I agree. This sounds like a snap decision, but it is not. It will not be the sort of decision that the commanding officer takes off the cuff. We are not saying that from his tank turret he says, ““Yes, Trooper Williams, not guilty. Get out of it.”” It does not happen like that and it will never happen like that. I do just wonder though why current practices, particularly on operations, have not been enshrined in the Bill. I believe that Opposition amendments were tabled that would have enshrined what happens at the moment—that the commanding officer, as often as possible, would refer to legal authority. Why cannot such practices be introduced to the Bill, so that the important relationship between private soldier and commanding officer is not attacked?
Armed Forces Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Patrick Mercer
(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 c1264 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:10:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325777
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325777
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325777