---

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2005

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2005. The noble Baroness said: I should like to say a few words in support of the order. As many in this Committee will know, most years Parliament is asked to consider such an order as part of the process by which the service discipline Acts are kept in force. The main element of that process is the five-yearly Armed Forces Act. The most recent of those—the Armed Forces Act 2001—extended the provisions of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 by a further five years. But that extension was subject to both Houses approving an order, such as the one before us, in each intervening year. To coin a phrase, the service discipline Acts do exactly what it says on the tin: they provide the statutory basis for discipline in our Armed Forces. The order before us is critical to ensuring that those Acts remain in force. Without it, the legislation would expire on 31 August. The approval of Parliament, expressed in part through our consideration of the order today, is therefore vitally important in making sure that the provisions of the service discipline Acts continue for a further 12 months. Before I move on, I should like to make one more   observation about the order. The 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 order we are considering today is a brief document that raises convention issues only in that it maintains in force three Acts that, as they have been amended over the years, reflect convention rights. I want to say a few words about our plans to replace the service discipline Acts with a single Armed Forces Bill, which will replace the three separate systems of naval, army and air force law that exist at present. In their place, the Government will provide a single modern system of service law that will better support the Armed Forces in the joint environment in which they train and operate more frequently nowadays. This single system of service law will be underpinned by unified institutions that will deal with courts martial administration and prosecution. In the past, these debates have provided a good chance to keep noble Lords informed of developments as details of the main proposals in the Armed Forces Bill become available. Our debate today provides another welcome opportunity, and I should now like to say a little more about our plans. In doing so, I apologise in advance for the use—some might say overuse—of two words, ““modernise”” and ““harmonise””. Those two words serve very well to describe the approach we have taken in the work that will lead us to the Armed Forces Bill. It is a system for the future, informed by our experience and the changing nature of operations. I should say, first, that we believe strongly in the need for a separate system of service law that is fair, consistent and expeditious. There is no reason to fear that a system which is compliant with the European Convention on   Human Rights impacts adversely on operational effectiveness. Our record on ensuring that it is compliant is clear. Equally clear is the outstanding performance of our Armed Forces operationally, in the most testing circumstances. The need for the Armed Forces Bill derives from recognition of the importance of a better disciplinary framework in the many situations in which our services work together. Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and elsewhere have demonstrated the professional, disciplined approach of our Armed Forces. We must ensure that changes to service discipline continue to support that operational effectiveness. The main provisions that we shall introduce in the Bill will be a summary discipline system with a harmonised range of offences capable of being dealt with by commanding officers; harmonised powers of summary punishment; a harmonised court martial system, including the establishment of a joint prosecuting authority; a modern and streamlined grievance procedure for members of the Armed Forces; a harmonised system of service inquiries; and provisions to continue the application of service law to accompanying civilians overseas. In conclusion, let me say that the Government and the Armed Forces attach considerable importance to this Bill. It is expected to be large and, in part, complex. I know that my noble friend Lord Drayson very much looks forward to debating the Bill in this House after it has been introduced towards the end of the year, and I know that he hopes to engage with noble Lords in the period leading up to the Bill’s introduction. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2005.—(Baroness Crawley.)