Proceeding contribution from Earl Attlee (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
moved Amendment No. 36: Page 66, line 4, leave out ““90”” and insert ““60”” The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 37 as well. I moved an identical amendment in Committee. My position is that the power to dish out 90 days’ military detention summarily is just too much. I am not convinced that commanding officers want this power. It is not much fun exercising summary judgments and many commanding officers will be distinctly uncomfortable awarding more than 30, let alone 60 or 90 days’ military detention, even if it can be awarded only using extended powers and with the prior knowledge of the defendant—a point of which I am sure the Minister will remind us—and even though the Royal Navy already has 90 days available for detention. The House needs to understand that military detention is not some form of military community service but a severe but effective regime. The Minister will argue that the change is desirable because without retaining 90 days for the Royal Navy the number of courts martial might have to be increased. That is a fair point, but if the Army can manage with a maximum of 60 days, what is the Royal Navy doing wrong with its regime of military detention? It must be doing something wrong. Why cannot it achieve the desired corrective effect with only 60 days? I should be interested if the Minister could tell us how often Royal Navy commanding officers have been granted extended powers beyond 60 days. The Minister will also argue that if the Army and Royal Air Force were granted the ability to award90 days with extended powers, they would be able to reduce the number of courts martial by increasingthe punishment available, because it would not be necessary to resort to court martial. But the argument would be more convincing if we saw Army commanding officers regularly seeking and using extended powers. One senior Army officer to whom I spoke last week said that he never sought extended powers when he was a commanding officer, and when he was a brigade divisional commander he never granted them. It would be helpful if the Minister could show some statistical evidence that the extended powers are currently being sought and used by commanding officers, and of to what extent the Royal Navy uses extended powers over 60 days. Make no mistake—I was and still am prepared to exercise military discipline, but detention of over60 days is excessive. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c216-7
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Discipline Crime Alcoholic drinks Detainees Armed forces Age Conduct Deployment Courts martial Civilians Desertion Certification Defence equipment Jurisdiction Drugs International law Membership Prisoners Misuse Life imprisonment Officers Sentencing Tribunals Young people Rules of engagement
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:34:11 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356436
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356436
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356436