Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Earl Attlee (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Armed Forces Bill.

Armed Forces Bill

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. First, he said that to impose a sentence in excess of 28 days should need a higher authority’s permission, but that has always been the case. It is not a new provision, certainly as far as the Army is concerned. How often has the Royal Navy used a period of detention in excess of 60 days? Does the Minister have any evidence on that? If he does not have it to hand, perhaps he could write to me and let me know how often that has happened. I am grateful for the Minister’s response to Amendment No. 162, although I can understand noble Lords’ lack of enthusiasm for it. I am grateful for his assertion that it will never be necessary to resort to putting servicemen in a prison. If that is his assessment of the situation, that is fine. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 96 not moved.] Clause 132 agreed to. Clause 133 agreed to. Clause 134 [Reduction in rank: limits on powers]: [Amendment No. 97 not moved.] Clause 134 agreed to. Clause 135 agreed to. Clause 136 [Service compensation orders: maximum amount]:

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c341-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Discipline Crime Alcoholic drinks Courts Armed forces Arrests Conduct Deployment Aircraft Courts martial Civilians Certification Defence equipment Evidence Eligibility Jurisdiction Drugs Maladministration Misconduct Powers Membership Prosecutions Misuse Public opinion Officers Low flying Young people Trials Rules of procedure Rules of engagement
Legislation
Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk