DR. A. E. LAURENCE (Hansard, 22 May 1969)

§ 67. Mr. DOUGHTY
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether police inquiries into the case of Dr. A. E. Laurence have now been completed; and whether he will make a statement.

§ 68. MR. LIPTON
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a statement on the case of Dr. A. E. Laurence.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Callaghan.

§ Mr. Lipton
On a point of order. During the course of the Rulings you gave yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you pointed out that if a Minister proposed to answer out of turn a question on the Order Paper he should let the hon. Member concerned know. A further Ruling which you gave yesterday was that you could not deal with a charge that a Minister had stimulated an hon. Member to put down a Question. That, you said, was a matter of esoterics and philosophy, and not of order for Mr. Speaker.
I mention that Ruling to draw attention to the fact that, although the Home Secretary has for many weeks past known that I was interested in Dr. Laurence, and although I have made frequent approaches to the Home Office to find out when, if at all, he intended to make a statement to the House, not until 12.30 p.m. today did I receive a telephone message from the Home Office asking me to telephone the Home Office.
Not until I learnt that the Home Secretary had asked the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) to put down a Question for today did I begin to suspect the possibility that the Home Secretary intended to make a statement at the end of Question Time today.
In the interests of backbenchers, I think that it should be established that Ministers should treat backbenchers with the elementary courtesy to which they are entitled. It is deplorable that, although the Home Secretary has known for many weeks past that I was interested in this matter, it was not until 12.30 p.m. today that a member of his staff took the trouble to telephone to the House of Commons to ask me to telephone the Home Office.
I suspect, as I was asked to telephone the Home Office, that the B.B.C. was asked to include in its one o'clock news bulletin a statement to the effect that the Home Secretary would answer orally today the Question on the Order Paper about Dr. Laurence.
I wish to register my protest against the way in which the Home Secretary has 671 behaved, and to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to say that such conduct is not in accordance with the spirit of the Ruling which you gave to the House yesterday.

§ Mr. Doughty
Further to that point of order. The Question concerns me, my constituency and my constituent. I have been treated with full courtesy by the Home Secretary, who has given me ample notice of his intention so to act today. It is the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) who is acting contrary to the customs and usages of the House in attempting to deal with a matter that solely concerns another hon. Member and another hon. Member's constituency.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) would be anxious to hear the answer to the Question which he has been pressing for some time. He complains of lack of courtesy. I understand from his statement that he was informed at 12.30 p.m. today that his Question would be answered. I cannot begin to rule on what is the appropriate amount of notice that should be given. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I understand that the Home Secretary has given him notice.
The question whether a Minister should inspire an hon. Member to put down a Question which the Minister wishes to answer is a matter for the Minister. In view of what the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has just said, it seems that this case concerns a constituent of the hon. Member.
On the last issue, it is a broad rule that an hon. Member does not take up the case of another hon. Member's constituent. This is a most beneficial rule and custom hon. Members usually observe. There may, however, be occasions, if an hon. Member thinks that a great issue of principle is involved, when he takes up a case in another hon. Member's constituency. I hope that we can now get on to the answer.

§ Mr. Lipton
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your remarks.
I would like to make clear that the solicitor acting for Dr. Laurence specifically requested me, in writing, to deal with this case, for many reasons, which it would be embarrassing to the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East to 672 disclose, although I may disclose them on a future occasion. I put down the Question at the specific request of the solicitor acting for Dr. Laurence, who knew very well what were the ordinary conventions of the House, but who felt that national questions were involved in this and that it was not merely a local incident in Surrey.

§ Mr. Speaker
We must leave the matter there and get on to the Question, which is of some importance.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)
I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, now answer Questions Nos. 67 and 68 together, having tried to behave with courtesy to all hon. Members who have shown an interest in this particular subject.
Yes, Sir. In April, information was received from a K.G.B. agent who had defected to the West that Dr. Laurence had been recruited in 1963 to work for the K.G.B.
A number of interviews have taken place with Dr. Laurence, and the assessment of the case is now complete.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has come to the conclusion that on the available information there are no grounds for taking proceedings against Dr. Laurence under the Official Secrets Acts.

§ Mr. Doughty
I am sure that my constituent, Dr. Laurence, will be very pleased to hear that no proceedings are contemplated against him. On his behalf, may I thank the Home Secretary for that information?
May I ask the Home Secretary whether the incidents which took place in my constituency, in Higher Drive, Purley, took place with his knowledge and consent at the time that they occurred?
Finally, if any further information comes to light, or if any further action is proposed, will the Home Secretary get in touch with me as the Member for that constituency?

§ Mr. Callaghan
Perhaps I might be forgiven for not commenting on the last part of that question, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will try to show courtesy to all hon. Members who are interested in this matter.
673 On the other part of the question, the police and security services have acted throughout in accordance with the law. They have taken no steps that they should not have taken. I was aware of the steps which were proposed to be taken. As for the great Press publicity surrounding the occasion, it is one of the burdens which we must bear with fortitude because we have a free Press. I have satisfied myself that it would have been improper for the police on the occasion concerned to have left the house unattended.

§ Mr. Lipton
May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, ask two questions of the Home Secretary? Why did the issue of the search warrant on 12th April become public knowledge within a very short time after it was issued—and we all know that search warrants are always issued in closed court—a week before Dr. Laurence returned to the United Kingdom from a holiday in Minorca?
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that whoever was responsible for mount-in this operation acted with efficiency and dispatch, in the absence of which this kind of thing becomes a messy flop? Why is it that so long after Dr. Laurence himself was informed by the police on 19th April and again on 7th May that he was in the clear it has taken the Home Secretary all this time to make a statement to the House that no proceedings will be taken against the man in question?

§ Mr. Callaghan
I do not know in what circumstances the information about the warrant became public. I cannot give an answer on that, although I am afraid that there are normally a large number of channels through which information becomes known, and perhaps it would be better if it were not known. But this, in my view, is not the major question. The major issue is that the warrant was secured and was executed properly and legally.
As to whether or not this is a "messy flop", Dr. Laurence was never given a clearance by the police. Whatever statements may have been made in that connection are incorrect. The assessment of this case was not completed until yesterday, when I had seen all the papers and had finally concluded the examination.
674 Dr. Laurence could have avoided a great deal of this embarrassment if, when he had first been approached—or, indeed, at any time during numerous approaches made to him—by the K.G.B., he had even indicated to our security services that those approaches were being made. There need then have been no embarrassment of any search warrant or search.

§ Sir D. Renton
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although there are rare occasions when, for reasons of national security, private premises have to be entered and searched, it is a decision which should not be taken lightly or without due process of law? We therefore welcome his assurances that his own responsibility was engaged in this matter and that the police obtained the search warrants which were necessary.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I am obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The police obtained the search warrants after I had been consulted on the matter. I knew what they were proposing to do. Dr. Laurence was alleged by a defector to be a Russian agent. That was the allegation made. It would have been quite improper for the security services or police to have taken less than the action they did in pursuance of their duty to protect the State. I am satisfied that, on the basis of the original information which was received, the source from which it had arisen, and the circumstances surrounding it, they were correct to take the action they took, both initially and subsequently.