Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl Attlee (Conservative) 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. 64: Before Clause 52, insert the following new clause- ““PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW Every person subject to military law shall readily be able to determine who is his commanding officer.”” The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 as well. The service discipline Acts refer extensively to the term ““commanding officer””. Service people will normally know who their commanding officer is, but those reading the Bill and the existing service discipline Acts may not realise that the power of the commanding officer can be delegated, particularly under the summary dealing regulations—often, in the Army, to the officer commanding, who would be a major, or the equivalents in other services. The orderly officer may have some of the powers of a commanding officer, particularly to put service persons in custody temporarily, immediately and maybe in an emergency, when the commanding officer is not available. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the extent of this ability to delegate the powers of the commanding officer. On Amendments Nos. 65 to 68, the Bill allows the commanding officer to deal summarily with junior officers. This is a new development. As the Bill is drafted, the commanding officer—a lieutenant-colonel, say—can discipline a major, who could be his second-in-command. Many commanding officers I have talked to are, to say the least, uncomfortable with the possibility of having to discipline their second-in-command. Can the Minister assure me that the summary dealing regulations will not allow the commanding officer to deal with his immediate subordinate officers and that the regulations will provide a two-rank gap between the commanding officer and the officer he is dealing with? If he can, why does the Bill not provide for that in the first place? Finally, Amendment No. 68 makes it clear that volunteer reservists are subject to military law whenever they are on military premises. At present, they are no longer subject to military law after the end of the dismissal parade, which leaves a bit of a gap in service law. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Bill deals with that. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c302-3 
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