Proceeding contribution from Lord Drayson (Labour) 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 am in awe of the noble Lord’s grip of the complexity of these matters at this late stage in the consideration of the Bill. I shall respond to Amendments Nos. 195, 197 and 199. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his clarification and for avoiding unnecessary description. This group of amendments all have the same effect: making the rule-making clause to which they refer subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. To a large extent, the government amendments achieve what each of the noble Lords’ amendments would do, but we are not convinced that quite all those which are the subject of amendments should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Bill contains a number of rule-making powers. Many concern procedural detail, which may need to be amended to accommodate operational requirements or changing circumstances. When it is appropriate to make a rule-making power subject to the affirmative procedure, we have provided for that. In particular, we have accepted all the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In relation to Amendment No. 197, concerning court martial rules, we consider that the rules which govern the constitution of the court martial and those on sentencing when an accused has elected trial should be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, we do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate for the rules which deal with procedural details to be so subject. Similarly on Amendment No. 199, we agree that the aspects that relate to matters which are excluded from the redress system and the composition of the panel should be subject to the affirmative procedure, and, among other things, government Amendment No. 195A achieves that. But we are not persuaded that it is appropriate for the affirmative procedure to apply to all the procedural detail concerning the panel. Finally, we do not consider that, as proposed in Amendment No. 199, the regulations concerning desertion and forfeiture of service under Clause 328 merit the affirmative procedure. We have made a number of other matters subject to the affirmative procedure by our amendments to this clause. These include the procedure for referral of cases to the prosecuting authority, the referral of cases by the service complaints commissioner, and any provisions that we make aligning the service discipline Acts with the Bill. I hope that noble Lords are content that in large measure we agree with their view of what needs to be subject to affirmative resolution and that they recognise that in general the government amendments achieve that. In the circumstances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and to support those of the Government.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c450-1
- 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 12:40:55 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351458
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351458
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351458