HC Deb 20 May 1996 vol 278 cc46-51 5.15 pm
Dr. Reid

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 53, leave out lines 18 to 22.

The amendment refers to terminology relating to discipline which we think is ambiguous and could lead to more trouble than we expect unless it is more clearly defined. The amendment would leave out subsection (l)(b), which refers to the penalty that may be brought if a member of a reserve force uses threatening or insulting language or behaves in an insubordinate manner to any officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or petty officer". The amendment's general intention is to extend military law, outwith the sphere of officers or non-commissioned officers, to 60,000 more people—members of the reserve forces—24 hours a day, whether on or off duty.

The Minister has been good enough to write to members of the Standing Committee to clarify the position. His letter has been useful so far as it goes. His letter of 2 May said: the offence of clause 95(1)(b) only applies where the superior is carrying out duties in pursuance of orders or regulations under clause 4. He added that that is an important qualification of the phrase acting in the execution of his office", which had been quoted to him. He said: The offence would not apply in ordinary civilian life, and specifically not to matters arising in the ordinary course of employment of a sponsored reservist. On the other hand, it would apply where a superior was, say, properly attempting to serve some notice connected with a reservist's duty on him. We find that paragraph useful in limiting the scope for ambiguity and problems further down the line. However, another paragraph in the Minister's letter seemed to extend the scope. Referring to the same clause, he said: Generally, members of the reserve forces will be subject to those Acts"— the service discipline Acts— only when they are on permanent service, on full-time reserve service under clause 24 of the Bill, on the permanent staff, or when undertaking training and duty. The use of the word "generally" seems to create all sorts of problems right away, and it naturally follows that there are an unspecified number of exceptions to that general rule.

We are also concerned that subsection (l)(b) covers not only insubordination or threatening language, but insulting language. That is the second point of ambiguity. Threatening language is already a civil offence. The use of threatening language off duty is already covered by civilian law, yet it is my understanding of the definition of insubordination that it can occur only when on duty since it must be in response to an instruction or an order. Nevertheless, both the use of threatening language and insubordination can be fairly well categorised and defined. The problem is that the use of insulting language in the circumstances in which the Bill may be applied seems to be extremely ambiguous. The use of insulting language as a possible transgression of discipline in circumstances that, in the Minister's words, might "generally" apply, seems to give a double ambiguity. Subject to his answer, we reserve the right to withdraw the amendment, but we want the Minister to give a clearer definition of the word "generally" as used in the first paragraph of his letter of explanation regarding the circumstances under which the charge would normally apply.

In addition, what is insulting behaviour? I mention this because of the difficulties of defining such an offence, even when someone is on duty. Many of us will have seen a recent series on BBC Television entitled "HMS Brilliant". One particular cameo in that series—which looked at life in the armed forces and, in particular, the Navy—was an attempt to try under military law a rating for making comments that were deemed to be denigrating to an officer, but the rating had made the comments when he was off-ship and onshore. The difficulties involved— although the rating was on active service, but offshore—in trying to apply military law to a clear offence of insulting behaviour were clear.

If we were to extend the charge from those on active service to the reserve forces in circumstances that are "generally" defined, we can imagine the difficulties that will be encountered, not only with the offences of threatening behaviour or insubordination—which can be dealt with—but insulting behaviour. The proposal would seem to open a wide avenue for already well-heeled lawyers and, possibly, to create a well-trodden path between here and the European Court of Human Rights. Anything we can do to prevent that is surely a good thing.

Mr. Soames

In answering the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), I am inclined to remind him that identifying insulting behaviour is roughly the same as finding an elephant in one's bedroom and wondering whether it is an elephant. If it is there, one knows it. I agree with him that this matter deserves a proper answer, and I shall do my best to satisfy him. I wholly applaud his determination with regard to the European Court of Human Rights, which he knows the Government wholly share.

Clause 95 was the subject of detailed discussions in Committee on 23 April. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who has made a significant contribution to the Bill. At that time, I promised that I would offer him reassurance in writing, and I wrote to him on 2 May. I sent copies of that letter to the other members of the Committee, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I briefly set out the background to clause 95(l)(b).

