---

Armed Forces Bill

I felt a great deal of sympathy with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, except on two matters. If my recollection is right, he said that ““disrespectful”” could include what a superior officer thought was disrespectful. Clause 11 is sufficiently objective, as it states that a person commits an offence if his behaviour ““is”” threatening or disrespectful. The mere subjective view of a superior officer would not be sufficient. The second point on which I quarrel slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is in his reference to Clause 19, which sets out the familiar offence of doing something which is prejudicial to good order and service discipline. I recollect that the phrase was ““military discipline”” in my day, but it is the same thing and the offence is enormously wide in scope. However, I notice that Clause 19 states that an offence is committed only if a person, "““does an act that is prejudicial””." Therefore, some of the examples of disrespect given by the noble Lord under Clause 11, which included words which were disrespectful, would not be covered by the existing Clause 19. However, the noble Lord’s nod in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, indicated that he does not want just to be negative and to delete ““disrespectful””, but, ideally, would wish—perhaps it is more appropriate for the Minister to do it than him—to introduce a separate clause as an amendment so that there is a clear distinction between ““threatening”” and ““disrespectful””. I entirely agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is not appropriate to include in the description of the same offence those two, very disparate matters.