---

Army: Advice of Attorney-General

My Lords, I join those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for making this debate possible. I come to it from a wholly civilian background, bar some undistinguished service in the previous century as a national serviceman in the Royal Air Force. This is, as has been said, a legally complex issue, but it is underpinned by some key issues, many of which came out in newspapers at the time of the trial of Trooper Williams and Corporal Blair. We are rightly proud of all those who serve in our Armed Forces, often in exceedingly dangerous circumstances, and we rightly expect the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism from them. Only those who have found themselves in hostile and menacing situations can appreciate the iron discipline needed to respond appropriately within the rules of engagement in those circumstances. I certainly can get nowhere near to this because I have not had the relevant training on which to rely. It is against that background that we react to allegations of abuse, murder and manslaughter by service personnel in the line of duty. We feel outraged and let down, and I do not doubt that their comrades do as well. It is why the video footage from Basra last weekend of civilians allegedly being abused by British troops caused such revulsion, as well as the renewed claims of abuse and mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. It is right to put on record that none of us here and few outside would suggest that service personnel are in any way above the law. When allegations of improper behaviour are made, they must be rigorously investigated, independent of the chain of command, and where evidence is judged sufficient, charges laid and prosecutions carried out. It is also right to recognise that while some 80,000 service personnel so far have served in Iraq, just 12 serious cases have been referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority. My noble friend Lord Truscott told the House of the outcomes of those cases. A note I received this morning from the Clerk of the Journals, which I think all noble Lords have had, contains details of another seven cases arising from the Iraqi conflict which are under consideration but cannot be mentioned here because of the sub judice rule. In his introduction to the debate, if I heard him properly, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to the political interests of the Government in these matters. The implication—I am not sure whether he meant it or not—is that there are occasions when the Attorney-General might be said to be acting in a political manner. If that is the case, I simply do not believe that that argument can be sustained. Noble Lords do not need me to remind them of the hours spent in this place defending the role of the Lord Chancellor—a political appointment, by the government of the day, who sits in the Cabinet. Yet as head of the judiciary he is expected to, and does, operate in a wholly independent way in that role.