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.
Armed Forces Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Gerald Howarth
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 November 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Armed Forces Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
451 c772 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:00:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358698
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358698
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358698