---

Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s detailed introduction of the Bill. I remind the House that, as we speak, I am a serving officer in the TA and am subject to the service discipline Act. I have been subject to summary jurisdiction myself. I lost a camp bed, and a squadron sergeant-major who was responsible for that 30 years ago is one of my best friends. I have also had to exercise summary jurisdiction, and I have served on some minor courts martial. We on these Benches have been asking for a single-service discipline Act for many years. I cannot recall serving on a recent exercise or operation when members of other services were not serving alongside me. At this stage, there is not much new for me to say, but I have a few observations. The noble Lord, Thomas of Gresford, queried single-service courts martial. I rather share the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, so I am not sure that I am with the noble Lord on that. However, I am much more interested in his comments about majorities on courts martial. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew talked about how little evidence there was in the Williams case. My understanding is that there was rather too much evidence. Apparently, the corporal in the Royal Military Police made three different statements, and I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would lick his lips at the prospect of cross-examining the corporal in order to determine which statement the court martial was to believe. Clearly, legal advice received by the commanding officer was absolutely right in the first place, perhaps even if the last statement was accurate. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, was quite right to caution your Lordships about using the Trooper Williams case to measure the Bill against. If matters go so wrong, however, it is not surprising if there is significant parliamentary activity, much of it directed at the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Many noble Lords have talked about delay, and I agree with everything that has been said. I certainly look forward to pursuing the amendments about time limits. Not only would they be fairer to the suspects, they would also be fairer to the victims. A short flash-to-bang time is also valuable for maintaining our disciple—surely our objective. Furthermore, if there are time limits, it is much more likely that the necessary resources will be put in place to achieve them. However, it is important to remember that certain types of cases—fraud comes to mind—will require much more time to investigate. There is good news: we are seeing signs of increasing military experience in managing the legal aspects of current operations. Clause 8 covers the offence of desertion. Many noble Lords will have received briefing on it, and I suspect a lot more is on the way. The other place expended much effort in considering this aspect. I hope that we do not expend quite so much. Members of the Armed Forces do not expect to be able to pick and choose which operations they are deployed on. They know that it is not their duty to determine the desirability or legality of any particular operation. However, there is nothing wrong with them considering and debating the matter among themselves. It is for Government and Parliament to make the decisions. However, it is a little disappointing for the Armed Forces at the conclusion of the Iraq conflict, which was over weapons of mass destruction, when none was found. It makes the operation of questionable legality, a point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent. I am grateful that the Government have already agreed to retain the annual continuation order. That is an important and highly desirable safeguard, a check on the Executive. We frequently debate defence matters these days, but when I started in your Lordships’ House in 1992 we rarely did. The first Gulf War was over, and the campaigns in the Balkans were only just starting. Hopefully, one day our Armed Forces will not be so busy, and your Lordships will not be required to devote quite so much attention to matters of defence and security. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, properly and skilfully raised the issue of First World War soldiers shot for military offences. I can think of few military justice issues that are as difficult to determine. I would be happy for the noble Lord to pursue his amendment, if only to enable me to carefully re-examine my current position that we should do nothing. In all three services, disciplinary problems can also be dealt with by administrative action rather than a prosecution under service law. My concern is with it becoming increasingly difficult to use summary jurisdiction, administrative action is being used instead. An obvious example is the loss of an identity card. I have taken summary jurisdiction action against my soldiers for losing their ID card. I had to do it once, and I never lost an ID card again. In using administrative action, there is no attempt to determine whether the soldier has failed or just been unlucky. Action can, in certain circumstances, be quite tough, however. It can include the termination of a career, even when just short of the pension point. That does not sit well with the concept of unlimited liability. I will read Hansard carefully, because I believe that the Minister touched on this problem and am sure that it will bear further scrutiny. The Bill seeks to improve the service grievance procedure. There is plenty of space for this. The Blake review proposes a commissioner for military complaints. The Government have responded to that report commendably quickly. I have yet to study that response, but am sure that it will result in plenty of debate during the passage of the Bill. We will have to look closely at the mischief a commissioner is to rectify. If he is to identify criminal activity such as Skinner’s, it might not work since the victims would be understandably reluctant to report such attacks to anyone. I take it that we will see these amendments tabled before Committee stage. I will be pursuing numerous amendments as part of our scrutiny of the Bill at later stages. I hope that the Minister will have a good answer to each. Members of our Armed Forces perform fabulously well. The legislation underpinning their work must be just as good. I am sure that all noble Lords will seek to achieve that.