---

Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, like other noble Lords I would like to thank the Minister for keeping us well informed about the progress of this legislation. A cursory glance at recent headlines and newspapers—following the dismissal of the case against the three guardsmen, who were cleared of manslaughter of an Iraqi looter, and Deepcut—make it clear that the military justice system is under a spotlight that is totally unique in my experience. This is unsettling for the Armed Forces at a time when they are heavily engaged in demanding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is unease among the services about what all of this really means. Are the services going to have a legal system, or a system of justice, that they can trust and which represents the realities of—I stress this—operational service in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan? More than ever I wonder how many people really understand the huge demands that we place on our servicemen when they are on operations. Instead, it was clear from a study conducted by the Adjutant-General’s department, that there was confusion and hesitation about opening fire for fear of prosecution. I am told that this has all been sorted out, but I still wonder. It is certainly a clear illustration of the concern felt by people who are risking their lives on the nation’s behalf. To me this means that we have a huge responsibility to ensure that the changes to military law recognise not only the realities of operational service but also that in certain instances the three services are very different—they are difficult too—and the critical importance of the military chain of command, particularly the commanding officer, in administering the military justice system. First is the hugely important role of the commanding officer, as I have just said. His role is essential in the chain of command. We have had verbal reassurances that this is recognised and that his role will be protected, but we will need to examine in detail in Committee that that is right. Certainly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has pointed out, he will have no part to play in certain cases where serious offences have been committed—I wonder about the Trooper Williams case. There, the commanding officer having dismissed the case, his judgment was overruled by the Army Prosecuting Authority, but two years later—I stress this—the commanding officer was vindicated in his judgment. I will certainly want to probe closely how we handle cases of this nature. Also, as many other noble Lords have mentioned, the selection of the director of the Service Prosecuting Authority is going to be hugely important. It must be someone who has not only the confidence of the services and the chain of command, but also the agreement, I hope, of the three service chiefs and the Chief of the Defence Staff. Going back to the role of the Director of Service Prosecutions, it is enormously important that the commanding officer, having had advice from the Director of Service Prosecutions, is the one who remands the soldier or serviceman for court martial, if the evidence warrants it. In addition, during that investigation it is enormously important that the commanding officer is kept informed of progress by the service police and that, before the soldier or serviceman is formally charged, the commanding officer has the right—I emphasise, the right—to comment on the charge. That reinforces yet again the huge importance of the Director of Service Prosecutions having a real understanding of the demands of operational service. Whether it would be possible for the holder of that post to be a serving soldier, sailor or airman, I simply do not know, but he or she must have the confidence of the service commanders. I should tell noble Lords that I am trying to cut out parts of my speech, as much of what I intended to say has been said by others. But perhaps I may touch on the subject of the membership of courts martial. I am afraid I do not agree with those who have said that it should be a tri-service tribunal. It is enormously important that the membership of a court martial board represents the service of the serviceman being tried. I return to the issue of the commanding officer. We need to recognise the huge importance, particularly on operational service, of a regiment having faith in its commanding officer. I recognise that there are good and bad commanding officers, but I am absolutely clear that there are many more good ones than bad ones. Not only the Armed Forces but the nation have a duty of care and responsibility for our servicemen and servicewomen when they ask them to risk their lives on the nation’s behalf. A key figure in that responsibility is the commanding officer. My next point concerns the review of court martial proceedings—something that we have not touched on this afternoon. In the past, the chain of command had a responsibility to review, and comment on, the findings of a court martial. That was a very important part of the responsibilities of the chain of command, but I understand that it may no longer be the case. Certainly from my initial MoD briefing, I gained the impression that the services were content with that, but I now find that the Army wishes to keep the review process. I feel that, as the Army is far more likely to have to close with the enemy in close combat, we need to be sure that the interests of its soldiers are properly looked after. Again, this is something that I shall want to look at in Committee. Certainly I would like to know why it is felt necessary for the findings of a court martial to bypass the chain of command. Finally, I make the point that the timescale for the introduction of this new legislation is very tight. It will be hugely important to ensure that not only is it explained carefully to people right down the chain of command but that those involved understand what they have to do and the timescale in which they have to do it.