| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): No one wants the guilty to go free, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the failure of the police and, sometimes, of the prosecution authorities to produce evidence that is inconvenient to their case has led to some extremely serious miscarriages of justice? Will such miscarriages be avoided under the legislation that he is proposing?
Mr. Howard: The proposals that I make will not, in any way, increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Blackburn-- although there had been a certain amount of confusion up to his speech this evening--that the Labour party apparently intended to support these proposals. [Interruption.] I will explain to him exactly why there was confusion. There was confusion because, in his speech last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that he supported the scheme proposed by the Royal Commission on criminal justice on this matter.
I agreed with the principle behind the royal commission's proposal, but it did not adequately deal with the problem that it identified. The Bill's proposals, therefore--let there be no misunderstanding about this-- go substantially further than those made by the royal commission. It was therefore utterly ridiculous--I am glad to see the hon. Member for Blackburn nodding his head--for the Leader of the Opposition to respond to our proposals by saying that he supported the royal commission's recommendations when they were two different things.
Trying to find out where the Opposition stand on such matters is normally a futile affair. The Leader of the Opposition has elevated indecision to the level of a constitutional principle. He will do anything and go anywhere rather make up his mind on any of these matters. His attitude to decision making is to run away from it as fast as he can.
The amendment to the Gracious Speech complains that there is nothing to help victims in our proposals. That is not true. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill will give judges a new power to prevent the reporting of unsubstantiated allegations by the defence, which would blacken the good name of victims, to get lighter sentences for their clients. That should significantly reduce the
distress experienced by victims, but, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman did not bother to check his facts before drafting his amendment.
The Bill will allow retrials where a jury has been nobbled or a witness intimidated. That measure will do most to deal with the problem that was raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), whose problems were caused by the fact that people were not prepared to come forward to give evidence. One cannot convict people in the absence of evidence. The Bill will encourage people to come forward and to give evidence, and it implements the last of the 27 pledges that I made at the Conservative party conference in 1993. It was one of the many royal commission recommendations that I have been happy to accept.
Mrs. Fyfe:
On the subject of indecision, is the Home Secretary prepared to tell us whether he repudiates the words of Andrew Lansley?
Mr. Howard:
I made it perfectly clear yesterday that I had never discussed the matter with Mr. Lansley. The Bill that I am proposing is a clear response to an identified problem. We need to hear whether Opposition Members agree that there is a problem and, if not, why not, and what they intend to do about it. Do they agree with our proposals? If they have some other way of dealing with the problem, let us hear from them about it. Let us have no more diversionary tactics. Let us talk about the issues and debate them on their merits.
Mr. Straw:
This is the fourth time of asking over two days and the Home Secretary must now answer the question. The entire country wants to know the answer--
[Laughter.] It is hardly a laughing matter. Mr. Andrew Lansley made it clear that his advice to the Tory party was to play the race card, that immigration was an issue that played particularly well in the tabloids and that it had the potential to hurt. We want to know not whether the Home Secretary has discussed the matter with Mr. Lansley, which is his pat answer, but whether he will now repudiate the views of Mr. Lansley.
Mr. Howard:
The hon. Gentleman slightly exaggerates the extent to which he has been able to excite the country about this matter. I have told him clearly that I have made clear proposals to deal with a clear problem and it is about time that we heard from the Labour party about its attitude to the proposals.
Our second Bill will enable the Security Service to help to fight organised crime. Organised crime is big business on an international scale. The people involved are highly calculating, highly ruthless and highly organised. To deal with them we have to be just as calculating, just as ruthless and just as organised.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard:
I have already given way about five times as often as the hon. Member for Blackburn. I want to deal with this important measure.
The Security Service has considerable expertise in collecting, collating and analysing intelligence. That expertise should be used to help the police, Customs and Excise and the National Criminal Intelligence Service to
fight crime. It is doubtful whether current legislation permits this, so we shall legislate to put beyond doubt its ability to do so.
In addition, we intend to build on the success of the regional crime squads and the National Criminal Intelligence Service so that we can establish a more focused and better co-ordinated policing response, at national level, against organised crime. The police will, of course, continue to lead on this. They fully support the proposals.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
rose--
Mr. Howard:
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman waits until I have completed this passage, then I may give way to him.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) made a speech about that aspect of the matter. It was characteristically mistaken. He was the only Opposition Member to mention it. Perhaps we will hear whether he speaks for his party on this matter. His speech was in direct contrast to that of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) who made a compelling speech about the drug problem in his constituency. I hope that in addition to the measures that I identified when I gave way to him, the involvement of the Security Services in helping to intercept the flow of drugs to this country will help to deal with the problem with which his constituents are afflicted.
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Howard:
I want to finish this section of my speech. If I have not already answered his question I will then give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
Concerns have been expressed about the accountability of the Security Service. Of course, it will not be acting independently; it will be working in conjunction with the police and Customs and Excise. The Director General of the Security Service will be accountable to me in relation to these additional functions just as she is now for the present work of the service. The existing safeguards--the role of the Security Service commissioner and the tribunal in investigating complaints about the service--will apply to its additional functions as they do to its existing ones. This will be a valuable reinforcement of our armory in the fight against crime, and I hope that the Bill will receive a warm welcome.
Mr. Beith:
How will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the police are in operational charge? If the Act is simply amended to allow the Security Service to operate in the area of organised crime, the service will itself be able to choose which operations to mount.
Mr. Howard:
No, because the arrangements that we have made--agreed by the Security Service and the police and Customs and Excise--make it clear that the work done by the Security Service on organised crime will be in support of the law enforcement agencies: the police and the Customs and Excise.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East)
rose--
Mr. Howard:
My third Bill is the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Yesterday I set out the genuine problems that we face and the actions that we intend to take to deal with them. Asylum applications are rising sharply. In January last year we received 2,000 claims; last month there were 4,500, so the number has more than doubled.
Mr. Howard:
The trend here is in marked contrast to what is happening in Europe, where other countries have taken action, not against genuine refugees but against bogus asylum seekers. Asylum claims fell by more than 40 per cent. last year in the rest of western Europe but rose by 45 per cent. here.
Most of the claims that we receive are bogus; only 4 per cent. are initially granted asylum and only 4 per cent. of appeals are upheld by independent adjudicators.
Mr. Howard:
There are now 700 staff working on asylum claims, compared with fewer than 100 in 1988. In the 12 months to last June they took 25,000 decisions, 10,000 more than in the preceding 12 months. In February
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |