---

Defence Policy

As the Minister has kindly pointed out, our smaller party has six Back Benchers in their places, which is six more than the Minister has on his side—and there is, of course, the token Liberal. So what do the Government think of our armed forces? I shall give three examples. First, in 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister—still hanging in there with his Office—in front of a number of witnesses, including some of our Doorkeepers, said, ““All soldiers are boneheads.”” That is what he thinks of our armed forces. Secondly, there is the disgraceful way in which the Government refused to take any action to assist soldiers and others on operations to register to vote before the last general election. I raised the matter time and again, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), but the Government took no real action. One can only surmise why not. The third indicator of the new Labour Government’s view of the armed forces is seen in a business news leader article, entitled ““Huge cuts threat to defence industry”” in the Evening Standard on 12 June this year. Written by Robert Fox, who is generally pretty well informed, it says:"““Chancellor Gordon Brown…wants £1 billion taken from defence and given to…homeland security…A recently retired chief of staff commented: ‘They’ll have to tear up Labour’s whole defence strategy and start all over again.’…defence chiefs have already been told that ‘at least one major procurement programme has to go’””—" probably the aircraft carriers. I have no idea whether that is true, but I do know, as hon. Members have already pointed out, that in this Chancellor’s time here, he has shown precious little interest in and very little support for defence. I speak today against that background. The major point that I should like to make is about the politicisation and the responsibilities of senior officers in the armed forces, and then I shall touch on the situation in Afghanistan. First, on senior officers, last November I was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying that the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, lacked the courage to stand up for his soldiers. I first discovered that that had been quoted—I had had a conversation with the journalist—when I got a telephone call and was asked to ring General Jackson, who had rung the then leader of the Conservative party. I asked him why he had phoned the then leader of the Conservative party instead of me, and he did not really answer. He hectored me down the telephone for 30 minutes in a somewhat bullying way. It is not my business to have an argument with the Chief of the General Staff, so I am glad to say that a mutual friend organised a meeting. We had a meeting for an hour and three quarters. It was a convivial meeting and we discussed things in a reasonable way. There was not much meeting of minds, but I accept—I promised him at the time that I would—that I have no knowledge that he lacks courage. It was quite wrong of me to have said that he lacks courage, and I withdraw that unreservedly and apologise to him. I said that I would do that at the first opportunity, and this is the first opportunity that I have had. However, I did tell him that I would not withdraw the bit about standing up for his soldiers, and that is part of what I intend to discuss today. Incidentally, I have no personal problem with General Jackson, so I do not wish this to counted as a personal attack on him in any way. He is a public servant who has given good service to this country over a number of years. However, I want to look at what has happened to the armed forces over the past three years—I shall stick to the past three years. We had an immensely successful Iraq war in March 2003, or whenever it was. We can all be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen for the work that they did then. Since then we have got immersed, as other hon. Members have said, in a very difficult situation in Iraq. We have now deployed to Afghanistan. We have had four battalions of infantry cut from the line of battle. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), the TA is haemorrhaging soldiers. Once they have been to Iraq, where they have an interesting experience, most of them do not much want to go again. The reorganisation of the infantry battalions is taking place, too. Although the arms plot was imperfect, I do not believe that that reorganisation will lead to a better system for the infantry. Demands are now growing for a federation for armed forces personnel. We have to ask why are those demands growing. Why are grass-roots members of the armed forces demanding a federation? Soldiers are public servants. Politicians make the orders and soldiers must obey politicians—that goes for field marshals, generals and the like—but senior officers who demand loyalty from those below them are expected in return to give loyalty to those whom they command. That was certainly what I was taught, and hon. Members who have done any form of military service will know that. Loyalty goes two ways, and the chiefs of staff who represent the armed forces in discussions with the Government should not be seen as the Prime Minister’s representatives; rather, they should be seen as representing the armed forces to the Government. I understand that the chiefs of staff have access to the Prime Minister whenever they want it, but I have not heard of that access being used during the draconian defence cuts going on in all three services. What senior officer has resigned recently? None that I have seen, and there is a growing feeling—it may not be fair—that some senior officers are apparently more interested in their careers, in knighthoods and in future cosy appointments than in the good of the armed forces and the personnel whom they command. I should like to turn to an example of that: the courts martial that have been taking place in respect of Iraq. Tight discipline is essential in the armed forces, especially in war, as anyone who has been in battle knows, but discipline is being undermined by a growing human rights culture—fostered, I am afraid, by the Government—that is encouraging barrack-room lawyers. Anyone who is guilty of a crime in the armed forces must be prosecuted, but we have a very difficult and continuing war in Iraq. We expect our soldiers to make split-second life-and-death decisions, while someone is trying to kill them. That is not the same as being on parade outside Buckingham palace or, indeed, policing a riot in Trafalgar square. I will use one case of court martial as an example, because it is completely out of the courts now—that of Trooper Williams. As hon. Members may remember, in July 2003 Trooper Williams was part of a patrol that stopped a handcart that was being pushed along, filled with mortar bombs. Understandably, the Iraqis pushing the hand-cart scattered. Trooper Williams and a corporal chased one Iraqi into a courtyard and then into a house, where he fought with the corporal accompanying Trooper Williams. Trooper Williams believed—and who are we to gainsay him, as we were not there?—that the Iraqi was trying to grab the pistol from the corporal, so he shot him, and he died. Rightly, the case was taken up by the commanding officer of the regiment to which Trooper Williams was attached. He was arrested and investigated and brought before that commanding officer, who, having taken legal advice, dismissed the case, as was his right. He made a judgment that Trooper Williams was not guilty. What happened next? Brigadier Vowles and Major-General Howell—both of whom, as I understand it, are primarily lawyers, rather than soldiers by first profession—queried the decision. A memo dated March 2004, from the then Adjutant-General—I believe it was Sir Alistair Irwin—was sent to the Chief of the General Staff. It states:"““With the current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths of Iraqi civilians…there is a significant possibility that this case, our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause célèbre for pressure groups and a significant threat to the maintenance of the military justice system. If the Attorney General became aware of it in the meantime, it is possible that would himself order a review of the case.””" So this prosecution was all about ginger groups and the possibility that the case could become a cause célèbre for pressure groups. I ask the senior officers involved: does that constitute standing up for Trooper Williams? Following that, Trooper Williams was charged with murder under the civilian system and was to be taken to the Old Bailey. He was 18 years old when the incident took place, and for a year and a half he was under threat of trial at the Old Bailey. I suggest that that is a pretty serious matter for anybody. On 7 April last year, at the Old Bailey, the Crown offered no evidence. I have been told by a senior officer that Williams should be grateful to the Army because, now that he has been tried at the Old Bailey, he cannot be tried again. I wonder what he thinks about that. What was the role of the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in all this? The trial judge, Mrs. Justice Hallett, believed that this was possibly a novel intervention by Her Majesty’s Attorney-General. One of her judgments says:"““No-one in the Army has apparently thought to advise Trooper Williams that although his commanding officer had found in his favour he might still face a civilian prosecution. That is apparently because this is the first time””—" the first time—"““to the knowledge of those appearing before me and called before me, that her Majesty’s Attorney General has sought to exercise the powers accorded to him.””" In a written answer to my noble Friend Lord Astor of 10 November 2005, the Attorney-General, speaking about the five members of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment whose case was dismissed last year, said:"““I considered the matter and…I decided that the case should be referred to the CPS because…while there is no suggestion that the court martial would not deal with it impartially, justice would be seen to be done by ventilating the issues in the civilian courts””.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 111W.]" Are this Government and their senior officers standing up for soldiers, or ventilating issues in civilian courts? I do not expect anything better from a commercial lawyer who happens to be a Minister of the Crown because of his friendship with the Prime Minister, but these people have no idea of the pressures on soldiers, who have to take life-and-death decisions in such situations. Their senior officers should stand up for them, and they should expect better from them. This Government have politicised senior officers in a way that has not happened before. Let me give two examples. I have in my hand an edition of The House Magazine—one cannot get much more political than the in-house magazine of this place—that contains a big interview with the Chief of the General Staff. He also did the Andrew Marr programme, which is the BBC’s major political programme on a Sunday morning. Too often, senior officers are seen as apologists for Government policy, rather than as those who are obliged to carry out Government policy. If they disagree with me they are very welcome to say so, but I hope that they will consider my words, and whether there is some truth in what I am saying.