| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, like noble Lords in every part of the House, I fully accept that special powers of the kind about which we are talking today must be given to the police. It is regrettable, but I believe that it is a fact that we must face. The whole question is how those powers should be given to the police.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan--whom I followed as Home Secretary four or five years later--I, too, was ignorant about what was going on. I was astonished when I saw figures of 1,300 and even higher quoted in what appeared to be reasonably authoritative reports. I can only assume that what was going on was unlawful. I find that shocking. I am also shocked that I did not know about it, but that is another matter which for the moment I do not want to press. I am grateful to the Government for the fact that they have taken the initiative in making lawful that which was unlawful so that at least the unlawful work can stop. But I cannot agree with the way in which they propose to do it.
I welcome the substantial amendments tabled by the Government. Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I do not disagree with them. However, they fail to get to the root of the problem. I have great difficulty in knowing what I should vote for, but I know what I must and will vote against. I must vote against the police being given greater authority to do these awful deeds--which I agree they must have authority to do--by anything other than judicial authority. That is an absolutely fundamental point. If we went the other way we might not regret it in three or four years. But perhaps 20 years from now our successors will look back and regard our allowance of the provision as something of which we should be thoroughly ashamed.
I believe that the House has a difficult decision to take. Do we really have to make a final decision today? If I have to vote for one of the amendments, on the whole the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, convinces me more than the Labour amendment, simply because of the practicalities: the number of cases involved and the need to get a judicial opinion quickly without too many exceptions as permitted in the Labour amendment.
However, I would rather not make a final decision today. I am far from an expert on procedure; I must be one of the greatest inexperts in the House. I understand that the House has very flexible methods of procedure and that it can do things which can never be done in the other place as late as Third Reading. Is it not possible between now and Third Reading to have all-party consultations to try to arrive at a proposal that is acceptable to all? I honour what the Government are doing but I shall vote against it because I must vote against anything that permits authority to be given other than in a judicial manner.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may intrude a dissenting note into the debate. I become increasingly worried about the tone of some of the speeches that have been made. I yield to no one in this place in being very proud and relieved to live in a tolerant and stable democracy. It follows from that that the authorities in the nation, of whichever party or government, have to be watched. The organs of state power must be constantly watched, whether they are the Army or the police. All evidence indicates that when that is not done democracy is at risk.
But the speeches that I have heard paint a picture of a nation that is faced with a major threat from the police. I am not so worried about the police. From time to time,
there are bad eggs who usually finish up serving a very unpleasant period in gaol, and rightly so. I have no quarrel with that. I recognise also that there are bad eggs in the legal profession. In a rhetorical question the noble Lord asked whether Robert Maxwell was a criminal. I am not qualified to say whether or not he was, but I am convinced that if he had come to trial there would have been a queue of advocates prepared to swear that he was not.We now face the problem of sophisticated crime which enjoys the patronage of whole governments and financial resources from drug dealing. I am very worried about three particular problems. First, I am worried about organised international drug dealing which controls whole governments in parts of the Far East and South America. During Christmas and New Year I was in the Far East. In the so-called golden triangle one is not dealing with small groups of criminals but armies of 25,000 men under arms and governments that are totally and completely in the pockets of dealers of considerable sophistication and wealth. I am also concerned about terrorists. Our domestic terrorists used to be located in Northern Ireland, Eire and the UK mainland. Their activities are now worldwide. They are frequently trained by other nations, for example, Libya. The third leg of the threat is international money-laundering.
I recognise that one has to surrender some traditional values. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, under whom I had the honour to serve when he was Home Secretary, the world has changed since those days. If anyone had suggested during that period when Labour was in government that the City of London would be surrounded by a ring of steel it would not have been accepted. In those days school children stood outside No. 10. There are now steel gates and armed police outside No. 10. I had never seen an armed policeman until the 1960s. Today, if one goes to Gatwick to take one's kids on holiday one sees the place full of policemen carrying sub-machine guns. That situation is reflected throughout the entire world because major crime today is different. This Bill is concerned with direct challenges to the state, not burglars or those who steal car radios or petty criminals. To deal with that the police must have powers to combat it.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, no one is saying that they should not have such powers.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, says that no one suggests they should not have such powers. I totally agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, summed it up very well in a letter to the Guardian in which he said that the difference between us was whether the police should have to seek prior support or authority for the actions that they took. That is a very narrow and clear issue. I express it in terms of accountability. One cannot manage any operation efficiently unless the people who take the final decision are clearly and absolutely publicly accountable. One cannot hold those people accountable if they are second-guessed by someone else. The judges have powers and roles that are crucial, but on the whole they do not have operational experience. They have not been
involved in exercises that may have taken place over weeks, months or even years in great detail and complexity; nor do they have the feel for it. If we have lack of faith in police officers at the level we are discussing then we should look at a complete reorganisation of the police force. We cannot expect to have proper policing if, against the resources with which those people are now faced, and in such circumstances, they have to keep asking a judge, "Is it all right if we take the next step?"; and the judge may well be wrong.I apologise for interrupting this tirade about the police. To return to my opening point, I share all the worries, desire and jealousy of the society in which we live. Our society is under threat as never before from internationally financed and organised crime on a major scale. The days of Dixon of Dock Green are long gone. We are now forced to take another step.
It is said that we want to protect our privacy. Every time I walk through an airport I have my luggage X-rayed and my hand baggage searched. I am personally searched, and when returning from the Far East the chance of being searched for drugs is even higher. We all accept that--not because we want to, but because that is the reality of modern life. If we ask police and Customs officers to risk their lives and fight this battle, let us not tell them that they may do it only if they seek judicial authority from someone who carries no responsibility for the operation and has never been involved in operational activities before they can take the steps they believe are necessary.
5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is known and liked in this House for his eccentricity. I most respectfully point out to him on behalf of the very respectable profession to which I have the honour to belong that it is not a habit in our criminal courts for advocates to swear as to the innocence of their clients--
Lord Marsh: They imply their innocence.
Lord Mishcon: I promise the noble Lord that, in the unlikely event of his appearing before any court, civil or criminal, he will appreciate the services of the advocate who appears on his behalf in order to present the best case that he can. That is an advocate's duty.
It has already been said, by way of slight interruption to the noble Lord's remarks, that nobody has so far advanced a case for the non-inclusion of the rights of the police such as we are discussing. Therefore, to tell the horror story of what would happen if these powers were not given does not exactly help the debate.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I obviously did not express myself clearly. As I said in answer to an interjection from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I make no argument that
police powers are being restricted or blocked. I am simply saying that, very narrowly, the argument relates to whether the authorisation should be after or before.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |