Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. We should all recognise that we are at the core of the problem with which we have had to deal in regard to this Bill from day one. The problem is that this is a special Bill, brought before Parliament to deal with a special situation. It has been drafted in haste and considered with immense speed. The consequence of that is that we now have difficulties with it.
We think that the restriction that we have placed on the proposed change to the Bill is appropriate. The Government pointed out that the way in which it was originally drafted went too far and we seek now to
draw back from that position. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for doing so in his amendment.It is not my job to tell the Government how to escape the dilemma, but given that we may be sitting around for some time tonight, perhaps they can come up with a better form of words. However, in the event that they do not do so, they will have to be satisfied with our efforts, whether or not they are perfect.
I return to my opening remarks: we are at the heart of the problem of legislating in this fashion. If that had not had to be done, we should not be facing the current dilemma. I support the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, before the Minister rises to speak, perhaps I may make my position clear. I support Clause 100 as it stands. I believe that the British Transport Police need the powers contained in the clause, but I do not know enough about the MoD police to comment.
The Government are currently consulting on a properly constituted police authority for the British Transport Police, as well as a proper complaints procedure. Those developments will bring the BTP entirely into line with the civil forces. Aside from what was brought to our attention by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwarkthat is, that the legislation may take some time, I believe that, in the case of the British Transport Police, such legislation is probably imminent. However, I am not asking about it at this point. Nevertheless, the consultation process is well under way and I think that legislation is likely to be enacted.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I wish to add simply that the situation in regard to the MoD police is clearly different from that of the British Transport Police. Major questions still need to be discussed and I am grateful for the informal talks that have been held.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, made an interesting speech, it did not have anything to do with terrorism or with the emergency situation. The sensitive matters covered in this part of the Bill would be better dealt with in a police reform Bill, which we have been promised, rather than in emergency terrorism legislation.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should tell noble Lords that I have nothing new to say. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that this goes to the heart of the problem. It certainly does that.
Some noble Lords and, indeed, some Members of the other place are going to have a hell of a job explaining their views to the public tomorrow if they choose to vote these proposals down. The provisions are central to the Bill. We are not trying to pull a fast one.
Furthermore, this part of the Bill cannot be separated. The vote will cover all or nothing. It concerns the MoD police, ordinary Home Office police officers and the British Transport Police. Those who have just spoken sympathetically in respect of the
British Transport Police cannot have it both ways. They cannot say later, XOh well, I thought we were doing something slightly different". The whole part of the Bill will be affected.I have to say to noble Lords that Members of the other place will find it quite outrageous that we do not seem to be prepared to address the issues. The Government have tried throughout to make the point that, in terms of dealing with crime and terrorism, we have in place police forces that are legitimate forces which can aid the other authorities. They are hamstrung in many ways. We have cited example after example in the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Any reasonable member of the public would be absolutely bewilderedI repeat, bewilderedthat Members of your Lordships' House have continued to maintain a stand that causes these other police forces to be hamstrung simply because they wish to see such legislation brought forward in another Bill. They have said, XWe need a police reform Bill because the issue is not connected to terrorism". Frankly, that will not wash.
I ask noble Lords to think very seriously before they divide on this issue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him for the last time, I hope, to concede that the hatred of terrorism is common to the whole House and that the debate concerns the effectiveness of the proposed measures.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is for noble Lords to explain their position. I cannot explain it for them.
Lord McNally: My Lords, we will be very happy to explain our position. Here we encounter the old problem; namely, that the Minister seems to think that almost any expedient can justify removing the protections and civil liberties that it is the duty of this Parliament to preserve. We shall continue to go through this Bill giving the Government the powers they need to fight terrorism. But the noble Lord will have to come back to the House with other legislation for the wider powers. It is as simple as that. I shall have no problem tomorrow justifying our vote. I think that I should test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 174; Not-Contents, 153.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Original Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page