§ 11.30 a.m.
§ The Countess of MarMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Hylton regrets that he cannot be present this morning. On his behalf, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government whether arrests were made at the arms fair in Docklands under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or under other terrorism provisions; if so, how many persons were arrested and why; and how many were charged.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)My Lords, no arrests were made under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. For clarification, Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is a stop and search power, not an arrest power. Two individuals were arrested under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act on 8th September, the eve of the arms exhibition. They were subsequently released from the Terrorism Act provisions.
§ The Countess of MarMy Lords, I am sure my noble friend will be grateful for that reply. He has asked me to ask the Minister whether the use of the Section 44 stop 1055 and search powers were specifically authorised by the Home Office, or was there a blanket authorisation for London over that period. Does not the Minister regard the use of such powers on peaceful demonstrators a serious erosion of civil rights?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, as I explained, no arrests were made under Section 44. Two individuals were arrested under Section 41. I know that the difference between the two sections has caused difficulties in the past. As regards authorisation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs is responsible for designation, but operational issues are of course a matter for the Metropolitan Police.
§ Lord DholakiaMy Lords, is the Secretary of State responsible for authorisation? If such an authorisation was given to the police, did it apply to the whole of London or only Docklands, and is it still in force?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, any complaint alleging misuse of police powers will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police. There is a procedure under the Terrorism Act that allows an individual to request reasons. The Home Secretary has asked for a reply in relation to those matters.
The role of the Secretary of State is to confirm whether it is appropriate for Section 44 powers to be put in place. The Government's position is that those powers should be applied correctly during police operations in strict compliance with the legislation; that is, for counter-terrorism purposes only.
§ Earl AttleeMy Lords, does the Minister agree that, by its very nature, the defence exhibition was vulnerable to terrorist attack?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I am sorry. I did not hear the last part of the question put to me by the noble Earl., Lord Attlee. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?
§ Earl AttleeMy Lords, does the Minister agree that, by its very nature, the exhibition was vulnerable to terrorist attack and that therefore precautions should have been taken?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Earl that it is absolutely critical to take precautions in those circumstances. We believe that appropriate action was taken in order to keep safe all those who visited the site.
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, I did not quite understand the reply of the noble Baroness to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. His question was whether the powers used required the authorisation of the Secretary of State. If so, was that authorisation supplied and over how wide an area?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, all Section 44 applications are scrutinised. If there were any indication that a police force intended to use those powers in a way not compliant with the legislation, the Home Secretary would not confirm their use. The situation was that the powers were used properly.
I have tried to explain a number of times that there was no use of Section 44 on that occasion and that the arrests took place under Section 41. If it helps, I shall be happy to describe the difference between the two sections because I know that this matter seems to be causing a little confusion. However, I notice that noble Lords do not want me to do that. I am more than content.
§ Lord Hodgson of Astley AbbottsMy Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why counter-terrorism legislation was used rather than the wider public order legislation that is available in all cases?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, what is absolutely important is that appropriate action was taken to keep London safe. Noble Lords will know that since 1998 a number of incidents have taken place right across London. It is right that there should be reviews of whether the continuance of the relevant actions is proper, and those have taken place.
§ Lord Lloyd of BerwickMy Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem with Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, under which the arrests were made, is that it enables the police to arrest someone even though he has not committed, or is not thought to be about to commit, any specific offence? That seems to illustrate the dangerously wide nature of Section 41, to which I have drawn attention before.
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, of course, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. The noble and learned Lord also well knows that we held quite intensive debates on the balance that must be borne in mind before the proper exercise of powers under Section 41. It was for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, was invited properly to keep under review the provisions, and that does work.
I do not think that I have yet said clearly that Section 44 was used in the generality, but in relation to the arrests—which was the purport of the Question—it was Section 41.