Armed Forces Bill

This is an important group of amendments and we accept that it is part of the Government’s response to the Blake report. In the other place, concern was expressed about the impact of the proposed independent commissioner on the chain of command. In the other place, Marshal of the RAF Lord Craig of Radley said:"““Each time we legislate in a way that implies or indicates that commanders and the command chain should not be involved in a disciplinary or complaints process, a secondary but no less important message is being transmitted…The message is that commanders and the command chain cannot or may not be trusted to dispense discipline fairly.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 393.]" This is another issue on which he put his finger squarely on the concerns that many of us have about the corrosion of the chain of command. I therefore hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that the commissioner will be someone appropriate. In the debate in the other place, Lord Drayson said:"““Our starting point is that, at the heart of the relationship between service personnel and the chain of command, is that the chain of command is responsible for investigating wrongs and remedying them.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 410.]" The amendment will introduce a new commissioner who will have some responsibility divorced from the chain of command, although responsive to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State, told the Minister of State on 13 June, when the Blake report was discussed, that we wanted the proposed commissioner to have a military background and, therefore, an understanding of the pressures on the chain of command. I am sorry that the Government have not accepted the recommendation, settling only for ““an appropriate person””. Given that the Government accepted that the director of service prosecutions should be someone with military experience, and given the huge importance of this appointment, I commend—with all the power at my disposal—to the Minister the idea that the appointee should have a military background. I accept that they cannot be a serving officer, but will he tell the House the kind of experience that will be possessed by the ideal candidate?