---

Mr. Ancram: And on the "Today" programme.

Mr. Straw: "Today", my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would agree, is now part of the interrogation of Ministers, because it is rare for us not to appear on the programme. Long may that continue, because it is important that the public should hear us interrogated on the radio as well as in Parliament.

The Intelligence and Security Committee provides ongoing checks on the responsibilities of senior Ministers and the Prime Minister. The questioning is tough and, to some extent, tougher than it would be in public, and its reports are there for all to see. It has been suggested that we were difficult with the Foreign Affairs Committee, but, as I said at the time, a turf war was going on between it and the Intelligence and Security Committee. As far as we were concerned, we did not withhold material from parliamentarians, but it was plainly inappropriate—and had never been suggested before—that the Foreign Affairs Committee should fulfil the role of the ISC. It was agreed in 1994 that the FAC's role should continue unabridged and unamended following the establishment of the ISC, but it was not agreed then, and neither would I agree it in the light of experience, that the FAC is the appropriate body to hold the agencies to account.

Finally, on the parallel with the United States, a couple of Opposition Members suggested that there was a case for establishing a Department for homeland security. That case was accepted by the Government of the day in 1782—it is called the Home Office, and has operated satisfactorily ever since. The United States emulated us, but it is not necessary, in this regard, for us to emulate the US.

Anybody who knows the system of law enforcement in the US knows that in place of three intelligence agencies and 43 police services, which we have in this country, plus the enforcement arm of the Customs and the immigration and nationality directorate, the US has 17,000 law enforcement agencies. It is a rather different situation, and even at a federal level there are many overlapping jurisdictions. One can see it on the streets of New York if one walks between the United Nations and any of the legations during United Nations General Assembly week, as the different layers of federal security personnel are advertised on the back of their jackets.
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1098
 

It was necessary to co-ordinate better what those agencies were doing. There is now the equivalent of a Home Secretary. Even so, the three big agencies—the National Security Agency, the FBI and the CIA—almost exactly parallel the work of GCHQ, the Security Service and SIS. There are no plans, and I would strongly resist them if there were, to merge those three into a single agency.

Mr. Barron: I apologise for going back a little. On detainees, the Government have given us a positive response as regards co-operating fully with our inquiries. In his contribution, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) raised a number of issues and referred to reports and papers that he believed the Government have on the subject. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Committee would be able to see any or all of those papers if it considered that necessary?

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend is exactly right.

Dr. Lewis: In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), may I say that the Foreign Secretary has been busily engaged in demolishing an Aunt Sally? It is not the position of the Opposition that there should be a separate Department for homeland security, only that there should be a dedicated Minister for homeland security, unlike the situation that existed when the hapless right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) had to combine being Minister with responsibility for homeland security with being Minister with the minor responsibility for immigration.

Mr. Straw: I do not claim to have followed every nuance of the Opposition's consideration of that policy, but I suspect that it is rather like most considerations of their policy: they start off with a label, then try to fill the box, and the product often changes in between. We have a Home Secretary and a Minister with responsibility for the police services. If we had another Cabinet Minister for homeland security, that could lead to a certain duplication of effort and, far from co-ordination, a great many problems.

I shall deal with the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who speaks for the Opposition on foreign affairs. First, there was the issue of collaboration with the French security services. Because that is an intelligence matter, I cannot comment on it in any detail, but I can arrange for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be briefed on Privy Council terms. I did not recognise the story that he told, but we seek collaboration and liaison with all the intelligence and security services with which it is appropriate to do so.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the gathering and analysis of intelligence before the Iraq war. On many of those points, the House will have to await the Butler report. However, I remind the House of two things, which come not from any intelligence report but from what we all know and saw at the time, and which are worth bearing in mind. First, the Iraqi regime had a nuclear weapons programme, a chemical weapons programme and a biological weapons programme, all of
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1099
 
which it concealed. With respect to the chemical weapons programme, the regime not only had one, but used it.

Secondly, on 8 November 2002, all 15 members of the Security Council independently reached the same judgment: that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security because of its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, its long-range missile systems and its defiance of the United Nations. Those two sets of facts need to be borne in mind throughout the future consideration of how we dealt with intelligence leading up to the war.

Mr. Ancram: The question concerns the statements and the intelligence. We all accept—at least I certainly do—that Saddam Hussein had WMDs at some stage, but did he have them on 24 September 2002, when the Prime Minister came to the House and said he had WMDs?

Mr. Straw: I know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking, and the analysis of that question is the focus of the Butler inquiry, which will be subject to full parliamentary consideration.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No; I shall make progress to complete the debate.

The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes asked about Arabic linguists and whether the Beirut linguist school has been re-established. That school had to be abandoned because it was blown up by one or other of the fighting groups in Beirut at that time, and there are no plans to re-establish it. Linguistic ability is one of the outstanding merits of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the SIS and GCHQ, and our great investment in that area is far larger than that made by many comparable countries. I am personally committed to that investment in linguistic ability being sustained, especially in Arabic, and I am happy to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the matter.

That concludes the response to the debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have attended it. Again, I pay tribute to the agencies, and above all thank all the members of the ISC.

Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood) (Lab): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1100
 

Medhurst Row Crossing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

5.47 pm

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): From the world of intelligence, I turn to the even more crucial issue of rail safety at the Medhurst Row rail level crossing in my constituency, outside Edenbridge. The level crossing is not lightly used, because it crosses a twin-track, cross-country railway line, which is the mainline from Tonbridge to Redhill. The line carries a substantial amount of passenger traffic and is one of the freight routes to the channel tunnel.

Serious safety concerns have been expressed about the level crossing for a number of years, and my constituent, Mr. Roger Kennedy, wrote to me on 4 September last year:

"I have been given permission five times in the last seven years to cross in front of oncoming trains. Last year after a meeting at this crossing with your chief safety officer at Ashford, we were all told that it would never happen again, within two weeks my neighbour was given permission to cross and was confronted by an oncoming train. Recently a friend, whilst trying to cross, had to tell the signalman twice that he thought he heard a train before the signalman realised there was a train approaching the crossing. Three months ago our gardener gained permission to cross, then crossed the line, rang back to say the gates were closed, only to find a train going through the crossing. This train must have been on his section of line when he crossed. The incident was caught on camera and Mr. Hamneill was told at Ashford, but we doubt if anything was done, because only three weeks ago the same fate befell our postman, he again was given permission to cross in front of an oncoming train."

That letter was addressed to Network Rail, and a copy was sent to me.

I raise the issue today because of a further serious incident on 3 March this year. That involved the eldest son of my constituent, Mr. Roger Kennedy—Mr. Alex Stedall. He, too, was certain that he had been given permission to cross and found himself crossing in front of an oncoming train.

Before I come to the incident on 3 March, it might be helpful to the House and to the Minister if I explained the crossing procedure. Before initiating the debate, I went to the crossing and went through the full crossing procedure personally. Unlike a normal level crossing, the Medhurst Row crossing is a so-called private crossing, of which there are about 5,400 in total. It can be used by any member of the public on foot, because it is a public right of way, but those who wish to use their vehicles can do so only if they are authorised to cross at that particular crossing.

The crossing is not like a conventional rail crossing where the gates are normally closed across the railway line and open to the traffic, shut against the traffic when a train goes past, then reopened to the traffic and closed again across the line. In the case of the Medhurst Row crossing—and, I suspect, many other private crossings—the position is reversed. In normal circumstances, the gates are open at all times to trains going up and down the line, and closed across the road. When a train goes past, the gates remain in the closed position across the road. If someone wants to take their car across, they turn the gates not across the railway line, but back across the road at right angles to the line.
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1101
 
That means, in effect, that a train driver will never see the gates closed across his path, even though the gateway may be open to road traffic. That is a significant and dangerous feature of this particular type of crossing.

I shall describe the crossing procedure for somebody who wants to make the crossing by car. They go to the telephone beside the closed gate, pick up the telephone to contact the member of staff in the Ashford signal box, and ask for permission to cross. If permission is granted, they open the gate that is nearest to them, folding it back away from the railway line, cross on foot over the active railway line, go to the far gate, and open it. They cross back over the railway line a second time, on foot. They get into their car. They make a third crossing, in their car, over the active railway line. They get out of their car. They make a fourth crossing back on foot over the railway line, close what is now the far gate, and make a fifth crossing back over the active railway line to close what is now the near gate. They go to the telephone, ring the Ashford signal box, as required, and report that they have made the crossing and closed both gates.

The procedure involves no fewer than five crossings of an active railway line—four on foot and one by car. For those who are used to it, it takes a minimum of two and a half minutes. I imagine that it would take considerably longer for someone who was not familiar with it. It was a challenging experience to make five crossings of an active, twin-track railway line when I did it in broad daylight on a summer day. I would not wish to have to perform that procedure at night or in foggy or misty conditions.

My constituents who live in the specific area that we are considering have no alternative route for reaching the main road system. The only way is to go down the private road and use the Medhurst Row railway crossing. There is no other option when they go to work, take the children to school and so on.

Let us consider the incident that took place on 3 March. This morning in the Palace, with the assistance of Network Rail and the rail safety inspectorate in the Health and Safety Executive, I was able to look at the closed circuit television evidence of what happened. I was also able to listen to the available transcript of the telephone conversation between Mr. Alex Stedall and the Ashford signal box.

At approximately 7.50 am on 3 March, Mr. Alex Stedall, the eldest son of my constituent Mr. Roger Kennedy, drove to the Medhurst Row crossing on his way to work. He lifted the phone and asked whether it was safe to cross. He was given permission to cross and, in the normal way, was told by the Ashford signal box to call back when he had crossed to confirm that he had shut both gates. He opened the near gate, got on the line, mercifully looked and saw the Edenbridge to Tonbridge school train bearing down on him. He got off the line, shut the gate and, a few seconds later, saw the train go past. Clearly, a fatal accident had been averted—just.

The risk of fatality is not merely to those who use the crossing. The Minister well knows the sadly documented fact that when a train hits a vehicle, it can
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1102
 
be derailed, with the risk of loss of life or injury to those on the train as well as those on the crossing. For the Kennedy family, there was the potential for an appalling tragedy at that moment on 3 March, because Mr. Kennedy's two younger sons were on the Edenbridge to Tonbridge school train when their elder brother came close to being hit and almost certainly killed by it on the Medhurst Row crossing.

The incident has been the subject of considerable investigation and I have been involved in presenting additional evidence to Network Rail and the Health and Safety Executive. After seeing the CCTV evidence and listening to the tape recordings, I find some worrying aspects to the adequacy of the crucial safety monitoring equipment.

---