HL Deb 15 June 1976 vol 373 cc446-69

3.45 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Establishment of Standing Civilian Courts.]:

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc: Page 3, line 40, at end insert ("under subsection (12) below"). Page 4 line 4, leave out ("in") and insert ("for"). Page 4 line 29, leave out ("any") and insert ("the person, or every"). page 4 line 30, leave out ("an") and insert ("the").

The noble Lord said: With the agreement of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc. In introducing the first Amendments to this Bill, I should like to mention that they and all the other Government Amendments which I shall move during this debate are of a technical and drafting nature, and are designed to clarify and make explicit the way in which the necessary machinery will work in order to give effect to the proposals.

Nearly all the Amendments arise in that area of the Bill which is the most complex and most novel for the Services—that concerning the incorporation into their Discipline Acts of the provisions in Clauses 6 to 9 and Schedules 3, 4 and 9, which introduce powers to deal with Servicemen's families and other civilians overseas in a way which is, as far as possible, similar to that used in the United Kingdom. Fitting such wide-ranging provisions into the complicated and interlocking structure of the Acts is not easy, and work on this, and on the subordinate legislation which will be needed, has been proceeding since the Bill was considered in another place. A number of further such technical points have thus emerged where improvements should be made, but they are all, I believe, uncontentious.

This first group of Amendments is typical of all those that I shall move, being small but useful refinements to the drafting. They concern the jurisdiction in the Standing Civilian Courts of assessors and lay members. Those to Clause 6 are mainly designed to make it clear that an assessor or lay member may sit only in juvenile cases, thus broadly aligning practice for these courts with that of civil courts in the United Kingdom. Amendments Nos. 20, 29 and 30 to pages 16 and 17 give clearer effect to the intentions behind the provisions relating to the decision processes of the Standing Civilian Court when it is composed of assessors or lay members (as the case may be) in addition to the magistrate. I beg to move.

Lord LYELL

I thank the noble Lord for explaining in outline the four Amendments en bloc but if he can, there is a point concerning Amendment No. 2 which I should like him to explain. It is a fairly simple Amendment, leaving out the word "in" and inserting the word "for". I assume that this refers to Standing Civilian Courts which might take place outside the United Kingdom, possibly in BAOR, or, it might be, elsewhere overseas. Can the noble Lord be more forthcoming on this very technical point upon which I have not been able to brief myself? Has the noble Lord any further information?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

If I am wrong I shall inform the noble Lord and the Committee. The subsection, as amended, says, subsection (13) below shall have effect in relation to trials before Standing Civilian Courts for that area. The court for that area may be sitting outside that area, not in it; hence the Amendment.

Lord LEATHERLAND

Can my noble friend clear my mind a little with regard to this new Civilian Court? Let us assume that I am the wife of a soldier serving in Germany, that I am an irresponsible kind of person and that I have lost the housekeeping money by playing bingo at the local cinema. Then I do one of two things. First, I might go to the regimental orderly room and steal some money from there. I can quite understand that that might render me liable to prosecution in one of these Civilian Courts which are really part of the Army establishment. Alternatively, I might go along to the local supermarket and steal some goods off the shelves. In that case would I not be brought before a German civilian court? There are two kinds of offence. Perhaps my noble friend can clear up the matter for me?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

This is the situation. If a British civilian commits an offence within the German jurisdiction, obviously he is subject to disciplinary action, to trial within the German legal system. But in principle the situation is usually resolved by the police transferring to British jurisdiction responsibility for cases involving civilian dependants of members of the Armed Forces. Up to now we have had the unfortunate position of having to court-martial the wives of serving soldiers or civilians in the employ of the Armed Forces in Germany. This is a proposal to introduce Standing Civilian Courts into the disciplinary structure of the Armed Forces when stationed overseas.

To reply to a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I should say that at the moment this position applies only to Germany. In cases of the type described by the two noble Lords, where the court-martial procedure itself is inappropriate, we believe that trying to set up the equivalent of magistrates' courts in the area of Germany as at present enables us to deal with cases of this type in a manner more acceptable to British public opinion, and indeed more acceptable to the Armed Forces themselves.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Jurisdiction of Standing Civilian Courts]:

3.56 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 5: Page 5, line 19, leave out from ("he") to end of line 23 and insert ("or any person jointly charged with him elects to be tried by court-martial in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of any Order made under this Act").

The noble Lord said: In dealing now with Amendment No. 5 I should like now to speak to, but to move at a later stage in the Schedules, Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 32. These Amendments are to make explicit that an accused has a right to elect trial by court-martial, which is to be conferred by order of the Secretary of State under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Bill, and which if exercised by an accused, or a co-accused jointly charged with him, will require steps to be taken for disposal of the case by court-martial. This effect was previously implicit, but is now set out with greater precision and clarity for the benefit of users. It is purely a drafting refinement and no change of policy is involved. I beg to move.

Lord LYELL

Perhaps the noble Lord can explain a point which is troubling me. He said that this was merely a drafting matter, but I am not entirely convinced, and I hope that he will he able to explain the position to me. The noble Lord spoke about a court-martial before which more than one person is brought. Can the noble Lord explain to me what will be the result if one of the accused wishes to go on trial before a court-martial but one or more of the other accused do not? It seems to me that some of the soldiers, sailors, or perhaps airmen, might have their rights clipped by what is proposed in the Amendment.

Lord WINTER BOTTOM

I thought that what I said was fairly clear. I should like to re-state it. If these powers are exercised by an accused or a co-accused jointly charged with him, steps will be required to be taken for disposal of the case by court-martial; that is to say, any single individual in a group of individuals charged with committing a single offence can bring the whole affair before a court-martial. That is how I read the Bill as it stands.

Lord LYELL

That is not the point which was entirely in my mind. My mind was troubled by the fact that one of the accused could decide, if he wished, to be brought before a court-martial and this might prejudice the others. What rights do they have?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

The final say in a matter of this kind must lie with the court-martial because this is much closer, I suppose, to a county court trial rather than to a hearing in a magistrates' court. So, if any single individual involved in an incident wishes to be tried at a court at a higher level than that of, say, his commanding officer—summary judgment—then he must, in my view, commit all other members who are charged with committing the same offence. That is how I read this brief, but again, if I am wrong, I shall tell the House at Third Reading.

Lord LYELL

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I think that I understand that to he the position, but possibly we may consult on this matter later.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Powers of courts in relation to civilians]:

3.58 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 6: Page 5, line 39, leave out ("pass consecutive sentences") and insert ("award consecutive terms").

The nobe Lord said: This Amendment once again helps to clarify the drafting. As I understand it, these words are used in service judicial proceedings and the word "sentence" is a wider term which can include several punishments or orders. The new wording meets more precisely the intention behind this provision. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 [Constitution of courts-martial for civilians]:

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8: Page 6, line 23, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs").

Page 6, line 37, at end insert: ("" (fff) the reference to an officer under instruction in section 93(1) above shall include a reference to a person under instruction who is qualified for membership of courts-martial under paragraph (ff) above;"").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. These Amendments are designed to clairfy procedures at courts-martial where Crown servants are sitting under instruction. They introduce no changes of policy, but help to effect more fully the intentions behind the clause. Under Rule 24 of Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972, an officer may remain with a court-martial throughout the proceedings as an officer under instruction. Section 93(1) provides that an oath shall be administered to such officers. Since references to such officers shall now include references to appropriate Crown servants, the latter will now be required to take an oath as well

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Citation etc.]:

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 12, line 36, leave out subsection (7) and insert: (7) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on the day this Act is passed, namely—

subsections (1) to (4) and (7) to (8) of this section; subsection (5) of this section so far as it relates to paragraphs 5, 12 and 21(2), (4) and (5) of Schedule 9; and subsection (6) of this section so far as it relates to the repeal of the following, namely— () Subject to subsection (7) above, this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.

