Mr. Frank Larsen and Others (Prosecution) (Hansard, 26 October 1987)

§ Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the decision to stop the prosecution proceedings against Frank Larsen and others. The Attorney-General made a statement to the House on Friday. Although he answered a number of very serious questions that were asked, he left many unanswered. Indeed, he provoked many more — not least the involvement of our security services and the South African security services. One accepts that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not necessarily in a position to answer the questions that were put to him, but they must be answered to the satisfaction of the House, not least because this weekend the Sunday press carried quite clear and attributable statements about a major difference, if not a disagreement, between the anti-terrorist squad and MI5. For example, The Observer said: After MI5 was consulted on 12 October, officers of the Director of Public Prosecutions' special case work division met Superintendent Talbot. They told him to drop the case and release the men … The anti-terrorist squad clearly disagreed: as late as 15 October its officers were pressing on with inquiries in the hope of reversing the decision. We have to place these events against the background of international attacks on the African National Congress in the last few years, the bombing of the ANC offices in London and the arson attacks upon the offices of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in London. Those last two incidents could have resulted in very serious injuries, if not in loss of life. I am sure that Conservative Members would not want British subjects who are working in the offices of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, which is a legitimate organisation, to suffer injury.

I highlight those two incidents because they could have resulted in loss of life, but there is a tremendous list of incidents against these two organisations and others. Very important, urgent and specific issues are involved in this case. Only a public and open debate can ensure that those outside this Chamber who are representatives of legitimate organisations are not lifted off the streets of London and possibly assassinated, or bombed out of their offices.

If our security forces were not involved and the head of the security services, the Prime Minister, is satisfied that that is the case, a full debate should be welcomed by all hon. Members. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will grant the debate.