| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Feb 2003 : Column 1035—continued
Mr. Blunkett: It is clearly the right of the Opposition to question the Government when the Government are clearly at fault. It is clearly the job of the Opposition to raise immediate issues, as they have today, briefly, as part of the shadow Home Secretary's statement. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen this private notice question to raise issues that are not relevant to the immediate situation and that were not put to you, Mr. Speaker, in the terms of the question.
I am happy to answer to the House on the wider issues of preparedness, general security and resilience. As I indicated, we have regularly made statements to the House on those issues, as we will again in a few weeks' time, when we debate the renewal of part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
This afternoon, I want to rebut those critical elements that have divided the House in a way that was never the case during 30 years of Irish terrorism—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not grant this urgent question to give hon. Members the opportunity to shout across the Chamber. This is a very, very serious matter and I will not tolerate shouting. If the shouting continues, the urgent question session will cease. I say to hon. Members: do not shout across the Chamber at a time like this.
Mr. Blunkett: I seek entirely to refute the allegation that our security and policing services are not prepared, or are not in a position, to secure our well-being, and are not securing our well-being, because patently they are. The exercise being undertaken this week is precisely to achieve that goal. It is to ensure that evidence provided is acted upon, that measures are proportionate and that the work being done secures the population against the danger of threat at this particular moment. The security services for which I am responsible and the policing and anti-terrorist branch for which I am responsible are not only acting in a responsible and accountable way but, as I indicated at the end of my statement, are doing their job with great professionalism and courage.
I shall deal with two of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). First, I believe that it is right to report to the House on what is correctly the role of politicians. I am aware that, in opposition, it is sometimes difficult to get one's case across, so constant reiteration of a requirement that someone should come to the Dispatch Box is an understandable tactic. We had 18 years in opposition so we are aware of the frustrations. However, for a Cabinet
Minister—me or anyone else—to come day by day to the Dispatch Box to answer for the operational activity of our security and policing services would be unnecessary and dangerous, in terms both of the alarm that it would cause and of the unnecessary hype that it would inevitably involve.Secondly, to detach the responsibilities of a Minister from the security services and policing, including the anti-terrorism branch, would clearly be responsibility without power. It would mean someone having to answer on areas for which they were not responsible and would detract from the accountability that we all carry as Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Health, who are on the Treasury Bench today.
The allegation of confusion or mixed messages is entirely due to the misreporting—[Interruption.] I hear calls in relation to my right hon. Friend the Labour party chairman, who was entirely misquoted, and who said absolutely nothing that has not been said before in terms of the raising of consciousness of danger consequent on what happened on 11 September 2001. It is precisely because of what happened then that the measures we have taken have been put in place, and the operations, which will have to continue when necessary and will have to be repeated from time to time, will be put in place.
If every time we take measures to protect the public, enhance our level of preparedness and engage our security police and where necessary our armed services, there are calls for debates in the House or statements at the Dispatch Box, we shall damage rather than enhance the chances of catching those who threaten our lives and those who would put our nation in danger.
I appeal to the official Opposition, who have done nothing but shout throughout this statement, to act with a degree of responsibility and to continue the consensus that we have had—until their party leadership has clearly instructed their spokesmen to do otherwise.
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): We are very grateful that the Home Secretary has made his statement, and I am very grateful for the briefings I have periodically received, which I respect, and whose confidentiality I respect.
I entirely agree that it is not the Home Secretary's job to provide a running commentary on such important matters, and that it is of course of paramount importance that nothing be said that compromises the intelligence and other activities we need to carry out as a nation. I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's judgement or his integrity in the decisions he takes. I hope that that shows that there is a common basis on which we are willing to proceed.
Given that it was exceptional to see troops deployed on the mainland of the United Kingdom, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it was appropriate— exceptionally—to describe such exceptional measures by coming to Parliament, because that gives him the opportunity to make the authoritative statement that is proper to his office on behalf of the Government, both to avoid confusion and to allow any appropriate questions to be answered?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any decision as to what military provision is made is a matter operationally under the control of the military rather
than the Government, that the military will respond as it thinks appropriate, and that it is a matter on which it does not take direction from politicians?Can the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Government—he and his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport, in this instance—are taking in hand the recommendations of the Lord Carlile report about increasing security at all our ports, our airports and seaports, and are taking on board suggestions, including that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), about improving airport security, which everyone agrees is of paramount importance?
Lastly, could the right hon. Gentleman have urgent discussions with his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, so that arrangements can be made—arrangements which I know they are thinking about—both to give the public in written form in the next few weeks clear information about how they should respond, or where they should seek further information, and to assure us that at local government level the necessary resources and finances are in place for any necessary civil response to the exceptional situation which is, sadly, threatening our country at present?
Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the measured way in which he presented his questions and his case.
I can confirm that the operational responsibility for calling upon the armed services rests primarily in this case with the police. It is for them to determine whether they think that would be appropriate, and that will be the case in the future.
The armed services have been brought in from time to time on the British mainland when requested operationally. It is precisely because of the split between political and operational responsibility that I made my earlier remarks about appearances at the Dispatch Box or anywhere else. That must be understood unless we are to change the relationship with the police and armed services in such circumstances. Not all those in the House, because of the time they have been here or the responsibility they have held here, will understand that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does.
Yes, we do believe that it is necessary—and it will be from time to time—to repeat the kind of exercise that has taken place this week, including exercises to establish precisely the preparedness to which the shadow Home Secretary referred. That will occur over the months and weeks ahead, and I think that people will welcome it and treat it with responsibility.
Yes, we do need to ensure that there are means to inform the public well and for them to be able to make contact, and we will put that in place. Yes, we are taking seriously what Lord Carlile has suggested. As with the Wheeler report on airports—we referred to this in the House not so long ago—we are taking additional measures to ensure security, as we are doing this week.
Yes, we will need to enhance and work with local government on its civil contingency roles, and we will return to that in debates in the House. We readjusted the
funding to £90 million, as the hon. Gentleman will know, precisely to ensure that we reflected the concerns that he has raised.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to hon. Members that I require questions, not statements, and those whom I call should ask one question.
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North): May I tell my right hon. Friend that, when my constituents awoke earlier this week to find 2,000 police officers and military around the site of their biggest employer, they would have been as disgusted as I am today to see that this matter has been dragged into party political point scoring? May I ask him, please, bearing in mind the exigencies of the circumstances that he describes, to realise that the rumour mill has started to grind and in the vacuum, without information, rumours will spread? Will he please assure the House that when he is able to give us the information he will do so?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |