| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), just gave a seriously misleading report--and he had much difficulty in reading it. He said that the Committee had gone through the Bill. Is it not the case that the Committee has been allowed to consider only clause 1 of the Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It may be a point of comment, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Order for Third Reading read.
12.33 am
Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a long, constructive and extremely interesting debate. I recognise that some hon. Members have not had as much time as they would have liked to consider each and every clause of the Bill in detail. However, I believe that we have been able to debate the principal points at issue. In addition, the assurances that have been given on the genuine concerns that have been raised should go far to allay any anxieties. Some hon. Members have deep-rooted reasons for opposing the Bill, and clearly we have not been able to satisfy their concerns. Nevertheless, I believe that we have established to the satisfaction of hon. Members the urgent need for these powers in the face of the terrorist threat. We need to give the police these additional powers if they are to do their utmost to give the people of this country the protection from terrorism that they deserve.
Mr. Beith:
I shall give the Home Secretary the opportunity to allay another point of concern. I refer to proposed paragraph 4A(5) of schedule 5 to the 1989 Act. Are the persons employed by a police authority for the assistance of constables--who are given power under the Bill, if necessary, to use reasonable force for the purpose of performing these functions--civilian employees? Are they people who have been trained to use reasonable force? Have Scottish chief constables been consulted about, and given approval for, the use of civilians, using reasonable force for the performance of those functions?
Mr. Howard:
The intention of proposed paragraph 4A(5) is to allow persons who are not constables to exercise the paragraph 4A powers. Sub-paragraph (5) provides a similar power in Scotland to that provided in England and Wales by paragraph 4A(3), and it is intended that people in the category identified by the right hon. Gentleman will have the powers to which he referred. I believe that the police will exercise discretion and common sense in seeking the assistance of people who
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
The Home Secretary was asked a specific question about consultation with Scottish chief constables. He has manifestly refused to answer it. Will he now kindly do so? Has there been consultation with Scottish chief constables on the point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Will the Home Secretary kindly address the point?
Mr. Howard:
The hon. Gentleman has now asked an entirely different question. [Hon. Members: "No."] The hon. Gentleman has now asked a question about consultation.
Mr. Mackinlay:
The answer is no.
Mr. Howard:
No, the answer is not no, if the hon. Gentleman would contain himself from his sedentary position.
As I said earlier, I discussed these matters with the senior police officer in this country who has responsibility for directing anti-terrorist operations, and Home Office officials discussed the matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. These powers have therefore been discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. I believe that, when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has the opportunity of considering these matters with ACPO Scotland, he will find that its members are as desirous of these additional powers as are their counterparts in England and Wales.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
rose--
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
rose--
Mr. Howard:
I give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Ewing:
This is an interesting exchange. Will the Home Secretary place in the Library a record of the meetings that were held with representatives of the Scottish police superintendents and Scottish police officers? This appears to be a sign that there is now an attempt to apply the prevention of terrorism Act UK-wide. If that is to be the case, surely we need much more substantial debates, and we certainly need to know the response of police officers in Scotland.
Mr. Howard:
I must correct, in one minor detail, what I said a moment ago. I am told that I said that Home Office officials discussed the matter with ACPO Scotland.
Mr. Howard:
I should have said Scottish Office officials, because it was Scottish Office officials who were engaged in those discussions with ACPO Scotland.
I confess that I do not entirely follow the drift of the point raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We have made clear from the outset the way in which the
powers are to be exercised and the territorial areas to which they apply. The main prevention of terrorism Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland; there are different provisions in Northern Ireland. As I made plain from the outset--in my statement yesterday--all the powers save the one that is not at present available in Northern Ireland would be confined to Great Britain under the Bill, but the one that is not at present available in Northern Ireland would be legislated for on a United Kingdom basis. There has been no doubt about that; I made it clear from the outset.
Mr. Wallace:
I wonder when the Home Secretary last read the 1993 report of Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland--specifically, paragraphs 47 to 51, which relate to the use of civilian employees in the police force--which clearly categorises what is appropriate for civilian employees and what is not. What training has been made available to civilian employees so that, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, they may exercise the powers that the Home Secretary has given them under the proposed paragraph?
Mr. Howard:
I freely confess to the House that I am not familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report of the inspectorate in Scotland. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The police will have every opportunity to ensure that, in exercising the powers, they do not seek the assistance of those who have not received the appropriate training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the police are extremely careful about the need to train anyone with particular responsibilities. That applies as much to those who assist the police in discharging those responsibilities as to anyone else. I think that I can confidently make that assertion and give that assurance, even without being familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Salmond:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to display his ignorance of the situation in Scotland in the absence of any Scottish Office Minister on the Government Front Bench to advise him of what he should know already?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Howard:
I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not responsible for the police in Scotland: that is why I have told the House that I am not familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred. I shall now resume the points that I was making.
Mr. Wallace:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary says, quite rightly, that he is not responsible for the police in Scotland. However, the legislation to which we are being asked to give Third Reading includes clauses that relate specifically to Scotland. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you recollect any Bill coming before the House containing provisions for which there was no Minister responsible on the Treasury Bench? Is that not a serious dereliction of duty by the Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I repeat that it is a matter for the Government, not for the Chair.
Mr. Howard:
If my hon. Friend will contain himself for a moment, I shall content myself with making this observation: none of those hon. Members who have risen to proclaim the extent of their concern about the Bill's application to Scotland deigned to come into the Chamber during the former proceedings. They were not present during the Second Reading of the Bill, during the discussions about the timetabling of the legislation or during any of the considerations in Committee. If they were serious in their concern about the Bill's application to Scotland, they would have been present for those discussions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |