---

Armed Forces Bill

Before speaking to the amendments, I remind the Committee that I have an interest as a serving officer in the TA and I am subject to service law as we speak. I confess to having tabled numerous, detailed amendments, but the good news is that I do not intend to take very long speaking to them and I hope that the Minister can give a succinct response. Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 8, 13 and 34 cover the use of the terms ““lawful excuse”” and ““reasonable excuse””. Offences in the first few clauses are very serious. Why do some clauses provide for ““without lawful excuse””, while others contain the provision ““without reasonable excuse””? What is the legal difference? Have I wrecked the Bill by swapping them around, or does that not make much difference? If it makes no real difference, why should we have the two terms? Amendments Nos. 3 and 32 build on the amendments to which I have just spoken, but also provide an opportunity to consider the term ““officer””. Most Members of the Committee will have received a very helpful letter from the Minister that explains the use of the term ““officer””, but I still think it is a bit peculiar that ““officer”” means commissioned officer and midshipman, but ““superior officer”” includes a non-commissioned officer. Superior officer should be self explanatory; you would not bother looking it up, but it includes a non-commissioned officer. The Bill should be a working document. No doubt it will be included in the manual of service law, when it is published. It would be better if the Bill was clearer about whether we are talking about commissioned or non-commissioned officers. Turning to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, Clause 1 creates wide and very serious offences. For instance, subsection (1)(c) makes it an offence not to pass on any information received from the enemy. If a serviceman captures an enemy soldier who makes it clear that he is very hungry, a clever serviceman may know—I repeat, know—that that is significant because it indicates that the enemy's logistic system may be breaking down. On the other hand, it could be insignificant, because all soldiers complain that they are hungry. Amendment No. 6 is very similar. The Bill makes it an offence to give supplies to the enemy. How far does that go? For instance, what about medical supplies? Is it illegal to give medical supplies to the enemy if that will not compromise your tactical position? Finally, the Committee will agree that desertion is a very serious offence. There are, rightly, severe penalties for desertion in connection with operations, but rather light penalties otherwise. The Bill seems to have maximum prison sentences of either two or 10 years. There is no provision in the Bill for, say, five years. Although I am content with the concept of ““relevant operations”” attracting heavier penalties, it may not always be possible to make that charge stick. If the charge is for only ordinary desertion, as it were, the maximum penalty is only two years. My amendment suggests 10 years, but I have gone to 10 years only to be consistent with the rest of the Bill’s drafting.