Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Garden (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Armed Forces Bill.


Armed Forces Bill

moved Amendment No. 58: Page 15, line 25, at end insert ““and authorised for the specific flight”” The noble Lord said: My amendment deals with Clause 34 on low flying, and in particular with the definition of ““minimum height””, below which an offence is committed. In subsection (3), the minimum height is the height prescribed by regulations made by the Defence Council. In practice, when authorising each flight, the minimum height for the operation will be written in by the officer authorising the flight. That minimum height may well be higher than the minimum height prescribed by regulations, taking into account the conditions, the need for the operational or training requirement, the weather, and a whole range of other factors. If we are trying to have an offence that wraps up low flying, it might be worth considering ensuring—I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s thinking about this—that it embraces whatever the authorised height is, which may often be higher than the minimum height. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c276 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Discipline Crime Alcoholic drinks Courts Armed forces Arrests Conduct Deployment Aircraft Courts martial Civilians Certification Defence equipment Evidence Eligibility Jurisdiction Drugs Maladministration Misconduct Powers Membership Prosecutions Misuse Public opinion Officers Low flying Young people Trials Rules of procedure Rules of engagement
Legislation
Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk