Select Committee on Defence Second Report


1 Introduction

Background to the inquiry

1. The Government's Strategic Defence Review, published in July 1998, announced that there would be an 'examination of the need for a single tri-Service Discipline Act'.[1] On 13 June 2003, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Lewis Moonie MP, wrote[2] to our Chairman about a project to replace the three Service Discipline Acts with a single Tri-Service Act (TSA). On 23 April 2004, Dr Moonie's successor, Mr Ivor Caplin MP, wrote[3] to the Chairman to update him on progress with the project, and said that he hoped that the next five-yearly Armed Forces Bill, due in the 2005-06 session, would be the vehicle for the Tri-Service legislation. The Bill is expected to be large, in the order of 350-400 clauses.[4]

2. On 28 June 2004, Mr Caplin again wrote[5] to the Chairman, noting that he was keen 'to expose our ideas in a coherent fashion at an early a stage as possible to those most closely interested'. He proposed that a memorandum (subsequently referred to as the Memorandum) on the Bill be submitted to the Committee in the autumn, setting out the key principles underpinning the legislation and providing details of the main policy proposals. He hoped that the Committee could consider the proposals, take evidence, and produce a report in early 2005 to assist the Ministry of Defence (MoD) with its work.

3. We received the Memorandum[6] on 6 October 2004 and a further memorandum on 8 January 2005.[7] We held two sessions of oral evidence, one with MoD's Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill Team on 27 October 2004, and one with Mr Caplin, on 2 February 2005.

4. We are grateful to the specialist advisers who have assisted us in our inquiry: Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold, Professor Christopher Dandeker, Air Vice Marshal Professor Tony Mason and Brigadier Austin Thorp. We are also grateful to the assistance provided by the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit.

Our inquiry

5. MoD states that its Memorandum 'describes the main conclusions we have reached about criminal and disciplinary matters and outlines our developing thinking in other key areas, notably Boards of Inquiry and redress of grievance procedures'.[8]

6. The detail of the Bill's provision will be significant, but in many areas cannot be ascertained from the information provided to date. For example, it is proposed that the Act would re-define service offences which are described as very old, and clarify existing areas of uncertainty. The information in the Memorandum relating to these and other important matters is sketchy. Annex B to the Memorandum lists the subject headings which are likely to appear in the Bill, but none of the draft clauses have been provided with the Memorandum. While we were content to consider the proposals set out in MoD's Memorandum, the sketchy nature of some of the information, and the lack of any draft clauses, limits the extent to which we have been able to reach substantive and unqualified final conclusions.

7. In this inquiry we have limited ourselves to examining MoD's proposals for inclusion in the Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill, as set out in its memoranda. The proposals are principally intended to update and harmonise existing arrangements, for example, in respect to courts martial and Boards of Inquiry. We have not attempted any consideration of more fundamental issues such as the need for a military system of law, or the underlying principles of the existing arrangements. These issues will, however, need to be considered in future procedures relating to the Bill. We recommend that our successor Committee pursues this matter.

Consultation exercise

8. The Memorandum states that the Tri-Service Bill team undertook visits to a number of Service establishments where discussions were held with all ranks. Discussions were also held with representatives of the Armed Forces of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all of which have forms of harmonised Service legislation. Responses to questionnaires were also received from the French, German and Dutch defence ministries. Where appropriate, other stakeholders such as welfare and families' organisations and trade unions were consulted.[9]

9. At the evidence session on 2 February 2005 we asked about the level of consultation as we were concerned that, during our recent visits to Cyprus and Northern Ireland, few of the Service personnel we spoke to had much knowledge of the proposals which are likely to feature in the Bill. Mr Caplin told us that he 'would expect very few of our current serving members of the Armed Forces to know what we are doing at the present time… there will be significant internal and external consultation and public relations campaigns once we get the Bill a bit further on'.[10] However, Mrs Jones, Head of the Armed Forces Bill team told us that 'Work really started in earnest… back in about 2001. Most of the work involved a great deal of consultation with the Service themselves at the beginning because this is an enormous change for the Services to move to a single Act'.[11]

10. Mr Morrison, MoD's legal adviser provided some clarification on the issue of consultation:

We spent at least 18 months visiting units and commands both in Britain, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Germany, Cyprus and elsewhere. We discussed at all ranks, from the senior command to open meetings with all ranks… This was not obviously consultation on the Bill, it was asking them about their views of discipline, the way discipline worked, their views of the other Services' disciplinary arrangements.[12]

He added:

It was not consultation in the sense that we were not putting to them our proposals and saying "What do you think of those?" I was trying to draw a distinction between that sort of exercise, which is the next stage, and the sort of, if you like, consultation or fact-finding which was making sure that we understood how people at all ranks saw the problems.[13]

11. Mr Caplin saw our inquiry 'as part of the consultation process', but added that MoD 'have a very, very demanding timetable… Long consultation is unlikely but some consultation is necessary'.[14] He anticipated 'being able to start consulting around mid year… We will have formulated more proposals; we will talk through the chain of command where we are and then go out and do some consultation. That should be in good time for the introduction of the Bill in the autumn'.[15]

12. We consider it very important for MoD to consult with those who will be affected by the proposals in the Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill—the men and women of our Armed Forces. MoD plans to 'start consulting around mid-year'. However, given that the timetable for the introduction of the Bill is autumn 2005, we are concerned that this might lead to less time than is needed for a proper consultation exercise to take place. We consider this issue further in the context of parliamentary scrutiny in Chapter 4 below. We look to MoD to ensure that proper consultation is undertaken and, where appropriate, the outcome of the consultation is reflected in the proposals in the Bill.

Timetable for the Bill

13. Mr Caplin told us that 'there is an enormous amount of detailed work going on to ensure that we make the most of the opportunity we have now'.[16] He added that 'although there is a lot of work to be done, officials are very clear that we have a timetable to meet'.[17]

14. We asked Mr Caplin how confident he was that the Bill will be introduced in the autumn of 2005. He told us that:

I am confident… Recently I have had further discussions with the three Service Principal Personnel Officers and we have discussed the introduction of the Bill. We are confident about meeting the target that the House has asked us to meet which is to introduce this in the next session of Parliament. We aim and expect to be able to do that.[18]

15. The Government plans to introduce the Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill in the autumn of 2005. However, as MoD recognises, there is a great deal of work to be done. We look to MoD to keep us updated on the further development of the proposals in the Bill by way of regular reports.


1   Strategic Defence Review, Ministry of Defence, July 1998, Cm 3999, para 133 Back

2   Ev 35 Back

3   Ev 35 Back

4   Ev 37 Back

5   Ev 36 Back

6   Ev 36-54  Back

7   Ev 70-74 Back

8   Ev 36 Back

9   Ev 38  Back

10   Q 115 Back

11   Q 113 Back

12   Q 118 Back

13   Q 119 Back

14   Q 120 Back

15   Q 121 Back

16   Q 105 Back

17   Q 107 Back

18   Q 110 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 14 March 2005