---

Armed Forces Bill

I have a considerable objection to the groupings. I have no right to complain, because I was not here to object to them at the proper time, but these are disparate matters that cover some important points. Government Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 seem to be simply drafting amendments to clarify the offence set out in Clause 9, and, as such, I have no problems with them. However, with Amendment No. 50 we enter a different area altogether, as we do with Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. With Amendment No. 50, the offence set out in Clause 24 is redrafted significantly—it is not just a case of putting the clause in better language. As originally drafted, the offence is described as follows: "““A person subject to service law commits an offence if … without lawful excuse, he does an act that causes damage to or the loss of any public or service property””." Similarly, Clause 31 as originally drafted has that defence of lawful excuse in the Bill. The offence is hazarding of a ship, and the clause states: "““A person subject to service law commits an offence if … without lawful excuse, he does an act that causes the hazarding of any of Her Majesty’s ships””." In the amendments tabled by the Government, the critical words ““without lawful excuse”” are missing. I invite the Minister to tell me why, because I cannot see in the amendment a defence of lawful excuse. Perhaps the Box can help us on that in a moment. With Amendment No. 69, we move to a completely different area. We are dealing with the status of persons who are civilians subject to service discipline and the time limits that apply to them. This is an important matter. It certainly featured in the case of Martin, to which I referred earlier. He was the son of a serving soldier but, by the time he came to trial by court martial for murder in Germany at the age of only 17, his father had ceased to be a serving soldier. However, he was caught by these provisions in the previous Act, under which he continued to have responsibility to face a court martial. So very practical issues are involved here, and I do not think that we can give Amendment No. 69 the proper scrutiny that it deserves, along with the other, disparate matters that the Government have included in this grouping. Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 appear to apply to Schedule 2 and dangerous flying. We have moved from the offence of hazarding of ships to dangerous flying. This is not the way in which to conduct business. I apologise that I did not have the opportunity to object to these groupings when they came before us. I urge the Government that in future proceedings a series of amendments are not put together just because they are government amendments that go through on the nod without proper consideration anyway. I respectfully suggest that that is not the proper approach.