Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1990 (Hansard, 17 July 1990)

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, the noble Earl has moved this Motion without speaking to it at any length whatever, although he referred to it in his speech. I listened very carefully to try to find out whether it was a matter of controversy.
The noble Earl must be aware that discipline in the Armed Forces is a matter of considerable concern. 845 There have been many cases where disciplinary proceedings have been taken. It is not entirely clear whether those have been dealt with in the civil courts or in the military courts and what the relationship is between the two. Will he very kindly tell the House, before we decide what to do about the order, what would happen if the order were not approved?

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, while the noble Earl is taking advice, can he also tell us the number of recorded incidents when actions by officers, non-commissioned officers or others led to the courts?
In preparation for the debate I sought some background information. I was horrified. I cite an article which appeared in a national newspaper. It states, Guards Sarge 'beat up rookie'. Bat attack on fun day". Another example states, Elite paras see red over beret". Yet another states, Naval bully cleared in coma case", and another, Officer's convictions quashed". Will the Minister tell the House to what extent matters which obviously are more deleterious than others make their way to the courts? Can the Minister give the House some background as regards the number of offences which call for such discipline? He may well wish to write to me in answer, but the matter should not be taken lightly.
The Minister knows that on previous occasions I have asked about the extent to which coloured servicemen have been victimised. In the Guards regiments they have been disciplined and finally have had to leave the service. There are those of distinct and separate sexual orientation who are subject to vicious activity within the Armed Services. Can the noble Earl also give the House some background and statistics on those matters and say what is the attitude of the Government? I believe that every person who is accepted into the Armed Services is entitled to the respect and dignity that he would receive were he not a member. Individuals who may be weak in one way or another are the subject not only of bullying but of campaigns and vendettas.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, can the Minister also tell the House whether the order has been considered by the joint committee on defence and whether it made any comments? As regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, if we do not pass the order we shall not have an Army. Therefore, perhaps he will not divide the House.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, acts of bullying and any kind of racial prejudice are absolutely abhorred by everyone in the Armed Forces and by society in general. Great care is taken to see that they do not occur. If and when they do happen they are dealt with quickly and in the appropriate manner as pertains at the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke about coloured servicemen. I believe that such incidents do not happen often in the forces and every opportunity 846 is taken to stamp them out. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that such incidents easily manifest themselves in the national press and are frequently blown up out of all proportion. Unfortunately, that happens and often what we read in the press about such matters is not true. I can confirm that all acts of bullying and racial prejudice are taken extremely seriously. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the numbers that he requested this evening but I shall certainly write to him. I reaffirm that anything to do with bullying is abhorred and taken with considerable ill ease.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I have been advised about discipline/victimisation of homosexual and lesbian members of the Armed Forces, although I have no precise information. One can readily understand that it is comparatively easy to be discriminatory against people who one might or might not like. Is there a policy in respect of the treatment of individuals who are proud of their sexual orientation and who wish to be good servicemen and women?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I am aware that some Members of your Lordships' House are concerned that homosexual activity remains an offence under the service discipline Acts, thus setting the services apart from civilian life. Service conditions—that is where people live in closed communities, on and off duty and often under stress—are different from those in civilian life. Such conditions and the need for absolute trust and confidence between all ranks require that the potentially disruptive influence of homosexual practices should be excluded. I fully accept that argument, as did the Select Committee of the House in its report on the Armed Forces Bill in 1986.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, will the noble Earl respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew; that if the order is not passed this evening there will be no Army, Air Force or Navy? If that is the case, why is the existence of the Army, the Air Force and the Navy subject to affirmative procedure every year?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I understand that an order is laid before the House every year in between the five-year period and that every five years there is an Armed Forces Bill. There will almost certainly be an Armed Forces Bill next year. However, in the intervening period the matter is dealt with in the form of an order.