House of Lords
Wednesday, 21 January 2004.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell
George Henry, Lord Bishop of Southwell—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
Courts Martial
2.40 p.m.
Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether courts martial have been abolished in the Armed Forces and, if so, what is intended to replace them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government have no plans to abolish courts martial. Indeed, the Government welcome the recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that, as a whole, the court martial system, with its safeguards to guarantee its independence and impartiality, is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not true that, at present, courts martial have been abolished in the Royal Navy?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is not true that courts martial have been abolished in the Royal Navy or anywhere else. It is true that in January there will not be courts martial held in the Navy, but I understand that they will begin again in February and will continue as before.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, is it not the case that in the European Court, to which my noble friend the Minister referred, the proceedings of courts martial were upheld in general but there was criticism of Royal Navy courts martial, as distinct from those in the other armed services, because the Judge Advocate was an officer in the Royal Navy, not an independent civilian?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The Court concluded that the position of a Judge Advocate did not provide a strong guarantee of the independence of naval courts martial for two main reasons: first, the use of a serving naval officer in that role and, secondly, the appointment of judge advocates to individual trials by the Chief Naval Judge Advocate—a serving naval officer. We have
accordingly decided that the first should cease. Regarding the second, a remedial order was laid before both Houses on 15 January 2004, under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, to deal with the problem, which is provided for by statute.
Lord Boyce: My Lords, I find that conclusion by the European Court of Human Rights somewhat hard to follow, especially given the evidence of there being no suspicion whatsoever of any bias in the review of courts martial in the Navy over the past 10 years. The ruling is a bitter blow to naval lawyers, whose dedication to the administration of justice in the Royal Navy is highly regarded, not just in the Navy, but by the highest courts in the land, and to the huge number of people who turn to naval lawyers for their assistance and advice. The conclusion also undermines the executive in the maintenance of good order and service discipline. We should regret that trend and the lack of recognition that there are areas where the Armed Forces are, by necessity, different from other walks of life. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do everything possible to arrest the trend, or, at the least, safeguard the pre-eminence of the presidents of courts martial?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who speaks with great experience on this issue. While we welcome that the Court ruled that, as a whole, the service courts martial system is compliant with the convention on human rights, we are disappointed that the Court concluded that the use of uniformed judge advocates did not constitute a sufficiently strong guarantee of independence. However, I stress that the Court did not find any actual bias in the operation of naval courts martial. I should like to take the opportunity which the noble and gallant Lord has afforded me to pay tribute to the work of naval judge advocates in the maintenance of the disciplinary system. I have been most impressed by the professional response to the Court's judgment and by the speed and efficiency with which the necessary amendments to the courts martial system have been implemented.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, am I right in saying that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was of the Grand Chamber—that is to say, a very large number was unanimous—and that the central holding was that the pivotal role of the judge advocate deprived naval courts martial of one of the most significant guarantees of independence enjoyed by the other services' courts martial, the Army and Air Force courts martial systems, being the same for all relevant purposes? Does the Minister agree that it would be very strange if justice were in some way less robust for the admirable members of the Royal Navy than it was for the other two armed services?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that there could be any serious suggestion that, in practice, as shown over many years, discipline and courts martial are more robust in terms of independence and impartiality in one of the services than in another.
However, I pay tribute to the noble Lord's undoubted expertise in this field. He is right that it was indeed the Grand Chamber and that it was indeed unanimous. There has been a difference between the courts martial systems in the Royal Navy on the one hand and the Army and the Royal Air Force on the other. As soon as we can possibly find parliamentary time for it, from 2005–06 onwards—I say this also to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, as the matter is of great interest to him—we intend that there should be a tri-service Act to sort out this matter once and for all.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say when he first became aware of the difficulties referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and why an opportunity was not taken in the quinquennial review of 2001 to rectify these difficulties?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I think I replied to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, we regret that the Court found as it did. We believe that the system worked perfectly well. However, we have been signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights for many years now, under governments of both parties, and when the Court rules, of course we take the necessary action.
United Nations Security Council
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will support the modernisation of the United Nations Security Council.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Security Council is at the heart of the international system, having the primary responsibility for dealing with threats to international peace and security. The Government believe that it performs that function well. There is scope, however, to improve the composition and functioning of the council. In particular, the Government are a long-standing supporter of enlargement of the council, in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, in order to ensure that it better represents the modern world.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. Can she confirm that Her Majesty's Government would not support the membership of any country that had an unacceptable human rights record, had no respect for the United Nations and did not implement UN resolutions? Can she also tell us whether Her Majesty's Government will support democracy, accountability and the rule of law at the United Nations Security Council?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. We judge all candidates for Security Council membership against the criterion laid down in the UN charter—the contribution that a country makes to the maintenance of international
peace and security and the other purposes of the UN. I should also like to make it clear that implementation of the obligations under Security Council resolutions and respect for the fundamental principles of the charter, such as human rights, obviously forms a key part of the judgment. We would urge all countries to fulfil the obligations under the charter and under the relevant Security Council resolutions. That continues to form part of our bilateral dialogue.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the UN Secretary-General, who said, in his very impressive speech in September, that the great priority is to fit the Security Council to deal with the threats and challenges of the 21st century, which it has unfortunately been somewhat frustrated in doing in recent years, and that it is to that aspect of the Security Council's work that priority must be given?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords; I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, in the way that he sets out the challenges that the Secretary-General put forward last year. I am delighted to take this opportunity to say that the noble Lord is a member of the Secretary-General's new high-level panel on reform. I agree with him. Noble Lords might be asking themselves, "What does an effective UN system look like?" It is a system that can tackle the full range of insecurities faced by its members: poverty; disease; environmental change; abuse of human rights; and more recently, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page