Orders of the Day — Armed Forces Bill

House of Commons, 12 December 2005.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill results from a comprehensive review of service law, the first comprehensive review since, I believe, the 1950s—about half a century.

I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in both 1991 and 1996, so long ago that there was a Conservative Government—[Interruption.] At that time, they were the future. We identified the need for a comprehensive review of the Service Discipline Acts, but nothing happened. In the 1998 strategic defence review, over which I had the pleasure of presiding under the tutelage of the then Secretary of State, George Robertson—now Lord Robertson—the Government recognised that a single system of service law would better serve today's armed forces, which increasingly train and operate together on both the practical and the theoretical sides of combat and warfare, and in many other tasks. I believe that the Bill will deliver just that. It represents four years' work, at the centre of which have been the armed forces themselves. I commend the work that has been done since his appointment by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has had to master the detail of a four-year summary of half a century of consideration of laws, some of which date back to centuries ago. It is a Bill that has at its centre the armed forces themselves. In that sense, it is a Bill for the armed forces and it has their full support, primarily because it meets their needs in a way that has been absent for decades.

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, a statement was made on Friday about the decision not to prosecute the soldiers involved in the fake pictures that appeared in the Daily Mirror, which put at risk the lives of all armed forces personnel serving around the world. How does that fit with the changes in the Bill? The Crown Prosecution Service said that there was no case to answer, although we know that people abused their positions and used Army equipment to stage faked photographs that put so many lives at risk? Lives will continue to be at risk, as no one is going to have to face a court for what they did.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. That sounds suspiciously like a failed urgent question to me. The hon. Gentleman should make briefer interventions.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I shall have to give a briefer answer than is merited by the seriousness of the question. Prosecutions taken under military law by the armed forces prosecution services or investigations conducted by the special investigations branch are independent of Defence Ministers and the chain of command. That applies even more, if it were possible, to the Crown Prosecution Service. Decisions on whether to prosecute a case or not to proceed with it are quite properly taken independently of any responsibility, authority or power of Defence Ministers. It is therefore not possible for me to comment in practical terms on the reasoning behind the decision that my hon. Friend mentions and it would be quite improper for me to comment on it in judicial terms. I hope that my reluctance to answer does not in any way suggest to my hon. Friend that I underestimate the seriousness of the issue that he raises.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Before the intervention of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the Secretary of State was saying that the armed forces support the Bill. Whatever the service boards may say, does he not recognise the dismay of many in the chain of command, particularly in the middle ranks, at the fact that for serious non-summary offences, commanding officers are to be taken out of the loop? They are the very people who most understand the pressures that their men face, yet they are to be taken completely out of the decision on whether to prosecute.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I shall return to the specific point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I ask him to accept that—however gallant, committed and sympathetic to the armed forces either he or, indeed, the officers with whom he may have discourse from time to time may be—the chain of command has to be preserved. Incidentally, that is one of the main purposes of the Bill—to protect the military service system.

The chain of command is represented by the chiefs of staff and those immediately under them, and when I say that the armed forces support the Bill, I mean it. They do: they operate their support through the chain of command, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to impute that the case was anything other than as I described it. I am sure that he did not mean to question the truth of my statement about the representations that were made to me by the chiefs of staff and those who work with them or that the armed forces do not fully support what they said. I will turn my attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, as I acknowledge that it is an important one and I agree with him about its seriousness and import.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Conservative Members are concerned about the challenge to the absolute authority of commanding officers. That is what affects discipline and morale and there is real concern that such authority is being challenged.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will attempt to explain as I go through my opening speech that the measures that have been taken are intended specifically to protect the system of military justice, which is self-sufficient and separate from civilian justice. In a democracy, there is sometimes the mistaken belief that military justice has to be exactly the same as that in civilian society. That is not the case, but wherever possible it is right—and, indeed, self-protecting—to ensure that the military system of justice approximates to the norms of civilian society, so far as is commensurate with operational effectiveness. The more that it does so, the more that we will protect the existence of the separate military system on which all of us in this House place importance.

I hope that, as I go through my speech, the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will see exactly why we are proffering these suggestions and proposals. Among other things, we want to avoid a repeat of the circumstances that led to the Trooper Williams case being dismissed before the trial finished and it being tried outside, in a civilian court. The intention is to prevent a recurrence of that situation, as I hope the hon. Gentlemen will see as I go through the argument.

Given the comments that have already been made, I should point out that, like every person participating in this debate, I am immensely proud of the British armed forces. I am second to none in my admiration of them, and the whole House will share such admiration. We owe them our respect and gratitude, but we also owe them an effective system of military justice because they deserve it. I will shortly set out some of the Bill's key provisions, but given the issues raised and the suggestions made in interventions—indeed, some of them have also been made in the press—let me deal directly and head-on with what the Bill is not about and lay some myths to rest.

This Bill is not about political correctness—one of the few offences, gladly, with which I have never been charged up to this point. It is not about creating a civilian system and, fundamentally, it is not about undermining the role of the commanding officer. It is about protecting and modernising our justice system and its relationship with the chain of command.

No one, least of all those in the services, thinks that service personnel should be above the law; indeed, it is central to the degree of respect with which our forces are regarded throughout the world that they operate within the law. But plenty of nonsense has been written and spoken about police investigations and the risk of prosecutions in respect of operations. There seems to be the almost muddle-headed notion in some quarters that service personnel are reluctant to open fire because they fear that they will be prosecuted if they kill or seriously injure someone. That notion is utterly wrong and potentially dangerous.

We train our forces to operate effectively and within the law that we lay down.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will give way in a second.

We have robust rules of engagement and if our people use lethal force in conflict, of course it will not automatically result in a police investigation, still less a criminal prosecution. Equally, where there is a credible allegation or suspicion of a serious offence, there will be an investigation, almost certainly by the service police—not civilian police but service police—but an investigation does not mean that a prosecution will follow. Therefore, the maintenance of standards and the investigation of credible allegations—carried out by independent investigation and independent prosecuting authorities, both of which exist within the military system—are a necessary part of maintaining the standards for which we are so proud of our armed forces.

This is not a case of one side arguing that no standards should be maintained and no allegations, however serious, investigated, and the other side saying that every allegation should be investigated—or even that every credible allegation should be investigated, leading to a prosecution. If someone wants evidence of that fact they need only look at the example of our latest theatre of operations, in Iraq. From memory, I think that some 80,000 soldiers and other servicemen and women have gone through Iraq in the various deployments, and among those some 183 cases have been investigated as involving allegations above the threshold of credibility. Of those cases, 20-odd have been pursued, and some five, I think, have come to trial. That is a commendation not only of the probity with which we conduct such matters, but of the high standards maintained by the British armed forces, even in the most difficult circumstances.

I understand how much more difficult that is now, in what we call an asymmetrical battlefield. Those standards were difficult enough to maintain when the enemy whom we were fighting had some respect for international conventions such as the Geneva convention, for the norms of warfare that civilised countries have adopted, and for the moral conventions and constraints on action, especially action against innocent civilians. How much more difficult it is for our servicemen and women to maintain them when the enemy does not respect those conventions, or feel constrained by any degree of morality. I understand that, and I hope that everyone in the House, and all those who write commentaries outside, do too—but it is not a reason for abandoning the standards, the probity and the discipline of British forces, which have made them famous. Even in such circumstances, we will maintain those standards as well as we have always done.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), because he indicated that he wanted to intervene some time ago, but was courteous enough to let me finish my point.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am sure that everybody appreciates the assurances with which he is trying to soothe our concerns. However, he has been visiting our forces all around the world, and I have visited a number of them, both in my own constituency and elsewhere. Surely troops have mentioned to him that there is now a real fear that there is a possibility of men being second-guessed in the most difficult circumstances that they can face—or has he come away with the impression that there are no genuine concerns out there?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Those issues have been raised with me, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman honestly that they have been raised mainly by soldiers asking me about press reports in which commentators, many of whom have never been near a battlefield, or even gone two rounds with a revolving door, far less been involved in combat, have pompously sounded off on that subject—although I am not, of course, saying that the Opposition Members here today are in that position. Such commentators accuse chiefs of staff with impeccable courageous credentials of being other than courageous. Of course those reports are read by soldiers and other servicemen and women, and of course I regret that.

Incidentally, I have also seen that when the picture is painted here of the battlefield in places such as Iraq, and of the consequences and the outcomes of what our servicemen and women are struggling for, it is an unbalanced picture. This morning the BBC said that the fact that 69 per cent. of people in Iraq were looking forward to a better future appeared to suggest that some of the reporting and descriptions of what was going on there had been wide of the mark. I notice that the BBC did not add to the words "reporting and descriptions" the words "by the BBC".

Of course I regret the comments that have been mentioned, and of course they are important; I do not blame hon. Gentlemen for raising them. However, the intention of the Bill is to strengthen and protect our military justice system by modernising and rendering it more effective in difficult circumstances, in relation to the chain of command. The intention is not to hand it over to civilian judgment. Indeed, the case of Trooper Williams, which I cited and which has caused concern in both Houses of Parliament and outside, would be far less likely to occur after these changes.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

With regard to certain serious offences committed within the United Kingdom—for instance, manslaughter—the civilian authorities have primacy in investigation and exclusive jurisdiction over prosecution and trial in civilian courts. Will the Bill change that?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

No, it will make no difference. It is possible at the moment for manslaughter to be laid as a charge under military law, and that will not change.

Legitimate concern is different from some of the over-dramatised reports that we read about the very few trials arising from operations in Iraq. We have not had wholesale investigations leading to wholesale prosecutions. As I said earlier, Defence Ministers have no power over, authority in, responsibility for or even oversight of the laying of charges or the prosecution of cases. Those are matters for the independent service prosecuting authorities, which decide whether a prosecution is warranted in any case referred to them. Hon. Members can form their own opinions about whether we share some of the same frustrations that people who are not in government feel as we regard certain developments, but it is proper—in a civilised, democratic society—for there be a separation between the ministerial code for running the armed forces, in conjunction with the chain of command, and the investigatory and prosecution authorities, which are naturally and properly independent. That is one of the factors that separate a democracy from a dictatorship.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

My right hon. Friend mentions the proper independence of the armed forces investigatory authorities. Will he re-examine the recommendation from the Defence Committee to introduce a system of independent oversight of investigations by the armed forces, because many families—and not only the Deepcut families, but those from other barracks—are concerned about the way in which the investigations were undertaken?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

In the case of Deepcut, we have appointed an independent inquiry and investigation, headed by the well known and well qualified QC, Nicholas Blake. In general, we have given serious consideration to the idea of an external, independent—by which, I take it, my hon. Friend means mostly civilian—complaints tribunal. I do not believe that that is appropriate, but I will have something to say about an independent element for the complaints procedure, which will go some way towards meeting the requests of the Defence Committee.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make some headway.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

My question relates directly to Deepcut. The Bill is the perfect opportunity to try to ensure that the legion errors made in investigating the still mysterious deaths of four young recruits at Deepcut barracks between 1995 and 2002 cannot happen again. I would have expected the Government to ensure that the concerns of parents and relatives and concern for the truth had been considered in phrasing the Bill. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been enormous resistance to sharing information about the deaths at Deepcut army barracks, and will he outline how the Bill might help to ensure that parents such as Des and Doreen James will never have to face a decade of uncertainty about what happened to their children while they were being trained for Army service?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes, of course I understand the deep trauma and the tragedy and difficulties faced by parents and loved ones in this case. During the passage of the Bill we will try to introduce a degree of independent element to the complaints procedure. In respect of the insistence on an independent inquiry, without prejudicing anything that may come from the Blake inquiry into Deepcut, it is as well to remember that in the case of Deepcut, with all the difficulties we faced, the investigations were not carried out only by the armed forces. There was an independent element, from first one police force and then a second police force, and now there is a further independent element—a QC. Whatever systems and structures we set up, they cannot inevitably guarantee that such tragedies will have an explanation that is readily identifiable and readily acceptable to everyone. I know that not only from Deepcut, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, from long experience in Northern Ireland. I fully and genuinely understand the deep feelings of the families involved and the terrible frustration and trauma, added to the tragedy of the loss of life, of searching for the unknown. I am aware of how difficult that is, but we have to await the outcome of the inquiry.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire)

rose—

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will take one more question, but then I shall go for a long time without interventions.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire)

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again on this important issue. Will he describe in a little more detail what he means by independence in relation to the complaints commission? There is an expectation among not only the families but the general public that there should be the fullest possible public scrutiny of public bodies, so does the Secretary of State accept that the best way to resolve the issue would be through an independent military ombudsman? The public would then be satisfied that the complaints are dealt with properly.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

If the hon. Gentleman can indulge me by letting me get beyond page two of my speech I might reach some of the points that are being raised.

I return to the point about the independent service prosecuting authorities who decide whether a prosecution is warranted in any case referred to them. They use the standard evidential test, based on a realistic prospect of a conviction, and the public interest test before they proceed. Another misconception is that military cases may arbitrarily be handed to civilian jurisdiction. That is not true, and I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Canterbury, who raised that issue earlier, is no longer in the Chamber, as it sounded as though he believed it.

In relation to offences committed in the United Kingdom over which both our civilian and service courts have jurisdiction, protocols between the service and civilian police forces apply at the start of investigations. There are also a few offences for which our civilian courts have jurisdiction when the offence is committed by UK citizens abroad—a point to which reference was made earlier. The Attorney-General made it clear in another place that in exceptional cases he has a role in deciding between prosecuting authorities with overlapping jurisdictions, but in no case—no case—has he exercised that role without the agreement of the relevant service prosecuting authority. Therefore, the apparently widespread myth that the Attorney-General or anyone else would intervene contrary to the views of the service authorities, or without consultation or agreement with them, to allocate a case to the civilian authorities is just not true.

Let us be perfectly clear that the Government are committed to retaining a separate system of service law. In our view, and in my view, that is essential to underpin operational effectiveness. The integrity of the system is essential if we are to retain the confidence of those who are subject to it, as well as those who are not. That involves professional and independent investigations into alleged serious offences and decisions on whether to prosecute being taken by an independent prosecutor with an understanding of the service context—the one that I was speaking about earlier—but, moreover, there must be proper safeguards and support for those who face investigation and prosecution in the military system.

Against that background on the major questions, let me turn now to the Bill itself, which is primarily about service discipline. It establishes for the very first time a modern, single system of service law. It defines offences, provides for the investigation of alleged offences and the arrest, holding in custody and charging of individuals accused of committing an offence. It makes provision for service personnel to be dealt with summarily by their commanding officer or tried by courts martial. It will retain the right of service personnel to elect trial by court martial and to appeal to the summary appeal court or the courts-martial appeal court as appropriate. That is all familiar. It is not revolution; it is, if anything, evolution.

The most significant change in the Bill is that there will be one system, not three. In future, under the Bill, armed forces personnel of whatever service will be subject to the same system wherever in the world they are serving and in whatever unit or formation. That will enable the proper alignment of discipline and command, and it will do so across all three services, instead of relying on ad hoc arrangements for joint operations, as we must do at present. Moreover, all service personnel will be subject to the same rights, powers and duties when they are charged with an offence. That is not only clearer but fairer to all those who serve in the armed forces.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Let me make a little progress, and then I will allow some more colleagues to intervene.

I want to say a word or two about the offences under part 1. All offences under the Bill are service offences. They are divided into two types. First, as now, service personnel will remain subject to the ordinary criminal law of England and Wales wherever they are serving. Secondly, the disciplinary offences that are unique to service law—many of which will be familiar, such as going absent without leave or looting—have been reviewed and brought up to date. We have removed certain offences because they are no longer appropriate or no one is ever charged with them, or because they are more properly charged under other provisions or dealt with administratively. It is not just the offence of scandalous conduct of officers that has gone. Other examples include

"allowing sequestration of aircraft or ship by a neutral state in time of war"

and billeting and requisitioning offences.

I want to say something now about the role of the commanding officer, which has featured in many interventions, before giving way to hon. Members. In our armed forces, commanding officers are responsible for the discipline of those under their command. A large part of the exercise of that discipline is done by example and leadership. Their authority is critical to the delivery of unit cohesion and operational effectiveness. As I said, that authority is primarily exhibited through their qualities of leadership and by inspiring the confidence, loyalty and trust of those who serve under them. Those qualities have long distinguished the British armed forces from many others throughout the world.

Ultimately, commanding officers must have the power to enforce discipline throughout the military criminal justice system. The Bill provides commanding officers for the first time with harmonised powers to deal with all people under the command of whatever service. To create such harmonised powers, we are reducing the theoretical extensive summary jurisdiction of commanding officers in the Royal Navy. I use the word "theoretical" because in reality those commanding officers do not exercise their powers over very serious matters, not least because their powers of punishment are far too limited. That might address points that hon. Members raised earlier. We are, however, increasing the powers of Army and Air Force commanding officers to deal with the small number of additional criminal offences that are set out in part 2 of schedule 1 with which, in straightforward cases, Navy commanding officers already deal summarily. There is thus some diminution of powers for the Navy, but a big increase within the armed forces.

The summary powers of commanding officers recognise the importance of not only giving authority to COs but being able to deal with such matters expeditiously. As part of that recognition, we are also harmonising the powers of commanding officers to deal summarily with officers up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and equivalent, subject to certain conditions.

Part 5 of the Bill sets out the duties of commanding officers in respect of allegations that a serious offence has been committed. Clause 113 provides that a commanding officer will be required to inform the service police as soon as practicable in the event of an allegation of a specified inherently serious offence, or an offence for which certain prescribed circumstances apply. The service police, who may already be investigating the matter, are in turn required to refer the case to the independent director of service prosecutions if they think there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with one of the inherently serious offences. It is the director of service prosecutions who will decide whether to bring charges on the basis of proper tests and a real understanding of the military context. That is the kernel of the relationship among the commanding officer, the investigating officers and the director of service prosecutions.

I stress that the offences that we are talking about are those that are inherently serious; they are ones of which there cannot be a minor example. They include civilian criminal offences such as murder and rape, other serious sexual offences, robbery, terrorism offences and so on. They also include some disciplinary offences that I am sure the whole House would agree are inherently serious, such as assisting the enemy and mutiny. The maximum sentence for those disciplinary offences is life imprisonment.

I want to explain why we are making the changes, so that hon. Members can perhaps understand the way in which they are meant to protect the integrity and independence of the military system. At present, if a person is charged, the commanding officer has the power to dismiss a charge—whether the offence is serious, such as those that I have mentioned, or not—without any form of hearing or evidence. Under existing law the result of such action means that even in extremely serious matters, such as those that I have just mentioned, dismissal excludes any further proceedings in the military system. Thus, the evidence is never heard and no decision in the case is ever taken by any independent service prosecuting authority. The case is dismissed by a commanding officer, no matter how serious, without any hearing, as I have said. That is theoretically possible. It has happened in practice. The case cannot then be tried at any other stage, whatever the misgivings, whatever the feelings thereafter or whatever the decision in the military system.

That, however, is not necessarily the end of the matter. Where civilian courts also have jurisdiction, civilian authorities may take action. The jurisdiction of the civilian courts may come into play as a result of the services being prevented from taking any further action on the matter even if there is afterthought through just such a technicality. That is what I wanted to address and we wanted to address. It is the problem that gave rise to so much dissatisfaction over one particular case.

The Bill will ensure that the director of service prosecutions will decide on serious cases, and that on serious cases a commanding officer's action cannot prevent further action by the services themselves. Some people have attacked the proposal as interfering with hallowed historical powers of commanding officers. It is simply wrong, however, that commanding officers alone must be able to decide whether to charge those under their command with serious offences such as rape or murder, and to do so without any hearing, or to dismiss a charge that has been brought without any form of hearing.

Even if that were not wrong, which I believe it is, it gives rise to allocation afterwards to the civilian courts as the matter is prevented from any further consideration under the military system. I do not think that commanding officers should be placed in that position and have that responsibility placed on them for such offences—and nor do they. As long as they have such responsibility, the services will be open to recourse to civilian law as in the Trooper Williams case, which gave rise to so much antagonism and unease throughout the House, the other place and outside.

I have explained to the House that we have taken these steps to prevent something of the sort from happening again.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

The Secretary of State has explained well why he has brought the Bill to this point, and I accept his reason. However, does he recognise, as the Constitutional Affairs Committee report indicates, that a problem has arisen? It is that a soldier could be tried for a murder that is alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, and convicted by three votes to two. That would not have happened to him if he had gone to the civilian court.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have not given that serious consideration. I understand that that issue has only recently arisen in the light of the report. The matter will certainly be given serious consideration in the course of our deliberations. One of the great strengths of the manner of investigating as well as debating the Bill is the hybrid nature of the Committee, which compensates for the length of time that is often taken. I am sure that that question will be considered during the course of our deliberations.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

It is worth pointing out that a court martial already has the ability to deal with charges such as murder on a 5:2 verdict if they occur overseas, so the position is not entirely inconsistent. Now that there is to be concomitant civil and military jurisdictions, and following further discussions between the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General, where exactly will the priority lie, when there is a choice, in deciding whether a case should be heard by a court martial or a Crown court?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

That is not a new problem. Joint jurisdiction already operates in such cases. In response to my inquiries, I can tell the House that cases that could be tried under military law have not be allocated to the civilian law courts without the agreement of the service authorities.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I appreciate the Secretary of State's intention in introducing the Bill, but is there not a danger in complicated cases such as those following incidents in Northern Ireland? In retrospect, Her Majesty's armed forces who were engaged in ambushes on terrorists fleeing the scene could be prosecuted more easily for murder, although they were following the rules of engagement laid down by their commanding officer.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I do not think that the situation has changed. Indeed, we want to try to make sure that there is not a blockage with summary dismissal in the military system that prevents it from being considered at any other stage and therefore compels such cases to go to the civilian system. We want to remove that blockage to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, the person who looks at the evidence with a view to prosecution—the director of service prosecutions—not only considers the evidential test and the public interest but has experience of a military or combat situation. That is more important than ever, given, as I mentioned earlier, the asymmetric nature of warfare. Things that were regarded as unreasonable 20 or 30 years ago may, given the advent of suicide bombers who pretend to be prisoners and given other developments, now be considered reasonable. Actions that were considered beyond the bounds some time ago may now be considered reasonable, because of changed circumstances, not because of changes in the actions themselves. The person who is best placed to weigh the evidence of offence against mitigating circumstances is the director of service prosecutions, which is why I am trying to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, they make those decisions, independent of the chain of command, the Secretary of State and the civilian system.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

rose—

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

May I make some progress before giving way?

As long as we fail to tackle the problem, cases such as the Trooper Williams case could reoccur. I want to try to avoid that, and it is my strong belief that it can be avoided. All offences can be dealt with properly under service law. The court martial is, and will remain, a court that complies with the European convention on human rights. It is right that even the most serious cases should be resolved within the service system once proceedings have begun. As we told the Defence Committee more than a year ago in a proposal that it described as "sensible", the Bill will remove the power of commanding officers to dismiss such serious offences in the manner described, thus protecting the whole military system from gradual encroachment by the civilian system.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

Can soldiers who are charged with a serious offence such as murder opt for civilian jurisdiction rather than for court martial?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

No. They can apply for a court martial on a range of offences, but they cannot opt out in favour of the civilian system. They are members of the armed forces, and are subject to military discipline. We are trying to make sure that that military discipline and the military system itself can, as far as possible, deal with the most serious offences.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to keep matters within the military family, so to speak. He said that as a result of the dismissal of the case of Trooper Williams by the commanding officer no further military action could be taken and the case could therefore be handled only by the civilian courts. The Secretary of State wants to interpose the military court instead of the civilian court, but that does not justify taking away from the commanding officer the power, particularly in the heat of battle and in the circumstances that we face in Iraq, to dismiss a case there and then. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of eliding the two issues, but they are separate. Will he address that?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

In the heat of battle, the commanding officer would wish to reflect. That, I take it, is accepted. He would wish, presumably, to take advice, to consult, to have a hearing on an offence committed in the heat of battle such as murder or rape or another sexual offence. The problem is that summarily dismissing an offence of such seriousness without a hearing, which is what happens under the present system, creates a situation where, no matter who else in the military may feel that that decision was wrong, it cannot be dealt with further in the military. That is precisely the situation that arose in the case of Trooper Williams, which was the route whereby the matter was referred to the civilian court.

If we contain such serious offences within the military, so that they have to be decided by the director of public prosecutions—[Interruption.] Yes, I beg the House's pardon. If we ensure that the director of service prosecutions is the responsible body, we prevent another Trooper Williams case. Incidentally, although this was not the primary reason, the commanding officer is then freed up for the responsibility of giving succour, support, assistance and advice to his man or woman who is accused of the crime. There is no conflict of interest then between the commanding officer's duty of care to the individual concerned and the director of service prosecutions bringing a prosecution. By taking away the summary right to dismiss cases as serious as those described, without even a hearing, we are protecting the system from the course of events that caused the civilian system to intervene.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

rose—

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, but that is the last time, or there will be complaints that I have taken too long.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. If, in the heat of battle, the commanding officer dismisses a case—he knows the man, he knows the circumstances and he can see that there is no case to answer—and if subsequently it is perceived that that was a wrong decision which was entirely without foundation, in the present circumstances the case would have to be dealt with by the civilian courts. Why not leave it to the director of service prosecutions, on the basis of information laid by authority, to deal with the matter within the service, still leaving the commanding officer with the latitude to deal summarily with a difficult case?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to square a circle, which cannot be done. One cannot give absolute authority to the commanding officer summarily to dismiss a case and then say that the director of service prosecutions may overrule that authority—one cannot have both things. The ultimate arbiter on serious offences must be either within the armed forces or the commanding officer. If one chooses the commanding officer, problems arise in circumstances such as the Trooper Williams case, because there is no other place in the military where such a case can be tried by virtue of the fact that the absolute powers on summary dismissal lie with the commanding officer.

When the Trooper Williams case was referred to the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General had no recourse other than the civilian courts, and I am protecting us against that occurring again. I accept that in the real world there is no ideal solution that would give the absolute power of decision both to the director of service prosecutions and to the commanding officer. I understand that any decision will have a downside, but I contend that for the armed forces as a whole, including the chain of command, which will be free to give succour and support to an individual accused by the director of service prosecutions under the commanding officer's care of duty, the upside far outweighs the downside. In the Trooper Williams case, the downside was the furore caused by its referral outside the services.

I hope that I have spent sufficient time trying to answer that question.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

No. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter, but then he was not present—no doubt for very important reasons—during 20 minutes of my explanation. It is not fair to other hon. Members for him to return and ignore everything that I have said—if he had sat here, he would still have ignored me, but it would at least have given me a degree of generosity towards him, which I do not feel compelled to extend tonight.

I have made it clear that prosecutions will be independent from the chain of command and from Ministers. The investigators in the special investigation branch and the service prosecutors do a professional job, sometimes in the most demanding, difficult and dangerous circumstances—they conduct investigations in conditions in which civilian police would not operate, and they have my admiration and support. The Bill reinforces their relationship with the director of service prosecutions in a similar way to the relationship between their civilian counterparts and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Where the commanding officer is considering what action to take on offences over which he has powers—the hon. Member for Aldershot has raised this point—legal advice will, as now, be available. Under the Bill, he may choose to deal with an offence summarily, or he may decide to refer the matter to the prosecuting authorities, because he does not want to exercise his summary powers and believes that a court martial would be more appropriate. He may discontinue proceedings, but that would not prevent further action by the services at a later stage, if it were justified.

If the commanding officer deals with the matter summarily and finds it proved, he will go on to award a punishment. Where he refers the matter to the director of service prosecutions, the director will decide whether to bring a prosecution and what the charge shall be. In all cases tried by court martial, the director of service prosecutions will determine the charge, but the commanding officer will bring it formally by notifying the individual concerned, which, as I have said, will free up and reinforce his role in implementing the CO's duty of care in ensuring that someone under his command who is subject to proceedings under service law is properly supported and advised.

I have spent so much time on that aspect of the Bill because it is central to the military criminal justice system. I want briefly to turn to other matters in the Bill that involve further changes to the current system.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I shall give way one last time, and that is it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I do not want to start a major debate about Deepcut, but the Secretary of State will be aware that one of the findings in that case involved the question of mindset—the police had a questionable mindset in that they were willing to accept an explanation of suicide on relatively superficial evidence. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he intends the Bill to address the question of mindset? Will he ensure that an objective analysis is made of any accusations with regard to impropriety within, in particular, the training element of the armed forces?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concentrating on Deepcut and its importance. He will understand, however, that the essence of an independent review, which people constantly demand in such circumstances, is that I do not decide what I am going to do before it reports. Let us wait for that report. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will pay attention in the course of the debate to the general matters that the hon. Gentleman raises.

The Bill creates two military courts—the court martial and the summary appeal court—to replace existing courts provided for under the Service Discipline Acts. The court martial will be a standing court and replace courts martial convened on an ad-hoc basis to deal with individual trials. Like the Crown court, this standing court will be able to sit in more than one place at a time and to deal with different cases. It is not a single court in permanent session. The main advantages of a standing court are that it will be more efficient by reducing some administrative arrangements and making it easier to arrange for preliminary matters to be dealt with.

In addition, the Bill creates a service civilian court to replace the standing civilian court that was established in 1976. Like its predecessor, this court may only sit overseas. It has powers equivalent to those of a magistrates court when dealing with offences committed by those civilians who are described in the Bill as subject to service discipline. For the court martial and the service civilian court, the Bill creates a more modern and appropriate sentencing regime which primarily reflects changes introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Importantly, we believe that improvements in speed and efficiency will come from the changes I have described. At the moment, every single case charged must first go to the commanding officer. He looks into the matter. If he thinks that it should go to court martial, he refers it to higher authority in the chain of command. In turn, higher authority refers the case to the prosecuting authority. However, in serious cases the service police will, while keeping the commanding officer informed—that is important—send the case straight to the director of service prosecutions, who will determine any charge to be brought.

Finally, I turn briefly to two other key areas in the Bill that deal with non-disciplinary matters. The first is the redress of grievance system, which some hon. Members have mentioned. Service personnel will retain a right to complain about any matter where they think themselves wronged. However, the current system takes too long and involves consideration through successive layers in the command chain. We want to improve that. We shall introduce a more streamlined system that will reduce the bureaucracy and provide for the majority of matters that cannot be resolved by the commanding officer to pass quickly to a panel outside the chain of command with powers delegated to it by the Defence Council. Moreover, we have provided in certain cases for a person who is independent of the chain of command, not a civil servant, to sit on the panel.

The second area is that of harmonised provision for service inquiries. We think it essential that the services retain the ability to hold internal investigations to establish the facts of a matter and to make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. That is what boards of inquiry, as they are currently known, are for. As now, much of the detailed procedure and powers of such inquiries will be made in subordinate legislation.

I have spent a considerable amount of time introducing the Bill because I am aware of its importance to the House and to the armed forces. The armed forces deserve nothing less than a fair and modern criminal justice system with all the appropriate safeguards. That is why, on becoming Secretary of State, I ordered a review of the support we give to those accused under service law. Those who serve their country are entitled to be sure that we will carry out the duty of care as seriously as they would wish us to. I have seen the outcome of that review. I am satisfied at present that the support that we give them is of a high order and in the tradition of the responsibility that commanding officers have to those under their command. That level of support must and will continue under a single system of service law.

I believe that the reforms in the Bill should be welcome to those who serve in today's forces. The Bill recognises the special circumstances, risks, dangers and demands that we place on service personnel. Its key purpose is to provide them with a fair, modern system of criminal justice that will underpin their operational effectiveness, of which every Member of this House is justly proud. I hope that the Bill will serve them well into the future. If it serves them as well as they serve their country, it will have been the accomplishment that we set out to achieve. I commend the Bill to the House.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

This major new Bill will have far-reaching consequences for all members of Her Majesty's armed forces. Conservative Members will judge it against the essential criterion that it must reinforce operational effectiveness and reinforce, not undermine, military ethos.

As the Secretary of State pointed out, the Ministry of Defence has been working on the Bill for some five years. It is therefore a little regrettable that we received the explanatory notes only last Wednesday. However, as we will have the opportunity to consider the Bill in some considerable detail in a special Select Committee, taking evidence from witnesses, we shall not oppose its Second Reading, although we reserve our position as regards Third Reading. There are grounds for supporting the Bill's objectives, if not all of its detail—not least where it brings disciplinary procedures into line with operational procedures.

As the Secretary of State pointed out, it is a much-valued tradition in the House that at the outset of each defence debate, whatever the specific topic, we pay sincere and deserved tribute to the courage and professionalism of all the men and women of our armed services, in whom this country can and does take pride.

I have long had an interest in defence matters. Indeed, one of the reasons why I was drawn into politics was the campaign against the unilateralists in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—a battle that I look forward to rejoining in the coming months. I had the pleasure of serving for five years as a medical officer, albeit as a civilian, in the Royal Army Educational Corps tri-service centre at Beaconsfield. That gave me a useful insight into the Army medical services as well as issues relating to welfare provision for service families.

The pride in our armed forces that has already been expressed in this debate rests in part upon how officers and servicemen and women deliver military power with self-restraint and discipline. It is greatly to be regretted that there are increasing misgivings among the armed forces about the rules of engagement and the extent to which soldiers, in particular, are being held to account for their actions in extremely difficult circumstances. While we deliberate in this air-conditioned House of Commons, several thousand miles away in Iraq soldiers have to make life and death decisions—a situation made even more challenging, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, by the phenomenon of the suicide bomber. If they hesitate, they may be killed; if they are too hasty, they know that they may face a court martial.

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

What is the hon. Gentleman's view on the George Mendonca case?

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

I shall come to that issue later, when it is appropriate for me to do so.

Perhaps the most graphic example of the situation was described in an article in The Sunday Times on 6 November, which reported a senior Royal Army Medical Corps doctor saying that in Basra he and his colleagues had been counselling young soldiers who

"feared a military investigation as much they did the insurgents".

Even more alarming is the assertion that

"There doesn't appear to be any overt consideration or understanding of the pressures that our soldiers are under. The unpopularity of the war at home and a belief that firing their rifles in virtually any circumstances is likely to see them end up in court are sapping morale."

The reality of that would undoubtedly be contested but the perception exists, and perception affects behaviour. We must take that into account in our debate.

One corporal said that troops arriving in Basra were confronted with warnings from the Royal Military Police that every incident would be investigated and that, if they shot someone, they would face an inquiry that could take up to a year. Hon. Members of all parties accept that to achieve the goal of maximum operational effectiveness, discipline must be maintained and that, therefore, an effective system of military justice must be in place. The system must support commanding officers and the rights of those serving at every level. That is a difficult balance, but it must be struck.

No hon. Member believes that members of the armed forces should be above the law. Indeed, according to the manual of military law, those in our armed forces are not only subject to the law of the land, but the disciplinary environment is maintained by supplementing the ordinary criminal law and judicial system with a special code of discipline and a special system for enforcing it.

For all our servicemen and women, it is essential that justice is done and seen to be done. That is important not only for the standing of our armed forces at home and abroad, but for their morale. Discipline must be clear, coherent, transparent, efficient and fair. Perhaps above all, there must be a clear link between discipline and command, as several of my hon. Friends have said. If the link is broken, it means that those who have to make life or death decisions on the spur of the moment may worry as much about the legal consequence of their actions as about the actions. That is potentially catastrophic for our operational capabilities. What a tragedy if our serving men and women were to become as afraid of lawyers as of insurgents.

We must always remember that the armed forces are different and need to be different. They are asked, in the name of our national security, to take lives and, at times, to give lives in a way that ordinary civilians are never required to do. The system of discipline that is applied to them and the considerations around it need to take fully into account that those involved are in potentially lethal situations. The position is unique and must be tackled as such.

Ministers have often stated that servicemen and women should reflect or be representative of British society. Although I agree that our forces should reflect the make-up of society at large, I put it to the House that the outstanding success of our armed forces derives from their adherence to a set of values which is, all too often, in short supply in society. Furthermore, when soldiers undertake operations, they operate under a different set of circumstances, which must be acknowledged by the law, and for which the wholesale adoption of civilian legal procedures is not appropriate. The Secretary of State made that point in his opening speech.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because I have not been present for the whole debate, for which I apologise.

The hon. Gentleman said that servicemen and women operate in different circumstances. Today, in marked contrast to 30 or 40 years ago, those circumstances include the fact that they nearly always work alongside nationals of other countries and with armed forces of other nationalities. Sometimes, when there is a difference in perception of the disciplinary structure and systems of different nationalities, it may cause distress and further complications. How does he believe that we can reconcile that?

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

Far be it from me to attempt to put words into the Secretary of State's mouth, but it is difficult enough to reconcile the disciplinary position between the three services in this country without trying to reconcile it with the disciplinary procedures for other forces serving abroad. In any case, in some details, for example, in the Falklands and Iraq, our soldiers often operate by themselves and have to be subject to a British disciplinary code that is based on British law. Surely that is the correct position for British armed forces.

The correspondence between the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State's predecessor, which was discovered during a recent legal action, is extremely revealing. An article in The Observer on 27 February reported that the Attorney-General wanted to replace the Army prosecuting authority with criminal lawyers from outside the Army, an intervention about which, I am pleased to say, the former Secretary of State said that it

"did indeed cause me concern".

Such a move would be a grave mistake.

Ministers need to understand that, in many parts of the services, there is a general anxiety about the increasing threat to the disciplinary traditions of the armed forces. Perhaps it was best put by the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, when he spoke in a debate in the other place on 14 July. He said:

"The Armed Forces are under legal siege and are being pushed in a direction that will see such an order being deemed as improper or legally unsound. They are being pushed by people not schooled in operations but only in political correctness. They are being pushed to a time when they will fail in an operation because the commanding officer's authority and his command chain has been compromised with tortuous rules not relevant to fighting and where his instinct to be daring and innovative is being buried under the threat of liabilities and hounded out by those who have no concept of what is required to fight and win."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1236.]

There will undoubtedly be a debate on how true that perception is. However, its existence is debilitating. There is a particular anxiety about the operation of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 and its impact on service law, of which we had several recent examples. The basic problem is that no set-aside was made for the military. When debating the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who was then shadow Foreign Secretary, called for us to do as the French had done and exercise a seven-year opt-out. He also called for a watertight opt-out, which would enable Ministers who were confident that a case was vexatious to ensure that a warrant was not executed against a member of Her Majesty's armed forces. Neither proposal was heeded.

Several cases that involve the Human Rights Act or the ICC are causing considerable anxiety, for example, that involving Colonel Mendonca and six other members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and the Intelligence Corps—the first brought against British personnel under the ICC. We heard today about the case of Trooper Williams. That raises suspicions in some quarters that the prosecuting authority behaved in a way more compatible with political than judicial priorities.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I want to make a small technical, but important point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not make decisions about how to prosecute. I have neither authority nor accountability for them. Nevertheless, we should be accurate. The charges have not been brought against the soldiers whom the hon. Gentleman named or referred to under the ICC. The two pre-existing charges in English law have been brought under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which is different. The two charges, which are inhumane treatment and manslaughter, already existed. They are English law charges that have merely been incorporated in the ICC Act as the latest relevant measure under which they could be brought.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I am sure that hon. Members are well aware of the position with regard to some cases. Some of them are under consideration and I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen appreciate that it would not do to be too precise in those matters.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, I was careful to say that I would answer a question that a Labour Member asked me but within the scope that I would be allowed in the Chamber.

Perhaps the clash between the legal and judicial purists and the pragmatists is at its clearest in the abolition of the reviewing authority. There, the purist interpretation of judicial function comes into conflict with the traditional way in which service discipline has been upheld. On the one hand, it could be clearly understood that involving the reviewing authority in a purely judicial process could be perceived as anomalous. Indeed, that view has been presented on several occasions—certainly, the European Court holds it.

On the other hand, the Select Committee drew attention to the fact that the reviewing process contributes to the efficient running of service disciplinary procedures, and acts in the interests of promoting justice. There is certainly no case for believing that the reviewing authority is detrimental to the interests of service personnel; it can reduce sentences but not increase them, so there is no concept of double jeopardy. The Government must decide whether to pander to the judicial purists or to maintain a system that has worked particularly effectively in the past.

I shall now come to other aspects of the Bill. The fact that there has been an increase in the number of joint units commends itself to a unified disciplinary code and a tri-service Act. This is the greatest justification for the Bill. Frankly, the alternative—the appointment of separate commanding officers for the different services—could lead to inconsistency and disparity in the treatment of individuals, although it is also worth pointing out that when that happened in the Falklands, for example, commanders in the field were able to work in a constructive and practical way to resolve the issues.

On commanding officers' powers, there clearly has to be a compromise between the Army and the RAF on the one hand and the Royal Navy on the other. That will mean a change in the operational conditions for all concerned. As the Secretary of State pointed out, it will mean a reduction in the summary powers of naval commanding officers, and a concomitant increase in those powers for commanding officers in the Army and the RAF. We are concerned, as was the Select Committee, to ensure that those commanding officers are given the appropriate training to ensure that they make responsible use of their new powers. A system of revision must be undertaken to ensure that discrepancies do not arise in the execution of the new powers.

It is important that, as far as is possible, the commanding officer has ultimate authority over the unit, and sufficient latitude to enable him to deliver operational effectiveness. The commanding officer is at the centre of the system of discipline and is responsible for the behaviour of those under his or her command. It is the knowledge that the CO has the power to dispense summary justice that helps to mould a unit, as well as the leadership to which the Secretary of State referred. The CO's dispensation of justice is a key means of commanding respect, which is part of that leadership. Given the increased number of cases facing the Royal Navy, it is also important, in a practical sense, that expeditious processes result in minimal disruption as a result of the increased number of courts martial that will inevitably happen, especially when witnesses are required who are currently serving on one of Her Majesty's ships. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that point in his reply this evening.

The introduction of a single prosecuting authority is a sensible move in the interests of efficiency, as it will bring the structures of authority in line with the changes in tri-services rules. Likewise, a unified courts martial system is appropriate, with the support authorities also being brought into alignment. We have one concern, however, about the unified courts martial system, and perhaps the Secretary of State could deal with it now. It relates to the Government's almost baffling refusal to allow randomly selected panels.

Most of us in this country believe that randomly selected juries underpin our judicial system and guarantee independence in the operation of the court system. The panel for a court martial being chosen rather than selected on a random basis will create an unnecessary hostage to fortune for those who wish to portray military discipline as having the potential to be influenced by other interests. A randomly selected panel would be a strong bulwark against that false charge being made by those who want to see further interference in military disciplinary procedures. I hope that the Government will consider this matter constructively, and an early answer would be greatly appreciated.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent letter from the Adjutant-General, revealed in another place, stated:

"With current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths of Iraqi civilians during operation telic: our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause celebre for pressure groups, and a significant threat to the military justice system".—[Official Report, House of Lords,14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1222.]

How right my hon. Friend is.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As I said at the outset, the system must be transparent and fair. That means that we must consider all the elements of our civil system that could be transposed on to the military system without in any way debilitating military justice. We must also recognise the elements of military justice that are unique and must be retained, in order for the vital link between command and discipline to be maintained.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about randomly selected panels. Did he look at the points raised by the Judge Advocate General in front of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, including the suggestion that the panels should be larger, particularly for cases involving more serious offences? He also questioned whether it made sense for the panels to be involved in sentencing.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

The right hon. Gentleman raises important issues. One of the advantages of the Select Committee is that so much evidence can be considered and so many weighty issues can be taken into account. That was the correct procedure to use in relation to the Bill, and I hope that the Government will ensure that there is sufficient time to consider this and subsequent parts of the Bill so that the House can fully take into account the breadth of detailed knowledge available on many of these subjects.

The Bill's bringing together the procedures of the boards of inquiry also makes sense, although, unlike the Select Committee, we believe that they should be conducted in a similar manner to the present one, and that there should be no automatic right for any individual, including next of kin, to attend the inquiry at board level. We would continue with the present arrangements, which have served well the interests of the services, of individuals and of justice.

On the question of issuing contracts for armed forces personnel similar to those for civilians, I have already noted that the position of the armed forces is different. Those who are required to operate in exceptional circumstances need to do so on a basis of contractual law that reflects those operational requirements, but which also reflects the fact that they fall within an augmentation of civil law rather than a substitute for it. Those who put their lives on the line cannot be treated in the same way, in terms of contractual law, as those who stack the shelves of our supermarkets.

An important question that the House must consider relates to the timetable for review of this legislation. It has been the practice to carry out five-yearly renewal of primary legislation relating to the armed forces disciplinary code, with an annual order to keep the matter under constant review. The case has been made that the annual review does not give adequate time for the bedding down and assessment of new arrangements. However, the annual review mechanism gives the House a chance to maintain constant surveillance over what is happening. At a time when domestic and short-term issues often crowd the political agenda, the annual review at least affords the House a regular opportunity to discuss what is happening in relation to service disciplinary procedures, and to introduce further primary legislation if required. Recent cases of primary legislation in response to European Court of Human Rights judgments demonstrate why it is necessary to consider this difficult and ever-changing subject far more frequently than every five years. We hope that this issue will be considered in Committee.

This is an important and complex Bill. Many of its measures depend on a complicated balance of judgments, and we shall consider that balance in detail during the passage of the Bill. We need a system of justice that recognises the unique position of those serving in our armed forces, and that gives them the full confidence to do what they need to do in our name. Reform in this field is justified, but it must not be used as an excuse fundamentally to alter the culture of our armed forces disciplinary codes. The armed forces are different, and they must be treated as such. The link between command and discipline is utterly fundamental. Let us have reform, yes, but let us not put the purists before the pragmatists. As we carry out these reforms, let us keep a sense of proportion and of natural justice, and an understanding of just how much we ourselves owe.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

I welcome this Bill for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out. It is evolutionary, not revolutionary, despite some of the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It enhances at least to a modest degree the provisions for independence, although not to anything like a sufficient degree, a point to which I want to refer later. In many respects, it builds on the qualities to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred as distinguishing leadership in our armed forces. It also harmonises the law in a way that I think that we all agree is essential in a world in which there are so many joint operations, and in which our armed services face great dangers in the many theatres of operations in which they put their lives on the line for us. In some ways, the Bill maintains and enhances the commanding officer's ability to enforce discipline where that proves necessary. Listening to my right hon. Friend, it also brings clarity to the role of, and relationship between, the service and civilian courts, thereby addressing the problem of cases such as that of Trooper Williams where clarity has been lacking and that has gone on to foster angst and antagonism.

For all those reasons, I welcome the fact that we have at last arrived at Second Reading of a Bill that has been a long time in the making. As a new member of the Defence Committee, I do not want to pretend that I can yet begin to offer a well-informed view on all the 375 clauses and 15 schedules. However, I want first to deal with some issues in the later clauses that were raised by the Defence Committee in relation to the importance of independence in the system. Several hon. Members referred to them in interventions. Specifically, I want to deal with proposals about redress for individual grievances in clauses 330 to 333. Secondly, I want to comment on the issue raised by the Defence Committee most recently in its report to the House on 8 December in relation to clause 371 dealing with the duration of legislation and the provision—or lack of it, to which the hon. Member for Woodspring just referred—for annual renewal of legislation by Order in Council.

On the first of those matters, my right hon. Friend's remarks about the grievance and disciplinary procedure and the explanatory notes are clear. The explanatory notes rightly state:

"the terms of service of service personnel are not governed by domestic employment law"

and that the

"statutory redress system has therefore always been of importance if a service person is to be allowed to complain about any matter where he thinks himself wronged in relation to his service."

Currently, that complaint

"proceeds through a service person's commanding officer, through various layers of the command chain, to the Defence Council. In those circumstances the Service Board of the complainant's Service act for the Defence Council . . . These procedures have been found, in practice, to be slow. Service Boards have been overloaded with cases which has led to delay in cases being resolved. The clauses in the Bill are designed to speed up the process."

I welcome the potential offered by clauses 330 to 333 for doing that, because all hon. Members recognise that delay in dealing with individual grievances is one of the most common causes of distress to constituents, not just in relation to complaints in the armed services but to all the many complaints that Members receive in the course of our duties. Those clauses are to be welcomed, especially if, as I understand it, they are to be accompanied by the greater availability of mediation through the welfare services.

Those clauses are perhaps less to be welcomed in their very limited introduction of an independent voice. That is referred to in clause 332(6), which states that the regulations "may"—only "may"—

"require, in the case of any service complaint of a prescribed description, a service complaint panel to include one independent member".

Even with an understanding of the very different culture of the armed services, that seems to be a minimalist and inadequate response to the recommendation of the Defence Committee, repeated in our report to the House of 8 December. We referred to the duty of care report of the previous Defence Committee, which recommended the establishment of an independent complaints commission and set out the general responsibilities and powers that such a commission should have. It should have powers independent of the armed forces, its recommendations should be binding, it should have the power to consider past cases and it should have access rights to all documentation and persons. In their response, the Government stated that they would consider introducing an independent element and the detailed implications of that.

The Bill as introduced to the House provides for the establishment of that service complaints panel, but from the information in the Bill, it appears that the independent element in the complaints system consists only of that single voice on the panel. I hope that that will be reflected on in the scrutiny of the provision in the special Select Committee. Even with an understanding of the very different culture of the armed forces, there is much more scope for bringing an independent voice to such considerations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on his thinking on the matter and on whether the mechanisms that he will need to put in place for decisions in relation to the independent panel member, even in such a limited, minimalist complaints panel, might turn out to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. He will have to consider the sort of decision making that will have to be involved, which might become an unnecessary focal point for the continuing concern about the fairness of the grievance procedure.

To some extent, that consideration depends on the numbers and types of complaints that can be expected to be dealt with through such panels. The explanatory notes refer specifically to bullying and harassment as appropriate types of complaints. I wonder how many other types of complaints there will be and whether, if the number is small, the cake will be worth the candle of setting up a process to decide which types of complaint fall into the non-independent category, especially, if it opens up yet another avenue for dispute and delay. It might be simpler just to bite the bullet and ensure that, if there is an independent dimension to the service complaints procedure even to that modest extent, it is at least truly independent.

Certainly, there is no shortage of people with the tools of objectivity and skills in dispute resolution and arbitration. Professional training and accreditation for those who practise in those areas have progressed a great deal in recent years, and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution are among a number of good sources. Those are also good sources of knowledge on how a strong framework of mediation can be built into the whole system. Mediation, at its best, is strong, not wishy-washy as some people would characterise it. It can add value to any organisation and can mean a win-win outcome achieved more often. If there is the knowledge that there is an automatic independent dimension further down the line for those cases that reach the complaints panels and mediation is worked into the welfare package, that is likely to help to resolve more cases earlier. That is surely desirable. It might head off difficult situations such as those that arose during investigation of the events at Deepcut. We do not want to resolve such cases when they have gone so far down the line. If the clause in its present form is as far as the Government will go, calls for more rather than less are likely to continue. As the hon. Member for Woodspring said, we need a system under which justice is not only done but seen to be done.

Clause 371 provides for a quinquennial review of the legislation. It is silent, as are the explanatory notes, on the current annual renewal of SDAs in intervening years by Order in Council, approved in draft by both Houses. For the reasons given in the Select Committee report, I see no case for dropping the annual renewal. It is a long-standing constitutional convention. Moreover, as a glance at the Hansard record of the annual debates will reveal, it allows for discussion of constituency experience of how the present legislation is working, of Members' experience of the armed services and of their experience of the parliamentary scheme. Matters raised in Defence Committee reports are often brought up during the annual debates, as is progress towards producing legislation. Arguably, after the Bill is passed, it will make even more sense for us to have such an annual opportunity and I do not think that the requirement for delegated legislation is likely to cause much concern to the business managers.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the hon. Lady have any idea who is asking for the annual review to be dropped?

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

As I said a moment ago, the explanatory notes are silent on that. Perhaps when he sums up, my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some indication of how strongly the Government feel about a matter that I am sure will be closely scrutinised by the special Select Committee. Perhaps at that stage some arguments will be advanced in its favour or perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that the Government have an open mind and may table a modest amendment at either the Select or Standing Committee stage.

Along with my colleagues on the Defence Committee, I shall follow closely the progress of this long-awaited and very important Bill.

Michael Moore (Liberal Democrat, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), both because of the issues that she raised, to some of which I shall return, and because of her work on the Defence Committee. The Committee's work is very important to the quality of our debate. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) is present and he may wish to speak later.

Let me also belatedly congratulate the new shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). As ever, he has brought his energy and intellectual sharpness to the debate and I look forward to what will happen over the next few months. At the very least, he maintains the Scottish stranglehold on the defence portfolio on both sides of the House. I apologise for having missed his debut last week when he responded to a statement on a very serious matter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) responded on behalf of my party. It was a reminder to all of us of the seriousness of the context in which today's debate takes place.

All of us rightly pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and bravery of our armed forces time and again. As was pointed out earlier, as we debate in the safety of the Chamber, they put their lives at risk in many parts of the world. We must never forget that.

The importance of the Bill is obvious from the difficult demands placed on servicemen and women day in, day out. The Secretary of State highlighted that when he spoke of the terrible growth in asymmetric warfare in recent years and the difficulties involved in dealing with enemies and others who do not operate according to the value systems and rules that we observe and expect others to observe. Recent court cases have drawn attention to issues that have been raised here today. I am sure that they will bring some of the Bill's proposals into sharp relief and make our scrutiny all the closer.

Proper service discipline is fundamental to our operational effectiveness and it is fundamental to our role in the world that our armed forces operate within the law and not above it. In considering appropriate legislation for the armed forces, we must try to balance complex and sometimes competing priorities. As others have said, the Bill represents a significant overhaul and modernisation of service legislation and we broadly support it. Given the changing nature of warfare and peacekeeping, which demand interoperability and joint operations, it makes sense to consolidate the Service Discipline Acts and to harmonise legislation with civilian justice where that is appropriate. We support the objective of ensuring consistency and fairness across all the services.

Today marks the start of the long process of passing the new legislation, but the process of scrutiny has been under way for some time. The House is indebted to the work of the Defence Committee, whose first report of the Session on the Bill draws the House's attention to key issues to which I, like others, will return. The Committee's work builds on that of its predecessor in the last Parliament, whose report on the Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill and duty of care report have made invaluable contributions to our considerations. The same can be said of the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which was published today. We should also express our gratitude to the Library for its rapidly produced briefing paper, which is important to our debate today and to the detailed consideration that will follow.

The one disappointment—here I echo the hon. Member for Woodspring—is the delay in the publication of the official explanatory notes. I join others in paying tribute to the quality and hard work of those responsible for that complex task, but parliamentary scrutiny is not assisted when explanatory notes are not available for several days after the publication of a Bill.

The unique status and importance of the Armed Forces Bill is reflected in the special procedures allowing its consideration by a Select Committee. The details of the timing and the balance between the Select and Standing Committee aspects are still to be established, but we support the broad thrust of what has been said about the time that will be available between now and the end of April. A single day for recommittal to the whole House for the Committee stage and Third Reading seems barely adequate, but on balance we support the programme motion.

Let me turn to the proposals in the Bill. As past White Papers and recent experience show, joint operations are an increasingly common feature of service life. Training for such missions, and the operations themselves, throw up critical issues. Commanding officers do not have disciplinary powers over all whom they command, and naval commanding officers in particular enjoy different powers from those of their Army and Air Force counterparts. That is unacceptable in this day and age and clearly needs to be changed. We welcome the proposals that have been put forward to do so. The existence of separate Service Discipline Acts makes the use, interpretation and amendment of legislation more complicated than it need be and perpetuates inconsistencies. In that context, harmonisation makes sense.

The Bill is intended to equalise the scope of offences that can be heard summarily by commanding officers and the sentences that can be imposed. At the same time, the CO's ability to dismiss charges for offences for which he or she has no summary powers is to be taken away and investigative responsibility is to be handed to the police, independent of the chain of command. Those are large changes, already the subject of much discussion and debate this afternoon, but we believe that they are right and proper. Like others, however, we will want to look carefully into the detail.

We need to ensure that the operational effectiveness of commanding officers is not compromised by the changes to their roles. As others have highlighted, they will require appropriate training in due course. On a broader plain, we must not overburden any of our armed forces with legal constraints that undermine their ability or confidence to take appropriate action, not least in hostile circumstances in which lives are at risk. However, we also have a duty to those same armed forces to ensure that they are treated in a manner consistent with domestic and international law and a wider duty to observe our international obligations and equip the services with the procedures and disciplines that ensure that they can carry them out. The detail of the Bill will be considered in Committee so that it can be assessed against those tests, but we support its underlying principles in that respect.

The report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, following evidence from the Judge Advocate General, raises a number of important issues for the House to consider in respect of the administration of justice, which changes significantly under the Bill. It highlights the military court service—currently run by the Ministry of Defence, but recommended to be brought under and resourced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The appropriate type of court martial should be chosen, it is argued, by judge advocates, not by the prosecution. Another issue, already debated this afternoon, is for more serious offences to be put through the court martial, which surely creates a strong argument for larger panels, not least for offences punishable by imprisonment of 14 years or more. The Secretary of State's willingness to revisit that issue should be welcomed on both sides of the House. These are serious matters that require close scrutiny and we will listen carefully to the Government's response.

The Judge Advocate General also made observations about the length of time that trials take. In his evidence to the Select Committee, he specifically raised his concern that

"the end to end time taken to dispose of cases remains a serious concern . . . both in major and minor cases."

He recognised that specific issues and unique circumstances affect the timing and length of inquiries, but he identified at least one area that could be improved—the quality of the papers and evidence supplied by investigators to the prosecuting authority. That is partly about procedure and expertise and partly about resources. The Bill should provide us with the opportunity to examine those matters in more detail, but we will surely also have to examine the way in which resources are allocated within the armed forces justice system to ensure that investigations are carried out appropriately and in good time. The Minister of State's written statement last week on the recent 3 Para trial was welcome.

Deepcut, in particular, and bullying and harassment more widely in the armed forces have become a growing cause of concern for us all. In our most recent debate on "Defence in the UK", that was an important area of focus. The latest available Army "Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey" to April this year is striking in that regard. As I mentioned in that debate, one key set of findings highlighted that 25 per cent. of soldiers had cause to complain about unfair treatment, discrimination, harassment and/or bullying—and more than half of them were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the objectivity and fairness with which the complaint was handled. If ever there were a time to reform the system of redress and grievances, it is now.

The Bill takes steps in the right direction with the creation of the service complaints panel and other measures, but as the Defence Committee stated in its new report—and as highlighted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton—the proposals fall some way short of the independent complaints authority that the Defence Committee's predecessor Committee advocated in the "Duty of Care" report in the last Parliament. It specifically recommended that the commission should have independence from the armed forces and the MOD, power to look into past cases, access to all papers and relevant people and that its recommendations should be binding. Those tests are not met by the Bill as it stands. Much will depend on the secondary legislation to define what exactly a "service complaint" is and to clarify the time limits and the circumstances under which an independent member of the panel will be appointed.

The new Committee's report argues that

"it remains very difficult to judge at this stage the full effect of the Government's proposals. But it is clear that the Government has rejected the main principles of our predecessor Committee's recommendations—the Bill does not provide for a mechanism to deal with complaints that is truly independent of the chain of command."

The Government must, at the very least, publish the draft regulations that will govern this aspect of the Bill. Otherwise, I hope that we will all want to amend the legislation in Committee.

Having set out some specific areas of concern about the Bill, which we will hope to explore further in Committee, I want finally to raise a couple of issues that relate to our role as legislators in this place and Parliament's duties to scrutinise the Executive. The Bill runs to more than 240 pages with 375 clauses and 15 schedules. Notwithstanding its bulk, much detail is absent from the provisions—on the service complaints panel, for example. That leaves us having to take a great deal on trust. Beyond that, there is perhaps a more fundamental issue.

This legislation, as the Select Committee points out, will no longer be subjected to annual renewal or the appropriate consideration by Parliament that goes with it. That represents a major change in the powers of the House and one that we do not believe is right. For centuries, Parliament has placed limits on the Executive's rights in regarding the Army and other armed forces in respect of total numbers and the expenditure that goes with it. We appreciate that, these days, the debate often centres on whether or not we have enough soldiers, but the notion of placing limits on the Executive is still extremely important. In this of all eras, the principle of accountability has surely not become an anachronism.

Other than administrative convenience, the change seems to offer no advantage and there are no new safeguards to give effect to the principles of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. We will listen carefully to the Minister's response in the wind-up, but hope that the proposal will be rethought in Committee and annual renewal reinstated.

We demand much of the military personnel who serve this country, face dangers that we can barely understand and take risks with their lives that we can hardly imagine. We have a vast duty of care towards them, which, as a minimum, requires that the service discipline and laws under which they operate are clear and take account of the extraordinary things expected of them. The Bill is the starting point for that process. While there is much in the detail that we will want to scrutinise further and amend in Committee, we support its aims and will support its passage in the House tonight.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

May I begin by saying how pleased I am to be called to speak on this important Bill for the men and women of our armed forces?

As has been said, the current military justice system, although effective, dates back to the 1950s. This is a good opportunity not only to modernise the law relating to it but to combine the three services' disciplinary legislation into one. I want to concentrate on just two aspects of this very lengthy Bill: the proposed introduction of a complaints panel, and clause 371—it has already been referred to—which deals with renewal of service disciplinary legislation.

During the last Parliament, I was honoured to be a member of the Defence Select Committee, and I am honoured to be a member of it in this one. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has already pointed out that, during the previous Parliament, our Committee undertook a lengthy inquiry into the duty of care of trainees in all three of our services. The inquiry was prompted by serious concerns about the deaths of recruits and trainees in initial training establishments, especially those of four young soldiers at the Princess Royal barracks at Deepcut, Surrey, between 1995 and 2002.

Following the publication of Surrey police's final report, our Select Committee thought it right not only to undertake an inquiry that could make a significant contribution to the debate on how to improve Ministry of Defence policy on the duty of care of trainees, but to see what we could do to restore public confidence in military training, especially that given by the Army. We took evidence from Deepcut families and from the families of individuals who had died at the Catterick garrison's infantry training centre.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The Defence Select Committee did indeed produce an excellent report and call for evidence from families beyond Deepcut. Evidence was also taken from the families of those other than trainees, and, given that it was not just trainees who died, does my hon. Friend agree that the duty of care extends beyond the initial training period and throughout the entire time that an individual spends in the armed forces?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I agree totally with my hon. Friend, and we did indeed take evidence from those who were no longer trainees, and from the relatives of those who had died and had got past initial training. Although the scope of our inquiry related to the duty of care of trainees, it was evident from the way in which it developed that we also had to examine other areas, and doing so proved invaluable to the final report.

We also took evidence from the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram); from Colonel David Eccles, chief of staff; and from Martin Fuller, director of service personnel policy, service conditions at the Ministry of Defence. It was a long inquiry—it took more than a year—and we visited some 15 different training establishments and took evidence from a variety of individuals in all three services.

The inquiry's recommendations were clear, one of which—the establishment of an independent military complaints commission—is very important and central to this debate. It was worked on in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). He was a member of the Defence Committee at the time but is now in the purdah of the Whips Office, so he cannot take part in this debate. He was keen on this recommendation because a number of his constituents had died while serving in the armed forces, and their families, along with others, led a campaign to highlight the problem of bullying and harassment in the armed forces.

We envisage a commission that would have the authority not only to investigate complaints but to make recommendations that would be binding on the armed forces. It would be for the commission to decide whether to undertake an investigation, but it would take into account only serious allegations. Importantly, its findings and structure would be independent of the MOD and the chain of command. However, we are not suggesting that it should in any way be a substitute for the chain of command. I should stress, as other Members have stressed, that it should be seen as an independent body that people can approach to ensure that serious grievances are dealt with. I came to the view that establishing an independent commission is important because our armed forces, particularly the Army, have suffered terribly in the past few years as a result not just of the Deepcut allegations, but of other deaths in military service. A truly independent scrutinising mechanism would certainly bolster the public's confidence in the armed forces.

Not everyone who came before our Select Committee was in favour of such a commission. General Palmer said:

"I think that that is a step too far because there is a chain of command. The Armed Forces are a unique set of people—there is no doubt or question about that. They are asked to do things that no one else is asked to do. That respect of the chain of command is vital."

I agree, but the Defence Committee's proposal would in no way cut across the chain of command. The MOD and the military are by their nature very conservative with a small "c"—in some cases, with a big one—but having such an independent commission could do no harm. Without one, there will be serious question marks over isolated but horrific cases such as those that have led to bullying and, sadly, to young recruits taking their own lives. We have heard about many such cases in the media in the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) pointed out in an intervention, some people have got through initial training, only to take their own lives because of the way in which they were treated in the armed forces.

I accept that people are criticising me and others for introducing this proposal, but I should point to the example of the UK police force, which, until 2002, was criticised for investigating itself. Since then, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been created. Importantly, it reports to Parliament, so it is publicly accountable. It is not linked to any Government Department, so its decisions cannot be overruled by politicians; they can be overruled only by a court of law.

Initial reactions to the IPCC's creation were that it would impact on operational effectiveness and impose an additional bureaucratic burden, and that busy-bodies who knew nothing about day-to-day policing would be telling chief constables what to do. Throughout our inquiry, similar arguments were advanced against having an independent commission in the armed forces. By way of contrast, the senior police officers to whom we spoke during our inquiry expressed the view that the IPCC has benefited the police's working practices and led to greater transparency. The most important thing that the IPCC has done is to bolster the public's confidence that the police are not a law unto themselves, and that if complaints are made by individual members of the public, they will be investigated thoroughly and—crucially—independently.

The Government's response to our report—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned it earlier—said the following about the creation of an independent commission:

"We accept that there is a case for introducing an independent element to the complaints system: there are different models for this, in this country and abroad, and their implications need detailed examination. We will carry out this work ahead of the introduction of the Armed Forces Bill planned for later this year."

I was a little disappointed to discover what the Bill says about the establishment of a service complaints panel. The panel would consider a service complaint—although, as has already been said, nobody knows what the definition of a service complaint would be.

I am also disappointed that the independence of the body is still a little sketchy. As I understand it, the panel would be set up by the Defence Council, which would appoint the panel members, but in exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State could appoint an independent panel member.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

My hon. Friend has said how important it is that the public should see the system as independent. Does he agree that we too, when we refer our constituents to such a process, want to be confident that it has an appropriate degree of independence, so that we can assure them that they can have faith in it?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I totally agree. The Ministry of Defence and the military have to realise that society has moved on. The idea that, in this day and age, people can investigate themselves and still have credibility, not only with parliamentarians but with the general public, is not acceptable. Unless the system is seen as independent, it will not help to put some of the accusations aside. Some wild accusations have been made against the armed forces, but some of the accusations are right, and some very serious accusations of assault and bullying have not been properly investigated.

As I read the Bill, the main duties of the panel would be to investigate service complaints, but we have not yet seen the definition of a service complaint, what time limits would apply to such a complaint, or the circumstances in which an independent panel member would be appointed. However, it is clear that the Government have rejected the Defence Committee's recommendation of independence. That saddens me. The Bill does not provide a mechanism or a method for dealing with complaints in what I—and, I think, most people—would call truly independent from the chain of command.

Before the Bill goes any further, it is important that the definitions and other details should be published. That would be useful for the scrutiny that will take place over the coming months. That is important, because it would be helpful to try to put the issues related to Deepcut to bed. We called for retrospection in our report, because that is necessary to ensure that those issues are taken care of.

More cases involving accusations about bullying leading to suicide are emerging. My hon. Friends may have seen this week's Sunday Mirror, in which, under the headline "Deepcut II", there is an article that gives a real sense of questions to be asked about the case of two young recruits, Krystle Cookson and Michael Williams, both of whom committed suicide at the Royal School of Signals base in Blandford. Using the emotive term "Deepcut II" helps to make it clear that if we are to get satisfactory answers to some of the questions, the idea of the military investigating itself will not be acceptable to those young people's parents, or to the many others who have already been mentioned.

I hope that the Government will listen to the criticism, because I approach the idea of independence from the point of view that it would improve the Bill. It is also important to secure the public confidence that the system needs. If we go ahead as is now outlined in the Bill, an opportunity will have been missed, and there will not be the added confidence that the public need.

Clause 371, which relates to the duration and renewal of service discipline legislation, has been mentioned by several Members. It restates the requirement for a five-yearly renewal of the Acts by primary legislation, but does not continue the current practice—already mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—of annual renewal by an Order in Council approved by Parliament.

It is important that we be given an explanation of why the Government want to move to a five-yearly review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton said, I cannot for the life of me think why that would be advantageous to the Government, or why Parliament should give up a historic right that has its roots way back in the 17th century.

For the sake of public confidence in the scrutiny of disciplinary issues relating to our armed forces, this Parliament must have a say, and an opportunity at least once a year to examine the regulations and raise any concerns that it may have. I do not accept that the business managers are so cramped that that has to be dropped off the agenda through lack of parliamentary time. It is so important that parliamentary time should be made for it.

I welcome the Bill, but I hope that the Government do not miss the great opportunity that they now have to put back the confidence and pride in our armed forces that we should all have. I hope that we can ensure that if cases similar to Deepcut and others arise in future, the independent process that would investigate them would not leave us in the terrible situation that we are in now, with slurs being made against our armed forces, parents and loved ones feeling that they do not have answers to their questions and the general idea that there is something to hide. If we had a proper independent process, a lot of those issues could have been raised within it, rather than having a dripping tap of allegations being made—weekly, it seems—about other horrendous cases affecting our armed forces.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has thought deeply about these matters, and over several years he has contributed to the Select Committee along the lines that we have just heard—and he has got it right. I am exceedingly grateful to the members of the Select Committee for the power of the argument that they bring. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who has also spoken, has been a powerful advocate on the Committee, and I feel very lucky to be the Chairman of a group of people who work so hard on these difficult issues.

It is not an overstatement to say that we have the best armed forces in the world. One of the reasons that is so is that they are not awash with money, and have to think their way through some of the problems that they face. They are also extremely brave and hard-working, highly intelligent and disciplined. They are so disciplined partly because service discipline, which is essential for the success of the armed forces both in peace and in war, is underpinned by the sort of legislation that we have had in this country over many years.

The system of military law is, however, 50 years old. There is nothing wrong with being 50 years old—I am a little older than that myself. None the less, the services are now very different from what they were like when the system of military law was introduced. In particular, they now participate in joint working, joint planning and joint operations, so to have a system of military discipline that is not joint is no longer justifiable.

The Bill brings together the systems across the services, which is wholly to be welcomed. I wish, if I may, to embarrass the ministerial team and the Bill team who have put the Bill together by congratulating them on a profoundly necessary, if possibly overdue, Bill. The amount of work that they have put into it over four years has been immense, and they have come up with a good result.

The Defence Select Committee produced a report last week that built on the report that our predecessor Committee produced earlier. We highlighted two particular issues. We have already heard from two members of the Committee and I hope that at least two others will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first matter that our report highlighted was that of an independent complaints mechanism. The Bill will establish a service complaints panel, which modernises the redress of grievance systems.

Several points have already been made about the Bill's proposals. Although I wish to make one or two pernickety points about the independent complaints mechanism, I do not want to undermine the welcome that I give to the Bill as a whole. Some of the points that have been made about the independence of the tribunal that the Bill will set up bear repeating. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton has asked already why the Secretary of State "may" appoint an independent person to the service complaints panel, rather than "must" appoint. Independence has much value, and the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) articulately encapsulated the arguments for an independent element to the complaints. There is too little detail in the Bill about when the Secretary of State would make a decision about appointing an independent person to the tribunal. We have to rely on the good faith of the Secretary of State. I have no difficulty with that, but it is essential that before the House makes a final decision on the Bill's progress we should have much more detail about the regulations that the Secretary of State intends to introduce on when an independent person is appointed.

The whole process does not go far enough. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North Durham were right to express their disappointment that we do not have a wholly independent system. A previous Defence Committee called for a proactive body that could, for example, commission research into trends that might cause difficulties for the armed services and then proactively examine those trends. The proposal for a service complaints panel makes no allowance for that to happen.

The previous Committee also raised the issue of retrospection and past cases. We have to face the fact that there are boils to be lanced. The Deepcut boil has not been lanced and will not be lanced by the proposals in the Bill, but it is essential that people have confidence in the reputation of the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Member for North Durham spoke about the need to have confidence in the Ministry of Defence and he pointed out how now that the police had the Independent Police Complaints Commission they were no longer seen as a law unto themselves. The Ministry of Defence is seen that way at the moment. Everybody knows that my view of the decisions on the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash leads me to believe that the Ministry of Defence is seen to be a law unto itself. There is much to be said for the introduction of a degree of openness and independence, which would build up the Ministry's reputation and self-confidence. The Ministry of Defence would have nothing to lose from that and everything to gain.

Another issue that has been raised by the Defence Committee was that of annual renewal. The quinquennial review will be retained, and that is good, but under the Bill the annual secondary legislation will go. I sense that Ministers are open-minded about that. The Secretary of State for Defence has written to the Committee to say that it is not the sort of ditch in which he would wish to die. I was also delighted by what my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton said about this issue. An annual consideration of the legislation that underpins the discipline of our armed forces is an essential part of parliamentary scrutiny. The Defence Committee calls on the Minister not to press that change and I hope that he will be able to give us some indication later this evening on that point.

I wish to touch on one or two other issues briefly. The Ministry of Defence does not accept the previous Committee's recommendations about boards of inquiry and, for example, the parents of dead servicemen and women having the right to attend them. The Ministry of Defence says that it is worried that the candour of the evidence could be compromised if a witness sees the deceased person's parents in the room. I understand that argument, but it is one that has to be faced in civilian courts, week in and week out. It does not seem to have a serious impact on the quality of the evidence or the behaviour of the judiciary in civilian courts. Perhaps the parents of dead servicemen or women should not have the right to attend boards of inquiry. I know that tribunals may allow the relations or other people with an interest to attend, and I hope that the possibility is exercised with great humanity. I ask the Minister to put himself in the position of a parent whose child has been killed in an accident but who is not allowed to attend the inquiry into the accident.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

When the previous Committee took evidence on that point from parents, the problem was not only that they were not allowed to attend. In many cases, they were not notified of the outcome of, or given notes from, the inquiries. If we are to shine the spotlight on the darker crevices of the MOD, it is vital that parents are allowed the dignity of trying to find out what happened to their children.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

That is unarguable.

My next and rather different point concerns offences at sea. The Minister may be able to confirm the point when he winds up, but I understand that harmonisation of the disciplinary procedures will lead to a 50 per cent. increase in the number of naval cases being heard by court martial, as opposed to being dealt with summarily. Is that the case, and will it cause difficulties to the armed forces in terms of operational effectiveness? Is it right that the Bill does not cover administrative action, which is the lowest level of disciplinary process? If that is right, is that also to be harmonised across the services?

I have spoken for long enough, but I have a few points about the procedures that the House will follow when examining the Bill. When the Secretary of State opened the debate he said that one of the great strengths of the Bill was its hybrid nature. He was right. The ad hoc Select Committee will be able to take evidence and examine the Bill line by line, for the first time in public. That follows the recommendation of the previous Defence Committee.

It is right that the detailed wording of the Bill should be examined in public. In fact, all legislation should be examined in that way. Committees should be able to take evidence about the legislation on the wording of which they are about to decide. It is not simply a good method of doing business; it should be a role model for the way we do business in the rest of the legislative process.

I very much hope that there will be a good representation of members of the Defence Committee on the ad hoc Select Committee, and I look to the Committee of Selection to achieve that. That will mean that the Select Committee is very strong indeed.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I am especially pleased to follow so many considered contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House. This is an important debate. Although I am not a member of the Defence Committee, I, like other Members, want to refer to its excellent reports, which should underpin much of our debate.

I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to modernise the law on the armed forces and to bring it into line with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill is built on the key principle of fairness—to be fair and to be seen to be fair. It is sensible to update our procedures. As has already been said, our armed forces do difficult tasks in increasingly difficult circumstances and I hope that the Bill will give them some reassurance as they undertake those tasks.

We all agree that our armed forces do excellent work and are highly regarded. They need the proper investigative procedures outlined in the Bill. The role of the commanding officer is important. Under the Bill, commanding officers have a duty to ensure that matters drawn to their attention are properly investigated. We need to extend that role in other elements of the Bill.

I want to speak from the standpoint of parents whose children have died in peacetime while serving in the armed forces. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence sums up, will he clarify how the concerns of those parents can be addressed in the legislation?

My constituent, Lance Corporal Derek McGregor, died in July 2003 at Catterick barracks. His family are waiting for a date to be set for the coroner's inquest, so I cannot comment on the circumstances of his death. I can say only that when I met Derek's father, Joe McGregor, and the parents of children who lost their lives at Deepcut and at other barracks in England, Northern Ireland and overseas, the same phrases cropped up time and time again:

"You have to understand—the Army is a law unto itself"

and

"You have to understand the Army is so arrogant—they think they can get away with murder."

Those are not my words, but those of parents who buried their children in tragic circumstances.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire)

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the assiduous way in which she chairs the Deepcut and Beyond families group. I represent the Collinson family whose son was also killed at Deepcut barracks. Does she agree that it is not only families and those of us interested in the issue but the public who are concerned? The general public expect that public services such as the Army are given the closest possible scrutiny. That is why there is great public concern about things such as the events at the marine camp reported recently. The public are owed proper scrutiny of what is happening in the armed forces.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The hon. Gentleman is right. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) also drew attention to recent newspaper articles. When we are recruiting young people to serve in our armed forces in difficult circumstances, they and their parents need assurances about that essential duty of care. If they do not receive them, it will, without a shadow of doubt, affect recruitment and morale. We need to address that issue and the Bill is the ideal opportunity.

Modernisation of the armed forces means removing the stain of Deepcut. It was once a rural location in leafy Surrey—I have been there—but is now a byword for bullying and cover-up. We must stop that. Modernisation means openness and accountability. Modernisation means that when a fatal incident occurs the bereaved family are entitled to learn the truth. They are entitled to expect justice and to believe that lessons will be learned, to avoid such deaths in the future.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the new Chairman of the Select Committee about informing families. They should be involved in inquiries, because all they experience is secrecy. Only limited information is given to them and they often feel that even that has to be dragged out, and the process goes on for months. When my constituent Joe McGregor and members of other families gave evidence to the previous Select Committee, they described how the visiting officer who came to tell them of the death of their child was often oblivious to their needs. The officer did not discuss with the families what had happened. They often had to ask for the return of personal possessions, which were often returned in a way that caused them even greater distress. Such issues should be addressed by the Committee.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, even when accidents occur or when individuals die tragically in accidents, the culture of secrecy that she describes leads to parents and loved ones thinking that the MOD is covering something up?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

My hon. Friend is right. That is why the Deepcut and Beyond group is still asking for a public inquiry. Having tried and tried—for many years, in some cases—to get answers from the Army and the armed forces in general, the families feel that an independent inquiry is the only way to meet their calls for truth, justice and change.

There have been at least five internal military inquiries, as well as two police investigations costing at least £1 million, another police force investigating the integrity of the first, a Select Committee inquiry, a review conducted behind closed doors by Nicholas Blake QC and another inquest by the Queen's coroner. How many more investigations are we to have? To date, every inquiry has been limited by its terms of reference. None had powers sufficient to fulfil the requirements for the necessary public investigation of non-combat deaths. None had the weight and stature to make recommendations for lasting change and none had the authority to restore public confidence.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

On the subject of public confidence, does my hon. Friend agree that families want not only to see justice done, but to be sure that things are put right for the future—no doubt, other people who have lost loved ones want that as well—and that only by greater openness and independence can they be sure of that?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I believe that the Bill, as drafted, will miss a valuable opportunity to address the vital issue of accountability. I hope that special attention will be given to accountability in the discussions that will take place after the debate.

I will certainly listen very carefully to the Minister's response to hear whether he has reflected further on Surrey police's recommendation that the armed services should consider the value of establishing a mechanism for independent oversight, which was developed and advanced by the Defence Committee in its inquiry into the duty of care. The model advanced by the Select Committee was that of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland—a model that, thanks to the skill and leadership of the ombudsman, Mrs. Nuala O'Loan, is regarded universally as a world leader in police accountability.

The Deepcut and Beyond families group supports the proposal for an ombudsman or independent complaints commissioner. The group especially welcomes the Defence Committee's recommendation that any such ombudsman should have the power retrospectively to look at cases on which many families did not get answers—they still have not had answers. The group can also see the merit of an independent inspectorate along the lines of Her Majesty's inspectorates of police and prisons.

Another proposal, which is particularly relevant while the Army continues to recruit under-18s to military service, is to create a system of lay visitors panels, which could carry out announced or unannounced visits to barracks to interview and monitor the well-being of service personnel.

Another issue that I wish to raise is impunity for armed service personnel. We rightly deplore those dictatorial regimes in which security personnel can do no wrong, where brutality, rape and murder during an armed conflict or behind the closed doors of the military barracks goes unpunished. In such regimes, even a conviction in a civilian court may be regarded as a technical matter and temporary inconvenience. The soldier concerned may be welcomed back into the army and even promoted.

It has, as far as I am aware, always been the case for the British Army—this is set out in the Queen's regulations—that in the event of a serious misdemeanour resulting in conviction and sentence to imprisonment by a civil court, the soldier would be automatically discharged. When discussing the Bill with some members of the Deepcut and Beyond group, they drew to my attention two cases in which the Army has sought exemption from that rule on the grounds that the conviction did not bring into doubt "the integrity" of the soldiers concerned. I am informed that one case involved the conviction of two soldiers for murder. Another case involved the conviction of a soldier for manslaughter by gross negligence. If soldiers can be routinely dismissed for the possession of class B drugs, I can find no rationale to allow those who are found responsible for the death of civilians or their fellow soldiers to remain.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The second case relates to Corporal Clegg. The hon. Lady appears not to take account of the fact that, from time to time, it is the soldier's job to kill people. The court ruled in that case—this was eventually quashed a long time later by a second appeal—that in a split-second decision he had wrongfully killed someone. That does not impinge on his integrity.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Of course, we are discussing the armed forces, but similar things can be said about the police. In no way do I underestimate the split-second decisions that soldiers must make. Nevertheless, on one hand some of the families whose children have died in the armed forces see action that is veiled in secrecy—they cannot get answers about their children from the Army—and on the other they see the Army defending soldiers in circumstances where they may have doubts about the action that was taken. I am not making any remark about the particulars of individual cases; I am simply drawing to the attention of the House the concerns of families about what might be seen as two rules—one for them and one for other people—and we must have accountability, consistency, fairness and openness in all those decisions.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a big difference between actions on the battlefield or, for example, in Northern Ireland, and the actions of individuals who are in charge of soldiers that relate to bullying that subsequently, in some very tragic cases, leads to those individuals taking their own lives?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

My hon. Friend is right, but I should like to ask the Minister whether, if the Bill is passed, a soldier convicted of the abuse of power, of bullying, of rape or of murder will no longer be subject to automatic discharge. Will they maintain their rank and position in the armed services throughout their prison sentence? If that is the case, it would certainly cause a lot of concern to many of the families whose children have died—often, they believe, as a result of bullying in the armed forces.

The purpose of the Bill is to update and streamline legislation. It must therefore be fair and it must offer transparency. Without that, the good work that so many of our soldiers do could be undermined. I regularly meet current and former members of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment and the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Some time ago, I met representatives of the Royal Green Jackets, who are based not too far from Blackpool, and they told me about the excellent work that they had done as peacekeepers in Sierra Leone.

I know of the very good work that is undertaken, but the Bill is an opportunity to reassure military personnel, their families and the general public that, when things go wrong, they will be investigated. Usually, things go right. Members of Parliament do not get people queuing up at our advice surgeries to tell us that everything is going swimmingly; they queue up to tell us when things go wrong. Our responsibility is to ensure that we have an appropriate response when things go wrong. The Bill is our opportunity to do that, so I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reconsider the Defence Committee's reports on independent oversight, because that will give many of the reassurances that many families need.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I congratulate the Secretary of State on winning the game of musical chairs that has been running for about 20 years. He is the final Secretary of State to sit on the chair when all his predecessors have been denied one. It falls to him to win the elusive prize of achieving a tri-service Act. That is purple prose in any language. I also congratulate the Bill team at the Ministry of Defence and the parliamentary draftsmen and Treasury counsel on what has been a mammoth operation. With previous Armed Forces Bills, we have heard some quite extraordinary reasons—or should I say excuses?—wheeled out about why progress has not been made. That has never been the fault of the Ministry of Defence, which has always seen the merit of updating service law. So I am absolutely delighted that the Bill has appeared before the House, and I warmly support it.

I also support the legislative process that we are about to use. I believe strongly in the value of pre-legislative scrutiny, for the reasons that Members on both sides of the House have already mentioned. I have argued for 15 years that we should use such a process for other legislation because it has enormous advantages, not least because it empowers the citizens of this country to have a direct input in the way in which policy making becomes law. That must be good for democracy, and it might even encourage people to vote.

There is no part of my constituency that is not directed affected by the Ministry of Defence and the military and civilian people whom it employs. It contains Land Command, Larkhill, Bulford, Porton Down, Winterbourne Gunner, Boscombe Down, Salisbury plain training area, Westdown camp and Rollestone camp. There are low-flying zones and artillery ranges, and more than 11,000 Ministry of Defence employees. The Bill is thus important to many of my constituents.

I agree with the conclusions of the Defence Committee in its first report of the current Session. It is important that the Bill establishes

"an independent voice in the consideration of complaints",

but that is not in itself sufficient. I agree with the Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member a second time around, that we should

"urge the Government to table amendments to strengthen the degree of independence"

of the complaints system in the Army—I shall come back to that in a moment.

I agree with the Committee's recommendation that we should encourage the Ministry of Defence to publish

"secondary legislation relating to the Armed Forces Bill, in draft"—

if that is all that can be achieved—to inform our scrutiny of the Bill. We are told throughout the Bill that the Secretary of State will make regulations on almost all matters of detail. We need sight of such regulations, and so do the public.

I also endorse what every person who has mentioned the matter has said so far: there is a need for annual review of service discipline legislation. I understand Ministers being persuaded—probably by the Treasury—that it would save a bob or two if we did not need to have this performance. I can understand the Whips Office saying, "You don't really need yet more legislation, do you? Surely once every five years will do." I hope that Defence Ministers will be able to win the day because I suspect that the idea did not come from them. After all, the House of Commons has reviewed the matter every year since 1689. Parliament should not yield willingly such an important check on the power of the Executive.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

May I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend is making? Under the Bill of Rights 1689, no standing Army may be maintained without the authority of Parliament. Is it not the case that this is the modern procedure by which the Bill of Rights is respected by the House, and that removing the provision would thus have serious constitutional implications?

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

My hon. Friend is entirely right.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree entirely with the principle under the Bill of Rights that every Parliament should reauthorise that the standing Army should be maintained. That is why we have agreed that there should be a Bill each Parliament. The question is whether we need to legislate every year. The hon. Gentleman is half right because the suggestion did not originate in the Ministry of Defence, but he was wrong to say that it was the responsibility of the Treasury or the Whips Office.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. In that case, we shall have great fun working out whodunit.

Like the Secretary of State, I served on each of the previous two Armed Forces Bills. He will recall that those Bills turned out to be Christmas-tree Bills, not only because their Second Readings occurred just before Christmas, but because the original Bill became festooned with more and more decorations. I thus wish to ask Defence Ministers to explain several aspects of the Christmas-tree nature of this Bill.

Clause 35 is titled "Annoyance by flying". The military has to undertake low flying and MPs have to be sympathetic about the situation in their constituencies each year. However, neither the clause nor the explanatory notes gives anything like a convincing reason why we need to put yet another obstacle in the way of military pilots. The clause says that it is an offence if a person subject to service law flies an aircraft so as to annoy or be likely to annoy anyone, unless he can reasonably avoid flying in such a way. Come on, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is this a military matter, or is it not? We are talking about not recreational flying from grass strips, but fast jets, Chinooks and other kinds of aircraft and helicopters that are on military business. If I am fortunate enough to be chosen to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill, I shall be pressing Ministers for an answer to why we need clause 35.

Clause 42 is entitled "Criminal conduct". The Secretary of State touched on an important matter in his opening comments. It is important for people to realise that the Bill does not address torture or any other criminal offence that is not necessarily a military offence. Clause 42 points out that anything that is a criminal offence in British law is an offence if it is carried out by members of HM forces, wherever they are in the world—that is my understanding of the clause, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that. That is important because it means that wherever in the world British service personnel are, they will always occupy the moral high ground when it comes to making decisions of life or death. It will also apply to the behaviour of members of HM forces, whether they are in Ayia Napa or elsewhere in Cyprus. We did not cover ourselves in glory in Cyprus 40 or 50 years ago and did not always occupy the moral high ground. I do not think that we did that with internment in Northern Ireland, or that the Americans have done so in Guantanamo Bay. We want to maintain the honour, courage and bravery of Her Majesty's forces and their personnel.

Clause 51 relates to the jurisdiction of the service civilian court. It is important because many people do not realise that the Bill applies to civilians who are subject to service discipline. Indeed, it can apply to the children of serving personnel overseas. It applies to contractors and service families, so the jurisdiction of the service civilian court is important. I will want to probe in Committee to find out exactly how the situation changes under the Bill.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

While my hon. Friend is in a gap between clauses, may I take him back to a point that he made about clause 35 and the annoyance caused by low flying? I, too, was worried about the clause when I first read it. I am worried that if the Ministry of Defence receives several complaints about low flying from people in a certain area, that might, owing to criminal offence under the clause, give rise to judicial review. People might thus take the Ministry of Defence to court to prevent low flying, although that is essential, as my hon. Friend said.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

The analysis of my right hon. Friend is wholly right.

Clause 83 introduces a strange little power: the power of a judge advocate to authorise entry and search. Clause 84 provides definitions for the purposes of clause 83. The matter is important. A point was raised during the consideration of the last Armed Forces Bill following the experience of journalists who were accused of undertaking various underhand acts in the course of their journalistic activities. I recall that there was a case involving a house that was entered and searched by Ministry of Defence police, although no one seemed to know whether they should have been there. I suspect that the measures are designed to tidy up the situation. It is all very strange.

Subsection (4) refers to the terms

" 'Items subject to legal privilege', 'excluded material' and 'special procedure material' ".

We are told that these definitions have the same effect as those in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. An example of "excluded material" includes

"personal records (such as medical records and journalist's materials) if held in confidence. An example of special procedure material is a journalist's material not held in confidence."

That has got the journalist both ways.

I seek clarification as I want to find out what is going on. I suspect that all sensible journalists will have gone off to bed or down to the pub, so they will not have heard me tonight. However, if they catch up with clause 84, they might have something to say.

I certainly support clause 99(6). It deals with limitations on custody without charge. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew that the clause would be put into the Bill. There is a 48-hour maximum allowed in the context of limitations on custody without charge. Custody after charge is limited to eight days. That sounds pretty sensible to me and I am happy to support the provision.

I move on to clause 155(4)(d), which is the constitution of the court martial. This is fascinating. A chaplain cannot be a member of a court martial. Does that apply to other faiths—for example, to religious personnel, to Sikhs and to Muslims? We are delighted that the Minister has invited them to perform some of the roles that traditionally the Christian chaplains have carried out. I want to know why chaplains are specifically mentioned and whether that applies also to "chaplains" of other faiths.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made a passionate speech. I understood so much of what she was getting at. I would like to know one day what she thinks about clause 162, dealing with courts martial rules. An interesting argument arises. I have been to a few courts martial, sometimes to see constituents who have been involved in them. One of the problems is the mumbo-jumbo. For example, there were swords on tables pointing in particular directions and there was the question of whether headgear should be worn. All these things that have grown up over hundreds of years of military tradition are no more than mumbo-jumbo to ordinary people. I suspect that if some of the mumbo-jumbo was taken out of the process, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and her constituents would be reassured and their confidence would grow. Perhaps it is a similar argument to whether judges should wear full-bottomed wigs and so on.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The families that I meet would welcome just being present and just being involved. They could probably cope with mumbo-jumbo. They are interested in getting answers and getting the truth.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

No one could possibly disagree with that. I am sure that that is an issue that the hon. Lady will pursue whatever happens.

My penultimate question lies with clause 332, that is headed, "Composition and procedure of service complaints panels". Can an independent member—and I generally agree with this, although it has perhaps not gone far enough—be a naval chaplain? We do not know, and it might be thought that it does not matter. We do not know because so much will be introduced by regulation by the Secretary of State. We know that an Army chaplain cannot be an independent member of a complaints panel because that is provided for in the clause. However, clause 361 provides that naval chaplains, as explained in paragraph 849 of the explanatory notes, "have no rank". So if a naval chaplain has no rank, is he a member of the armed forces? So can he or can he not be an independent member of a complaints panel? This is a detail, but the sort of detail that will somewhere rear its head.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but the Deepcut families and others are seeking true independence. These are people who have no connection with any of the armed forces.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. There are people in the armed forces who really value the presence of chaplains in the community. Young members of the forces perhaps tend to be vulnerable and think that they may be being bullied, or are being bullied, and they might turn to a chaplain. The role of chaplains is crucial—and I mean chaplains of various faiths. If a naval chaplain is allowed to be a member of an independent tribunal, that might be important for the person involved and as a principle or precedent for the role of chaplaincy in the armed forces.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I am focusing on the hon. Gentleman's point. Surely clause 361 covers it. Does it not effectively extend to a naval chaplain the rank of officer? That is the way in which I read it. Ipso facto, he or she would have parity of treatment with an Army officer.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

There are other circumstances where only certain sorts of non-commissioned officers can perform certain roles, as set out in the Bill. I do not know, and that is why I ask the question in all innocence. However, it is something that we will need to discuss in Committee.

Perhaps we need to look further afield if we are concerned about the true independence of the bodies that we are discussing. There is other experience. For example, there is the inspector general of the Australian defence force. It is an interesting example because his role is to

"identify systemic causes of injustice within the military system of justice covering",

not only

"Australian Defence Force discipline and defence inquiries."

We might look further at the complaint resolution agency in the Australian defence force, which has a particular role if the commanding officer

"declines to grant the redress sought or does not have the authority".

He can request that the redress of grievance

"is referred to the relevant service chief"

and then to the CRA. That is an important example. So is the defence force ombudsman of the Australian defence force. The Canadian military police have a complaints commission which really is independent, so perhaps we should consider its role.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I agree with the example that the hon. Gentleman gives of the Australian defence force. Does he agree that when there is a degree of independence from the chain of command that has not affected in any way the operational capabilities of the armed forces?

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right about operational capabilities, but it does give confidence when things go wrong.

My final question relates to clause 343, which is headed "Exemption from tolls and charges". It is an extraordinary provision. I speak as a former Minister who was responsible for roads. The clause exempts from tolls and charges bridges, congestion charges, toll roads, road pricing and so on a vehicle that

"belongs to any of Her Majesty's Forces".

Does that mean that Corporal Jones, going into Amesbury for a pint on Saturday night, will be exempt from paying a charge—not that there is a charge between Bullford barracks and Amesbury? If there were, what would be the position? I do not know because the provision is so broad. Neither the explanatory notes nor the terms of the clause help very much. We are told that no charge

"is payable in respect of a vehicle"

that is

"in use for the purposes of any of those forces."

There are many loopholes there.

We are talking about the best armed forces in the world. We are talking about a force that is brave and disciplined, based on hundreds of years of tradition and hundreds of years of keeping faith with the people of our islands and the peoples of the Commonwealth and beyond. It is all a matter of trust, and therefore it is a matter of justice. These things work both ways and that is what the Bill is all about. I warmly support it.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

I am grateful for being called to contribute to this debate. I apologise to the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for missing most of their contributions as a result of parliamentary business. The two statements affected my timetable this afternoon.

I welcome the Bill and the mechanism for scrutinising and eventually debating it. Several Parliaments use a similar mechanism—Select Committee scrutiny takes place first, then the people involved in that process engage in detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny. If we used that mechanism for more legislation, we would achieve more informed debate in Standing Committee than is traditionally the case. I welcome the way in which the Bill brings together the disciplinary activities of all three services. I was interested to see how the three chains of command have been brought together and to learn what will be dealt with by summary action and what by court martial. Different charges will be dovetailed together.

The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) pointed out the effect on naval discipline of the introduction of many more courts martial and the subsequent increase in work load. In Committee, we must look in detail at individual offences and how they will be brought together across the services. I do not wish to judge at this stage whether the Bill, as a result of the consultation with the three services, has got it right. Detailed scrutiny will be required in Committee to ensure that punishments and the way in which each offence is dealt are appropriate. One of our major tasks in Committee will be to ensure that the work behind the scenes to pull the three codes together has been done correctly.

The Bill, together with my eight and a half years' experience as an MP, convinces me about the extent to which the armed forces are separate from the rest of us. We accept that they have a different code of discipline and are subject to different mechanisms in the treatment of complaints and grievances. Both concerns are at the heart of the Bill and we must consider whether we are moving from the traditional procedures of the armed forces towards what is acceptable in civvy street. I have spent two periods with the Army as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and I have dealt with a great deal of case work that involved the Ministry of Defence. Throughout, I found it incredibly difficult to persuade the armed forces to accept that a complaint is legitimate. My office tells me that the most difficult Department to deal with is the MOD. It is hard to secure any movement at all from it whenever we make a complaint on behalf of a constituent. That ties in with my off-the-cuff chats with service personnel in previous years, so I am worried about whether we have achieved the right balance of independence for the complaints and grievance system.

It is not simply the main issues—the Deepcut inquiry, bullying and so on—that have concerned Members over the past few years, as the problem extends all the way down the line. Service personnel cannot join a trade union, so we cannot expect them to use the normal grievance procedures used by people who go to the office at 9 am and leave it at 5 pm. In civvy street, we can go and have a grumble, and there are ways of dealing with such problems. There is a chain of command for service personnel that means that we cannot expect complaints to be dealt with in the same way. Sometimes, the military go too far the other way, and it is easy for them to ignore legitimate complaints because of the sanctity of the chain of command.

On the major issues, I was not a member of the Select Committee that considered the previous Armed Forces Bill, but its views on the insufficiency of the mechanism that has been put in place for the independent consideration of complaints were reaffirmed by the current Select Committee. We should seriously consider expanding and enlarging that mechanism, but we must not lose sight of the larger issue so that those young men and women who join the services and believe that they are treated unfairly have a mechanism that will ensure that their complaints, even if relatively trivial, are dealt with legitimately. I often have the impression that it is easy to ignore such complaints and hide behind the chain of command.

