| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Orders of the Day
Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords]
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Ordered,
That the Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, amendments to Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clauses 11 to 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 to 25, Schedule 3 , Clauses 26 and 27, Schedule 4, Clause 28, new Schedules.--[Mr. Touhig.]
1.9 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 24, line 23, leave out from "imprisonment" to "or" in line 24.
Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 24, line 48, leave out from "imprisonment" to "or" in line 1 on page 25.
No. 15, in page 25, line 26, leave out from "imprisonment" to end of line.
Mr. Blunt:
I am somewhat concerned by the remark made in business questions by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the very Back Benches and wonder whether I am sitting in an unfortunate place. However, I hope that the distinction is not meaningful.
I should first declare my interest as the Bill and these amendments in particular apply to me as a member of the Regular Army Reserve of officers.
So far, the way in which the Bill has been considered has done no credit to the Government and their supporters. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, only one substantive contribution was made by a Labour Back Bencher, and that was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, which had conducted an inquiry into the Bill.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West):
That is clearly a record that Labour Back Benchers wish to maintain--not a single one is present now.
Mr. Blunt:
My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say. Not one is here.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
But she is the Minister's parliamentary private secretary.
Mr. Blunt:
I am, of course, delighted that the Minister is supported by her parliamentary private secretary.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
A Liberal Democrat is present, and we are very glad to see him.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because he has given me an opportunity to apologise to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), whose name I took in vain in Committee when I said that he was present very rarely. The hon. Gentleman had not told me or the Committee beforehand that, unfortunately, he would be in hospital. If he had told us, we would probably have been gentler with him.
Mr. Blunt:
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said.
So far, the Government have accepted none of the amendments that my hon. Friends and I tabled in Committee. Most of those amendments were designed to improve the Bill, and to reduce the substantial burden that it will impose on the armed forces. The problem with the Bill is that it is riddled with peacetime assumptions about--
Madam Speaker:
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the amendments stand in his name. He is now embarking on a Third Reading speech, whereas he should be dealing with his amendments in detail.
Mr. Blunt:
I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I am about to deal with the amendments.
The amendments are concerned with the Bill's effect on both peacetime operations and full operations in time of war. They attempt to improve the Bill, and to allow it to cover all the circumstances in which it will have to operate. I am thinking particularly of circumstances in which people are involved in wartime operations. In such extreme circumstances, the last thing the authorities want to do is detain people. I envisage circumstances in which people have been, in effect, remanded: they are not in custody, but they have a duty to turn up to face trial when required to do so by the authority concerned--in this instance, the judicial officer or the judge advocate.
Under the Bill, the sentence is limited to a maximum of two years' imprisonment, which is for going absent without leave, but, in the most extreme circumstances, the accused may be told that he will not be detained because of lack of resources. If he then fails to turn up, it can be an offence equivalent to desertion; if it is an offence equivalent to desertion in the face of the enemy, it is clearly a most serious offence. The simple purpose of the amendments is to remove the two-year limit, so that, effectively, the court can produce a punishment that meets the seriousness of the situation. That would mean that the Bill would suit all circumstances during operations of the greatest seriousness and in time of peace.
I tabled the amendments in Committee. I am grateful that you have selected them again, Madam Speaker, because in Committee the Minister seriously misunderstood their effect. He said:
When the Minister was considering whether to accept or reject the amendments in Committee, he clearly misunderstood their effect, or was misdirected by his officials. I hope that tabling them on Report will give him the opportunity to reconsider his position.
There was a second serious misunderstanding by the Minister: he misunderstood the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Where clause 5(2)(b) applies, the accused,
Section 205 of the Army Act and the equivalent sections in the other Acts make it clear that the measure applies to every officer of the Territorial Army who is a special member when in permanent service, when in full-time service or when undertaking any training or duties. Subsection (1)(eb)--which applies to me--applies to every officer of the Army Reserve when in permanent service, when in full-time service, when undertaking any training or duty or when serving on the permanent staff of the Army Reserve. Similar subsections apply to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the three services.
I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reconsider the facts. On his advice as to how the law stood, I withdrew the amendments and did not press them in Committee. I am sure that that is why you have given me the opportunity to raise the matter again on Report, Madam Speaker.
These simple amendments improve the Bill and enable it to operate in all circumstances, in both peace and war, which was what we were aiming for in Committee. I regret that, in arguing for other amendments in Committee, we failed to convince the Minister. There were rather more Labour Members supporting him in Committee than are present on Report.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister has listened to my argument, and that he will be able to reconsider his position and break his duck in amending the Bill.
Mr. Key:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for tabling this group of amendments, which gives the Minister an opportunity to clarify the position. In Committee, we were almost wholly constructive in our opposition. Although we had our
The purpose of the amendment, which would reduce the punishment that a court martial can impose on an accused for failure to appear at a hearing, is unclear.
That is not the case--the punishment is increased as the amendments would remove the limit.
if he is subject to military law only by virtue of section 131 or 205(1)(ea), (eb), (g) or (h) of this Act--
the Army Act 1955--
may be required to comply.
The Minister clearly had been directed only to what was meant by section 131, not to what was meant by section 205. In his guidance to the Committee, he said:
The clause will not apply to personnel who are still serving; it will apply only to those who have left service but who are subject to a charge from a previous period of service.--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 March 2000; c. 100-01.]
That is not the case.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |