| Home Page |
Column 429
House of Commons
Thursday 24 June 1993
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Croydon Tramlink Bill
[Lords] (By Order)
East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill
(By Order)
Woodgrange Park Cemetery Bill
[Lords](By Order) Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 July.
British Railways
(No. 4) Bill-- (By Order) Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday 1 July.
London Local Authorities Bill
[Lords]
(By Order) Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 July.
Oral Answers to Questions
HOME DEPARTMENT
Volunteering
1. Miss Nicholson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about initiatives to promote volunteering.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : The Home Office funds a number of organisations which promote voluntary activity. For example, at the beginning of this month, with support from the Home Office and the BBC, the Volunteer Centre UK organised a highly successful volunteers week, on which I congratulate it. More than 12,000 inquiries were made by prospective volunteers on the telephone helplines alone.
Miss Nicholson : I thank the Minister for his full response. Can he tell me whether the Prime Minister's Christmas message mentioned the importance of volunteering as central to our society? Does my hon. Friend see the number of volunteers swelling and the ways in which they assist in the community growing, as I do? Does he agree that it is a wonderful initiative whereby hundreds of thousands of people give freely of time, energy and professionalism and the Home Office supports their work?
Mr. Lloyd : My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister spoke about the importance that he places on
Column 430
volunteering. About half the population volunteer for charitable work at some time in their lives. We want to increase the number of volunteers, the regularity with which they do charitable work and their effectiveness.Mr. Michael : I am tempted to wish the Minister a happy Christmas after that question. I welcome him to his new responsibility for bringing together charities and voluntary organisations and express pleasure that the Government are catching up with the Labour party in that regard. Does he agree that volunteering should not be regarded as a cheap way of getting a job done and that we need to respect the professionalism of volunteers as well as their commitment? Will he give an undertaking to expand the way in which the Government provide training and resources for the support of volunteers? Does he accept that there is a danger that the contract culture may lead to a top-down approach in which the Government may seek to constrain too tightly the work of voluntary organisations?
Mr. Lloyd : I believe that contracting will probably mean an increase in the use of voluntary organisations. Professionalism is extremely important. It is not a cheap way of providing service, although it is the most cost-effective way of doing so. The great advantage is that it harnesses the enthusiasm of people who want to do that work and provides a flexibility that publicly funded and directed organisations cannot, with the best will in the world, supply.
Mr. Rowe : Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Prime Minister has shown considerable interest in making it possible for a large number of young people to give one year of their time to voluntary service if they so choose? Does he agree that, by so doing, they will enhance their self- respect as well as learn that they grow by giving? Will he do everything in his power to encourage that initiative?
Mr. Lloyd : My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of volunteering, where it is of benefit to the volunteer, especially those special groups of people whose self-respect needs developing. I refer particularly to former young offenders. Because of my Prison Service responsibilities and my responsibility for voluntary organisations, I take particular interest in organisations such as the Community Service Volunteers, to which I believe that my hon. Friend was referring, to ensure that they are developed further.
Carl Bridgewater Case
2. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the Carl Bridgewater case ; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Maclean) : I shall reply to the representations that I received on 8 June when they have been fully considered, and after any necessary further inquiries have been carried out.
Mr. Corbyn : Is it not now obvious to the Minister and to all normal thinking people in the country that there is something seriously wrong with the conviction of the Bridgewater Three? In the light of the revelations made by the foreman of the jury at the original trial about the
Column 431
evidence that was put before the jury, is it not obvious that it is time for the Home Office rapidly to complete its review of the evidence that was put before it and enable justice to be considered by referring the case back to the Court of Appeal? The issue could then be brought out into the open again and justice could finally be done.Mr. Maclean : It is highly premature of the hon. Gentleman to jump to that conclusion. I assure him that we shall pay close attention to Mr. O'Malley's views when we look again at the case. However, it is well established that a simple change of mind by a juror cannot by itself have any legal significance for the safety of a conviction. The solicitor for the convicted man acknowledged that point in the recent petition. I repeat that we shall consider carefully all the representations that we have received before coming to any conclusion.
Mr. Garnier : Does my hon. Friend recall that in the past few weeks one of the defendants in the Bridgewater case has been demonstrating on the roof of Gartree prison in my constituency? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the governor of that prison on his calm handling of the demonstration and to congratulate the Prison Service and the local police on bringing the matter to a close without injury or loss of life? Does he agree the proper way to deal with complaints such as that raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is to approach the Home Office directly rather than demonstrating on or about the prison?
Mr. Maclean : I congratulate the governor of the prison and his staff most sincerely on the sensible and caring way in which they handled that demonstration. I can only agree with my hon. Friend. We shall consider the representations that have been received thoroughly and carefully before coming to any conclusion on the matter. External demonstrations do not help our deliberative processes one iota.
Mr. Mullin : May I put it as gently as possible to the Minister that it is obvious to most sensible people who take a serious interest in the case that there is something seriously wrong and that the case should go back to the Court of Appeal? There is also an urgent need for the Home Office to demonstrate that it has learnt some lessons from the events of the past five years. Therefore, the sooner the case is referred back to the Court of Appeal, the better.
Mr. Maclean : I do not suppose that this is the first time that it has been said to the hon. Gentleman that his opening remarks were phrased in a slightly biased way. It is not for the Home Office to decide the guilt or innocence of the men. That is for the Court of Appeal. The issues that have been raised recently in publicity have been considered by the Court of Appeal in previous reviews. However, fresh representations have been made and we are going through them carefully to determine whether they contain any information that suggests that new evidence could be referred to the Court of Appeal. Of course, we want to reach conclusions as soon as we can, but it is more important that we are careful and exact in our deliberations.
Column 432
Sentencing
3. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what consideration is being given to further changes to the criminal sentences available to the courts.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard) : The Government are determined to ensure that the courts have available an effective range of measures to deal with offenders who appear before them. I will not hesitate to add to or increase the level of those penalties if the need arises.
Mr. Evennett : I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that custodial sentences are essential to protect the public from those citizens who want to destroy or disrupt society? Will he condemn those, including members of the Labour party, who wish to leave the courts powerless to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, who are a growing problem within our society? Will he reinforce his commitment to the secure training units at which such juveniles could be locked up and kept off society's streets and out of the way so that ordinary members of the public can go about their business in peace and security?
Mr. Howard : The answer to all my hon. Friend's questions is yes. We are determined to take action to ensure that, in particular, those juvenile offenders who persistently flout the law and cause great offence to people who witness and suffer from their behaviour are subject to a period of detention. I certainly intend to pursue the objectives that were set out by my predecessor.
Mr. Blair : First, I welcome the new Home Secretary to his position and hope, at least for the sake of the continuity, that he will stay a little longer than his predecessors, though not for too long. Does he agree that one major cause of concern about sentencing is the disparity in the types of sentence given for similar types of offence? That was highlighted again this week by the so-called vigilante cases, some of which were treated relatively leniently and others, such as the Norfolk case, with considerable severity. What proposals will the Home Secretary consider to introduce greater consistency in sentencing so that sentences are handed down by the courts on the basis of established principles of justice and not as a lottery?
Mr. Howard : First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and I look forward to facing him across the Dispatch Box for a long period, so long as he remains on the Opposition Bench and I and my hon. Friends remain on the Government Bench.
We wish to see greater consistency in sentencing. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, however, cases that appear before the courts involve an infinite range of circumstances, which have to be taken into account. In recent months the hon. Gentleman has taken it upon himself to parade as a guardian of law and order, but the trouble is that he himself has a large number of previous offences to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman offended by voting against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He has offended by voting against the prevention of terrorism Act on each and every occasion that it has come
Column 433
before the House. The hon. Gentleman has no credentials to appear in the guise of a guardian of law and order, and we will make sure that the country does not forget that.Mr. Thurnham : I begin by most warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his well-deserved appointment. Will he recognise the value of the right of appeal against lenient sentences? Is it not a disgrace that Labour Members failed to admit their mistake in opposing that measure?
Mr. Howard : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and I entirely agree with the point that he made. In the teeth of opposition from the Labour party and other parties, we introduced the provisions that now enable the Attorney-General to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has still not admitted that he and his party were wrong to oppose that measure.
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
4. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office when he now expects the royal commission on criminal justice to report.
Mr. Howard : I understand that the Royal Commission plans to publish its report on 6 July.
Mr. Bennett : Does the Home Secretary agree that the royal commission was set up because of the considerable concern about the relatively small, but extremely disturbing, number of miscarriages of justice and the soaring crime rate in this country? It was set up for those reasons, but one of the main lobbying groups wants to get rid of the right to silence. Does the Home Secretary agree that getting rid of the right to silence will do nothing to solve the problem of miscarriages of justice, and may increase the number of cases? It certainly will not reduce crime levels in this country, as it will not increase the number of people caught. Does he accept that many Ministers like to use the right to silence and not answer questions in the House, but we cannot presume that they are all guilty?
Mr. Howard : The royal commission was set up because of a widespread feeling that our system of criminal justice was not working as well as it should and had become far too much of an esoteric game, and not enough of a vehicle for determining guilt and innocence, which should be its function. I shall look carefully at the royal commission's report when it appears ; I shall not prejudge it, and I shall not answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I want to see what the royal commission has to say on the matter. In due course, I shall announce my proposals.
Sir Ivan Lawrence : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are two kinds of miscarriage of justice, one being the conviction of the innocent and the other the acquittal of the guilty?
Mr. Howard : I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who makes an extremely important point. Anyone who takes lightly the extent of concern in this country about those guilty people who walk free from our courts is actually behaving in a way which will earn them the contempt of our people.
Column 434
Mr. Maclennan : The Home Secretary said that he would not prejudge the royal commission, but he has already announced a number of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House of Lords. Has he had prior notice of the views of the royal commission, or has he prejudged it?
Mr. Howard : We have not announced any amendments to any Criminal Justice Bill before the House of Lords, but we have tabled several amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House of Commons, because, in common with most other people who have considered these matters, we recognise that there are deficiencies in our existing arrangements which need to be remedied without delay. We need to provide without delay for the courts to be able to examine all previous offences and we need to remedy the inability of the courts to take account of the fact that offences have been committed while the offenders were on bail. Where we see clear and blatant deficiencies in our law, we will not hesitate to act speedily to remedy them.
Mr. Bellingham : When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the royal commission, will he bear in mind the case of the Harleston Two, the so-called Norfolk vigilantes? Is he aware that both men, who were sentenced to five years' imprisonment, had no previous convictions whatsoever? Will he discuss with the royal commission the need to speed up appeals, and will he do all that he can to ensure that that particular appeal is dealt with as soon as possible?
Mr. Howard : I understand the widespread concern about the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know that as that matter is the subject of a pending appeal, I cannot comment upon it. It is important that we retain the distinction between vigilance and vigilantes and we must not condone any suggestion that it is right for people to take the law into their own hands. I know that my hon. Friend will agree with that, but I know the concern that is widely felt about the case to which he refers.
Mr. Allen : While unemployment and poor housing can never be an excuse for crime, does the Secretary of State accept that 14 years of Government policies on unemployment, housing and education could have contributed in any way to the appalling rise in the levels of crime over the same period?
Mr. Howard : No. Assertions such as those made by the hon. Gentleman do more to blur the crucial distinction between right and wrong than almost anything else. The Conservative party knows that that distinction must never be blurred, and we will not blur it or seek refuge in the verbiage emanating from the hon. Gentleman.
Police Numbers
5. Mr. Moss : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to change procedures for determining the number of police officers in each police force.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle) : My right hon. and learned Friend will be making a statement in the near future when he lays before Parliament his White Paper on police reform.
