When the Defence Committee was looking at the matter in the previous two Parliaments, it recommended a Bill of this sort provided that the time limit was qualified by the absence of compelling new evidence. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that he does not feel that that proviso is in the Bill? If that proviso is in the Bill, if there were compelling new evidence that had not come forward in the first five years but came forward afterwards, then indeed a prosecution could proceed.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Julian Lewis
(Independent (affiliation))
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 3 November 2020.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
683 c224 Session
2019-21Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-29 13:17:36 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-11-03/20110353000211
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-11-03/20110353000211
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-11-03/20110353000211