Written question asked by Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat) on Thursday, 8 July 2004, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Wednesday, 21 July 2004. It was answered by Adam Ingram (Labour) on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

Ministry of Defence

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when and in what circumstances Ministers were first informed of the practice of hooding; what the nature of the practice was; and what the reasons were for its abandonment. - (Holding answer 20 July 2004).

Answer: Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and in what circumstances Ministers were first informed of the practice of hooding; what the nature of the practice was; and what the reasons were for its abandonment. [183944] Mr. Ingram: [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The hooding of detainees for the purposes of arrest or transit was a standard procedure for United Kingdom troops prior to Operation Telic and, as such, was not specifically brought to the attention of Ministers. The UK believes that hooding during arrest and transit is acceptable when there is a strong military reason, for example to offer security to our own forces and locations or to provide protection to the detainee (through the prevention of identification by other detainees). Military commanders became aware that the practice of hooding could be harmful to prisoners, especially if it was applied inappropriately. They judged that these concerns outweighed the military justification for the continued use of hooding as a means of blindfolding, and that the most prudent, immediate response was to introduce a ban.

Secondary information

Type: Written question
Reference: 183944; 424 c266W
Session: 2003-04
Subjects: Codes of practice Detainees Armed forces Iraq Inhuman treatment Prisoners Peacekeeping operations Restraint equipment
Link: View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk