Proceeding contribution from Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 14 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on Armed Forces: Chain of Command.
Armed Forces: Chain of Command
My Lords, in no way should my words be construed that murder or criminality, including prisoner abuse, be tolerated. Our service men and women must operate within the rule of law, wrong-doers must be sought out and punished, and, of course, necessary investigations into serious allegations must take place. But if we have to commit our forces to situations such as pertain in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should recognise what we are asking them to do and just how hostile, frightening and stressful the environment is in which they must operate. They are often in mortal danger and tired. They are expected always to make considered decisions and take correct actions when the situation in which they find themselves is far from clear and their own and others’ lives are threatened. That would be extremely challenging for anybody, but we are asking a great deal of young soldiers who are put under huge pressure. That pressure has been experienced by few people outside the services and rarely by those who craft our laws and are responsible for our legal system. Difficulties are compounded in theatres such as Iraq when the rules of engagement designed for a war are suddenly changed to those required for internal security. This debate is so important—I wish it could have taken place many months ago—because undeniable damage to the Army’s trust in the chain of command has occurred and it could have been minimised. The risk of morale suffering further is real. Many people, I am afraid—rightly or wrongly—think that the system is unjust. We also run a risk of making our services risk averse, which would have serious implications for operations. It is no good for the Ministry of Defence to claim that it does all it can to help soldiers. The perception of many soldiers is that the very minimum is done. Indeed, the defence team in the sorry affair of Trooper Williams, including both the civilian barrister and solicitor, said that they had no positive assistance from the Ministry of Defence at any stage. As we have heard, fortunately Trooper Williams had support, as one would expect, from his own regiment, his commanding officer and his immediate chain of command. He had a champion in a retired general, Sir Antony Walker. His own regiment raised a fighting fund of some £68,000, subscribed to by nearly 3,000 people who had heard or read of Trooper Williams’s plight. The overwhelming majority of service men and women are thoroughly decent young people who are caught up in conflict. They act in good faith, but sometimes unwisely. Of course, as I said, some investigations are necessary but many, I suspect, have more to do with political correctness, the culture of ““somebody must be blamed”” and fear of compensation demands. They may be done to pacify the ill- intentioned or as a defence against civilian solicitors from the United Kingdom who are touting for business on the back streets of Basra. The Special Investigations Branch has a huge responsibility to carry out investigations objectively. One very experienced and well respected operational commander told me recently that his soldiers were of the firm opinion that the Special Investigations Branch had become more interested in achieving prosecutions than searching for the truth. Experienced civilian lawyers have also said how shocked they have been by the attitude of the Special Investigations Branch to the soldiers they have been representing. This is enormously damaging to confidence and trust. I ask the Minister to answer two questions that he has already been posed. First, when I was Chief of the Defence Staff, I was assured that it was unthinkable for British service men and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court. Can the Minister assure the House that that is still so? Secondly, can the Government give serious consideration to the British Armed Forces, like the French forces, opting out of their commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights? Many of us feel that we should, in view of our experiences in Iraq. Lastly, I feel uncomfortable about the situation in which we find ourselves. We went to war in Iraq—quite rightly, in my view—and committed our service men and women to perhaps the most difficult and dangerous operations that our forces have faced for many years. They deserve our full, unequivocal backing. I wish I could say that, so far as concerns our debate today, I thought they had it. I implore Ministers—particularly the new Secretary of State, who is much respected in the defence community—to examine what can be done to restore confidence and not to rely solely on advice from the legal services in the Ministry of Defence and their normal MoD briefers. They should hear, in addition, from the officers and soldiers, who have been investigated and who fought in Iraq, and their commanders—those who have been on the receiving end and feel, like Colonel Collins, that they have been ““hung out to dry””. There is now a feeling that the Ministry of Defence, at the highest level, does not recognise that we have a problem. Does the Minister? Today, I am afraid that we should feel ashamed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 673 c1233-4
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal investigation Armed forces European Convention on Human Rights Homicide Iraq International Criminal Court Prosecutions Peacekeeping operations Military law War crimes Rules of engagement Williams, Kevin
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:49:58 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258794
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258794
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_258794