Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lee of Trafford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 November 2008. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Armed Forces (Alignment of Service Discipline Acts) (No. 2) Order 2008.


Armed Forces (Alignment of Service Discipline Acts) (No. 2) Order 2008

We support the order, which provides for the appointment of a qualified officer to be the prosecuting authority for the relevant service, be it Army, Air Force or Navy. We recall the debates on the Armed Forces Bill 2006, now an Act, when my sadly missed noble friend Lord Garden tabled an amendment to ensure that the director of service prosecutions could be appointed only if he had at least two years’ regular or four years’ reserve military experience in the previous 10 years. Sadly, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench was not successful in getting the amendment into the Bill. Although the order does not address that specific point, the clarification that it makes to the definition of a prosecuting authority goes some way to alleviating our concerns about the relevant provision of the 2006 Act. Thus we are content.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c50GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Armed forces Army Air force Public appointments Navy Service Prosecuting Authority Houlder, Bruce
Legislation
Armed Forces (Alignment of Service Discipline Acts) (No. 2) Order 2008
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk