---

Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, I have not heard an explanation that satisfies me about the distinction between Clauses 3(1) and 3(2). I am concerned about the response to the other amendments; that is, my attempt to insert ““lawful”” in the appropriate places. I have no doubt that before any action is taken by way of warfare, that action is carefully considered, as the Minister said a moment ago. But I am not asking a serviceman to grapple, as he put it, with international law. I am saying that if he is brought before the courts and his defence is that the action was unlawful, it is not enough for the prosecution to say, ““It is a matter of national law, the Attorney-General has decided that it is lawful, and the courts cannot interfere””. That excludes the jurisdiction of the courts, which cannot be right. At the end of the day, it must be for the courts to determine whether an operation and the orders that depend upon it are lawful. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, it is early in the afternoon, but this is a matter of such important principle that I would like to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 165. [Amendments Nos. 4A to 6 not moved.] Clause 4 [Looting]: [Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.] Clause 5 [Failure to escape etc]: [Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.] Clause 6 [Mutiny]: