HL Deb 18 July 1988 vol 499 cc1117-22

7.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords on behalf of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne I beg to move.

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 serviceman—subject as he is to the constraints of service 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. As noble Lords will recall, the last such Act was passed in 1986.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces mentioned last week in another place a number of subjects affecting discipline and welfare in the Armed Forces to which we have been paying particular attention. I would pick out in particular the comprehensive package of measures now being implemented to tackle the problem of bullying, about which concern has rightly been expressed; the review of all Armed Forces allowances, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in May; and also I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the pamphlet we have recently introduced setting out in plain language the rights and responsibilities of servicemen.

I am pleased that this order provides an opportunity for such issues to be debated. The order keeps in place a disciplinary system that balances the rights of a serviceman as a citizen with his special responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces. It plays an indispensable role in the maintenance of the services' high standards and professionalism, to which I am delighted to pay tribute today.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Glenarthur.)

Lord Irving of Dartford

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the order is part of the traditional practice of taking an annual look at the disciplinary arrangements for the Army, Navy and Air Force with a five-yearly opportunity to introduce a Bill and to make more fundamental changes.

Many things can influence the discipline in our Armed Forces. The one which could affect recruitment most is the one that the noble Lord has mentioned. It has given rise to much publicity in the past year or two. Since 1986, 45 allegations of bullying have not only been made but have been substantiated and have resulted in disciplinary action. So that is not a fantasy of someone merely looking at the services without knowing the facts.

Nothing could more discourage young men—especially at a time of demographic changes and the competition from a rapidly growing economy—from joining Her Majesty's Forces. It is not easy to make a proper distinction between the toughness of the Army, which we need if it is to be an effective fighting force, and bullying. But I think that it is absolutely clear that the distinction should be made. It should be made clear that bullying will not be tolerated under any circumstances and neither will the rather bizarre initiation ceremonies which have humiliated a number of young soldiers. The sentences which are awarded should show our disapproval of such behaviour and our determination to stop it.

I very much welcome the package of measures which the Minister has announced tonight. When shall we be able to see them in detail? I welcome the new pamphlet which he has mentioned—The Armed Forces: Your rights and responsibilities—and I should like to echo the point made by my honourable friend in another place when he said that it should be issued not only to recruits but also to all members of the Armed Forces.

Racism in the Armed Forces should be discouraged. It is difficult to determine whether it is a factor of any significance, because anyone suffering in that way is encouraged to go to his commanding officer and discouraged from engaging in publicity. Does the Minister have information on that matter? We hope that racism is at a very minimal level and that everything possible is being done to stop it if it exists. It is important in recruitment to get a proper mix commensurate with the balance of ethnic groups in our society as a whole.

I believe that the allegation has been made and substantiated that in a number of cases, because of inadequate work done by private contractors, some commanding officers, perhaps very naturally, have urged their soldiers to make good defaults by private contractors. That would be a signal failure on the part of the army authorities. It would do a great deal to lessen the morale of the Armed Forces. A soldier does not join the Army in order to make good the failures of other people.

I have difficulty in understanding the treatment of widows' pensions between the years up to 1973 and the following years. The explanation given by the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place is quite inadequate. He said that the reason was lack of resources. In that area we should not allow lack of resources to penalise anyone. Any intelligent and sensible soldier who joins the Army will want to know that, if the worst happens to him, his widow will be left in reasonable circumstances. I find any excuse of that kind totally unacceptable.

Another matter which was raised in the other place was disclosure of information. My honourable friend in another place pointed to the fact that Section 24 of the Armed Forces Act 1971 says: It shall he a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed related to a matter upon which information would or might be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy". The proposed reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 recommends that: It should not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of the likely damage to the operation of the security forces or intelligence services when information relating to security or intelligence has been disclosed by a member or former member of the services". There is clearly a conflict. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a change and whether Section 24 will be amended?

7.15 p.m.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, sometimes we pass orders without any discussion. Sometimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has just done, we raise a wide range of matters affecting the Armed Forces. I have decided to ask questions on the subject of setbacks in the Polaris production programme. I do so because of the unwillingness of the Government to answer questions about the matter candidly.

I have a fairly long experience of parliamentary handling of defence questions. I am bound to say that the Third Report of the House of Commons Defence Committee entitled The Progress of the Trident Programme is a revelation in terms of the language which is used, the lack of candour displayed by the Government and the unwillingness to give straightforward unclassified information.

Perhaps I may quote one or two paragraphs from the report. Paragraph 45 of Part IV states: For three years the Government has made reports on the progress of the sonar suite"— that is the sonar equipment for Trident— which did not include important facts about serious problems and delays which had arisen. This is unacceptable … Such demonstrable lack of frankness in respect of one element of the programme will inevitably tend to cast doubt on other elements which are accurately reported and where there is no cause for concern". Another part of the report states: some features of the MoD's reports to the previous Defence Committee do not encourage us to accept such reports unquestioningly in the future … We consider that the MoD have little cause for complaint if future assurances are not taken at face value". The matter is very serious. I take this opportunity to invite the Government to clear up the situation. I put a number of questions this morning to the MoD to give the Government an opportunity to clear the air on a subject which gives increasing concern. The report was produced by an all-party committee consisting of distinguished and unusually sober-minded Members of Parliament. The statements are not made lightly.

I therefore wish to ask the Minister several questions. What steps have been taken to overcome the shortage of scientific staff'? Perhaps I may quote again from the report: The latest figures given to us for the shortfall show the position at 1st March 1988: I 1 1 in the Administrative, Executive and Clerical grades, 65 specialists, and 40 craft industrials". Those figures refer to Aldermaston. What steps have been taken to overcome that serious shortage?

I also wish to ask the Minister about the production of nuclear weapons. It seems that existing production facilities are sufficient for the first submarine. That is not certain but it seems possible. The Ministry says constantly that it can meet the in-service date for Trident. However, it is not clear what that means. for the second and subsequent submarines, altogether new facilities for nuclear warhead production will be needed. It is by no means certain that those new production facilities—the A.90 production complex—will be ready in time. Can the Minister assure us that when the Ministry says that it can meet the in-service date for Trident, it means that there will be enough warheads in time for the Trident fleet?

Does the ministry have it in mind to extend the life of the Polaris fleet? For some little time we have been expecting a statement on whether the Polaris submarine "Resolution" is going to be refitted. We have not had that statement. Will fewer warheads be fitted in each submarine? There may be other good reasons for that, but it would be ironical if the Government felt compelled to do it simply because the warheads were not there.

These are some of the important questions to which I think we are entitled to answers. I feel we are entitled to expect full and candid answers, unlike those that were given to the House of Commons Defence Committee.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. Those of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, were of particular relevance to the order before us and perhaps I may take his points first.

I agree entirely with the noble Lord when he says that bullying is a serious matter and one to be deplored. That applies too to some of the so-called initiation ceremonies which are alleged to have taken place. I confirm that bullying and ill treatment have no place whatever in service life. I assure the noble Lord that each allegation is viewed most seriously. That fact is reflected both in the sentences awarded to those found responsible and in the comprehensive package of measures being implemented to stamp out the problem in the Army.

The noble Lord asked whether or not I had full details. I have. They are set out at cols. 551 and 552 of the Official Report of another place of 7th June. The noble Lord will find, I think, the information he seeks. Naturally, should further cases come to light, that would lead to further reviews, but I believe that the problem has been effectively and firmly dealt with.

On the question of ethnic monitoring and any form of racial discrimination within the Armed Forces, I assure the noble Lord that the Services are fully integrated non-discriminatory organisations and that no discrimination is tolerated. The recent report of the Defence Committee of another place is generally welcomed and the Government have now responded to it. The results of the first year of monitoring the ethnic origins of applicants and recruits will be published later this year.

The noble Lord raised the matter of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 60 of the Army Act. Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which deals with the wrongful communication of official information contains no defence of lack of knowledge of the effect of disclosure. At present a serviceman suspected of making such a disclosure could in theory be charged under either Section 2 or Section 60 of the Army Act, or the equivalent section of the other service discipline Acts. In practice, a prosecution under Section 2, which would require the consent of the Attorney-General, would be brought in the most serious cases only. That will remain the position if the White Paper proposals are implemented; but the defence of lack of knowledge will be available to all defendants except those working in or closely associated with the security and intelligence services. I believe that that provides the degree of reassurance which the noble Lord seeks.

The noble Lord asked about contractors and also raised the matter of pre-1973 widows. I regret that 1 do not have much to add to the points made by my honourable friend in another place when he answered a debate on a similar Motion. I can only acknowledge that he and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne are aware of that point. We believe that in this case the trade unionists, the Services and the Ministry of Defence all have a common cause in making sure that service personnel do not assist contractors in the fulfilment of their contractual obligations. I understand that service commands will be reminded that such assistance should not be given. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the noble Lord's concern.

As to widows' pensions, I know that the noble Lord feels the answer that it is a matter of resources is an insufficient one. However, as I know from my own experience as a Minister in the DHSS, it is a matter which continually concerns Ministers in that department. They are well aware of the concerns and it is a matter they are looking at. The noble Lord may feel that it is not a matter of resources. But it very largely does come down to a matter of resources and the fact that the other benefits available to widows of servicemen post-1973 are an improvement in some detail on what was previously available. However, I should like to study the noble Lord's remarks and to respond to him more fully in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has strayed into an area in which I know he has a particular interest. I hope that I can answer shortly the points he raised. First, he raised the concern about the Sonar programme for Trident. Obviously, I cannot anticipate the formal response of the Government to the Defence Committee's recent criticisms. The noble Lord will not expect me to do that. All I can say is that the Government will shortly be responding in detail to those points. I can however tell him that the Sonar 2054 programme is on track to meet the Trident timescales.

With regard to scientific staff shortages in the strategic weapons system area, it is hoped to fill the remaining vacancies during an ongoing recruiting initiative. However, we shall continue to use contractors as a means of offsetting the shortage for as long as may be necessary. It is important to bear in mind the reasons why the shortage might have arisen. The competitive nature of recruitment, both nationally and in the Thames Valley area, calls for continuing and intensive recruitment activity in order to combat natural wastage from retirements and resignations. But it is a matter which is in hand along the lines that I have suggested.

The noble Lord asked for a categorical assurance to build upon remarks that have been made by others about warhead production and allegations that it is a major risk to the Trident programme. All I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is that the Ministry of Defence remains confident that the in-service date of the mid-1990s for Trident will be met, and I would add that there will be no shortfall in the planned number of warheads. I cannot conceive how it is possible to be more categorical than that. I hope that that at least goes sonic way towards meeting the noble Lord's concern.

As regards HMS "Resolution", the noble Lord may be aware that that matter is being considered at present. I cannot give him an answer now, but I would expect that it will soon be possible to make an announcement on a final decision.

Those were, I believe, the main points raised by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. I believe that this order, which is for a particular and important purpose, is one that the House will welcome. I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8.5 p.m.]