---

Armed Forces Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am persuaded that a very full answer has been given, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, as well as by the Minister, on the use of the expression ““use his utmost exertions””. I now understand that the purpose of that phrase is to be a defence for a person ordered to carry out a perhaps impossible task; that seems to me to be a very fair and reasonable way of putting it. If that is the view behind the Government’s inclusion of the phrase in the Bill, I am happy with it. So far as becoming despondent or alarmed—that rather ancient language—is concerned, I am grateful for the support of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, as well as that of my noble friend. Subsection (7) of the clause states: "““A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to any punishment mentioned in the Table in section 163, and any sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of the offence may be for life””." So life imprisonment can be imposed for an offence described by the vaguest wording—““despondent or alarmed””—and is imposed by a tribunal that has to find not necessarily that despondency and alarm have been caused but merely that ““the communication”” made by the defendant ““is likely to cause”” alarm and despondency. That is a value judgment if ever there was one and it is placed in the hands of the tribunal. Although I am grateful to the Minister for his response on this matter, which I shall read with considerable care, it is a phrase that I shall return to on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 10 not moved.] Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 [Obstructing operations]: [Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 not moved.]