---

Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, for all the great help and assistance he has given us over this Bill. None of us, I think, pretends to be lawyers and we have different experience. We have considerable military legal experience, but we like the way in which we were briefed and the way in which the Minister listens. It is rather refreshing to find a Minister who listens and I commend him for it. We also owe a debt of thanks to the other place. I think the committee there did a good job. There were disagreements, as there are in any committee, but what has emerged is pretty good. I think it was not always given the full picture—one seldom gets a full picture—and I also get a little worried when the Minister says that we can perhaps put some of that right by regulation. As has been said, quite a lot more is required on the face of the Bill. I shall talk gently to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Borrie. I am sorry that I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in Korea, although it is probably just as well that I did not because it would probably not have been to my advantage. In my day—I cannot speak for today—military law was a subject that an officer had to grapple with. Military law was an exam—a pretty stiff one—with a 60 per cent or 70 per cent pass rate that you had to pass to get into a staff college. Military sentencing was part of that. The difference from the 12 men good and true on a jury picked from everywhere—marvellous as those men and women are—is that an officer is legally trained better. Sitting on a court martial, as most of us in your Lordships’ Chamber today have, one was the prosecutor, the defender, a member of the court martial, speaking about someone’s character or in mitigation. I have to confess that I served on one for murder. In those days one could hang. That brings you up with quite a jump and you have to be really serious. To those who pooh-pooh the military legal system, as civilian barristers and solicitors sometimes like to do, I would say, ““Have a care””. We officers have a rough idea. We have had people in front of us for sentencing, so if you do not mind, that is it. An Attorney-General worth his salt—and all whom I know are—who had no military experience, would certainly want his director of prosecutions, over whom he has superintendence, to have military experience. Otherwise, where will he get military advice? As one of the noble and gallant Lords said, the judgment is often a military judgment. Military advice is needed for fighting wars, operational experience or whatever. Again, I think that that is a dangerous part of the Bill at the moment—to just list a set of legal requirements of what you want in your director of prosecution. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, mentioned that the reviewing process—the review board—is no longer there. It is no longer there because, when this Bill of human rights emerged, unlike other countries such as France and America, we did not say no. I do not know what it is about this great European market, where Ministers go and kowtow and agree to everything; they sign everything and never say no. Other people do, but Great Britain does not. We are in a pickle because that review board was a critical piece of confidence to those being court-martialled. The review board was also extremely good training for the senior officers on it who had to make heavy decisions and great considerations. What happens now is that we need to get round that. We have a thing called the slip rule—if I remember, it is on page 31 of the report. We are trying to put something similar in place. All that I would say to the Minister at this stage is that the slip rule is very important. Putting it as politely as I can, people seem to be going round in circles about it and I hope that the Minister will include it or get something firm. On the next page, what slightly worried me was how we would deal with the civilian staff who work for the MoD—provision of the rules for civilian staff. I am rather amazed that the Government have spent so much time civilianising the Army, Navy and Air Force that they have not got their civilians in line. They talk about the rights of the civilian. I would rather talk a bit more about the duty and responsibility of civilians in operational areas. An operational area could be a Royal Air Force base in Cyprus or a logistics base somewhere for the military or the Navy, or a logistics ship—I do not know how many civilians they have on them these days—that does logistics for the Royal Navy. However, that is another thing that has not been looked into and I get the impression that civilians that we employ—whether local or British—are not put in a room and taught. They do not have lectures or seminars about their responsibilities and the rules of their engagement when war breaks out and they are in an operational area. I am also worried about the rush to say that this is a marvellous thing, although I do think that it is good. I am very pro this Bill, but single service courts martial are necessary. I do not tell the noble Lord, Lord Garden, how to fly his Tornado. He does not tell me how to dig my slit trench and go on a fighting patrol at night. Both of us are far too scared to tell the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, how to handle his ship and what should happen on board. There are differences and civil lawyers had better understand that. Finally, I want to say a little about the rules of engagement. I have warned the Minister that I have been hearing some rather funny stories: I do not know whether they are true. I was told about an incident in Iraq where one of our soldiers, groups, platoons, sections or whatever was fired on. We returned fire, but the moment that the chaps turned their backs and ran off, the soldiers were told to stop firing because these chaps were no longer a problem because they were not firing at them any more. I also heard that some fled on to a boat and it motored away and they were no longer a danger to our troops. I find that very difficult to believe, because all we would succeed in doing is allow someone who had been shooting at you get away so that he could come back and shoot at you and probably kill you tomorrow. I simply cannot bear that sort of pathetic political correctness. I am glad that I am not involved because I would certainly shoot any enemy who had shot at me and then disappeared by running away. We had better be careful in Afghanistan—it is a different kettle of fish there. We will be a laughing stock if that sort of thing is applied. If one was a wag—and I am just tweaking the Minister’s leg a little—one could apply that to the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the other day. He was killed sitting in a house; he was not slitting anyone’s throat at that particular moment. He was not hurting anybody and two five-pound bombs fell on his house. Jolly good, I say. But what logic are you working on in your rules of engagement? This is what I am asking the Minister. This was a good report. There are 65 recommendations at the end of it from the House of Commons committee—very good ones, I thought. It is quite often a habit that when these reports come, they are put on a shelf and forgotten. I would like the Minister to say to us every so often, ““We have done point 120, or recommendations 20 to 30 or we are working on half a dozen here and there and something is happening””. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was here because there was a case in the prison service on which I was on the periphery, some years ago, where there were 93 points on a report and within 18 months, only two of them had been actioned. I am just jogging the Minister, who works hard, for nothing and I commend him greatly. But we are entitled to know how this progresses. I look forward to the Committee and I welcome this Bill. When I first came to your Lordships’ House, 35 years ago, I was told, ““For a debate like this, 13 minutes and then sit down””.