| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): That is astonishing.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, it is. People will want the police to be given that power now, before it is too late.
The public will also be astonished to learn that the police are not able to cordon off an area while they are looking for a bomb or to impose temporary parking restrictions outside Government buildings and royal buildings. I thought that the police had always had such powers, and it is amazing for us in Parliament, and just as amazing to people outside, to learn that they do not have them. The people will want the police to have those powers now, before it is too late.
If those powers do not exist now, surprisingly and astonishingly, they need to exist, and I am sure that the public will give full-hearted support to them. After all, the protection of citizens and visitors to our country--tourism is an important part of our industry and trade--from death and mutilation is one of the clearest responsibilities of Parliament and has been recognised as such by all responsible parties in the House.
Despite his denial, it must be very embarrassing for the hon. Member for Blackburn that between 30 and 40 of his supporters do not believe that those additional powers are necessary. They would like us to take so long discussing them, day after day, or week after week, or month after month, that the terrorists could get on with exploiting the lacunae in the law in order to bomb more of our territories.
Certain Opposition Members argue that the threat to the civil liberties of the individual outweighs the threat to the civil liberties of the entire nation. That majority, however, has a right to feel safe and to be safe. An Opposition amendment calls for the word "reasonable" to be inserted instead of "expedient"; another that the word "pedestrian" should be followed by the words "or cyclist"; another states that
and another states:
That is all interesting stuff, but not when we are dealing with terrorists who blow people and their property to pieces. I accept that those amendments may be important to some Opposition Members, but they are not important to most people in this country.
I am concerned about civil liberties. All my legal life has been dedicated to them and I do not take any lectures from anyone in the House about the need for civil liberties. But there are civil liberties and civil liberties--[Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is getting angry. I wonder why, if he is so supportive of the Bill.
Mr. Michael:
This is a pathetic speech.
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
I can understand the hon. Gentleman being irritated that so many of his colleagues--between 30 and 40 of them--intend to divide the House against the Bill because they think that it is unnecessary. I can understand him being embarrassed. As I said, there are civil liberties and civil liberties, but some civil liberties are more important than others. The civil liberty of the individual's right not to be searched is one thing, but the right of the British public to walk freely in the streets without bombs is the greatest of civil liberties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has said, it is difficult to see why some Opposition Members can complain that the Bill will infringe civil liberties. The stop-and-search powers can be used only in limited areas and only for 28 days, and then only with the authority of the chief constable or an assistant chief constable. A prosecution can be brought only if the Director of Public Prosecutions says so. Non-residential searches can be carried out only with a magistrate's warrant, if it has been applied for by a superintendent, and it can last for only 24 days. We know that these provisions are useful and that they can work because they work in Northern Ireland--and the only one that has not applied to Northern Ireland will now be applied under the legislation.
The public have a right to expect more protection--and they have a right to expect it now. The police, on our behalf, have a right to expect these powers--and they have a right to expect them now, because they are at the front line of our defences.
I feel sorry for hon. Members who lead for the Opposition because their colleagues have asked questions such as: why are so many people being stopped and so few people being charged? They have a blind spot about the fact that if these pieces of legislation are in place, they are a deterrent to the kind of terrorism and activity that goes on. There is a much more practical side to these provisions than interference with the civil liberties of individuals.
Mr. Gerrard:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Time is short because his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made a long speech.
Who will be most unhappy when the legislation is passed? That question can be answered in only one way: the terrorists. That justifies the legislation.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed):
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) expressed astonishment on behalf of the public that all of the powers in the Bill are not already on the statute book. He is a practising lawyer, he is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and he is prominent in his party. The Government have been in power for 17 years and they have introduced criminal justice legislation and prevention of terrorism legislation every year, including a Bill three weeks ago. It is therefore a bit much for the hon. and learned Gentleman to express astonishment that these powers are not on the statute book. It has taken the Home Secretary a little time to make up his mind whether the legislation is desirable and he has left the House with almost no time at all to work out whether it is desirable.
I start from the assumption that the IRA is likely to plant a bomb at any time, an assumption that I continued to hold during much of the ceasefire as I am very suspicious about its intentions. None of our security forces should be varied simply because ceasefire discussions are in process; they should be varied only when we perceive that the security threat has diminished. That is the background against which I judge this legislation. I therefore think it quite reasonable that the police should seek to clarify the powers within which they carry out searches, cordons and other activities referred to in the legislation. I insist that, for the most part, these are things that they do now but which they need greater clarity to do.
In the limited time available to us in Committee, we have to ask: does the legislation achieve that purpose? Does it do so with unnecessary restriction on civil liberties? Could it be improved so that it serves its purpose better or so that it places less limitation on civil liberties? Could there be more effective safeguards? Because we believe that the police are right to seek more effective powers and that the Bill represents a reasonable attempt to do that--give or take improvements that we might make--Liberal Democrats will vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill; we shall not abstain.
I refer to the specific features of the Bill. The stop-and search-power is restrictive--it needs to be authorised for a given area and it is limited to 28 days. The worry is that it is not related to the belief that any individual being searched is carrying materials likely to lead to a terrorist act. When one creates a cordon or tries to deal with a situation in which one expects a bomb to be brought into an area, one has to search a large number of people who one knows very well are not likely to be carrying it. One has to carry out a general search in those circumstances. It is important to be clear that one does that only if there
is an apprehension that a bomb is likely to be brought into the area, on the basis of intelligence information or something of that kind. General searching would not otherwise be justified.
There are then powers for a general search of non-residential premises on a magistrate's warrant. Such searches must be exercised with care as it would be seriously counter-productive to lead an entire community to believe that it is being targeted because a warrant is issued to search every garage in the area. On the whole, the public are very supportive of that type of activity--indeed, they are pleased to see the police making a careful check--but the power might be counter-productively used in some circumstances and should therefore be exercised with care.
Obviously, something should be done to give powers to deal with goods on an aircraft or ship not carried by a passenger, but some of the provisions are slightly worrying. For example, subsection (2) of clause 3 creates an offence of seeking
I can imagine the fury that would be generated in the luggage collection area of an airport if passengers were unsure whether their luggage had been delayed by the baggage handlers, the airline or a security firm searching it on behalf of the police. I have seen irate people complain vigorously to airline staff in those circumstances. If they are then told, "Any more cheek like that and you will be charged with seeking to frustrate the object of a search," relations between the police and public might be impaired. I am therefore worried about the formulation of that offence.
There are also anxieties about precisely who in Scotland is authorised to use reasonable force in seeking to carry out a search. It appears on the face of the Bill--my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will wish to refer to this if we are allowed to reach that point in Committee--that persons who are not police officers will be authorised in Scotland to use reasonable force when carrying out a search. That will include persons who are not trained in the restrained use of force, and it needs to be clarified.
"a constable shall be regarded as in uniform only if his identification number is clearly visible";
2 Apr 1996 : Column 238
"any person so stopped shall on being stopped be given the warrant number of the constable stopping him.".
"to frustrate the object of . . . a search".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |