Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Gerald Howarth (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.


Armed Forces Bill

My hon. Friend poses a perfectly legitimate question to which I do not know the answer. The Secretary of State will undoubtedly give his justifications. His junior Minister has done so and, in welcoming him belatedly to his post, may I say that he did so extremely well and with great sensitivity? However, one is entitled to ask: if the measure does not quash the conviction or lift the sentence, what does it do? The Under-Secretary said that the aim was to lift the stigma. Many would argue that the stigma has already been removed as the passage of time and changing values have cast in a new light the tragic deaths of those young men, although, self-evidently, not for a number of the families involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, what about the stigma attached to those 2,700 who were convicted and sentenced to death, but who in the end had their sentences commuted? We have to consider whether there is a downside to this move by the Government. It is important that we in this House consider these matters carefully and look at the full implications of what has been proposed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
451 c772 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Armed forces Convictions Courts martial Civilians Discharges Capital punishment Desertion Certification Defence equipment Powers Membership Staff Military police Officers Prerogative of mercy Sentencing World War I Service Civilian Court
Legislation
Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk