Armed Forces Bill

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), to the Front Bench. He has been an asset to the far end of the Treasury Bench for a long time and is now an adornment on the other end. I was not in the Committee to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). However, given his experience and the tributes of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in the Chamber, but whose judgment on such matters is impeccable, I am sure that it was a considered and impressive contribution. I heard the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen). Impressive though his contribution also was, he used several phrases about the Government and the Bill that seemed to apply more to his speech than to the other side of the argument. He described the measure as muddled and talked a lot about cherry-picking. He repeatedly asked, ““Who is the enemy?”” It struck me that that was an apposite question. It is a shame that although the supporters of the amendments had the kernel of a reasonable point, they have failed to make it. It was a fair point that, perhaps, the sentence of life imprisonment is a bit draconian for a new Bill for modern armed services. The Committee could have had a reasonable discussion about that point. However, unfortunately, amendment No. 9 does not say, ““Life imprisonment is a bit draconian. Let’s have a reasonable discussion about what would be a more appropriate and modern sentence for desertion””—which, as the hon. Member for Newark eloquently and movingly explained, is a serious offence. The amendment would reduce the sentence to two years, although that is the same sentence that applies for going absent without leave, which is a completely different offence that is treated with a different kind of seriousness. The amendment thus effectively precludes us from having a reasonable debate on whether the sentence of life imprisonment, even though it is only a maximum sentence that is rarely applied, is, perhaps, rather archaic and somewhat draconian."Amendment No. 8 could have given us the opportunity to have a reasonable discussion about the offence of desertion and its sentence. However, such a debate has been effectively sacrificed. Although I did not hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, the amendment seems to have been used as an opportunistic attempt to drag up again the old debate about the Iraq war, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, that has nothing to do with the Bill. Frankly, the amendment has been tabled on a fraudulent prospectus. It is not possible for the nation to go to war illegally."