⚖️ Delegated Legislation Committee

• The session discussed changes to the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 through the draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024.
• The amendment focuses on adjusting the rank requirements for the president of a court martial board when the defendant is a very senior officer, aiming to ensure fairness and impartiality.
• The Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns, explained that the change would address a loophole where it was challenging to assemble an impartial board for cases involving senior officers. The new rules allow for a broader selection of potential presidents, ensuring they can be suitably disconnected and impartial.
• The session highlighted the importance of the court martial system in maintaining discipline within the military, reflecting its necessity for operational effectiveness.
• Conservative MP Mark Francois raised questions about the timeline of the statutory instrument’s development, which began under a previous minister in 2023, and its effects on sentencing, which the Minister clarified were not changed by the amendment.
• Labour MP Paul Foster inquired if the amendment would speed up the court martial process, and the Minister confirmed it would aid in bringing cases to justice more efficiently.
• The amendment aims to ensure that no one, regardless of rank, can avoid justice due to technicalities, reinforcing the fairness and effectiveness of the military justice system.
• The changes are part of a broader effort within the armed forces to improve various aspects of service, to be further developed in future legislation.
• The statutory instrument was unanimously approved by the committee.

The session exhibited a very low level of disagreement, making it worthy of a rating of 1 on a scale from 1 to 5. Throughout the session, the Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns, introduced the draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 and explained its purpose and implications. The Members of the Committee asked clarifying questions and sought confirmations, rather than voicing objections or strong disagreements to the proposed changes.

An example of this lack of significant disagreement was the questioning from Mr Mark Francois. He asked about the timeline of the statutory instrument’s development, its relation to sentencing provisions, and its implementation date. These questions were designed to clarify details rather than to challenge the substance of the amendment. The Minister’s responses were clear and met the queries without any sense of opposition or contentious exchange.

Mr Paul Foster sought confirmation that the SI addresses an existing loophole and helps speed up court martial processes. The Minister confirmed this, indicating alignment rather than disagreement.

Overall, there were no opposing viewpoints expressed, no heated debates, nor any indications that any member of the committee was against the changes proposed in the draft rules. The session concluded with the question being put and agreed to, further demonstrating the consensus rather than contention.