Proceeding contribution from Lord Drayson (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
My Lords, we have sought in Clause 8 to modernise and limit the offence of desertion. The first change that we are making is to remove the current maximum penalty of life imprisonment for all cases of desertion. This maximum was applied to all desertion cases by the Armed Forces Act 1971. The second is to remove the test for desertion or absence without leave to avoid any service overseas or when before an enemy, and to replace it with the narrower test of avoiding ““relevant service””, which covers the sort of service that is often called ““active service””. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, have asked why perfectly good drafting in the current discipline Acts should be changed. The changes to the drafting have two aims. The first is to limit the offence—we do not think that it is right that there should be a specific offence to avoid any service overseas. The second is to limit the circumstances in which a maximum sentence of life imprisonment is available. We therefore could not leave the offence as it is. The current offence is too broad but, because it is broad, it has the attraction of being stated briefly. We believe that it is right to make the changes that I have mentioned, but I recognise that it has resulted in complexity. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has been unflagging in his efforts to persuade me that we could do better. His drive to achieve plainer English for our Armed Forces is to be commended, and I must say that, on further reflection, I think that he has a point. I have therefore decided to have one last look at the drafting of Clause 8 with a view to simplification. I think that we should be able to achieve an improvement and I hope to bring forward a simplified version of the clause at Third Reading. However, I do not think that it would be right to accept the substantive changes provided for in Amendment No. 14. The maximum of life imprisonment will be limited to desertion to avoid ““relevant service””. It is intended to cover those situations where it is particularly serious for a serviceman to go absent. This is where a serviceman goes absent without leave to avoid the sort of particularly dangerous and demanding service that is often broadly described as ““active service”” and where everyone’s contribution is especially important. It covers operations against an enemy, overseas operations for the protection of life and property, and military occupation of a foreign country. We retain the maximum of life imprisonment for desertion to avoid service of these types.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c184
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Discipline Crime Alcoholic drinks Detainees Armed forces Age Conduct Deployment Courts martial Civilians Desertion Certification Defence equipment Jurisdiction Drugs International law Membership Prisoners Misuse Life imprisonment Officers Sentencing Tribunals Young people Rules of engagement
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:36:16 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356396
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356396
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356396