---

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2006

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27 April be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of the order. We have had a good debate this afternoon on the broad issues of the Armed Forces Bill. However, although it is less significant than the Bill, the order is crucially important. As noble Lords will know, in most years Parliament is asked to consider an order of this kind as part of the process by which the service discipline Acts are kept in force. The Armed Forces Acts form the main part of that process. They are passed every five years to allow the individual service discipline Acts to continue in force for a maximum of five years, subject to an annual Order in Council in each of the intervening years. The service discipline Acts provide the statutory basis for discipline in our Armed Forces. The order before us is critical to ensuring that those Acts remain in force. The most recent of these, 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. The key difference this year is that we are reaching the end of this particular cycle. The current order continues the service discipline Acts in force until December 2006, beyond which they can be renewed only by primary legislation. Having had its Second Reading today, the Government are confident that the Armed Forces Bill will by then have received Royal Assent. The Armed Forces Act 2006, as it will then be known, will provide for the arrangement to continue under that legislation. I shall 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 that 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. It is no secret that, when it was introduced, the Armed Forces Bill did not require the five-yearly legislation to be renewed by Order in Council in each of the intervening years. It is true that we felt that there was no longer a need for parliamentary control to be exercised quite so closely in the 21st century. Indeed, this would have been the last such debate. In the event, we have heard Parliament’s voice loud and clear. The Government amended the Bill in the other place to continue with annual renewal by Order in Council, not only of the existing Acts but also of the Armed Forces Bill, once brought into force. For some years now, these debates have provided an opportunity to give the House a progress report on the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill. There may be a few noble Lords who thought they would never see the Bill introduced to Parliament. I am delighted that we have proved them wrong. In future, I expect that these debates will provide a useful opportunity to keep the House informed of progress on the Bill’s implementation, and I undertake to do that. In conclusion, I look forward to providing those updates and to discussing the renewal of a single system of service law for many years to come. I beg to move. Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27 April be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Drayson.)