My hon. Friend makes the point that we are expeditionary by design. I understand that, but I do not see how that links to the issue addressed by Lords amendment 1B, which is essentially that, where the offence is committed in the United Kingdom, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, which might involve an expeditionary issue, there should logically be a presumption that the starting point is dealing with it in the civilian system. What contradiction is there between the expeditionary nature of our armed forces—under certain circumstances, but not all—and a rebuttable presumption that the civilian system should hear offences committed in the United Kingdom?
Armed Forces Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Neill
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 December 2021.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Armed Forces Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c815 Session
2021-22Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-12-17 12:28:32 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-12-13/21121331000016
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-12-13/21121331000016
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-12-13/21121331000016