Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE 2004
MR MARTIN
HOWARD AND
MAJOR GENERAL
NICK HOUGHTON
Q60 Mr Havard: If we are in a situation
where the Iraqis decide they do not want to continue with the
internment arrangements as they are now, presumably then we have
got a camp full of people we have got to do something with?
Mr Howard: As I say, we will have
a camp full of people and the judgment about whether it is an
imperative threat to security is our judgment. We have the power
to make that judgment under UNSCR. I go back to what I said if
we have a camp full of people then we need to look at these cases,
does this person still represent an imperative threat to security
and do we therefore need to hold them? If we decide we do, then
we will hold them. Is this chap being held and the problem is
one where he has committed a crime? Then as soon as possible we
should hand him over to the Iraqi authorities. If neither of these
apply, the guy should be released and go back to civilian life.
Q61 Mr Havard: If you decide to hold
them how are you going to hold them if you have not got the power
of internment?
Mr Howard: We have. We can hold
people if we regard them as generating an imperative threat to
security. I am sorry to use that phrase so often but it is the
legal phrase. Thus we can hold them in those circumstances.
Q62 Mr Havard: Even if the Iraqis
have decided they do not wish to have this general power of internment?
Mr Howard: No, this is our power,
so we can do this for ourselves.
Mr Havard: That is interesting, thank
you.
Q63 Mr Blunt: Can we just explore
that a little further. This relates to paragraph 10 of the Security
Council Resolution: "that the multinational force shall have
the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to
the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance
with the letters annexed to this resolution." It is Colin's
Powell's letter that is relevant in saying: "This will include
combat operations against members of these groups, internment
where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
." That is the precise legal basis on which we are going
to continue to intern people?
Mr Howard: That is my understanding,
yes.
Q64 Mr Blunt: Are we going to continue
to intern people therefore consistent with the Fourth Geneva Convention?
Mr Howard: Yes, the practical
effect will be same.
Q65 Mr Blunt: Hold on, this is a
very important issue because one could argue the Americans have
not been observing the Fourth Geneva Convention in the manner
of what we have seen. I think the Committee was certainly satisfied
from their visit to Shaibah that we certainly have been. What
is the explicit position of the British Government on 1 July about
internment? Do we consider ourselves governed by the terms of
the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to those internees or does
this legal basis that mean the legal basis is now different and
the Fourth Geneva Convention does not strictly apply?
Mr Howard: My understanding is
that the legal basis is different because it is based now on these
things. The Geneva Convention cannot apply because we are no longer
in a state of armed conflict.
Q66 Mr Blunt: The British Government
will apply it even though it would not strictly need to apply
it.
Mr Howard: In terms of how we
would carry out the process of internment, we would follow the
general practice laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention but
the strict legal basis is in fact Security Council Resolution
1546 and the side letters.
Q67 Mr Blunt: So you are not able
to tell the Committee that the British Government will apply the
requirements of the Fourth Geneva Convention to our internees
from 1 July onwards?
Mr Howard: It does not apply in
the circumstances where there is a sovereign government. We are
not in a position of armed conflict any more. The Geneva Conventions
will not apply after 30 June in Iraq.
Mr Blunt: So what standards will we need
to apply?
Mr Viggers: There is a division in the
House so we will adjourn for 15 minutes unless there are two votes
in which case we will adjourn for 30 minutes.
The Committee suspended from 4.32 pm to
4.55 pm for a division in the House.
Mr Viggers: Crispin Blunt was asking
questions.
Q68 Mr Blunt: I think we had established
that the Fourth Geneva Convention will not apply on 1 July. Can
you explain to the Committee if one is an internee against what
set of rules will the internee, for example, be able to complain
about their treatment? What rules will be applied to British internees
from 1 July?
Mr Howard: I will not necessarily
go through all the details (although I can offer a note on that
point)[2]
but let me just go through the principles. As we said earlier,
the Fourth Geneva Convention or indeed any Geneva Convention will
no longer apply because we will no longer be an occupying power.
It is simple as that. It is an objective fact. The legal basis
is, as I have described earlier, continuing to apply, and I hope
that is clear.
Q69 Mr Blunt: That just says internment,
it does not say anything about prisoners of war.
Mr Howard: Obviously by definition
there cannot be prisoners of war because we are no longer in a
state of armed conflict. In terms of the practical standards we
will continue to apply the same standards as we would have applied
under the Fourth Geneva Convention, both as a matter of policy
and also because the discussions the CPA is having with the Interim
Iraqi Government are intended to allow relevant CPA orders to
carry on after 30 June and some of those orders lay down standards
for how detainees should be dealt with. Those will continue to
apply, they will certainly apply to us and they will apply to
other members of the coalition. I do not have to hand specific
details of the relevant orders but I am sure we could provide
those.
