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

My Lords, I start by sending our condolences to the family and friends of the soldier killed last night in Iraq. I thank the Minister for explaining the three orders. We on these Benches support the Motions for their approval. The draft Armed Forces (Service Police Amendments) Order 2007 has been introduced following a high level review of service police by the Ministry of Defence. It brings welcome clarity to the policing functions of the Royal Navy regulating branch and its personnel and brings the branch more in line with the service police of the Army and the Royal Air Force. The draft Armed Forces, Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2007 will ensure that the three service discipline Acts which form the statutory basis for discipline in our Armed Forces remain in force for a further 12 months. This is essential, and the Chief of the General Staff has noted that discipline and the rule of law are core to everything that the Armed Forces do. The continuation order is also important because it provides an opportunity for Parliament to review annually the disciplinary conditions applied to our Armed Forces. In debating the order, we must ensure that the system of military law supports the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. The key issue to be examined is therefore the implementation of the disciplinary regulations, and I shall ask the Minister a number of questions, of which I have given him notice. What progress have the Government made in producing an accessible manual of military law for members of the Armed Forces? What is the relationship between the court martial system and the Adjutant General’s administrative instructions? Do the Government consider it necessary, in light of recent acquittals, to reappraise the practices and procedures of the service prosecuting authorities? What is the relationship between commanding officers and service prosecuting authorities? Under what circumstances can members of the Armed Forces deployed or serving on operations abroad be subject to civilian jurisdiction after acquittal by the military legal system? It remains our view that military justice must be a wholly distinct and different process of its own. What was the outcome of the Government’s review of the support mechanisms available to members of the Armed Forces accused under the discipline Acts? What assessment have the Government made of the implications of the recent Law Lords’ ruling in the case of Baha Musa for members of the Armed Forces serving on operations abroad? Will the Government appeal the ruling on the case of Baha Musa? If it stands, what additional training requirements will that entail for the Armed Forces, and what measures will be put in place to protect members of the Armed Forces from any adverse implications of that ruling? The single services discipline Acts must be kept in force until 1 January 2009, when a single system of military law will be delivered under the Armed Forces Act 2006. As I noted when considering the Armed Forces Bill last year, this is necessary as the old Acts have been so frequently and extensively amended that they have become almost unacceptable as foundation documents. To deliver a single system of military law, among other things, the Armed Forces Act 2006 will provide impetus to a large amount of secondary legislation. Will the Government undertake to brief a group of noble Lords on key issues arising from the draft of all these statutory instruments before they come before this House? The final order, the draft Armed Forces (Alignment of Service Discipline Acts) Order 2007, is also supported. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on one issue relating to its practical effect. What progress have the Government made in identifying exceptional circumstances where in the court martial of civilians lay members should be members of the Armed Forces and what guidelines do they intend to provide to court administration officers on this?