Examination of witnesses (Questions 1095
- 1099)
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH 2001
RT HON
GEOFFREY HOON
MP, MR MICHAEL
LEGGE AND
MR TONY
COMBEN
Chairman
1095. Good afternoon to everyone and I particularly
give a very warm welcome to the Secretary of State for Defence,
Mr Hoon, and also to welcome Mr Comben, who has certainly come
and given very helpful evidence to us before, and Mr Legge. Thank
you very much indeed for coming before the Committee this afternoon.
My intention is to try and ensure that every member of the Committee
who has a question to ask is given the opportunity to do so and,
depending on whether there is any time then available, we may
be able to open it up for further questions. Can I begin—
(Mr Hoon) Before you do, could I thank
the Committee for its willingness to meet on this occasion at
this time, having regard to very difficult commitments that I
had on Monday and Tuesday. I do very much appreciate that.
1096. Thank you very much, Secretary of State.
Can I begin by saying that the members of the Committee may come
in with a range of questions but in the evidence we have heard
over the last few weeks there is one particular area which has
come to somewhat dominate our thinking, and that is clauses 31
and 32 of the Bill, dealing with an extension of jurisdiction
of the Ministry of Defence Police. I would say that my perception
has certainly been reformed over the last few weeks because prior
to this Committee my contact with my local Ministry of Defence
Police had been a very positive one, I had certainly never heard
any concerns raised about their operation either by the community
or by the local police service, and indeed my main contact with
the MDP and their Federation was some years ago under the previous
Government when they were concerned about their changing role,
the reduction in their numbers and how this could lead to them
operating increasingly in mixed civilian and defence environments
and what this might lead to. I would really like to open up with
the first question, Mr Hoon, which is, what is the motivation
of yourself and your Department behind extending the jurisdiction
of the Ministry of Defence Police as outlined in the clauses of
this Bill?
(Mr Hoon) I think it is fair to say clauses 31 and
32 are very modest changes in the powers of the Ministry of Defence
Police, and the need for those very modest changes arises for
three reasons. Firstly, we now have some considerable experience,
13 years I think, of the operation of the 1987 Act which consolidated
the powers in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police, which
has demonstrated certain weaknesses, not significant weaknesses
but areas where we judge it appropriate to bring the law up to
date to reflect the current reality, and therefore these modest
changes are designed to achieve that in the first place. Secondly,
there have been some changes in the way in which the Ministry
of Defence Police have operated since 1987, and in particular
they have become more mobile, they have a jurisdiction in defence
establishments but when they are organised to travel between defence
establishments it seems to make sense, to me at any rate, that
they should have certain rights between defence establishments.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly as far as the number of
changes are concerned, to facilitate co-operation between the
Ministry of Defence Police and other police forces, to ensure
that there is mutual support between people wearing police uniforms,
and really the existing arrangements do not allow that to happen
to the extent we believe should be appropriate.
Chairman: Thank you.
Mr Crausby
1097. How would you argue against the statement
that this is a non-accountable national police force, or at least
steps towards it? I accept these changes are modest in the beginning
but who initiated these changes? Are these changes a request from
the MoD Police or do they come from the MoD themselves?
(Mr Hoon) We have had 13 years' operation, or thereabouts,
of the 1987 Act. I am not quite sure how many changes there have
been to policing legislation in the comparable period but quite
a considerable number. In the course of those 13 years we have
found difficulties that arise, practical circumstances occur and,
frankly, there is a process of learning. That is true of all legislation.
It is that process which has led to the conclusions which are
in clauses 31 and 32. As I say, they are extremely modest and
they are reflecting the fact, broadly speaking, the 1987 Act at
the time was sufficient but now, particularly given the kind of
practical changes we have seen, we believe it is time to bring
it up to date. These are not dramatic changes, they are incremental
changes. As far as accountability is concerned, when you describe
it as a national police force, it is a national police force in
the sense the defence estate for which the Ministry of Defence
Police is responsible is organised nationally but it could equally
well be the case that if we were considering the British Transport
Police that they are a national police force. The accountability
for both of those organisations is very similar and since this
is a matter for the defence estate and it is subject clearly to
the Ministry of Defence, it is right that the accountability is
through me as Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr Watts
1098. The role of the MoD Police has developed,
as you said, over the last few years. When making these changes,
how permanent do you think those changes will be? Or do you think
we will be here in five or six years developing different roles
for the MoD and, if so, what do you think those roles would be?
(Mr Hoon) I think the biggest single change we are
having to deal with since 1987—and I suspect it was probably
a change which was already underway then—is that historically
and traditionally Ministry of Defence Police were allocated to
particular bases and particular parts of the defence estate and
their jurisdiction therefore was confined to that estate or the
vicinity thereof. What we have now is a situation where clearly
some defence estate actually has a relatively small number of
people on it and we cannot necessarily justify allocating particular
police officers to those quite small bases, and in those circumstances
what has happened since 1987 is that a number—I think it
is 16—mobile policing units have been established and they
will travel and have responsibility for a number of different
defence estates. In those circumstances they will travel from
one to the other. The issue is whether in the course of their
travel, the police officers wearing uniform should not be allowed,
if they perceive an offence occurring, particularly a crime of
violence, to use the authority that should flow from their position
as police officers to deal with that problem. I know the Committee
has been concerned about that. Nearly all the members of this
Committee are fairly regular visitors to the Ministry of Defence
estate and I would invite each of you to consider what would your
view be if, having visited a Ministry of Defence base, you were
travelling away from there and found yourself under attack, you
saw a police officer in a uniform who to all intents and purposes
looked like a police officer because he was a member of the Ministry
of Defence Police but who stopped, looked at your predicament,
looked at you being attacked and said, "I am terribly sorry,
I do not have the legal powers to intervene, and if I did intervene
my legal position would be subject to very considerable challenge",
and as a result he then moves on. I suspect none of you would
be very happy and I anticipate receiving a letter in due course.
This is designed to deal with precisely that kind of situation.
1099. I think the reasons behind the proposal
are clear, but what I was trying to get from you, Secretary of
State, was whether you thought the new arrangements would be permanent
or whether they were fluid and there would be further changes
in future years.
(Mr Hoon) Obviously these changes are to deal with
the kind of changes I have set out to the Committee already. They
will bring up to date if Parliament approves them the legal rights
and responsibilities of police officers in the kinds of circumstances
that I have described, to reflect the changes and events which
have occurred since 1987. I do not anticipate significant further
changes. I am not ruling them out but I cannot think of any off-hand
which would require further changes. Were there to be further
changes, we would be asking Parliament to consider alterations
in the legislation appropriately, but I am not aware there are
any.
|
