Undercover Policing

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I will want everybody who gives evidence as whistleblowers to have immunity. We need to get to the truth, and that is something I am committed to doing from this Dispatch Box—I am sure that I have the authority of the others to say so.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Why can the Minister give immunity to whistleblowers in this case but not give a cast-iron guarantee that he can give immunity to whistleblowers in the child abuse investigation?

[Mike Penning]

To be fair, I answered a specific question on a specific point. The hon. Gentleman’s question does not come under my portfolio, but I will look into it and find out. He raises a valid point and I will write to him.

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

What lies behind this motion is a belief by many that there has been an abuse of state power and a subversion of the legal process. Successive Governments have said repeatedly that there are just a handful of files relating to the Shrewsbury trials. I would like to focus today on just one single file—PREM 15/2011, with which I hope the Minister can acquaint himself. It is described as “Woodrow Wyatt’s TV programme, ‘Red Under the Bed’”. On 27 August 2012, the National Archives website said that this file was “retained” by the Cabinet Office under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. Why would such a file be kept back when it relates to a current affairs programme that was broadcast on ITV in November 1973? Following a freedom of information request by the Shrewsbury 24 campaign’s incisive researcher in August 2013, the Cabinet Office finally conceded and released some of the papers.

Why is this file relevant? It is relevant because the film was broadcast on 13 November 1973, the day on which the prosecution completed its case against the pickets. It was featured in the TV listing section of the local evening newspaper, the Shropshire Star, which would have been read by many of the jurors. The film included a highly tendentious commentary by Woodrow Wyatt, interspersed with footage that showed the following: two of the six defendants, John Carpenter and Des Warren; Shrewsbury Crown Court, surrounded by police officers, with a group of demonstrators attending a meeting nearby; images of a march through Shrewsbury in which the defendants could be made out; violence and damage alleged to have been caused by pickets on building sites during the national building strike of 1972; and violence and damage alleged to have been caused by pickets during a recent coal strike and a recent dock strike.

The next day, the defence applied to the judge for the television company to be held in contempt. The judge viewed the film and dismissed the application, even criticising the defence for raising the point. The file shows that the film, which lasted for one hour, was followed by a studio discussion of 30 minutes. Interestingly, the discussion was not broadcast in every ITV region—Granada, for example—but it was transmitted by ATV, the region covering Shrewsbury. The final words of that discussion were from the then Conservative MP Geoffrey Stewart-Smith. He was asked by the studio chairman, the late Richard Whiteley:

“Can you give me one example in 1973 of blatant communist influence?”

Stewart-Smith replies

“The violence in the building strike was called by a group, The Building Workers Charter, operating in defiance of the union leadership indulging in violence and flying pickets and this is an example of these people operating, opposing free trade unions”.

Can you imagine anything more blatantly prejudicial to a trial than that, Madam Deputy Speaker? Imagine what the reaction would be today. Just think of any current high-profile trial, and what a defence team would say, and how that would be reported in the print media now.

We have to ask ourselves why that film was made, and why it was shown on that particular date. It is my contention that the file reveals the highest level of collusion between the Government, the security services and the producers of the film. The first document in the file is a memo from Mr Thomas Barker of the Information Research Department to a Mr Norman Reddaway. For the benefit of younger Members, I should explain that the IRD was formed after the second world war as a covert anti-communist propaganda unit operating within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and was closed down in the late 1970s. Mr Barker boasts:

“We had a discreet but considerable hand in this programme....In general, this film, given national networking, can only have done good.”

He praises the studio discussion after the broadcast. The file contains more documents, including a note from the Prime Minister, Ted Heath, supporting the film after being sent a copy of the transcript by the Cabinet Secretary.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Is it possible to view the documentary now, or is it banned?

[Mr Watson]

It is not possible to view it. However, the file reveals that

“In February”

—that is, in February 1973—

“Mr Wyatt approached us direct for help. We consulted the Department of Employment and the Security Service through Mr Conrad Heron's Group, which has been meeting approximately fortnightly for the past year.”

So many meetings; so much consultation. Where are the documents relating to that? Were those people involved in the discussions that led to the decision to prosecute the pickets? If it had happened today, there would be outrage in the House.

Having seen the transcript of the film, the then Prime Minister replied to the Cabinet Secretary:

“We want as much as possible of this.”

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend may not recall that at that time a number of employers’ organisations, including Aims of Industry, were trying to influence industrial relations.

[Mr Watson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

So we have evidence that the Government and the security services were working closely with television production companies, newspapers and secretive organisations that were the forerunners of today’s blacklisters to produce propaganda to discredit trade unionists. The present Government posted a response to the e-petition on the website, claiming that the withholding of the information was due to an “intelligence and security instrument”. Why? This was a strike organised by building workers 40 years ago with the aim of improving their pay and conditions of work.

If Members want to know the thinking of industrialists at the time, they should read Lord McAlpine’s book “The Servant”. He wrote that the servant

“must have his own network of informants and men who will assist him. The servant must always know how to use the network of the State.

Dealing in deceit, as the servant must, great caution must be required. Avoid small deceits: like barnacles on the bottom of a ship, they build in the minds of people whom you may need to convince in a large deceit”.

What greater deceit can Members imagine than depriving those young men of their freedom and liberty?

The Stasi published their files after the Berlin wall came down in 1989. I think that we can publish ours now.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who made what I thought was a cogent and clear statement of the case. Although I did not agree with the conclusions that the Secretary of State has reached—let us hope, pro tem—I strongly share her view that there is not that much between most Members about what needs to be done about the conduct of the press. I agree most strongly with the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) who said that if there is a conflict between the victims of the press and the owners of the press, this House must come down clearly on the side of the victims.

Members have spoken from their own personal experience—I, too, have had my private life dragged through the pages of the tabloids. As a holder of public office—I was a member of Lewisham council for 20 years before I came to this House 20 years ago—I might be regarded as fair game, but other members of my family and my friends did not stand for public office, and none of my election literature ever featured any of them. It was not because I was ashamed of them, but because I was not asking anybody to vote for them. I was asking people to vote for me, and the wise people of Lewisham repeatedly did so over the years.

I am prepared to take a bit of rough and tumble myself, but one of my daughter’s friends had her school staked out by journalists from one particular tabloid, which I think is absolutely unforgiveable. People in that situation need not just our sympathy and warm words but our protection, and we need to formulate a system so they can obtain it. I disagreed in a number of ways with the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). We do not need just a punitive system, but a preventive system—not one where people can get redress, but where they are protected in the first place from having to undergo these traumas.

Let us not forget where the origins of the Leveson report lie. Most Members will recall the famous publication by a chap called Peter Burden—“Fake Sheikhs and Royal Trappings”, a story about the News of the World. In one part of the book, he recounts a conversational exchange with one of the journalists at the newspaper. Let me stress, however, that anybody who believes that the News of the World was a one-off and that the problem has now been solved is living in a dream land. This shows the way the tabloid press behaves. The conversation culminated with a Mr Greg Miskiw—currently, I believe, before the courts, awaiting trial for illegally accessing telecommunications—saying:

“that is what we do—we go out and destroy other people’s lives.”

That is clearly the most damning statement in the book, but it goes on. A particular reporter left the News of the World, it says, but

“nothing changed. Over many years the paper has set out deliberately and without compassion to destroy other people’s lives in order to sell newspapers. The supreme discomfort of others is meat and drink to the paper, and the extent to which they hurt people concerns them only as far as the cost of any damages that might subsequently be claimed. Cynical judgements are made about the price of knowingly committing some actionable offence, assessing what a likely settlement would be, and balancing that against the anticipated increase in sales.”

That is the morality of tabloid journalism—and it is and has been rife throughout the industry.

I will say that those excesses have been curbed to some degree in recent years—or certainly in the most recent year. Since the establishment of the Leveson inquiry, there has been a marked improvement in behaviour, but only because of what Leveson might bring forward. If they can get round this hurdle, they will go back to doing exactly the same again in the future.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

My good friend raised an important point when he quoted Peter Burden. Does he agree that perhaps the most extreme example is the case of the late Princess Diana? We will all welcome the news that the Duchess of Cambridge has announced that she and Prince William are expecting their first child. Do we also think that the press should observe their recent conversion, and give the couple the privacy that they deserve in the early days of the pregnancy?

[Jim Dowd]

I am hardly likely to disagree, am I? [Laughter.] Good luck to them, and so say all of us. I am taken aback by the sheer irrelevance of the question. If I may, I will get back on track, and return to the subject of the conduct of the press.

The Press Complaints Commission has never been a natural arbiter or umpire in these matters. It has always been the creature of the newspapers and their proprietors, year after year, but it has not always been so staggeringly ineffective. Examples that I have heard in the recent past of the sheer ineptitude and incompetence of its leadership indicate that any future statutory body, or whatever we call it, should not include anyone who has ever been connected with it. It has betrayed the British public by pretending that it can police the excess of the press and failing dismally to do so, and by failing so dismally, it has encouraged the worst excesses of the tabloid press.

After last Thursday’s statement, my good friend—although not in political terms, as he sits on the other side of the House—the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and I attended the same event in the City. We spent the best part of 20 minutes arguing animatedly about the Leveson report and our responses to it. The hon. Gentleman and I have different views, but most of those 20 minutes were occupied by an argument that is one of the features of this place and the Members in it: we were arguing over whether he agreed with me or I agreed with him. We were both seeking to achieve the same thing.

As others have said, legislation will result from Leveson, and so it should. This is the first of many debates on the subject. We need to apply ourselves, with the best of intentions, to describing exactly what that legislation should be. As others have already declared, it should be minimalist but also robust. It should give and guarantee freedom to the independent press regulator, and also enable it to do its job.

The idea that the press can be trusted is a strange one, because all the evidence has shown that they cannot. Not only do they believe that they should be left to their own devices—that they are above control and regulation—but they openly flaunt the fact that they believe that to be the case. Last week, The Spectator—a magazine which, I am led to believe, is much read by Members on the other side of the House, although I have to say that I have read it myself on occasion—stated:

“If the press agrees a new form of self-regulation, perhaps contractually binding this time, we will happily take part. But we would not sign up to anything enforced by government. If such a group is constituted we will not attend its meetings, pay its fines nor heed its menaces.”

However—and we can all be grateful for this—

“We would still obey the (other) laws of the land.”

How very generous! How very kind! How very noble! Perhaps we should ring The Spectator once a week and ask, “Which laws do you want to abide by this week? Which laws do you want to abide by next week? Which laws do you not care for and will have nothing to do with?”

The Spectator went on to say:

“But to join any scheme which subordinates press to parliament would be a betrayal of what this paper has stood for”

in all the 15 years

“since its inception in 1828.”

I added the bit about the 15 years—it is not actually there—but, by Spectator standards, it is not much further forward than that.

What those people are basically saying is that they are above the law. This Parliament and the British people can say what they like, but if it does not meet their approval, they will not abide by it. That is the calibre of the people with whom we are dealing, and we cannot trust them to act in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

That is a very good point which Lord Leveson tries to address in his report. It ends up being a game of no one being responsible. The PCC is not an investigative body, so it stood back and said, “Where’s the beef? Where’s the evidence to prove your allegations?” The Information Commissioner does not have the right to launch any further investigations or prosecutions, so no one was held responsible. That is why the new body has to have the power to seize such a report, go into the relevant organisations and investigate the matter.

There was no lack of information about criminality or information being obtained illegally; the failure was that no one acted on that information. The Information Commissioner’s report was largely ignored, as was the 2010 report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which also suggested that there was widespread knowledge of illegal practices within the media.

The police knew in 2002 that the News of the World had hacked Milly Dowler’s phone. We know from information that was produced for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in this Parliament that Surrey police discussed that with executives at the News of the World at the time. It was illegal, so why did the police not prosecute them or take action against them? Nothing was done about it. Evidence produced by the Select Committee’s inquiry demonstrates that senior executives and legal managers within News International understood that phone hacking was widespread and not related to a single reporter. Again, nothing was done about it.

The questions that were asked in that case are similar to those asked in the debate between the PCC and the Information Commissioner: “Where is the real evidence? What should we do?” There was no incentive or reason to do anything and there was no external pressure to push for a conclusion. That is why it is crucial to have an independent body with powers of investigation in the media and the power to fine.

I believe that the police got off lightly in the Leveson report. Lord Leveson skirts over the issue in the summary. One part reads a bit like the “Yes Minister” irregular verb game: “I give off-the-record briefings; you leak; he has been prosecuted under the Data Protection Act 1998.” Lord Leveson suggests helpfully that off-the-record briefings should be redefined as “non-reportable” briefings to clear up the distinction. On leaks, he suggests that police officers should perhaps have less access to the police’s computer system. That is woefully inadequate. A number of people raised the concern that if one called the police in certain situations, the News of the World turned up before the police. There was a ready trade in information between them. Lord Leveson does not go into that in anywhere near enough detail.

[Mr Watson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. May I draw his attention to a very late submission to the Leveson inquiry from Detective Chief Superintendent Surtees, which appeared on the website this week? He states that in July 2009, he argued internally that there was enough intelligence to warrant reopening the investigation into phone hacking. The hon. Gentleman will know that at no point was that raised with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during its inquiry. That might be something that he and the Committee want to look at.

[Damian Collins]

I will certainly take a close look at that. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.

There are dangers in the statutory underpinning of regulation. I agree with what the Prime Minister said last week. I have concerns about elements of the Leveson report and would like to see how the media can bring forward plans for a robust system of investigation.

If there is a system of regulation underpinned by Ofcom, the ultimate sanction will be what it always is with Ofcom: the withdrawing of a licence. That is the ultimate sanction that Ofcom has in the broadcast industry, and it has withdrawn the licence of a broadcaster. I think that we would find it difficult to see the chairman of Ofcom, who is appointed by a Secretary of State, or its chief executive being given the power to withdraw the printing rights of a national newspaper. It may be difficult to envisage the circumstances where that might happen, but the idea makes me slightly uncomfortable.

Like the Secretary of State, my professional experience is in the advertising industry, which has what it calls self-regulation through the Advertising Standards Authority. That model is seen as very successful, but it is underpinned by statute. That has not prevented many lobbying organisations from routinely pressing for changes to the advertising code and the practices of the advertising industry. It has not prevented Parliament from deciding to ban certain types of advertising, such as adverts for smoking, because it thinks that the standards being practised by the industry are not sufficient to protect the public. There are lobbying groups that are concerned about the advertising of fast food and about the portrayal of women in advertising. I do not want to get into whether those debates are serious and should be considered, but they are matters on which Parliament may seek to intervene to change the advertising code and the industry’s practices. Lord Leveson raises some concerns about whether, as a result of legislation, there may be similar pressure from Parliament for changes to occur.

In his summary to the report Leveson states that

“consideration should also be given to Code amendments which, while fully protecting freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, would equip that body—”

the new regulator—

“with the power to intervene in cases of allegedly discriminatory reporting, and in so doing reflect the spirit of equalities legislation.”

That could mean that for future or existing legislation there could be a requirement on the regulator to reinterpret the editorial code. As a result of that underpinning by statute we could have a creep of changes to the editorial code and practices—whether it was delivered by Ofcom or a new body—which would put pressures and new obligations on the independent body that currently do not exist.

It is not clear that Lord Leveson understands how far that could go and he gives an example in his report:

“Those representing women’s and minority groups—”

it could apply to a number of groups—

“would be entitled to retort that if the Code as currently worded creates the kind of legalistic difficulties which have just been outlined, then the solution is a straightforward one: simply amend the Code. The force of this point is noted, but it should be considered in depth by any future regulator, rather than by this inquiry.”

That is not desperately helpful; it suggests that although he is creating something, he does not understand the full extent of where it might go or the full consequences of the changes that might be introduced. We should pause to reflect on that as there is some cause for concern about what direction it may ultimately take.

I believe that we should consider the advertising model and its consequences as an example of something that is independent yet underpinned by statute, and the changes that could come from that. Lord Leveson set out in his report some of the concerns about the potential impact of the legislation. The challenge remains for the newspaper industry to come up with a robust model of non-statutory regulation through which it can put its own house in order and demonstrate that it has robustness, the ability to inquire and investigate, and to fine people who fall foul of its code of practice. If it refuses to do that, of course Parliament will have the right to consider what further action should be taken. I am, however, concerned about that being underpinned by Ofcom or any regulator, and its being forced on the industry at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The first worrying development is the lack of News International management standards committee co-operation with the Metropolitan police since May this year, which smacks of the Plimsoll strategy. As soon as the water starts lapping a little bit higher, senior News International and News Corporation management chuck somebody else overboard—a newspaper and an editor. The companies provided material on some of their journalists as long as they could ensure that the ship floated and the proprietor’s feet did not get wet. Given what Lord Leveson has said about management at News Corporation, I suspect that charges will be brought against senior directors, possibly including James and Rupert Murdoch as parts of the body corporate.

However, there is a mystery I do not understand. I understand—from two well placed people inside News International—that in 2005, The Sun and the New York Post, which are both News Corporation newspapers, paid a substantial sum to a serving member of the US armed forces in the US for a photograph of Saddam Hussein. A much larger amount was then paid via a specially set up account in the UK to that same member of the US armed forces. It is difficult to see how those who wrote the story in the UK and US, and the editors of the American newspaper and the British newspaper, could possibly pretend that they did not know how that material was obtained and that criminality was involved in the process of securing the photo. For that matter, they could not possibly pretend not to know that the laptop on which the information and the photograph were kept was destroyed; I believe it was destroyed so as to destroy the evidence of the criminality.

I therefore urge the management standards committee to provide all e-mails that relate to this matter—and particularly to the photograph of Saddam Hussein—from Rupert Murdoch to News International staff as a matter of urgency. Otherwise, people in this country will conclude that News International still does not get it, and that it is still refusing co-operate fully with the police.

[Mr Watson]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register—I have written a book on corruption at News International.

Is my hon. Friend aware of allegations that the chief executive of News International has given assurances to journalists facing arrest that, if they go to jail, they will be given their jobs back? If that is the case, does he agree that the company has learned nothing about corporate social responsibility?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Broadly, one point that Lord Justice Leveson hints at in his report is that corporate governance at News International is sadly lacking. It would only be logical for journalists who currently work at News International to believe that what my hon. Friend says will happen will happen because that is what happened before; people were given very large payouts on the understanding that they would plead guilty and have a tidy life when they came out of prison.

I want just a few things out of the inquiry. Of course, we have a press that will sometimes be raucous and wild, and do naughty things, but it should be one that informs, educates and entertains. We do not need snobbery about vulgarity, because we need many different kinds of press. However, I also want redress and reparation not just for defamation or invasion of privacy, but in respect of material that is fundamentally inaccurate. Lord Justice Leveson points to hundreds of cases in which the story was based on no fact whatever—it was quite simply untrue. Individuals should have the opportunity to seek redress.

Daniel Morgan

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

It is nearly 25 years—10 March 1987—since the son of Isabel and the brother of Alastair, Daniel Morgan, was brutally killed by five blows of an axe to the head. The last blow was probably struck when he was on the ground, because the hilt was embedded in his skull. Alastair is here today representing his family to hear the Minister’s response to the family’s call for a judge-led inquiry into the five failed investigations into Daniel’s murder. All they ask is justice for Daniel.

The five failed inquiries have cost the taxpayer nearly £30 million. I believe that had the murder been investigated adequately a quarter of a century ago, Daniel’s killer would have been brought to justice. John Yates said:

“This case is one of the most deplorable episodes in the entire history of the Metropolitan Police Service.”

He went on to say that Daniel’s family had “been treated disgracefully.” I suspect that the Minister will not be able to grant a judge-led inquiry today, but I hope that he will at least keep an open mind, as the Home Secretary has not yet decided whether to grant such an inquiry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has also been campaigning for on behalf of her constituents.

I ask the Minister for one thing: please agree to ask his officials and the Metropolitan police a number of searching questions before he and the Home Secretary make their decision. I will put those questions to him at the end of my contribution. Daniel’s family categorically do not want another investigation by the Metropolitan police—they have lost trust. Before I raise specific questions for the Minister, I will run through the events that have led to the five failed investigations.

Investigation No. 1 was severely compromised by police corruption. For 20 years the Met failed to admit that, despite the repeated pleas of the Morgan family. Indeed, it was not until 2005 that the Met’s then commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, admitted that the first inquiry involving Detective Superintendent Sidney Fillery had been compromised. If that admission had come earlier, the subsequent inquiries might not also have failed.

As part of the first investigation, it is now known that DS Sid Fillery—a member of the original murder squad—failed to reveal to his superiors that he had very close links with Jonathan Rees when he became part of the inquiry. I am told that Fillery took a statement from Rees, but it did not include details that both he and Rees had met Daniel at the Golden Lion pub the night before the murder, nor did it include details of a robbery of Belmont Car Auctions a year earlier. Had those details emerged at the time, they would have revealed that those incidents brought both men into direct conflict with Daniel.

The Belmont Car Auctions story was significant because Jonathan Rees and Daniel had previously agreed that they would not deal with cash-in-transit work. Daniel is known to have been angry when Jonathan Rees took on the job of looking after the takings from the auctions, saying it would, “backfire on them.” Rees, who was contracted to carry cash to the bank after a series of auctions, alleged that the bank night-safe had been interfered with, and therefore took the money to his home in March 1986. He alleges that he was attacked outside his house by two masked men who took the £18,000 from him. Belmont Car Auctions then sued Southern Investigations, which resulted in Daniel having to raise £10,000 very quickly for security to the court.

We know that two days before the murder Daniel told a witness, Brian Crush, that he believed that Rees and Fillery had set up the robbery and taken the money themselves. Daniel also told a witness that he was dealing with police corruption and that he did not know whom in the Met he could trust with the information.

It is important that the Minister understands at the outset why the omissions of the meeting at the Golden Lion pub and the auction robbery were so critical to the first investigation being compromised. My source has told me that omissions in the statement gathered by Fillery initially prevented attention being drawn towards Jonathan Rees and, indeed, Fillery himself. Alastair Morgan, Daniel’s brother, has also told me how he raised his own suspicions with Fillery about Rees’s possible involvement with the Belmont Car Auctions robbery as a possible motive for the murder. Alastair had not known that Fillery had actually recommended Rees to the auction company at the time.

Alastair now believes that it was a mistake to trust Fillery. He tells me that, for example, his information to Fillery later led to a phone call to his sister-in-law in which the family were told directly by Fillery that Alastair should get out of London because he was interfering in the investigation. When Fillery was removed from the team, the investigation quickly focused on those whom the Met believed to be responsible. Fillery, Rees, the two Vian brothers and two other police officers who were closely associated with Southern Investigations were arrested. However, no charges were brought and all six men were released.

At the inquest in April 1998, Kevin Lennon, who worked as a bookkeeper at Southern Investigations, gave evidence that implicated Rees in Daniel’s murder. The Guardian newspaper reported that, in evidence to the hearing, Kevin Lennon said Rees wanted Morgan dead after a row. Lennon said:

“John Rees explained that, when or after Daniel Morgan had been killed, he would be replaced by a friend of his who was a serving policeman, Detective Sergeant Sid Fillery.”

Lennon also told the inquest that Rees had said to him:

“I’ve got the perfect solution for Daniel’s murder. My mates at Catford nick are going to arrange it.”

Lennon added:

“He (Rees) went on to explain to me that if they didn’t do it themselves the police would arrange for some person over whom they had some criminal charge pending to carry out Daniel’s murder”.

In the weeks before his murder, Daniel Morgan had repeatedly expressed concerns over corrupt police officers in south London. The Morgan family also believe that Daniel was about to reveal evidence of corruption.

In the aftermath of the murder and just as predicted by the evidence of Kevin Lennon seven months before at the inquest in 1988, Fillery took early retirement with an enhanced sick pension. Alastair Morgan has also told me how, at the inquest, members of the Met disputed the fact he had ever spoken with Fillery directly as part of the investigation. He believes that they were trying to cover up for Fillery.

Investigation No. 2—an outside inquiry—ordered by the then commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, following a complaint by the family, was carried out by Hampshire police. It made no attempt whatsoever to address the allegations that Fillery had tried to get Daniel’s brother, Alastair, out of London after he had pointed to Rees as a prime suspect in the murder. Had the inquiry done so, it might have found that what Alastair said tallied with the allegations previously made by Kevin Lennon at the inquest in 1988. The inquiry’s terms of reference were to investigate

“all aspects of police involvement arising from the death of Daniel Morgan”.

Unknown to Daniel’s family, the remit of the inquiry was secretly changed at a high-level meeting at Scotland Yard in December 1988. The family further believe that the second investigation did not address the statements made at the inquest by serving police officers in which they denied that Alastair Morgan had ever raised his suspicions about Rees with Fillery, directly, as part of investigation No. 1.

In addition, Mr Morgan is frustrated that he offered to provide Hampshire police with a statement after an initial interview, but they refused it—indeed, no further statement was taken until 2000. The inquiry later reported to the Police Complaints Authority that there was

“no evidence whatsoever of police involvement in the murder”

and that the original inquiry had been good.

Understandably, the Morgan family kept up their campaign for justice. In November 1997, they met Sir Paul Condon who promised to review the case—nothing happened until late 1998 when, under the leadership of John Stevens and Roy Clark, the Met launched a third investigation into the murder. That was done without the knowledge of the Morgan family and in secrecy—not including the family was a mistake and the secrecy of the inquiry has deeply troubled them. The secrecy today is still a major issue for the family with the Met. I hope that the Minister understands that he must ask why the family were not kept informed.

As part of investigation No. 3, a covert bug was placed in the office of Southern Investigations. I will return to that later. Yet investigation No. 3 arguably missed its chance to use trigger events to gather further evidence on the murder. After Rees went to jail, the Morgan family had another meeting with Roy Clark. Clark initially said that they would do another investigation. The family ruled that out, as they wanted disclosure of the Hampshire report first. First Clark and then Andy Hayman refused to disclose the report to the family. It was not until the family were forced to go to the High Court that they succeeded. The Morgans should not have had to do that.

In the interim, the Met conducted a fourth inquiry, led by Detective Chief Superintendent David Cook. However, the fourth investigation, which the family described as the first honest investigation into the murder, gathered insufficient evidence to prosecute Rees, Fillery and three other men for the murder. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) then refused the family’s request for a judicial inquiry.

In 2006, a fifth investigation began under Assistant Commissioner John Yates. That happened out of the blue after Alastair Morgan had initially approached the Metropolitan Police Authority chairman, Len Duvall. He had ordered the commissioner to present his own report on the case before that. The family were initially deeply sceptical of the new Yates investigation. Devastatingly, after five years, the case collapsed last year. The Morgan family’s solicitors have said that this was

“under the weight of previous corruption”.

The accused, Jonathan Rees, Fillery and the Vian brothers were ultimately acquitted because the defence would not have had access to all the documents in the case. The Metropolitan police repeatedly mislaid crates of evidence, owing to the sheer number of documents the case had generated. Mr Justice Maddison also ruled that the supergrass witnesses had been mishandled.

I now turn to the situation that the family find themselves in now. Since the collapse of the prosecution, the Met has publicly admitted corruption in the first inquiry. The family believe this corruption had an impact on the second, third, fourth and fifth inquiries. However, what the family did not know during any of the five investigations is the extent to which the relationship between News International, private investigators and the police had an impact on the conduct of the inquiry.

Jonathan Rees and Sid Fillery were at the corrupt nexus of private investigators, police officers and journalists at News of the World. Through the hacking scandal, we now know that Southern Investigations became the hub of a web of police and media contacts involving the illegal theft and disclosure of information obtained through Rees and Fillery’s corrupted contacts. Southern Investigations sold information to many newspapers during the 1990s, but we think exclusively to News International after Rees was released from jail in 2005.

The main conduit at News International was Alex Marunchak, chief crime reporter for the News of the World and later the paper’s Irish editor. I want to focus the Minister’s attention on Marunchak in particular. Rees and Marunchak had a relationship that was so close that they both registered companies at the same address in Thornton Heath. Abbeycover, established by Rees and his colleague from News International, Greg Miskiw, was registered at the same address as Southern Investigations, run by Rees and Fillery. Rees’s confirmed links with Marunchak take the murder of Daniel Morgan to a new level.

It is important to remember that, in the days before the murder, Daniel’s family believe that he was on the verge of exposing huge police corruption. That was confirmed by Brian Madagan, Daniel’s former employer, in a statement in May 1987, in which he said that he believed Daniel was about to sell a story to a newspaper. In a second, later statement, Madagan said he believed that paper to be the News of the World and the contact to be Alex Marunchak who, until recently, still worked for the paper. BBC Radio 4’s “Report” programme also confirmed that it has seen evidence suggesting that, a week before the murder, Daniel was about to take a story exposing police corruption to Mr Marunchak and was promised a payment of £40,000. We also know, from the investigative reporting of Nick Davies at The Guardian, that Southern Investigations paid the debts of Alex Marunchak.

As part of the third failed investigation, Operation Nigeria was launched. It included the surveillance of Southern Investigations between May and September 1999 and was run by the Metropolitan police’s anti-corruption squad, CIB3. It placed a bug in the offices of Southern Investigations that yielded evidence that convicted Rees for a serious and unrelated crime. Police surveillance shows frequent contact between Rees and Marunchak. I understand that the tapes made by the recording by the bug have not all been transcribed; if they were, they would yield more collusion, perhaps criminal in nature, between News International and Jonathan Rees. I hope the Minister will ask the police if that process is under way.

When Rees came out of jail, he was re-hired by the News of the World, then edited by Andy Coulson. Rees also founded a company called Pure Energy, in which Marunchak was involved. The police hold evidence to suggest that Rees discussed the use of Trojan devices with his associate, Sid Fillery. He was an associate of Philip Campbell Smith, who received a custodial sentence on Monday for a crime related to blagging. Campbell Smith is a former Army intelligence officer. I will say no more on Campbell Smith, because I do not want to prejudice the Operation Tuleta inquiry. However, I hope that I have demonstrated to the Minister a close association between Rees and Marunchak.

This is why I think that the Metropolitan police cannot be used in any further investigations: yesterday, the Leveson inquiry heard a startling revelation that Alex Marunchak—a close business associate of Jonathan Rees, then the prime suspect in a murder case—chose to put DCI David Cook and his family under close covert surveillance. The person who was investigating a murder was put under close surveillance by a close business associate of the man he was investigating. That was raised with Rebekah Brooks in 2002, the then editor of the News of the World. I would like the Minister to imagine what his response would have been to that information. A journalist employee tried to undermine the murder investigation of his close associate. Rupert Murdoch claims that News International takes a zero-tolerance approach to wrongdoing. However, far from launching a wide-scale inquiry to investigate wrongdoing, Rebekah Brooks promoted Alex Marunchak to the editor’s job at the News of the World in Ireland.

It gets worse. Last year, Mr Cook’s then wife, Jacqui Hames, discovered that her records appeared in the evidence file of Glenn Mulcaire. The records show information that she believes could only have been obtained from her private police records. While DCI Cook was investigating a murder, his colleagues in another part of the Met were in receipt of evidence that a close associate of his suspect was illegally targeting him. Did Andy Hayman, the then head of the hacking inquiry, who also happened to be in charge of the fourth investigation into Daniel’s murder, ensure that his colleague was informed about this? No. When Andy Hayman retired early from the Met, he became a paid contributor for News International—that is not right. For months, Scotland Yard took no action. Why not? Why was it not willing to pursue what appears to be a clear attempt to interfere with the murder inquiry of Daniel Morgan? The Guardian has reported that the reason why no action was taken by Scotland Yard was not to embarrass the Met with newspapers.

It gets worse. I would like the Minster to request to see all the intelligence reports submitted about Alex Marunchak. I believe the Met is sitting on an intelligence report from late 2002 that claims a police contact overheard Marunchak claim he was paying the relatives of police officers in Cambridgeshire for information about the Soham murders. As far as we know, those allegations have not been investigated. I do not know whether the intelligence reports are accurate, but I do know that Alex Marunchak was involved in writing stories about how the Manchester United tops of those young girls were found. I also believe that at least one of the Soham parents appears in the evidence file of Glenn Mulcaire. The Met police failed to investigate both leads when reported in 2002 and 2006. I think that Rupert Murdoch owes the Morgan family an apology, and I do not think that he has made his last apology to the grieving parents of murdered children.

Daniel’s family will never see his murderer brought to justice—corruption at the Metropolitan police has ensured that—but the Minister has it in his power to see that they get an explanation of the failure. He can only do that if the next investigation has their confidence. They seek a judge-led inquiry into the police’s handling of the murder, because they have lost confidence in the police. In the circumstances, wouldn’t anyone?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, although determining how many prisoners we should have can become a completely false argument, as that is determined in any event by the courts reacting to the level of crime and proposing appropriate sentences. We are determined to use prisons so that not only do they punish the offender, but, where possible, we can increase the number of offenders who are persuaded to give up crime when released and cease to offend thereafter, which will reduce the number of victims. I think that the approach taken by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), is the common-sense approach and in the public interest.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor should not allow himself to be pushed around by The Sun newspaper. Does he agree that the cause of public justice would be best served if News International spent less time traducing the characters of Ministers and more time revealing to the Metropolitan police the contents of the e-mails held in the data warehouse in central London?

Police (Public Trust)

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I thank you for helping the four of us who want to speak work out an equitable distribution of time in the debate.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I consider the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) a friend in the House. He is tenacious, he never fears to speak out and, on this occasion, I consider nearly everything he said to be utterly wrong. I have to say to him that I thought his contribution was intellectually disingenuous—probably the most intellectually disingenuous contribution I have heard since I became an MP. He made sweeping statements, very few of which were backed up by any empirical evidence. I consider it the duty of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to distance himself very strongly from those statements, unless he has seen the evidence that backs up those claims.

[Mark Pritchard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and compliments. On his latter points, can he give a specific example and provide the counterview to that example that he thinks should be put?

[Mr Watson]

No, I will not be doing that. I have limited time and my real reason for being here today is to talk about the Metropolitan police and their conduct of the inquiry into phone hacking by the News of the World.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, mentioned that it would be nice if chief officers replied to MPs’ letters. Given the national interest in the issue, I would like to gently chastise the Metropolitan police for their failure to respond to what I thought was quite an important letter that I sent to Sir Paul Stephenson on 3 September. In the letter, I asked whether every person whose phone was listed in the Glenn Mulcaire evidence file was informed that they were a target of hacking; and, if they were not informed, who decided, according to what criteria and on what authority, which names were to be investigated and which were to be ignored?

When it became public that a Metropolitan police officer, Michael Fuller, was also on Glenn Mulcaire’s list, I was extremely concerned that Met police officers themselves did not know that they might have been the target of phone hacking. I therefore asked Sir Paul Stephenson if he would confirm how many Metropolitan police officers were on the Mulcaire files. He has not responded.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Watson]

I would like to make my point first. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention at the end of my speech.

I also asked why people on the Mulcaire list were not informed and how many people were on the list of the Mulcaire evidence file, because that is still not in the public domain. Many Members of Parliament were on the Mulcaire lists. We still do not know how many and I do not know if all the Members of Parliament on that list have yet been informed. I asked Sir Paul Stephenson to answer that and to confirm who decided which Members of Parliament should be notified, according to what criteria, and on whose authority. He has not responded. I also asked Sir Paul Stephenson to confirm which victims were selected to be notified and on what criteria. There are a lot of unanswered questions in relation to the Metropolitan police inquiry.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Watson]

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention later, if he will be a little patient.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

On a point of order, Mr Bayley. Given that we learned today that the Metropolitan police have specifically, in relation to the case raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), sought evidence from The Guardian newspaper, I seek your guidance on the issue of sub judice. I do not want to fetter the hon. Gentleman’s discretion to raise these issues, but I am concerned that he may be transgressing the rules of the House on sub judice in relation to that ongoing police investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

If the matter is not before the courts, it cannot be sub judice. What the hon. Gentleman has raised is a matter for debate. If we have time and he wishes to speak, he might be able to make a contribution.

[Mr Watson]

Thank you, Mr Bayley. I would not dream of attempting to transgress the rules of the House on sub judice. I simply seek to get the facts, and not enough of the facts are in the public domain.

The Minister has it in his power to cast light on this sorry tale. He could review the Metropolitan police advice to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and thus be confident in his own mind about whether the DPP was given all the evidence required to bring appropriate cases. If the Minister wanted to, he could ask an external police service to investigate the conduct of the inquiry by the Metropolitan police. I would like him to acknowledge whether that is an option he is considering taking. He could, if he wanted to, talk to the Prime Minister about the potential for a judicial inquiry into the conduct of this case.

Members of Parliament, senior police officers, senior members of the military, the heir to the throne and leading celebrities have been the target of criminal activity on an industrial scale by News International journalists, and that has not been adequately investigated. So in today’s debate on trust in the police, I would like to say that I have absolute confidence in the police’s ability to get to the truth.

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Gentleman is being as gracious as ever and I am grateful to him for giving way. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) rightly said that he did not want to play “party politics” with this debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not attempting to do that, but I fear he is perhaps straying into party politics. I think he is at his very best when he is representing the interests of his constituents in West Bromwich—where, if he looks at the latest statistics, he will see that burglary has increased—who are concerned about and have a real fear of crime, rather than trying to make wild accusations and party political points on a very narrow matter. Let us stick to the debate on the important topic of public trust in the police that is important to his constituents and, indeed, throughout the country.

[Mr Watson]

I do not believe that that was a question; it was a statement. I cannot recall one word of any of my sentences that was of a party political nature. I seek to get to the facts after a unanimous inquiry conducted by my own Select Committee—the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport—and the establishment of two further inquiries agreed by both Front Benches in Parliament.

To sum up, will the Minister let me know whether he sees merit in an investigation into the conduct of the Metropolitan police inquiry into phone hacking?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this debate, on putting his case with his customary clarity and forcefulness and on initiating a debate, to which many right hon. and hon. Members have enjoyed contributing, on a matter that is close to our hearts —the performance of our local police forces and their ability to deal with crime, which is still of great concern throughout the country.

First, I should like to pick up on the last point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and, in doing so, congratulate him on his new position as shadow Police Minister, which is particularly interesting for him as former Police Minister. He will bring an alarming amount of experience and knowledge to bear and will, I am sure, hold the Government to account through a challenging period for policing. I look forward to working with him as constructively as we can in the weeks and months ahead. I shall return to that subject when talking about crime statistics.

The hon. Gentleman recognises that the overwhelming majority of police officers could not be characterised in any way by some of the things that have been said during this debate. I echo that. I am conscious that, in the past few weeks and months, we have talked about police reform, the challenging spending environment and about the decisions ahead that need to be taken, and that we can lose sight of the fact that, every day, police officers throughout the country work hard to keep all of us safe. The overwhelming majority of them act with impartiality and integrity. Sometimes sufficient tribute is not paid to the work that they do. I should like formally to thank them.

Those of us who recently attended the national police memorial day service in Belfast or the police bravery awards and spoke to the relatives of police officers who lost their lives doing their duty in the past year, including PC Bill Barker, who was swept away when attempting to help people on a bridge in Cumbria during the floods, could not have failed to be anything but struck by the heroism and professionalism of the police and be reminded of the job that they do for us. In the course of this debate about police legitimacy, conduct and accountability, how they respond to us, and their links with the public, we should remember all those officers and what they do. We should recognise that this is a period of uncertainty for people who work in our public services, including police officers, and we should be sensitive to that.

Although I disagree with some of my hon. Friend’s sharper points, the issue, which is essentially trust and legitimacy, is a proper one to raise. He referred to Sir Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing, and quoted his famous seventh principle of policing that

“the police are the public and the public are the police”.

My hon. Friend might have quoted Sir Robert’s second principle:

“The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”

In this country, we have a tradition that policing is not only carried out by consent, but that it flows from the fact that the police are of their communities and have the active support of the public. When that support has ebbed away in specific circumstances, policing has gone wrong. We saw that in the past in the way in which the police interacted with black and ethnic minority communities. When confidence in policing goes, legitimacy also goes. Our leaders in the police service are acutely aware of that important link between confidence and legitimacy.

It may help hon. Members if I add a few metrics to the debate to provide an understanding of the extent to which the public have confidence in the police. The last British crime survey found that overall public confidence in their local police was 69%. That may seem to be high, and is certainly much higher than public confidence in, for example, our profession as Members of Parliament and the media; nevertheless, 30% of respondents said that they did not have confidence in their local police overall. Other figures should make us pause: for example, 50% agreed that the police could be relied on to be present when they were needed, and less than half—48%—agreed that the police could be relied on to deal with minor crimes.

I welcome the fact that the same survey showed that the proportion of people who believe that the police in their area are doing a good or excellent job rose from 49% in 2004-05 to 56% in 2009-10. A majority of the public believe that the police in their area are doing a good or excellent job, but a significant minority do not. On public confidence in the police and local councils, there is a problem with questions that link the actions of both. It is difficult to disaggregate responsibility when they deal with crime and antisocial behaviour issues that matter locally, but only around half of respondents to the survey had confidence in the police and local councils together.

That suggests a number of issues on which we should pause to reflect in the relationship of the police with the public. First, hon. Members have mentioned specific incidents that gave rise to public concern. In every case, there were proper investigations by the authorities and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but they left an impression—

[Mr Watson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will respond to his points.

There is a danger, as the hon. Member for Gedling said, that such incidents create a damaging impression of policing as a whole. The problem is accountability. We live in the age of accountability, and people expect institutions and individuals who hold office to be properly and transparently answerable to them. That is right. We must have a system for complaints and the public must be able to take up issues if they believe that police performance has fallen down. We must have an overall system of answerability that commands public confidence and strengthens the links between the police and the public.

The thrust of our proposed reforms is to rebuild the bridge between the police and the public, and in particular to recognise that police forces sprang from local communities. We have never had a national police force in this country. Police legitimacy essentially flows from consent in those communities, and we want to loosen the central grip on policing that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) described and, in exchange, strengthen forces’ local accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I note the intervention from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. That is a genuine offer; this is the moment to make such a move.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin talked about leadership, and I strongly agree with him about the value of leadership in policing. We have asked the former chief constable of Thames Valley police and chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency, Peter Neyroud, to conduct a study into how we can ensure the right leadership and training in the police. In the end, however, that must rest with the police themselves. Part of the reforms that we wish to introduce concerns the reform of the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that it takes responsibility for such matters in an accountable manner.

My hon. Friend also called for a review of agencies and quangos, and he will be hearing a great deal more about that in due course. We have proposed a decluttering of the landscape surrounding policing by winding up the National Policing Improvement Agency and taking those functions to a new national crime agency.

On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I will of course pay attention to all issues and concerns that are raised by people about the whole spectrum of reforms to policing. As he will know, I have been attending to those issues, and I have taken care to pay attention to the views of stakeholders, police organisations and so on.

[Mr Watson]

There are 30 seconds to go. I asked whether the Minister thinks there are merits in having an outside force investigate the conduct of the Metropolitan police inquiry into phone hacking. Will he respond to that point?

[Nick Herbert]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I am running out of time. He has raised such matters before. It was and remains a matter for the police, who have made it clear that they will consider fresh information if it emerges. That is precisely what they are doing, and it is right to await their conclusion. Those matters have been debated in the House and are now subject to investigations by two Select Committees. The right way forward is to await the outcome of those latest inquiries.

In conclusion, I believe that the debate about how we structure our police in the future is important. The Government reforms are intended to ensure that we have a strong connection between the police and the public.

Legal Aid Payments

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

We will certainly consider that request carefully. Of course, if the hon. Lady or any other Member asks for specific information, or says that they do not have enough information, we will certainly do our best to respond and give the information required.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State quantify the additional tax-funded resources that have been allocated to support asylum seekers who are affected by the problem?

[Mr Clarke]

I have to say that I do not yet have at my fingertips the precise increase in recent years in legal aid dependent on immigration cases, or the additional amounts that may have been provided in recent years, but initial amounts of funding were provided for a very large number of purposes by the last Government, and most of those cases are now having to be looked at again.