The offence is designed to close what would otherwise be a loophole in the reserve forces disciplinary code, and does so in what I believe to be a wholly proportionate way. It is necessary because members of the reserve forces are subject to service law only when they are on duty. The sole exception is that officers in the Territorial Army, Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve who are not sponsored reserves are subject to service law at all times.

The men and women of a Territorial Army unit will generally cease to be on duty when dismissed at the muster parade at the end of the evening. They will thus not be on duty when they repair to the bar. Such social activities are vital to the coherence of a unit and an extremely important factor in retention and morale. However, those activities are not duty, and those concerned will therefore not be subject to service law. The senior officer present will have a duty to ensure that the bar is closed at the proper time in accordance with the orders or regulations. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North may find it hard to believe, but it is not unknown for TA soldiers to object to the bar being closed. A certain amount of banter is clearly wholly acceptable—more so than when I was in the Regular Army, when regimental sergeant-majors managed to charge soldiers who had said nothing with "dumb insolence".

In the TA context, there comes a point where banter becomes divisive and where it damages the cohesion and morale that social activities are intended to build. The provision in clause 95(1)(b) allows appropriate disciplinary action to be taken in such cases. The most usual penalties would be a small fine as a token punishment for those who were subsequently repentant, or discharge from the TA for those who were not. That does not constitute an interpretation or limitation of the words in the Bill.

In practice, discipline in the voluntary reserves—as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North will understand— rests very much on self-discipline. Because those who are unhappy with the requirement placed on them can resign easily, disciplinary cases are proportionately much less common than in the regular services. We would therefore not expect many cases under this clause, and we believe that its mere existence will deter those few barrack-room lawyers who like to test the system and who know where the loopholes are.

The application of the offence and of clause 95 as a whole to all reserve forces seems to us to be a sensible and proportionate step. It is a far more precise way of dealing with actual and potential problems than the alternative, which would be to extend the circumstances in which reserves are subject to service law. I very much hope that, following that explanation, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Reid

I am not entirely sure that we have made much progress on the amendment. This is the one occasion when we moved from lawyers to soldiers being called to the bar. However, I think I see what the Minister is aiming at. I am reluctant to allow to pass through both Houses a measure which, in practice and not in theory, seems to offer all sorts of problems further down the road. We do not need these problems, because there are already enough people who are only too willing to take the opportunity—as they are perfectly entitled to do—to criticise the fairness or the practicability of military law.

This is the second time that the Minister has had to apply his mind to the matter, and I suspect that he may have to do so on a third or fourth occasion. It was encouraging that he said that it is envisaged that the clause will have a deterrent effect, although whether clause 95(1)(b) of the Reserve Forces Bill will have an immediate deterrent effect on a squaddie retiring from the bar and objecting to its closing remains to be seen.

In view of the attempts that have been made by the Government to answer the queries that were raised by Opposition Members, I will, in the spirit of our discussions, seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

5.27 pm
Mr. Soames

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I intend to speak extremely briefly and will mention only the key points that have arisen as we have debated the Bill. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will have heard me say this at each stage of the Bill, but I would like to emphasise that this is clearly an important piece of legislation. It brings the law on reserves up to date, and it will permit those reserves to be used more flexibly.

A principal expression of that flexibility is in the call-out powers. The Bill retains the existing power of call-out in times of national danger or great emergency, and extends the power when war-like operations are in preparation or progress to all reserve forces. The Bill introduces a new power of call-out for peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations.

The Bill removes all existing statutory stipulations that one element of the reserves be used before another. A similar restriction in TA regulations stemming from an undertaking in a 1965 White Paper will also be removed. The Bill has received widespread support, and quite rightly so. The comments from Members on both sides of the House and the favourable response from around the nation indicate that the extensive consultation exercise that was undertaken was extremely worth while. The consultation has permitted the Bill's provisions to be widely debated. The House will acknowledge that that has contributed in no small way to its smooth passage during its proper and careful scrutiny in Parliament.

I express my sincere thanks, and those of the Territorial Army and all the reserve forces, to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on the Bill. I extend particular thanks to the Opposition spokesmen for the sensible and coherent way in which they have sought to probe the Government's intentions. They have been fair and honourable throughout and, for my part, I have greatly enjoyed conducting the Bill in that spirit. I know that their efforts have always centred on improving the Bill and representing the interests of those affected by it.

