Proceeding contribution from Lord Drayson (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
moved Amendment No. 1: Page 5, line 11, leave out from ““avoid”” to end of line 17 and insert ““a period of active service. ( ) In this section ““active service”” means service in- (a) an action or operation against an enemy; (b) an operation outside the British Islands for the protection of life or property; or (c) the military occupation of a foreign country or territory.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I said on Report, I have some sympathy with the concerns of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about the complexity of the drafting of the offence of desertion. I said that I would have one last look at this, with a view to simplification. I hope that these amendments make the clause simpler and more comprehensible to the layman. In that respect, at least, I hope that it achieves what the noble and gallant Lord and others have been seeking. The amendments do not, however, alter the fact that we have made this offence much narrower than in the current service discipline Acts. It may be best if I explain the effect of the amendments. First, we have replaced the reference to, "““any particular service or kind of service, and that service or kind of service is relevant service””," with the more familiar and much more succinct term, "““a period of active service””." We have not altered what comes within the definition of ““active service”” but, I repeat, this is much narrower than in the current Acts. On the meaning of active service, I make it clear that it covers peacekeeping operations. Where there is armed opposition, it would be covered under subsection (3)(a) ““operations against an enemy””. Subsection (3)(b) would cover peacekeeping where there is no enemy. Secondly, we have removed subsection (5). The outcome is that there are two ways to commit the offence of desertion: to go absent without leave with the intention of remaining permanently absent, for which the maximum penalty can be two years’ imprisonment; or to go absent without leave to avoid a period of active service, for which the maximum penalty is life. The clause is better. It will allow servicemen fully to understand what amounts to desertion and, importantly, which type of desertion will attract the more serious maximum penalty. I pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord for his persistence in this matter and I urge noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c598-9
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Discipline Crime Armed forces Age Deployment Aircraft Airports Courts martial Civilians Desertion Crown Court Jurisdiction International law Officers Military aircraft Training Young people Rendition
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:41:52 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358063
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358063
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358063