HC Deb 06 April 1978 vol 947 cc618-20
8. Mr. Robin F. Cook

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will exclude from his Department's definition of "subversion" legitimate political activity.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I see no reason to depart from the definition given in another place by my noble friend the Minister of State on 26th February 1975 which was activities … which threaten the safety or well-being of the State, and are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means

Mr. Cook

Can my right hon. Friend explain why it has been necessary for the Home Office to go much wider than the definition originally offered by Lord Denning in 1963, which clearly defines subversives as those who would contemplate the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means? Is my right hon. Friend not aware that acting on the present definition of subversion, the Special Branch has been seen to note those who attend anti-apartheid meetings, or enrol for WEA classes? Does he regard these people as subversive? If not, will he prevent the police from noting down their names?

Mr. Rees

In the particular case of the WEA classes, I reminded the police force concerned that I was, and would be very happy to be again, a tutor in the WEA. But it was considered to be too remote a possibility to bother about.

There are difficulties in this respect. Definitions of this matter, however drawn up, are not sufficient. I know what I mean when I have duties to perform in this respect. I am not worried about people who have political views and who express them in this country, but subversion is a different matter. I do not believe that it can be defined absolutely firmly. When it arose at the Windscale inquiry, I can assure my hon. Friend that I was certainly not worried about those whose views were against the use of atomic power, in the way suggested then. But it would be wrong to argue about definitions.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Is my right hon. Friend not concerned about the fact that the scandal of the Special Branch in South Australia took place under the presidency of a chief constable who used to be the Chief Constable of the North Riding of Yorkshire? One ought to consider the powers of the Special Branch and of the security services. If they are so innocuous, does my right hon. Friend mind if I look at my file in Box 500?

Mr. Rees

I think that my hon. Friend would find that it was not worth reading.

In this country we ought to be extremely proud—I think that that is the right word—that we have not had the excesses that occur in other countries. I have been involved in these matters for some time. In my view, it is because we are careful about the use made of these powers. I do not believe that it comes out of inquiries; it comes out of good sense. That is the job of any Home Secretary in this respect, and I am perfectly satisfied that there is no abuse.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is very important to deal with subversion before it arises as well as after it has arisen? [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Therefore, it is a perfectly reasonable activity that the Special Branch should monitor activities that could lead to threats to the State. Will the right hon. Gentleman also say that this very hard-working and often overstretched arm of the police service does a first-class job for this country?

Mr. Rees

The Special Branch does an excellent job. I think that it would be wrong to bring the political aspect of their work into this matter. It would be a grave mistake, because I believe that it would be going much too far in the wrong direction, and it is something which, quite properly, one does not talk about. The impression so far is that the Special Branch is engaged in a great deal of political work. That is not true. It would be concerned with subversion from not just the Left but the Right.