of service men in Cyprus who are facing trial on that island? If sentenced to imprisonment for a year or more, will British service men serve that sentence in a British prison? In those circumstances, can a Scottish soldier be transferred to a Scottish prison?

8.5 pm

Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North)

I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for his remarks about the Falkland Islands. He and I were out there together and we had a most worthwhile visit. We admired the discipline of the forces there and the way in which they are conducting themselves. In the improbable event of there needing to be a court-martial of a service man in the Falklands, what arrangements are to be made? Will he be flown back, or will smaller disciplinary breaches be dealt with on the spot?

One of those who looked after our group on the Falkland Islands was Major Tony Figg, the provost Marshal. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in thanking him and all those concerned with discipline in the Falkland Islands for the way in which we were looked after and for the way in which they are co-operating with the Falkland Islanders to ensure that the good relationship between our forces there and the Kelpers —they do not resent being known as that but they do resent being known as "Bennies"—is maintained. That is largely due to the work of those who are in charge of discipline.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that he will be happy in his job and we wish him the best of good fortune in it. He is lucky to have the job and the services are lucky to have him, so all should be satisfied.

I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will say a word about how disciplinary matters should be dealt with on the Falkland Islands. It appears that they will, rightly, be based there for a considerable period with a fortress Falklands policy. I would like to know about the on-going — to use that terrible jargon — position regarding discipline there.

There is in my constituency the military corrective training centre and I am on its board of visitors. I pay it frequent visits and it is a superbly well-conducted establishment. The staff there have two advantages. First, there is a high staff to soldier-under-sentence ratio, which is good. In addition, all the people there are young, which is a substantial benefit compared with a civilian establishment where there is a mixture of young and old.

Mr. Robert Atkins

As one who served on the Select Committee that covered these topics, and who paid a visit to Colchester's corrective prison to see exactly what went on, may I encourage my hon. and learned Friend to continue to praise the standards operating there? The prison not only incarcerates people, but tries first to return those involved to military quarters. It also understands that those who cannot return easily to military discipline should try to get some sort of job outside.

Sir Antony Buck

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He has told me before of the visit that he made to the MCTC at Colchester. I am glad that he shares my admiration for the work done there. I hope that that work can be improved in future, as the military corrective training centre is now being rebuilt. Frankly, that is not before time. I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 20 years and have been pressing for that. To maintain Army discipline a military corrective training centre should not be housed in clapped-out Nissen huts as at present, but in new buildings.

In the long term, it is extremely wasteful to operate in such conditions. The fuel bill is enormous and it is more difficult to deal appropriately with soldiers under sentence if the conditions are somewhat primitive. I was delighted to visit recently the site of the MCTC and to see the foundations of the rebuild. However, it is not for me to delay the House for any time on such an issue. I merely reiterate that we very much admire the work done by the brave people in the Falkland Islands. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble, South (Mr. Atkins) for the tribute that he has paid to the work done by the military corrective training centre in Colchester.

Do the Government intend to continue the procedure of having a short annual debate on this subject? At some stage there was talk of not having this annual debate. Is my hon. Friend the Minister considering any alteration, or will there be a short debate annually? Although we are discussing something of a routine matter, it is useful to hold a debate, albeit short, on this subject. It may well be that matters will suddenly arise, and that it is more appropriate to raise them in a debate such as this, than, for example, in the two-day debate on the White Paper to be held next week.

I renew my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that he will be very happy in his new job. I wish him well in it, and look forward to his reply to this short debate.

Mr. Stanley

With the permission of the House, I shall speak again.

I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for his kind words of welcome. I cannot promise that the unanimity displayed in this short debate will always attend our defence debates, but I was grateful to him for what he said. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) for their kind words of welcome.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to a considerable number of provisions in the report of the Select Committee that examined the Bill in 1981. I shall deal with as many of them as I can, but if some points remain outstanding and the hon. Gentleman requires further help I shall gladly assist and will write to him. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the treatment of young service offenders and the Select Committee's recommendation about making social inquiry reports on them available to courts-martial. I assure him that, in view of the Committee's concern, the possibility of introducing a system of inquiry reports is being examined in the Department. It remains our view that a great deal of information is available to courts-martial from within the services. However, we should like to assure the Select Committee that considers the next five-year Bill that adequate safeguards exist and that we shall continue to look at the recommendation made last time by the Select Committee.

Obviously the Government will take note of the view that the House expressed last night on capital punishment. Quite separate considerations, in our view—and in that of the House until now—have applied to discipline in the armed services. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when the Select Committee examined that subject in 1981 it was its unanimous view that capital punishment should be retained for the offences laid down in the legislation. I am, of course, aware of the Committee's recommendation about definitions, and the Government will examine that before coming forward with the 1986 Bill. However, the view that we have taken until now—and I cannot anticipate any change—is that special factors apply to service discipline which warrant the retention of capital punishment.

The hon. Gentleman referred to alcoholism. The services are certainly very much aware of that. However, all three services take steps to discourage excessive drinking and officers are trained to recognise the signs of alcohol abuse. I am assured that, should problem drinking come to light, appropriate disciplinary measures are taken. Thus, there is no complacency about that. From time to time, of course, press reports highlight instances of drunkenness, but I am advised that it is wrong to say that the problem is more serious in the armed forces than in the community at large. Indeed, I stress that there is apparently no greater proportion of drunkards among our service men than among the community at large.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the treatment of service men in Star and Garter homes. That issue has not been raised with me before. It may be a matter of charitable status and, if so, I shall certainly consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about it. If I can help the hon. Gentleman further, I shall gladly do so. He also raised the important point of the extension of the youth training scheme to cover the armed services. The House will be aware that a few days ago we laid the necessary regulations to enable the armed services to make a direct contribution to the youth training scheme. We certainly believe that that measure is both valuable and helpful to those young people who are unemployed, as they will be able to benefit from service life and training. It will also help them if they wish to obtain jobs in civilian life afterwards, or if they wish to stay in the services permanently.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the form of discipline facing those under the age of 17. I understand chat those who join the armed services' youth training scheme will be subject to exactly the same discipline of those of the same age who are going permanently into the forces. Therefore, I think the correct analogy is with the young soldiers. However, I shall advise the hon. Gentleman if that is wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead referred to the Victoria barracks, a major issue in his constituency. I confirm that the reply that my predecessor gave to him on 12 May in a written answer stands. I hope that we shall be able to make progress with that rebuilding programme in the time scale mentioned in the answer.

The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked me three precise questions about soldiers in Cyprus. I understand that a soldier serving in Cyprus is subject to the provisions of the Army Act 1955 in the same way as a soldier serving anywhere else in the world. If he is given a prison sentence, he will probably be returned to the United Kingdom to serve that sentence.

I am advised that a Scottish soldier would not be dealt with differently from any other British soldier in relation to the prison to which he is remanded. I am not sure whether there is any propensity for putting Scottish soldiers in Scottish remand centres or prisons. I doubt whether there is. A Scottish soldier is treated in the same way as any other British soldier in terms of the prison in which he serves his sentence.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North asked about soldiers disciplined in the Falklands. The normal disciplinary procedures apply. If a case can be dealt with locally, in situ, it will be dealt with in the Falklands; if it cannot, it will be dealt with in the United Kingdom.

I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Government have no plans to alter the present arrangements under which we debate the order annually.

From the correspondence that I have received in the past few weeks, it is clear that many constituents are interested in disciplinary matters and therefore many hon. Members will be concerned at a constituency level. It is helpful to have such debates each year so that hon. Members can express views to Ministers.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.