Clause
21
Arrest
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
1.45
pm
Mr.
Robertson:
Briefly, and on the same lines as I questioned
the Minister on why it is necessary to extend the powers of the police
under clause 20—I was desperately searching through the
Terrorism Act 2000, but we reached clause 21 before I could find the
relevant provision—will he explain why it is necessary at this
stage to introduce powers that I think he said do not exist for Her
Majesty’s forces, given that we are supposed to be moving
towards
normalisation?
My
second question concerns subsection (1), which
begins:
“If a
member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty reasonably
suspects”.
Are we going
to continue to use “suspects”, or will it be
“believes” in future? I am struggling to understand what
subsection (2) means. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the
situation.
Paul
Goggins:
It is important to recognise a couple of things.
First, members of Her Majesty’s forces do not have a power of
arrest, which we seek to provide them with under limited circumstances.
Secondly, I ask the Committee to consider a situation in which a member
of Her Majesty’s forces is dealing with explosives that have
been found. The Army has the expertise to deal with a threat from
explosives by defusing them and so on. The Army could be called
urgently to a road closure or some other scenario. They might be the
only people in the area; they might get there before the police; or
they might be there because they are the only people who are safe to be
there. If
they came across somebody whom they suspected of
being involved in the commission of the offence of laying explosives,
they would need to have the power to arrest that individual. After the
Terrorism Act 2000 is repealed, they will not have that
power—
Mr.
Robertson:
But they do
now.
Paul
Goggins:
They do at the moment, but they have no powers
other than those conferred by part VII. We need to ensure that they
have the powers, and this clause provides
them.
Lady
Hermon:
That has given me an opportunity to comment on two
curious aspects of the clause. First, I should like some clarification
and assurances from the Minister about the way in which it is drafted.
It states:
“If
a member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty reasonably suspects
that a person is committing, has committed or is about to commit any
offence he may...arrest the person without warrant,
and...detain him for a period not exceeding four
hours.”
What is the
position of an off-duty soldier? The Minister has given us assurances
that the PSNI has powers of arrest and detention under other
legislation, even when part VII of the 2000 Act is dropped. Will an
off-duty member of the PSNI have to stand by and not intervene? And
will they have to call in aid a member of the PSNI who is on duty? What
is the position of an off-duty soldier? It is rather vexing that
community support officers in Northern Ireland will have more powers
than members of Her Majesty’s forces when a person about to
commit an offence.
The
second point is related to that in the sense that subsection (2) states
that a person—meaning a member of Her Majesty’s
forces—
“making an
arrest under this section complies with any rule of law requiring him
to state the ground of arrest if he states that he is making the arrest
as a member of Her Majesty’s
forces.”
For ease of
interpretation, subsection (5) defines“a rule of
law”:
“The
reference to a rule of law in subsection (2) does not include a rule of
law which has effect only by virtue of the Human Rights Act
1998.”
That is
extraordinary. Given the overall content ofthe Bill and, as we
have highlighted, the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission, I am amazed and surprised to find an exclusion whereby a
soldier does not seem to have to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Those are the two points on which I await clarification by the
Minister.
Paul
Goggins:
On the hon. Lady’s first question, the
powers are not conferred on an off-duty solder by this piece of
legislation. An off-duty soldier would, of course, have the power of
citizen’s arrest, in as much as any other member of the public
would have that power if something were happening and they were the
closest person to the situation, but they would not have the powers
conferred under the Bill. Soldiers would have those powers only when
they were on duty. I hope that that clarifies the position. In reality,
there would, of course, be an ongoing Army operation to deal with a
major security threat or serious incident, which would obviously
include only soldiers who were on duty.
Both the hon. Lady and the hon.
Member for Tewkesbury have mentioned subsection (2). When the police
make an arrest, they have to give reasons for doing so. They have to
say that there is a suspicion that the person being arrested has been
involved in the commission of an offence. The police have to give that
information to the person whom they are arresting, which they are
trained to do with great
care.
The Army is not
trained to do that. We therefore propose that it is sufficient for
members of Her Majesty’s forces who make arrests simply to state
that they are doing so as members of Her Majesty’s forces, which
is a simple, straightforward line that they will all be in a position
to use. That provision will empower them to detain the person for up to
four hours. Of course, if the police arrest that person, that person
must be given reasons. If that person is then rearrested and detained
for other reasons, they must be given those reasons, too. However,
because members of Her Majesty’s forces are not trained for
that, because there is no need to train them for that, all they have to
do is say that the arrest is being made by a member of Her
Majesty’s forces, which is sufficient for the powers conferred
under the
clause.
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister clarify for the benefit of the
Committee which rules of law under the Human Rights Act 1998 do not
bind on-duty members of Her Majesty’s
forces?
Paul
Goggins:
There is some confusion here. The hon. Lady is
rarely confused, so I simply say that there must compliance with the
1998 Act and that there is no exemption from that. The 1998 Act still
applies, and it is not suspended in the situations that we are
discussing.
Lady
Hermon:
The Minister has just confirmed that, of course,
all soldiers abide by their human rights obligations. Will he therefore
explain the need to include subsection (5), which, unless my eyesight
is really poor, clearly
states:
“The
reference to a rule of law in subsection (2) does not include a rule of
law which has effect only by virtue of the Human Rights Act
1998”?
Which rules of law
arising only by virtue of the 1998 Act do not bind Her Majesty’s
forces?
Paul
Goggins:
The best scenario is for me to write to the hon.
Lady and give her a fuller answer than I can give her now. I offer her
the wider assurance that the Bill is compliant with the European
convention on human rights and has been carefully drafted as such.
However, I am more than happy to write to her in relation to her point
about subsection (5), if that is
sufficient.
Mr.
Robertson:
On a slightly different point about subsection
(2), the Minister has said that members of the armed forces do not need
to give a reason when making an arrest. Is he comfortable with that? I
accept his explanation that they are not trained to handle such
situations, but there must be a reason why the police have to give a
reason for an arrest. The person being arrested will presumably not
have listened to this
debate and will not know why they have not been given the reasons for
being arrested. Is the Minister comfortable with
that?
Paul
Goggins:
I am comfortable with that, given the kind of
scenario that I remind the Committee we are dealing with, which might
involve extreme risk to life. Obviously it is necessary for a member of
Her Majesty’s forces to offer some explanation, but we have
confined that to saying simply that they are making the arrest as a
member of Her Majesty’s forces. That is sufficient, in the face
of what might be great pressure, for an arrest and detention for up to
four hours. It is a sensible and proportionate measure and, to answer
the hon. Gentleman, I am comfortable with
it.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 21
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
I thank the hon. Member for Foyle, who has just
arrived, for courteously arranging for his office to send a further
message to the Chairman that his plane had been delayed at Belfast City
airport by adverse weather conditions. We welcome him, a little
belatedly, to this afternoon’s
sitting.
Clause
22
Entry
Mr.
Robertson:
I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 22, page 17, line 5, leave
out from ‘in’ to end of line 6 and insert
‘order to prevent paramilitary
activity or to obtain evidence relating to suspected paramilitary
activity.’.
Sir
Nicholas, you are probably aware that one or two other Committee
members have also been delayed by the weather. For example, the
Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes, has
been delayed.
I do
not want to labour my point, as we have hada long discussion
about similar amendments. The amendment deals with the provisions on
entry inclause 22, which
states:
“A
member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable may enter
any premises if he considers it
necessary”.
My amendment
would insert the
words
“in order to
prevent paramilitary activity or to obtain evidence relating to
suspected paramilitary
activity”.
As
the hon. Member for North Down has pointed out, the clause starts by
referring to a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a constable,
but from subsection (2) onwards, it refers only to a constable. If the
rest of the clause referred to members of Her Majesty’s forces
as well, I would not have tabled the amendment. I say that because the
constable has to obtain authorisation, where it is reasonably
practicable to do so,
from
“an officer of the
Police Service of Northern Ireland of at least the rank of
superintendent”.
A member
of Her Majesty’s forces does not, as far as I can read, have to
obtain any authorisation, so I thought it wise to suggest that we might
want to strengthen the reasons for making such an
entry.
Sammy
Wilson:
I appreciate the intention behind the amendment,
but would it not be possible for those involved in organising, for
example, a street riot to dodge into a house to escape arrest, to meet
to arrange further disorder or simply to get away to come out again?
They might not be there as members of a paramilitary group, or even be
engaged in paramilitary activity, but they will be disturbing the peace
and putting people’s lives in danger. In such circumstances,
would the amendment not eliminate rather than extend the ability to
enter
premises?
Mr.
Robertson:
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but
clause 24(1)
states:
“A
member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty who reasonably believes
that a person is unlawfully detained in such circumstances that his
life is in danger may
enter”.
Subsection (2)
states that a member of Her Majesty’s
forces
“may enter a
dwelling...only if he is authorised for the purpose by a
commissioned officer of Her Majesty’s
forces.”
That contradicts
clause 22 slightly.
I
understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am a little
surprised that there is a difference between a constable, who must
obtain authorisation where it is reasonably practicable, and a member
of Her Majesty’s forces, who need not. I will not press the
amendment, which is just a probing amendment to draw out the
Minister’s
explanation.
2
pm
Lembit
Öpik:
I, too, think that the
words
“or the maintenance
of order”
in clause 22(1)
are extremely broad. That could be used as a justification for almost
any entry. Taken in association with subsection (2), which states that
a
“constable may not
rely on subsection (1) to enter a building unless...it is not
reasonably practicable to obtain
authorisation”,
it could
give constables wide latitude to enter buildings. It also seems that
clause 24 is unnecessary. If the Minister insists on the broad
definition under clause 22, I cannot see why a subset of that
definition enjoys its own clause in clause
24.
Paul
Goggins:
The amendment would—the hon. Member for
East Antrim hit the nail on the head—make dealing with the
serious situations with which the powers are intended to deal
unworkable. If the police in effect had to prove a paramilitary link
before they were able to take any action, that might lead to
unnecessary delay, which could have a devastating
effect.
I shall
present a scenario as an example. Two routes lead to a location where
an explosive has been found or where some serious disorder is about to
break out. One is through a public right of way and the other is across
some private land. If we were to accept the amendment, the Army would
have no choice but to go through the public right of way, where they
might suspect that a booby trap was waiting, as unless they could prove
a paramilitary link they would not be able to go across the private
land. We do not want to constrain Army personnel who are dealing with
extremely difficult situations so that they would have to
go to such lengths to deal with what might be a life-threatening
situation. It would certainly have an impact on the operation if they
were not allowed to enter premises without proof of a paramilitary
link. It might even place not only members of the public but Army
personnel in danger. I ask the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to consider
that seriously.
Mr.
Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): The Minister is
making a reasonably convincing point on a narrow issue. Does he agree
that the wording could have been tighter? It is lax and so we have two
extremes, particularly in the example that he has just given the
Committee.
Paul
Goggins:
I am not at this stage convinced that the wording
is too lax, but I made a commitment at the outset that throughout our
deliberations we would look for ways in which the wording could be
tightened and clarified. That is the purpose of the Committee. I will
happily look again at the wording to ensure that it does the job that
we want it to. The key idea is to give the Army the power to deal
quickly with a fast-changing and dangerous scenario.
Hon. Members have mentioned the
safeguards. As set out in the clause, it is clear that the police
should seek written authorisation from a superintendent or oral
authorisation from an inspector. That is the system that the police are
used to, and if time allows that is what they should and would do. The
Army is not used to operating in that way and it is important that in
pressing and difficult circumstances we keep the system as simple as
possible, so the authorisation will not be sought in the same way.
However, the Army and the police are required under the legislation to
make a record of what has happened. That applies equally to the Army as
to the police.
In
relation to the police, we return to the issue of oversight. The police
ombudsman will be able to investigate any allegations if there are
concerns.
Lady
Hermon:
For the benefit of the Committee,will the
Minister identify which subsection obliges a member of Her
Majesty’s forces to have
authorisation?
Paul
Goggins:
I am sorry if I have inadvertently misled the
Committee. I am saying that members of the police must have
authorisation in writing from a superintendent if there is time, or
verbally from an inspector if there is not. A record must always be
made. We are not seeking the requirement of the same system of
authorisation in relation to the Army, because it does not operate
using similar systems. To make that requirement might induce confusion
and uncertainty, which we do not want to do. We will, however, require
a record to be made that can be examined with
hindsight.
Mr.
Robertson:
I was about to make the same point as the hon.
Member for North Down. My reading of the clause suggests that members
of Her Majesty’s forces are not required to make a record. I
understand that—
Paul
Goggins:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Robertson:
Is the Minister intervening on my
intervention?
The
Chairman:
Order. A Member cannot intervene on an
intervention.
Mr.
Robertson:
Secondly, I understand that the Army does not
normally work on an authorisation basis, but when a member of Her
Majesty’s forces on duty reasonably believes that a person is
unlawfully detained in such circumstances that his life is in
danger—there cannot be a more serious situation—he will
have to obtain authorisation under clause 24. Unless I am reading it
wrong, I cannot understand that difference between clauses 22 and
24.
Paul
Goggins:
We are seeking to keep the matter as simple as
possible. The armed forces do not need to make a record because that is
not reasonably practicable in the situations that I have described. I
offer clarification of my earlier remarks: it will not be necessary for
the Army to make a written record. We want to keep the situation clear
and simple for the Army. We want the Army to have the powers in
question and not to have them confused or reduced by a requirement to
prove a connection with paramilitary activity before personnel can act.
The powers will facilitate rapid responses to what might be difficult
circumstances, and they are proportionate and represent the minimum
necessary.
Mark
Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): I apologise again to the Committee
for my absence earlier, which I am sure was welcome to some Members,
considering the number of amendments that we have tabled. I appreciate
your tolerance, Sir Nicholas, and that of the Committee. My
embarrassment is exceeded only by my gratitude for some hon. Members
seeking to assist
me.
Will the Minister
address the point that, like other clauses, clause 22 gives powers not
only to the Army, but to the police? A moment ago, he mentioned that
the police are subject to the police ombudsman. The Army will not be
subject to that process of scrutiny or to a complaints process. Do not
these clauses not only reverse the commitment made by the Governments
in the joint declaration of 2003 and what was enacted last year, but
breach Patten? The Patten report
stated:
“Eventually—and
we hope this will come about sooner rather than later—army
support for the civil power in Northern Ireland should in principle be
no more than it is in any other part of the United
Kingdom”.
Patten also
recommended that
“the law
in Northern Ireland should be the same as that in the rest of the
United Kingdom.”
These
provisions clearly breach that. Patten also
observed—
The
Chairman:
Order. I am always fascinated to listen to the
hon. Gentleman, but this is an intervention, not a speech. Will he put
the particular point that he wishes to make to the Minister in this
articulate intervention?
Mark
Durkan:
I am simply asking the Minister to address the
fact that these provisions breach the Patten vision of policing. That
has serious
implications.
Paul
Goggins:
Patten recognised that there may still be a role
for the Army to play in a situation of extreme public disorder. We
recognise it too. Although the Army stationed in Northern Ireland
beyond July of this year will be a garrison force, we want to make
provision to ensure that, should the situation arise, the Army can act
decisively to protect public order and deal with explosives and other
difficulties.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Foyle, whom I am delighted to see here this
afternoon, missed our discussion on aeroplanes and stop and question,
but he is here anyway and was not stopped and questioned along the way.
On the powers of the police ombudsman, the ombudsman is of course able
to investigate in relation to the
police.
My hon. Friend
will have noticed that the independent reviewer, whose prime purpose is
to review the powers that we are giving the Army and the police under
this part of the Bill, will also have a role to play in dealing with
any complaint that relates to military personnel. Such complaints are
very few and far between. From memory, I think that in the last year
there were perhaps just half a dozen—a small number—so we
do not anticipate that there will be many. There will be fewer still
when there are no Army personnel to be seen on a regular basis on the
streets of Northern Ireland, but we have a provision that will allow
complaints to be made and dealt
with.
Mr.
Bone:
Will the Minister clarify the Government’s
thinking as between clause 22, when a soldier does not need to have
authority, and clause 24, when he does? I just cannot see the
consistency or the logic as to why there should be two different
standards.
Paul
Goggins:
The only explanation I can offer at this stage is
that clause 24 includes the power of search while clause 22 provides
only for the power of entry. Those are different powers and we believe,
on balance, that one requires authorisation while the other does not.
The hon. Gentleman may or may not accept that explanation, but it is
the explanation that I
offer.
Mr.
Robertson:
I had almost forgotten that it was my amendment
we were discussing, as the discussion has gone on for so long. I said
that it was a probing amendment, and we can safely say that we have
probed, but I am not satisfied by the Minister’s response as to
why the personnel we are discussing do not need permission to enter
premises. They are not going to just enter and stand there. Presumably
they are going to do something when they get in. Under clause 24,
however, they need permission to enter, even though that clause seems
to relate to a more urgent circumstance—someone’s life
being in danger.
I
cannot understand the reason for the difference between clauses 22 and
24, and I would be happy if the Minister agreed to discuss that
difference with his officials to see whether the provisions could be
tightened up a little. That said, we have had a good
discussion.
Paul
Goggins:
In the general spirit of the work being done by
the Committee, I am very happy to go away and satisfy myself that the
authorisation powers in clauses 22 and 24 are proportionate and do sit
together.
Mr.
Robertson:
I thank the Minister for that intervention and
look forward to discussing the issue with him further perhaps, but we
have probed and he has been generous and accommodating, so I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
2.15
pm
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Lady
Hermon:
When the Minister goes away to reflect and to try
to satisfy himself that clause 22 is consistent with the wording of
clause 24, will he take with him a copy of Hansard for the
record of our debate on clause 20? During that debate—as I
recall, but Hansard will show—the Minister used words
akin to, “It would be ridiculous if the Army had more powers
than the police.” I highlighted the problem in both clause 20
and clause 22. The difficulty and the confusion has arisen because of
the wording of subsection (1) of the
clauses:
“A
member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a
constable”.
The
Bill then concentrates on giving powers either to the constable under
clause 22 or to a soldier under clause 20. Surely, to be consistent, if
it is indeed ridiculous for the Army to have more powers than the
police, the soldier on duty must have an obligation to take
details—at least to have a record of the building. The
requirements on a police officer under clause 22 mean that he has a
duty and must ensure that
“as soon as is reasonably
practicable a record is made of...the address of the building (if
known)...the location of the building...the date of
entry...the time of entry...the purpose of entry...the
police number of each constable entering, and...the police number
and rank of the authorising officer
”.
That is very detailed.
The Minister said that we do not want to make it too difficult or
cumbersome for the Army; but with the greatest respect, it has been
made very easy for the Army. The drafting of clauses 20, 22 and 24 is
appalling and inconsistent, although I apologise to the draftsmen and
women who work so
hard.
Sammy
Wilson:
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is
making about the apparent difference between the powers of the police
and the Army, but does she not accept that the list in clause 22(6)
shows what most police officers would make as entries their notebooks
in the event of entering
premises?
Lady
Hermon:
Indeed; the hon. Gentleman makes a good
intervention—and he was almost on time this afternoon. Yes, that
is the normal procedure for a constable in the normal course of his
duties.
Those
obligations will be imposed by the Bill, but the curious thing is that,
although clause 22 introduces the words
“a member of her Majesty’s
forces”,
they do not apply in
any other provision in that clause to soldiers on duty. The Minister is
trying to defend the clause, but if he reads Hansard, he will
see that he contradicts what he said in relation to clause 20. That is
the only point that I would make—that the Minister should
reflect on clause 22 to be consistent.
Mark
Durkan:
Clause 22 provides wide powers to enter premises.
It is considered necessary for the police to do so for the maintenance
of public order. The police do not need a warrant and there is no
requirement even for reasonable suspicion. That is worrying when it
applies to the police.
The Government have indicated
that the provision gives the police some flexibility, and they will
argue that police actions will be subject to accountability mechanisms
through the Policing Board and, importantly, through the police
ombudsman. The Government will indicate that there are new safeguards
for police officers getting authorisation. However, those powers are
also being given to the British Army, and the Army will not have to
seek authorisation.
Those powers are meant to be
used in support of the civil power. We are told that the Army will be
acting only in support of the civil power, but none of the civil power
standards will apply. As well as not seeking authorisation, the Army
will not have to keep records, as the police have to do. Those
aggrieved by such Army actions will find no means open to complain.
They may go to the police, who might want to be responsive and
understanding, but the police will not be able to help. That will
create a totally unsatisfactory situation, which breaches the Patten
vision.
In reply to
my earlier intervention, the Minister said that those powers will be
subject to annual review. Patten touched on the question of annual
review if there was unfortunately a need to continue any sort of
special provisions in Northern Ireland. What Patten said in that
respect was that such provisions
“should be subject to annual
independent review and to Parliament’s approval of any or all of
them remaining in
force”—
that is,
annual renewal by Parliament, just as emergency provisions and special
laws always are. We should remember that, under the Bill, there will be
no more annual renewal. The powers will be there
permanently.
How can
the Government justify those wide powers for the Army? I think they go
too far, even in relation to the police, but at least we have some
comfort in accountability of the police service. If we get to
devolution of justice and policing, those powers are likely to be
reserved for legislation by this Parliament, not by the devolved
Assembly. The police service, supposedly under the devolved remit, will
be backed up by the Army—obviously, not under the devolved
remit—and both the police service and the Army will use
controversial special powers, which those in the devolved institutions
will have no right or role in reviewing or amending. That is contrary
to what people envisaged under the Good Friday agreement and the Patten
report.
That is why I
ask the Minister to address the fact that, in relation to matters in
earlier clauses that refer to the courts and now these matters of
continuing the
emergency powers permanently, the Government must think very carefully
about the exact situation that they are creating. They are creating a
situation of quicksand and confusion, and many people leading the new
beginning in the police service will be unhappy about that, whatever
their justification for retaining some powers. I understand that some
officers believe that some powers should be retained, not least in
relation to the possible difficulties that may arise—we hope
that they will not—with parades. The Government are going too
far with permanent sweeping provisions and such wide-ranging
clauses.
Sammy
Wilson:
Is the hon. Gentleman not overstating his case?
First, clause 22(1) clearly specifies a fairly high threshold in so far
as a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a constable must consider
the action necessary. That is a fairly strong statement. It does not
say “suspects” or “believes”; it says
“considers it necessary”. There is a high threshold to be
met.
Secondly,
although the hon. Gentleman made an issue of the fact that the Army
will not be under the same constraints as the police, I cannot think of
any instance when the Army would not be accompanied by the police,
because they are there to help the police and to back them up. The only
situation in which they will be used is when the Chief Constable asks
them to help the police. There will be a police officer present who
must have the authorisation to which the hon. Gentleman
referred.
Mark
Durkan:
The hon. Gentleman’s points are flatly
contradicted by the Bill. If a police officer is always present and if
he needs authorisation, why are Army officers immunised from that need
for authorisation? If they are always accompanied by police officers,
why does the question of a soldier acting without authorisation arise?
Surely, the policeman who can obtain authorisation can act. Similarly,
if the Army will always be accompanied by the police, why is the power
of arrest, which we discussed on other clauses, necessary? The hon.
Gentleman’s argument that the police will always be present is
an argument against the Army having such
powers.
Sammy
Wilson:
In practical terms, when the police and the Army
are involved in joint operations, the arrest may often involve a police
officer and an Army officer or a member of the Army, so they need to be
covered, so that they can jointly take part in such an arrest or
operation.
Mark
Durkan:
Why then has the hon. Gentleman not tabled an
amendment to give the Army the right to exercise those powers only in
circumstances when it is clearly acting in support of the civil power
withpolice officers present, having obtained the proper
authorisation and so on?
The hon. Gentleman said earlier
that clause 22(1) provides a very high threshold and a very high
test—it does not. It simply
says:
“A member
of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable may enter any
premises if he considers it necessary in the course of
operations”.
It does not say that
he must have reasonable grounds; he has only to consider it necessary.
Many people may consider lots of things necessary in such
circumstances, but there is no serious test. In particular, when a
member of the forces is under no requirement to keep a record, we
cannot take the assurance that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I have made the point in
relation other clauses that the Government are reversing legislative
changes that Parliament made in the Terrorism Act 2006. I have still
heard no good explanation from the Minister about why the clear
statements and commitments from the Secretary of State that powers
would be renewed only until 31 July and would then be renewable for one
year only until July 2008 should be overtaken. What has changed in the
prevailing circumstances since the Secretary of State made those clear
unambiguous statements? After all, he was telling us in glowing terms
that things are getting better every day and that all sorts of bad
things are being put behind us. Why, then, are we having to make
emergency legislation permanent? Why, then, are we violating the Patten
vision of
policing?
Paul
Goggins:
First, I assure the hon. Member for North Down
that I will be happy to consider the consistency between the clauses
and my remarks on clause 20. From memory, I think that I was talking
about the Army and the police in the same situation, saying that it
would be ridiculous for the Army to have more powers than the police if
they were both engaged in the same situation. However, I will happily
check and reflect on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Foyle asked about the role of the reviewer. I draw his attention in
advance of our discussions on it to clause 39(1)(b), under which the
reviewer will look at the procedures adopted by the General Officer
Commanding Northern Ireland for
“receiving, investigating and
responding to
complaints.”
The reviewer
must then make a report to the Secretary of State, who will report to
Parliament. There will be considerable scrutiny of any complaint about
military activity. My hon. Friend’s movements suggest that he is
not satisfied with that assurance. I am happy to give
way.
Mark
Durkan:
I remind the Minister that the Patten test was
Parliament’s approval of
“any or all of them remaining in
force”.
Paul
Goggins:
I will come to Patten and the other matters
raised by my hon. Friend in a moment.
My hon. Friend asked about the
renewal of powers. Again, that strays into territory that we are likely
to deal with later in our deliberations. We take the view that the
powers are limited when compared to the part VII powers and that they
will be necessary for some time to come. It seems quite unnecessary to
have to renew them every year, as we anticipate that they will continue
to be necessary. However, using reviewer’s reports to the
Secretary of State and our other monitoring, we will see over time
which of these powers in the Bill are no longer necessary—and
the Secretary of State has the power to repeal them. We prefer to take
that approach, rather than renewing the powers every
year.
Mark
Durkan:
The Minister said that it is necessary for the
powers to remain in place. That may be the Government’s clear
view now, but why has it changed from the clear view expressed by the
Secretary of State and Ministers when the House was debating the
Terrorism Act 2006, which would extend the powers to July this
year—and only in extremis extend them for a further year and no
more? That was the Government’s clear statement then. Are things
worse now than they were last
summer?
2.30
pm
Paul
Goggins:
It would be irresponsible of any Government not
to put in place the necessary powers for the police or the Army to deal
with situations specific to the circumstances in Northern Ireland that
may endanger life. I make no apology for making such
proposals.
Let us
inject some realism into this debate. The Army no longer routinely
patrols the streets of Northern Ireland; as I have said, from the end
of July this year, we will have a garrison fort in Northern Ireland.
That brings me to the issue of proportionality in respect of the powers
that we are giving the Army. The Army would be operational in Northern
Ireland in support of the police only in extreme circumstances, such as
a Whiterock scenario or serious attacks involving explosives. Do my
hon. Friend and others expect the Government to rush back to get the
powers when the Army has to be deployed in Northern Ireland in an
emergency? No, it is much better to foresee any such eventuality now by
putting the powers in place. Every one of us hopes that they will never
need to be used, but if such extreme situations arise, the Army will
need them to protect life and protect
people.
Mark
Durkan:
The Minister says that he regards legislating in
that way as a mark of the Government’s responsibility. Is he
saying that he and the Secretary of State were irresponsible in asking
Parliament to pass the Terrorism Act 2006, which removed those powers,
only months
ago?
Paul
Goggins:
I reject that entirely. It would be irresponsible
if now, in taking the bold step of repealing part VII of the Terrorism
Act 2000, we did not make sure that the police and the Army had
sufficient powers to deal with extreme situations. Pictures of the
serious disorder at Whiterock have been mentioned; I have seen them
too, and other members of the Committee may have seen the reality. No
responsible Minister would not empower the police and the Army to deal
with such situations as they
occur.
The hon. Member
for East Antrim pointed out that clause 22(1) has a high threshold.
Perhaps its most important words
are
“Her Majesty’s
forces on duty”.
As
Northern Ireland moves towards normalisation, the fact that Her
Majesty’s forces are rarely—perhaps never—on duty
should encourage us all. However, if they need to be on duty in support
of the police, they need the powers to act. We are seeking to give them
the minimum powers required to deal with the situations that I have
described.
Question put, That the
clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes
1.
Division
No.
11
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
The
Chairman:
We shall shortly come to clauses that relate to
powers. They are not all interlinked, and I am well aware of the
interest of the hon. Member for Foyle in all of them. He has tabled
amendments that, for good reason, have not been selected. I intend to
allow clause stand part debates on all the clauses, but ask Committee
members to use their discretion and good sense and not to repeat
arguments in each debate. If they wish to have a clause stand part
debate, they should direct any remarks to the details of the specific
clause.
Clause 23
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
3 agreed
to.
| 
