| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): This has been a short but important debate. Let me make it clear from the outset that the bomb in London docklands was a cowardly and outrageous act, and that the search for peace in Northern Ireland must and will go on, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear.
The resumption of terrorist violence has implications for the Security Service, which will have to allocate its resources in the light of the demands that are placed upon it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading that the Security Service's serious crime work would depend on resources being available for it. It is essential that the service retains the flexibility to respond to sudden demands in respect of any of its functions. The Government still believe that this measure should be enacted. There has been agreement that organised crime is a menace to society.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed(Mr. Beith) spoke of the signal that could be given. We can certainly give a signal, as we have over the past few days, that no stone will be left unturned in the search for those responsible for last Friday's outrage. The Security Service will continue to do all that it can to bear down on terrorism. I would be worried about the signal that would be given if we did not proceed with the Bill, which has been programmed into the parliamentary calendar.
The IRA has already given a signal that it is afraid of the ballot box and of elections. The House of Commons works on the basis of the ballot box and elections. The Bill has received all-party support, has proceeded through Committee smoothly with all-party support and was scheduled to proceed through its remaining stages today. I fear that, if we abandoned it today because one bomb went off in London on Friday night, we would send a message that the IRA commanded the House's agenda, rather than elected Members of Parliament.
Mr. Winnick:
Surely it would not be giving in to the IRA any more than we have in the past 25 years to say, in effect, that the intelligence and security services should always be willing to devote all their energies, as circumstances demand, to fighting terrorism. Such action would in no way conflict with the attempt to continue the peace process in Northern Ireland--far from it--but the fact remains that the position has changed somewhat since the period of the ceasefire. We do not know whether the IRA intends to continue a sustained campaign of murder and atrocities. In those circumstances, most people would think it sensible for all the energies of the Security Service to be used to fight terrorism.
Mr. Maclean:
I thought that I had made it clear that the energies of the Security Service have been, are being and will continue to be used to combat terrorism. The hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring under a misapprehension. If the Bill would involve a huge transfer of resources from the Security Service into the handling of organised crime--resources that would then not be available to combat terrorism--I would agree with him, but that is not the case.
Mr. Winnick:
I did not say that.
Mr. Maclean:
That is how I interpreted thehon. Gentleman's remarks. I am not trying to put words into his mouth. Let me reassure him that it is perfectly safe for us to proceed with the Bill, on the basis that the Security Service has valuable resources. Although some of those resources could be used to fight organised crime, that would not deflect the Security Service from its leading role in combating terrorism.
I appreciate that new clause 1 stems from a desire for greater public accountability in the operation of the Security Service. That wish is understandable, but it
would be a mistake to assume that, just because the Security Service will be acting in support of the police--as well as other law enforcement agencies--the same systems of accountability should apply to both bodies.
Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam):
The Association of Chief Police Officers raised five key points in a paper which has, I believe, been circulated. I shall not go into the details, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that he has taken them into consideration?
Mr. Maclean:
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I believe that he is referring to the five key principles that were the basis of the agreement between the police and other law enforcement agencies and the Security Service. We have stated publicly--and I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said it in the House--that those five key principles have been taken into account, and amendments that we made in Committee have ensured that they are incorporated in the Bill even more explicitly.
I consider the new clause misguided, because it attempts to graft part of the accountability arrangements for police officers on to members of the Security Service. The Police Complaints Authority can investigate only complaints against police officers; the Security Service Tribunal can investigate only complaints against members of the Security Service. Those procedures work very well in their separate contexts. The procedures of the tribunal are carefully tailored to provide rigorous, independent oversight without compromising the service's operational effectiveness by revealing sensitive information, or, indeed, by revealing whether the service has been involved, where that is not necessary.
Any person--this will be of interest to thehon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow(Dr. Godman)--can complain to the tribunal about anything that he or she believes the Security Service has done to that person or to his or her property. That person can be an individual or an organisation, and a complaint about a person's property may include the place where he or she resides or works. Any complaint that is not trivial or vexatious will be examined. For complaints relating to action against property, the tribunal will involve the commissioner. The tribunal and commissioner have full powers to call on any official documents or information that they may need. All members of the tribunal are senior members of the legal profession. That is an important safeguard and it should not be taken lightly.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)
rose--
Mr. Maclean:
I give way first to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow.
Dr. Godman:
I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. He knows that my experience of tribunals relates to social security and medical tribunals. If there is a right of appeal against the tribunal's decision, how many cases were upheld in recent times?
Mr. Maclean:
There is no right of appeal against the tribunal's decision. It was set up to be the final court of appeal in investigating these matters. The number of cases is on record, and I shall need to refresh my memory of it.
I now give way to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
Mr. Mullin:
Further to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), will the Minister remind the House, so that we may know how seriously we should take the tribunal, how many complaints the tribunal upheld?
Mr. Maclean:
The tribunal has not upheld any complaints of abuse by the Security Service. That is testimony to the fact that the Security Service has behaved properly, and the tribunal has not found any cause for complaint. It seems that the hon. Gentleman and I reach different conclusions from that fact. He obviously thinks that there is some cause to see something sinister or to suspect. It is a cause of pride that the machinery has worked well.
What of operations when the Security Service is acting in support of the police? It is not a new development for the service to be working closely with law enforcement agencies. That already happens under theservice's existing functions, particularly in relationto counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation and counter-espionage. There is no reason, therefore, why new disciplinary procedures should be introduced for the service's new function. It would not be sensible for members of the service to be subject to different disciplinary procedures for work under different functions when the distinction between, for example, terrorism and organised crime may be extremely blurred. Furthermore, if a different procedure came into play in relation to a particular function, that could be exploited to reveal information about the basis for the service's inquiries into a particular target.
It may help hon. Members if we consider what will happen in practice. If a potential complainant suspects the involvement of the Security Service, he or she can complain direct to the tribunal. That is the same as now and the procedure is straightforward. I assume that it is more likely that the complainant will not know where to direct his or her complaint. In those circumstances, the complainant is most likely to go to the police. If the complaint consists of an alleged criminal offence, the police are the appropriate point of contact. Members of the Security Service are subject to the law, and if a criminal offence has been committed, the police will investigate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |