Proceeding contribution from Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 12 October 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
I support the amendment in the name of my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge. In preparing for our debates on this Bill, I have spoken with the Adjutant-General of the Army, the person responsible for discipline, a post that I once held. I asked him which aspects of the Bill the Army as a whole felt most strongly about. There were two. One has come up many times: the position of the commanding officer. The second was that the prosecuting officer must be someone with service experience. I merely pass that on, because it must be relevant; the views of the Armed Forces must be taken into account when we are discussing this issue.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c445
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Children Compensation Armed forces Death Convictions Aircraft Courts martial Desertion Coroners Employment Equality Drugs Harassment Judges International law Qualifications Powers Membership Prosecutions Misuse Staff Officers Prerogative of mercy Miscarriages of justice Military law Military aircraft Sentencing Young people Reserve forces Testing Rules of procedure World War I Time limits Trial in camera
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:40:51 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351443
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351443
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351443