Armed Forces Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I am particularly concerned about putting retired servicemen in the frame again after there has been a judicial inquiry. It might be that a subsequent judicial inquiry comes to a different conclusion, but once you have had a judicial inquiry and no prosecutions have arisen, servicemen ought to be able to carry on with their duties, retire and not worry about further legal action; they should not be worrying about further legal action for the rest of their natural lives. I very much support the general thrust of his amendment, therefore, but perhaps it needs some more tests—in particular, in relation to the case we are obviously talking about but not mentioning, that there has been a judicial inquiry.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we recognise that there is an issue in this area, but, according to my understanding of the law, this is not the way to address it. As I understand the application of the law to service personnel, they come under both the military law—the 2006 Act—and the general law of the land. This is not generally a problem, as, by arrangement between the two authorities, a decision will be taken about which law someone is prosecuted under.

I understand—I may not be right—that there are statute of limitation provisions in service law but no significant statute of limitations in English criminal law. There is a considerable statute of limitations in civil claims—a great big schedule—but the application of a statute of limitations in criminal law is limited to summary offences only. In practice, from my brief research this morning, that generally seems to mean motoring offences in magistrates’ courts. To introduce a limitation of this magnitude into the normal body of English law, which is what we would be doing, would be a radical change, and I do not believe the Bill is the right vehicle to introduce such a radical change for one narrow purpose.

Many would argue that we should rethink the whole issue and that the prosecution of historical cases is not sound. The only time I have been in court as a witness, my evidence was useless, because it referred to things that had happened at a meeting—one of about 400 I would have had that year—six years before. I was asked for precise details, and my standard, and absolutely honest, answer was, “I cannot recall”. I have trouble remembering most of the details of last week, never mind 10 years ago. So there is a real evidential case for looking at that issue.

Nevertheless, public opinion is, in many ways, the very opposite at the moment. In many ways, public opinion, particularly in the sexual cases coming before the courts at the moment, is in favour of pursuing historical cases—in one case related to this House, even after the death of the supposed perpetrator. There is a real tension between public opinion and the whole “old evidence” issue, which I think has some validity and which I suspect wider society will need to debate in the years to come.

In our view, a change as radical as this—as I understand it—for such a narrow purpose should not be in the Bill and should not go forward without wide public discussion and analysis and a recognition that it would have to flow right through criminal law. It cannot realistically be related to this single, narrow area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that IHAT—as it is known—will be in place until at least 2019 under our current plans.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The noble Earl seemed to say something fairly profound there about support for service personnel who may come under investigation in the Iraq cases et cetera, and about legal and historic pastoral support. Could he flesh that out, particularly the extent of legal support that he sees being provided? I recognise that might require a somewhat delicate answer so a written response could be more appropriate.

[Earl Howe]

I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with further and better particulars on that issue. I add to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that the aim of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team is to try to compete the majority of its investigations by the end of 2017. The team believes that that is within its grasp, although it may slip. I hope that is helpful as an indication of the timescale to which it is working.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Following the precedent of other Bills, when the Minister writes to me could he copy in any other noble Lord who has participated in the debate?

[Earl Howe]

I shall be glad to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who cannot be here today. Indeed, they might possibly have advocated discontinuation straightaway. As the noble Lord pointed out, in advancing a strong argument, there is a good case for no longer enlisting 16 and 17-year-olds into the Armed Forces. Most other countries would agree. Indeed, as he has also reminded us, Britain is the only country in Europe, and the sole member of the United Nations Security Council, that enlists 16 and 17-year-olds, yet the amendment provides that we should decide what to do after building up our own proper evidence, such as would accumulate through systematic annual reports produced by the Secretary of State. This balanced approach is commendable, and consequently the amendment is all the more compelling.

However, along with what is proposed, and provided that the discontinuation of enlisting minors were to be supported by further evidence, as envisaged, I wonder if my noble friend the Minister, together with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, might connect a time structure within which the Secretary of State could decide about abolition. In due course, as a result, evidence-based abolition might then ensue, without unnecessary delay or procrastination.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, the amendment from my noble friend Lord Judd is clearly designed to cover the general issue of the recruitment of 16 and 17-year-olds into the Armed Forces. It is worth reflecting on the history in this country of young people in the Armed Forces. In the 19th century, two young men—aged 15, I think—received Victoria Crosses. I have no doubt that on 30 May, my noble friend Admiral Lord West will find some way of reminding us that it is the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Jutland, at which, famously, a young person, Jack Cornwell, Boy 1st Class, won the Victoria Cross at the age of just 16. So before discussing the present terms of recruitment, we must remember that in the past young recruits have played a brave part in the history of our Armed Forces.

Things have changed, however; nobody would suggest it is other than absolutely right that things have changed. In terms of how we represent ourselves to the world, these young people, the terms and conditions, and so on, we must take a thoroughly modern approach. I hope that the approach being taken by Her Majesty’s Armed Forces is satisfactory, but this is an appropriate occasion to test those conditions and receive, I hope, assurances from the Minister. He has helpfully sent us an email, which I will quote from, and I hope he will read those assurances into the record. In his email, he makes a number of points, but I will quote the key ones:

“No-one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process … Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on any operation outside the UK except where the operation does not involve personnel becoming engaged in, or exposed to, hostilities”.

The third important point is:

“All recruits aged under 18 are enrolled onto apprenticeships”.

Obviously, it would be useful if that could be fleshed out a little more. The next point is:

“All Service personnel have a statutory right to claim discharge up to their 18th birthday, and the right of discharge is made clear to all Service personnel on joining the Armed Forces”.

Given those assurances, we continue generally to support the recruitment of young people into the Armed Forces. We think it has the potential to provide a good grounding for their future career and life in general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 19 and 20. This group of amendments explores when a reservist and, in some cases, a regular is or is not on duty, is subject to military law and can be expected to be supported by the MoD. When the Minister has replied, I hope the Committee will have a much clearer understanding of the position.

For most of my active years in the TA—now the Army Reserve—my understanding, and certainly my ethos, was that I was subject to service discipline for the full 24-hour period for which I was to be paid. This applied to both my commissioned and my non-commissioned service. On a Saturday morning, I might be in bed until 0600 hours; I might not be on parade until 0800 hours; work on military activities might finish at 1800 hours; and we might be engaged in social activities, on or off defence premises, at 2200 hours. I am absolutely certain that our ethos was that we were subject to service law all the time and that the chain of command was effective. This state of affairs did not seem to deter anyone from joining the TA, even if they were aware, nor did it encourage anyone to leave. Indeed, a reserve unit is a safe place precisely because there is an effective chain of command, with someone in charge all the time.

Nowadays there seems to be some doubt or uncertainty. Now it is being suggested that reservists are not subject to service law after dismissal parade, even though they are still on defence premises. It seems most odd that one would want to collapse the system of command, control, good order and military discipline at some artificial and very uncertain point in the day, which may also have to be moved back at a later point for some good reason.

There is also uncertainty for reservists when travelling to and from their place of duty. It now appears that they are not under service law at that point, but what happens if some reservists are acting in a way that would tend to bring their service into disrepute, but not so badly as to interest the civil police? If an officer, senior NCO or service policeman chanced upon the incident, they could not take any action because the reservist would not be under service law. In this case of any insubordination to a regular or reserve officer, nothing could be done. One of my amendments calls for a defence instruction and notice—a DIN—on the issue, but the Minister can start by explaining the situation to the Committee and telling us exactly when a reservist is or is not on duty. I am sure that is his intention.

My other amendments deal with the related issue about duty, which is about self-tasking in a range of emergencies. The first point for the Committee to understand is that ordinary service personnel never have the powers of a police constable or a firefighter. There is no need and that is not the role of the Armed Forces, but I and a very large proportion of the Armed Forces, both regular and reserve, are hard-wired to intervene in any form of emergency. The most obvious example is any form of transport accident. We would not fail to prevent an emergency situation deteriorating until the emergency services arrive, and we would do all we can to preserve life and limb, and to promote recovery. However, we are trained to assess risk and not become casualties ourselves. Officers and senior NCOs can exercise a fair amount of command and control just through leadership and personality. More junior personnel will find that they can often be far more effective and willing if they are in uniform.

None of this will be a surprise to the Committee, but what happens if there is not a happy outcome arising from the resolute actions of the serviceperson, whether he is a reservist off duty or a regular serviceperson off duty? I will not weary the Committee with a scenario, but perhaps there is some legal issue despite the serviceperson being compliant with the terms of my amendment. My understanding is that if the serviceperson is not on duty, they are on their own. Of course, various press offices in the MoD will lap up any easy and good news stories, so can my noble friend the Minister confirm to the Committee that, in a civil emergency, a self-tasking, off-duty serviceperson is on his own and there will be no “big firm” back-up from the MoD?

My next amendment is closely related to being on duty. The Committee will recall the failed terrorist attack on a train in France near Arras last summer. The attacker was heavily armed with automatic weapons, but there were no fatalities thanks to the very courageous actions of two off-duty US servicemen who disarmed him. It is important to understand that they could have been killed. They did what we expected them to; they certainly did not wait for any orders or rules of engagement. This type of attack is not a hostage situation, where the tactics would be to drag out the situation and try to make friends with the hostage-taker if at all possible. In this case, it is necessary to destroy or defeat the attacker in the shortest possible time to minimise the overall number of civilian casualties. Such an incident is likely to be particularly messy. The amendment is designed to ensure that a serviceperson who is self-tasked in such a situation is on duty, and in the aftermath will be supported by the MoD and HMG in the same way as if they were on a conventional operation.

It would also ensure that he or she knows that the law recognises in this particular situation that there may be collateral damage. I am not suggesting that the proportionality test of the law of armed conflict can be ignored; it certainly cannot.

The counter to my amendment is that it is not necessary because the law already allows for it. That may be the case but why should a serviceperson who has acted courageously and skilfully be put through all the worry? If the worst happens and they are killed, will the pension arrangements and death-in-service benefits be any different from if they were on duty in the normal way? In such a situation, would it not be better for the serviceperson, self-tasking in such a matter, to be considering military matters, such as estimating the number of rounds fired by the attacker rather than worrying about his or her legal position? I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, on Amendment 18, which seeks clarity, we have nothing to add and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Amendments 19 and 20 seem to want to create an individual who is, in terms of rights and indemnities, somewhere between a citizen and a constable, or perhaps a firefighter. That would be a significant new piece of law. It would have to be accompanied by a significant portfolio of training in the management of risk to self and collateral damage. It seems to me that we would end up with the implication that the MoD had some sort of duty of care to make sure that the individual was equipped to behave in some way differently from a citizen, and we would end up in some area of certification whereby individuals would have to be seen to be competent not only in their straightforward military duties but in this self-tasking. There could be almost a proliferation of miniature armies among the citizenry.

I find it difficult to believe—I may be persuaded otherwise—that the complexities and costs of such a concept would justify the benefits. If the Government were to come forward with such a proposal, that would be a different matter. I would expect to see a body of research that looked into the various scenarios in which it might apply. I would expect that research to include an analysis of unintended consequences and how the appropriate ancillary rules would support those consequences, and I would expect extensive consultation. If such a concept were to come forward from the Government, accompanied by that level of analysis and consultation, of course we would have an open mind and treat it on its merits. Introducing such a powerful, new legal concept through an amendment to the Bill is not something we feel we can support.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope, on that basis, that the noble Lord, Lord West, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The Minister mentioned necessary legislative changes. Is it the Government’s intention to use the Bill as a vehicle?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my understanding is that this can be done by secondary legislation.