---

Armed Forces Bill

I have listened carefully to the contributions that have been made this morning across the Committee, and I have taken into account the very strong feelings that have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his usual style, went to the heart of the matter when he summed it up, that this whole question revolves around one of the fundamental principles of the Bill, which aims to give a separate system of law for the Armed Forces. It is also important for us to recognise that the Bill has been drafted with great care by the Ministry of Defence in a way that takes into account the pragmatic realities of the nature of operations today. I do not accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that this is a missed opportunity. To the contrary, we are producing in the Bill a modern system that meets the needs of the Armed Forces in so many ways. That is why the Bill is so important. We owe the military a Bill that is effective and meets the needs of our modern Armed Forces. The service courts are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill includes important developments such as a single system of service law for the first time. There are many other changes that do not depend on legislation, including some of the changes that have been introduced by the Judge Advocate General. We have listened very carefully in the development of the Bill to the Armed Forces and to the ex-Chiefs, with their deep experience in this matter. It is important that we recognise the need for a defendant generally to be tried by a court made up of members of the defendant’s own service and one which takes into account the particular nature of the differences between the services, as has eloquently been expressed in this debate. However, Amendment No. 132 is unnecessary because, in the joint environment that often occurs, there are situations which require flexibility. In the evidence before the Select Committee, service chiefs expressed their support for the presumption that single service boards would be appointed; indeed, General Sir Mike Jackson indicated in his evidence that a defendant would generally be more comfortable if tried before members of his own service. That point was echoed by Mr James Mason, a civilian defence advocate, in his evidence. However, we also need to be able pragmatically to respond to a situation. I have mentioned joint operations. We also need to take into account a situation whereby there may be two defendants on trial who come from different services or, perhaps, when a criminal offence has been committed overseas in no particular service context; those would be amenable to a mixed panel, as could a court martial of a civilian. Building on what I said in Committee yesterday, I am happy to stress our presumption, but there may be a compelling and appropriate reason for lay members of the court to be appointed from different services. In the light of such cases, it would not be appropriate to agree to this amendment, which would require the members to come from a single service.