| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I accept that the cases of the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police are rather different. I am less and less persuaded of the case for these specialist police forces. There is an increasingly strong argument that they should be absorbed into the civilian police, but that is a much larger issue.
I remind the Minister of the long history of the Ministry of Defence Police. When we debated the British Transport Police, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I both raised the parallel with the Ministry of Defence Police. The Government Front Bench spokesman at the time said, XAh, but the MoD Police do not have much contact with the public"—after which we had to remind him about Greenham Common.
My concern began with Menwith Hill and Fylingdales. Extending the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police is not simply to do with the current terrorism Bill. It raises large questions about civil liberties and the kind of demonstrations in which many of us took part in our youth. That is why we wish to circumscribe the extension of these powers as specifically as possible to matters concerned with reasonable suspicion of terrorism.
Lord Bach: I appreciate that the thinking behind many of the amendments is far from absurd. It is concerned with the very important issue of civil liberties, which my noble friend Lord Rooker has dealt with on many occasions. However, it is still my submission that in this instance we may be left with absurd situations if the amendments are agreed to. That is perhaps another way of putting the point.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to a citizen's power of arrest. Of course, the citizen's power of arrest exists, but no one would claim that it is the equivalent of a police officer's power of arrest. If these amendments were agreed to, a Ministry of Defence policeman would not be entitled to stop and search, let alone arrest. The powers of arrest of a citizen are extremely limited and arise mainly where there is certainty that a crime is being or has been committed. Reasonable suspicion is not always enough. A police constable can rely on reasonable suspicion and use a range of powers to prevent a crime occurring and to detain persons to confirm or eliminate criminality. There is a marked difference between the powers given by our laws to a citizen when he or she bravely makes an arrest and the powers given to a police officer when he or she stops and searches someone or makes an arrest.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we do not accept for one moment that the Ministry of Defence Police do not have contact with members of the public. There is enormous contact between that police force and members of the public. Anyone would think that members of the MoD Police dealt only with people in uniform. That is not the case. They police housing estates in which crimes occur; they undergo the same basic training as other constables; and their primary role is to deal with civilians, dependants, contractors, trades people and visitors to sites. We do not concede for a moment that they have less experience of dealing with people than other police officers.
Lord Monson: As I understand it, at the moment, if a Ministry of Defence Police officer or a British Transport Police officer sees a man picking someone's pocket or driving a vehicle with a defective rear light outside a defence establishment or British Rail property respectively, he cannot do anything about it. The Minister is maintaining that this is an absurd situation and that it will continue to be the case if the amendments are accepted—even though picking pockets and driving with a defective rear light are absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, which is the purpose of the Bill.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, prayed in aid my name in support of the amendments. However, I support the Government's provisions. The difficulty with the Armed Forces Bill was that, effectively, the provisions were bounced upon us quite quickly over a quite short time-scale, and therefore the House rightly invited the Government to withdraw them. We have now had more time to think about them, post Armed Forces Bill, and I support the Government's provisions.
Lord Bach: I shall attempt to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The Bill will allow the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police to act on their own only in the circumstances referred to where there is no opportunity to make contact with the civil police.
Where there is a possibility of doing that, and of avoiding the crime, that is their duty. They will be allowed to act on their own only if there is no chance of contacting the civil police—because the offence is immediate or because of the particular circumstances. Members of the public would think it peculiar if someone who was a trained police officer was not able to intervene in such circumstances in order to prevent a crime being committed.
Lord Monson: That is the case at present, is it not? As matters stand, MoD and BTP officers cannot intervene.
Lord Bach: The noble Lord is right. They cannot. They can make a citizen's arrest in certain circumstances, though not necessarily for the type of offence referred to. That is why we are trying to change the law, sensibly on this occasion.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Does my noble friend recall what happened in 1994, shortly before the Lord Mayor's Show? A police constable—admittedly from the civil force, but that is important, as I shall explain—routinely stopped a man who was having trouble with the gears of a van, and who took out a gun and shot him? The van was found to contain explosives. Had that officer been a member of the Ministry of Defence Police or the British Transport Police, he would have had no power to order the man to stop the van and explain what he was doing. These two clauses are important, because they will give such police officers the protection that the civil police would have in those circumstances.
The Earl of Onslow: Has the noble Lord had vast correspondence from the general public and seen leaders in the newspapers saying, XWe cannot allow this anomaly to go on. We must give the Ministry of Defence Police extra powers"? I simply do not believe that.
In the case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the policeman stopped the man purely by accident. It had nothing to do with suspecting that the man was a terrorist. It was because the wretched car would not work. No Ministry of Defence policeman would assume, even now, that because the car was not working he had to stop the man or that he might be shot or find explosives. The 1994 corollary does not wash.
Those of us who are worried about the creeping creation of a national police force would be quite happy to have a general debate on the need for such a force and on its proper constitution. There may be a case for that. But the trouble is that it is being introduced under the guise of something else, by stealth, and without proper thinking behind it. That is the complaint. I am convincible of the need for a national police force. I am not convincible of the need to introduce it in dribs and drabs, without a proper plan.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: If the British Transport Police or the Ministry of Defence Police intervene outside their current jurisdiction using the new powers, can the Minister confirm that Home Office police forces will have primacy over the handling of an incident?
Lord Bach: Yes, I can give that confirmation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for his example. I could give others, but it may not be necessary to do so. I appreciate and respect the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about civil liberties and the need not to change matters just for the sake of it. But I am afraid that, following the events of 11th September, we live in a different world. They woke us up to what terrorists were capable of. Perhaps we should have woken up sooner—I know that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee feel that we should have done so.
The British public would not understand it if an MoD policeman saw some suspicious activity—which could not necessarily be connected with terrorism at the time but which later turned out to be a preliminary act in the course of committing a terrorist offence—and that officer was not able, because of the law, to intervene and possibly stop the event taking place. That is not an attack on civil liberties. That is protecting freedom, is it not?
Lord McNally: The Minister keeps returning to the mantra, XThings changed on 11th September". We all agree on that. But we understand that, tomorrow, the Home Secretary will publish a White Paper on policing which may involve new primary legislation on policing. Surely the noble Lord is not suggesting that in the new post-11th September world we should abandon the normal procedures of parliamentary scrutiny for powers that are sought by the executive. That is the point that Ministers seem unwilling to accept. Following the events of 11th September, there are matters requiring immediacy and urgency that both Houses are ready and willing to concede. But there are other matters which must receive proper scrutiny. I suspect that, tomorrow, the Home Office will announce matters covering the police which will certainly reflect on the events of 11th September, but which will also need the kind of close scrutiny that Parliament must protect and must reserve to itself.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page