Proceeding contribution from Earl Attlee (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 24 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
My Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are in this group. The Bill quite properly provides for an offence of obstructing operations, but why should that provision apply only to persons subject to service law? What other criminal sanctions are available if UK civilians obstruct UK military operations by, say, blockading Marchwood military port during a transition to war? The Minister said in response to the previous group of amendments that in his judgment we should not subject civilians to service discipline, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would agree with him. But I am sure that the Committee would be interested to hear at some stage the Minister’s reasoning for making that judgment. I have much sympathy with Amendment No. 10. It seems to make a lot of sense.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c1599
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Discipline Crime Armed forces Armed conflict Deployment Courts martial Civilians Desertion International law Officers Terrorism Theft Civil disorder
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:21:35 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_340662
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_340662
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_340662