Armed Forces Bill

Indeed, Mrs Heal. I was giving the example of someone who deserted without seeing action at all, although he had been a professional soldier for five years. On the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, a maximum penalty must cover all eventualities. The Minister asked him about all the other cases. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington replied that the provision dealt with desertion, but we are dealing with cases of desertion and of people refusing to participate—two separate circumstances for which different maximum penalties are set out in the Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that anybody who has opted to join the Queen’s uniform should not potentially face very grave charges if they refuse to go into action? In an action that the entire country strongly supports, even perhaps—God preserve us—another world war, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that someone who chose to put on a uniform, with all that that means, and then refuses to participate, should be able to say, ““Christ, I might get shot at. I don’t want to go””, without facing potentially serious charges? Producing hard cases has no relevance whatever to maximum penalties. The hard cases can be argued one by one in the courts. That is what we have courts martial for. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think again. If we are trying to run armed forces, of which we have good reason to be proud, and the hon. Gentleman has good reason to be proud of his forebears who served in them, we must have disciplinary penalties. On this measure, the Government are entirely right.