Military Aid to the Civil Power
Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP)
The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom have always been available to assist the civil authorities where necessary. For much of the nineteenth century the army often had to act as a police force, as the customs and excise enforcer and in the maintenance of law and order at times of civil unrest. Later it frequently had to bolster the internal security of colonies, in putting down riots when the civilian police were overwhelmed. Then (and indeed now) a magistrate was required to read the Riot Act to the crowd and then sign a pice of paper handing authority over to the army. A platoon of thirty or so men – and it was usually a platoon – would march in, halt 100 yards or so from the crowd, throw out a coil of barbed wire across the road, display a banner saying ‘disperse or we fire’ or similar in the local language. The next step was to throw couple of CS gas containers (‘tear gas’), which usually persuaded the miscreants to flee. If, unusually, that did not work then the front rank of soldiers would be ordered to kneel and one man would be ordered to fire one round at a rioter considered by the platoon commander to be the ringleader, or at least an enthusiastic rioter. The process would be continued until the crowd dispersed. Authority would then be returned to the civil power and the platoon withdrawn. Few people would argue that such assistance is not an acceptable role for the armed forces. Similarly the forces have often been required to assist in times of natural disaster, whether it be flood relief in the UK or providing help and support after earthquakes abroad. The services have the equipment, the training and, crucially, the discipline to carry out such work.
More questionable, perhaps, is the use of members of the armed forces to stand in for workers who go on strike. The current Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radkin, recently pointed out that the forces were not spare capacity to be used instead of ambulance drivers and others who pursue ‘industrial action’ (industrial inaction, surely?). The services, he explained, had important roles of their own to carry out and standing in for strikers could only be to the detriment of their primary purpose. A politician, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, normally a reasonably sensible cove, roundly criticised the admiral, saying that the armed forces were there to do what the government told them to do and should not make political statements. It might be remarked that senior officers of the Armed Forces get there by careful selection, intensive training and long service, whilst a politician gets there by bribing an ignorant and greedy electorate by making extravagant promises that he has neither the intention nor ability to keep.
In practice MACP could be quite fun for those of us who had to do it. In my own experience we stood in for striking firemen, who before they withdrew their labour were earning considerably more than my soldiers. I ran a prison for a time, in lieu of striking warders, and while we did not enjoy the experience, particularly when the cubic feet of accomodation mandatory for prisoners was rather more than my men were given for guarding them, I learned a great deal about the iniquities of the penal system. One of our more enjoyable aids to the civil power was after the ‘great storm’ of 1987 when we were required to cut through fallen trees to allow the electricity companies to reach their pylons. The soldiers were accommodated in very comfortable hotels and told, by the electricity companies, to order whatever they wanted from the menu.
All that said, when the services last had to stand in for strikers the number of men and women in uniform was twice what it is now, while their primary roles have only reduced marginally. Currently servicemen are carrying out the duties of the Border Force at airports, and all reports say that the system is working considerably better than before the strike. This is hardly surprising. Sailors, soldiers and airmen are trained to use their initiative and to be flexible, they are members of disciplined institutions with a clear chain of command, quite apart from shaving, getting their hair cut and keeping themselves clean, not always visible in the civilians that they replace. Soldiers are now driving ambulances in lieu of strikers, but the NHS insists that they cannot use blue lights nor exceed the speed limit because they have not completed the civilian five week course that would allow them to do so. So it is quite acceptable to evacuate a wounded man in Afghanistan while being shot at, but not acceptable to drive at speed a stroke victim to hospital in Basingstoke.
It is all very well for Mr Rees-Mogg to say that the services are there to do what government tells them, but he might be reminded that members of the armed forces take an oath not to government or constitution but to the monarch personally. While judges, policemen and other also take an oath of obedience ‘in accordance with the law’, there is no mention of the law in the Armed Forces oath. Loyalty to the monarch is total. In the unlikely event of a constitutional clash between government and king, the services will be unwaveringly on the side of the king.