§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,the allegation of serious corruption in the Metropolitan police.It is specific, because I have an official Metropolitan police report, signed by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steventon, Scotland Yard's most senior anti corruption officer, that says:it is my belief that Mr. Lundy"—that is, Detective Superintendent Lundy—is a corrupt officer who has long exploited his association with Garner"—that is, Roy Garner. Deputy Sssistant Commissioner Steventon goes on to suggest that he believes that Detective Superintendent Lundy should be removed from specialist duty. Elsewhere in the report Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steventon says that grave doubts must be expressed as to the integrity of Mr. Lundy.
Since then, Detective Superintendent Anthony Lundy, Scotland Yard's most senior operational detective, has not only been approved for promotion but has also been appointed to head the new, elite special operations task force that is investigating the international laundering of £26 million of Brinks-Mat robbery money. This is equally relevant and important, because the report goes on to say that some of the evidence has been deduced from the silver bullion robbery and the Hatton Garden robbery; in respect of both of these cases the report suggests that Garner was not the informant that he was claimed to be and that he was merely exploiting the information that he had received from Lundy. The report continues:The position is further complicated in the case of the Silver Bullion Robbery in that both Garner and Lundy were closely associated with Leonard Gibson one of the principals convicted of the crime. Photographs have appeared in the press and on television showing all three with other criminals at social functions.The matter is clearly extremely important, because corruption in the police force anywhere must obviously be a serious matter. It is true that the information contained in the "World in Action" programme was partly available before, in the "Brass Tacks" programme which the BBC chose not to broadcast, but no legal action has been taken against the "World in Action" programme.
More information has become available. Even today, I have received information about the names of the two officers who are alleged to have threatened either the careers or the lives of other senior police officers. I do not wish to name those officers at the moment, because first I want to check them out with other sources.
The matter is urgent, because the suggestion, as made in the "World in Action" programme last night and elsewhere, is that the offences may be continuing. It has been suggested to me that a serious drugs offence has already been partly started but that is is not being dealt with in the way in which it ought to be dealt with.
It has been very difficult to get this matter debated. In January 1986, I wrote to the Minister of State, Home Office, who in his reply to me simply said that he did not 811 consider that it was for him to look at these issues. Since then I have given the Home Secretary the opportunity to take up the matter, but without success.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must ask the House to adjourn to discuss this matter, if only to protect the many police officers and members of the public who have approached me and asked me to make sure that it is brought to light and dealt with as an urgent and important matter.
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,corruption at new Scotland Yard".I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman, but as he knows, my only duty is to decide whether this issue should have precedence over the business set down for consideration today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.