The noble Lord said: I may have to speak at some greater length on this particular Amendment. As with previous Amendments, it involves no alteration in policy but offers some refinement to details of it. As your Lordships may have observed—my brief says "will have observed", but I am finding it a little difficult to observe even the niceties—it deals with the. commencement of the various provisions in the Bill. Some of the proposals, albeit important ones concerning summary powers and civilians, cannot come into effect immediately upon Royal Assent. A number of time-consuming but essential tasks remain to be completed, among them the laying of subordinate legislation, the consequential amendments to Service Manuals and the training of the personnel concerned with the new procedures. Arrangements for all these matters are under way in the Services, the Ministry of Defence and the other Departments concerned, but they will not be fully resolved until well into 1977. This sort of timetable accords entirely with the usual practices on the Service Discipline Acts. The new subsection (7A) therefore provides with the present subsection (8) that most of these provisions shall come into force on such date or dates as the Secretary of State may by order made by Statutory Instrument appoint.

However, there are a few matters which, it is considered, can and should be effected without delay. The new subsection (7) therefore provides for their coming into force on Royal Assent. Apart from the continuation and renewal provisions, these are mainly those proposals which bear particularly on individuals—the new powers in relation to the graver sentences that may be imposed on juveniles, and the application to civilians found guilty under the Service Discipline Acts or the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Your Lordships, I am certain, will agree that it is right that any individuals concerned should benefit from these provisions as soon as possible. I do not believe the coming into force of the various proposals in the Bill is a contentious matter, but these are important details to which I thought it advisable to draw your Lordships' attention. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [QARNNS and WRNS]:

On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall he the second Schedule to the Bill?

Lord LEATHERLAND

Schedule 2 renders eligible as members of courts-martial the officers of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service. It is clear, therefore, that an officer of either of those two services will be eligible to sit as a member of a court-martial. The point to which I should like an answer is this. If a woman serving in either of those two services were court-martialled, would it be obligatory, in constituting the court-martial, to have a woman officer sitting as a member of the court, or would the woman charged appear before a bench composed of men alone?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point. I think it is an entirely valid one. I will, if I may, give an answer at a later stage of the Bill; hut, on the other hand, I would have thought natural justice would have demanded that a woman officer would be a member of the court-martial in circumstances such as my noble friend describes. That is, of course, one of the advantages of bringing the WRNS into line with its two sister services and bringing them under the various Armed Forces Discipline Acts, because it enables an officer of the WRNS to play her full part in the court-martial procedure of that armed force.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Standing Civilian Courts]:

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 17: Page 15, line 8, leave out (""higher authority"") and insert ("" the directing officer""). Page 15, line 9, at end insert ("or any officer for the time being discharging the functions of that authority"). Page 15, line 19, leave out ("higher authority"), and insert ("the directing officer"). Page 15, line 22, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("the directing officer"). Page 15, line 25, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("the directing officer"). Page 15, line 26, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("he may"). Page 15, line 27, leave out ("may"). Page 15, line 29, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("he").

The noble Lord said: This is an appalling dog's breakfast which, with the permission of the Committee, I shall move in various blocks. It is not a question of moving them en bloc but of moving them in blocks. With the permission of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 to 17, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 36 and 47 together, but in accordance with procedure we can move only some of these en bloc. They all cover a single point; they can all be grouped together; and, of course, many of them are identical. Their background is that, in the subordinate order drafted under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3, the higher authority who sends a case for trial by the Standing Civilian Court is termed, "the directing officer". These Amendments therefore align the terms that appear in Schedule 3 with the more distinctive label used in the subordinate legislation. With the permission of the Committee, therefore, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 to 17 en bloc.

Baroness VICKERS

I hope I am not being tiresome about this, but I should like to ask about this term "higher authority", because I should like some explanation. On page 15 it says: …'higher authority' means, in relation to a civilian sent for trial by the court, the higher authority who sent him". Is this God, or who is the higher authority? I really should like to have some explanation, because it says, leave out 'higher authority' and insert 'the directing officer'". Perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to give me an explanation.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

I rather gather that we are leaving Out "higher authority" and substituting "the directing officer", thus producing greater clarity.