I thank the officers and staff of all three services, who have devoted much time to legislation that will be important to them. I thank the Bill team at the Ministry of Defence and my private office for their forbearance and skill. It is not generally known, but the Ministry of Defence rarely has to introduce legislation—normally, it is only once every five years. It is my very bad luck that in my second year as Minister, muggins should have fallen in with two Bills. I am pleased that this Third Reading pulls down the curtain on an interesting and eventful Bill. However, I have had enough of it and I am glad to move on to other pastures.

I am truly grateful for the wide support that the Bill has received. Hon. Members have shown that they recognise its importance. New legislation for the reserve forces is long overdue and will be widely welcomed by all those affected. We are committed to using our reserves more flexibly. The Bill makes that possible and introduces important safeguards for employers and reservists.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the vital role that the reserve forces play in our defence capability. As we know from their work in Bosnia, they provide vital support to our Regular forces in the most difficult times as well as on an everyday basis. The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the commitment and dedication of the men and women who make up our reserve forces. They do it wholly voluntarily and are a credit to their nation and a beacon to the communities in which they serve. I know that they are waiting to take up the new challenges and opportunities that the Bill offers. I warmly commend the Bill.

5.31 pm
Mr. Murphy

I add the Opposition's congratulations to those who have been involved in passage of the Bill, which could be regarded as an example of a better way in which to deal with Bills—especially non-controversial ones.

The consultation was the most extensive on a Bill for many a year. It is perhaps time that the Government listened to what people—in this case in the reserve forces—say about legislation. The consultation has created a consensus on the main issues involved and on the principles that underlie the Bill. Despite that, there was proper and thorough scrutiny both in the other place and in Committee.

The Committee stage was short but thorough. We dealt with several important issues that require brief mention. We considered safeguards for employers and employees, especially for when people are called up, and in respect of pensions and benefits. It was important that we considered financial compensation for people who were called up. The experience of the Gulf war was less than happy and we had to cut out unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. The Ministry of Defence is now aware of that important message, as are the reserve forces.

We considered the level of permanent staff, which needs to be monitored carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) mentioned the concern about extending military law. Hon. Members raised the vital issue of possible discrimination against reservists, on which the Committee spent much time. We were grateful for the Minister's reassurance on that. It must be emphasised and repeated that we can have no truck with those who discriminate against men and women who seek to serve their country as members of the reserve forces.

We discussed the role of the Royal Marines Reserve, which is especially important to hon. Members who represent constituencies near the sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North raised the question of the Ministry of Defence police and I asked about the Maritime Voluntary Service. All those important matters were discussed at great length but with great interest in Committee.

It is important that there should be a greater link between the Regular and reserve forces, especially in respect of training. That should include the use of Regular forces' facilities when they are not in use at weekends. I hope that the Minister will consider that link. There is a training deficiency that must be addressed.

Some people have argued that the widening of the role of our reserve forces is defence on the cheap. I do not share that view, but any Government should heed the warning. The reserve forces should enhance and complement our Regular forces. We have considered at length the new category of high-readiness reserves. They illustrate graphically how our country and its armed forces are likely to play a new role in the next century. As a member of the United Nations Security Council and a leading member of NATO—the cornerstone of our defence—we will take part increasingly in humanitarian and peacekeeping exercises, as is right and proper, to ensure that our world is a better and safer place. The reserve forces will play their part in that.

The defence and security of our country and of the world should be a matter for consensus among the parties. We should all pay our warmest tribute to the men and women of our reserve forces in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. As the Minister said, they are the link between our local communities and the armed forces.

When a Royal Artillery Territorial Army unit in my valley was forced to move because of reorganisation some years ago, the whole community—led by me and the mayor of my borough—protested because of the work that the Gunners had done for local charities and the affection and esteem in which those men and women were held. That was not untypical. Across the country, there are examples of how the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Air Force boost the link between the armed forces and local communities. That link has inevitably declined because we no longer have national service and because people who served in the second world war have died.

We look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent. All Labour Members wish our reserve forces well.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.