---

Armed Forces Bill

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in expressing some surprise that the word ““mutiny”” does not appear in the opening lines of Clause 6. Indeed, the word ““mutiny”” does not appear at all in Clause 6. It appears in Clause 7, but not in Clause 6. Therefore, the approach of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley—to start by saying that mutiny is an offence and then to define it—seems to be eminently sensible and logical. The Bill follows that approach in immediately subsequent clauses. As to the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Garden and Lord Thomas of Gresford, I realise that ““overthrow”” is a good deal more serious than ““resist””, but the examples of resisting given by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, were not terribly impressive. I saw him as a very senior officer discussing drafts or suggestions with the noble and gallant Lord. It can hardly be called resisting authority when one has been called in to discuss things. After the decision has been made, any suggestion of ignoring or disobeying it would be resisting. Although resisting is the lesser of the two possibilities, I see nothing wrong with—and, indeed, I look with approval on—the use of the words ““overthrow”” or ““resist”” in this clause.