HC Deb 27 June 1938 vol 337 cc1534-40
Mr. Sandys

Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask for your guidance in a matter arising out of the Official Secrets Acts and affecting the rights and privileges of the Members of this House. In a conversation which I had recently with the Secretary of State for War I drew his attention to the grave shortage of anti-aircraft guns and instruments. As my right hon. Friend suggested that I was misinformed I offered, before raising the matter in the House, to send him the precise figures of the deficiencies to which I had referred. I accordingly drafted a Parliamentary question incorporating these figures and sent it to the Secretary of State under cover of a letter of mine of 17th June. The purpose of this letter was to draw the Secretary of State's personal attention to the facts referred to in the question and to give him the opportunity, if he thought fit, of asking me not to put down my question. Except for a formal acknowledgment from the Minister's Secretary I received no reply to my letter.

However, on Thursday last I received a letter from the Attorney-General asking me to go and see him that evening. At this interview the Attorney-General in- formed me that the question which I had sent to the Secretary of State for War showed, in the opinion of the War Office, a knowledge of matters covered by the Official Secrets Act, and he asked me to reveal the sources of my information. He added that I was under a legal obligation to do so. When I inquired what would be the consequences, were I to refuse to comply with his request, he read me the text of Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act and pointed out that I might render myself liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. In view of this I asked my right hon. and learned Friend not to press me for an immediate reply, as I felt that I must have an opportunity of taking advice in regard to my position. The following morning I consulted you, Mr. Speaker, and asked your permission to raise this matter in the House.

On being informed of this, the Attorney-General asked me to come and see him again, and told me that I had been under a misapprehension if I had thought that he had been threatening me with the use of the powers of interrogation under the Official Secrets Act. He offered to give me an assurance that "there was at present no intention" to use these powers against me. However, I contended that since the withdrawal of the threat of the use of these powers was qualified by the words "at present" the position, in my opinion, remained unaltered. Thereupon my right hon. and learned Friend offered to drop the words "at present" and to give me an assurance that "there was no intention" to take this action against me. But I pointed out that an "intention" might subsequently be changed. In reply to this the Attorney-General said that he was not free to give me more than this rather limited assurance without first obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State for War, who was away in Scotland. However, after I had told the Attorney-General that I was not inclined to abandon my intention to raise this matter in the House, he eventually offered to write me a letter giving an unqualified promise that in no circumstances would these powers of interrogation be enforced against me. I thanked him for this assurance, but told him that I could still not give him any undertaking to drop the matter, since this was a question which concerned not merely myself, but equally all other Members of the House of Commons, and it was in my opinion most desirable that the position of Members under the Official Secrets Act should be clarified without further delay. Accordingly, on receipt of the Attorney-General's letter containing the promised assurance I sent him the following reply, dated 25th June: Dear Attorney-General, Thank you for your letter of 24th June confirming the assurance which you gave me yesterday, namely, that 'There is no question of seeking to exercise against me now or hereafter the police powers of interrogation under the Official Secrets Act.' I am naturally relieved to know that no further pressure will be exerted upon me to reveal the sources from which I obtained the information which I communicated to the Secretary of State for War in my letter to him of 17th June. However, as I pointed out to you at our interview yesterday, this does not, of course, entirely dispose of the matter. The marked reluctance and hesitancy with which you gave me this assurance at our second interview and the fact that you informed me that in giving this assurance you were exceeding the instructions given to you by the Secretary of State for War confirm the fact that the possibility of exercising against me the police powers of interrogation was being seriously contemplated. The use of these powers in circumstances such as these raises an important question of Parliamentary privilege vitally affecting the freedom of the Members of the House of Commons in the discharge of their public duties. You will, therefore, appreciate that in spite of your assurance in regard to my personal position, I should not, in the interest of the House as a whole, be justified in abandoning my intention to seek Mr. Speaker's guidance. I shall accordingly raise the matter after Questions on Monday next. Those, Mr. Speaker, are the circumstances which have led me to raise this matter, and I apologise for the time I have been obliged to take in recounting them. I submit, Sir, that a situation has been created, which is unsatisfactory and uncertain for all Members of this House, and I venture to ask for your guidance as to what steps should be taken to clarify it in the interests of all concerned.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has referred to what took place between us, perhaps I might be allowed to make a short statement. Upon Thursday last the Secretary of State for War sent for me. He told me that he had had a communication from my hon. Friend, and that on information he had received from the General Staff the fact that the informa- tion contained in the communication was known to my hon. Friend showed that there had been an unauthorised disclosure by someone of highly secret information. It was clear, therefore, that there had been a serious breach by someone of the Official Secrets Act. It seemed fairly clear to me that my hon. Friend could not have realised this. I was asked if I would see him and put the legal position before him, and ask him whether he was prepared to assist in tracing the disclosure by giving either to me or the Secretary of State the source of his information. I said that I would do so.

Mr. Kirkwood

Would not that have been a betrayal?

