Armed Forces Bill

Yes, I read the transcript of that debate, and it is something of an ankle pass. Let me describe the clause. It will preserve the offence that is contained in the service discipline Acts. The offence is committed where a person who is subject to service law makes or signs a relevant certificate without ensuring its accuracy. It is not necessary that the certificate contains a mistake; it is sufficient that a person makes or signs it without ensuring its accuracy. The purpose of the offence is to promote a systematic and thorough approach to safety checks. A relevant certificate is one that relates to any matter that affects the seagoing or fighting efficiency of any of Her Majesty’s ships or one that relates to any of Her Majesty’s aircraft or any aircraft material. In relation to aircraft and aircraft material, there is no equivalent to the seagoing or fighting efficiency test that is applied to ships, because ships fulfil a wider role than aircraft, such as providing domestic accommodation for naval personnel. As a result, many checks connected with a ship are the subject of certification but are not safety-related. It would not be appropriate to catch such wider, non-vital checks under this offence, which is intended to promote and ensure safety. Given the particular role played by aircraft, all certificates produced in relation to them and their material fulfil a safety function. To turn to the point about land-based vehicles that was made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the clause will not extend to other land-based types of equipment. Safety, promoted by a system of regular checks, is clearly very important in relation to such equipment. However, the implications of inaccurate certification in respect of ships, aircraft and aircraft material are viewed by all three services as being so crucial that a specific and separate offence continues to be merited.