§ 65. Mr. AllenTo ask the Atorney-General if he has any plans to change the guidelines to prosecutors arising from his experience in the Spycatcher case.
§ Mr. AllenIn view of the allegations in the book "Spycatcher" that the security services sought to undermine the democratically elected Government of this country, and as the book is still being pursued through the courts by the Attorney-General, will he now change his mind and allow the book to be published without further hindrance? Will he further investigate by public inquiry the security services, which are meant to defend our democracy and not to undermine it?
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo. The principle underlying the Government's litigation here and elsewhere is very well understood in Britain. It is that those who have served in the security services owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. That must be maintained, and that is why the Government are bringing this litigation.
§ Mr. StanbrookIs not one of the lessons to be learnt from the "Spycatcher" cases the need to revise the conditions of service of members of MI5 in order to emphasise to them that the duty of confidentiality is a lifelong duty and to discourage them from any thought that they might be serving the public interest by breaching that duty?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI note what my hon. Friend said about the importance of conditions of service, and I shall see that that point is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, it is well understood that this duty of confidentiality is lifelong and that this is absolutely inherent in the obligations of those who serve the Crown in that service.
§ Mr. Alex CarlileDoes the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that decisions such as those made in the "Spycatcher" case in Australia have damaged the very principle of confidentiality that he seeks to establish? Does he further agree that his decisions and those of his predecessor in the "Spycatcher" case have made the British common law system the laughing stock of the common law world?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am suspicious of those who claim to know what has made and what may not make something the laughing stock of something else. However, it is perfectly clear that the British Government have made abundantly plain throughout the world the importance that they attach to the obligation that I described. As the matter is still under appeal in Australia, I will not, I am afraid, yield to the temptation to comment on the remainder of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
§ Mr. AitkenWe all agree with the Government's tactics—[Interruption.] I am sorry; that was a slip of the tongue. We all agree with the Government's principle, but my hon. and learned Friend makes it sound as though the tactics are perfect. If my right hon. and learned Friend is interested in avoiding a repetition of the expensive grand opera of legal folly that has characterised the "Spycatcher" case so far, does he agree that the time has come to issue new guidelines, not just to humble prosecutors, as was suggested in the question, but to future Treasury Solicitors, Law Officers, Cabinet Secretaries and perhaps even higher personages? Perhaps the guidelines should be published in a book, then banned and turned into a best seller, but we certainly need a change.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe line between tactics and strategy is notoriously difficult to define. Perhaps my hon. Friend will recall what I told the House three weeks ago. With regard to section 2, which remains in force, work has been in hand for some time on devising provisions which would be an effective, enforceable and reasonable alternative. That task is not without difficulty. My hon. Friend knows that in 1979 the Government introduced their Protection of Official Information Bill. That was found to be unacceptable, but work is in hand.
§ Mr. FraserIf there has been a serious impropriety in the Government service, or even a serious breach of constitutional principles, at what point is a civil servant entitled to stop biting his lip and blow the whistle without fear of prosecution?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIt is well understood that there are procedures within the Civil Service for drawing attention to perceived improprieties. Each case turns upon its own circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise. That must be the only general answer capable of being given to a general question.