Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may say as someone who was in Grosvenor Square at least on two occasions, not very far from a police horse as wellthat was a very existential moment in my lifethat at the time those demonstrations were not at all described as peaceful. At the time they were thought to be very sinister and dangerous.
It is easy now to say, XOh yeah, at that time we were benevolent, everybody was happy and had flowers in their hair". It was not like that at all. Every Home Office Minister at every demonstration described those demonstrations as sinister. That is what the Home Office is for and that is why we have a Home Office. I think, in retrospect, the attitude to major demonstrations in the past couple of years was very alarming. The Government are frightened of people just demonstrating.
There may be more anarchiststhey were all Trotskyites or communists in the 1960sbut it remains true that many demonstrators, whether masked or not, are not violent. They are not intimidating anyone, unless the police take that view. If the police decide to hem them in, as happened last May, problems occur and then we have arrests.
I do not want to say much more than that, but in my view this particular part of the Bill has elevated demonstrators into terrorists, or has removed much of the difference between them. From being intimidating masked animal liberation fighters, to make them into Al'Qaeda terrorists, is a leap of several degrees. I think that we shall regret that. That is all that I can say.
Sadly, the provision will pass, but we shall regret it. It is not a minor extension of existing powers, it is a major attack on people's right to demonstrate.
Lord Rooker: I disagree with the last words spoken by my noble friend Lord Desai. Clause 94 is not major. It will become new Section 60AA in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The 1994 Act itself gives police powers to require the removal of face coverings worn for the purpose of concealing identity, and to seize any such items. Clause 94 amends the face-coverings power only so that an authorisation can be given where an inspector reasonably believes that activities may take place in an area that are likely to involve the commission of offences. That is a modest and proportional extension of existing police powers.
I should not have raised the issue in the first placeI realise thatbut I think that my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff would be proud to be part of the Labour Government that ensured that this country was not sucked into the Vietnam War, and that issues were freely raised and campaigned about. I realise how those demonstrations were described in those days, but I do not remember anyone wearing a face mask. A lot of them became television stars. Some of them have made an industry out of it for the past 30 yearsI could name one person, but I shall not.
In a mature democracy, we should embrace people who want to demonstrate and air their views; the point is how they go about it and their effect on others who are neutral. We are here dealing with intimidation and possible criminal activity. That is why Clause 94 is wholly justified.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful that we have had this discussion, if only because I learnt that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Desai, appear to have enjoyed the same riotous youth. That is interesting.
We have gone over the principles of the debate sufficiently this afternoon, so we should not pursue the detail any further. We must think carefully about what the Minister said about the clause and related amendments.
Clause 95 [Powers to require removal of disguises: Northern Ireland]:
Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 159:
The noble Lord said: It occurred to me that we might make separate arrangements for Government Members who want to announce that they were in Grosvenor Square in 1968. I cannot believe that the Minister was talking about the Foreign Secretary when he mentioned someone who has made a career about his presence there. I am sure that that was furthest from his mind.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland, introducing the clause in the Commons, said:
Lord Rooker: I referred to Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 earlier. We have to legislate separately for Northern Ireland, but the issues are the same, so I should only repeat myself if I gave again the answer that I gave then.
Lord McNally: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 159A not moved.]
Clause 98 [Jurisdiction of MoD police]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 160:
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 160 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 163. They raise the same point in relation to Clause 98, which deals with the Ministry of Defence Police, and Clause 100, which deals with transport police, as were raised in the first group of amendments that we discussed today. It is superfluous to repeat everything that was said then. I simply reiterate that those arguments are as valid for these amendments as they were then. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I rise to support the amendment. It was with a sinking feeling that we found the clauses in the Bill. They are highly familiar to me as a former defence spokesman for my partythey are, indeed, exactly the same as the clauses that we were discussing under the Armed Forces Discipline Bill just before the election. We have a range of fundamental questions about whether the provisions are necessary to the Bill. The amendments seem to us to be the absolute minimum that we can do to link the provisions to the anti-terrorist procedures, rather than simply slipping through something that failed to be passed before the election.
Earl Attlee: I apologise for not flagging up the issue that I want to raise by means of an amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an answer. If not, I am sure that the Committee will understand why.
The Minister will have thought carefully about introducing the provisions for the MoD Police, but what about the service policethe Royal Military Police, the RAF Police and the Royal Naval Police? I appreciate that they must be the subject of a reserved power under the affirmative resolution procedure, but did the Minister consider the position of the service police when he discussed the Bill with colleagues?
Lord Bradshaw: I rise to speak to the amendment concerning the British Transport Police. The British Transport Police is a substantial body of people spread throughout the country. They have long laboured under the disability that if a miscreant is found on railway premises, they are unable to pursue him beyond the boundary fence. They cannot chase someone into the street or over the fence, because their powers as police constables lapse when they reach the open air, as it were. Unlike the Ministry of Defence Police, or the nuclear police force, they are trained at Ashford as ordinary constables. Basically, they are an unarmed police force.
The Minister told us that there was a trawl of measures from the shelves of various ministries and that some of those measures have been put into the Bill. For reasons of safety, it is important that transport police officers should be given an extended jurisdiction so that they can pursue miscreants beyond the boundaries of railway premises. While I fully support the premise that the extension of powers to combat terrorism should form the sole impetus of the Bill, we have long awaited an extension of the area of jurisdiction of the British Transport Police. I hope that, whatever decision is taken as a result of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the power of the British Transport Police to act as constables with the same jurisdiction as other constables will be introduced, subject to the approval, where it is appropriate, of the local police force.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who made similar remarks in a debate on an Unstarred Question which I tabled on 13th November, which drew attention to the consultation paper on the future of the British Transport Police entitled Modernising the British Transport Police. The provision in Clause 100 of the Bill is not a last-minute proposal; rather it is a power that has been needed for a long time. At present the proposal is moving through a process of consultation and the Government's proposals for extending jurisdiction have received widespread support both in this House and outside. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I hope that there will be no weakening as regards the inclusion of Clause 100 in the Bill.
In the debate on the Unstarred Question the noble Lord, Lord Condon, described the BTP as an,
For all those reasons, it is important that we support Clause 100 and take advantage of the provisions of the Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police in order to allow them to carry out their job outside railway premises. It must be done in order to protect us all.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page