§ 7. Mr. Grimondasked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to take proceedings for perjury against Mr. Andrews and Mr. Bloom, who have made sworn statements that Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Blake had frequent conversations together when in prison.
§ Mr. GrimondDoes not the Attorney-General agree that this matter has been left in a very unsatisfactory state? Considerable doubt seems to have been cast on the veracity of the memory of these two gentlemen, yet, so I am told, though they have rendered themselves liable to prosecution, no prosecution has been started. Why is not the Attorney-General prosecuting them, if they are liable to prosecution? Have any inquiries been made of the Sunday Times, which apparently holds the sworn statements made by these men?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe reason why I am not directing the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute any prosecution is that I have no evidence that the offence of perjury has been committed by either of the makers of the two statements. Mr. Andrews is reported to have conceded that the special instructions may have been issued to keep Lonsdale and Blake apart. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed that such strict instructions were given. As my right hon. Friend has already informed the House, he has had inquiries made by those who were at the prison at the time, and to the best of their knowledge and recollection Blake and Lonsdale did not meet. Therefore, there is not any available evidence in that case to show that the statutory declaration was false, or at any rate one cannot say with certainty that one can prove the falsity of that statutory declaration. Mr. Bloom's statement is purely a matter of hearsay of a conversation which he alleges he had with Lonsdale. The only way in which it could be proved that his statu- 206 tory declaration was false was, first, if he admitted that it was false, and, secondly, if Lonsdale were available to give evidence confirming that fact. Neither of those events has happened or seems likely.
§ Miss BaconIs the Attorney-General aware that lie and the Home Secretary cannot have this both ways? I have asked questions on two occasions of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. At first, the Home Secretary said that instructions were given to keep Lonsdale and Blake apart. Afterwards, the Home Secretary tried to imply that in fact they were kept apart. Is the Attorney-General aware that, although he might have no information, this statement was made in the Sunday Times by Mr. Andrews, and I have a letter from Mr. Bloom, which I can pass on to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he would like it, staling that in fact what the Home Secretary said did not conform with the facts as he knew them. If these two men are making false statements—both of them have made affidavits—why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman so loth to take them to court?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe only question I am concerned with is not to administer the criminal law for the purpose of discovering facts that hon. Members may want to know but whether either Mr. Andrews or Mr. Bloom should be charged with a criminal offence. I am not prepared to operate the criminal law except upon the basis that there is satisfactory evidence upon which proceedings should be started. That is the sole question for me. There may be other questions which other hon. Members may want to ask, but I certainly do not consider that I have sufficient evidence to put either Mr. Andrews or Mr. Bloom on a charge of perjury.
§ Mr. GrimondWill the Attorney-General answer my second question? Have inquiries been made of the Sunday Times, which holds these sworn statements?
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo. The Sunday Times has published substantial extracts from them, but if it wishes to submit any of the evidence to me I will certainly consider it.