PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

ARMED FORCES BILL

Third Sitting Tuesday 15 February 2011 (Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 3 to 33 agreed to. SCHEDULES 1 to 5 agreed to. Adjourned till Thursday 17 February at Ten o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £2·50 PBC (Bill 122) 2010 - 2011 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 19 February 2011

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 79 Select Committee on the15 FEBRUARY 2011 Armed Forces Bill 80

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: MR JAMES ARBUTHNOT

† Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab) † Osborne, Sandra (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab) † Docherty, Thomas (Dunfermline and West Fife) † Pincher, Christopher (Tamworth) (Con) (Lab) † Robathan, Mr Andrew (Parliamentary Under- † Doyle, Gemma (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op) Secretary of State for Defence) † Ellwood, Mr Tobias (Bournemouth East) (Con) † Russell, Bob (Colchester) (LD) † Francois, Mr Mark (Vice-Chamberlain of Her † Wright, David (Telford) (Lab) Majesty’s Household) † Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab) Georgina Holmes-Skelton, Committee Clerk † Lancaster, Mark (Milton Keynes North) (Con) † Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) † attended the Committee 81 Select Committee on theHOUSE OF COMMONS Armed Forces Bill 82

necessary. I do not wish to object to the clause, but I Select Committee on the seek an indication from the Minister that he will be Armed Forces Bill helpful on the matter. 2.15 pm Tuesday 15 February 2011 Mr Robathan: I wish to be helpful. I reiterate my apology for the fact that the document has been delayed (Afternoon) for more than a few hours—two weeks perhaps. Having read the submission, I do not think that there are any grounds for concern. However, if the hon. Gentleman [MR JAMES ARBUTHNOT in the Chair] considers that there is a concern, he may wish to table an amendment later in the proceedings. Armed Forces Bill I note that the provisions that relate to specimens being of a quantity to enable them to be divided into 2.10 pm two parts for analysis are required to reflect the requirements The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. As I think that (Mr Andrew Robathan): On a point of order, Mr Arbuthnot. the hon. Member for North Durham and I have already May I apologise to the hon. Member for Dunfermline established, we are not necessarily keen on giving lawyers and West Fife for the fact that, although he was promised too much work. I am not a lawyer, but I assume that this the information that he now has in front of him by is the right way forward. Of course, if the hon. Member 2 o’clock at the latest, it has only just arrived? I assure for Dunfermline and West Fife wished to table an him that there was no intention in any way to obfuscate amendment on Report, we would consider it. or disrupt the proceedings. Question put and agreed to. Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): Clauses 12 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further to that point of order, Mr Arbuthnot. I thank the Minister for his strenuous efforts on behalf of the Committee to try to expedite matters this afternoon, Clause 24 and I accept that we are not going through a ministerial process. I hope that he will understand that we want to BYELAWS FOR SERVICE PURPOSES take some time to read through the document before we comment further. Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 24, page 27, line 18, at end Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Further to insert that point of order, Mr Arbuthnot. Although we have ‘(c) consult with stakeholders responsible for the enforcement of just received the document, there is a chance that we such byelaws, including the Ministry of Defence Police.’. will reach the related clause, so I ask your guidance. I Timing is all important. [Laughter.] I am delighted think that you said that we could introduce amendments that colleagues were able to filibuster sufficiently to get throughout this afternoon. Would it be possible to deal to this stage. It is one of those days when everything is with that clause later, or perhaps on Thursday? crashing in, but I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak to the amendment. Hon. Members will recall The Chair: The words that I used were, I think, not that the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence quite that I would take amendments throughout the police appeared before the Committee, and that organisation afternoon, but it is within my discretion to be as amenable is very much a species that is, if not extinct, close to as I can be, and I shall continue to be. If any motion is extinction on garrisons. proposed about a change in the order of proceedings, I need to press the MOD elsewhere, not during that matter will be dealt with when such a motion is proceedings on the Bill, on precisely what its long-term proposed. At the moment, that is something that might intentions are for the MOD police. So far, they continue be appropriate for discussion outside the Committee. to exist, even though as a skeleton of what they used to Clauses 3 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. be. Evidence has been given in respect of my own Colchester garrison that the number of MOD police has gone from 30 to three in the past 13 years. No Clause 11 doubt, those of us who visited the garrison yesterday will have been made aware of the views of some of the TESTING FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUGS ON SUSPICION OF families who sense that they no longer have the number OFFENCE of police in their community that they had and, indeed, Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the that the nature of their community is changing. Bill. Under the amendment, for so long as the MOD police exist in the garrison environment, as opposed to Thomas Docherty: I do not wish to labour the point. other places of work, they would be considered as Given that the clause relates to alcohol and drugs stakeholders in byelaws. Whenever anything relates to policy, I hope that the Minister will look favourably, the enforcement of byelaws, among those who are consulted perhaps either on Thursday or even when the Bill is must be the MOD police. The amendment is as simple considered on the Floor of the House, on the fact that as that. They currently exist, they are stakeholders in we might seek technical changes if we feel that they are enforcing byelaws and they should be consulted. 83 Select Committee on the15 FEBRUARY 2011 Armed Forces Bill 84

Mr Robathan: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his Schedule 2 defence and, indeed, upholding of the MOD police. I agree with him; they do an excellent job. Of course, JUDGE ADVOCATES SITTING IN CIVILIAN COURTS they, as with everything else, are subject to review at the moment, but I do not envisage that we will see the Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second disappearance of the MOD police. I am sometimes schedule to the Bill. surprised by such things, but I do not expect to be on this. Bob Russell: I seek your guidance, Mr Arbuthnot. Those of us who visited Colchester garrison yesterday May I put the amendment in context? The purpose of had the privilege of sitting in on part of a court-martial the clause is to amend the Military Lands Act 1900— hearing and, in private session, meeting the judge. You legislation with which everyone in the room is very well will recall from that conversation that there could be acquainted—to remove the requirement that the Secretary capacity in the courts-martial system to carry out the of State for Defence should seek the consent of the sentencing in cases involving military personnel that Board of Trade when he makes byelaws in respect of have been heard in magistrates courts. certain sea, tidal water and shore areas that injuriously affect certain public rights that relate to navigation, the I wonder whether we can investigate with officials anchoring and grounding of vessels, fishing, bathing, whether there is any prospect of that happening. It walking and recreation. struck me that the judge, who was fair and generous in considering the pros and cons of the case, thought that The change is needed because the wide-ranging there are often cases where military personnel appear responsibilities of the Board of Trade have been gradually before magistrates, probably in locations where there is reduced and redistributed since 1970. I am not entirely not much of a military footprint and where a referral of clear whether the Board of Trade still exists, but I sentencing, either after a guilty plea or when someone is expect that if I were to read on, I would discover found guilty, to courts martial would result in a sentence whether it does or not. I seem to remember that Lord more appropriate to a military person, especially when Heseltine became President of the Board of Trade a few the military wish to retain them in Her Majesty’s armed years ago. forces, rather than having a civilian prison sentence in The need to check that byelaws can be operated is serious cases, which would ruin their military career. I well recognised, but I am not sure that it is necessary to flag that up because it was a useful part of yesterday’s legislate further to ensure that that happens. Such byelaws visit and I wonder whether we can take forward the are rarely made, but it has been standard practice to judge’s excellent suggestion, as it would benefit everyone. consider carefully how they can be policed. The MOD police jurisdiction in relation to the defence estate is laid Mr Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for down in statute, so they have a role in this respect. That referring to that important matter. I chair the Service fact, together with the fact that they are part of the Justice Board, which met last month and gave the Judge MOD, is sufficient to ensure that they are consulted Advocate General, Mr Jeff Blackett, the opportunity to wherever necessary. My hon. Friend said that he wants give his view on the issue. He is very much of the to ensure that the MOD police are stakeholders. In fact, opinion that more cases should be tried in courts martial. they are one of the primary stakeholders, because they There was a great deal of sympathy for that—it is a will police any right of way. sensible opinion—where there is spare capacity and where it is appropriate. I am afraid that there is some As a further safeguard, the military lands Acts require discrepancy across the country about where the police that proposed byelaws be publicised and that an opportunity and the Crown Prosecution Service think that might be to object be given. Such objections could come from my appropriate. hon. Friend or, indeed, the MOD police, but they would have been consulted already, as well as local people. We believe that it is possible for more cases to go to Those Acts also require that the Secretary of State courts martial, rather than be tried in civilian courts, considers any objection before making his decision. I but—again, I stress this at length—where appropriate, hope that that will sufficiently reassure my hon. Friend. particularly in cases that only involve military people outside the wire. However, we must consider the fact that soldiers are citizens first and soldiers second. We have agreed to study that very subject, so that we can make best use of courts martial where appropriate, Bob Russell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for without undermining in any way the civilian justice that response. His words are now on the record. Indeed, system. The Solicitor-General and a Minister from the if I pressed the amendment to a vote and lost it might Ministry of Justice were present at the Service Justice do more harm than good, as that might be interpreted Board meeting. by a subsequent Secretary of State for Defence as meaning that the MOD police should not be consulted. Thomas Docherty: The Minister will be aware that With the assurances that Committee has just been given, justice is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament spelling out what is already in statute, and the Minister’s and there is, of course, a separate judiciary and process. interpretation and words of support, I am content to Further to the helpful clarification that he has just beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. given, can he confirm that any discussion involving the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MOJ and CPS will also involve their counterparts in Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Scotland, so that there is no separation between the two systems? Clause 25 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 agreed to. Mr Robathan: I will ensure that we inform them. 85 Select Committee on theHOUSE OF COMMONS Armed Forces Bill 86

2.30 pm other courts a soldier—or an airman or a sailor—would appear with some fresh-faced young lieutenant who Bob Russell: A further point made in the discussions would plead his case and win over the court. It might with the judge yesterday was that there appears to be a surprise my hon. Friend to know that, once upon a lack of consistency at magistrates courts around the time, I was that fresh-faced young lieutenant and I did country in that magistrates and magistrates clerks are win over a court—not that there was anything the not necessarily fully briefed and aware of their powers matter with that and not that I was not quite right—but in respect of desertion and someone being absent without there is a need for consistency, and not just in how the leave and so on. May I ask the Minister through you, serviceman’s representative officer will be judged by Mr Arbuthnot, whether he will refer that matter to the the court. working party that he described earlier? Question put and agreed to. The Chair: Order. That is not a matter for me; it is an Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to. appropriate matter for debate under schedule 2. Schedules 3 to 5 agreed to. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. Mr Robathan: Yes, that can be looked at as well. —(Mr Francois.) There is a big issue about consistency. I shall try to quote off the top of my head from the Judge Advocate General’s submission. I have probably got this wrong, 2.32 pm but he said that the problem is that in magistrates and Adjourned till Thursday 17 February at Ten o’clock.