The Attorney-General

I saw my hon. Friend the same evening. I put the legal position before him and asked him the above question. He said his first reaction was not to commit himself one way or the other. He referred to the powers of compulsory interrogation under the Act, and asked me in what capacity I was asking him. I told him I was not acting under these powers nor threatening him with them. The question whether, in the event of his refusal and the disclosure not being otherwise traced, these powers should be used, had not been considered, and I had not considered them. He said that he would like time to consider his position, and I said that I would not press him. The discussion continued; and I am confining this statement to what is relevant to the present issue. The discussion later came back to the compulsory powers, and I said that I would read him the Section, which I did. He asked me what was the maximum penalty for a misdemeanour, and I said, "I think it is two years," and added, as he referred to the recent question which arose on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), that in that case I thought the man was fined £5.

The discussion then ended, as my hon. Friend was anxious to get back to the Debate which was taking place on Spain. This was between 7.30 and 8 0'clock last Thursday, or shortly after that time. The position was that he was going to consider whether he would or would not disclose the source of his information. He had told me that he would like to see the Secretary of State on the subject of his communication, and I had told him that the Secretary of State was willing to see him. I heard on the following day that he was proposing to raise the question with Mr. Speaker in this House. I asked him to come and see me, which he did. I repeated that the question of exercising the police powers under the Act had not been considered, and therefore, as it seemed to me, any question of the kind that I understood he was proposing to raise was quite hypothetical.

He then put this point, and I summarise it as I understand it: He said that in considering what answer he should make to my question he wanted to know, and it was relevant that he should know, whether the police powers might be exercised in the event of his refusal. This struck me as a perfectly fair point. In the letter which he has read my hon. Friend refers to my "hesitation." He ascribed that to the fact that the question had been seriously considered. The opposite is the truth. I took some time to consider it, because I had not previously considered it. I told him it was outside my instructions from the Secretary of State for the same reason, namely, that the Secretary of State had not asked me to consider it. It is, however, in the last resort a decision which rests with the Attorney-General, if he is cognisant of the matter, as his consent is necessary for any prosecution in the event of refusal. Normally I would discuss such a matter with the Department concerned before coming to a decision which would be my sole responsibility.

I considered the circumstances as put before me by the Secretary of State and what my hon. Friend had said to me. I decided—and this was my own decision, arrived at without consultation with or knowledge of anyone else—that this was not a case in which these police powers of interrogation should be exercised, and that my hon. Friend was entitled to be told that at the time. I told him so. He asked me if I would confirm it in writing. I said "certainly," and did so. If I had come to the contrary conclusion I would have told him so. I would like to say, in view of one sentence in my hon. Friend's statement, that I did not ask him for or suggest that he should give me any undertaking, and I think he will probably agree. On any view it seemed to me that in the position which the matter had now reached, a decision one way or the other on this question, in the circumstances of this case, was desirable and fair to my hon. Friend. I came to that decision and gave it to him on my own responsibility.

Mr. Speaker

A question has been put to me by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), asking my guidance as to what is the best action to be pursued, and I shall deal with it on these lines: I have listened carefully to the statement of the hon. Member for Norwood and that of the Attorney-General, and I am convinced of the importance of the issue that they have raised as to the position of Members of this House with regard to the Official Secrets Act. At any time the question of their privilege might arise, and it seems to me that it is important that their position should be made as clear as it can be made as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Norwood asked me for guidance as to how this can be done. In my view the proper course for him to take is to give notice of a Motion in suitable terms, so that the House may fully discuss the question and itself decide then what action, if any, it proposes to take.

Mr. Attlee

In view of what has arisen may I take it that if the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) or any other hon. Member should see fit to put a Motion on the Paper there will be accorded full time by the Government for discussion of this very important matter? You, Mr. Speaker, have said that this raises the matter of the interests of all Members of the House, and their privileges. There appeared to me, in the statement of the hon. Member for Norwood and that of the Attorney-General, to be a question of difference of opinion as to the facts that this House ought to know. I would also ask the Prime Minister whether he or the Attorney-General has realised that this raises almost precisely the issues that were raised in this House on the occasion of what was known as the Campbell question—the action of the Attorney-General in a semi-judicial capacity, and his relations to a Minister of the Criwn from whom he appeared to have taken instructions. I take it that any Motion put on the Paper will deal both with the question of the privileges of Members of this House and also the actions of the Ministers concerned?

The Prime Minister

In reply to the question which the Leader of the Opposition has put to me, the House knows, of course, that the programme to the end of the Session is already very full, but in view of the terms in which you, Mr. Speaker, have stressed the importance of this matter, I think it is quite clear that time will have to be given for a Motion which will have the effect of clarifying the whole position.

Mr. Maxton

Am I to understand that the Motion, affecting the privileges of Members of this House, would not be subject to Amendment in the name of the Government, and that the House would vote on the issue completely free from pressure by Government Whips or any other source?

Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member refer to the Debate on the proposed Motion?

Mr. Maxton

Yes.

Mr. Speaker

I could not give an answer to that question now.

Mr. Garro Jones

Will the Prime Minister give us the undertaking asked for?

Mr. Sandys

I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance, and arising out of it I wish to give notice that I shall table the following Motion, namely: That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the substance of the statements made on 27th June in this House by the hon. Member for Norwood and the action of the Ministers concerned, and generally on the question of the applicability of the Official Secrets Act to Members of this House in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties.