| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Bull Bars (Prohibition)
Mr. Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the prohibition of the use on roads of motor vehicles fitted with bull bars; and for other related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 March and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
Security Service Bill
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I question whether we should proceed with this Bill and the new clauses and amendments today in the aftermath of Friday's terrible bombing. I do not want terrorists to imagine that there will be any let-up in the security and intelligence efforts directed against them; nor do I want the public to feel that there will be any transfer of resources to the detriment of the fight against terrorism, upon which they depend for their protection. If there is any resource or manpower in the security service which could be effectively used to reduce the risk of further bombing being carried out, it must be used.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation has undoubtedly changed since Second Reading and the Committee stage, in which we both took part? At this stage we do not know whether the tragic bombing of last Friday is a one-off or whether terrorism will be renewed on a sustained basis. In those circumstances, would it not be better for this Bill to be delayed until we know whether the IRA intends to continue its terrorist campaign against this country?
Mr. Beith:
The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was about to say, which is that that was the argument I put to the Prime Minister and the Minister of State in an exchange on the wireless yesterday. It is open to the Government to let the Bill proceed to the statute book, suitably amended, and not to bring it into practical effect. I suspect that that is what may happen if any of the resources are needed in the fight against terrorism.
There are still some problems with the Bill with which the new clause attempts to deal and, because of that, it would have been advantageous to proceed in that way. There is less of a rush to put on the statute book the facility to deal with organised crime if the resources may be needed to deal with terrorism in the mean time.
We are talking about relatively few people. It has been argued during discussions on the Bill that only about 15 people may be effectively transferred from security work to work against organised crime. Nobody should imagine
that we are talking about large numbers. However, it would have been advantageous in improving the Bill if we had not proceeded today and, at the same time, it would have given a clear signal to terrorists and the public that there will be no let-up in the efforts against terrorism. The Government came to a different conclusion, so it is right to try to ensure that the Bill is in the form that it should be. The new clause is directed precisely to that effect.
The new clause illustrates a number of respects in which the Bill does not relate properly to the existing work and structures of the police. The new clause relates to the police complaints machinery. The nature of the problem is illustrated when one realises that the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is a police agency--although it is run by the Home Office by a chief constable seconded for the purpose--does not exist in statute. The Government have already had to resort to a formula to refer to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. They have had to incorporate an amendment which refers to "a chief constable", it being understood that that chief constable would be the head of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It is one of the results of proceeding with the Bill without first sorting out the national structures and arrangements of the police service. It is one of the things that could have been done if progress on the Bill had been deferred.
In response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I must say that it would be unwise to assume that what happened on Friday was a one-off event. I am sure that all the security organisations--the police, the Army and the security services--are working and must work on the assumption that there are terrorists waiting to strike with further atrocities at any time. It is on that basis that we should all conduct our security arrangements.
On Second Reading we tabled a reasoned amendment which specified a number of respects in which we thought that the Bill was seriously deficient and should be put right. We argued that it must make express provision for the police to retain the lead in the fight against crime. We argued that the activities of the Security Service in that area should be subject to police authorisation and that there should be a new and uniform system of warrants to control interventions on property by either the Security Service or the police. We argued for clear arrangements for the national co-ordination of the police and Security Service and for clear arrangements for accountability and the consideration of complaints by the public. There were four points of criticism.
It is unusual to be able to say that two of those points were met in Committee. I recognise that the Government have responded to those criticisms and that the Bill has been improved significantly. However, two points of criticism remain and they both fall to be considered. One is the issue of warrants and the other is covered by the new clause, which is how the public can complain.
There is already an established machinery for complaints against the police. Not everybody is satisfied with it, but it is in extensive use and is provided for in statute. It is based on the existence of a Police Complaints Authority which supervises investigations carried out by police forces.
There is a different system for complaints against the Security Service, which involves a tribunal and a commissioner. There has been no attempt so far during discussions on the Bill to explain how those provisions can be matched up or how they will relate to each other.
Justice, the well-known human rights organisation run by eminent lawyers, said in its representations:
How are we to match those two systems or ensure that the general public know to whom to complain when they find that some action by the Security Service, in pursuit of this legislation, results in damage or harm, whether through carelessness, abuse of power or excess of zeal?
The position is further complicated by the fact that the Security Service's main partner in dealing with organised crime--the body that will task it--is the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It is staffed by police officers, but a police officer, while at the National Criminal Intelligence Service, is not subject to Police Complaints Authority procedure. If a complaint is made as a result of an action taken by an officer who is working at the National Criminal Intelligence Service, he has to be sent back to the force from which he was seconded. Action can take place there and the Police Complaints Authority can become involved. The situation of NCIS is not entirely satisfactory and is complicated to manage.
What will happen if, in a joint operation against organised crime involving the police, NCIS and the Security Service, something goes wrong? A member of the public may be adversely affected, or believe that he has been adversely affected, and so make a complaint. Perhaps that person will go to the Police Complaints Authority. The authority will say, "Oh well, the individual concerned was not a police officer. He may have been a member of the Security Service, in which case you may have to make a complaint using the Security Service Tribunal and the Security Service Commissioner." But the member of the public may be completely unaware. He may just assume that the person concerned is a police officer and he will not know where to go.
That assumption is even more likely if the Security Service uses police cover to avoid identification of its personnel. It is in the nature of the Security Service that it cannot have its personnel readily identified because otherwise its ability to do a wide range of its important work would be fatally compromised. The Security Service might not be at all anxious for it to be known that one of the personnel involved in the operation is "one of theirs". That will not be apparent to the general public who will not, therefore, have obvious recourse to a proper complaints procedure.
"A complaint against the security service is dealt with by a closed tribunal hearing that gives no reasons for its decision and is statutorily exempt from judicial review proceedings. By contrast, a complaint against the police is dealt with by the Police Complaints Authority which results in a public report with reasons and may be subject to judicial review proceedings.
As importantly, police officers may be sued for damages for illegal conduct and abuse of their powers. This form of judicial redress will not be available to victims of misconduct by security service officials."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |