Courts Martial (Hansard, 11 April 2002)

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, we are considering whether any changes to the courts martial system will be required when the three service discipline Acts are replaced by a single Act covering all the services. We are also assessing whether changes will be needed following the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Morris against the United Kingdom. Any changes will reflect the need for service discipline to underpin operational effectiveness.

§ Lord Bramall
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interim reply. Does he not feel a little embarrassed that the Government seem prepared yet again to tinker with what is fast becoming the fragile disciplinary system of our Armed Forces? Does he not recall how we pleaded with the Government to obtain a powerful opt-out from the European Convention on Human Rights for our Armed Forces, as the French obtained for theirs?
We were told that there would be no significant effect on service discipline. When that turned out not to be the case, does his department not remember introducing a new disciplinary procedure which, although inhibiting and time-consuming, was accepted on the clear understanding that it was copper-bottomed from any further inroads from European legislation? They now appear to want to move again. What are we to believe?

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, I know that the noble and gallant Lord has raised this and related issues on many occasions. He is right to say that this is an interim reply because we do not know precisely what will be required following the Court judgment in the Morris case that I mentioned. However, to gain the exemption that he describes the French as having would require us to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and renegotiate entry terms. That would be not only a long and complicated procedure but, if I can anticipate the future a little, an 527 unnecessary one. The assumption is being made that the Morris judgment will result in major changes. I do not think that it will.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, the noble Lord enjoys—and, if I may say so, deserves—a reputation for good sense. I hope that he will try to use that good sense to stop uninformed interference in sensitive matters and pay due attention to the opinion frequently expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on a matter about which he knows a great deal.

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his assessment of my sensitivities and sensibilities. He makes a generous observation.
Obviously, I recognise the tremendous wealth of experience that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, brings to these matters. However, I appeal to the House to acknowledge that the test for the Armed Forces and of their discipline is their operational effectiveness. Does any Member of the House have any reason for doubt, having seen the performance of our Armed Forces in recent years, about their being supremely operationally effective? That is the test and that is how they must be judged in respect of any judgments of the European Court or any Government reaction to those judgments.

§ Lord Redesdale
My Lords, if the judgment under the Human Rights Act 1998 is upheld, does the Minister agree that a system such as the German system, which divides court cases between civilian and military cases, should be introduced?

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am always wary about making comparisons between different systems. However, whenever a judgment of this sort is made there is a tendency to over-dramatise its consequences. We must wait to discover precisely what changes, if any, are needed. I can say that in respect of one aspect of the judgment, which concerned the independence of the courts martial, we have already been able to make the necessary changes through Queen's Regulations.
The House will know that there was a suspension of courts martial. There was no suspension for the Navy; for the Army, they were resumed on 3rd April; and I can tell your Lordships that on 23rd April, Royal Air Force trials will resume. So I repeat: let us not overestimate the drama, if there is one, of the judgment that has been reached.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I moved the opt-out amendment for the Armed Forces? It was withdrawn on the undertakings of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, which are fully recorded in Hansard. Those were acceptable to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall, and Lord Inge, and other noble Lords. It was on that basis that the amendment was withdrawn. Will the noble Lord approach the matter 528 with considerable care? It is absolutely essential that those undertakings are honoured, because that was the only basis on which I withdrew my amendment.

§ Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am indeed aware— having, as the House would expect, read the papers beforehand—of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. However, if it is felt that any changes are needed—changes are obviously being considered in respect of the Morris judgment—we intend to introduce a tri-service Bill that will take account of the various different systems in the three services and, sensibly, attempt to make them compatible with each other. If further changes are needed, we should make them at that point.