---

Armed Forces Bill

moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 15, leave out ““use his utmost exertions to”” The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. I note that Amendment No. 14 has been included in this group. I have been away and have therefore had no opportunity to consider the groupings. I propose to move Amendment No. 14 and at that point to speak to Amendment No. 25 in similar terms; I hope that the Committee will grant me that indulgence. On Amendment No. 9, the Joint Committee on Human Rights today published its 22nd report of legislative scrutiny specifically relating to this Bill. In paragraph 1.34, it states: "““Part 1 of the Bill sets out a series of offences which are the subject of military law. Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires that a law imposing a criminal offence must be sufficiently clearly drafted or defined that a person is able to reasonably foresee that his actions may amount to an offence””." The committee criticises in particular the wording that we seek to exclude by this amendment—that of using ““utmost exertions””. Clause 2(3) states: "““A person to whom this subsection applies commits an offence if he fails to use his utmost exertions to carry out the lawful commands of his superior officers””." What are his ““utmost exertions””? That is a question that the Bill would require a court martial to determine. Surely it would be much simpler if that subsection as, ““A person to whom this subsection applies commits an offence if he fails to carry out the lawful commands of his superior officers””. What is added by the phrase, ““use his utmost exertions””? The Minister will know that the Joint Committee has written to him asking what it means. A similar argument arises with Amendment No. 10, which refers to subsection (5): "““A person to whom this subsection applies commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he intentionally communicates with a person who is—""(a) a member of any of Her Majesty’s forces or of any force co-operating with them, or""(b) a relevant civilian,""and the communication is likely to cause that person to become despondent or alarmed””." That is not the easiest thing for a tribunal of fact to determine. Is something said by a certain person likely to cause another person to become despondent or alarmed? Tightening up the wording so that the subsection reads, ““likely to cause that person to commit an offence under subsections (1) to (4)””, would give direct guidance and clarity to the tribunal on what it would have to determine. I do not doubt that the words ““despondent or alarmed”” have appeared in previous legislation and I do not suppose that the phrase has been newly thought of for the purposes of this Bill, but our purpose in trying to improve the wording is to introduce clarity and certainty, and to put before a tribunal that has to decide these things clear guidance on what it has to decide. I beg to move.