Column 435
Mr. Moss : Does my hon. Friend recognise that chief constables will warmly welcome the freedom to take their own decisions regarding manpower levels? Is it not absurd that the knee-jerk opposition to the proposals so aptly shown by Labour Members will lead them to oppose a reform which will give chief constables the option of putting more police on the beat?
Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the present system, a chief officer who wishes to increase his funding effectively has to express his bid in terms of additional police officers, but it cannot make sense for the Home Office to determine how many officers each force should have. It must be up to the chief officers to decide on the basis of local intelligence and local needs.
Mr. Mike O'Brien : May I express my surprise that the new Secretary of State expressed support for the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which we are currently in the process of seeking to amend? Will his support for more policemen on the beat be enhanced by the Government's proposals for restrictions on spending on police recruitment for the next three years?
Mr. Wardle : Many aspects of the 1991 Act made a great deal of sense. If the hon. Gentleman is following the Committee proceedings on the Bill, he will understand how it is now to be improved. As for police funding, the hon. Gentleman and the House must agree that it is up to chief officers to use their resources and to decide what to spend on manpower and what to spend on equipment. That must make sense.
Mr. Brandreth : Does my hon. Friend agree that in the past 14 years police numbers have risen by 16,500 and funding for them has risen by about 80 per cent? That shows the priority that we attach to the police. Does he agree that civilianisation and other ways of putting more police on the beat are to be encouraged and that it must be up to the local chief constables to decide how best to serve the community?
Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend is right. In addition to the statistics that he has just provided, I am sure that he will bear in mind the fact that, since 1979, almost 15,000 more civilian posts have been created and about 6,600 uniformed officers have been released for beat duties as a result of the civilianisation process.
It must be up to chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources. The House will understand that I cannot speculate about the White Paper, but some pointers were provided in the statement on 23 March. I can assure the House that the theme of the White Paper will be partnership between the police and public, and locally based and locally organised policing--so much was clear from the statement.
Sheehy Report
6. Mr. McFall : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for consultation on the report of the Sheehy inquiry.
Mr. Howard : The report will be published next week. I intend to ask for comments on its recommendations by the end of September.
Mr. McFall : This heavily leaked report has caused nothing but public fear and concern. What benefits will
Column 436
performance-related pay and crime league tables bring to the maintenance of public tranquillity and good community relations? Is this not a privatisation too far? In their haste to privatise, the Government will do nothing but destroy the public ethic.Mr. Howard : I shall certainly not comment on leaks of the report long before it has been published, but I hope that there will be no knee- jerk reactions of the sort that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman on the part of the Labour party or from any other quarter. I hope that everyone will recognise that we must have up-to-date arrangements within which the police can operate, give their best and be able to wage the war against crime more effectively. That is the purpose of all the reforms that we have in train, including those on which Sir Patrick Sheehy will report next week.
Sir Anthony Grant : Does my right hon. and learned Friend know whether the Sheehy inquiry has been looking into the possible recruitment to the police force of Army officers who are unfortunately available as a result of the "Options for Change" policy? Does he agree that those officers could probably provide the high fliers that the police need so much? Is he aware, however, of the resistance of this idea on the part of the more stick-in-the-mud elements in the police? Can this matter be raised in the consultations?
Mr. Howard : I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. It can certainly be raised in the consultations on the Sheehy report. As to whether it is dealt with in that report, I fear that we shall have to wait until next week.
Miss Hilda Murrell (Murder)
7. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him to reopen the case of the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell of Shrewsbury.
Mr. Charles Wardle : My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations about the case from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), from the publishing company Simon and Schuster, and from Mr. Gary Murray.
Mr. Dalyell : With the publication of Gary Murray's book "Enemies of the State" by the reputable publishing house of Simon and Schuster, and with the reopening of the police investigation, should not the Home Office deal with the question of whether taxpayers' money was involved in what Chief Detective Superintendent David Cole, in the course of a three-hour interview with me, described as a brutal and callous murder? In the light of the answer by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), then Minister of State, Home Office, on 19 December 1984 in the Consolidated Fund debate, and again in an Adjournment debate in June 1985, is there not an obligation on the Home Office to take a deep interest in these tragic events?
Mr. Wardle : If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of the misuse of public funds in this regard, I hope that he will bring it to the Home Office. No such evidence is available at the moment. West Mercia police have always been willing to consider new evidence in this unsolved case if it should come to light. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the
Column 437
Home Office will keep abreast of any developments arising from West Mercia's review of Mr. Murray's latest allegations. I hope that it will help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I say that nothing has come to light yet that would cause me to depart from the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw)-- when he was a Home Office Minister--in a letter dated 28 December 1984, when he asserted that allegations about the security services being involved in Miss Murrell's death were totally without foundation. The situation has not changed.Sentencing
8. Dame Jill Knight : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what representations he has received regarding sentencing ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Howard : I have received a large number of letters expressing concerns about sentencing. I take those concerns extremely seriously. As my hon. Friend will know, proposals are currently before the House to enhance the ability of the courts to deal appropriately and effectively with those convicted of criminal offences.
Dame Jill Knight : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the mounting public concern about children below the age of criminal responsibility who are none the less persistent and dangerous criminals? Often they are aided and abetted by social services, which enables them to get off scot free and to commit crimes again. Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that, because of sentencing policy, these youngsters are acquiring a very dangerous disrespect for the criminal justice system? Will he, in his own words of a few moments ago, remedy the present situation without delay, for the help and protection of the public?
Mr. Howard : I certainly understand and sympathise with the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is possible for young children who are below the age of criminal knowledge to be brought before the courts now, if they are beyond parental control. The most important lesson that children can learn is the difference between right and wrong--a lesson which cannot be learnt too soon, in their homes and schools. I welcome the efforts of all those who are increasingly drawing attention to its importance.
Mr. Dowd : Does the Home Secretary agree that, while it is critically important that we have a sentencing policy that both reflects the severity of the offence and punishes the wrongdoer, it is also important that we have a judicial system that does not inflict sentences on people who are patently innocent? I wrote to the Home Secretary some days ago requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the issues arising from the Court of Appeal judgment, a fortnight ago, in respect of my constituents Lisa and Michelle Taylor. When will the Home Secretary respond to my request for an urgent meeting, and when can we consider in full the damning indictments of the conduct of the Metropolitan police and certain sections of the press?
Mr. Howard : Of course it is true that we must have a system of criminal justice that both acquits the innocent and convicts the guilty. The hon. Gentleman's request is under consideration in my Department.
Column 438
Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of a recent incident on the Weston estate in Macclesfield, where local responsible, sensible people unfortunately had to take the law into their own hands in dealing with a persistent young juvenile offender, who has appeared before the courts on many occasions but who has been released back into the community? Will my right hon. and learned Friend act to ensure that the courts of this land, which currently cannot impose adequate sentences on persistent juvenile offenders, have the power to do so in the very near future, in order to prevent people being forced--for their own defence and in their own interests--to take the law into their own hands?
Mr. Howard : I have made it abundantly clear that I am determined to make sure that the courts have the sentencing powers that they need to deal adequately and effectively with offenders. I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we cannot allow people to take the law into their own hands. Members oan effective partnership between the public and the police, and if we do not leave the fight against crime entirely to the police. There is much that can be done short of people taking the law into their own hands. A part of that is making sure that the courts have adequate sentencing powers.
Mr. Tony Banks : How can the Minister possibly talk about knowing the difference between right and wrong when a Minister gives a present of a watch to a crook, and other Ministers go round the world trying to get funding? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. I can shout as loud as hon. Gentlemen. Did the Minister hear that question?
Mr. Howard : I heard it, Madam Speaker. I thought that it was an astonishing contribution from the hon. Gentleman, whose association with the Greater London council, which did so much harm to law enforcement, law and order and policing while it had some vestigial responsibility in this capital of ours, is well known and will not be forgotten, at least by anyone on this side of the House.
9. Mr. Peter Atkinson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to ensure that those who commit rapes and other sexual offences receive appropriate custodial sentences.
Mr. Howard : We are ensuring that courts have the powers they need to impose severe penalties for serious offences. The Criminal Justice Act 1991, which was mocked by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) a few moments ago--I hope that his constituents will know that he mocked it--gives the courts power to pass longer sentences on violent and sexual offenders in order to protect the public from serious harm.
Mr. Atkinson : Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that recent cases have proved that the Attorney-General needs the power to appeal against lenient sentences? He mentioned the opposition of hon. Gentlemen to that measure. Is he aware that the recent decision to extend to custody the sentence of a young man convicted of a serious sexual offence was greeted with
Column 439
enthusiasm by a number of hon. Gentlemen? Are we expecting a U-turn, or is this to be another matter to be "set aside" by hon. Gentlemen?Mr. Howard : If the Opposition were remotely consistent in their approach, we might expect a U-turn, but all we have at the moment are parrot cries of enthusiasm when the Attorney-General exercises the powers to which the Opposition were persistently opposed and complete silence from the Labour party as to whether they now, belatedly and reluctantly, recognise that we were right to give the
Attorney-General those powers. I thought that even today the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) might admit that he was wrong to oppose giving the Attorney-General those powers, but he sits there in silence, despite the fact to which my hon. Friend referred.
Ms Ruddock : Does the Home Secretary accept, further to his answer, that, in the longer-term interests of society, what happens to sexual offenders while in prison is equally important? Can he explain, therefore, why, when 2,000 inmates are eligible for sexual offender treatment programmes, provision has been made for a mere 300?
Mr. Howard : I am very sorry that the hon. Lady did not respond to the invitation that I offered to her hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield a moment ago. Many people will have regretted the fact that she, too, chose to remain silent on that issue. On the question that she posed, that is a matter that I am prepared to look at. I am given to understand that the figures which the hon. Lady quoted are inaccurate, and I will look into their accuracy. I understand that we have a programme under way for dealing with the point which she raised, and we will pursue that.
Mr. Congdon : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a link between the spread of pornographic material and the growth in offences of rape and serious assault? Is he prepared to consider strengthening the law to prevent the spread of such material?
Mr. Howard : We certainly need to look at the law in this area. I have not yet reached any conclusions on that matter, but I will certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account.
Dr. Lynne Jones : Does not the Secretary of State agree that there might be some improvement in this area of concern if it were compulsory for judges to undergo sexual awareness training?
Security Information
10. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has had about the co-ordination of security information between police forces.
Mr. Howard : My Department keeps closely in touch with police forces and the Security Service about these arrangements. Lead responsibility for intelligence work against Irish Republican terrorism in Great Britain was transferred to the Security Service in October and I am not persuaded that further changes are necessary.
Column 440
Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at a time when crime is becoming ever more sophisticated, it is ridiculous that there is not one proper centre to co-ordinate intelligence between the 43 police forces in England and Wales? Can he give the House an undertaking that he will overhaul and streamline the system so that drug trafficking, terrorism and other vicious crimes do not flourish?
Mr. Howard : I am as keen as my hon. Friend to make sure that such crimes do not flourish, but I am not satisfied that the present arrangements need to be changed in the way that he suggests. As I said a few moments ago, lead responsibility for intelligence work in terrorism has been transferred to the Security Service. The head of the anti-terrorist branch has a co-ordinating responsibility in relation to police work in this area. I am not satisfied that a case has been made for any change in those arrangements.,
Mr. Trimble : May I urge the Home Secretary to reconsider what he has just said and to look again seriously at suggestions recently made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? It is clear that there is a need for more to be done. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is also clear that on both sides of the Irish sea the security services are not having the desired success? Consequently, there is merit in the suggestion that a senior Minister with authority throughout the United Kingdom should be appointed to tackle this issue.
Mr. Howard : I am not persuaded that the hon. Gentleman's case has been made out. It would, for example, be very odd if we were to remove responsibility for security operations in the Province from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am not satisfied that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would constitute an improvement in the arrangements.
| Next Section
| Home Page |