---

Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. We have accepted that we should not abolish the review without providing for a slip rule, enabling us to respond to sentencing errors. This approach has the full support of the Judge Advocate General. The noble and gallant Lord asked whether service court members would be involved. The answer is that they will be. The noble and gallant Lord also referred to the location of court centres. He felt that they should not be restricted to three new centres, and I have considerable sympathy with his concern. The military criminal justice system must be transportable so as to operate near where the service is required. That must include locations where there are significant concentrations of service personnel—for example, at naval bases. There is a strong service case, in particular, for Scotland and the south-west. My noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that courts martial should not be decided by a simple majority. This is a difficult area, in which we have considered a number of views. We certainly agree with the view of the Judge Advocate General that, if possible, courts martial should decide cases unanimously. Directions are already given by judge advocates to that effect, but if the possibility of a decision by a simple majority is precluded, it will mean that in such cases, whether the majority is for acquittal or conviction, there will have to be a new trial. This was an important consideration in our conclusions. The approach should be to seek unanimity, although a decision can be made by simple majority. I might add that magistrates’ courts, Scottish juries and a number of European civilian and military jurisdictions work on the basis of a simple majority. A number of noble Lords raised concerns about desertion. There may be some confusion about two changes that we are making to this offence. First, we are reducing the circumstances in which a person can be guilty of the offence of desertion, and, secondly, we are reducing the maximum punishment for desertion in certain circumstances. My noble friend Lady Dean asked why, under the Bill, we are keeping the life sentence for desertion. We need to recognise that if a serviceman or woman were to desert from their unit in an operational situation and, through that person’s absence, the unit lost an essential skill, that could lead to the unit being far more vulnerable, which, in turn, could lead to a significant loss of life. In those extreme circumstances, a court should have an unfettered discretion to apply the required sentence. Indeed, we believe that a maximum sentence in those circumstances acts as an effective deterrent to prevent such people from deserting their post. My noble friend Lord Judd raised a concern about a possible increase in the number of deserters in Iraq. I am not aware of the figures to which he referred. The information that I have suggests that there have been no reports of soldiers on operational tour in Iraq or Afghanistan going absent without leave from January 2003 to May 2006. However, that excludes individuals who may have gone absent without leave part-way through their tour. I have recently written to the noble Lord, Lord Garden, stating that in the Royal Navy no one has been charged with the offence of desertion since 1998. Figures for the Royal Air Force show that one person was charged with the offence in 2002 and a further person in 2005. In the Army, the numbers of personnel charged with the offence were: in 2001, three; in 2002, six; in 2003, three; in 2004; three; and, in 2005, five. We believe that the definition of ““desertion”” is very clear. It is closely based on the definition of ““active service”” in the existing legislation. But the existing definition includes a number of complexities, such as the ability of local commanders to declare that active service exists. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, asked what role the Attorney-General would play in the appointment of the Director of Service Prosecutions. My honourable friend, the then Under-Secretary of State in another place, said during the Select Committee that,"““it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State might recommend an appointment””," to Her Majesty,"““without consulting the Attorney-General””." I do not believe that I can add anything to that. My noble friend Lord Borrie asked what the prescribed circumstances in Clause 114 were, where the offence must be notified to the service police and referred direct to the Director of Service Prosecutions. Examples are systematic bullying and an apparently minor offence that appears to have been committed as part of a pattern of domestic violence. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, commented on the report of the Select Committee. We welcomed the report of the Select Committee and the support that it gives to the Bill in a large number of areas. There is absolutely no question of the report being consigned to a shelf, and I shall be happy to respond to the individual points as we continue our deliberations on the Bill and to provide an update on the implementation of those points as we progress with this project. As I said earlier, this is a good Bill. Above all, it will bring greater fairness and clarity and, I believe, operational effectiveness to our Armed Forces. I am greatly encouraged by the welcome that it has had today in your Lordships’ House. I look forward to the next stage, and to the exchanges that Committee stage will undoubtedly bring. I beg to move. On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.