House of Commons
Thursday 20 February 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
HOME DEPARTMENT
European Union Police Force
1. Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy in respect of an EU-wide police force. [15277]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): A European Union police force is neither necessary nor desirable. Member states' police forces already co-operate closely and Europol will work increasingly with them to support their investigations. However, Europol will not conduct its own investigations or make arrests: those are properly matters for national law enforcement agencies regulated by national law.
Mr. Booth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on 29 January the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), said that if Labour ever came to power he would allow the police in Britain to be to some extent under the control of the European Court and the European Parliament? Will my right hon. and learned Friend condemn that nonsense?
Mr. Howard: Yes, I certainly will. My hon. Friend is right. The shadow Foreign Secretary was
- "suggesting that some justice and home affairs issues, such as police co-operation . . . might be 'unbundled' and 'partially communitised', allowing the European parliament and court of justice to have a say in them."
Mr. Cousins: Does the Home Secretary believe that the international money laundering and drugs business--a £1 billion industry--needs the tightest possible co-ordination between police forces to deal with financial and commercial fraud? That does not happen now. Should not the Home Secretary drop his ridiculous play acting to be the next Leader of the Opposition and get down to the real work of tackling massive international fraud?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must do all we can to tackle international fraud and money laundering, but if he thinks that the way to
tackle those problems effectively is to give the European Parliament a say in them or to make them subject to the European Court of Justice, he could not be more mistaken.
Mr. John Greenway: Despite that answer, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be totally wrong to regard Britain as dragging its feet over European issues of law and order when in fact we are ahead of most other countries in ratifying the convention to create Europol, and when the measures in the Police Bill mean that Britain will have a better method of disseminating information to Europol than exists in other countries?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We were the first country to ratify the Europol convention, which means that we are in the forefront of effective European co-operation in these matters. Indeed, at an earlier stage in the process, when it looked as though the whole Europol project might founder on fundamental disagreements between France and Germany, the United Kingdom was able to bring them together and broker an agreement so as to make progress on Europol possible.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does not the idea of an EU-wide police force raise some interesting possibilities? Might it not mean, for instance, that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary would begin to serve in the Republic of Ireland?
Mr. Howard: I suspect that mixed feelings might greet that proposal and also what I imagine would be its concomitant--the Gardai having operational responsibility in Northern Ireland. When those implications are pointed out, even countries on the continent of Europe which purport to favour communitising the third pillar think several times before pursuing such projects with any enthusiasm.
Mr. Garnier: If we were to have an EU-wide police force, would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that police force should be allowed in court to comment on the failure of a defendant to speak to that police force while it was investigating a crime?
Mr. Howard: As I have made clear, I am not in favour of a Europe-wide police force, but I take some comfort from the fact that the introduction of our reform to the right to silence in this country in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994--which was bitterly opposed, spoken against and voted against by the Leader of the Opposition when he was shadow Home Secretary--has led to a reduction of almost 50 per cent. in the number of suspects who refuse to answer questions put to them by the police. As a result of that change, guilty men who previously would have walked free from the courts are now being convicted in the courts of this country almost every day.
Mr. Straw: As it has been the long-standing and agreed policy of the Labour party that matters of border control, immigration, asylum and police should all be dealt with intergovernmentally and that there should be no question of any Europe-wide police force, why does the Home Secretary seek to invent our policy in order to attack us? Does he recall that, on 12 February, as reported at column 358 of Hansard, he claimed that my right hon. Friend
the shadow Foreign Secretary had issued a press release indicating a change of policy? There has been no change of policy and no such press release exists.
Mr. Howard: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is a simple one: the shadow Foreign Secretary gave an interview to the Financial Times, an account of that interview was published in the Financial Times and that report said that the shadow Foreign Secretary had suggested
- "that some justice and home affairs issues . . . such as police co-operation might be 'unbundled' and 'partially communitised', allowing the European parliament and court of justice to have a say in them."
West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority
2. Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning West Midlands fire and civil defence authority. [15278]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): There have been two such representations in the past six months: one about the fire brigade's bid under the capital challenge pilot scheme, which I am glad to say resulted in an award of £3 million to build a new fire station at Handsworth, and the other about civil defence grant.
Mr. Purchase: Is the Minister unaware that the grant to the West Midlands fire service is now less in real terms than it was in 1992, that it has lost an aggregate of £16.5 million since the last election? Is he unaware of the great stress in the fire services resulting from having to deal with so many different problems--motorway crashes, difficult access and, in some cases, abuse on difficult estates? Is he completely unaware of the stress that firefighters feel, or is it just another case of our being unable to trust this Government--especially when they are playing with fire?
Mr. Sackville: I have no doubts about the difficulties of the job, but the hon. Gentleman should remember, first, that the national standards for levels of fire cover are agreed, not by us, but in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, on which all the fire service organisations are represented. Secondly, the standard spending assessment for the West Midlands service went up this year by 6.9 per cent. which will allow additional spending of over 6 per cent. I see no commitment from the Labour party to spend any more on fire services.
DNA Database
3. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many samples there are on the national DNA database; and how many matches have been made between suspects and samples. [15280]
Mr. Howard: As at the end of January 1997, the national DNA database held more than 112,000 profiles
taken from suspected or convicted persons and more than 9,000 crime scene stain profiles and there had been more than 2,000 matches between suspects and scenes of crime.
Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that DNA testing is an important tool in our armoury to fight crimes against individuals? Does he also agree that its vital importance was shown in one famous case where a 78-year-old lady had been raped by a drug addict and, thanks to DNA testing, the suspect's alibi was put aside, with the result that he was convicted and is now serving 10 years in prison? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that DNA testing gets the full backing that it deserves, along with all those other tools that we are currently using, such as closed circuit television and ensuring that there are more police on the beat?
Mr. Howard: I certainly will. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill, which he is guiding through the House and which will enable the DNA profiles of about 7,750 serious sexual or violent offenders and those who commit burglaries with convictions prior to April 1995 who are still in custody to be added to the database. That will increase the protection available to my hon. Friend's constituents in Ribble Valley and to others throughout the country.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the percentage incidence of matching error?
Mr. Howard: I cannot give an immediate answer to that question, but I am perfectly prepared to let the hon. Gentleman have it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) laughs from the Opposition Front Bench as though that would invalidate the tremendous success of the DNA database, illustrating yet again the frivolity of the Labour party's attitude to these important issues. The DNA database is a tremendous success: it is the first national DNA database in the world and it is likely, in the fulness of time, to revolutionise the way in which the police can tackle crime and protect the public. Yet all that Members on the Labour Front Bench can do is giggle.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |