| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 290
be an international ban on the export of all nuclear materials, including so-called peaceful nuclear materials, to countries that fail to sign the non-proliferation treaty? We certainly recommend that. Will this country's hands be clean? They were certainly not clean in the case of Iraq.Will action have been taken to curb the sale of conventional weapons which, as we saw in the Gulf war, can be terrifying lethal? Will there be a ban on arms sales to countries with poor human rights records? We shall press for such a ban. What about arms sales to the middle east? At present, apart from co-operation on sanctions against Iraq, the Government ban arms sales only to Israel. I shall support that ban on Israel provided that it is part of a general ban throughout the middle east, with exceptions to be specifically justified and explained.
Before the Gulf crisis, I warned repeatedly from the Dispatch Box of the danger of a war in the middle east. That danger remains, even if one instigator has been quarantined. Will peace prevail, however uneasily, in that strife-torn region, or shall we, in five years time, be conducting an inquest into the causes and outcome of yet another needless and lethal conflict in that region? Such a conflict would undoubtedly involve missiles, might well involve chemical weapons and could possibly involve nuclear weapons. It could be a regional conflict which nevertheless drags in the rest of the world, as the Gulf war did. What action are the Government taking to seek to prevent such a war?
Will there have been a settlement of the Palestinian issue or will the intifada be in its second decade? What action will the Government take to assist the Madrid process? The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to say that the Government should visit Cyprus. It is about time that that happened because there has been no Government visit to Cyprus in 13 years and the Cypriots are resentful of the fact that the Government have not sent a senior Minister to visit them there. The Foreign Secretary referred to the issue, but the question is how we deal with the division of Cyprus. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's visit to Turkey and hope that he pressed the Turks strongly not only on Cyprus but on the subject of the Kurds, because the solution to the Kurdish problem lies far more in Turkey than even in Iraq. When the Foreign Secretary was discussing Cyprus with the Turkish Government, did he make it clear that the continued presence of Turkish troops on Cypriot soil, against the will of the sovereign Government of Cyprus, is unacceptable and against international law? In discussing Cyprus today, the Secretary of State said that he looks forward to two regional governments on the island as equal partners. It is important that the Government make it clear, so that there can be no misunderstanding, that if there are to be two regional governments in Cyprus they must be within a united Cyprus under one Government and one president.
Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That is why I said, before talking about two regional governments, that there should be one Cyprus.
Mr. Kaufman : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. As he knows, what we say about those matters is studied intensely in Cyprus. It must be made clear--it is a possibility that has been mooted
Column 291
--that a two-state solution to the problem of Cyprus is absolutely unacceptable and will be tolerated neither by the Government nor by the House.Basic principles of international law and territorial integrity are at stake in Cyprus and a solution covering the rights of both communities is essential. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) rightly drew attention to that issue yesterday in her eloquent maiden speech.
The Gracious Speech fails to mention Kashmir and I am sorry that, although the Conservative party managed to cram a mention of the matter into its election manifesto because it was worried about one or two marginal seats, the Secretary of State has not spoken of it today. Five years from now, will Kashmiris still be dying, losing their homes and livelihoods, in that tragic conflict? Kashmiris of all religions--Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist-- are affected. Will young Indian and Pakistani service men still be losing their lives pointlessly and tragically? I hope that the Government will explain what action they propose to take to help to bring about a solution, because they mooted the possibility of such a solution in their election manifesto.
Will a solution have at last been found to the problem of the western Sahara? A plebiscite should have been held there three months ago. Britain is seeking to facilitate such a plebiscite. Will the Government take the initiative in the United Nations Security Council to hasten such a plebiscite?
The Secretary of State referred to Hong Kong. Five years from now, British rule in Hong Kong will have less than two months to go. The Secretary of State referred to what the Gracious Speech said about political development in the territory, but gave the House no hint of what the Government have in mind.
What will the political condition of Hong Kong be on the eve of its becoming a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China? Will the number of directly elected members of the LegCo have been increased beyond the total at present envisaged? Will the electorates of the functional constituencies have been widened to include all the members of the relevant organisations? That would be a means of giving the vote to hundreds of thousands more people in Hong Kong. Will the nominated members be far more representative of political opinion in the colony than they are now? Will directly elected members of the Legislative Council be serving on the Executive Council? We believe that they certainly should, and that the problem requires an urgent approach.
Will the Executive be more directly answerable to the Legislative Council? Will the governor make himself available to answer questions in the Legislative Council, as is being requested? If so, I hope that he will be a good deal more forthcoming than he was when he answered questions in the House. What exactly do the Government have in mind for the political development of Hong Kong? Those questions are being asked.
The Gracious Speech refers to one of the most important roles that the Government will play this year, as president of the European Community. What sort of Community do the Government envisage five years from now? How large do the Government expect that Community to be? Will the Government support not only the membership of additional countries named both by the Prime Minister on Wednesday and by the Foreign Secretary today, but the application of Cyprus? There is no reason why that application should not be proceeded with.
Column 292
Do the Government accept that, in principle, every country in Europe, including the former Soviet republics, should be eligible for membership of the European Community, provided that they fulfil the necessary criteria of economic viability and political stability under proper democratic systems?Mr. Tony Banks : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who grabbed my attention forcibly as I was about to go and make a telephone call. On the question that he has just posed about the republics of the former Soviet Union, it could be argued that if we carry that policy right through, Europe will be extended to within a few miles of the United States. I suppose that it could go further and further, until it reaches Australia and New Zealand. Does my right hon. Friend not have a definition of Europe? Surely it cannot extend to Asian republics in the former Soviet Union?
Mr. Kaufman : My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the problem posed by the fact that the Russian federation, the capital of which is Moscow and which includes St. Petersburg, extends to the Aleutian islands. It is a European country with the overwhelming majority of its population in Europe. In principle, I would certainly support the membership of such a country in the Community, provided that all the criteria to which I referred were fulfilled. I would not say that Asian countries should be included as we are talking about a European Community. Countries that are solely in Asia should not be included. The Foreign Secretary spoke about including Turkey in the European Community, although only a minute fraction of Turkey is in the continent of Europe, but provided that Turkey gets out of Cyprus and fulfils the human rights criteria to which we attach importance, I would welcome Turkey's membership of the European Community. Following the 1996 review, will the Government have accepted the central bank and the single currency? Do the Government have a five-year vision for the Community, as distinct from a six-month vision which they will outline to us in the debate on the Maastricht treaty? The Government have accepted a foreign policy role for the European Community, but what sort of foreign policy do they believe appropriate?
The Government have accepted a defence identity for the European Community. The Labour party believes that they were wrong to do so, but, if they have accepted that, they have an obligation to the House to spell out their concept of the European defence role. We have not heard a hint about that subject today.
What about the aid role of the European Community? What of the Government's aid role? The Gracious Speech refers to maintaining a substantial aid programme to reduce poverty in developing countries, but the Government have reduced this country's aid programme by a half. Do the Government intend to end that decline? Do they intend to accept the United Nations target of aid as 0.7 per cent. of gross national product? What is the Government's aid policy, as distinct from their aid slogan? Do they accept that a special aid programme for South Africa will be necessary when a multiracial Government take office there?
As I listened to Her Majesty deliver the Gracious Speech on Wednesday, I lamented the lost opportunities. I compared the negativism of that speech with the abundance of positive proposals for arms control,
Column 293
non-proliferation, defence diversification, the resolution of regional conflicts, Europe and aid, which would have been contained in a Labour Government's Queen's Speech. That speech was not to be. I hope that the Government, with their narrow majority and narrow base of popular support, will be more responsive to the House than they were in the previous Parliament. In this Parliament, a strengthened parliamentary Labour party will fight with even more determination for the ideals to which we are dedicated : the combating of hunger and deprivation, and the pursuit of world peace. 10.47 amMr. David Howell (Guildford) : May I add my words of congratulation to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to a place of authority in the House, which is very welcome to many of us. Given that our aims in foreign policy are, in the words of the prayer said each day,
"saving health among all nations",
and in the words of the Foreign Secretary today, primarily the security and prosperity of Europe, the Gracious Speech is welcome. It refers to three vital means of securing that prosperity and stability in Europe.
The first and, I believe for the immediate future, by far the most important, is the undertaking to help Russia--and it will be more than Russia--to dismantle its surplus nuclear weapons. There is no greater danger facing world order and the security of European nations than the awful prospect of either strategic nuclear warheads or the vastly greater number of tactical nuclear warheads--the storage of which is not nearly as organised as it should be--getting into the hands of people who do not accept the code of reasoning that might restrain them from using such weapons. That is a likely prospect.
I think that, some months ago, the Foreign Secretary assured us that, after a visit to Moscow, he believed that the strategic weapons were under proper control and the codes were in the hands of the high command of the Russian part of the Commonwealth of Independent States. But evidence suggests that the control of the thousands upon thousands of tactical nuclear warheads is not so well secured. There remains a colossal danger, indeed likelihood, that weapons and--which is more sinister--people with the techniques and technology to assemble those weapons, have moved into the employ of states in the middle east and elsewhere. Such people are ready to put the weapons together and use them on impulse or whim, without reason, as we saw the impulse of Saddam Hussein turn against Kuwait the year before last. That is a vital matter. It would be interesting--perhaps not in speeches now, but later--to hear how we and our allies are to act more effectively to ensure that such weapons are brought under control and do not fall into the hands of mad dictators and alien despots.
The second issue that directly affects the security of Europe and which my right hon. Friend mentioned is Yugoslavia. The Gracious Speech expresses the pious hope that a peaceful settlement can be obtained. I fear that that looks less and less likely as the days go by. My own view is that the well- meaning policy of the European Community--it should certainly be supported in respect
Column 294
of the monitors--which involved the premature recognition of Bosnia has been a catastrophe and has led, as was widely predicted, to a vast increase in the bloodshed. The former Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said before the recent election that premature recognition would lead to the bloody dismemberment of Bosnia. Now that that has happened, our task is the new and horrific one of somehow preventing the killing fields of Bosnia from turning into a full-scale Balkan war--as well it may unless we are somehow able by diplomatic, economic or ultimately military means to curb the activities of the Serbian official army and forces and of the irregular army and forces that roam the whole area killing at will. The third major task for Europe outlined in the Gracious Speech is the welcome commitment to promoting and developing democracy in eastern Europe. That is going to be difficult ; it is by no means assured that the eastern European countries--Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, to take the leading three--will make it all the way to free, pluralist societies. It will be a tough fight, and we must certainly help them all the way and must promote democracy there and elsewhere in the world wherever we can.It is on these three issues that we should concentrate when thinking about our aims, as the Foreign Secretary put them, of European security and prosperity, and it is against this background that I come to the other issue in the Gracious Speech, which will take up more time of this House but which may prove to be far less important : the decision to put a Bill before the House--it is already printed--to give lawful expression to the Maastricht treaty. As time goes by, and even since we fought the election, it appears that the aims of the treaty and the discussions surrounding it are less and less relevant to the Europe that we now contemplate. Since the treaty was signed, all the doubts that some of us sensed would arise in Germany have come to the fore. The Germans are asking why they did not have a debate like the British had. They are discovering that they do not like some of the things to which they joined up--they do not want to get rid of the deutschmark, for instance.
There are intense debates in France, where there are the beginnings of a political earthquake. The Spaniards are far less happy now that they realise they will not get all the regional cash for which they had hoped. The Italians are in political chaos. The Dutch are beginning to have doubts and the Danish do not like the whole idea. The Irish, because of their abortion problems, are beginning to wonder why they signed. All in all, we have to ask whether the high aims and rhetoric in the preamble to the Maastricht treaty really fit well with the priorities that I have just mentioned, to do with furthering the stability of Europe.
Before the election, the former Foreign Affairs Committee was in the midst of a study of the implications of the Maastricht treaty, comparing them with some of the implications of the Single European Act. We only got as far as asking a series of questions. I hope that there will now be an opportunity to pursue some of those issues. I also hope that it will be possible to set up the Select Committees again quickly, within 30 days. I have heard it suggested that the process will be delayed until the Opposition leadership election in July, which may well be after the House has risen.
Column 295
There is absolutely no reason why that leadership election should delay the setting up of all the Committees. It may create one or two marginal problems which will have to be sorted out in the autumn. If the Committees are not set up within 30 days, we will have to assume that there are other motives at work. I trust that what I have said will be taken to heart by the usual channels and by the powers that be in the major political parties.Let us contemplate what the House will be asked to do when we come to approve the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which will turn parts of the Maastricht treaty into the law of this land. If my right hon. Friends are to persuade us to give the Bill a green light, they must first establish that they recognise that Maastricht is not just a milestone on some inevitable, irrevocable, irreversible advance towards the full political union and monetary union of a new integrated European state. We neither like nor want that language. Instead, we want it to be recognised, as I believe my right hon. Friends did recognise at Maastricht, that this is a turning point, an opportunity to begin the development of Europe in a new and better direction than the one articulated by many of the great enthusiasts for European integration in its fullest sense. If we are to be told that Maastricht is a turning point on the way to a more modern kind of Europe, that will be much more welcome.
All this will be more convincing if my right hon. Friends can explain to us how they will give substance to the idea of subsidiarity, that unhappy and rather unEnglish word which is nevertheless of great importance, and which makes a rather vague appearance in article 3B of the treaty. I think that the time may have come not merely to talk in general terms about subsidiarity but to set out a list of the powers that we believe should be repatriated from the Community institutions and the Commission to the nation states.
My former Cabinet colleague, Sir Leon Brittan, now an outstanding Commissioner and an effective force in Brussels, has recently been airing his thoughts about such possibilities--not merely that subsidiarity means that further powers should not go to the centre but that powers should be returned from the centre. It will be important to begin compiling a list of those powers which are overdue for repatriation to the nation states, to remind ourselves that the Europe that we want in future is the result not merely of a process of ever greater centralisation but of a balance between the powers of the ancient nation states and the Community institutions which are and should be our servants.
Secondly, my right hon. Friends will need to show that they do not accept, any more than I suspect the rest of the
Column 296
House accepts, the irreversible road to European political and monetary union. Thanks to the enormous skill of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, this country succeeded in obtaining a version of the treaty which enables us to call a halt to European monetary union. My own view is that the full monetary union--a single currency running from Palermo to Glasgow, from Lisbon to Warsaw or Berlin--will never occur. The more one hears the debate in Germany, the more likely it seems that EMU in that form will never happen.Fortunately we are not committed to this fantasy--to this castle in the air of European monetary union--and it is interesting to note that other European countries are showing equal reluctance. So let us have a clear view from my right hon. Friends on this matter.
Thirdly, we will need strong reassurance about accountability for the powers given to the Community's institutions and to the new European union institutions, the so-called pillars around the main trunk of the European Community which were set up by the Maastricht treaty. The other day, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who chairs the European Legislation Scrutiny Committee, wrote an excellent article in the New European rightly pointing out that, whether we like it or not, the complexities of trying to keep track and account of the new powers as exercised under the Maastricht treaty will be vastly greater even than those the House now faces trying to stay ahead of the European Community and European Parliament and all the directives and regulations emanating from them.
We shall need to know a good deal more about the part that accountability will play in these new powers. It is not enough to say that the intergovernmental processes under the Maastricht treaty will all involve Ministers who of course are accountable to this House. All sorts of new undertakings and new commitments of a
semi-collective kind will be given, and it is fair and right that the House should have increased opportunities, which we shall have to devise, to hold to account and keep track of the activities that are pursued within the European union pillars.
The conference of Parliaments proposed in the Maastricht treaty will have to be approached with vigour and in a way that preserves the position of the national Parliaments. It must not lead to us all being submerged in party groups across frontiers, with the whole exercise hijacked and controlled by the Commission or the authorities of the European Parliament.
It being Eleven o'clock, Madam Speaker -- interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).
Column 297
Counter-terrorism
11 am
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the division of responsibilities for intelligence work between the Metropolitan police special branch and the Security Service.
As the House will be aware, the Metropolitan police special branch at present has the lead responsibility for the acquisition, processing and use of intelligence against Irish republican terrorism in Great Britain. The Security Service has the lead responsibility for intelligence work against all other forms of terrorism in Great Britain, including Irish loyalist and international terrorism, and against Irish republican terrorism overseas. The Security Service also contributes now to the acquisition and assessment of intelligence against Irish republican terrorism in Great Britain and in this field, as in others, already works very closely with the police service.
The Government have now decided that the lead responsibility for intelligence work against Irish republican terrorism in Great Britain should pass from the Metropolitan police special branch to the Security Service. This will bring the arrangements broadly into line with those that already exist for other forms of terrorism. The purpose of this change is to enable the Security Service to use to the full the skills and expertise which it has developed over the years in its work on counter-terrorism. I wish to emphasise that under the new arrangements the Metropolitan police special branch will continue to play an indispensable part in intelligence work against Irish republican groups. The substantial experience and expertise that it has developed will not be lost, and it will continue to work in the closest co-operation with the Security Service.
Intelligence is a key part of the action being taken against Irish republican terrorism, but it is only a part. Operations on a wider basis, including the collection of evidence and the arrest and prosecution of those suspected of terrorist offences, are plainly essential in dealing with terrorism. This wider responsibility for protecting the public against the threat of terrorism, and for the investigation of terrorist offences, must rest with the police service. It will continue to do so under the new arrangements that I have described.
Since 1990, the effectiveness of police arrangements against terrorism has been significantly enhanced by the appointment of the Commander of the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch as national co-ordinator of police counter-terrorist investigations, and by the creation of the Association of Chief Police Officers' advisory group headed by a very senior officer of the Metropolitan police, the assistant commissioner for specialist operations.
The transfer of the lead responsibility for intelligence work from the Metropolitan police special branch to the Security Service does not in any way affect the roles of the national co-ordinator or the advisory group. It does not affect the responsibility of individual chief officers for policing their areas and for the work done by police special branches outside London. It is only in the lead responsibility for the intelligence work that a change is being made.
Column 298
The decision that I have announced today does not affect in any way the accountability of the police and security services. Both the Metropolitan police and the Security Service are accountable, through me, to Parliament. The Metropolitan police is accountable through the Commissioner to me as police authority and the Security Service is accountable through its director general to me under the Security Service Act 1989.The need for effective action against terrorism speaks for itself. It calls for the best use of all the skills and experience available within the law to the Government. The decision that I have announced is designed to strengthen still further the effective intelligence work already being done against Irish republican terrorism in Great Britain, a task in which both the Security Service and the police have vital roles to play. The Government will keep these arrangements under review and where they can be improved still further, we shall take the necessary action.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : I start by congratulating the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment as Home Secretary. However, he has made a rather inauspicious beginning by making a statement of this importance to a thinly attended House on a Friday. The House takes the issue very seriously. As an incoming Home Secretary, he has a unique opportunity to take a fresh approach to an issue of enormous public concern, such as the fight against terrorism. He also has a historic opportunity to deal with a matter of profound constitutional importance-- the accountability of the security services.
We have argued for many years for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the security services and our preferred method of achieving that is by the establishment of an Intelligence Select Committee comprising senior Privy Councillors. The issues have taken on greater significance now that MI5 is to be given the lead role in fighting terrorism. We have many concerns about MI5 being given that role. As the House knows, Sir Christopher Curwen, the former head of MI6, undertook two reviews of this important area in 1990 and in 1991. On both occasions, he concluded that it would not be appropriate for the security services to be given more than a strictly limited and subordinate role. Why has the Home Secretary chosen to ignore that advice?
There will be real problems if MI5 takes on the lead role. There is the central issue of accountability to which I have referred. In addition, the Home Secretary knows that MI5 has no operational function ; it has no power of arrest. As we know to our cost, it does not have experience of preparing evidence that will stand up in court. There are also issues about immunity from prosecution and I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with those in his response. For example, would MI5 agents active in the IRA be given immunity from prosecution? There are also dangers in terrorism being classed as a political crime. It should not be given such status. The cold- blooded killing of innocent people should be treated as the abominable crime it is. Does the Home Secretary agree?
We fear that there will be difficulties because of the type of administrative structure that we understand is to be established. If there is to be a bureaucratic committee to which all leads would be reported, will that not involve time wasting and the possible loss of lives because of delay?
Column 299
There are alternative ways to take a greater initiative against terrorism. There is much greater merit in providing the police with a national intelligence service, with its own operational arm. That not only would allow a sharper focus for counter-terrorist work, but would be within a police structure that is tried and tested. The Opposition have repeatedly called for all-party talks on these issues. In the past few days, the Home Secretary received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) repeating that call so that, on cross-party lines, we could develop the most effective strategy against terrorism. I am disappointed that, so far, the Government have declined to accept that offer.This new Parliament has a very different House of Commons, in which there will be renewed assertion of parliamentary power. The Home Secretary's failure to announce a proper system of parliamentary scrutiny of the security services in parallel with the important changes that he has announced will be widely resented. If the citizens charter means anything, surely the Home Secretary should also announce the introduction of a freedom of information Act and parliamentary scrutiny of the security services. We wait to hear what he intends to do about our concerns. People have a right to know what is being done by the state in their name.
Hon. Members are united in wanting to do all in our power to attack the evil men and women of terror. A restructuring of our efforts is timely, but we are not convinced that the method proposed by the Government is the right way forward in a modern democratic state. Several Hon. Members rose - -
Madam Speaker : Order. Before the Home Secretary replies, I remind the House that statements do not form a debate. I am looking for pertinent questions to the Home Secretary and pertinent and short answers from him, which I am sure we shall get.
Mr. Clarke : I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for his good wishes on my appointment. It is some years since he and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box on other matters. I look forward to his contributions to our debates on home affairs.
I acknowledge and accept that accountability for the Security Service is an important part of our concerns in this Parliament. I think that we have greatly improved the openness of the operation of the security services and made them more accountable. The operation of the Security Service Act 1989 has changed these matters very much in recent years. There is now a commissioner who produces an annual report to Parliament. There is a source of redress for those who have complaints against the Security Service and access to a tribunal. The service is accountable, through me, to the House.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked why we made the key change, which is to transfer the lead responsibility for intelligence gathering against Irish republican activity in this country. We always keep these matters under review. The issue was examined in the reports that the hon. Gentleman described, and it was examined again in a more recent report.
For reasons that everyone will understand, we are now in a position to transfer some resource within the Security Service and enhance our intelligence-gathering efforts. It was a good moment to consider which service should have
Column 300
the lead responsibility. Both the Security Service and the special branch of the Metropolitan police will continue to make a substantial effort. They will work together as they always have. Giving the lead to the Security Service will get the best out of both. It is putting the lead in the hands of those whose speciality is the collection and use of intelligence of this sort.As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, operational matters must remain with the police. They are the people who collect evidence, prepare prosecutions and bring those responsible for these matters to justice, and they will continue to be so. There need be no conflict, and there will be no conflict, between intelligence gathering and operations. Over the years, the police and the Security Service have worked together on many matters and have successfully brought to justice those who have been damaging to the security of this country.
It is only history that gives the police the lead responsibility for Irish republican terrorism. It is an accident of history that in the 19th century they were given that lead at the time of the Fenian outrages. The Security Service has always had the lead, for example, for loyalist terrorist activity in this country. Starting from scratch, I think that the arrangements today are those which would always have been in place.
I agree that what is done by the Security Service and the police must be within the law. I stress that both services will act within the law. I regard the activities of terrorist gangs in this country as crime. It is important that we enhance our efforts all the time against that crime and against those criminals and bring them to justice. I think that the arrangements that we are proposing will help to improve our efforts.
I am always happy to have talks with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) or the Opposition team on these matters. Of course, those talks will not involve the process of negotiation about the prevention of terrorism Act, but I hope that the Opposition in this new Parliament will take the opportunity to shift their ground. Otherwise, I agree that both sides of the House should co-operate closely when the overriding public need is at all times to strengthen our efforts against terrorism and protect the public against it.
Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, with changes as far-reaching and significant as those that he has announced, proof will be some time in the making? Does he agree also that, in matters of this sort where cross-agency activities are involved, the quality of the personal relations in the cross -agency activities is of extreme importance? Will my right hon. and learned Friend concentrate on the quality of those relationships?
Mr. Clarke : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right, because intelligence work is, of its nature, a slow and steady process. The effect of the increased effort that we are making in this area will perhaps take some years to show. This is a steady process of frustrating would-be terrorist activity and bringing to justice on occasions those who can be caught and brought before the courts.
I agree that, in the end, everything depends crucially on the personal relationships between all those involved in every aspect of operations against the IRA. I have had meetings on this subject with Mrs. Rimington of the Security Service, with the Commissioner of Police of the
Column 301
Metropolis and the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I have been assured by them all that the relationships will remain close. I know that they are determined to ensure that both organisations work together in harmony, disclosing to each other all that they are doing, so as to get the maximum out of their respective efforts.Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : May I add my felicitations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the new Home Secretary on his appointment? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to have cross-party co-operation on these matters, which my colleagues would very much welcome, will he consider having discussions with Opposition parties before making such major changes, especially when they are made against the advice that has been openly proffered, and against a background in which the Metropolitan police have made it plain that they think that these changes are unwise? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what further arrangements he has for strengthening the accountability of himself for the security services to the House?
Mr. Clarke : I have said that I am happy to have talks with the Opposition. This is an area in which I think we should seek to achieve the maximum all-party agreement on our efforts. I am not sure that the advice that the hon. Gentleman is talking about has been openly offered. I keep reading about some of it in the newspapers, and certainly reports have been prepared internally for me. As I say, I have had discussions with the Commissioner, the president of ACPO and the leader of the Security Service. I think that there comes a point when one cannot have the widest possible discussions about how we shall organise intelligence gathering against Irish republicans in this country. I think that everybody probably accepts that. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's contribution and to talks with him on these matters. I thank him for his congratulations on my appointment, but I hope that he does not expect me to come to him every time I have a decision to take in this area.
Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : My right hon. and learned Friend makes it clear that his statement means that the Security Service is responsible for the lead in intelligence gathering. He must know that I particularly welcome that development and believe that it is right at this time. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's confirmation that he remains accountable to the House for the conduct of the Security Service. Will he confirm that these arrangements are no reflection upon the excellent work of the special branch services of the police system in this country, and especially of the special branch of the Metropolitan police, and that there is no question of members of the Security Service holding the office of constable and thus investigating crime directly?
Mr. Clarke : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the decision and for accurately realising that we are talking about the lead in what will be a joint activity by the Security Service and the police. I underline what my hon. Friend said about the successes that have been achieved under the leadership of the special branch of the Metropolitan police. The public are not always aware,
Column 302
when activities are frustrated and do not occur, that successes have been achieved. As we all know, the police have been making progress recently in investigations both of bombings in London and shootings in Derby. Arrests have been made of suspects and those investigations are proceeding further. So the police have been achieving successes, and the Metropolitan police will continue with at least as much work in this area as it has in the past. We simply have the opportunity to switch more resource within the security services into this key area of Irish republican terrorism in this country. It was an obvious moment to review the lead responsibility for that, and we have brought that responsibility for republican terrorism into line with that which has always prevailed for loyalist terrorism and international terrorism in this country.Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : The Secretary of State will accept that terrorism and the killing of innocent people do not resolve political situations ; they simply leave orphans and widows. Does he accept that, although his statement deals with terrorism in this country, there should be absolute interfacing with the security services in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland? Will he note that the Republic of Ireland has made important strides recently in finding all types of arms caches throughout the country? I welcome the move that the Secretary of State has outlined today if it leads to an effective attack on terrorism, because terrorism does not resolve political problems. As I said, it simply leaves widows and orphans.
Mr. Clarke : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Terrorism contributes nothing to the resolution of any political problems. Terrorism in this country is organised crime of a completely unhelpful and extremely damaging kind which often has tragic consequences. It is therefore important that all the work on the mainland of Britain, in Ulster and in the Republic of Ireland is co-ordinated to a certain extent and that all the authorities co -operate as they properly should in action against the joint threat which they all face from the Provisional IRA. I am sure that proper contacts will be maintained and will not be affected in any way by the announcement today.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Conservative Members also welcome his appointment as Home Secretary? We especially welcome this early manifestation of the Government's determination in this new Parliament to combat terrorism. It is obviously sensible that the strengths of the Security Service should be more directly harnessed in the attack on terrorism and that some of the intolerable burden on the shoulders of the Metropolitan police should be relieved.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend also be aware that there is strong feeling among Conservative Members and, perhaps, throughout the House that he should have our support in combating the apparent determination of the European Commission to dismantle the barrier to international terrorism which we now have?
Mr. Clarke : I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his welcoming of my appointment, and I look forward to hearing even more frequently his contributions on these subjects in the House during my spell as Home Secretary. I am also grateful for his welcoming the
Column 303
decision. It is not the case that the burden will be lifted from the Metropolitan police. I anticipate that, if anything, it will be involved in more intelligence work, as well as in all its operational activities against people in particular instances. It will have extra effort from the Security Service combined with its efforts. I believe that we shall get the best out of both services under the new lead responsibilities we have established.We cannot lessen the effort in any way until we have increased the protection of the public against terrorist outrages. I will certainly bring home to my colleagues in our partner Governments in the European Community that we cannot contemplate any weakening of our protection against terrorism.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : When the former Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), said that the Home Secretary was responsible to the House for the conduct of the security services, was he not absolutely wrong? That is what the argument is all about. If the Government resist the formation of a Security Services Select Committee, is there not a compromise position? It is that the accounting officers for each of the security services give evidence on financial matters of accountability to the Public Accounts Committee in private session, and that the Committee does not produce reports. At least within that system, there would be an element of accountability.
