---

Armed Forces Bill

We have some sympathy with the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but I want to be clear about its exact nature. The amendment seeks to remove the word ““disrespectful”” from the Bill altogether. We are not sympathetic to that; we believe that it has a place in military law. Respect for the commission, and everything that derives from that, is a key part of discipline in our Armed Forces. The amendment severs ““disrespectful”” from ““threatening””, but does not seek to replace the word in any part of the Bill. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I sense that his rather thorough exegesis of the American law suggests that he might be prepared to entertain the reintroduction of ““disrespectful”” in some other part of the Bill if it contained both a careful definition and a statutory defence. I see the noble Lord nodding, so that is clearly the direction in which he is going. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to the Minister that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as he outlined it, is worthy of serious consideration by the Government. We would need to think carefully about it; but we would not be in favour of removing altogether the concept of disrespect. Serving in the Armed Forces is unlike any other activity. The notion of respect for superior authority is absolutely vital to operational effectiveness in the field. The notion of disrespect is a component of it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has rightly raised an important point and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reaction.