Select Committee on the
Armed Forces Bill
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairman:
Mr. George Howarth
†Baird, Vera (Redcar) (Lab)
Breed, Mr. Colin (South-East Cornwall) (LD)
†Burns, Mr. Simon (West Chelmsford) (Con)
†Burrowes, Mr. David (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
†Campbell, Mr. Alan (Tynemouth) (Lab)
†Chapman, Ben (Wirral, South) (Lab)
Howarth, Mr. Gerald (Aldershot) (Con)
†Jones, Mr. Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)
†Key, Robert (Salisbury) (Con)
†McCarthy-Fry, Sarah (Portsmouth, North) (Lab)
†Russell, Bob (Colchester) (LD)
†Sheridan, Jim (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)
†Touhig, Mr. Don (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence)
Richard Cooke, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Wednesday 22 March 2006
[Mr. George Howarth in the Chair]
9.45 am
The Chairman: May I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the room should anyone require them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Don Touhig): I beg to move an amendment to the order of consideration, in lines 2 and 3, leave out
‘113, Schedule 2, Clauses 114’
and insert
‘112, Clauses 117 to 127, Clause 113, Schedule 2, Clauses 114 to 116, Clauses 128’.
Thank you for calling me, Mr. Howarth.
I am sure that we are all distressed that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is not with us this morning. I have talked to him and we are certainly saddened that he is suffering so much pain with his tooth, the result of which will possibly be that he will cause me less pain as a result of not being here. The saga of Gerald’s tooth means that I must ask the Committee to consider this amendment.
Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): I am grateful to the Minister for his understanding. We all send our good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot in his hour of agony. We accept the Minister’s proposal and are grateful to him.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chairman: No amendments have been tabled to clauses 67 to 76 so, if there is no objection, I shall put the question on those clauses together.
Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I have questions to ask about clauses 75 and 76, Mr. Howarth. At the same time, I wish to apologise for our giving the impression of being the walking wounded on Conservative Benches. I do not have much of a voice, but, given the little I have, I shall be concise, which might help the Committee.
The Chairman: Order. In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask questions about clauses 75 and 76, the best thing that I can do is to vary matters. I suggest that we now deal with clauses 67 to 74. That will give him his opportunity.
Clauses 67 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Power of service policeman to stop and search persons, vehicles etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Burrowes: I have a brief question that relates to clauses 75 and 76. Clause 75 concerns the power of a service policeman to stop and search persons, vehicles and so on. Will the Minister clarify whether reasonable grounds may be found for civilians being subject to service discipline and how those grounds can be properly established? Perhaps he can cite examples of how that would be achieved in practical terms. It is obvious that those who are subject to service law fall within that category, but whether the civilian is subject to service discipline might be open to doubt. I would appreciate clarification of the process that would be undertaken to subject a person to the power to stop and search.
My second point is about stop-and-search provisions and the reference in clause 78, which provides that the powers can be used only in
“any place to which (at the time of exercise of the power) the public or any section of the public has access”.
That is the particular instance when it may be appropriate, although often only in exceptional circumstances, to block a road to search for prohibited articles such as drugs or stolen articles. Someone in my profession might particularly want to consider the issue of access to that road and to challenge whether such a stop and search was lawful, as at the time the power was exercised the public would not have access to the road because it was blocked.
I ask the Minister to consider and clarify whether the provision needs to be revisited to ensure that it is fully effective.
Mr. Touhig: I want to make a few remarks about clauses 75 and 76.
Clauses 75 to 83 set out the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles, including ships and aircraft, which are closely based on the powers available to civilian police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Clause 75 gives service police a power to stop and search persons and vehicles to search for specified things such as stolen or prohibited articles. Service police may detain persons to carry out such a search and, if the search is successful, seize the specified things that they find.
As service police are not always available—for example, in submarines at sea and in smaller deployed units—clause 76 gives other personnel, acting under the authority of an officer, similar powers of search to those available to the service police under clause 75. The authorising officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal offence would be committed or that a person having committed such an offence would avoid apprehension if the powers were not exercised before a service or United Kingdom civilian policeman could assist.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), deployed forces and forces serving overseas may be accompanied by civilians in this context. Such civilians are an easily identifiable group and will have been issued with identity cards. I hope that answers him.
Mr. Burrowes: My second point concerned the road block and public access.
Mr. Touhig: I will look at that and, if the hon. Gentleman permits, write to him and other colleagues, examining it in some detail.
Mr. Burrowes: I am obliged.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Sections 75 and 76: definitions
Mr. Burrowes: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 77, page 36, line 20, after “forces”, insert
‘or any other forces cooperating with Her Majesty’s Armed Forces’.
The amendment would add to the definition in subsection (5) of a service vehicle as a vehicle that
“(a) belongs to any of Her Majesty’s forces”.
This addition would be similar to the one that we debated under clause 3, relating to obstructing operations. This definition is used elsewhere in the Bill—for example, in clause 364 in defining “enemy”. Therefore, it is proper to use it in this Bill.
The rationale behind the amendment is to avoid ambiguity and to enable the Bill to apply to one-day situations when we are on operations with allied forces. It would enable us to make it clear that the provisions in clauses 75 and 76 relating to stopping and searching also applied to service vehicles of other forces co-operating with Her Majesty’s armed forces. I concede that paragraph (b), which refers to a vehicle
“in use for the purposes of any of those forces”,
might deal with the point, but the extended definition in the amendment might add clarity.
Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab): I want to ask for more information about the definition in clause 77(5)(b), which the hon. Gentleman has just referred to. A service vehicle is defined as one that either belongs to the forces or
“is in use for the purposes of any of those forces.”
How wide is that definition intended to be? Will it include the milkman who is there to vittle up the forces so that they can fight? How will the scope be defined?
Mr. Touhig: The amendment would alter the definition of “service vehicle” in clause 77. That definition refers to clauses 75 and 76, which set out the powers of search of the service police, including what vehicles they can stop and search for evidence of criminal offences. The amendment would give them the power to stop and search our allies’ vehicles. At first glance, it seems reasonable, but it would not be right. I hope that I might persuade the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate of that.
As part of the military system of justice, our service police have powers over the members of our armed forces and over civilians subject to service discipline. Neither the service police nor the service justice system has powers over members of foreign armed forces, and it would not be right for them to have such powers. I am sure that our allies would not want them to.
If we suspect that allied soldiers might be involved in crime, the solution lies in liaison with the allied forces. In some cases, in which our own and allied troops are suspected, joint action is taken. Such co-operation and assistance are important, but it must ultimately be for our allies to investigate and deal with their own troops. We help them, but we cannot give ourselves direct powers over them.
In the same way, we expect our allies to liaise and co-operate with us if they suspect our troops of offences. We would not expect our allies to establish police or other disciplinary powers over our troops.
Robert Key: This is a practical point that was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. On joint exercises in the United Kingdom, it is common for convoys of allied NATO vehicles to patrol near Army ranges. They do so regularly in my constituency, and occasionally they are involved in a road traffic accident. What would happen in those circumstances?
Are we saying that neither our military, service or Ministry of Defence police nor the Home Office constabulary has any jurisdiction over a German or Dutch unit, for example, that is involved in a road traffic accident? Do we have to go back to the service police? Who is in charge in those circumstances? As we saw in the previous sitting, the Minister might seek inspiration from the left in order to answer.
The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be brief.
Robert Key: Thank you, Mr. Howarth. Of course you are right; I am merely trying to be helpful. The point is practical and it has arisen in my constituency.
Will the Minister also explain the relationship between the clause and what the Visiting Forces Act 1952 says about jurisdiction over servicemen in this country? There are hundreds of military vehicles belonging to our allies on our roads every day, particularly in East Anglia and near military ranges. It is important that that point be cleared up.
10 am
The Chairman: May I remind the Committee that, although I was generous over the length of that intervention given the Opposition’s difficulties today, in normal circumstances interventions should be brief—a single question, really? I hope that the Committee will not stretch my tolerance any further on that point.
Mr. Touhig: I am not sure that the remark I made the other day has improved my credentials with new Labour. References to the “left” meant those sat to my left.
The Chairman: Topographically.
Mr. Touhig: Yes. Perhaps I had better clear that up for the record.
I shall respond first to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar. If a formed unit or smaller group has use of a vehicle that belongs to another force, it comes within the term
“in use for the purposes”
of any of Her Majesty’s forces and is therefore included.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) made a point about joint exercises, convoys and so on. Special legislation governs visiting forces in the United Kingdom. It gives limited powers to UK civilian police. If it would help, we could provide the Committee with further detail on how that works.
Mr. Burrowes: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is a prevailing concern about the increasing activity of joint operations. The amendment would increase operational effectiveness when decisions had to be made quickly—for example, when there was a need urgently to search for a prohibited article, or indeed a weapon. Nevertheless, having heard his comments, I do not wish to press the amendment. We can reflect on the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 78 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Power to make provision as to access to excluded material etc
Mr. Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 86, page 40, line 39, leave out from “offence” to end of line and insert
‘have the meanings given by section 84’.
This is a drafting amendment to clarify that the meanings in this clause of the terms “excluded material”, “special procedure material” and “relevant offence” are the same as those applied to those terms in clause 84. Clause 84 stipulates that those terms have the same meanings as when they are used in the relevant sections of PACE. As worded, clause 86 suggests that those terms should be read so as to agree with clause 84(4). That is not the intention.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 87 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
Power to make provision conferring powers of entry and search after arrest
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Burrowes: I note that the clause allows the Secretary of State to make provision for powers equivalent to those under section 18 of PACE. Why is it necessary to make the power of entry and search subject to
“such modifications as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”?
I am not aware that such a provision is applied or even necessary under the civilian statute. Section 18 should stand alone and should properly apply with respect to its equivalent codes of practice.
The codes of practice can obviously be modified from time to time to deal with the application of section 18, but will the Minister explain the rationale behind the need for such modifications, and can we be told in advance what circumstances might arise to make such modifications necessary?
Mr. Touhig: The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make provisions in relation to premises occupied or controlled by the person who has been arrested and held in service custody without being charged. The provisions are broadly equivalent to those in PACE that deal with entry and search after arrest, but they can be modified to fit the service environment. In broad terms, when a person subject to service law has been arrested for a service offence, the powers allow for the entry and search of relevant premises for evidence in connection with that offence.
Provisions made under the clause will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as they will be made by statutory instrument. When the Secretary of State wishes to use the provision, we shall put regulations and the appropriate information before Parliament. Modifications will include a provision to limit the range of premises that service police may enter, and the modifications will be the same as those under current regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 93 to 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: We have amended the order of consideration, having deferred clauses 113 to 116 and schedule 2 until our next sitting. So, we now come to clauses 117 to 126, to which no amendments have been tabled.
Clauses 117 to 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Ten o’clock till Tuesday 28 March at fifteen minutes to Ten o’clock.
| 
