Security (Hansard, 20 July 1982)

§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement on a security matter.
On 15 July, Geoffrey Arthur Prime was charged with an offence under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Mr. Prime joined the staff of Government communications headquarters in 1968 after service in the Royal Air Force and resigned in September 1977. He has not been employed in the public service since that time.
Any charge under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act is, of course, serious and must give rise to concern. The House will understand, however, that until trial proceedings are completed I cannot, for obvious reasons, make any statement or answer questions on this case or on related matters.
Any security issues that arise will be referred as necessary to the security commission in accordance with the arrangements described to the House by my predecessors on 23 January 1964 and on 10 May 1965.
The House will naturally be concerned to know whether any other persons are likely to be charged in this connection. Absolute certainty is never possible in these matters. I can only say that if evidence against other persons were to emerge, it would be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who, after consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, would consider whether to bring charges.
Until the outcome of the proceedings is known, there is nothing that I can add to what I have said.

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)
I thank the right hon. Lady for making a statement. I fully understand her difficulties about saying anything that is contradictory to the sub judice rule. Nevertheless, it would not have been satisfactory for the House to have had no statement on the matter, especially in the light of the apparent efforts of Government sources at the weekend to make it clear that serious issues were involved. Many headlines in the newspapers of Friday and Saturday could be attributed to what the Government had suggested.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the possibility of referring matters to the security commission. Has she already done so? The House would want the inquiry to be instituted at the earliest possible date.
Did the security services stumble on the evidence on which Mr. Prime was charged, or was the evidence gathered as a result of security service vigilance? In the light of what the Government said at the weekend, I believe that the House should have a fuller statement from the right hon. Lady on both of those questions.

§ The Prime Minister
With regard to the type of evidence for which the right hon. Gentleman asks, it would be most unwise for me to make any further reference to that case. I would help the right hon. Gentleman if I could, but my first duty is to ensure that the case is properly tried in the courts and that I do not say anything that could act as a hindrance to that proper and fair trial.
With regard to any reference to the security commission, the right hon. Gentleman will know that I am not able to comment. If he examines previous statements to the House he will understand why. He will know that 212 the security commission report that was laid before the House recently was made after the case to which I have referred and after that person had left the Government communications headquarters.
I am not responsible for what headlines say, but any charge under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act is serious.

§ Mr. Foot
I fully understand that the right hon. Lady is not responsible for headlines. Nevertheless, will she make an inquiry into the suggestions that were made to the newspapers by her own Government offices? I think that she will find that what I have said is correct.

§ The Prime Minister
My office would have been every bit as careful about the rule of sub judice as I have been today.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister said quite clearly that there is nothing that I can add to what I have said. I shall follow the precedent of my predecessors. Throughout my period in the House when security has been involved, there has been a statement and exchanges and the matter has been left there.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
rose—

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred to exchanges. I wonder whether you will allow those exchanges to involve several hon. Members.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am exercising the discretion that the House has vested in me for these occasions. If the House will look up the references to my predecessors, it will find that they have always taken the view that, on security matters, an exchange is allowed between the two Front Benches. I have no desire to silence the House, but I desire to observe the Prime Minister's statement.

§ Mr. Beith
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must ask you to consider the fact that you called a representative of the official Opposition to ask questions on the statement. To be fair to other parties that are represented in the House. I hope that you will agree that representatives of those other parties would be no less careful than the Leader of the Opposition to respect both the interests of the country's security and the sub judice rule.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is quite clear that there are eight parties in the House. That would mean another eight questions—if I count independents, as I do for my own purposes. Even one hon. Member on his own has rights. It would be easier for me to call hon. Members to complete questions so that we can move on to the next statement. Nevertheless, the House would be well advised—

§ Mr. Beith
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
—to support the attitude that I have taken.

§ Mr. Beith
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that I would not raise the matter in this way were I not anxious to safeguard the rights of minority parties. I should like you to consider two points, Mr. Speaker. First, the exclusion phrase that you read out was 213 in the early part of the Prime Minister's statement and it referred only to those matters that preceded it, not to the latter part of her statement.
Secondly, hon. Members who have tabled questions that have been accepted as in order by the Table Office ought not to be excluded from asking the Prime Minister questions.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have discretion on these matters, but may I suggest that it would be helpful if you could review the position? These questions have been raised, at least in part, because there is not much accountability to the House at all on security matters. I am not asking for details. I am talking about general policy and direction.
That immunity from accountability to the House may well be giving rise to some of the slack set operations and accusations that seem to be taking place. If the consensus not to allow questions of any kind is to continue, the House will be abrogating its responsiblity as the most important body to which the Government are accountable in the final analysis on all aspects of their operations.

§ Mr. Foot
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to look afresh at the precedents in this matter? One of the reasons why I urged that the Prime Minister should make a statement was not simply that I wished to put questions myself but that I believed that many hon. Members in other parts of the House would wish to ask questions. Indeed, during the weekend, partly as a result of action that the Government themselves had taken, many of my hon. Friends were asking and putting down questions.
It seems to me, therefore, that this should be looked at afresh. Of course the Prime Minister and other Members must guard their words to ensure that they do not offend the rules, but I imagine that there are other precedents apart from the one that you, Mr. Speaker, have cited. If that is so, I believe that the House should have the opportunity tomorrow or Thursday to put further questions.

§ Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not being guided by predecessors who were dealing with national security at a time when it was not in such a fragile condition as it is today or when it was not the occasion of so many statements from the Government? We had one such statement from the Prime Minister on 26 March 1981. This did not happen so frequently in the time of your predecessors. Should not the House, therefore, have the opportunity at least to ask some questions?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am the servant of the House. I have not the slightest desire to stop hon. Members from asking the most searching questions, but the Prime Minister clearly said in her statement: Until the outcome of the proceedings is known, there is nothing that I can add to what I have said.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have already spent more than five minutes on points of order. I am trying to do the right thing by the House and by the country.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that it would be very weak to give in now. On the other hand, I know that that is not the important question.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I wish that hon. Members would stop jumping up and down like jacks in the box. If I allow five minutes for questions on this, the pattern of the replies will no doubt become clear. I shall allow five minutes for questions on this until 3.48 by the digital clock and then move on.

§ Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the second successive day—presumably yesterday's statement was also supposed to be a security matter—on which the rights of Back-Bench Members have been severely limited. Yesterday, a statement was made and questions were asked, but no Opposition Member was allowed to challenge a statement that some of us believe substituted public pillorying for penal policy. We were left unable to express—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of view on what was said yesterday. If there is a point of order, I shall rule on it.

§ Mr. Abse
rose—

§ Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I call Mr. Abse.

§ Mr. Abse
With respect, Mr. Speaker, the issue is when a statement can be regarded as so severe in security terms that hon. Members' rights should be so limited. That was not the case yesterday, and in the judgment of many of us it is not the case today—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Mr. Alan Beith.

§ Mr. Beith
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that an adequate response has been made to the report of the security commission relating to information held on computers? Does she feel that any further reference to the commission needs to be made in respect of the system of positive security vetting?

§ The Prime Minister
The security commission report had quite a long section on the safety of information in computers. It clearly stated that it was not competent to judge on this matter and recommended that a committee be set up to do so. That committee is in the process of being set up. I am anxious that it should have all the most expert opinion available so that it can look further into this question.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Huddersfield, West)
Is the Prime Minister able—[Interruption.] Is the Prime Minister able to inform the House whether or not blackmail and young children are involved in this case?

§ The Prime Minister
A charge has been made under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. I cannot go further than that.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do not the questions now arising point to the wisdom of your earlier decision?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is what I was secretly hoping.

§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
Is the Prime Minister now disavowing the briefing that was given on Friday to the effect that this matter was very grave indeed? 215 Can she say when the Government first became aware of the fact and the degree of penetration at Cheltenham? Is this another case of the House being informed at a very late stage indeed, and does it not argue for far greater parliamentary accountability of the security services?

§ The Prime Minister
A charge has been laid. A single charge has been laid under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act—that is to say, a charge against one person. That person worked at the headquarters at Cheltenham. Security arrangements at GCHQ were considered by the security commission in preparing its recent report. No changes were recommended and security remains under constant internal review.

§ Sir Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)
Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the people who work at GCHQ live in my constituency and that grave perturbation will arise there at the long delay that is now likely to ensue for legal reasons? Cannot a solution to this matter be brought about before November when the man in question is to be charged?

§ The Prime Minister
We cannot bring the matter to a conclusion until the case has been dealt with in the courts. If my hon. Friend looks back at the arrangements previously made for references to the security commission he will find that there is an arrangement under which I have to confer with the Leader of the Opposition and that if there were any question of a reference before the completion of the case, for obvious public reasons which have previously been set out in Hansard, that could not be publicly announced.