Armed Forces Bill

Four months, I am reminded, and some of us were more assiduous than others—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) says from a sedentary position that he would have deserted. In the present circumstances, the Government would have welcomed that. When I saw the amendments and a press release issued by my hon. Friend, I was worried that we had missed something in the Bill. I was concerned that the civil servants had got one over on us—[Interruption.] Someone says, ““Surely not””, but those who served on the Committee know that that it was a good process, both the Select Committee and the report. I had to do some research this morning to find out what the current position was, and I think that what is proposed is an improvement on the current position. As I understand it, the 1955 Act set out a two-tier system—punishment of up to two years for desertion and another sanction, life imprisonment, for more serious cases, defined as desertion from active service. The definition of active service referred to occupation of a foreign country, so the reference in the Bill is nothing new. That Act was superseded by the 1971 Bill, which removed the lower sanction because of the situation in Northern Ireland, since the definition of active service could not be applied to deployment in another part of the United Kingdom. Under the present system, the maximum sentence for desertion is up to life imprisonment. The Bill in its present form is an improvement because it reverts to the 1955 position, by introducing a two-tier system. There will be the possibility of imprisonment up to two years, but the other sanction—rightly, in my opinion—is up to life imprisonment for the more serious offences. I know that many hon. Members are worried about the reference to"““occupation of a foreign country””." I understand my hon. Friend’s position on Iraq. It is not one that I share, but I credit him with being consistent and forceful in his arguments for it. As I said, the reference to occupation of a foreign country was part of the original definition of active service. Therefore, I do not see any great change there, but I understand why there may be concerns. However, a reintroduction of the two-tier system is better than the previous position.