---

Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 18, which is in this group. Ideally, I should have liked to speak to this amendment separately but, in view of our procedural ruling, there may not be an opportunity to speak about the importance of Amendment No. 18 if Amendment No. 14 prevails. I make plain that I feel as strongly as anyone about the seriousness of desertion; I do not want any misunderstanding on that score. Desertion can be a literally terrible offence. In the modern technological services, the implications of desertion can be even greater than was ever imagined in the past. The desertion of a key person could have huge implications for the whole operation and for the well-being and safety of comrades and colleagues. In his earlier amendments, concerning the word ““lawful””, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, dealt at some length with the arguments. Although his arguments did not prevail—I was sad about that—they were very powerful and I shall not repeat them all now. As the noble Lord kindly remarked, in Committee I tabled an amendment about the word ““legal””. I listened very carefully to the Minister's reply and recognised that he and the Government believed that there were complexities relating to the interplay between international and domestic law. In view of the significance of the arguments put forward by my noble friend, I decided that, although I believed the issue remained vital, it was important to address it with slightly different wording. Perhaps I may anticipate an argument which the Government may deploy against my amendment and which the Minister used in dealing with a previous amendment. It is the suggestion that ordinary serving men and women should not really be worried about the implications of international law, as that is something for Governments. I am not persuaded by that argument. It seems to me that an individual service man who does something that is not lawful is, in the end, responsible for his action and can be brought to task for it very properly. Another point that worries me is that that is a little patronising as it suggests that we do not have very intelligent service men and women who are capable of working out very important things for themselves, and that that should be left to their superiors and Government. I do not accept that argument. For a short while, I held a short service commission; I was a volunteer. I started as a national serviceman, but I transferred into the regular Royal Air Force for a short period. As an intelligent person deciding that I wanted to take that step, I looked at its significance. It seems nothing but helpful to spell out in the law that the action that one might be required to take as a volunteer will be and must be lawful. I turn to recent history. We all know that at the time of the Iraq war the chiefs of staff went to great lengths to ensure that they were persuaded that what was being undertaken was lawful. I was immensely reassured that they took such an issue so seriously. That is altogether good and healthy in the kind of society in which I want to live. I commend them for that. It is also interesting to note that this argument should be deployed by my noble friend, because it seems to be contradicted at the beginning of the Bill, on page 1 at line 16. On the responsibilities of someone taken prisoner, it spells out what that person must not do: "““A person subject to service law who has been captured by an enemy commits an offence if, without lawful excuse, he intentionally serves with or assists the enemy—""(a) in the prosecution of hostilities or of measures likely to influence morale; or""(b) in any other manner not authorised by international law””." Let us consider a prisoner who is isolated, under pressure, bewildered and disorientated. At that juncture, he is expected to know whether something that he is being asked to do is in keeping with international law. We write that into the Bill, right at the beginning, so how can the Minister’s argument logically be deployed in later provisions, the argument that, when it comes to the occupation of a foreign country, it is not really up to the ordinary service person to worry about whether something is in keeping with international law? I find that totally inconsistent. Not for a moment am I suggesting that the provision on page 1 should not be there—it should be—but its logic utterly follows through into what I am arguing in Amendment No. 18. To occupy a foreign country is a very serious matter. I would hate it if at some later stage it were to be argued that Parliament specifically decided that it was not appropriate to say that this must be in keeping with international law. I do not think that would happen under the present Administration or any in the foreseeable future, although one never knows what might happen in Britain. Sometimes we do not take this point seriously enough when we legislate because we look at our present experiences and not at what might happen unpredictably. It could be argued in a hot situation with some force that Parliament considered the issue and decided that it was not appropriate to make this reference to, and to underline, international law. In these circumstances, I ask the Minister to seriously consider my proposals in AmendmentNo. 18. I know that he is a serious man who listens to arguments and thinks about these things carefully, and therefore beg him not to say anything today which closes the door, even if he does not feel able to accept the proposals at this stage. I hope he will give a firm undertaking to consider some of the arguments I have tried to put—I am sure others will put much stronger ones—and come back to us with his decision at Third Reading, if need be.