---

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton): I try to make it a rather seditious principle in the House to speak only about what I know about, which is why my speeches are so few and so short. I can claim to know something about videolinks, because I lived and worked by them for many years.

It was an honour to serve on the Standing Committee scrutinising the Bill. I must thank the Liberal Democrats who, I believe, were suffering from overstretch at the time and gave me one of their seats on the Committee. I found it an interesting experience, and in some ways rather dismaying.

I appreciate what was said in the House yesterday: we do, indeed, have a Government who listen--a Government who listen to themselves. I was struck by the quiescence of those on the Benches behind the Ministers who were speaking. I would have hoped that in a democracy there would be more of a dialogue both

6 Apr 2000 : Column 1185

between Government members and between the Opposition and the Government. We could have achieved a lot more if we had been more collaborative.

There are issues that give rise to serious concern. We are not simply constructing a law that will conform to the convention. We are trying to protect the rights of serving men and women. As the Secretary of State knows, there have been some flagrant and disturbing cases in recent years. We have tried to address those.

On videolinks, we are dealing with custody hearings. We are speaking of the life of a serving man or woman--freedom or the denial of it for some time to come. What is important is not only the words spoken, but the demeanour. That is vital, both face to face and on the end of a videolink.

Demeanour and the perception of it can be affected not only by words, but by the lighting, the sound, the quality of the videolink, and the camera angle. I will not say that the camera lies, but it certainly shades the truth. Professionals know that if they want to give a good impression of someone, they shoot him from a certain angle, and if they want to undermine someone, they shoot him from another angle.

Serious issues are involved. As a sole independent, I lack the numbers necessary to move an amendment, but if the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) chose to hold his ground on this, I should be delighted to vote with him.

Mr. Sayeed: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who made some important points arising from his own experience.

I shall deal with two points--first, the use of the negative procedure on statutory instruments. I disapprove of secondary legislation. One of the problems is that it is unamendable. As we get more practice in the use of video links, we will want to change the legislation in subtle ways. It is therefore important that when we come to make those changes, as we will have to do, subtle amendments can be made.

The Government may say that if it becomes clear during a debate that a statutory instrument is wrong, they will rewrite it and present it to the House again. However, since they have been power I know of no occasion on which they have reconsidered and amended a statutory instrument after a debate in Committee. They may say that they will do that, but I doubt it. A statutory instrument cannot be amended by negative procedure. That is a fundamental problem with the system, and with the Government's offer of presenting a statutory instrument through the negative procedure as a method of making changes in future.

2.30 pm

My second point is about video links. The hon. Member for Tatton made some good points. It is also important to consider the views of Kingston TLI, the specialist company which handles armed forces television. The company pointed out that even a land-based system costs £300,000 to £350,000. Rental and personnel costs must also be taken into account. However, leaving aside the costs, we must consider the practicalities of establishing a video link.

The Government talk about the way in which the Army would set up such a link, and I appreciate that the Army has more personnel. However, it is easier to establish a

6 Apr 2000 : Column 1186

video link on land than at sea. It is easier because, for example, there tends to be a better supply of electricity and electronic silence is not such a problem.

Baroness Symons said:

Video tele-conferencing is also used in Kosovo and was used regularly in Bosnia.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1999; Vol. 608, c. 353.]

She said it was easy to use. However, it is important to know the views of the experts, in this case Kingston TLI. Its comments support what the hon. Member for Tatton said. According to the company, to produce broadcast quality results, data have to be transmitted at a rate of 8 megabits per second. Inmarsat is capable of only 128 kilobits per second, which will support only low quality conferencing. While it has the advantage of being bidirectional, it gives a poor and jerky image.

What does that mean? I shall take ships as an example because I know a little about them. In a ship on normal operations, much of the band width may be used. There will therefore not be much left for other, less immediately important matters. The ship may not have the requisite equipment, or if it does, it may be sending a video signal of a person who will be in danger of losing his liberty in a fashion that may prejudice his chances.

The Bill includes a 48-hour rule on custody. Ships run electronically silent for long periods to evade an enemy. The Minister may claim that there would be no video conferencing if the ship was in conflict and we could wait until it was in safer waters. The 48-hour rule means that that does not wash. It may be necessary to secure a person in the way in which a commanding officer was entitled to do before the introduction of the Bill. However, he will not be able to do that because, under the 48-hour rule, a person who can be contacted only by video link has to authorise the detention.

As I have said, ships run electronically silent for long periods. In such circumstances, it will not be possible for the ship to broadcast because it would thus reveal its position. A commanding officer will not necessarily be able to get permission to secure a person during the 48-hour period. I wonder whether the Minister has considered that.

Dr. Moonie: If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to read the Committee proceedings, he would realise that we have already dealt with that point at great length.

Mr. Sayeed: I have looked at the Committee proceedings--

Dr. Moonie: I said "read".

Mr. Sayeed: I also read them. Having looked at and read them, I do not believe that the Minister has dealt with the point adequately. We need to ensure that, if the equipment is on board a ship and it needs to be used, the time limit is sufficient to allow those in the Royal Navy to use the provisions.

The Government's proposals on the use of statutory instruments and the rules for video links do not allow for subtle amendments to take account of experience. I am therefore happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Blunt: I do not want to detain the House, but I wish to register my support for the amendment because

6 Apr 2000 : Column 1187

of the enormous difficulty of phrasing and creating the statutory instrument. The Parliamentary Secretary has now disappeared; she replied to the debate when the subject was considered in Committee. She said that she hoped that it would be drafted by May, but that it would be introduced as soon as possible. We were told that the limiting factor was the availability of parliamentary counsel. However, I believe that it is the sheer difficulty of producing the statutory instrument in a manner that will withstand legal challenge.

I look forward to the Minister's comments. I hope that he will be able to tell us when the statutory instrument will be introduced, even in draft. The Committee should have been able to examine it, but the Government failed to produce it. The least we can expect is that the affirmative rather than negative procedure will be used--[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I ask whoever has the electronic device to silence it or leave the Chamber.

Mr. Blunt: I want to register my support for my hon. Friend. I perceive many difficulties with the measure; therefore the rules should be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure.

Dr. Moonie: We covered video conferencing at great length in Committee and on Second Reading. Despite the ingenuity of tying the matter to the technical amendment that we are considering, I do not intend to spend much time covering it again.

Use of video links in operational and commercial circumstances is now an everyday occurrence. The Ministry of Defence regularly uses video conferencing to communicate with our forces and allies all over the world. We do not depend on commercial satellite for video links.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) again used the misprint in Hansard on Second Reading. The correct figure is 128 kilobits per second, not 28. I must correct that or others will believe that I do not know what I am talking about; in this case, I do. I know a lot more than Opposition comments suggest that Conservative Members know.

The judge advocate general and his staff were involved in a trial of video conferencing equipment for custody hearings in February. They are satisfied that the equipment is suitable. The judge advocate general said:

I am satisfied that the equipment I have seen demonstrated is adequate for hearings to be conducted in a fair and safe manner.

We are not discussing trial. We are improving the rights of people who can be put in custody without review by a judicial officer and the same standards as might apply in a trial do not apply here. As the judge advocate general has said, the quality available is perfectly adequate to allow a judicial officer to make a fair--

---