Armed Forces Bill

The clause deals with the inaccurate certification of equipment. We are concerned that the Government have not looked adequately at the discrepancy in the application of the offence between the Navy and the RAF on the one hand and the Army on the other. The Bill makes it an offence to certify inaccurately naval and air force equipment but not Army equipment. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), who raised that point in the Select Committee, apologises for not being at the debate. He is not in the Chamber for good and bad reasons; the good reason is that he has had the operation that he has wanted for many months. I am sure that all Members will wish him a speedy recovery and highly increased mobility. I suspect that he may be watching our proceedings so we can convey those good wishes instantly. In the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), then the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, said that my hon. Friend had made an important point. The hon. Gentleman said:"““I am conscious of the fact that I have not really answered it sufficiently well.””—[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 20 March 2006; c. 37.]" He clearly wanted to hand that task to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) as an opening coup, so that he could deliver some satisfaction to the Opposition. I hope that the Minister will consider that point. If we do not encompass Army equipment as well, someone who fails accurately to certify an air-to-ground missile could be put on a charge, but someone who fails adequately to certify a ground-to-air missile would not have committed an offence. It is a small point; but, none the less, as we are reviewing all the legislation in this respect, we ought to take the opportunity to try to sort it out if that is necessary.