Q70 Mr Blunt: Could you provide them
to the Committee so that we can have the reassurance that internees,
if they feel they have been mistreated, know against what standards
they are able to complain?
Mr Howard: In practice they will
be exactly the same as they are now.
Q71 Mr Blunt: If you can just say
what the legal basis is so we know what the legal basis the internees
have for them seeking—
Mr Howard: We can do that and
provide more detail on that.
Q72 Mr Havard: I presume that the
International Red Cross will continue their involvement, which
has been consistent right throughout and as they have been involved
in the camp all the way through the standards have been verified
in a sense by them. Presumably, they will continue their involvement,
will they, and give us that confidence?
Mr Howard: They will still have
unlimited access as they do now.
Q73 Mr Viggers: Article 3 of the
Geneva Convention says that those holding prisoners are prohibited
from treating them in a humiliating or degrading way. Have British
soldiers been blindfolding or hooding prisoners and, if so, where
is that process continuing?
Mr Howard: I might have to check
my detailed facts on this[3]
but at the moment there is no hooding of prisoners for interrogation
reasons. Perhaps I could find out the precise time when that practice
was ended. We are certainly no longer hooding any prisoners for
interrogation purposes. Occasionally it is necessary to obscure
the vision of individuals as they have been detained to avoid
them seeing operationally sensitive people or equipment and so
on and so forth. Even there we have stopped using hoods and we
are using other means so we no longer use hoods.
Q74 Mr Viggers: I have seen a press
report that we discontinued blindfolding or hooding in September.
Would you accept the general principle that if we treat our prisoners
with respect we can then be in a stronger moral position to ensure
that our prisoners are treated with respect by others?
Mr Howard: I am sure that is true.
That is not the only reason though why we should treat prisoners
with respect—that is part of our legal obligations and moral
obligations—but I could not argue with that particular point.
Q75 Mr Roy: You do not hood prisoners
but you blindfold them; what is the difference?
Mr Howard: It is simply because
there are two circumstances where people might think that people
would be hooded. One is for interrogation purposes and that is
completely barred, we do not do that, nor do we blindfold them
or in any other sense obscure their vision. However, we could
be in a situation where there has been a fire fight and we have
picked up individuals we need for a short period while they are
being moved from place to place to obscure their vision. In the
past hoods have been used for that but we have stopped that as
well because there is a certain amount of emotive baggage attached
to hooding so we use other means of obscuring vision but we only
do that for security reasons and we do not use any of that for
interrogation purposes.
Q76 Mr Roy: What is the time period
for which you do that?
Mr Howard: As short as possible.
It could be just for a few minutes.
Major General Houghton: Hooding
is just a mechanism of blindfolding.
Mr Viggers: There is a division but let's
just continue as we have a lot ground we want to cover. We will
see whether we get an instruction on our electronic masters.
Q77 Mike Gapes: Can I take you on
to the question of the law under which our military service personnel
are operating when they are on deployment in Iraq. Ministers have
told us that our service personnel will be subject to British
military law while they are on deployment in Iraq. Are there any
exceptions to this?
Mr Howard: I know of no exceptions,
no. Wherever British forces are deployed worldwide—
Q78 Mike Gapes: What about when they
are off duty?
Mr Howard: No, they are always
subject to UK military law.
Q79 Mike Gapes: What about the estimated
15,000 people employed in Iraq as contractors, security guards
and other personnel, what law do they come under?
Mr Howard: Well, that is quite
a complex issue and it may be best if I were to give you a note
to cover the detail,[4]
but in essence contractors who are part of our forces or civilians,
non-military people, will be covered by the same rules of English
law applied in Iraq. People who are working, say Iraqi citizens—
Mike Gapes:—I am sorry, I think
we have got to go and vote.
Rachel Squire: Do we? I thought the Defence
Committee had the power to decide whether it voted or not.
Mr Roy: I am going.
Mr Viggers: If we remain quorate we will
continue.
Mike Gapes: I am being told that I have
got to go and vote.
Mr Viggers: That will leave four Members.
Mike Gapes: I am sorry, I apologise.
Rachel Squire: It is a motion on urban
development.
Mr Havard: Carry on Mike, I am in trouble
already so it will make no difference!
2 Ev 125 Back
3
Ev 126 Back
4
Ev 126. Back
| 
