Best to end when one is winning.
The message for the Government is that a significant body of Members in Committee, regardless of party, believe that life imprisonment is a disproportionate sanction in such cases. [Interruption.] I said that a significant body agree; there will of course be others who disagree. I am not asking for consensus—yet.
The discussion has centred on the argument that this is a modern, volunteer and professional Army. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said that if it was a conscript Army, that would be a different matter altogether and life imprisonment most probably would not be appropriate. There is no difference between us, and if we ever move toward a conscript Army, we will need to debate the matter, because I agree that such a sentence would not be appropriate. However, a modern, volunteer, professional Army should not be motivated by fear of the sanction of life imprisonment, either.
This legislation fails to show a modern understanding of why people desert. They desert because of fear or trauma, or out of conscience, and we should accept that. We should not penalise them with life imprisonment; we should accept that it is a disproportionate sanction, not the appropriate one.
It has been argued that we cannot allow individual soldiers to exercise a right of veto over action, but the reverse is the case.
Armed Forces Bill
Proceeding contribution from
John McDonnell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Armed Forces Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c1242 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:32:15 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325718
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325718
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325718