Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
My first objection to the clause is that it is not modernising legislation; it simply translates the life
sentence from earlier legislation. As for my second objection, I respect the views that have been expressedalong with many others today, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) for bringing to the Chamber his professional experiences on the groundbut we should look again at the process for dealing with conscientious objection. The process that the hon. Gentleman described, as he has seen it, is not the process described in the evidence submitted to the Committee by the successor to the original consultative body, the Peace Pledge Union, which is meant to advise the Government on these matters. Its view is that the conscientious objection process as it stands is not accessible, does not give adequate information to individuals who wish to gain access to it, and therefore undermines the process overall.
The third issue, on which there is some agreement across the Committee, is the issue of severity. I think there is a general view that life imprisonment is currently the exception. I thought that we heard earlier from the Liberal Democrats that they did not support the inclusion in this clause of the sanction of life imprisonment. I should be grateful for clarification.
Nick Harvey: I said at the start of the debate that in almost no circumstances could I envisage life imprisonment being a suitable penalty. I agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), who said earlier that we should have debated a provision that brought the life sentence punishment down to an intermediate level. Had there been such a provision, I could have supported it, but as we have heard, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington would shift us toward a two-year sentence.
John McDonnell: 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 consensusyet.
The discussion has centred on the argument that this is a modern, volunteer and professional Army. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham 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.
John McDonnell: Let me finish this point. In human rights legislation, we require individual soldiers to exercise their own judgment as a duty. Mention has been made of Nuremberg, but this was an issue before then, and it goes well beyond Nuremberg. There is a duty placed on each of us, as individuals in a democratic societybut in particular on soldiers and members of the militaryto exercise judgment about whether what we do is right and lawful. I reiterate the point that, whatever debates take place in this or any other Parliament, they do not override that individual duty.
Amendment No. 8 clarifies the situation concerning military occupation. More importantly, amendment No. 9 emphasises the fact that life imprisonment is a disproportionate sentence that does not relate to the reality of a modern Armyan Army that is based upon volunteers and professionals, and which, as we all agree, is in most instances motivated by moral courage. Such an Army should not be motivated by, or threatened by, fear of such a sanction. On that basis, I shall press amendment No. 9 to a Division. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 5, line 18, leave out from offence' to must' in line 20. [John McDonnell.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I want to raise a small technical point that has arisen since our lengthy discussions in the Select Committee. I want to express some of my concerns, and those of others involved in flying activity, about the clause. The provision states:
A person subject to service law commits an offence if...he flies an aircraft so as to annoy or be likely to annoy any person.
We can all conceive of a great many people who would consider any form of flying as an annoyance, so the number of prosecutions could be extensive. In the Select Committee, I was assured that no such prosecution would lie unless the conditions set out in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) applied, in particular that the person flew recklessly or intentionally to annoy.
It is important that the Royal Air Force has protection for its low-flying training, which is critical so that our pilots can be trained to carry out the operations that they have undertaken with such spectacular and conspicuous gallantry and effectiveness. If they cannot fly low without the risk of arraignment, the provisions are not right. I am assured by people well-versed technically in such matters that RAF pilots are safe.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): They are safe from prosecution.
Mr. Howarth: We have it from the lips of the Secretary of State so I hope that message will go out to all RAF pilots
Mr. Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): And the Fleet Air Arm.
Patrick Mercer: And the Army Air Corps.
Mr. Howarth: Indeed. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am about to speak at greater length about the Army Air Corps.
An ex-military aviatora soldier of 35 years standing, who is now the airfield manager at Middle Wallop, but has 5,000 hours as a helicopter pilot in the Army Air Corpshas drawn to my attention an anomaly in paragraph (b), which deals with punishments. An officer guilty of causing an annoyance by flying can be punished only by loss of seniority or by a fine, but a non-commissioned officer may be sentenced to two years imprisonment. As many Members know, the pilots of the Army Air Corps are predominantly NCOs, as was the case in the RAF during the second world war, although not nowadays. It has been suggested that the penalty for a proven offence may discriminate against NCOs in the Army Air Corps. Can the Minister comment on that? I realise that that may be difficult as he is new to his post.
Mr. Watson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his eagle-eyed egalitarianism. Perhaps I could describe the clause, which preserves a long-standing offence whose effect remains unchanged. It operates where a service pilot flies an aircraft in such a way that he annoys, or is likely to annoy, any person but he could reasonably have avoided doing so. Intent, recklessness or negligence by the pilot in relation to the annoyance caused must also be proved.
Unlike the offence of low flying, the annoyance offence can be committed where the pilot is flying the aircraft in accordance with regulations and in an authorised flight plan. For example, the last RAF prosecution, which was in 1996, involved a pilot who was authorised to fly low in a particular area. He flew over his parents house several times, allegedly, and understandably, causing annoyance to their neighbours. The offence is considered to serve a valuable purpose in deterring such conduct, which might bring the services into disrepute with the general public.
I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If it is an issue, perhaps we can revisit it in another place if we have to do so.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for that sympathetic view. He said that in addition to the annoyance there has to be an intentionally reckless or negligent aspect. It is important that it is understood that those conditions must apply, too.
I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to look at the point relating to the Army Air Corps. Perhaps it could be considered when the Bill goes to another place.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |