---

Army: Advice of Attorney-General

My Lords, I am totally happy to do as the noble Lord asks. In the Attorney-General’s role as superintendent of the military prosecuting authorities, it is quite right that he should retain the power to express the view and offer the advice that some serious cases, rare as they may be—or not—which in his or her judgment are important on the grounds of public interest, should be heard in the civil rather than the military courts. I am sure there will be agreement around your Lordships’ House on this point: I do not believe that politicians have any place in the civilian or the military justice system. That is why I made the point about the proper independent role of the Attorney-General. That needs to be nailed down and made clear so that everyone can understand. The minute politicians seek to interfere in any part of the judicial process, it is the death of the system’s independence. I wish to make two other observations. Some of the more excitable newspapers referred to so-called political correctness with regard to the prosecutions of Trooper Williams and Corporal Blair. It took General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff—he should know, shouldn’t he?—to say that that was quite untrue. It then took the Army Prosecuting Authority, in the shape of Major-General Howell, in his evidence to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill on 26 January this year, to say:"““There has been no suggestion from anyone that either me or the leading counsel involved should take decisions for political or any other reason. I am quite certain that none of those experienced Queen’s Counsel would tolerate those suggestions. I would certainly not tolerate any suggestion that my decision should be interfered with by anybody””." He added, although I do not think he needed to:"““I hope that sets out our position as clearly as I can””." I believe he did that absolutely. Those two pieces of evidence should lay to rest any of these irresponsible claims of political correctness influencing what happened in this case. I make this last point as a former journalist, but I make it none the less. The media have put forward the argument that some unfounded cases are being taken forward to prosecution—in this short debate, we shall all have in mind certain cases. That is an insult for the prosecuting authorities, whether military or civilian, and it does no credit to newspapers that peddle it. I think that it can threaten—and I really mean this—to undermine the military performance of those who are serving in dangerous situations. It can damage recruitment and it can affect morale, and none of us want that in the Armed Forces.