Baroness VICKERS

I am sorry; it does not produce greater clarity to me. I want to know what is the difference between "the directing officer" and "higher authority". They are obviously two different persons, are they? Perhaps the noble Lord could explain to me who they are.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

When I move into legal jargon and the law, I tread with great care. With the permission of the noble Baroness, I will in fact give her an exact definition when we come to a later stage of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot help her more at this moment. I think the point she has made is extremely valid. What is a "higher authority"? I suppose the highest authority is God himself, but I do not think we involve Him in petty pilfering.

Lord LYELL

I was worried about the same point as my noble friend Lady Vickers. It concerns Amendment No. 11. In this case it is not, I think, quite as straightforward as it might appear. It does not substitute "the directing officer" for "higher authority" because, as noble Lords will see, in this particular definition clause the "higher authority" for which we are going to substitute "the directing officer" means, … in relation to a civilian sent for trial by the court, the higher authority …", and then Amendment No. 11 inserts something totally different from, "the directing officer".

It is more wordy. I wonder whether this particular Amendment means some- thing different from all the other Amendments which the noble Lord moved en bloc, or in blocks, with which I agree. It seems that they were fairly simple; but Amendment No. 11 requires, if the noble Lord could give it now or later, a little explanation or definition.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

It would have to be later; but it is any officer for the time being acting as a higher authority; say, an acting unpaid higher authority at the time of the situation. But I will clarify these points, which are valid. It is part of the jungle which I mentioned. I will produce light at Third Reading.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

4.10 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 16, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 13 and insert: ("4.—(1) An accused person has a right to elect, before the court commences his trial, that the charges on which he is to be tried shall be tried by court-martial instead of by the court. (2) Before the court commences a trial, it shall inform the accused in the prescribed manner of the right conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above, whether or not he has already been informed of it. (3) The court shall proceed with the case unless the accused or, if more than one person is jointly charged, any of the accused, exercises the right so conferred. (4) If the accused, or any of the accused, exercises that right, the court shall adjourn, and report to the directing officer in the prescribed manner the fact that the election for trial by court-martial has been made. (5) The directing officer").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 18 I mentioned when speaking to Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 16, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("being") in line 17 and insert: ("(b) take the prescribed steps with a view to the accused ").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 20: Page 16, line 21, after ("matters") insert: (",other than questions of law.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is connected with Amendments Nos. 1to4. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22: Page 16, line 29, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("the directing officer"). Page 16, line 30, leave out ("Higher authority shall thereupon") and insert ("The directing officer shall").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 were discussed with Amendments Nos. 10 to 17. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments No 23 and 24: Page 16, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("with") in line 34 and insert: ("(b) take the prescribed steps"). Page 16, line 37, leave out ("the accused is no longer unfit") and insert ("it appears to the directing officer that the person in question is fit").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 together. These Amendments are designed to deal more adequately with instances where an accused may be unfit to stand trial. The wording dealing with the option to direct trial by court-martial is simplified and the practice in this matter is brought generally into line with that for courts-martial. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments No. 25 and 26: Page 16, line 43, at end insert:

("Re-trial in interests of administration of Justice

6A. The directing officer may direct a re-trial before a Standing Civilian Court in any case where, after the commencement of a trial before such a court, it appears to him necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice.") Page 17, line 2, leave out ("Higher authority") and insert: ("Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 6A above, the directing officer").

The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. I ought briefly to explain to your Lordships the effect of Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 as it introduces a new paragraph into Schedule 3. I should first assure your Lordships that despite the weightiness of the sub-heading, there are no changes of substance here.

The Amendment provides for retrial in the interests of the administration of justice: for example, where a court becomes aware—perhaps through the indiscretion of a witness—of any matter (like a previous conviction) prejudicial to the accused. A similar provision with respect to courts-martial exists under Section 95 (1) of the 1955 Acts. No change of policy is involved; the initial intention was to make this provision subordinately, but it is now thought more appropriate for principal legislation: just as, for example, paragraph 7 provides for retrial where the court ceases to be properly constituted. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28: Page 17, line 6, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("the directing officer"). Page 17, line 13, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("the directing officer").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 together. I mentioned them earlier in connection with Amendments Nos. 10 to 17. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:

Page 17, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("questions") in line 27 and insert: ("(2) For a trial where section 6(13) above applies, the magistrate shall preside over the court and give rulings on any"). Page 17, line 30, leave out from ("In") to ("casting") in line 31 and insert ("the case of an equality of votes on the sentence, or on any other question before the court, except a question of law or the finding, the magistrate shall have a second or").

The noble Lord said: With permission, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 together. I spoke to them when discussing Amendments Nos. 1 to 4.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

4.16 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 31: Page 17, line 38, leave out ("The") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of any order made under paragraph 11 below, the").

The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to move Amendment 31 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. These are technical Amendments concerned with the rules on admissibility of evidence before the Standing Civilian Court. The intention of the first is to prevent any potential ambiguity regarding rules of evidence, and its effect is to emphasise that the provisions of paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 are subject to any relevant modifications introduced by Statutory Instrument under paragraph 11 of that Schedule. The second and third Amendments are designed to give effect more adequately to the intentions concerning the Secretary of State's power to make provisions regarding the procedures of the Standing Civilian Court in this matter, by means of an order made by Statutory Instrument. These Amendments do not in any way, however, affect the intention to model the practices of the Standing Civilian Court so far as possible on the comparable practices of the civil courts in the United Kingdom, consistent with the need to take the Services' practices into account. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 18, line 16, at end insert: ("() An order under this paragraph shall confer a right on a person charged to elect to be tried by court-martial instead of by a standing Civilian Court").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 32 was mentioned when I spoke to Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 33: Page 18, line 37, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("the directing officer").

The noble Lord said: Amendment 33 is linked with Amendments Nos. 10 to 17. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35: Page 19, line 4, leave out from ("section") to ("subject") in line 5 and insert ("99A of the Army Act 1955 (proof at courts-martial by written statement), section 1AAA of the Perjury Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 (false written statements at courts-martial) and sections 10 and 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (formal admission and notice of alibi)"). Page 19, line 7, leave out ("that section") and insert ("those sections").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are linked with Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 36: Page 19, line 14, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("the directing officer").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 36 was linked with Amendments Nos. 10 to 17. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 37: Page 19, line 26, leave out ("are amendable by a court-martial") and insert ("which are being tried by court-martial may be amended").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 37 is connected with Amendment No. 48 and, with permission, I should like to speak to both. These Amendments also refine the drafting in relation to definition of charges and offences. The first reflects more accurately the power of amending court-martial charges which exist under the 1955 Acts and which does not lie merely with the court-martial itself but also with higher authority. The second applies the appropriate definitions and concept of an offence under those Acts to the offence in question under this Schedule. I beg to move Amendment No. 37.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 45: Page 20, line 36, leave out ("higher authority") and insert ("the prescribed person") page 20, line 37, after ("form") insert ("and addressed to the directing officer") Page 20, line 39, leave out ("Where a notice of appeal is lodged, higher authority") and insert ("When the directing officer receives a notice of appeal lodged under sub-paragraph (3) above, he") Page 20, line 40, leave out ("prescribed steps") and insert ("steps specified in Rules of Procedure under section 103 of the Army Act 1955") Page 20, line 43, leave out ("but an") and insert— ("(5A) An") Page 20, line 45, at end insert— ("(5B) The term of any sentence passed by a court-martial on such an appeal shall, unless the court otherwise directs, begin to run from the time from which it would have begun to run if it had been passed in the proceedings from which the appeal was brought and section 118 of the Army Act 1955 (commencement of sentences) shall accordingly not apply to any such sentence. (5C) Subject to sub-paragraph (5B) above, a sentence passed on such an appeal shall be treated for the purposes of any enactment as if it had been a sentence passed on a trial by court-martial.") Page 21, line 10, leave out from ("may") to end of line 11 and insert ("present to the prescribed person a petition against finding or sentence or both in the prescribed form and addressed to a reviewing authority.") Page 21, line 28, after ("officer") insert ("in relation to the findings and sentences of courts-martial").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 38 to 45 en bloc. In view of the proposed framework of the subordinate legislation contemplated, this group of Amendments serves to specify with greater precision and more aptly than before the procedures for initiating an appeal from the Standing Civilian Court or a petition against its finding or sentence. There is also clearer provision for the time from which a term of imprisonment passed by a court-martial on appeal shall be taken to run and the status of such a sentence. No change of policy is involved.

Baroness VICKERS

May I ask the noble Lord for an explanation. We have had the "higher authority" and the "directing officer". Now we have the "higher authority" and the "prescribed person". I should like to know what is the difference between all these individuals.

Lord WINTER BOTTOM

I agree that the noble Baroness's search for precision is absolutely correct and desirable. May I try and give a precise answer at a later stage of the Bill?

Lord LYELL

I was worried about Amendment No. 41 which leaves out a fairly simple term, "prescribed steps" and inserts some other words which seem to me to be just fuzzing the issue. Could the noble Lord explain?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

I thought this was clear. "Prescribed steps" means steps specified in the Rules of Procedure under Section 103 of the Army Act 1955. The reason for these Amendments is that parallel with the drafting and passage of the main Bill, the drafting of subordinate legislation has been going on. This has thrown up certain imprecisions in the main Bill. This is an Amendment designed to remove an imprecision.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

4.22 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 21, line 41, at end insert— ("(5A) Where, while any sentence is so suspended the person sentenced is sentenced by a Standing Civilian Court or a court-martial under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 for a fresh offence, the suspension of the earlier sentence may be determined—

  1. (a) by order of any such court on awarding the later sentence, or
  2. (b) by order of the appropriate authority on the review of that sentence.
(5b) In sub-paragraph (5A) above, "the appropriate authority" means—
  1. (a) where the later sentence was awarded by a Standing Civilian Court, the reviewing authority, or
  2. (b) where the later sentence was awarded by a court-martial, the authority conducting its review").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes explicit what previously was implicit, by providing precisely both who it is who has power to determine the suspension of a sentence imposed by Standing Civilian Court, and the occasion on which that power may be exercised. It involves no change of policy. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 47: Page 21, line 47, leave out from ("be") to ("and") in line 49 and insert ("the directing officer").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 47 was referred to in connection with Amendments Nos. 10 to 17. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Orders that may be made on trial of civilians]:

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 24, line 25, at end insert— ("triable by court-martial. () Any such offence shall be treated as if it were an offence against a provision of Part II of this Act.")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 48 was linked with Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 26, line 8, at end insert— ("( ) Before making a reception order, the court shall consider any report made in respect of the offender by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. ( ) The court shall give a copy of any such report to the offender or any person representing him.")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 49 reflects no change of policy. It serves to align the arrangements concerning reception orders with those provided in respect of custodial orders. I refer noble Lords to subparagraphs 10(2) and (3) of the Schedule. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 50: Page 26, line 9, leave out ("such an authorisation") and insert ("an authorisation under this paragraph").

The noble Lord said: This is merely a drafting refinement of a provision relating to reception orders. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTER BOTTOM moved Amendment No. 51: Page 30, line 3, leave out ("by a court-martial").

The noble Lord said: Again this Amendment reflects no change of policy. Subparagraph 12(3) of the Schedule is designed to apply to compensation orders made by court-martial or by Standing Civilian Court; the removal of these words effects this. I beg to move.

Baroness VICKERS

May I ask who is going to take action if we leave out "court-martial"?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

I am not a lawyer and I have to consider this. With the benevolence of the noble Baroness, I should like to clarify this at a later stage of the Bill. I thought that by removing "court-martial" it placed the responsibility clearly on the Standing Civilian Court, but this may not be the case.

