§ 29. Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General if he has yet reached any decision whether to prosecute Lord Rothschild in relation to alleged offences under the Official Secrets Act.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe police investigation to which the Solicitor-General referred on 6 February is as yet incomplete.
§ Mr. DalyellBefore appealing in Australia, would it not be wise to find out what on earth induced Victor Rothschild to pay money for Peter Wright to come here and to introduce him to Chapman Pincher? As I suggested in an Adjournment debate on 6 February, is there not some selectivity in prosecution policy? Why go for Wright and not for Victor Rothschild?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have made it clear that there is no question of any decision being taken about Lord Rothschild. The police inquiry is not complete and the Director of Public Prosecutions has no report. With regard to the case in Australia, the hon. Gentleman again fails to distinguish between insider and outsider books.
§ Mr. Mark CarlisleIs not the answer to the selectivity issue raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) the fact that neither Mr. Chapman Pincher nor Mr. Nigel West is subject to the Official Secrets Act and thus cannot be prosecuted under it?
§ The Attorney-GeneralWith one reservation, my right hon. and learned Friend is right. A person who directly repeats information from someone bound by the Act could himself be liable.