HC Deb 02 May 1974 vol 872 cc1337-42
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the case of Mr. Kenneth Joseph Lennon.

As I informed the House by Written Answer on 29th April, I have received a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about matters raised in the published account of an interview between Mr. Lennon and the National Council for Civil Liberties on 10th April.

It is not the usual practice to publish a report to me by a chief officer of police, but the circumstances here are exceptional and, in my view, the Commissioner's report should be made available to the House. It does, however, contain material which might affect appeals pending before the courts by persons with whom Mr. Lennon had associated.

I have consulted my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on the action which it is open to me to take. I am advised that it would be improper to publish the report while the appeals are pending or to comment on its content in any way which might be held to be prejudicial. I therefore considered whether I should adopt the alternative course of publishing a heavily truncated version of the report. I have come to the conclusion that this would be unsatisfactory both to the House and to the public. It is, therefore, my intention to wait until the court proceedings are over and then to publish the full report.

I should in the meantime make clear the status of the report I requested from the Commissioner. What I sought was a detailed account of the transactions between the police and Mr. Lennon, on the basis of which I could decide whether there were, in my view, matters that required further and independent investigation.

My judgment on the basis of the evidence presented to me by this report is that there are no grounds for a further investigation into the actions of any of the police officers involved. The House will be able to judge for itself when it sees the report. I very much regret this cannot be for some weeks, but I am satisfied that it would be improper for me to publish the report until the proceedings before the courts are concluded.

Mr. Prior

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I do not intend to question his judgment that there are no grounds for further investigation into the actions of any of the police officers involved? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when the law and our institutions are under attack by the IRA and others it is right that the security authorities should have the confidence of the nation, but that, equally, the right hon. Gentleman should be satisfied that such confidence is well placed?

I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, is he entirely satisfied that the statement by Mr. Lennon to the National Council for Civil Liberties was an accurate reflection of what he intended to say and was properly recorded? Secondly, does he agree that it is all too easy for the IRA and other hostile interests to impede the necessary activities of the security authorities in combating terrorism by spreading suggestions that informants have been pushed or pressurised into assisting the authorities?

Mr. Jenkins

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says in his preliminary remarks and I agree entirely that it is very important at present that there should be high morale and confidence accompanied by proper conduct on the part of the body of police officers who are of great importance to our security.

Regarding the first of the two questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked, I think he will agree on further consideration that it would be impossible for me satisfactorily to answer it without beginning to transgress the rule which I laid down. I cannot publish the report, and it is not sensible to publish parts of it, or to summarise parts in my answers to the House. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to await publication of the report.

My answer to his second question was embraced in my reply to his general comments at the beginning.

Mr. Clemitson

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that his statement will be greeted with considerable disappointment by many hon. Members on this side of the House? Would he not agree, in view of the seriousness of the questions raised by the statement by Mr. Lennon to the NCCL, particularly in regard to the rôle of the Special Branch in this case, that the usual objections to police investigat- ing police are particularly reinforced? Would he not in any case agree that asking the police for their version of the facts hardly constitutes the kind of inquiry which some of us are asking for? Will he not reconsider his decision about setting up a full independent inquiry, preferably through a committee of the House?

Mr. Jenkins

No, Sir. I hope that when my hon. Friend says that there is widespread disappointment he is speaking for himself and not for the majority of my hon. Friends. One has to consider a matter of this sort very carefully. I am sorry that the report cannot be published today. I wish it could be published today. It will be published in due course and my hon. Friend will have to make his judgment on it, as I have to make my judgment on it.

I must again make clear that this is not a question of the police being asked to inquire into themselves. I asked the police to provide me with an account of the facts of their relationship with Mr. Lennon. In the discharge of the responsibilities laid upon me I had to decide whether some form of special inquiry would be helpful. I have decided that that is not justified, on the basis of the report. My hon. Friend and the House can judge whether they agree with me when the report is published which, as I say, I wish could be today—but for reasons which I believe the House will accept it cannot be today. If I thought that there was abuse I would not hesitate to order an inquiry, but we must be careful that we are not very strong on inquiries and very weak on protection.

The Special Branch was set up 90 years ago to deal with certain terrorist activities, and the need for protection today is at least as great as at any time during those 90 years.

Mr. Beith

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members will be pleased and will repose some confidence in the vindication of his judgment on the difficult work of the security forces? Given that we accept the reasons why the report cannot be published today and why there cannot be questioning of substance on it, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate that, although he has made a decision that no further inquiries are necessary, he will take account of what is said in the House when the report is published, since that may give rise to points of view which cannot be heard today?

Mr. Jenkins

Of course I will.

Mr. Maude

I am well aware of and recognise the legal difficulties about publication of the report in the light of possible appeal proceedings, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the allegations of Mr. Lennon and the National Council for Civil Liberties have left a considerable slur on the security authorities? Is not the right hon. Gentleman at least able to say at this stage whether it is true that pressure was brought to bear on Mr. Lennon to co-operate or whether Mr. Lennon approached the security authorities himself of his own volition?

Mr. Jenkins

No, Sir. I have told the House, and I think the House accepts, that I had a choice to make—whether I publish a heavily truncated version and ask the House to be satisfied with it or whether I ask the House to wait for a little time and then see the whole report. If I am to follow the rule, on which I am strongly advised by my right hon. and learned Friend, and which was indeed obvious to me, that I must not prejudice proceedings, it would not be reasonable for me to begin to select parts of the report and to announce those parts without announcing other parts.

Mr. Prescott

I fully appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulties regarding publishing the report at present, but he referred to the fact that he has asked for a report of the Special Branch's relationships with Mr. Lennon and there was a question whether certain actions were improper. In asking those questions, did my right hon. Friend take into consideration the industrial activities of this person, or the improper activities, about which some of us are concerned, regarding the Special Branch in the industrial field and in trade union activities in this country? When we have, as I presume we shall have, an oportunity to debate the report, will my right hon. Friend go further into the matter than he has today?

Mr. Jenkins

I took account of the relationship of Mr. Lennon with the Special Branch, but this was a relationship which was not in any way primarily concerned with his previous trade union activities. I note what my hon. Friend said, as well as representations which he has made, but this matter does not arise out of the case of Mr. Lennon.

Mr. Norman Fowler

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement is widely welcomed, at least on this side of the House? Will he recognise that, with the current spread of terrorist activities in this country, there is urgent need for an effective police agency for gathering intelligence? Does he also realise that the Special Branch has over the years acquitted itself with distinction in this particular rôle?

Mr. Jenkins

I think that to a large extent I have answered the hon. Gentleman's questions in the course of previous answers, but I take note of what he says and I stress again the fact that the Special Branch has an extremely important rôle to play, particularly in present circumstances.