Armed Forces Bill

The analysis of my right hon. Friend is wholly right. Clause 83 introduces a strange little power: the power of a judge advocate to authorise entry and search. Clause 84 provides definitions for the purposes of clause 83. The matter is important. A point was raised during the consideration of the last Armed Forces Bill following the experience of journalists who were accused of undertaking various underhand acts in the course of their journalistic activities. I recall that there was a case involving a house that was entered and searched by Ministry of Defence police, although no one seemed to know whether they should have been there. I suspect that the measures are designed to tidy up the situation. It is all very strange. Subsection (4) refers to the terms"““‘Items subject to legal privilege’, ‘excluded material’ and ‘special procedure material’””." We are told that these definitions have the same effect as those in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. An example of ““excluded material”” includes"““personal records (such as medical records and journalist’s materials) if held in confidence. An example of special procedure material is a journalist’s material not held in confidence.””" That has got the journalist both ways. I seek clarification as I want to find out what is going on. I suspect that all sensible journalists will have gone off to bed or down to the pub, so they will not have heard me tonight. However, if they catch up with clause 84, they might have something to say. I certainly support clause 99(6). It deals with limitations on custody without charge. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew that the clause would be put into the Bill. There is a 48-hour maximum allowed in the context of limitations on custody without charge. Custody after charge is limited to eight days. That sounds pretty sensible to me and I am happy to support the provision. I move on to clause 155(4)(d), which is the constitution of the court martial. This is fascinating. A chaplain cannot be a member of a court martial. Does that apply to other faiths—for example, to religious personnel, to Sikhs and to Muslims? We are delighted that the Minister has invited them to perform some of the roles that traditionally the Christian chaplains have carried out. I want to know why chaplains are specifically mentioned and whether that applies also to ““chaplains”” of other faiths. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made a passionate speech. I understood so much of what she was getting at. I would like to know one day what she thinks about clause 162, dealing with courts martial rules. An interesting argument arises. I have been to a few courts martial, sometimes to see constituents who have been involved in them. One of the problems is the mumbo-jumbo. For example, there were swords on tables pointing in particular directions and there was the question of whether headgear should be worn. All these things that have grown up over hundreds of years of military tradition are no more than mumbo-jumbo to ordinary people. I suspect that if some of the mumbo-jumbo was taken out of the process, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and her constituents would be reassured and their confidence would grow. Perhaps it is a similar argument to whether judges should wear full-bottomed wigs and so on.