Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Astor of Hever (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 24 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.


Armed Forces Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, moved Amendment No. 24 very eloquently, but we cannot support it. I very much agree with the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lord Attlee. On Amendment No. 26, we cannot support a substantial reduction in the sentence for desertion. The sanction of life imprisonment must remain as a last resort to ensure that soldiers will carry out their duty when on operations. Amendment No. 27, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, does not seek to weaken the offence; rather it proposes the criteria for whether the type of desertion falls into the more serious bracket. The idea of desertion ““before the enemy””, as the noble and gallant Lord said, has the advantage of using the language of Section 37 of the Army Act 1955 as amended by the 1971 Act. It seems that the amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord achieves what the Government want. It uses the same language that has been used since 1971, and it introduces the two-tier offence. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why this approach was not adopted by the draftsman when reintroducing the two-tier form of desertion.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c1634-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Discipline Crime Armed forces Armed conflict Deployment Courts martial Civilians Desertion International law Officers Terrorism Theft Civil disorder
Legislation
Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk