---

Armed Forces Bill

moved Amendment No. 95: Page 65, line 11, leave out ““90”” and insert ““60”” The noble Earl said: In moving AmendmentNo. 95, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 and 162 but not to Amendments Nos. 97, 160 and 161. Everyone in the Armed Forces dreads the term ““military detention””. But the Committee will be aware that it is very effective not just as a punishment but for personal development. Military detention is a good thing; it is not like prison. Sixty days’ military detention is quite sufficient. I agree that the Royal Navy has in the past enjoyed90 days as a maximum, with extended powers from superior authority, but if the Army could survive for so long with a detention period of only 60 days, why does it now need a 50 per cent increase? Clause 294, to which Amendment No. 162 relates, sensibly provides that a person sentenced to service detention may not be detained in a prison, because detention is not imprisonment—it is much better and much more effective. However, there is no provision for flexibility, so what happens in the event of a vehicle breakdown or perhaps a fire in the intended accommodation or some other emergency? The servicemen need to be kept in detention. The obvious solution would be to put them in a prison overnight, but to tell the prison authorities to look after them and perhaps treat them as remand prisoners. I do not understand why there is no flexibility in the sensible provision prohibiting servicemen who are in detention from being kept in a prison. I beg to move.