---

Armed Forces Bill

moved Amendment No. 27: Page 16, line 13, leave out ““or”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 73. AmendmentsNos. 27 and 28 respond to concerns raised in Committee that the offence of inaccurate certification was too narrow. I undertook to look at this again, and I have done so. Similar concerns were raised when the Bill was scrutinised in another place. The offence of inaccurate certification is committed if a service man or woman signs a relevant certificate without ensuring its accuracy. Relevant certificates relate to Her Majesty’s ships, aircraft and aircraft material. The amendment would provide for the extension of the offence of inaccurate certification to prescribed equipment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pushing me to further consider this. The point that he made about equipment on land vehicles relating to identification of friend or foe was a very cogent argument. There is, however, a balance to be struck between extending the offence to all service material, which would be excessively bureaucratic, and ensuring that it can cover equipment that has the same sort of significance as is already covered on sea and air platforms. I have just given the example of IFF. Putting a list of descriptions of equipment in the Bill would be too inflexible and would not take into account changes in technology. The amendment therefore provides for the Defence Council to prescribe the descriptions of equipment to which the offence applies. Amendment No. 73 to Clause 373 requires these Defence Council regulations to be made by statutory instrument. That provides the appropriate level of scrutiny while ensuring the services retain the central voice over which equipment is described for this purpose. The services have been consulted about this and are content with the proposal that I have brought forward. I am grateful to noble Lords for highlighting this issue, and I hope that the amendment meets with your Lordships’ approval. I beg to move.