The same problems that make it difficult to approach the civilian model when dealing with grievances and complaints apply to disciplinary and judicial procedures. It is a different world for someone who is on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan having to make split-second decisions under pressure and being scrutinised after the event for decisions made in stressful situations. Traditionally, people in the armed forces who know those pressures have made the decision about whether to prosecute and what are the appropriate procedures to use. In the past few years, however, military personnel have moved towards civilian standards regarding the acceptability of conduct. The hon. Member for Woodspring referred to that development when he asked whether we should pursue an idealistic or pragmatic approach to discipline.

A couple of incidents involving my local regiment, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, are of concern. I am not questioning whether the right decisions were made, but in the Mackenzie case, the newspaper publication of fraudulent photographs put our armed forces at risk. The case has been dropped, but it is not clear whether or not anyone else will be pursued. At the same time, Colonel Mendonca of that regiment is being pursued, not under traditional military regulations, but under the International Criminal Court Act 2001. The case will be decided three years after the initial incident. Both cases, together with several others have affected morale in the services and whether service personnel believe that they are treated properly and are subject to a duty of care.

When the Bill is enacted, we should aim to ensure that military personnel have confidence in the process whereby they are judged and in how prosecutions are conducted. Bringing the prosecution services of the three services together, perhaps with additional resources, may result in a better quality process. The morale of the armed forces has taken a knock in recent years because of the confusion about whether they should be subject to civilian or military procedure. We should be clear about which approach we are taking. If we expect discipline to reflect the fact that service personnel are members of the military their complaints and grievance procedure should run parallel to that expectation. In the Bill, we need to achieve a balance between both those tracks, so that both are accepted as being fair and reasonable and adequately reflect the fact that servicemen and women operating in a 21st-century military service may have different standards and expectations from those of a 19th or mid-20th-century military.

If the Bill is supposed to update military disciplinary and grievance procedures from half a century ago, we need to reflect the modern aspirations and expectations of young men and women who serve in our military today. If we can do that, we can do a good job. That is what I hope will come out of the process. I am not an expert and do not know what that will properly involve, but I ask myself whether, at the end of the process, I will be able to sit in front of young servicemen and women and be sure that we have an updated, modern disciplinary, grievance and complaints procedure in which they can have confidence. If we can do that, the House will have done a good job.

My final brief comment is about whether the legislation should be renewed annually. I remain to be convinced—nothing that I have read or heard or that has been said in the Chamber so far this evening has convinced me—that there is any case to move away from annual renewals. I look forward with interest to the debates and contributions from Ministers in the weeks ahead.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

In reply to the Secretary of State's justified remark about my absence, may I make it clear that I left the House because I was summoned to the office of my new party leader? There is no announcement resulting from that; I am staying in the same position. I wish to make it clear that no disrespect to the Secretary of State was intended by my leaving a few minutes after an intervention on him.

I take a gloomier view of the Bill than the last few speakers, including two distinguished colleagues of mine. As we debate service discipline, it is important to remember that the grinding overstretch resulting from the four major entanglements into which the Government have taken our armed forces and from cuts in their manpower has led to an exodus of experienced people from the armed services, as well as a rise in the services divorce rate. The men and women who will be subject to the measure that we are debating have seen their pensions attacked when the whole of the rest of the public sector have seen their pensions protected. They have seen the burden of proof raised for compensation claims for injuries incurred on service. They have been infuriated by the Saville inquiry and the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.

Behind the Armed Forces Bill lies an ugly trend towards civilianising the military world. Military life, with its risks, hardships and requirements for stern discipline simply is not comparable to that of civilians. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). He will not mind my saying that he ended on the fence. I share many of the concerns that he expressed. The military world is not the same as the civilian world.

It would be wrong to disparage the entire Bill. I understand why we are not opposing Second Reading and there are a number of welcome elements. The service complaints panel strikes the right balance in dealing with issues such as Deepcut. We must not have another Deepcut. I agree with my colleagues' comments on the tri-service aspect as servicemen increasingly operate in joint units, although there is a question about some of the special requirements of some naval commanding officers, particularly submarine commanders.

I welcome the modest expansion of powers for the CO in the Army and Air Force regarding summary hearings for lesser offences. It is that aspect that makes other parts of the Bill so hard to understand. Evidently the Government comprehend, at least in part, the importance of the CO and such powers for maintaining not only discipline, but a sense of continuity and community. There is a unique bond between a commanding officer and his men. The strength of that bond underpins the remarkable feats that the House has come to expect of our servicemen and women. As Lord Boyce said on 14 July in the Lords debate on the legality of the chain of command,

"we interfere with the unique linkage between the commanding officer and his men at our peril."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1235.]

Why limit that trust now by removing all the powers relating to more serious crimes? We all know why. The Secretary of State made it clear in his speech—the case of Trooper Williams. It is important to remember that that was at a time when there had been a small number of allegations concerning prisoners. It related to something that had happened not in a prison or in a camp, but at a checkpoint in a dangerous area and involved a member of the enemy who was found to be carrying ammunition. The case was initially dismissed by the CO on advice from the Army legal service because of a lack of evidence. The director of the Army legal service then referred it to the Attorney-General for possible trial in the civil courts. After protracted wrangling, the case was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service following a long delay because of a lack of evidence.

The provenance of the case is disturbing, to say the least. In his statement on 7 April, the Attorney-General referred to the fact that

"the commanding officer had 'dismissed' the charges against Trooper Williams"

and continued:

"The matter could not, because of the actions of the commanding officer, be dealt with by way of court martial. It was referred to me to consider further action."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2005; Vol. 671, c. WS 92.]

That is in the context of recent remarks by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who I see in his place. He stated:

"Discipline is essential, and we depend on service law to enforce it.

A fighting force that cannot obey orders and display self-control in peacetime will not stand up to the much more demanding circumstances of operations."

In a sense, that is platitudinous. We would all agree with that statement. Did the Minister feel that he had to say it? Does he believe that British troops are less disciplined than other armies in any of the theatres in which they have recently operated? There are indeed a very small number of disturbing incidents involving prisoners in Iraq, but overall I believe our forces are the best disciplined in the world. Yet today they face a brutal enemy and an unprecedented blizzard of investigations and prosecutions—prosecutions brought about by Government policy and in which, in a number of cases, the Attorney-General has played a crucial role from the safety of his office in Whitehall.

The Williams case was a protracted, distressing and shameful assault on the reputation of a gallant soldier. It did not happen because his CO had the power to pursue the case but did not do so. It happened because the opinion of the CO was brushed aside in what many in the Army believe—rightly—was a political desire to charge and convict someone amidst all the allegations of human rights abuses in Iraq. Now the Government want to remove the authoritative opinion of the commanding officer, the man on the spot who shares the risks with his soldiers, the man who got it right in the Williams case, and hand that power to the Army legal service.

The Government have learned the wrong lesson. They are keeping the bath water and throwing the baby to the wolves. On 24 March—I quoted this in an intervention on the Secretary of State—the Adjutant-General wrote to the Chief of the General Staff and CIC Land, copying his letter to the brigadier, to inform them that he intended to write to the director of Army legal services to ask him to draw the case to the attention of the Attorney-General for the purpose of having resort to his jurisdiction. In that letter, the reason given was:

"With current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths of Iraqi civilians during operation telic: our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause celebre for pressure groups, and a significant threat to the military justice system."

I have no intention of attacking a senior serving officer, but if I were a serving soldier, my blood would run cold if I heard that remark, which was first unearthed by Lord Campbell in July in another place.

The situation is being compounded by the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which my party rightly voted against. All hon. Members oppose war crimes, but the wording of the 2001 Act is so vague that senior officers can be held accountable for actions of which they had no knowledge, simply on the ground that they might have taken steps to prevent them. I do not intend to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by repeating my recent speech on the workings of the 2001 Act in relation to the case of Colonel Mendonca, which is now sub judice.

I ask the courts to take into account the point that the 2001 Act works against the chain of command. The long-standing leadership principle in the British Army is that commanders delegate authority to their sub-commanders, let them get on with the job, trust them whenever they can and support them if things go wrong and they believe that their sub-commanders have behaved reasonably, which takes considerable moral courage. The ghastly news that General Peter Wall, who is a fine soldier by any standards, is being investigated for supporting one of his subordinates in such a situation under very difficult circumstances underlines the ghastliness of the 2001 Act.

Turning to the recent case against paratroopers from the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, the case against seven members and ex-members was dropped, because the judge had concerns about the adequacy of the evidence and the integrity of the Iraqi witnesses—reportedly, the case cost £10 million of taxpayers' money. In the Lords debate on the legality of the chain of command, Lord Inge highlighted the fact that British lawyers were hawking no-win, no-fee arrangements around Iraq, promising taxpayers' money to those who would bear witness against British soldiers. So much for the deal, which the hon. Member for South Ribble has rightly emphasised, on the duty of care that we owe to our soldiers.

Why would the Government want to create a new legal apparatus and remove the power of responsible commanding officers at the same time as they are putting the Compensation Bill through the House of Lords? The Compensation Bill is a modest response to public concern about the pernicious and corrosive compensation culture, which often originates in the pursuit of money by a small number of lawyers and which destroys risk taking, personal responsibility and community spirit. It suggests to judges that they can—many of us want it to "require" judges to do this—consider the social harm of awards made against those who take responsibility.

The Armed Forces Bill, however, has the power to compromise the ability or willingness of our armed forces to take necessary action in theatres of action by removing their most important safeguard—the role of the commanding officer. For an individual soldier, the CO represents a trusted bulwark of understanding and common sense who takes account of the differences inherent in active service. Instead of being allowed to intervene, he is now threatened with committing a war crime under the 2001 Act, if he does not actively pursue a prosecution.

The Government have lost sight of the fact that a court martial system is an inquisitorial system, not an adversarial system like the civil courts. When a matter goes to court martial, it is easier to get a conviction than would be the case in a civilian court.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

On the hon. Gentleman's point that it is easier to get a conviction in a court martial, I understand the need for the swift administration of justice in operational battleground situations, but when an incident occurs in a home base, the case should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. The standard of proof is, of course, supposed to be the same, but the case is decided not by a jury, but by a group of military officers. All the evidence suggests that it is almost impossible to bring a jury case against soldiers in an active theatre, because most members of the jury would not be willing to take the risk of going out there. The system, which is designed to underpin the chain of command, is inquisitorial and makes it easier to get a conviction, but we have removed the safeguard of COs allowing such cases to proceed and introduced the 2001 Act, which means that a CO may become culpable when something, in which he may not have had a hand, takes place, merely because he has allegedly suppressed evidence.

The Bill goes against a basic, underlying principle in English life. Since the Magna Carta, one of the key principles of our jury system has been trial by one's peers. Who are the peers of a man or woman who has been sent into a combat zone, which may involve a hostile land, being outnumbered or, as the Secretary of State has said, the complicated situations created by modern asymmetric warfare? The answer must be, "Other members of the armed forces." The current system involves a random selection of members of the armed forces being put on to a panel, which provides a degree of independence that echoes a jury trial, albeit within an inquisitorial system. The Bill will introduce a standing court martial, which, bluntly, will consist of a group of case-hardened officers who conduct such cases all the time—it may be that such officers have not seen active service for some time, if they have done so at all. It will make it easier to get convictions.

In a statement about the failure of the case against seven members of the Parachute Regiment, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), said:

"This case has shown our determination to ensure that justice is done irrespective of the difficulties."—[Official Report, 7 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 22.]

I think that he meant that justice is being done in a way which will appease left-wing elements in the media, who seem to think that our armed forces are responsible for a chain of atrocities. It is true that there have been a small number of genuine incidents in which there has been genuine public concern, but it should not have led to a situation in which our forces feel under "legal siege"—not my words, but those of a former Chief of the Defence Staff speaking in another place in July.

The Bill includes many measures, some of which are welcome, but three major changes have occurred or are occurring to the balance of probability of a conviction: first, the Bill removes the safeguard of scrutiny by the CO, the man who really understands the situation; secondly, the 2001 Act specifies that if COs do not process the papers on a case, they may be done for war crimes; and thirdly, the Bill contains a ridiculous proposal to move away from a proper selection of officers for a court martial towards the ghastly idea of a kangaroo court, which a standing court martial could easily become, of officers who do nothing else over a long period.

The Government should have heeded the warnings that the six chiefs of staff gave us in July about the pressure that the armed forces feel under from the legal profession at a time when they are being worked extremely hard and facing considerable dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is extraordinary that the Government should introduce a Bill that will increase those pressures and make it much easier for members of the armed forces doing their duty in Iraq to be convicted of offences that in some cases are not even recognised in any previous form of English law.

This is a bad Bill. I hope that we manage to achieve some changes in Committee, but if not, I sincerely hope that we will vote against it on Third Reading.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I congratulate the architects of the Bill, who have brought before Parliament a most interesting measure that is worthy of great study. It is highly appropriate to subject it to the innovative Select Committee procedure for examining legislation. Although the House has had that option for some time, it has not used it very often. I hope that this Bill will be pioneering in the sense that it becomes the usual practice, instead of the exception, in dealing with legislation.

Every speech by colleagues—I use that word deliberately because I want to include Members on both sides of the House—has contained some stimulating thoughts. I cannot recall a debate in which I have agreed substantially with so many aspects of the cases that Members have advanced. Their contributions have been not only cogent but fair and legitimate, and they will be good material for the Select Committee procedure that will follow this Second Reading.

I want to raise an issue that is new to this debate. Parliament is very conservative—in a non-partisan sense—about having a representative body for members of our armed forces. I am not suggesting a trade union or a body like the Police Federation, but a unique representative body that can do several things, including giving advice, counsel and support to individual members of our armed forces when they feel in some difficulty. There is a manifest need for that. I am as certain as night follows day that one day this House will enact such legislation, and that after a short space of time people will look back in amazement and wonder what the fuss was about. Of course, that Bill would have enshrined in it safeguards to protect the operational decisions of commanders in conflict situations. That would be writ large and understood. Such a measure would be modernising and sensible, and it will inevitably come. I regret that the main parties do not see it as an innovation that would put us in front of many other armed forces in ensuring that the interests of our servicemen and women are protected.

Such a body would benefit the Government by being a champion of our armed forces in terms of promoting their function, role, ethos and doctrines within the United Kingdom while helping to project them around the world in the positive way that, mercifully, they have always largely maintained. I wish we could begin to contemplate a representative body in addition to an independent complaints body. Indeed, the former could make representations to the latter.

An area that has been omitted from the Bill and has not been discussed, but which we cannot long avoid discussing in the context of military discipline, is the increasing interface of our armed forces with large numbers of people working for private military companies. Only a few years ago, they were relatively few in number and it would have been considered extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government were hiring private military companies.

When the Labour Government took office, the issue first came up in the context of our support for the Government of Sierra Leone. There was an interface with Sandline and other related companies that had the potential to cause embarrassment not only to the Government but to our armed forces, especially when the Royal Navy helped to repair a Sandline helicopter. The ground rules need to be clearly set out for commanders and those who have to make decisions, especially when they are being coaxed, encouraged or given a nod and a wink by the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to work alongside—and, I fear, collaborate with—private military companies. I am uncomfortable with that.

A few years ago, the Government produced a Green Paper on private military companies. The Foreign Affairs Committee said that such matters should be regulated and that there should be an equivalent of end-use certificates for private military companies. We expressed our concern about rules of engagement and circumstances in which private military companies work alongside or with our regular armed forces.

The other great fear is that Governments—including our Government, albeit unintentionally—are attracted by private military companies because they give an opportunity of denial if things go wrong, or in the case of what would otherwise be perceived as a military offence, such as bad conduct. Those companies also have a capacity to dissolve themselves so that it is difficult to call anybody to account subsequently.

Newspapers reported in the past month how the United Kingdom Government hire and have contracts with enormous numbers of private military companies—I call them mercenary soldiers but I do not want to be provocative—and the costs involved. As sure as night turns into day, some commanders will soon be greatly embarrassed by the fact that, because it is the will of Her Majesty's Government—namely the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—they have had to work alongside those people.

Unless and until we start to draw up strict ground rules, there are all the ingredients for at least embarrassment and for decent people facing charges and falling foul of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, with which I shall deal shortly. I did not agree with much that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said about it, but there is a danger of people being embarrassed by those whom they have to work alongside, who are unaccountable and not subject to military discipline. That is a matter of grave concern. Perhaps those who serve on the Select Committee that considers the Bill will at least scratch the surface of the subject in their deliberations.

Many hon. Members referred to various clauses. I was interested in clause 25. It is worth drawing the attention of the House—and the royal household—to it. It states:

"A person subject to service law commits an offence if he misapplies or wastes any public or service property."

It refers to

"rows 2 to 12 of the Table in section 163."

That provision sets out all the punishments that would apply if there were an abuse of military material and equipment. That sanction and warning, which is on the face of the Bill, applies to all military personnel from the humblest to those of royal rank.

I listened carefully to the welcome from hon. Members of all parties for bringing together the military law of the three services. It occurs to me that, if and when the Bill is enacted, there will be a compelling case for our reviewing the service police. I am very much a traditionalist. Indeed, I am displaying tonight a small memento of the Essex Regiment. I had to leave the Chamber briefly when the antique badge was presented to me by Mr. Blake Perkins from the United States earlier this evening. I said that I would be proud to wear it during this debate. That regiment is important to me, as I know it is to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tell the House this story only to emphasise that I am a traditionalist.

I want to maintain the Royal Military Police and the police services of the Royal Air Force and the Navy. However, there are some parallels with the three nursing services of the armed forces, in that the police forces are badged separately but should, operationally, increasingly work together. There would be obvious benefits from economies of scale and from the use of new technologies and the need for specialisms in any police investigatory service. Logically, we should be thinking in terms of an integrated service police force. The police forces should be separately badged, and continue to enjoy the traditions that have endured over the centuries, which should be preserved, but we should bring the separate forces together in much the same way as we have with the nursing services.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Canterbury, and I think that his concerns about the International Criminal Court are wrong. He seems to be genuinely confused about the court—an institution that is ever so important—which is embryonic and fragile but which will prove, over the years, to be a great force for good and a sanction against people who are not subject to military law. In relation to our own armed forces, I would remind him that, because we have codified law, both civil and military, it does not apply to us. It provides a catch-all jurisdiction to ensure that some of the bandits around the world, who are not subject to a military code of law, do not get away.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

There is an important distinction here. Of course I have no problem with the court; I thought that I had made that clear. My objection is to its introduction into British law. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether there is the remotest chance either that Colonel Mendonca would have been charged or that General Peter Wall would be being investigated if it had not been for the enactment of that piece of legislation.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

On the former case, I am not going to trespass into sub judice. It is inappropriate for us to mention that case, and I do not feel qualified to talk about it in detail anyway. In respect of General Wall or anyone else, the law has not changed. Every commander has an obligation to pursue the conduct of war in accordance with long-established conventions and jurisdictions, and to have due regard to minimising casualties and deaths, civilian or military. That is nothing new. I am worried that the hon. Gentleman is getting exercised about that.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I do not have chapter and verse in front of me, but let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 produced new offences for commanding officers and senior officers, and they are phrased in such a way that someone can be prosecuted for having failed in principle to do something, by omission. They involve offences that would never have been covered by military law before, which is why they received so much flak in another place.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

The hon. Gentleman and I can conclude this discussion only by saying that we will have to agree to disagree. I do not accept that there is a new duty. Military commanders have always had to satisfy themselves that they are behaving consistently with United Kingdom law and with international rules. It is interesting that the service commanders sought their own legal advice in relation to the conflict in Iraq. It was sensible of them to do that. As an aside, if the House ever had to return to a similar situation, we should seek our own independent advice, as distinct from that of the Attorney-General, who advises Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that that is the parallel or the lesson to be learned.

I agree with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Canterbury and others that there have been prosecutions, or at least investigations, causing great distress to individual service men and women and their colleagues, in circumstances that anyone who stepped back and realised that split-second decisions had to be made would recognise were cruel and unfair. I contrast what happened at a tube station in London, in relation to which no prosecutions, arrests or charges have been made, with what happens to our soldiers, in respect of whom investigations, suspensions and arrests take place. I find the double standard amazing. What happened in a south London tube station has been fudged by the British establishment, the Metropolitan Police and particularly the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who seems to me to have a disproportionate command and capacity to decide what happens in this country. Individual soldiers, however, who must make immediate decisions where they and their colleagues are clearly under threat—in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Iraq or any other area of conflict or peacekeeping—often face arrest. I find the disparity unacceptable and illogical.

I also want to interest the House in one other matter. I have tabled questions during the lifetime of this Labour Government about the Bermuda Regiment. Clauses 359 and 373 contain references to military outfits whose existence arises from the decision or part funding of a legislature of an overseas territory. This is an ambiguous and unsatisfactory area. In essence, the Bill says that where someone in, say, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment or the Bermuda Regiment is alongside, training with or operational with the mainstream British armed forces, he or she is subject to that military discipline. It also indicates that the legislation can be transferred by Order in Council to an organisation such as the Bermuda Regiment. This is unsatisfactory. I think that it suits the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government of Bermuda—I deliberately distinguish between the Government of Bermuda and the Government of Gibraltar—to have that grey area.

That is extremely relevant, because unless there has been a recent change that has not been drawn to the attention of the House, Bermuda has compulsory national service for men. That immediately flags up to Members of the House the fact that there is gender discrimination. In addition, those who refuse to serve are not just arrested but taken in chains, United States-style, in jumpsuits, and with both their feet and arms in manacles. I find that humiliating, and it is contrary to our obligations, particularly under the European convention on human rights. Before someone points out to me that Bermuda is not in Europe—I do know that—we still have a moral commitment, as we say that we are signed up to that convention, and Bermuda is an overseas territory, not an independent country. It chose not to go for independence. The Governor of Bermuda, who is the commander-in-chief of Bermuda and therefore of the Bermuda Regiment, is appointed by Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary.

I imagine that this is the first time that the dear Minister sitting on the Front Bench has heard this. He is a decent man and I hope that he will go away and say, "Is what Mackinlay says remotely true?" Grudgingly, those whom he asks will have to say yes. I hope that the Minister will respond by saying that the position is unacceptable, and that the Government cannot tolerate a complete ignoring of our obligations under the European convention on human rights. After all, the Bill carries a certificate—dealt with, I would guess, rather routinely and ritualistically by the Lord Chancellor, or whatever he is called now, and the Attorney-General—stating that it complies with the convention, but it does not in respect of Bermuda.

I think it is time that we decided on the status of that regiment. I made a distinction between it and the Gibraltar Regiment because, owing to the sheer nature of Gibraltar, the men and women who serve in the Gibraltar Regiment are daily closely integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom forces. They share training and a key location, and have done all that they can to identify themselves with the British Army.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Where do the Gibraltar defence police fit into the hon. Gentleman's argument?

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

Nowhere. Since the hon. Gentleman asks, however, let me say that I am very interested in Gibraltar. The Gibraltar Services Police are comparable to the Ministry of Defence police, as distinct from the military police. They wear blue uniforms, they are what I call bobbies, and they are badly served by Her Majesty's Government—again, unintentionally, but on another occasion I shall be having chats with the Minister about them. They do not have a police authority, and they should; they do not have federation rights, and they should; but that is not relevant to the Bill, so, as you will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not raising it now. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was right to bring it to our attention.

Under the heading

"Review of summary findings and punishments",

clause 151 states

"Where—

(a) a charge has been heard summarily, and

(b) a finding that the charge has been proved has been recorded, the finding or the punishment awarded may be reviewed at any time."

You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that both under the last Conservative Government and during the lifetime of this Labour Government, when the present Secretary of State was Minister for the Armed Forces, I drew the House's attention to the case of more than 300 British soldiers who had been executed during the first world war on charges set out in part 1 of the Bill: cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms, and hitting a superior officer. I thought that it was a shade unfair, to say the least, that they had been executed. The present Secretary of State came to the House, and—I deeply regret this—I was rather polite to him at the time. I went away very sad and angry, and decided not to let the matter rest.

I want to be fair to the Secretary of State. He made a speech acknowledging that many of the executions had been unfair, but he advanced a case for not reviewing them. I do not believe that it is a matter of history. The daughter of Harry Farr, executed in October 1916, has taken the Secretary of State to court. Her name is Gertie, and I was privileged to meet her mother. Having checked with the Table Office and the Clerks Department, I find that the matter is not sub judice, and I am pleased to say that I can refer to it.

Some weeks ago, the judge looked over his desk to counsel for the MOD and asked whether counsel would like to reflect on the matter and return in January. We need to know what the Secretary of State is thinking. I raise the issue now because I believe that the Bill's long title, and clause 151, give me an opportunity to table amendments giving effect to a private Member's Bill that I have tabled in the past—it commanded support from all parts of the House—to grant a posthumous pardon to those 300-odd soldiers who were executed during the first world war. It would be much better if Her Majesty's Government took the initiative on this matter. To anyone who says that they will not do so, I have to say that, for reasons that I shall explain, they are thinking about it again.

The New Zealand Parliament has unilaterally granted pardons to members of the Otago Regiment who were executed. Strictly speaking, in respect of our constitution, that is constitutionally irregular. The only Government or Parliament with responsibility for this issue is based at Westminster, because it applies to what were British empire forces. To its credit, I believe, the New Zealand House of Representatives in Wellington decided unilaterally to grant pardons.

The third point—the first being the Harry Farr case, to which the Secretary of State will have to respond in the not too distant future, and the second being the New Zealand case—relates to the Taoiseach who, more than a year ago, made a submission to the Ministry of Defence, arguing that the Irish soldiers among the 300 should be pardoned. Given that the Secretary of State for Defence, when he was Minister of State for Defence, stood before Parliament and said, "No, regrettably, it cannot be done", one might think that he would have sent off a letter to Dublin saying the same thing. However, he has not done so, as I have ascertained from a parliamentary question during the last couple of weeks. The reply said that a response would be given to the Government of the Irish Republic in due course.

The Under-Secretary, currently in his place, has some competence in this matter. I hope that he will not consider it offensive for me to say it, but when I approached him about this matter informally, he suggested that dealing with it was above his pay grade. I can understand that and I took it that he was not necessarily unsympathetic, but I expect someone somewhere to respond to the issue. A response must be given to the Irish Republic—[Interruption.] I see the Secretary of State assuming his place. From the bottom of my heart, I hope that he will accept that a compelling case has been made and that public opinion has not abated but grown in support of granting pardons. Consistent with "Erskine May" and our Standing Orders, I believe that either the Bill can be amended to provide for pardons for the 300 or we can establish an independent review panel, as distinct from the Secretary of State, to look into the cases. Now would be great opportunity for him to acknowledge that he is considering the matter.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I listened to my hon. Friend's contribution from my office while I was attending another meeting. He will know that, seven years ago, I spent 15 months examining these 306 cases. In 114 cases, I read the files myself. I came up against an apparently immovable obstacle to the granting of a legal pardon. My hon. Friend will also know that I interpreted and extended the word "pardon" to mean forgiveness and understanding. I allowed the names of people who were executed to be put back into memorials and cenotaphs, I abolished the death penalty and I went as far as I could without making a specifically legal case. As I understand it, I am now being asked to consider not a full pardon, but a conditional pardon relating to the sentence. When that matter reaches me, I will reflect on it seriously, but I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantee that, while looking at the issue sympathetically, I will be any more successful than I was last time.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that and I hope that he will understand how strongly I feel about this matter. What he said seems to me to leave the door slightly open. He was clearly referring to the court case of Harry Farr, but he cannot ignore the fact that the Taoiseach wrote a formal submission about a year and a half ago. Clearly, the Irish Government expect, and are entitled to expect, a reply in respect of what are loosely called "the Irish soldiers"—soldiers among the 306 who fought in the Irish regiments.

I acknowledge the Secretary of State's work in personally reviewing those cases, but I invite him to consider setting up a judicial inquiry, or appointing a judge or someone of that category to review those cases, rather than a Minister. [Interruption.] I have to say to those Members who consider this a matter of levity that there is growing and widespread support in this country for such an idea. We should not deal with this issue just because it is popular, but the fact remains that it is, and I intend—if I am able to do so—to table amendments relating to it, unless the Secretary of State decides, in the spirit of what has been said, to take it on board himself.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who can be counted on to find a royal angle in most Bills that come before us—congratulations to him on that.

As has been said, this Bill is the most radical revision of military law in almost 50 years, and the Bill team and the Minister should be congratulated on introducing this ambitious set of measures. It provides an opportunity to restore public confidence in the military justice system, which, as we have heard, has been called into question, whether as a result of allegations of abuse in Iraq or at home. Cases have collapsed and some have taken years to be brought to trial; others have been closed because of the inadequacy of the initial investigation. Several successful challenges have been made, moreover, to the military justice system in the European Court of Human Rights.

Whether we are idealists or realists, it is our responsibility as a society, as the Secretary of State said, to find a new consensus on the military justice system that all can unite behind. I should like to propose two general principles. In a modern democratic society, it is no longer acceptable for the military to investigate itself behind closed doors. Secondly, there has to be a timely and effective public investigation by an independent official body, and defendants and victims' families must be kept informed throughout the entire process. We can argue about how to put those principles into action in the particular operational context of military law, but they are the basic ones that I want to propose for our deliberations.

Many elements of the Bill are to be welcomed. It places a clear duty on commanding officers to ensure that cases are appropriately investigated, and it requires that service police be informed about serious cases and that they refer them to an independent director of service prosecutions, who may come from a civilian background. Those important measures are to be welcomed and they are in line with the general trend. In 1996, the previous Conservative Government created Army and other prosecuting authorities that were independent of the chain of command, and this Bill makes some important changes to the role of commanding officers.

As we have heard, however, there is continuing concern about the grievance procedures. The Bill provides a streamlined grievance procedure for members of the armed forces, but it is not clear that it provides one for their relatives or for civilians affected by military action, whether at home or abroad. There is a modernised system for internal service inquiries, but where in the Bill is provision made for an independent inquiry into matters of public concern? Although the Bill continues the trend toward greater independence, it is at its weakest on grievance procedures.

On the commanding officer's role, human rights lawyers have claimed that more than 20 inquiries into alleged abuse have been blocked by Army commanders. It would be useful to have some information on the number of alleged serious offences that have been dismissed at a commanding officer's request. There certainly appears in at least one case to be prima facie evidence of

"a concerted attempt by the chain of command to influence and prevent an investigation".

That is not my contention; I am quoting directly from the Attorney-General's letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence. Indeed, the Attorney-General went on to say:

"In this particular case it was precisely because of the exercise of those powers"—

the commanding officer's powers—

"that I felt it necessary to move the case to the civilian jurisdiction in order to maintain public confidence".

It therefore appears that there is a strong case for the proposed changes to the commanding officer's role.

Other concerns have been expressed by the Attorney-General and others about the quality of initial investigations. We are told that at least six prosecutions have collapsed because of inadequate investigations, and we have also heard about the case of seven members of the Parachute Regiment. We should remember that in that case the judge found that there might be

"sufficient evidence . . . for a court martial board to conclude that Nadhem Abdullah"—

the victim in question—

"died as a result of"—

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that no body was ever found, and that there were no hospital records whatever? How could there be a trial in a civil court in this country when there is no evidence of a body, let alone of a murder?

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I am quoting directly from the Judge Advocate General, who said that there might be

"sufficient evidence . . . for a court martial board to conclude that Nadhem Abdullah died as a result of an assault carried out by"

the section, but that there was no evidence in relation to any individual defendant, so clearly the case should not have been brought.

The point that the Judge Advocate General was making was that there were serious omissions in the investigation, such as the failure to search hospital records or take DNA swabs, the fact that defendants and witnesses were not interviewed and cautioned until six months after the incident, and that the clothing of the victim should have been seized much earlier. Indeed, he reiterated that general point in evidence before the Constitutional Affairs Committee, saying that there were serious concerns in the Army prosecuting authority about the quality of the investigation.

I know that the Under-Secretary of State has said that the intention is to have closer liaison with and closer early involvement by the prosecuting authority in the investigation, as is the practice with the Crown Prosecution Service, which is now present in most police stations. It would be interesting to hear what specific proposals he can present to improve the quality of investigations, which has been such a problem in many cases.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the length of cases—they take too long to come before a court martial. Simple cases take months and some take more than a year from offence to trial. In the case of Baha Mousa it took, I think, 22 months before anyone was charged with the offence. It would be interesting to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say, as I understand that some of the proposals are intended to expedite cases. There could be a problem with resources—a matter that the hon. Gentleman has touched on in comments outside the House.

The subject of the independence of investigations has been touched on by several hon. Members. There is still some confusion in my mind about the role and jurisdiction of the civilian authorities in relation to serious offences such as rape, murder and manslaughter committed within the United Kingdom. I understand that the Secretary of State said earlier that there had been no change, and that there was already concurrent jurisdiction between the civilian and military authorities.

In his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Judge Advocate General said that under current law, offences of murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the UK were dealt with by the civilian court, and the court martial did not have jurisdiction, although he was of the opinion that that would change as a result of these proposals. I would be grateful if the Under Secretary clarified that matter.

As a general principle, there is a need for clear and unambiguous civilian control of the investigations of suspicious deaths within the UK. Indeed the High Court recently made that point in the case of Kathleen Thompson, criticising the Army's decision to delegate to the Royal Military Police in that case. Of course, a broader point is made by the Deepcut families and the Surrey police, who have reiterated the need for an external review of the investigations, and by the Defence Committee, in its call for an independent military complaints commission.

As we have heard, we have seen the setting up of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Last year, the independent prisons ombudsman was introduced, so that it is no longer the Prison Service that investigates deaths in custody. In order to achieve public confidence and effective public scrutiny, we have an independent process in all those areas in which the state has a particular monopoly.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he agree that the military is the last bastion standing against that trend and that it is time to ensure that we have a proper external complaints commission, authority or ombudsman to pursue such matters? When the Army investigates itself, there is a sense of institutional protectionism—it attempts to protect its own interests. We need a completely separate process to monitor and examine complaints effectively in order to satisfy public opinion and the families involved.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I agree; we need an independent process to maintain public confidence. If proper processes were in place to ensure effective public scrutiny, the greatest benefit would be to the armed forces.

In the response by Ministers to the previous Defence Committee's report on Deepcut, the promise was made that the Government would look at the international models that it mentioned. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) also mentioned those models. There is a wide range of international models, all with different elements of independent oversight of procedures. The Government have made some compromise, with an independent member of the grievance panel, but that will not be enough to satisfy the Deepcut families or the wider public interest in independence in the process. External review does happen, and I understand that South Wales police and Lancashire police have occasionally been asked to participate in peer review of investigations. However, we do not have a single, independent body to which families, service personnel or members of the public can make their complaints.

The Judge Advocate General made some additional proposals to improve the independence of the process. For example, he said that the military court service, which is now part of the MOD, should join the civilian court service as part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs; that the administrative staff and those responsible for listing cases should be the responsibility of the judges, as in the civilian system, and not of officials in the MOD; and that sentencing should be done by judges, not by the military panels that currently decide penalties within a bracket set by the Judge Advocate General.

The key point is the need for an independent ombudsman. Otherwise the only avenues available for families or civilians abroad—in areas where we are in military occupation—will be to call for a public inquiry, with all the expense that that means for the public purse, or through the system of tort. It has always been possible, of course, to bring civil proceedings against the British Army, but that requires expenditure by the individuals. Surely an independent military complaints commission or ombudsman would be the most effective remedy, whether for the family of Baha Mousa in Iraq, where we were responsible as the military occupation gave us jurisdiction, for the Deepcut families or in other allegations of abuse. It would allow greater public scrutiny, which is a feature of the American system.

Whatever our feelings about the allegations of abuse levelled at American forces, the degree of public scrutiny by the American authorities is unparalleled compared with the amount of public scrutiny we have been able to effect in the UK. At the last count, there were 12 reports by the American authorities into allegations of abuse in Iraq—Schlesinger, Taguba, Jones, Fay, Kern, Church and so on—on top of the congressional inquiries. There has been nothing like that in the UK. We understand that after the Camp Breadbasket case, the Army conducted an internal review, but we are not allowed to see it. We do not even know whether it has been completed. It covers many issues that are sub judice and we do not need to see those, but a version of the report would inform our debates. We have nothing like the public scrutiny of the military that is undertaken in the United States and other jurisdictions.

I want to make a few points about legal representation. Much opprobrium has been heaped on the heads of human rights lawyers who acted for Iraqi civilians. I do not want to enter that debate, but many of those lawyers operated pro bono publico—in the public interest—and where we deny Iraqis the right to take cases under local law it is our responsibility to ensure that they have adequate legal representation in UK courts. Where there is a status of forces agreement internationally, rather than blackguarding such human rights lawyers, we should consider procedures for providing adequate legal representation for civilians in those areas.

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble): soldiers found guilty of murder, rape or bullying should not be allowed to remain in the Army and to rejoin it on their release. A recent case involving two members of the Guards who were found guilty of manslaughter and allowed to rejoin the regiment caused much upset to the family of Peter McBride, the individual who was killed. Queen's regulations state that a person should be dismissed after a custodial sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances. Will the Minister tell us whether changes are proposed as a result of the Bill?

In relation to the post-appeal remedy, I understand that service personnel have no recourse to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, although Ministers have said that they should have. It is not clear why such a provision has not been included in the Bill. The Minister said that other priorities made it impossible, but perhaps he could elucidate. What are those priorities? Why has not it been possible to include the provision?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

This has been a fascinating debate. It is to the great credit of the House that it has been able to conduct such an informed and well-argued debate despite the fact that this 375-clause, 250-page, 15-schedule Bill was made available to us only 10 days ago and the explanatory notes only last week. The debate has been better than we might have anticipated.

In a spirit of generosity, I thank the Under-Secretary for making available himself and his Bill team to brief some hon. Members last Thursday. I should like to add to the compliments that have been extended already to those in the Bill team for the work that they have done. However, it is worth making the point that the Government have had a long time in which to prepare the Bill, that the Defence Select Committee has not had a draft of the Bill and that the Opposition have had even less time.

However, we have had a good debate with a lot of contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) welcomed the proposals on the redress of grievances, but she did not think that they went far enough. She, like many other hon. Members who have spoken today, supports the reinstatement of the annual review.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) broadly supports the Bill. He was concerned that we must not undermine the armed forces. Nevertheless, he thought that a few provisions might be needed that some hon. Members might feel would lead to that effect. He, too, is in favour of an annual review.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), with whom I had the privilege of serving on the Defence Committee of which he was an assiduous member, argued the case for creating an independent commission, which is very much in line with what the Select Committee has been proposing.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)—a former distinguished Minister for Defence Procurement, now the even more distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence—faithfully argued the cause espoused by his Committee in saying that he wanted an independent commission and an annual report, two things of which the Committee has been strongly in favour. He drew on his own experience of the Mull of Kintyre issue as evidence to support his case.

My right hon. Friend made an interesting point about the tri-service nature of the Bill. It is accepted that a 50 per cent. increase in courts martial is likely in respect of the Royal Navy, as a result of the changes to that service. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, the Royal Navy is the service that is most affected by the proposals. A matter of keen further debate in the Select Committee is likely to be whether we have got the arrangements right and whether the prize of harmonisation, as Captain Crabtree described it in evidence to the Defence Committee, is worth the price that is being paid by the Royal Navy. The jury is out on that issue, and we must examine it in more detail later.

My right hon. Friend drew further on the importance of the Defence Committee being represented on the Committee that will consider the Bill, and I am sure that that will be the case.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) duly praised the Select Committee—always a good start—expressed her concern for the parents who have lost their children as a result of tragedies in the armed services and referred to the need to remove what she called the stain of Deepcut. I do not intend to dwell very much on the Deepcut issue, but I am well aware that it is of very great concern on both sides of the House. Of course, Deepcut lies just over the border of my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) made a very spirited contribution. I am extremely grateful to him for the very detailed work that he has done on the Bill and for drawing my attention to clause 35, on annoyance by flying. As an aviator, I have to say that he is absolutely right about the risks that the Royal Air Force could be exposed to by a literal interpretation of that clause. I am sure that that matter will be explored in even greater detail—it certainly will be if I have anything to do with it because, as I read it, even in Farnborough, I have constituents who are likely to be annoyed by anything that flies in the air, and I am sure that the situation is even worse in other constituencies. I think that we will have to revisit that one. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend noticed this, but interestingly enough the penalty for a person found guilty of the offence would be up to and including dismissal from the service. There is thus a pretty draconian penalty attached to the offence.

My hon. Friend drew attention to the crucial role of chaplains. As a churchwarden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, I have the privilege of working with military chaplains. It is entirely right and proper to put on the record the fantastic work that is being done by chaplains, especially Army chaplains, in the difficult theatre of Iraq.

The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) welcomed the tri-service aspect of the Bill. He wants it to restore morale, which he says has taken a knock on the question of whether a military or civilian approach should apply.

I was sorry that I missed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I gather that he made a typically trenchant speech, and he certainly gave me encouragement during my earlier interventions. He apparently said that behind the Bill lies what he called an ugly trend of civilianising the armed services, and he was right to issue such a warning. He also expressed concern about removing the powers of commanding officers, which is a matter to which I hope to return in a moment. I gather that he would like us to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, but that will depend on the progress that is made during the Select Committee proceedings.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

On the speech made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), may I clear up something that he has repeated several times that is factually inaccurate? It is not for us to comment in any way on the merits of a case before the courts. However, it is quite wrong to suggest that the charges laid against Colonel Mendonca arise from the International Criminal Court Act 2001—they do not. They arise from section 29A of the Army Act 1955. The offences of which the soldiers are charged in the case pre-exist the International Criminal Court Act because inhumane treatment has been in English law since the adoption of the Geneva conventions into English law in 1957. Manslaughter has been in English law for decades. The fact that the offences were rolled into the International Criminal Court Act does not mean that they were introduced by that Act. I want to place the factual record before hon. Members because there has been repeated inadvertent misleading of the House on the matter.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has noted the Secretary of State's comments. Obviously, I was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend made his speech.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I will be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but may I tell the Secretary of State that in the briefing—I am sorry to make the point again that we had no other briefing—titled "Background to the Forthcoming Armed Forces Bill", the House of Commons Library, to which people have rightly paid tribute, referred to the case of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and the Intelligence Corps? The briefing said:

"The latter case has attracted particular comment as it represents the first case brought against British Service personnel under the provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the first case against an officer for 'negligently performing a duty', resulting from operations in Iraq."

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

rose—

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

There is nothing inconsistent between that and my accurate description of the fact that the offences of inhumane treatment and manslaughter for which charges were brought were of long standing in English law—both military and civilian—and existed long before the International Criminal Court Act 2001. In the case of Colonel Mendonca, the charges were brought under section 29A of the Army Act 1955. That is the accurate position. It is up to hon. Members to regret, perhaps, that the offences were incorporated in the International Criminal Court Act, or that the Act was passed, but it is quite wrong to imply that the offences would not have been extant in English law if the Act had not been in force. They would have been in law under the Army Act, English law and the Geneva conventions that were brought into our law in 1957—incidentally, under a Conservative Government.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has heard that. He might wish to intervene.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Secretary of State has made the point that we are not allowed under the sub judice rule to comment on a particular case, although the investigation currently being carried out in respect of General Wall has not yet resulted in charges, so we could comment on that. The Secretary of State must accept—this is not just me speaking but a number of distinguished and gallant Members of another place—that the provision to which he refers takes us on to entirely new ground. For the first time, commanding officers can in principle be charged for errors of omission which would not have been offences under military law.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Lying behind recent cases has been the perception—we all know the importance of perception, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made that clear—that if it is not the European Court of Human Rights, it is the International Criminal Court that is exerting a pressure. Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, that is the impression that is being created. It is a serious matter. My view is that it has been wrong that we in the United Kingdom, and particularly we in this Parliament, have been obliged to change the regulations by which our armed forces are governed to meet the requirements of a court.

I see that the Secretary of State shakes his head. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 was directly the result of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the reasons why we have a tri-service Bill, if I might tell the Secretary of State why he is introducing the Bill, is because there have been a number of Acts since 1955 and 1957—separate services Acts—arising directly out of decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights, to which the House has felt obliged to respond.

I note that the Secretary of State wishes to intervene. As long as his hon. Friend the Minister does not keep tapping his watch at me, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am merely responding to the specific allegations about the specific case. It might as well be argued that the Geneva conventions and protocols of 1957 led to the charges against Colonel Mendonca and his men. It is precisely the concept of inhumane treatment introduced under the 1957 Geneva protocols, brought into law by the then Conservative Government, that forms the legal basis that led to incorporation under the later ICC legislation. That puts in context the sort of perceptions that are being encouraged by misleading statements in this area. I do not deny that there is a perception, but part of that perception is being fuelled and encouraged by those who are making misleading statements, inadvertently or otherwise, about the nature of specific charges being brought against specific people.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Clearly, these charges are being brought under English law. Charges cannot be brought in any other way in an English court. The question still arises whether they would have been brought had it not been for the existence of the ICC.

The Secretary of State will be aware that in a debate in the other place on 14 July a number of significant contributions were made. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the contribution of Lord Campbell of Alloway, who spent five years in Colditz. He is not a man who is unfamiliar with military matters. He drew attention to a letter that had been sent by the Adjutant-General on 24 March to "CGS and CIC Land" in respect of what I think was Trooper Williams' case. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred to it and it is worth putting it on the record again. The Adjutant-General wrote:

"With current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths of Iraqi civilians during operation telic: our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause celebre for pressure groups, and a significant threat to the military justice system."

I submit that it is not a threat to the military justice system; it is a threat to our armed forces. They are being treated in a fashion where they are being used effectively as guinea pigs to satisfy a demand for what amounts to a pretty rough justice. In that letter, one of the most senior generals in the British Army said that we were under pressure to bring prosecutions. That is not acceptable.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, who is a former member of the Defence Committee. However, he is clearly out of step with his Front Bench team, as a consensual mood of politics is supposed to prevail. The Secretary of State clearly explained the position, so efforts to perpetuate anti-Euro myths will not do anything to help the British armed forces.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

It has nothing to do with anti-Euro myths or with anything else. Time is short, and I have made that point.

The hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) both called for independent investigations. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr allied himself to human rights lawyers, which was brave of him.

Several hon. Members have referred to written evidence from the Judge Advocate General to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, in which he said:

"There are several cogent reasons for maintaining a unique system of military justice, separate and distinct from the civilian system. These are to:

—support operational effectiveness and morale;

—maintain discipline which is an essential element of command;

—reflect the special and unique nature of the Armed Forces, in which sailors, soldiers and airmen are required to use lethal force to support Government policy, to risk their personal safety, and to be prepared to lay down their lives for their country; and

—extend the law of England and Wales to personnel serving overseas and outside the jurisdiction of the civilian courts.

He continued:

"The limited powers of Commanding Officers to deal summarily and immediately with minor offences are subject to the unfettered right of the defendant to elect trial by Court-Martial or to appeal to the Summary Appeal Court for a de novo hearing after the Commanding Officer's hearing. The two tiers together (Courts-Martial and summary dealings) amount to a system which is proportionate, effective, economical, ECHR compliant, and meets the unique requirements of the Armed Forces."

I do not think that any of us could better encapsulate the importance and relevance of a separate military system. Broadly speaking, we support the thrust of the Bill, which is why we shall not oppose it on Second Reading. However, we have a number of reservations. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring made it clear that we are concerned about the ramifications for the authority of commanding officers. It is not as though we are discussing these things in a rarefied academic forum. We are doing so against a backdrop of challenges that face our armed forces day in, day out as they make life and death decisions, and I make no apology for repeating that to the Secretary of State. A group of soldiers on patrol do not know whether the man with his hand in the air is holding a grenade or a tomato. We must give our men the benefit of the doubt in those circumstances, because if we do not do so we will destroy the very system in which we take great pride.

There is genuine concern about such matters, which I hope the Committee will be able to address. The two cases in the civilian courts that have been mentioned—the Trooper Williams case and the case involving seven members of 3 Para—both collapsed. It was disgraceful that a lawyer went to Iraq to trawl for Iraqis, who were basically bounty hunters collecting £100 a day from the British taxpayer to denounce our armed forces. That is unacceptable, and I believe the Iraqi Government should apologise for the disgraceful action of those Iraqis, who did nothing to promote the cause of Iraq among the British people. The problems highlighted by those cases must be addressed.

A few final points—first, the Bill makes no reference to rules of engagements, which are of concern to us all. There ought to be some provision for those. Secondly, we must have an annual review, for the reasons that I outlined. There is common consent right across the House that annual review is essential. Thirdly, I hope that the Bill is not a prelude to some sort of Canadian-style merger of all three services. The Secretary of State shakes his head—I take great encouragement from that. One of the strengths of our system is the individual ethos of each service. We are trying to harness and retain the individual ethos within a more procedurally efficient system.

The Bill will be committed to a Select Committee. I am sorry that that will conclude on 27 April. It is a complex Bill, but we have a month longer than was originally offered, so that, at least, is encouraging.

In conclusion, I happened to be in Basra the night that two members of the British armed forces were rescued. I spoke to Brigadier Lorimer the following night, and I know the Secretary of State had phoned to congratulate him on an outstanding operation. The dramatic pictures of those Coldstream Guardsmen getting out of those Warriors on fire went around the world. A couple of days later I happened to be in al-Udeid in Qatar, which is a US airbase where Britain has a significant presence. I was sitting in the canteen watching that on CNN, and the sheer amazement of the American servicemen and women that our armed forces had put up with that level of provocation without a shot being fired said a vast amount about the self-restraint and self-discipline of our armed forces. In that, we should take great pride. It is very important that in the Bill we do nothing that will undermine the power of commanding officers and the bond between commanding officers and their men which led to that self-restraint and self-discipline, which are admired throughout the world.

Don Touhig (Labour, Islwyn)

This has been an important debate, with significant contributions. I shall try to answer as many points as I can, but I hope Members will forgive me if I cannot cover every point.

We place an enormous responsibility on the shoulders of our servicemen and women. We ask them to operate in circumstances that are often difficult, unpredictable and dangerous. We ask them to perform tasks that have no parallel in the civilian world. Sometimes they make the ultimate sacrifice. We, and they, demand very high standards of behaviour, whether overseas on operations or training at home. Discipline is essential and service law is essential to enforce it. Ultimately we all want an effective, efficient fighting force. At the heart of discipline in any military unit is the commanding officer, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his opening remarks, this key role is retained and reinforced in the Bill. There is no doubt we need a separate system of law for the armed forces, and it needs to reflect the increasingly joint nature of their work. The Bill delivers that.

I shall cover as many points raised by colleagues as I can. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), at the Dispatch Box for the first time in his new role, spoke several times about perception and mentioned the Royal Military Police giving warnings in Basra to our troops there. He said that there is a perception that, in Iraq, they will face investigation if they kill or seriously injure someone in battle. This is an important matter and I want to deal with it clearly.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, our forces operate within the rule of law and have robust rules of engagement. No soldier has ever been prosecuted for killing an enemy in battle. If there is a credible allegation of, say, murder, it is right that the service police carry out an investigation. The Bill offers protection to the accused in that respect as well. He went on to quote the noble Lord in another place who stated, as was mentioned several times this evening, that our forces are under legal siege. I totally reject that. It is important that we get the message across that there have been 80,000 deployments in Iraq since we have been there. As my right hon. Friend said earlier today, there have been 184 investigations and 164 have been concluded. Our forces are not under legal siege at all.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

Will the Minister give way?

Don Touhig (Labour, Islwyn)

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to cover as many points as possible, although I would normally give way.

The hon. Member for Woodspring pointed out that he agrees that perception is a key problem, and I hope that Conservative Front Benchers will join me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in debunking the perception that our forces are under "legal siege", because they are not.

The hon. Gentleman suggested opting out of the European convention on human rights, as the French have done. The French reservation is often quoted erroneously, because it no longer impacts significantly on the French military justice system following legislative reforms in 1982 and 1999 that provided for greater involvement by the civilian courts. The French model does not commend itself to us at all.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether serving personnel are at risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed the matter in his intervention on the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) a few minutes ago. It would not be right to go into further detail on the case of Colonel Mendonca and others associated with that matter, except to say that my right hon. Friend has clarified the situation.

The hon. Member for Woodspring raised his concern about the reviewing authority. Under review, a person who was not present in court and who has heard neither the accused nor the prosecution can quash a conviction or change a sentence that is decided by the judge and the service members of the court martial, so long as he considers the new sentence to be no more severe. That power has no parallel in any other part of the British justice system, and we think it appropriate that it should be changed.

The hon. Gentleman discussed extra risks to soldiers caused by the extension of military jurisdiction to murder and manslaughter in the UK. A civilian jurisdiction already exists in almost all cases. It will still be right for the civilian system to consider other cases, specifically offences in a purely military context for which a military court may be more appropriate.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of summary hearings. At the present time, 95 per cent. of military justice matters are dealt with summarily, and we believe that that percentage will not change greatly as a result of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the randomly selected panel. The important point is that members of the panel are selected independently and that those who are too close to a case are excluded.

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members discussed the five-year review and the annual review. The Government will be happy to take the views of the Defence Committee as we consider the legislation, because it is important that everybody gets a chance to have their say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) raised a number of matters, including the duration of the service discipline Acts, a matter which we are prepared to consider. She also mentioned annual renewal, and if it is appropriate for the Committee to make representations, we will certainly listen to them.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, expressed concern about the delay in publishing the explanatory notes. I apologise for the delay, which has happened on many occasions to all Governments, which is no excuse, but we felt that the important thing was to concentrate on getting the Bill ready. I am pleased that the explanatory notes were issued a few days after we published the Bill, but I am sorry that they were not available immediately.

The hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members pointed out that much will be left to regulation, and I understand those concerns, which I have discussed with members of the Defence Committee and others. A great deal of work clearly remains to be done on the regulations, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will press me to provide as much information as possible. The matter is complex, but I understand that when hon. Members are asked to endorse legislation, they want to know exactly what powers they are conferring on the Secretary of State and how the Secretary of State will use them.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will produce draft regulations on redress. As I said, we will aim to cover those details in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) asked about the complaints commission. Some, including the Defence Committee, have expressed the view that complaints from service personnel about bullying and harassment are best dealt with by an independent ombudsman. I can see that that might be superficially attractive, but the fundamental problem is that setting up an alternative source of authority would undermine the chain of command. I believe that it is vital for the ethos and operational effectiveness of our armed forces that the role of the chain of command should be preserved. No doubt we will discuss that in Committee.

My hon. Friend mentioned the independence of service inquiries. In some cases, an independent investigation is vital—for example, in inquests and special independent inquiries. That is another matter that we will consider in Committee.

The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is Chairman of the Defence Committee, welcomed the Bill. I pay tribute to him, his Committee and his predecessors for the pre-legislative scrutiny that they carried out as we prepared the Bill. I thank him for the compliments that he paid to the Bill team. Ministers stand up here in the Chamber, but the people on the Bill team do a huge amount of work behind the scenes. I am grateful to them and to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

The right hon. Gentleman made several other points that I will try to deal with. He expressed concern about the 50 per cent. increase in naval courts martial. In setting the limits of commanding officers' powers and jurisdiction, we looked very carefully at which criminal offences naval COs try summarily and asked the Navy which of those should be included in the Bill. Those that they wanted have been retained for naval COs and given to COs of other services. Eight offences are listed in the Bill. We do not think that that will result in a significant increase in courts martial, but the situation will have to be monitored with the progress of time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) raised several matters relating to family concerns. She will fully understand I am not in a position to comment on matters that are still under consideration. She said that everything that the Ministry of Defence does as regards our armed forces should be open to scrutiny. I remind her and other Members that we have five days a year when we debate defence matters in this House, so the opportunities are there to hold Ministers to account.

My hon. Friend asked why the Bill removes the link between imprisonment and dismissal. We think that the current rule is too harsh. If a member of the armed forces is sentenced to imprisonment, he must be dismissed—there is no possibility of looking at extenuating circumstances. In most cases, imprisonment will result in dismissal, but fairness demands that that is not applied rigidly. My hon. Friend asked whether service personnel will retain their rank in prison. The answer is no. In the rare circumstances in which a serviceman is sentenced to prison, he does not retain his rank. The offender will have no rank while in prison. On his release and return to service, he will, having paid his debt, revert to the rank that he held before being in prison. He will of course have lost any seniority that he would have gained during his imprisonment.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of family members attending boards of inquiry, as did the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire. We recognise that in the past we have not always done well in that respect. That is why we have reviewed how best to meet the concerns that have understandably been expressed. Under the new arrangements introduced last year, we endeavour to ensure that the next of kin are much better informed about the progress and outcome of inquiries. I have no doubt that we shall revert to that matter in Committee.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) was generally pleased with the Bill. He raised several matters that I might answer better as we go through our work in Committee but I shall consider carefully his detailed points and, if it is appropriate, I shall write to him. He specifically mentioned annoyance by flying, which clause 35 covers. Clause 35 will be engraved on my gravestone. The Bill sets out all the disciplinary offences and the clause does not provide for a new offence. At the RAF's request, the offence is being retained. Few complaints of low flying result in prosecutions but I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman gets the opportunity to serve on the Committee, he will revert to the matter.

I shall examine the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and, if appropriate, I shall write to him in detail.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) started by saying that the cuts that the Government had imposed on defence were wrong. I am not sure where he gets that information. The Conservative Government's record on defence cuts was shameful. The Government have increased expenditure on defence and we are proud of that. The hon. Gentleman said that he starts out as a sceptic about the measure, and I suspect that he will remain one. Again, he did not help by referring to a blizzard of investigations.

It is important that all we do as a Government is open to scrutiny and criticism in the House but we do the morale of our armed forces no good by suggesting that they are under legal siege or that there is a blizzard of investigations. [Interruption.] I do not care about the source of the comments. I simply stress to colleagues that, if they continue to repeat them without any basis in fact, they do great damage to the morale of our forces.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the standing court martial. I give him the benefit of the doubt—perhaps he was not in the Chamber but seeing his new leader when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the matter. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will realise that his question has been answered.

The hon. Gentleman said that the court martial was inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Frankly, that is nonsense—it is a load of rubbish. In an inquisitorial system, an examining judge asks questions to elicit answers and reaches a view about whether he is satisfied that the case is proved. The court martial is adversarial because there is a defence and a prosecution. Witnesses are called and it is exactly the same as a Crown court.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to civilianising the military system and removing the powers of commanding officers. I cannot understand how he interprets that from the Bill. He should examine it more closely. Perhaps because of our failure to get the explanatory notes out early, he may need to devote more time to reading it. I suggest that he does that—he will learn a great deal more as a result.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised many issues. He mentioned the Bermuda Regiment. When on duty, it is part of the British forces. I note his point about the appointment of the Governor of Bermuda being in the gift of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I will mention my hon. Friend's interest and, when there is next a vacancy, perhaps he will be considered for it.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made several points. I shall write to him should that be appropriate. Specific reference was made to the Judge Advocate General's views. I have a letter from the Judge Advocate General in which he welcomes the Bill and is pleased to give it public support.

The current military justice system is effective but needs to be brought up to date. Just as training, equipment and operations have been updated since the cold war, we need to modernise the legal system that personnel use at home and carry with them in operations. The Bill is an historic measure that fulfils a promise that we made in the armed forces strategic defence review. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Second time.