Proceeding contribution from Alan Simpson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
I accept that, but I am saying that the argument about a war being legal just because we say it is legal is a dangerous path for this Committee to be led down, and it is not relevant to amendment No. 9. What is relevant is to question the legitimacy of the Committee setting a parameter of life imprisonment to the penalties for a refusal to obey an order in relation to desertion, when the guidance notes say:"““the maximum is life imprisonment if the offender deserts when on service, or under orders to go on service””." The question is whether it should be appropriate in this day and age, in this Bill, which the House is passing now for the foreseeable future, to retain a life imprisonment parameter for a refusal to go on service.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 446 c1231
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Children Discipline Crime Armed forces Age Deployment Aircraft Courts martial Desertion Certification Custodial treatment Defence equipment Nuisance Prosecutions Military police Officers Sentencing
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-07-22 08:46:46 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325682
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325682
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325682