The hon. Gentleman should think carefully about that because, whatever the Minister said, the fact is that the interpretation will be that the Government are impugning the judgments made at the time. There can be no lifting of the sentences or quashing of the convictions. The amendment will simply address a sensitivity, which may be worth achieving.
The Government have specifically ruled out the payment of compensation, but as we have read in The Daily Telegraph today, claims have already been submitted. Even if the Secretary of State is successful in resisting those claims in our courts, how long will it be before the European Court of Human Rights is invited to interfere? Can Ministers assure the House that in the event of any reference to the ECHR and a subsequent finding in favour of compensation, the Government will reject that?
In considering the humanitarian aspects of the issue, we also need to be clear that military discipline is vital at all times, but especially in battle. That is why we have joined the Government in resisting attempts to water down today’s penalties for desertion, which can put a soldier’s comrades at mortal risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) so eloquently explained on Report.
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 c773-4 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:01:02 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358704
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358704
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358704