HL Deb 11 October 2004 vol 665 cc1-3

2.42 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether disciplinary disposals and proceedings in accordance with the Armed Forces Discipline Acts are to be reviewed on the grounds of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights; and whether an opt-out for United Kingdom forces similar to that for France should be sought by renegotiation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)

My Lords, the service disciplinary system is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Government see no merit in attempting to put our Armed Forces beyond the reach of the convention. As your Lordships will be aware, we plan to replace the service discipline Acts with a single tri-service Act that will better meet the future needs of the services.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I thank, as always, the Minister for the courtesies of his Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that an opt-out for our Armed Forces akin to that for France was tabled to the Human Rights Bill? It was supported by three noble and gallant Lords. That support was withdrawn on assurances given that there would be total maintenance of discipline, since when discipline has been eroded by resort to the facility to seek review under the Human Rights Act for want of compliance and compatibility with the convention.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of the debate that took place in early 1998 on the Human Rights Bill, as it then was: I can assure him that I have read the relevant passages from that debate. In the Government's view, none of the changes introduced for convention reasons since 1996 has undermined the system of service discipline. They have served to underpin the integrity of the services' criminal justice system. Does anyone seriously consider that our Armed Forces are in any way less combat effective now than they were before the changes in discipline made since 1996? I would argue that they are certainly not.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, does the Minister agree that justice and fairness for members of the Armed Forces are important values that are guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights? Does he also agree that it would be very odd if, more than half a century after the United Kingdom ratified the convention without this reservation, it were now, as has been suggested, to denounce the convention and produce an opt-out clause simply because it lost a case in Strasbourg?

Lord Bach

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. As he reminds the House, the United Kingdom has been a party to the European Convention on Human Rights for more than 50 years. It would not be easy to exempt the Armed Forces from the convention even if that were desirable, which it is not. I remind the House that successive governments have adhered to the convention's principles and abided by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell raised an important point. Is the Minister not concerned that the authority of commanding officers is now being undermined by the invisible presence of human rights lawyers and that that is having a very a harmful effect on military discipline?

Lord Bach

No, my Lords, I do not believe that that is happening. The system under which commanding officers look at the evidence, on the legal advice that they receive, is a well known part of our military system of justice and will remain so. It has not been adversely affected by the convention in any way.

Lord Elton

My Lords, why should an exemption be appropriate for the French forces when it is not appropriate for ours?

Lord Bach

My Lords, the French reservation is often quoted—as the noble Lord has done this afternoon—but, with the greatest respect, erroneously so. The reservation which the French took—some 20 years after we joined the convention, it should be noted—no longer significantly impacts on the French military justice system following legislative reforms in that country in 1982 and 1999, which provided for greater involvement by the civilian courts. More serious service offences in France are dealt with by sanctions which are more akin to employment law restrictions and remedies and which may be imposed only by the defence minister or the president on the approval of a committee of five officers of the armed forces. In the case of offences against the civilian law, members of the armed forces are dealt with by a division of the civilian court. If I may say so, the French model does not commend itself to us.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the information which he has about commanding officers and discipline is not the same as that which I have been able to receive? Perhaps we may consult on this on some future occasion in amity.

Lord Bach

My Lords, if my information is different from that which is held by the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I would be more than happy to talk to the noble Lord about the issue and proceed from there.