National Security (Hansard, 15 November 1982)

§ Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Thornaby)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the implications for national security of the Prime case, and the failure of the Government's response to it".

I begin by pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that I am not moving the Adjournment of the House on the same grounds as my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on Thursday 11 November. He did so on the basis of the Prime Minister's lack of reference of this case to the Security Commission some five months ago.

The specific events in this case have revealed the gross inadequacy of the security systems available to Government and particularly of the vetting procedures. We know from what has now been revealed that Mr. Prime was positively vetted four times, but the vetting did not reveal the work and subversion that he was carrying out. Here we have a specific example of one of the main bulwarks against subversion not operating effectively.

Over the weekend, it has been revealed to what a great extent the information available in Government Communications Headquarters has been given to the Russians, particularly and specifically about the Byeman and Argus surveillance systems, which are of enormous importance to our security.

There are a number of important reasons why the House should consider this matter. The scale of the damage that this revelation to the Russians has done is clearly immense, not only to this country but to the United States of America and to the NATO Alliance. It has damaged our relations with the United States and it is of importance not only to those involved directly but to the security of every man, woman and child in this country. Not only has information been given, but disinformation has been received. Over the weekend, it has been claimed by one of the papers that some 85 per cent. of the foreign intelligence received by the Cabinet comes from GCHQ sources. That illustrates the degree of the usage of this information, and the impact that it could have on our Government and other Western Governments.

It is inconceivable that any other disaster on this scale of importance would not be debated in the House, and the matter is urgent because there are very strong feelings in all parties that it is important to debate it before the Security Commission considers the matters and makes recommendations to the Government. If the House wishes to make proposals for the accountability of the security services to it, it is no good our having a debate after the Security Commission has reached its conclusions, because the conclusions will have profound implications for the security services as well as for the House.

This matter is urgent as well, because we need to reassure public opinion about the security services. Public confidence has been damaged and the Government's response so far has been inadequate and has not succeeded in reassuring the public. Furthermore, despite the assurances of the Prime Minister and others, there are still doubts, as is clear from the weekend press, whether Mr. Prime had access to such information as that about the location of agents and of NATO warheads. 37 It is now clear that neither the Government nor the Official Opposition are prepared to make time available to debate this matter. It is unthinkable that the House should not have an opportunity to express its views and to probe these questions. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 9.

§ Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the implications for national security of the Prime case, and the failure of the Government's response to it".

I must repeat to the House and to the hon. Gentleman something that I said in answer to the first application under Standing Order No. 9 by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). I do not decide whether the House shall discuss a matter. That decision is in the hands of another person, as the hon. Member for Thornaby implied at the end of his application. However, it is important that everyone should realise that I do not stop the House discussing a matter. I merely have to decide whether it is of such a nature that tonight or tomorrow night we must change our business to give our attention to the matter.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Thornaby said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.