A national police force is being assembled, and newspapers are looking the other way
STEPHEN GLOVER
When people say that this government has a tyrant's heart I usually take it with a pinch of salt. Surely Tony Blair and nice Jack Straw and that strange Geoff Hoon can't really be trying to deprive us of our hard-won liberties. Granted there are worrying examples, such as the plan to limit jury trials. But need we get so het up?
Yes we do. Unnoticed by most newspapers, and ignored by all lobby correspondents, a select committee has been considering the Armed Forces Bill. Tacked on to this is a separate section relating to the powers of the Ministry of Defence police. The effect of these proposals, if adopted, would be to create a national police force for the first time, directly answerable to the Secretary of State for Defence.
Let me go back a bit. In 1987 the powers of the Ministry of Defence police were extended under the Ministry of Defence Police Bill. However, the relevant minister, Archie Hamilton, gave an assurance that all 'serious crimes [would be] passed on to the domestic police department'. In other words, the MoD police would still be largely restricted to the no doubt important work of guarding Ministry of Defence property and investigating minor crimes committed by MoD personnel. This undertaking has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Increasingly, the MoD police have been investigating serious crimes. More ominously, they have been acting as an arm of the state against civilians. Readers may remember the cases of Tony Geraghty and Nigel Wylde, two utterly decent men, and both of them civilians, whose houses were raided by MoD police in December 1998. Charges against both men were later dropped, but not before they had been harassed and intimidated.
So the powers of the MoD police have been gradually and stealthily increased. Now the government wants to extend them further. If the Armed Forces Bill becomes law, the Ministry of Defence police will have full jurisdiction and investigative powers anywhere in the United Kingdom. But whereas existing constabularies face local accountability, the Ministry of Defence police would be accountable only to the Secretary of State for Defence. They would be perfectly within their rights if they raided your house or mine, or arrested us in the street. The Bill requires that the local chief constable agree, but that is all. Perhaps you think I am being a little paranoid. We are all British, after all. Surely the MoD police would not overstep the mark. Well, I wouldn't count on it. Nigel Wylde has uncovered an extraordinary speech made by Walter Boreham, the retiring chief constable of the MoD police, last October. Mr Boreham was addressing the Defence Police Federation conference, and was rather indiscreet. He revealed that during the fuel protests the previous month he had been approached by the government and asked for assistance. 'I wrote back to the second permanent under-secretary,' said Mr Boreham, 'and told him that he could have as many officers as reasonably practicable but he wouldn't be able to use them for the specific role the Home Office had intended — of aiding fuel convoys or policing picketed oil refineries. Having explained our dilemma in great legislative detail, it wasn't long before the second permanent under-secretary was on the case.'
In others word, the government considered using the MoD police during the fuel protest, thinking that they would be more effective than normal police. Upon discovering this was not permissible under existing legislation, the government decided to extend the powers of the MoD police so that they could work as a national police force. Hence the new section in the Armed Forces Bill.
This section is meeting spirited opposition in the select committee, led by the Tory MP Robert Key and the Liberal Democrat Paul Keetch, Labour MPs on the committee, by contrast, do not appear unduly alarmed by their government's tyrannical inclinations. Amendments will be introduced by opponents, and the Bill will get a rough ride in the Lords. It may not reach the statute book before a May election, but that wouldn't stop New Labour having another go if it wins. Mr Key is surely right when he speaks of `mis sion creep' on the part of the MoD police. The government is attempting to introduce an unaccountable national police force by the back door, and it must be stopped.
Ihave mentioned once before the tendency of the Financial Times to underplay political convulsions in Zimbabwe. The paper has a bigger network of foreign correspondents than any other British title, and one might expect it to cover the waterfront thoroughly. It also has pretensions as a paper of record rather than simply as a news sheet for widget-makers in West Bromwich or fat cats in the City or Eurocrats in Brussels.
On Tuesday the paper ran a prominent piece about the Zimbabwean government changing its mind about export earnings having to be paid to the central bank. To a select few this was doubtless an important story. But Zimbabwe has a tiny economy whose significance is pretty marginal even — perhaps especially — to people in West Bromwich, the City or Brussels.
Over the past couple of weeks a much more important story has been raging in Zimbabwe which has been covered by all the broadsheets — with the sole exception of the Financial Times. President Robert Mugabe has been trying to drum out judges of the Supreme Court, and in the case of its Chief Justice, Anthony Gubbay, he has succeeded. This is a very sinister development. The Supreme Court has been a thorn in Mugabe's side, repeatedly making judgments against an increasingly power-crazed executive. Its evisceration is surely of more significance than a change of mind about export controls. The Financial Times has also failed to cover Mugabe's attempt to close down the Daily News — of which more next week.
What is going on? I do not blame the paper's excellent Zimbabwe correspondent, Tony Hawkins, or even its acting Africa editor (in Michael Holman's absence), Antony Goldman. I am sure they are anxious to get in as many stories as they can. It is a question of the mindset of those who put the paper together. To their way of thinking, political upheavals in Zimbabwe are pretty small beer, even if they affect millions of people. So long as the paper retains this cast of mind, it will not convince anyone that it is the new Times. These are the standards of the counting house, and they make the Financial Times look rather heartless.
Previous page
