House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Apr 1996 (pt 33)

9.31 pm

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth): In their contributions, most hon. Members sought to deal with the Bill sensibly and reasonably. The only exceptions were the partisan comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and the ill-judged contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), which must have been particularly embarrassing for the Home Secretary, who has not been partisan in dealing with the measure.

I have sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire): that fear and concern is shared by his ordinary constituents. I have shared that experience because a grandmother attended my surgery last week to ask whether it was safe for her grandchildren to have a day trip in London. We need to offer as much reassurance and protection as we can to ordinary people who have such fear.

I say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne that we must take care because balance is required in providing new powers to the police and other authorities. Our case is simply that we are satisfied with the restrictions that were put in place by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and which apply here. I was greatly involved in the Committee that scrutinised that measure. I seem to have been kept busy on many Bills introduced by the Home Secretary over the past few years. He will know that each of those Bills was carefully scrutinised and challenged in Committee. We try to explore the Government's intentions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, in examining the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill we were satisfied, following discussions, that it struck the right balance between the exercise of its powers and the limits that were placed on them to prevent their misuse by the police. That is different from the conditions that existed under the sus laws, as my hon. Friend rightly said.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made a thoughtful contribution about the problems across the different parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. His speech went well beyond the scope of the Bill. The House will have to return to what he said in due course, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path now.

What underlies our debate is that people throughout Great Britain have been shocked and appalled by the return to violence. Without that, we should not be faced

2 Apr 1996 : Column 248

with our current serious dilemma--the balance between protecting civil liberties in a free society and protecting the safety, liberty and rights of innocent members of the public. We have sought to get that balance right, which is why we support the Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): The hon. Gentleman said that he supported the Bill. Will he therefore condemn the 40-odd Opposition Back Benchers who wish to defy him? Does he not agree that their defiance would send a very unfortunate message to those who want to be protected from terrorism, and could constitute an invitation that might be little short of disastrous?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady should not follow the partisan line taken by her hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. I think that the public will understand what is happening today perfectly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has made our position absolutely clear. If there is any embarrassment, it has been created by petty partisan contributions such as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are always hon. Members on both sides of the House who raise issues that are different from those raised by Front Benchers, but important points have been raised, and assurances sought, by Opposition Members who have engaged in a reasonable debate, and it is to their points that I seek to respond.

In general, the Bill clarifies the law and expands on certain aspects of the 1994 Act, rather than introducing draconian new powers. I was surprised by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), which seemed rather confused. His speech on 28 November 1974, which was referred to earlier, made exactly the point that I am making about the need for strong measures balanced with appropriate safeguards. In his speech today, he predicted that young people would be stopped and searched. I see no justification for that prediction in the Bill as it stands, or any indication that--as he seemed to suggest--members of ethnic minorities have been stopped and searched to a disproportionate extent as a result of the provisions of the 1994 Act. There have been other provisions, and on occasion the police have used their powers in a way that has seemed to affect young people or ethnic minorities disproportionately; that is appalling when it happens, but it does not appear to have happened as a result of the 1994 Act, and I do not think it likely that it will happen as a result of this Bill.

Hon. Members have expressed realistic fears about the way in which police powers may be misused unless the right protections are built in. The police need genuine, meaningful powers to intervene when necessary, and those powers must be protected by mechanisms to preclude their misuse. That is what we want; it is what the police want; it is what the public want; and, I believe, it is what the Home Secretary wants, because that is the sort of point on which he has given us assurances. The public have a right to expect the Home Secretary and the House to get the balance right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to the powers of non-territorial police forces. I am always slightly unsure how to refer to them--whatever phrase is used seems to leave someone out--but an example is the powers of the British

2 Apr 1996 : Column 249

Transport police between stations, rather than on railway property. We drew attention to that anomaly during the passage of the Bill that became the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, and sought to correct it, suggesting that the British Transport police should have the powers of a constable but should exercise them in the support of the local police, or under the supervision of the local police, in such circumstances. That anomaly is not a matter for this Bill, but it must be tackled at some point.

My hon. Friend also referred to the parks police and others. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position. My understanding is that the Bill's powers are in the hands of the territorial forces, headed by the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and the City of London police and chief constables of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and not by specialised forces. In general it seems inappropriate for specialised forces to have such powers. I make that point in particular because, in debating the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, we found that the long list of police forces included such organisations as the Barnet dog catchers. If we extended the powers beyond the territorial police forces, we would therefore get into difficult territory. It would help if the Home Secretary would clarify the powers.

A number of points appropriate to Second Reading were made by a number of my hon. Friends in the debate on the guillotine motion, which was opposed by the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists. I hope to reassure them by supplementing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.

Let us consider the powers in the Bill. Clause 1 confers the power to stop pedestrians and search anything carried by them. It extends only to the searching of outer garments. Surely that is not a massive and draconian extension of the powers available to the police.

I can understand how, on first reading the Bill in isolation from the legislation that it amends, my hon. Friends could have come to a different conclusion, but if they read the Bill, the earlier debate and the legislation that it amends, I cannot see how they can conclude that the power is extreme or draconian. It is also subject to the limitations in the existing legislation.

Clause 2 refers to the search of non-residential premises. We all know from our constituencies that garages are often built in rows. It is unreasonable under the present legislation that permission has to be given to search individual premises when there is a more general fear about the use of a collection of premises. That power is hardly major and draconian either.

Clause 3 relates to unaccompanied goods arriving in or about to leave Great Britain or Northern Ireland. With the decline of the capacity of the powers of customs to deal with many cargoes coming into or going out of the United Kingdom--we have certainly seen worrying signs of that in places such as Cardiff Wales airport--it is surely right that the powers, to which clause 3 refers, should be strengthened, as the Bill proposes.

Clause 4 gives the police power to establish a temporary cordon in a police area. The requirements mirror some of those in previous legislation because they require a senior officer to decide that it is expedient to make use of the powers. Clause 4(3) limits it to applying to acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.