| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McNally: My Lords, when the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, gave his Dimbleby lecture on Wednesday last, he asked a number of thought-provoking questions about the nature and powers of policing in our modern age. Some of those questions were very difficult to answer, but one was very simple: he asked who should decide. There can be only one answer to that in a parliamentary democracy—Parliament must decide. If we needed any reminder of the awesome nature of that responsibility, events in Bradford on Friday afternoon came as a timely reminder. If we in Parliament insist, and rightly so, that it is here that we must decide the kind and extent of powers we wish to give those who fight crime and terror on our behalf, we have to do so with due regard to the dangers that the police and security services face in the line of duty.
If the dangers of modern policing are one factor which sobers our collective responsibility, so does the knowledge that the security of the realm and the safety of the citizen are the first duties of government. This House is full of collective wisdom on all the matters covered by the Bill. It has no little experience in dealing with such legislation, as this, after all, is the sixth such Bill we have had to consider since 1997. Each of the preceding Acts, as does this Bill, ratcheted a couple of notches in the loss of hard-won civil liberties and hard-won freedoms. Parliament, sometimes with great reluctance and sometimes with grim unity, has sanctioned new powers in the face of threats and evidence of clear and present danger.
But if we are to do our job with responsibility, we must examine whether the powers given in the past have been properly and effectively used, as well as whether the new powers requested in the Bill are justified. Otherwise every terrorist outrage will bring
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1393
forth another Bill, another notch on the ratchet and another turn of the screw until we find ourselves without the civil liberties we are fighting terrorism to defend.
If Parliament has a difficult job, so, too, do Ministers. To govern is to make decisions. We all know the high regard in which the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is held in the House. I hold a similar high regard for the Home Secretary. He is a personal friend of more than 25 years' standing. Two weeks ago he addressed the Liberal Democrat Lords Group, with great charm, great conviction and a total mastery of his brief.
That very favourable impression was only faintly marred when he gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph a few days later headlined:
That kind of statement, coupled with another one from the same article—
worries and concerns us. I have more trust in this Home Secretary than either of his immediate predecessors—I think his instincts are right—but he seems to fall too easily into new Labour language which seeks to make "liberal" a pejorative term, a tactic learnt directly from the neo-conservatives in the United States.
The result of this approach, espoused by the Home Secretary but promulgated vigorously by the Prime Minister, is to position Mr Blair and his tough no-nonsense Government as the only true defenders of national security and the safety of the citizen, and the rest of us as soft on terrorism. It was that approach that prevented the all-party consensus on this legislation developing over the summer. Both David Davis and Mark Oaten had promised full co-operation to try to develop an all-party approach only to find that the Prime Minister had gone solo in his headline-grabbing press conference on 5 August.
However, as we have heard, in spite of the Sun-inspired hysteria and the quite improper involvement of senior police officers in a lobbying exercise on behalf of the Government, the other place held its nerve and the Bill comes to us with the key clause on 90 days reduced to 28 days. I suspect that in the course of this debate we will hear the opinions of those who support the original 90 days and those who are unhappy even with the extension to 28. I hope that we can listen to all views with respect. I agree with Frank Dobson MP, who said that what divides us is not the desire to defeat terrorism but genuine differences of opinion on how best to achieve that aim.
Over the past 10 years, I have listened to many debates in this House about the right balance between civil liberties and the need to protect the citizen from crime and terror. One of the most memorable moments for me came shortly after I had arrived in the House, when Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who had recently retired on health grounds from the position of Lord Chief Justice and who was terminally ill, came and spoke and heavily criticised Mr Michael Howard's White Paper, Protecting the Public. I remember the
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1394
passion of that speech, and the cheers from the Labour Benches at its sentiments. Nine years later, Labour Home Secretaries outdo each other in trying to prove how much tougher they are than Michael Howard ever was as they dance to the tunes of intolerance piped by the Sun and the Daily Mail.
I am sure that noble Lords opposite will say that circumstances have changed since they cheered Lord Taylor on a decade ago, and they are right. There is no doubt that the rapid changes in technology, whether it be in the ease of international transport or the revolution in electronic communications, mean that the terrorist threat is more global and more complex that we have faced in the past. The communications revolution also means that grievances and injustices are transmitted in an instant to radicalise and inflame individuals and communities.
That makes it all the more important, however, that we hold firm to our own values and freedoms. I read with interest what President Jimmy Carter wrote in the Observer yesterday, when he bemoaned how easy it was for a society to become brutalised and desensitised by the very powers it takes to protect itself. That is why, even in the face of changed circumstances and present threats, we hold firm to certain beliefs. Torturing people is wrong, full stop, and we cannot condone it, even by proxy. Depriving people of their liberty is a serious matter that can be done only by due process of law. Freedom of speech and opinion are important ingredients of a functioning democracy, which can be circumscribed only with great care.
That does not mean that we are passive in the face of new threats. We on these Benches have argued consistently that we must look for ways to bring prosecutions through a recognised judicial process, and we need a security service with the power, resources and capabilities to penetrate terrorist organisations and thwart their evil intent. In seeking to provide a framework for such laws and powers, both we and the Conservative Party have played a full and constructive part, both before and after the events of 7 July. Until the Prime Minister decided that political capital was to be gained by going it alone and second-guessing his Home Secretary, both David Davis and Mark Oaten had made constructive contributions to the framing of large parts of this Bill.
We have sought consistently to find effective, rather than headline-grabbing, solutions. That is why we would prefer, for example, to ensure that our intelligence and security services had the resources to do the job rather than divert millions—or is it billions?—into an identity card scheme that will have little practical effect on the war on terror.
Beyond the powers, the technology, the equipment and the intelligence needed by those we ask to defend us, there is a need to win hearts and minds. We have to ensure that all our fellow citizens, from every community, see the war against terror as their war too. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, the lesson from Northern Ireland and other areas of conflict is that laws or methods that do not win hearts and minds inflame problems rather than solve them.
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1395
So we need no lectures from the Prime Minister about the dangers posed by terrorism, nor should there be any doubt about our willingness to support measures and resources to enable the police and security forces to fight the war on terrorism. The issue before the House today is whether this Bill is the best way forward and whether it represents the most effective way of providing those powers and resources without fatally undermining the freedoms and civil liberties that the war on terrorism is being fought to defend.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to Northern Ireland. I remember another speech made in this House by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, in the debate on terrorism just before the general election. He said that internment without trial had proved the best recruiting sergeant that the IRA had ever had. So, in considering this legislation, I commend a dictum of an old mentor of mine, Lord Gormley. Joe used to say, "Don't build platforms for malcontents to stand on". As well as examining how tough this legislation is and how far it meets popular demands for resolute action, let us bear in mind also the warning of the noble Lord, Lord King, that draconian measures can prove counterproductive, and Joe Gormley's wisdom about providing the enemy with a rallying point and a cause.
The Minister explained the background to the Bill, and the House is extremely grateful to her. My noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart will give detailed responses to the proposals and lead from these Benches in Committee. We will hear also from my noble friend Lord Carlile, who has rendered such distinguished service as an independent reviewer of the working of the earlier terrorist legislation. As we have already heard, he is so independent of mind as already to have made it into the Minister's speech. We will hear also from a number of my other colleagues, not least my noble friend Lady Williams, who is a former Home Office Minister.
We on these Benches will examine constructively the proposals in the Bill and the lessons learnt from both the terrorist attack of 7 July and the almost successful attack two weeks later. We will do so not only in terms of the efficacy of the new proposals but also in the light of what the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, has called the,
Liberty, in its briefing on the Bill, makes the valid point that certain clauses cast the net of criminality so wide that people will be loath to say anything that might be interpreted as an encouragement to terrorism. It goes on to make the following point:
"This is not area where the criminal law is currently lacking. As well as the incitement offences we have referred to, it is already illegal to incite terrorism by any written or electronic publication, to collect or make any record of information useful for terrorism, or possess any article for the purpose of terrorism".
We have a long debate ahead of us. The Prime Minister, however, still seems to have difficulty in understanding and getting his head round the process
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1396
which is under way. Today's Guardian reports that he is again threatening your Lordships if we do any serious damage to the Bill. The report carries a rather strange headline:
But the story underneath it contains the less-than-startling news that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I have said that we will give the Bill "a thorough going-over" and scrutinise its provisions line by line before sending it back to the Commons. That is not news; that is what this House of Lords does. That is what this House of Lords does very well. That is what this House of Lords will do to this Bill today and in the weeks ahead.
3.54 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |