Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench) 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

I thank the Minister for that very helpful explanation and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support. The difficulty that I have with the Minister's distinction between acting and what he said is ““showing an intention of acting”” is that Clause 7(1)(a) talks about intention. Therefore, the provision deals not just with the act of committing a mutiny but with the fact that people have agreed to do so. It seems to me that, if they have agreed, there is an intention of being mutinous. I put these provisions all together because of the wording of Clause 7(1)(a), which mentions a person who, "““knows that a mutiny is occurring or is intended””." The use of the word ““intended”” seemed to me to cover the first provision of Clause 6, which talks about agreeing with one or more people. Nevertheless, in view of what the Minister and everyone else have said, I shall be very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c1625 
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