| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the amendment. He must do so, rather than just make assertions across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Dalyell: It relates to the security services intervening in an industrial dispute.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made one short reference to that, and proceeded to make
extensive allegations about something that occurred years ago. In particular, he has made allegations in relation to an individual. While it is perfectly proper to make allusions to individuals, it is not appropriate to make such remarks across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Dalyell: I have said this before across the Floor of the House. The role of the security services in industrial situations is highly relevant. The incident to which I referred occurred back in 1984, and the lady in question is about to retire. But the problem is not over, and I will tell the Minister why. We read month after month in one form or another--I do not know with what truth--that David Hart is advising the Government. I do not know what a man like that is doing at the heart of the British Government. My hon. Friends should not be under any illusions--this problem goes on and on, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton is quite right to raise it.
Mr. Michael: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister would be wise to accept the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that these matters run deep not only among many people in industry, but among many people in the police, and that constitutes the root of the concerns that the police expressed to many Members as we approached the Bill.
The matter has been dealt with by recognising problems and ensuring that the House decides on the right way to deal with them. For that reason, it will help everyone if we learn from the past and if the Minister gives us confidence in the arrangements that he is seeking to establish in the Bill. It will be extremely helpful if, in response to the amendment, he tells the House that it is the strong intention of the Government that the resources of MI5 should be devoted to the fight against terrorism and, under the powers in the Bill, to helping the police in the fight again serious and organised crime. Those resources should not be used in the field of industrial relations. There is a widespread belief that power was misused during the 1980s, and the Minister will show wisdom if he provides clarity in the intentions of the Government in relation to the legislation. I invite him to do so.
Mr. Maclean:
I shall attempt to rise to the hon. Gentleman's challenge to show wisdom, and I shall not rake over the coals of the other matters that have been mentioned in this short debate. The best and simplest way for me to respond would be to remind the House of my remarks in Committee. All the relevant parties, including the police and the Security Service, envisage the same role for the Security Service as the man on the Clapham omnibus would expect--that it should act against those crimes where its special skills and expertise can most effectively be employed, meaning organised crime.
Industrial disputes do not constitute organised crime--I do not think they do, and that is obviously the view of the Opposition. The man on the Clapham omnibus would not consider industrial disputes to be organised crime. There is no question of the security services becoming involved in cases that are not thought to involve serious crime. Nor can the Security Service be a political football. As I am sure the hon. Member for Leyton is aware, the Security Service Act 1989 places a specific duty on the
Director-General of the Security Service to ensure that the service takes no action to further the interests of any political party.
Mr. Winnick:
Do we understand from the Minister's remarks that, whatever happened in the past--my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made an important reference to what occurred in the 1980s--the security services will under no circumstances be involved in industrial disputes in the future? That is an important question that relates to the amendment. I understand that the Minister gave that assurance. So that I do not misunderstand him, I would be glad if he would confirm that that is the position.
Mr. Maclean:
I am not sure that I can put it any better than I have just done. We had a discussion in Committee on what was meant by "organised and serious crime". At one point, we had a discussion--I can assure the House that it was relevant--about large grey elephants. We agreed that although we would all know an elephant if we saw it, we might not be able to describe it. "Organised crime" is not a unique or specialist definition. Although the Bill talks about "serious crime", we meant "organised crime" to be the sort of concept that the man on the Clapham omnibus would understand.
Whatever organised crime may be--whether it involves drugs or gun-running, which is highly organised--it is my view that industrial disputes cannot and do not construe organised crime. I would not therefore envisage the Security Service working against the nurses or the other groups to which Opposition Members referred on the basis of "organised crime".
Mr. Winnick:
The amendment states:
Is the Minister assuring us that the Security Service will not intervene in industrial disputes? That is all I am asking.
Mr. Maclean:
I am not sure whether I can go as wide as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The Bill deals with the Security Service's attempts to deal with organised crime. I have said to the House and in Committee that I cannot see circumstances in which the Security Service--bearing in mind that it would be tasked by the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the police--would become involved in an industrial dispute, as we commonly understand it, as that would not be regarded as organised crime, as we commonly understand it. On that basis, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Mr. Cohen:
I thought that the Minister was generous in taking account of my sentiments--and, I think, those of the House--in his statement. But when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) questioned him, he became a little less clear. I appreciate his point that the security services would not be involved in industrial disputes in relation to organised crime, but they still have a massive opportunity for intervention in relation to subversion, which can be whatever they describe it as. They have interpreted that in the wrong way in the past.
The F2 section of the service was set up purely for industrial relations purposes. If the service was genuinely moving away from involvement in industrial disputes, the
Minister should have commented on the reorganisation or, perhaps, abolition of that section. We did not hear that, however, and those points must be clarified.
Mr. Michael:
There is a tendency in difficult discussions on legislation such as this to enter into philosophical discussions. We know that, in the past, there have been occasions when the service entered into areas that the Government or Parliament had not intended. Is not the most simple message that could come from the debate the one that my hon. Friend sought to put across in tabling the amendment--that it is not the intention of Parliament that the Security Service, as a result of the legislation, should enter into industrial relations disputes?
Mr. Cohen:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a relevant point. I hope that that message will go out clearly from this House to the Security Service--
Mr. Winnick:
My hon. Friend mentioned, in relation to industrial disputes, F2 within MI5. Will he bear it in mind that among those who were targeted was our hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) who, with Patricia Hewitt, took her case to the European Court and won? It is important to note that people who werehardly revolutionaries--indeed, anti-revolutionaries--were targeted.
Mr. Cohen:
That point is well made by my hon. Friend. As hon. Members have said, there will continue to be an issue if MI5 is perceived to be involved in industrial disputes, as it was in the 1980s.
I am prepared to withdraw the amendment so that the House can move on to consider other important parts of the Bill. I hope that we will not have to return to this issue. If we do, I assure the House that I will take it up--I hope with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) at the Government Dispatch Box. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Michael:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 17, at end insert--
This is a straightforward amendment, which would ensure that any request for support from MI5 made by a law enforcement agency--whether a police force or other agency--will be subject to the approval of the chief constable designate.
"the Service shall not so act with regard to any industrial relations dispute".
6.30 pm
'(2A) After subsection (3) of section 2 of that Act there shall be added--
"(3ZA) The arrangements referred to in subsection (2)(c) above shall specify that any request for support made by a law enforcement agency or a police force shall be subject to the approval of the person designated in accordance with subsection (3B) below who shall be responsible for agreeing to the specific arrangements of any operation or operators resulting from each individual request, which shall include arrangements as to the accountability of the persons and, bodies involved.".'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |