Armed Forces, Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2007

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 May be approved. 18th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the family and friends of the soldier who was killed last night in Iraq. As is customary, I shall say a few words in support of each of the three orders before us today and begin with the continuation order. Although it is a small item of business for Parliament to consider, theorder is vital because it ensures that the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the three service discipline Acts will remain in force for a further 12 months. As noble Lords will know, Parliament is asked most years to consider an order of this kind as part of the process by which service discipline Acts are kept in force, but the order we are considering today is breaking new ground because it provides for the continuation in force for another year of the three service discipline Acts—the Army Act 1955, Air Force Act 1955 and Naval Discipline Act 1957—and the Armed Forces Act 2006. When the 2006 Act was considered by Parliament, there was an expectation that it would replace the three service discipline Acts, and that remains our intention. However, we need to continue the service discipline Acts in force until the 2006 Act is fully in operation. That is why they are included in the order. In years gone by, these debates have provided an opportunity to give the House a progress report on the forthcoming legislation. This year's debate is different because we now have an Act in place. That, however, is not the end of the story. Having received Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act last November, our focus has shifted to the significant amount of work that will be needed to deliver a single system of service law for our Armed Forces. Foremost among that work is the huge amount of secondary legislation that will put flesh on the bones of the Act. Her Majesty’s Government have been hard at work producing this since the Act received Royal Assent last year. Altogether we expect to produce about 65 statutory instruments. Many of those will contribute to the single system of service discipline that we intend to have in place by 1 January 2009. Since it is not possible to introduce some parts of this disciplinary system in advance of the other parts, we plan to bring them all in together. Our target date for this is January 2009. At that point, the Armed Forces will move across from the three separate systems in place at present to the single one that will replace them. The change will have consequences for police investigations, summary dealings, prosecutions and court martial trials to name but a few. So, as well as statutory instruments there will need to be manuals, guidance instructions and training for a wide range of personnel and organisations to ensure that the change happens efficiently and with the minimum of fuss for our Armed Forces. We expect to lay almost all of the 65 or so statutory instruments during 2008. We recognise that it would not help the House if they were all laid at the same time, so we will look to see how they can sensibly be grouped together and laid in batches, perhaps according to the issues that they cover. Towards the end of this year officials therefore propose to seek views from staff working for the Merits Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It goes without saying that officials would be happy to talk to other committee officials and staff who might be involved in this work. We hope that, by doing that, we will be able to present the information in a way that assists parliamentary scrutiny and avoids the system being overloaded. At present, we plan to make some statutory instruments earlier than the majority. These are ones that stand alone and are therefore capable of being dealt with separately from those which go together to underpin the single disciplinary system. They will make provisions in two particular areas. The first deals with service complaints, which might be better known by some noble Lords as redress of individual grievance. The second is in relation to service inquiries, which will replace the existing boards of inquiry. I should now like to speak to the two other orders before us today: the Armed Forces (Service Police Amendments) Order 2007 and the Armed Forces (Alignment of Service Discipline Acts) Order 2007. The first provides for consequential amendments to nine statutory instruments following the change of name from Royal Navy Regulating Branch to Royal Navy Police. The change is to provide clarity so that the role of the organisation is understood by all those with whom it does business. Various provisions in primary legislation have already been amended to reflect the name change. The affected primary legislation is set out in Schedule 16 to the 2006 Act, the relevant paragraphs of which were brought into force on 10 May by the first commencement order under the Act. The second order removes the current restriction in the three service discipline Acts on the number of civilians who may sit as lay members of courts martial when the defendants are civilians. Removal of this restriction will allow new courts martial rules made under the service discipline Acts, which we expect to lay before Parliament towards the end of this year, to provide that the military court service may select all-civilian panels when a civilian defendant is tried by court martial. The need to make this change arose from the judgment in the 2006 European Court case of Martin v UK, when the court said that it would be appropriate to try a civilian by a military tribunal only in ““very exceptional circumstances””. Since the court did not provide examples of what those exceptional circumstances might be, it is up to the Government to consider when it might be appropriate to have a mix of military and civilian personnel on a court martial panel. We are clear that, if a civilian faces court martial trial, the default position is that the lay members will all be civilians. However, there are circumstances in which it might be appropriate for a civilian defendant to be tried by a military panel. I give one example. If a soldier is accused of committing an offence while he is in the Army but subsequently leaves the service and is brought back for a court martial trial, should he be tried by a military panel or a civilian panel, or by a mix of military and civilian personnel? The Government have very carefully considered the implications of the judgment, and we believe that the ability to have all-civilian panels when civilians are being tried provides the remedy. The fact that the judge advocates who provide legal direction at courts martial are all civilian judges provides a further safeguard. In a wider context, making these changes demonstrates once again the Government’s determination to ensure that the military justice system and the legislation that underpins it are compliant with the European convention. I should like to make a further observation about the orders that we are considering. Her Majesty’s Government have given an undertaking that Ministers moving instruments subject to the affirmative procedure will tell the House whether they are satisfied that the legislation is compatible with the rights provided in the European Convention on Human Rights. The first order is a brief document that raises convention issues only in that it maintains in force three Acts which, as they have been amended over the years, reflect convention rights. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State declared last year, we consider that the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 are compatible with convention rights. Of the remaining two orders, the second has no bearing on convention rights, and the third will help to preserve those rights—in particular the right under Article 6 to a fair trial—as they extend to civilians subject to the legislation. In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords have found it helpful to have an update on progress towards full implementation of the legislation. I look forward to future discussions in the House as we bring forward the important secondary legislation that will be needed to establish the single system of service law. I beg to move. Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 May be approved. 18th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Drayson.)