HL Deb 29 January 1985 vol 459 cc558-61

2.40 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the rules of engagement issued by the Ministry of Defence to armed forces guarding nuclear installations take precedence over or are subordinate to Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the rules of engagement issued to servicemen do not themselves constitute legal authorisation. They give guidance on the use of force based upon and consistent with the requirements of the law including, in England and Wales, Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that on 14th January I asked him a similar Question. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 governs the use of force by members of Her Majesty's forces? What I am asking him now is whether the rules of engagement as issued to servicemen take precedence over the law or whether they are subordinate to it. According to all the published reports, those rules of engagement give the right to servicemen to shoot at unarmed civilians who are protesting and attempting to occupy nuclear installations. Which law takes precedence? Is it not the case—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Hatch of Lusby

—that if the Ministry of Defence has issued those rules of engagement despite the existing law—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Hatch of Lusby

—then it is an executive decision—a prerogative making of law by a department of state?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the rules of engagement are of course confidential, so the noble Lord cannot be familiar with them. As I said on the earlier occasion when he asked me about this matter, the criminal law applies to everybody, including servicemen.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

. My Lords, this is admittedly a difficult area, but can the noble Lord say whether American servicemen defending non-nuclear equipment are in any way permitted to shoot at people they believe to be interfering with that equipment? I ask the question because this has appeared in several newspapers and I think it requires clarification.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I can only again remind the noble Lord of the words I used on the earlier occasion when we discussed this matter; that is, that the rules of engagement permit the use of firearms only when life or vital national interests are threatened.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, is there any distinction between what a British serviceman is entitled to do and what an American serviceman is entitled to do in the same situation—that is, defending non-nuclear equipment?

Lord Trefgarne

No, my Lords, I am not aware of any distinction.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in answering a similar question on 14th January he made this statement in column 774 of Hansard: I can confirm that United States personnel involved in these duties are governed by exactly the same law as United Kingdom personnel"? Is it the case that United States servicemen are entitled to shoot, on either nuclear or non-nuclear installations, against unarmed protesters? Do they come under the Visiting Forces Act, or do they come under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act of 1967?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the question of whether or not protesters are liable to be shot, as the noble Lord puts it, depends essentially, in fact, precisely, upon what they are doing.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, that is not an answer to my question—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, do United States servicemen come under the same British law as British servicemen, or do they come under the Visiting Forces Act?

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I have not heard his question.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, do American servicemen come under the Visiting Forces Act or under British law?

The Earl of Cork and Orrery

My Lords, I beg to move that the noble Lord be no more heard.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)

My Lords, the Question is that the noble Lord be no longer heard. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"?

Noble Lords

Content.

The Lord Chancellor

To the contrary, "Not-content"?

Noble Lords

Not-content.

The Lord Chancellor

Clear the Bar.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the Question has been put; the voices have been collected and I have ordered the Bar to be cleared.

2.48 p.m.

On Question, Whether the noble Lord be no longer heard?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Gisborough, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Glanusk, L.
Allerton, L. Glenarthur, L.
Ampthill, L. Harvington, L. [Teller.]
Auckland, L. Holderness, L.
Avon, E. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Beloff, L. Inglewood, L.
Belstead, L. Kaberry of Adel, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Kilmany, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Caithness, E. Kinnaird, L.
Caldecote, V. Kintore, E.
Campbell of Croy, L. Lane-Fox, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Lauderdale, E.
Cayzer, L. Long, V.
Chelmsford, Bp. Lothian, M.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.] Macleod of Borve, B.
Cottesloe, L. Mar, C.
Cromartie, E. Margadale, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Marley, L.
De Freyne, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Denham, L. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Denning, L.
Derwent, L. Maybray-King, L.
Duncan-Sandys, L. Melville, V.
Eccles, V. Mersey, V.
Effingham, E. Middleton, L.
Ellenborough, L. Milne, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Milverton, L.
Elton, L. Molson, L.
Faithfull, B. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Ferrers, E. Mottistone, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Gainford, L. Munster, E.
Noel-Buxton, L. Sandys, L.
Norfolk, D. Seebohm, L.
Northbourne, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Norwich, Bp. Smith, L.
Nugent of Guildford, L. Stamp, L.
O'Brien of Lothbury, L. Strathclyde, L.
O'Neill of the Maine, L. Sudeley, L.
Orkney, E. Terrington, L.
Polwarth, L. Thorneycroft, L.
Porritt, L. Tranmire, L.
Portland, D. Trenchard, V.
Reilly, L. Trumpington, B.
Rochdale, V. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Rodney, L. Vivian, L.
St. Aldwyn, E. Westbury, L.
Saltoun, Ly. York, Abp.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ardwick, L. Howie of Troon, L.
Avebury, L. Hutchinson of Lullington, L.
Blyton, L. Jacques, L.
Bottomley, L. Jeger, B.
Briginshaw, L. Kearton, L.
Brockway, L. Leatherland, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Melchett, L.
Buckmaster, V. Molloy, L.
Caradon, L. Monson, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Moran, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Nicol, B.
Collison, L. Oram, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Davies of Leek, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Rea, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Roberthall, L.
Energlyn, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Ennals, L. Rugby, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Sefton of Garston, L.
Falkland, V. Shinwell, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Foot, L. Stallard, L.
Gaitskell, B. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gallacher, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Galpern, L. Underhill, L.
Gregson, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Grey, E. Walston, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Whaddon, L.
Heycock, L. Wilson of Langside, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.