Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 18 May 1999
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
Draft International Headquarters and National Defence Organisations (Designations and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1999
10.30 am
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Headquarters and National Organisations (Designations and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1999.
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999.
I remind members of the Committee that the Defence Committee has reported on the two instruments in its second and fourth reports. I understand that members of the Committee have been sent copies of the reports; further copies are available in the Room.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. That understanding does not extend to me. I have not been sent copies of the reports.
The Chairman: I am sure that profuse apologies are in order, but if the hon. Gentleman reaches across the Table with the long arm of the liberal Democrats he will find that copies are available.
Mr. Henderson: I hope that both draft orders will be approved. The Defence Committee has already considered them and I welcome its fourth report, which recommended that both orders be approved. I welcome, too, its comments on my Department's explanatory memorandum and I am grateful for its work in preparation for our sitting.
The Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order replaces and updates a 1965 Order in Council. It applies elements of our domestic legislation to visiting forces and headquarters, as though they were part of our own forces. The revised order takes account of changes to the law since 1965 and brings the provisions of the old order up to date.
The order is necessary to help us to carry out our obligations under the 1951 NATO status of forces agreement, which sets out the legal status of forces of NATO members when on each other's territory. This includes granting certain exemptions and privileges from domestic legislation—a long-established principle between NATO members. Our forces enjoy similar exemptions when on exercises or stationed in NATO countries.
Parts of the order meet obligations under the status of forces agreement, while others cover matters of international arrangement. In both cases, the orders are necessary for the efficient operation and organisation of visiting forces and headquarters in the United Kingdom. Neither order introduces any new principles. There is, however, one important difference from the 1965 order. That order originally applied only to visiting forces from Commonwealth and NATO countries, as well as to headquarters. The revised version now brings all partnership for peace countries within its scope. We began this process last year through a short amendment to the 1965 order—the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Amendment) Order 1998. I am sure that this development will be widely welcomed.
I should explain that the provisions of the order do not extend to visiting forces from partner countries until their Governments ratify the partnership for peace status of forces agreement. So far, 19 countries have ratified the agreement, three of which have since been welcomed as full members of NATO. Had I not been in the House last night, I would have been with the Defence Minister of one of those countries updating him on our progress with the orders. As you know, Mr. Stevenson, important business in the House kept me away from that.
The order is long and complex because we must set out all the changes in United Kingdom law that apply to visiting forces and headquarters, although in practice some will be used only rarely. I do not propose to take the Committee through the detail of the order; the substantive provisions are already well established.
The International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order is much shorter. It simply consolidates and updates the list of headquarters designated by the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 1965. This order designates headquarters for the purposes of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964 and establishes their status in United Kingdom law. The amendment does not introduce any changes to the substance of the order. The principle of granting exemptions and privileges to visiting forces and headquarters is well established.
The orders largely continue existing practice and bring things up to date. Most important, the application of law order completes the process that we began last year of bringing partnership for peace countries within its scope. That is to be especially welcomed and I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
10.35 am
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): We support the orders—indeed, we welcome them. I thank the Select Committee on Defence for its work, which has been very helpful in understanding the orders, and the staff of the Library for their assistance in tracing previous debates.
The immunities and privileges conferred by the orders are matters of international courtesy needed to achieve efficient organisation and efficient practical operations. The arrangements are designed to be similar to those enjoyed by our armed forces abroad, although I suspect that they are more thoughtful and more formal than some of those that our forces encounter overseas.
We support the inclusion of NATO headquarters not previously included. The city of Plymouth will join High Wycombe and Northwood in hosting international headquarters covered by this legislation.
We all welcome visiting service men and women and their civilian colleagues to our communities, but on rare occasions things go wrong so it is important to clarify some points of detail. Will the Minister clarify the extent to which the orders are intended to cover civilians and their families? Increasingly, modern professional armed forces rely on contractorised civilian support for catering and for technical engineering support. Do the orders cover foreign civilian nationals working at the relevant international headquarters? Do they cover locally employed British staff working for foreign Governments at the designated headquarters?
For example, article 8(5) would allow service personnel of a visiting force to drive specified vehicles even if they were below the age at which they would normally be allowed to drive those vehicles in the United Kingdom. Is that the intention of the order? Under article 16, is it intended that visiting forces who are required to attend as witnesses before service courts can be compelled to attend? If so, would it be necessary to seek the permission of a senior officer or diplomat of that visiting force?
I do not expect the Minister to have answers to my technical questions, but these issues must be addressed because they are not covered by the Select Committee report, by the explanatory memorandum or by the notes from the Ministry of Defence. Similarly, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the temporary detention of persons sentenced by service courts. Is it intended that a person from a visiting force sentenced by a United Kingdom service court can be detained without first seeking the permission of a senior diplomat or officer from the visiting force? Under paragraphs 4 and 5 to schedule 7, there is no guarantee that a witness will receive a summons if it is left with a person at the witness's usual place of abode, which is specified in the schedule. From a British point of view, I question whether that amounts to adequate service. If a member of a visiting force refuses a witness summons, what is the effect? Is the provision enforceable against a foreign soldier?
I ask the same question in relation to article 18. If a member of a visiting force assists a member of the United Kingdom forces to desert or go absent without leave, how is the sanction enforceable? The Minister cannot be expected to answer these technical questions on points of legal detail—certainly not in the time available, and I doubt whether there is sufficient time to allow telephone calls to be made—but they are important. Although we all agree with the principles of the orders, their detail is important.
Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull): My hon. Friend is right to make these technical points, which require clarification. He is being very fair minded in saying that he will not press the Minister for precise replies. Will he invite the Minister to reply in writing? If so, would it not be a nice courtesy if all members of the Committee were to be sent a copy of the Minister's reply?
Mr. Key: That is exactly the sort of practical advice that I would expect from my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer. These points are important as the number of personnel increases, particularly under the partnership for peace arrangements, and as the complexity of international co-operation deepens.
The House considered similar statutory instruments in 1965, which were designed to cover only 33 countries; today we are asked to extend immunities and privileges to 91 countries—a substantial increase. The complexity of the legal systems of visiting forces will interact with our legal system and needs clarification.
I conclude by echoing words used in 1965 by the Conservative spokesman, Philip Goodhart, the then member for Beckenham. What he said then still applies today:
``Therefore, it seems to me that it would be wrong to push too violently our opposition to the idea of extending in any way the application of privileges and amenities which we are seeking in our turn for our own Forces overseas.''—[Official Report, 30 July 1965, Vol. 717, c. 1016.]
10.42 am
| 
