ARMED FORCES BILL (Hansard, 21 July 1976)

§ Lord WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I raised one minor point that I observed on going through the Bill as it was amended on Committee. It refers to one of what I understand are several cross-references. I noticed this one which seemed to me to be relevant. This particular reference occurs in the Interpretation in Schedule 3. At this stage I should say that I was very grateful for the information that reached me from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom; it enabled me to clear up many doubts which were in my mind at an earlier stage. I compared the noble Lord's notes and the information with the interpretation in the Bill which we have before us today, as amended in Committee. It seemed to me that there was a definite error; I think it might be a printing error but it could be a drafting error. I should be glad if the noble Lord could confirm this. At page 16 (line 12) of the Bill we are considering this afternoon under "Interpretation" we find: 'Prescribed' means prescribed by an order under paragraph 11 below …". But paragraph 11 refers to the rules of evidence. This does not tally with the Bill which we did not amend at this point in Committee. In the old Bill paragraph 11 referred to "Procedure, etc. of court". In the present Bill this is paragraph 12. As the Bill is now drafted I do not believe it means what it is intended to mean. Perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten me on this; I await his answer with interest.

§ Lord WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—and everyone concerned with this Bill must be grateful to the noble Lord—for the thoroughness with which he has cross-checked the information that I gave him. 897 What he has discovered is entirely correct: the Bill as printed at the moment is incorrect. There is a printing error. When Amendment No. 25 was agreed, a new paragraph was marked in Schedule 3. Unfortunately the necessary cross-reference in paragraph 1 of that Schedule to the then paragraph 11 was not made. The noble Lord is absolutely correct in his criticism of the Bill as has been reported back to this House. I apologise to the House for the mistake. The printing error will be corrected before the Bill goes to another place. A careful check will be made to make sure there are no other errors. I am slightly consoled by the fact that my noble friend Lord Jacques also had to stand in a hair shirt over a printing error in the previous business.

§ Lord WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. After the constructive debates we have had upon this Bill, your Lordships will be familiar with the general principles behind it and with its major provisions. These have of course been subjected to keen scrutiny both by your Lordships and in another place, and I do not intend to rehearse again the many arguments that can be used in their support. However, it is a complicated piece of legislation and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to spend a few minutes on the few detailed points that were raised when the Bill was considered in Committee.
The first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, was whether it would be made obligatory to have a woman officer as a member of a court-martial trying a member of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service or the Women's Royal Naval Service. This is not a statutory requirement in the Women's Services of the Army and the RAF, and we do not now intend to make it one for the Naval Women's Services. It is the responsibility of an officer convening a Royal Navy court-martial to select suitable officers to form the court, and the attention of Naval Commanders-in-Chief and Flag Officers will, of course, be drawn to the new provisions in Schedule 2 to the Bill. 898 I should certainly expect, therefore—as I said in Committee stage—that if a member of the QARNNS or WRNS were to be tried by a Royal Naval court-martial the convening authority would normally wish to include an officer of the appropriate Women's Service as a member of the court.
I also undertook to explain a number of matters concerning the terms "higher authority" and "directing officer" in Schedule 3 to the Bill—the one dealing with the procedures of the new Standing Civilian Courts. "Higher authority" is an expression already used in the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and means an officer in the disciplinary chain of command higher than the commanding officer of a unit. At various levels related to the rank of the person concerned and to the organisation within which he is working, these higher authorities have power to convene courts-martial, and are then called "convening officers". Now, with the introduction of Standing Civilian Courts, a higher authority will also have power to direct trial by Standing Civilian Court in an appropriate case. Since it seemed helpful to give the higher authority in these Standing Civilian Court cases a distinctive label, he is to be called a "directing officer". The change is one of terminology, not of substance, designed to assist users of the Service Manuals.
It was also felt desirable to provide quite plainly for the situation when a higher authority goes on leave, or is ill. Thus I moved the Amendment to page 15, line 9, so that there is no doubt that a civilian can be sent for trial by Standing Civilian Court and have his case subsequently dealt with, where necessary, by "the higher authority who sent him, or any officer for the time being discharging the functions of that authority". Again, no change of substance is involved.
This general question concerning "higher authority" and associated terms also arose when I moved Amendments 38 to 45 on the Marshalled List. The Amendments in question related to page 20, line 36, and page 21, line 10, which are provisions about giving notice of appeal or petitioning for review in relation to Standing Civilian Courts. As it was, the Bill said that the notice of appeal or the petition had to be lodged with or presented to higher authority by the 899 accused. However, that might be difficult if the accused were in prison. Indeed, the equivalent court-martial provisions say that the notice on petition has to be handed to a prescribed person, and different persons are prescribed for different circumstances in the Rules of Procedure for the Army and the Royal Air Force. Thus, where the offender is in prison, he prescribed person is the governor. It is simply that we wanted to be able to make the same sort of provision in relation to Standing Civilian Courts in this respect as exist in relation to courts-martial. These are entirely innocuous Amendments, which make for clarity, help the accused, and bring the provision in these respects for the Standing Civilian Courts into line with that for courts-martial.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned the Amendment to page 20, line 40, which replaced the general term "prescribed steps" with a phrase intended to direct those concerned precisely to the relevant Rules of Procedure which have to be used in these circumstances. This is because "prescribed" is already defined in the Schedule as meaning prescribed by an order made under paragraph 11 of the Schedule, and this order will relate to Standing Civilian Court procedures, whereas the steps concerned must relate to the court-martial procedures, and should therefore be correctly prescribed under Rules of Procedure.
The noble Baroness, Baroness Vickers, also mentioned a point on Amendment 51, which removed the words "by a court-martial" from one of the provisions concerning compensation orders. It is quite clear that a compensation order under Schedule 4 can be made either by a court-martial or by the Standing Civilian Court, but by no other tribunal—this arises from the opening words of paragraph 11(1) and the reference there to "the court", which is defined in paragraph 2 of the same Schedule as meaning a court-martial or Standing Civilian Court. In the context, the words removed by the Amendment exercised a limiting effect, so that a compensation order imposed other than by a court-martial—that is, by the Standing Civilian Court—would not be included in the provision. The exclusion of the words now removes this erroneous limitation and brings the 900 provision into effect whether the compensation order was made by a court-martial or by the Standing Civilian Court.
A further drafting point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in respect of Amendment No. 62, and may I say that I also found this a little confusing initially. However, if that Amendment is read in conjunction with the next Amendment—No. 63—I think, and hope, all becomes clear. Both Amendments affect paragraph 15 of Schedule 9 to the Bill, which deals with consequential Amendments necessary to Schedule 4 to the Naval Discipline Act 1957. With the second Amendment being introduced—that is, No. 63—it was necessary within paragraph 15 of the Bill to have two subparagraphs—one for each Amendment. Amendment No. 62 places what was already there under a subparagraph letter "(a)", so that we now have in paragraph 15 the introductory words, In Schedule 4 to that Act (application of Act to civilians subject to it) a subparagraph (a) which contains the previous Amendment, and a subparagraph (b) newly introduced by Amendment No. 63. This all involves the structure and layout of the paragraph and becomes quite clear from the reprint of the Bill.
All these Amendments, as I said when moving them, are drafting refinements of some nicety. They do not introduce any changes of policy, but are designed to aid and facilitate the operation of some rather complicated provisions. However, your Lordships' attention was drawn to them, and I hope—despite my lack of legal expertise—that these are satisfactory and illuminating explanations. I should add, in particular answer to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, but I believe to the general satisfaction of this House, that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 will be applied under Clause 17 of the Bill to all civilians found guilty under the Service Discipline Acts in exactly the same way as it would if they had been found guilty by a civil court in the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships have listened with your customary patience, and I shall not detain the House for very much longer. I am very pleased to move this Bill, secure in the knowledge that it will introduce some desirable changes in the operation of the Service Discipline Acts, and confident that 901 its benefits—to Servicemen and to their dependants—will meet with the wholehearted support of your Lordships. I am grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House for their customary diligence and care in scrutinising this Armed Forces Bill. That this country's Armed Forces are rendering such splendid service is, I am sure, deeply appreciated by all of us in this House, and I am gratified by the thought that by bringing in the provisions of this Bill we are improving to some degree the conditions under which they, and those closely associated with them, serve the country. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Lord LYELL
My Lords, perhaps I might at this stage thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for all the help he has given in connection with this Bill. I am sure he is aware, and of course the House will have become aware, of the fact that this Bill is intensely complicated and also very important for the discipline and indeed the daily life of Service men and women in our Armed Forces, together with many of their dependants. I have been particularly pleased with the progress made on Standing Civilian Courts because I believe these are a far better method of dealing with lesser offences committed by civilians abroad or by those who might be under the jurisdiction of Service discipline. They might be Service dependants or they might be civilians abroad. I believe that this represents a far better and more up to date procedure. The improved methods of dealing with juvenile misdemeanours are also admirable.
I should also like to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has asked me to extend her gratitude concerning the Bill and also her apologies for the fact that she is not here at this stage. I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, so far as the Servicemen and Servicewomen are concerned.

§ Lord WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words of thanks for any assistance I have been able to give him. In fact, all I did was to repay a debt I owed to 902 Members of the Party opposite when, in 1971, I was responsible from the place of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for dealing with the Armed Forces Act 1971. At that time the help I received from noble Lords opposite smoothed my way, and I should like to thank them.