HC Deb 28 February 1985 vol 74 cc449-52
4. Mrs. Clwyd

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official complaints about police behaviour have been received during the miners' strike; and how many of these concern accusations of assault.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan)

I understand that from 13 March 1984 to 26 February 1985, 549 complaints were made against the police in connection with policing the current dispute and 111 were withdrawn; 256 contained allegations of assault by police officers.

Information on completed investigations of those complaints and their outcome is not yet available centrally. I understand that the Police Complaints Board's annual report for 1984 will contain some statistics on cases which reached it in that year and on which action has been completed.

Mrs. Clwyd

Will the Home Secretary confirm that as charges of unlawful assembly made by the police against Yorkshire miners have been dropped, no further use will be made of that archaic and discredited law against miners and their supporters?

Mr. Brittan

I give no such confirmation. The fact that in a particular case a matter is not proceeded with, proves nothing about the importance and usefulness of that offence in other circumstances.

Mr. Mates

Among many wild allegations made during the miners strike are some that the police have been tapping trade unionists' telephones. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we know that he cannot confirm or deny individual cases, but is there some way in which he can try to allay those suspicions and lay to rest the allegations generally?

Mr. Brittan

I am aware of the allegations that were made in a television programme which was not ultimately broadcast. The conduct of authorised interception is subject to continuing review by the monitor of interception arrangement, presently the distinguished Law Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich. In the light of recent allegations, however, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked Lord Bridge to examine the relevant papers to determine whether authorisations since May 1979 have named the individuals in question and, if so, whether those authorisations have been sought and given in accordance with the procedures and criteria in the Birkett report of 1957 and the White Paper of April 1980. Lord Bridge's findings will be made public so far as that can be done without damage to national security. As the allegations made in the programme relate predominantly to the period before May 1979, my right hon. Friend is seeking the agreement of the former Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries involved that this review should, in addition, cover their periods of office as far as is necessary.

Mr. Barron

Were any of the 111 police complaints which were originally put down and subsequently withdrawn not proceeded with because of consultations with the Police Complaints Board similar to the consultations that I had, when I was told that I could not at that stage go ahead with any complaints about police action in South Yorkshire because of legal proceedings?

Mr. Brittan

As I understand it, the complaints were withdrawn voluntarily. A number continue. As I have said, it is anticipated that the board's annual report will give information in respect of complaints considered in 1984. The report will be published in early May.

Mrs. Currie

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the actions of the police are widely praised in South Derbyshire, where they have been assisting my constituents to go to work? Does he agree that the police have behaved throughout with dignity, restraint and good humour, even when drunken hooligans have been chucking bottles at them, as we saw on television at the weekend? Does he agree that if agitators turn up looking for trouble they are lucky to be living in this country, where they do not get what they deserve?

Mr. Brittan

With the welcome return to work of many more miners, it is as well to remember that those who preceded them and those who never stopped working were able to make that choice because of the steadfast resolve of the police to contain and defeat violence and intimidation by a relatively small number of striking miners.

Mr. Maclennan

In view of the important inquiry that Lord Bridge is carrying out, and its clear relevance to the legislation which the Secretary of State proposes to put before the House next Wednesday, will he now withdraw that Bill until the House has Lord Bridge's report?

Mr. Brittan

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, not for me.

Mr. Favell

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that almost every problem arising out of the policing of this dispute has arisen because of the union's failure to follow guidelines on picketing? Will he introduce legislation as early as possible to ensure that in future unions encouraging mass picketing bear the cost of policing?

Mr. Brittan

I agree that if the union had complied with its guidelines there would have been no policing or law and order problem, and that the large number of policemen who have had to go on to the picket lines would not have had to do so. As to my hon. Friend's second point, the review of public order that is taking place will consider all aspects of public order, not only in relation to what has occurred in the miners' strike. I shall take account of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Winnick

Is the Home Secretary aware, arising from his earlier comments, that if the allegations that are made in the film "MI5's Official Secrets" are true, such activities are unacceptable in a democratic society? Is he further aware that the view must be that the kind of activities carried out by the special branch and security services, if the allegations are true, are subversive, and it is wrong that individuals such as the CND chairman and general secretary should be harassed in this way?

Mr. Brittan

I am not prepared to join the hon. Gentleman in that speculative examination, but it is right that interception and surveillance should follow the procedures and criteria, and the definition of subversion supplied by Lord Harris as long ago as 1975 has stood the test of time and is the right one. I have no wish to defend any interception or surveillance going outside that. I have no reason to believe that it occurred, but Lord Bridge will look into the matter.

Mr. Andrew MacKay

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the more positive aspects of this dispute has been the fact that the police have been able to maintain the rule of law, despite tremendous provocation, and this is why they have such wide respect and support from the great majority of the British public?

Mr. Brittan

I can agree to that without any reservation.

Mr. Kaufman

I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance notice of the announcement that he made today about the inquiry by Lord Bridge. That announcement and the letter that the Prime Minister has sent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are unclear, and, in so far as they are clear, are inadequate and unsatisfactory. First, is he aware that it does not — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is a major statement, and the Opposition have the right to respond to it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is not a statement. This is Question Time. I accept that the Home Secretary made a longish answer, and I am giving the right hon. Gentleman some scope.

Mr. Kaufman

Is the Home Secretary aware that the statement does not deal with the allegations of infiltration other than interception? Secondly, it does not deal with allegations of false classification of persons as being subversive. Thirdly, it does not deal with allegations that material obtained by MI5 has, against the principles of the Maxwell Fyfe directive, been used for party political purposes. Fourthly, it does not deal with unauthorised interception. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Mr. Speaker, I say, as a point of order, that if the Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think that any point of order arises. There seem to be rather a lot of notes in front of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will bear in mind that this is Question Time.

Mr. Kaufman

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall put one or two more questions to the Home Secretary —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — because he has behaved improperly in making a major statement, in response to a planted supplementary question and the right of the Opposition must be protected in such circumstances.

Mr. Speaker

Order. No, I am here to protect the rights of Back Benchers at Question Time. It is unfair to treat what is, after all, an answer to a question as a statement. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that the Home Secretary had given a fairly long answer to the question. I have no idea whether it was planted. However, I ask him to put his questions briefly.

Mr. Kaufman

I shall do so, Mr. Speaker, but I put it to you that the Home Secretary has made a major statement about an important inquiry. Let me proceed with the question. I put it to the Home Secretary that Lord Bridge's inquiry seems to have terms of reference that are deliberately designed to produce the answer that the Government want and that it is now quite inappropriate, to proceed with the Interception of Communications Bill until Lord Bridge has reported. Above all, the country will not tolerate a cover-up on this matter. It wants the truth and we insist on it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall take the point of order after questions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The point of order is on this question.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall take the point of order afterwards, as is the usual practice.

Mr. Brittan

I shall leave aside the rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I am sure that, on reflection, he will regret what he said and the imputations of it. I have no doubt that Lord Bridge will conduct his inquiry quickly, as his compass is comparatively narrow. The timing of the Interception of Communications Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman asked some important and legitimate questions. He is right. The inquiry is related to interception, which is the area covered by Lord Bridge as the monitor. With regard to false classification being subversive, that will come directly within Lord Bridge's inquiry, as he will cover interceptions contrary to the criteria. Party political views will also be covered. Unauthorised interception will be a matter for the criminal law under the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Previously, it has not for the most part been covered by the criminal law.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Skinner

I have tabled Question No. 14 and the Home Secretary has answered it already.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman will sit down we might get there.