If the Government are not prepared to go even that far, surely the accounting officers of the various departments could meet the Chairman and a Deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee so that there would be at least some element of scrutiny by the House, as against by the Executive uniquely.
Mr. Clarke : This Government have steadily increased the openness of the Security Service during the past 10 years, and we have made a significant stride in putting it on a statutory basis by establishing a commissioner, establishing the tribunal and doing the other things to which I referred. We are open to argument, and the hon. Gentleman has a perfect opportunity in today's debate to put forward his arguments on these matters if he wishes, as we are about to put the SIS on a statutory basis as well.
The Home Secretary is accountable to the House for a Security Service that operates within the law. In all the arguments on these matters, we must all appreciate, as the vast bulk of the public do, that it is not possible to acccount in detail for operational activities. We must have a proper Security Service which operates within the law and is accountable to Parliament, but we must not introduce mechanisms that damage its effectiveness in targeting terrorist organisations.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that what he has announced is a change in the priorities of intelligence gathering which should not be looked on as a massive change in the attack of terrorism? Will he also accept that the way in which the Metropolitan police published the minutes, which appear to have been leaked, showed that much of what is looked on as "spookery" is just the plain, simple pursuit of information, which is an essential part of the work of the police and the other security services in tackling some of the criminal violence that people suffer? Will he also agree
Column 304
that the people who will gain most from improved effectiveness will be the Irish nationalists, who suffer from republican terrorism just as much as anyone else?Mr. Clarke : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the word "intelligence" gives this all a rather more sinister ring that it should have. We are talking about a process of investigation in which more is discovered about the membership, the plans, the intentions and the movements of those who propose to engage in terrorist activity. It is a skilled and specialist activity which has been well carried out by the special branch.
As a result of political changes, there is greater opportunity for the Security Service to put more of its resources into that acitivity. The activity can be organised to ensure that both services work together to the best effect. It is an important part, although one part only, of what we must ensure, which is to reduce the level of terrorist activity in this country. That is as important to the nationalists in Ireland as it is to every member of the public throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Did the Metropolitan police agree willingly with the switch in lead responsibility?
Mr. Clarke : The Metropolitan police have had discussions with me about the matter. I have met the Commissioner a number of times--I think twice on this matter specifically--and the president of ACPO. I have also had discussions with the Security Service, and I had an up-to-date report before me in the Home Office. All of them are agreed that they have to work together and all of them are agreed that the links between intelligence and operational matters must be smooth all the way through. All have undertaken to ensure that they can continue the excellent collaboration which they have always had. I am sure that the change and statements made today will be accepted by everyone involved. They bring the responsibilities for republican terrorism in line with the ones we have had for years on loyalist terrorism and international terrorism. I know of no difficulty that has occurred on that front for either the police or the security services.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if there were a Committee of the House to examine the security services, that Committee would feel frustrated from day one by the restrictions imposed on it and by the basic fact that it would not be allowed to go into operational matters? Bearing in mind the fact that there will be concern in the Metropolitan police special branch about this important announcement, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that there will be no reduction in either manpower or financial resources for that organisation?
Mr. Clarke : I did not directly answer the previous question. I should have underlined the fact that those in the Security Service will not have the powers of a constable and will not be engaged in operational matters. All the powers that the police use when they bring people to justice are exercisable only by the police, and the police are solely responsible for that side of the activity. In an answer a few moments ago, I also said that the statement does not imply any reduction in the activity of
Column 305
the Metropolitan police special branch, in the activity of special branches throughout the country or in the resources available to them in the fight against terrorism.Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Does the Home Secretary accept that there have been some monstrous miscarriages of justice as a result of the operation of the prevention of terrorism Act, such as that of the Guildford Four? What assurances can he give us that undercover operations by the security services will not in themselves lead to further serious miscarriages of justice because of the lack of accountability of those services? Does the statement represent a move away from a political solution to the sadness of the conflict in Ireland, or will the Government continue to try to pursue a political settlement to bring peace to that country?
| Next Section
| Home Page |