There is a hint of complacency in that answer, especially as I raised the issue of missile technology. Let us take, for example, a Rapier battery or a multiple-launch rocket system. Those are very complex bits of kit, and they can do just as much damage as a missile launched from an aircraft. As an aviator, I understand the importance of accurate certification of aircraft and their components and, to a certain extent, naval vessels, but there is a clear case that some of the equipment that the Army has in its arsenal today is of equal sophistication and equal lethality, and the result of the inadequate or negligent maintenance of that equipment can be just as devastating as negligence in respect of naval and RAF equipment. So I should like to ask the Minister to look at that again. Given that we are reviewing the whole law that relates to military discipline, I can see no case to leave out the Army. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by what the Minister has said. I do not intend to press the clause to a vote, but I am not really convinced at the moment.
Armed Forces Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Gerald Howarth
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Armed Forces Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c1249-50 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:55:45 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325731
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325731
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325731