Lord LYELL

It does not say this in the Act. I should like to support my noble friend in this point because it concerned me as well. The Committee will be grateful to know who will make these orders for compensation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.25 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 52: Page 30, line 24, leave out ("prescribed manner") and insert ("manner prescribed by Rules of Procedure under section 103 above or, as the case may be, by an order under paragraph 11 of Schedule to the Armed Forces Act 1976")

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 56. The effect of these Amendments is to specify more precisely the manner in which a parent or guardian, in certain circumstances, shall be required to attend the Standing Civilian Court. This is done by reference to Rules of Procedure in the case of the Army and the Royal Air Force and the equivalent General Orders for the Royal Navy, and to the relevant provisions in the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 52.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 53: Page 31, line 34, leave out ("prescribed manner") and insert ("manner prescribed by Rules of Procedure under section 103 above or, as the case may be, by an order under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Armed Forces Act 1976")

On Question, Amendment agred to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 54: Page 33, line 37, at end insert—

("Indemnity for persons carrying out orders under Schedule

No action shall lie in respect of anything done by any person in pursuance of an order under this Schedule if the doing thereof would have been lawful but for a defect in any instrument made for the purposes of that order.")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 54 is designed to give the same indemnity in relation to orders under Schedule 4 that Section 142 of the 1955 Act gives in relation to a military sentence of imprisonment or detention. No change of substance is involved. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 33, leave out lines 41 to 42 and insert ("provisions supplementary or incidental to the provisions of this Schedule. ( ) The power to make regulations conferred by this paragraph includes power to make provision for specified cases or classes of cases, and for the purpose of any such orders classes of cases may be defined by reference to any circumstances specified in the regulations.")

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I might briefly comment to your Lordships on this Amendment. It is designed to allow regulations to be made in relation to specified cases or classes of cases. Examples of these might well occur in the context of the Community Supervision Order scheme, which, as a simplified amalgam of the Supervision Order, the Community Supervision Order and the Probation Order in the United Kingdom, covers a fairly wide range of ages. We therefore envisage that it will be desirable to be able to make separate provision in regulations to meet the different needs of the different ages and perhaps types of offender. This will enable the Community Supervision Order to be used in a flexible fashion so as to reflect, so far as possible in the circumstances, the practices in dealing with such offenders in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 34, line 42, at end insert— ("( ) In paragraphs 13(1)(a) and 14(6)(a), for the words from "Rules" to "1976" there shall be substituted the words "General Orders under section 58 above ".")

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 56 in connection with Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill?

Lord LEATHERLAND

This Schedule deals with the sentences that may be imposed by the new civilian courts that are to be set up by the Army. A few minutes ago, when dealing with another aspect of this matter, I asked my noble friend to assume for the moment that I was the wife of a British soldier serving in Germany and we discussed the circumstances under which I might be brought before one of these new civilian courts. Let us assume that I have been a very wicked woman and have been sentenced by one of these courts.

Your Lordships will see from page 32 that a very wide range of sentences is available to these courts, ranging from an absolute discharge to a fine or imprisonment. If I had been convicted before an ordinary civilian court in this country and fined or sentenced to imprisonment, in due course the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would have come into operation; that is the Act introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, which enables certain sentences to be expunged from the records of offenders after the passage of varying periods of years. The question I want to ask is this: if, in those circumstances, I had been convicted in Germany, would the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act apply to me, just as it would had I been convicted by a civilian court in this country?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

That is an excellent question and I should like to answer it precisely. The intention behind this Standing Civilian Court is that the procedure in Germany, in the circumstances envisaged by my noble friend, should be as close as possible to the treatment of offenders in this country. I assume that this Act would apply, but I will give him a firm answer on Third Reading.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Financial penalty enforcement orders]:

4.33 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 57: Page 40, line 8, leave out ("by or on behalf of the Defence Council") and insert ("on behalf of the Defence Council or by an officer authorised by them")

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to tie in with the phrase used in the Schedule at page 39, line 21, and page 40, line 32. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous amendments]:

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59: Page 44, line 10, leave out paragraph 4. Page 44, line 1, leave out from ("following") to end of paragraph 7 and insert ("subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3) of each of those sections:— (3A) In their application to any area for which Standing Civilian Courts are established under the Armed Forces Act 1976—

  1. (a) section 75(2) above shall have effect as if references to the assembling of a court-martial for a person's trial included references to his being brought before a Standing Civilian Court;
  2. (b) section 103(1) above shall have effect—
    1. (i) as if the words "with respect to the hearing by courts-martial of appeals pursuant to paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Armed Forces Act 1976 against findings and sentences of Standing Civilian Courts established under that Act" were inserted after the word "authorities"; and
    2. (ii) as if the words "and may prescribe modifications of sections 76, 77, 79 and 80 above in relation to charges which may be tried by Standing Civilian Courts and which are brought against persons whom such courts may try" were added at the end; and
  3. (c) subsection (3) above shall have effect in relation to charges which may he tried by Standing Civilian Courts and which are brought against persons whom such courts may try, but without prejudice to its effect in relation to other charges, as if the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph (e):—
(e) sections 76, 77, 79 and 80 above shall apply as they apply to officers and warrant officers subject to such modifications consequential on the establishment of Standing Civilian Courts as may be prescribed by Rules of Procedure and by any order under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Armed Forces Act 1976.""")

The noble Lord said: with the permission of the Committee, I will move Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 together. They are, of course, of a technical or drafting nature. They concern the way in which it is to be provided that a civilian shall be brought to trial before the Standing Civilian Court. This, apparently, is a most complicated drafting exercise: first, because of the elaborate structure of the 1955 Acts and, secondly, because these new peocedures have to be introduced in a way which does not disturb the provisions concerning the other existing ways of dealing with civilians under these Acts, by court-martial or appropriate superior authority.

No change in policy is involved in these Amendments, which will much more simply and effectively embody the intentions concerning procedures for trial by the new courts by allowing for them to be prescribed within the existing Rules of Procedure and the proposed new order, both of which are Statutory Instruments. This conforms to the general approach elsewhere in the Bill of setting out detailed procedural matters in such instruments, as, for example, in paragraph 11 of Schedule 3. With the permission of your Lordships, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 together.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 60:

Page 45, line 48, at end insert— ("(4B) Section 199 above shall apply to persons such as are mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above, as it applies to persons subject to military law."")

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 60, 62 and 63 together. The effect of these Amendments is to provide that the sections of the Services Acts which concern the proof of the outcome of a civil trial (Section 199 of the 1955 Act and Section 129B of the 1957 Act) shall apply to civilians liable to trial under those Acts, as they apply to other persons subject to Service law. I beg to move Amendment No. 60.

Lord LYELL

May I ask whether it is in order to raise a matter concerning Amendment No. 62 at this stage? If it is, I should like to say that, as drafted, it did not make a great deal of sense to me when I read it. I should have thought it could have been far better drafted. As I understand the proposed Amendment, it suggests that the word "it" should be inserted after "(a) in paragraph 1". I do not understand why the insertion could not be made in Schedule 4, at line 45. This seems to me to be far simpler, and to make sense, because as this Amendment is at present drafted it does not seem to make sense to me. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

This again is something to which I should like to reply with precision at a later stage. These various drafting Amendments have been put down between the end of Business in another place and the beginning of Business here today. I have not been privy to the whole of the discussions and the negotiations, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for studying the Bill with such care and I shall give him a precise answer on Third Reading.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 61: Page 46, line 4, after ("(7)") insert ("for the words "Minister of Home Affairs" there shall be substituted the words "Department of Health and Social Services "and")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 61 is, again, a minor drafting Amendment to paragraph 9 of Schedule 9. It brings up to date another reference to Northern Ireland in the 1955 Acts, and simply makes clear the allocation of Departmental responsibilities in that Province. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTER BOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:

Page 46, line 46, after ("it") insert— ("(a) in paragraph 1"). line 3, at end insert (" and (b) the following paragraph shall be added after paragraph 4:— 5. Section 129B above shall apply to a person to whom this Act applies by virtue of section 118 above, as it applies to a person subject to this Act."").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like formally to move Amendments Nos. 62 and 63, which I mentioned in connection with Amendment No. 60. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.