REPEALS (Hansard, 16 June 1976)

§ Mr. Wellbeloved

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I think that there is general agreement in the House that this Bill introduces a number of desirable changes in the law relating to Service men and 704 associated civilians, and that its provisions will be of benefit both to the individuals directly affected and to the Services and their administration. We have taken to heart the injunctions of the 1971 Select Committee not to introduce "change for the sake of change", and to keep "the interests of the Services themselves" as our prime object, and I think all that we have proposed bears this out. That view, it seems to me, is fully shared by the Select Committee that examined the Bill, as is illustrated by its report.

I should also like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) who chaired the Committee in his usual distinguished and courteous way and to my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who served on the Committee. I believe that the system of Select Committee examination of Armed Forces Bills and military discipline Bills is highly desirable and beneficial to the Services and conducive to the workings of Parliament.

I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of State, Home Department, who played a distinguished part on the Select Committee and who has been kind enough to stay for part of the debate this evening. I am pleased that the recommendations of the Select Committee have been accepted. I wish that the whole debate could have been happy and unanimous, but that is the process of democracy. I am pleased to move the Third Reading, in the knowledge that it will be universally accepted.

§ Mr. David Walder

We on the Opposition side were pleased to sit on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), and submit ourselves to his summary jurisdiction, but it was a very easy discipline, and I should like to thank him.

Important provisions in the Bill arise out of the last report on this subject, which was made to the House in the Session 1970–71. The first is the increase in the powers of commanding officers. No one who served on the Committee doubts that the ordinary Service man would prefer to be dealt with speedily 705 by his commanding officer—someone who knows him—rather than wait a considerable time to appear before a court-martial. We did not make that recommendation lightly, but every member of the Committee took the view that has been expressed in the Bill.

The second important provision is the establishment of standing civilian courts. It is to be regretted that that matter was not more fully debated tonight. It is an important matter, concerning families and juveniles serving in BAOR. The system is now akin to civilian law, under the aegis of the military power. This is a commendable development.

Thirdly, I do not think it is unfair to the Ministry to say that these quin-quennial studies of the Armed Forces and their discipline probably represent the right time scale. Five years is a reasonable period within which to consider matters like the power of commanding officers and standing civilian courts. It is in essence a period of experiment. Obviously, Ministers will consider developments within that period.

However, the Committee felt that we should at least have the opportunity annually to consider discipline in the Armed Forces, and that to give it up would be to abdicate our responsibilities. Who knows what might arise in one period of 12 months which we should wish to consider? Such matters cannot be fully considered in the ordinary defence debates, which deal with general policy rather than with particular questions such as these.

On these three matters there was unanimity in the Committee. I am happy to commend the report and to support the Bill.