---

Armed Forces Bill

moved Amendment No. 49: Page 75, line 36, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert- ““(1) In the case of any proceedings, the Court Martial is to consist of- (a) a judge advocate; and (b) at least three but not more than five other persons (““lay members””). (2) But Court Martial rules may provide that, in the case of proceedings of a prescribed description, there are to be- (a) at least five but not more than seven lay members; or (b) no lay members. (2A) In the case of proceedings where the Court Martial consists of a judge advocate and lay members- (a) a prescribed number of the lay members must be officers or warrant officers qualified for membership under section 156 and not ineligible by virtue of section 157; and (b) the rest must be officers so qualified and not so ineligible. (2B) Subsection (2A) is subject to any provision made by Court Martial rules.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will deal first with all the government amendments in this group. These amendments deal with the minimum and maximum numbers of lay members required for a court martial. In Committee I said that I would consider noble Lords’ arguments, in particular those of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the desirability of stipulating the minimum and maximum number of lay members of the court martial in the Bill rather than in rules. The combined effect of these amendments is that there will ordinarily be a minimum requirement of three members. But, in cases prescribed in regulations, the minimum number will be five. Those cases where five will be required will be decided by objective criteria, for example ““all Schedule 2 offences””. The size of the court martial panel therefore broadly reflects the current position in the Army and Air Force district and general courts martial. In addition, these amendments allow for regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure, to provide other criteria which will allow a further two members to be added to the minimum requirement. It will be for a judge advocate to decide whether to direct the court administration officer to specify additional members of the panel, and he will be able to do so only in limited circumstances. The relevant criteria will focus on matters such as the likely length or location of the trial, particularly when held overseas, other than in Germany. The reason that we need to have the flexibility to have additional members specified for a trial is to avoid the problem of a trial collapsing because a lay member drops out for some reason. With additional members a trial may proceed even if one or two members drop out, provided that the number of members does not drop below the required minimum. The amendment also provides for rules to allow the judge advocate to sit alone in certain circumstances. There may, for example, be legal matters to decide, which must be done in the absence of the lay members so as not to prejudice their findings of fact. In the light of that explanation I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support these amendments. I beg to move.