| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Sayeed: I understand the point my hon. Friend makes about two years and five years. However, is not it true that those in the reserve forces would be full-time lawyers? In the Navy, many of those who become legally qualified are only part-time lawyers. They come from the supply and secretariat branch and qualify as lawyers, but they do jobs other than legal ones in different postings. Although they may be time-qualified, their quantum of legal work is rather less.
Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend is right. However, we are considering a point about lawyers who will sit in judgment on members of the regular forces. In my view, it is right for commanding officers and the chain of command to take decisions on custody and on remand into custody. There was no problem about that until that one case was brought under the European convention of human rights. If the armed forces were not subject to the convention, because, 49 years ago, we had had the wisdom and foresight to negotiate a reservation for them, we should not be having to introduce provisions about decisions on custody being made by someone so obviously independent as a lawyer of five years' standing rather than allowing the CO and the chain of command to make the decision in the first place. We are in this position, and the Government have yet seriously to examine the routes that would get us out of it. As we are clearly caught by the Hood judgment, this clause is regrettably necessary.
2 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred to officers in the Royal Navy; some are lawyers and some are not. If, in their capacity as lawyers, they detained sailors in custody on judicial hearings, they would be acting at least as serving regular officers of the Royal Navy. The problem with the amendment is that people with limited Territorial Army and legal experience could sit in judgment on issues of custody that used to be considered by commanding officers who were respected and who operated under a system that was respected. If that happened, it could cause resentment in the Army and the regular forces, so it should be avoided.
Mr. Key:
I suspect that had we been talking about medical matters, the term "skill fade" would have been heard in the debate. What my hon. Friend the Member for
I listened carefully to the Minister. In an almost throwaway line, he confirmed that the Government would use members of the Territorial Army if they were qualified in his terms. If I am wrong, perhaps he would like to clarify the matter.
Dr. Moonie:
I will clarify the matter, even though I thought that I had made it perfectly clear, as I think the record will show.
Volunteer reserve officers who meet the qualifications in paragraphs (a) of the new sections will be eligible for appointment any way without need for modification to the Bill.
Mr. Key:
That is exactly what I thought the Minister had said, and it gives us some satisfaction. We had hoped, however, that we could widen the pool of expertise by varying the qualifications necessary.
We shall have to return to the issue. We are all aware that we are being invited to stumble down a path and, no doubt, the Bill will have to be repaired and patched up. It is remarkable that not a single Government amendment has been made in Committee or on Report, and only a handful were made in the other place.
Mr. Blunt:
A point has just occurred to me. The issue turns on the definition of independence in the European convention. Are the Territorial Army officers who are lawyers not as independent as those lawyers who are not Territorial Army officers? If regular Army officers who are lawyers assume the role of judicial officers, will they meet the test of independence? Has the Minister considered that point?
Mr. Key:
I cannot speak for the Minister. However, I suspect, in terms of compliance with the European convention, he would say that regular and Territorial Army officers are all part of the chain of command and that that is the issue. That is my understanding.
I shall not detain the House any longer. We have been around the course on the amendments and I am sorry that the Minister has not conceded on them. It has been worth while probing on this issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Key:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 30, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 31, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert--
Mr. Key:
The purpose of the amendments is clear: they would provide for closer parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State's ability to make rules regulating proceedings preliminary to, and at, a custody hearing. The rules apply to the arrangements to set up videolinks.
In this remarkable clause there is a long list of items for which the Secretary of State can make provision in making rules. That list includes items that we might expect: arrangements preliminary to the proceedings; the representation of the person to whom the proceedings relate; the admissibility of evidence; procuring the attendance of witnesses; the immunities and privileges of witnesses; the administration of oaths and so on.
At the end of that list, subsection (3) says:
In Committee, I challenged the Minister to demonstrate a videolink in action. That was a reasonable request, given that many of the Bill's provisions relate to the use of such links on active service. I asked for a demonstration of a videolink between the House of Commons and Pristina in Kosovo, because we had repeatedly been told that such links were in regular, indeed daily, use and that there was no problem with that.
I made my request on a Tuesday and suggested that by the time we met on the Thursday, the Minister might have been able to set up a videolink to allay the Committee's fears. However, the Minister did not turn up with the goods, and his reason was that
On that occasion, the Minister rounded off his comments by saying:
Far from being a tried and tested system, it seems clear that we are dealing with an untried and untested system. Even worse, the whole basis of our armed forces discipline system on operations will henceforth be dependent on those untested videolinks.
It is also notable that the Minister's comments contrast rather drastically with those of the Minister for Defence Procurement in the other place. On 16 December, she said:
With regard to the practicalities of using video equipment, the Minister for Defence Procurement said in the other place:
'(3) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
'(3) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
We are being asked to agree to those statutory instruments being made under the negative procedure, whereas they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We realised in Committee that the Minister has set up arrangements that are uncertain--and, frankly, if I were facing a court-martial or summary proceedings, I would want to be sure about the processes to which I was to be subject.
the equipment we used for the trial was hired and is no longer in our possession. When one thinks about that it is quite natural.
I have to disagree; I do not think that it is at all natural. Ministers have been telling both Houses that the technology exists, that it is in frequent use and that it is widely available.
We will enter a proper system of purchasing once we have decided exactly what we want to use.--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 March 2000; c. 187.]
I remind the Minister that we have a deadline of 2 October, when the Bill will come into force if it is passed today. It would be very smart procurement indeed to get all the kit necessary by then.
The services are fully capable of exploiting successive advances in technology, which they already deploy with great success. Video technology is in day-to-day use. It was in constant use throughout the recent crisis in Kosovo. The armed services see no reason why that technology should not be deployed equally successfully in other operational environments and for purposes such as those envisaged in the Bill.
Clause 8 includes the introduction of the use of live television links as a means of fulfilling the new custody rules, particularly when the logistical circumstances may be difficult. The clause was slightly amended by the Government in Committee in the other place to broaden the use of the technology to all custody hearings, and not only those being brought before a judicial officer. The amendments in the other place also clarified the fact that live television links and visual transmissions could be undertaken via other media, such as the internet.
I hope to offer the Committee some reassurance on that point. I shall refer to the Army in particular, since it is likely to have the greatest number of personnel in remote locations. The Army would seek to use video link technology where operational or training circumstances mean that a face-to-face hearing is not possible within the required time-frame.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1999; Vol. 608, c. 351.]
On Second Reading, the Minister confirmed that the MOD was
currently trialling video equipment to ensure that the quality of the equipment is suitable for the purpose for which it will be used. The equipment currently used operates at 28 kilobytes. The equipment is capable of showing a wide-angle picture of an entire room or of zooming in on an accused in fine detail, just as it is used in court hearings, especially those involving children. Although we can use Inmarsat--the international maritime satellite--commercial links, there is no question that commercial television satellites would be used, because we have access to other means of communication.--[Official Report, 17 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1201.]
The Defence Committee was also intrigued to be told about video conferencing. The director of personnel services for the Army explained to the Committee that video conferencing happened already. Apparently, there are daily video conferences with Pristina. It was unfortunate that we were not allowed to see that. The director had spoken to a judge advocate on a video conference facility as part of a trial. The judge advocate will have a portable system at home with him, and it will be possible to dial him up almost literally at any time. There will also be static video conferencing suites and portable systems that can be taken home, so a duty judicial officer will be available who can be wired up to pretty well anywhere in a world because, as the director said:
IT-wise now, wherever our soldiers go, we have the IT system.
In Standing Committee the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was a little more bullish. She said:
Generally speaking, video conferencing is up and running, but it needs to be trialled for the purposes of the Bill.--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 March 2000; c. 171.]
6 Apr 2000 : Column 1181
I found that surprising because on 1 February I received an answer to a parliamentary question to the Parliamentary Secretary. I asked her if she would
The Minister replied:
list the companies that supply, provided and service secure videolink technology for use in British courts; and what arrangements are in place to prevent the interception of transmissions by third parties.
Videolink technology is used occasionally in the Crown Court to enable witnesses to give evidence from abroad. The installation is arranged locally by the party whose witness is giving evidence in this way. No information is held centrally on the suppliers used or the arrangements put in place to prevent interception. A pilot is currently in place to provide a videolink between Strangeways prison and the Crown Court in Manchester.--[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c.545W.]
So on 1 February that was the extent of the Government's experience.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |