§ 69. Mr. JannerTo ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew)I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on Friday 21 October. We discussed matters relating to the Crown Prosecution Service.
§ Mr. JannerHaving regard to the Government's epic, disgraceful and disastrous mishandling of the "Spycatcher" affair, has the learned Attorney-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions whether there are to be prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising out of this or similar matters? If he has discussed 15 that with the director, what are the results, who is to be prosecuted and what was considered? If he has not discussed those matters, why not?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe answer to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is no; the second part of the question does not arise; and the answer to the third part is that prosecution decisions are taken in the light of available evidence.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. May I draw to the attention of the House that the next question is specifically about "Spycatcher"?
§ Mr. DevlinWhen the Attorney-General last spoke to the Director of Public Prosecutions, did he draw his attention to the recent report in The Northern Echo to the effect that the defendants pleading not guilty on Teesside have to wait up to 20 weeks for their cases to come before the courts and that this is due to a shortage of magistrates and prosecutors? Did the Attorney-General ask the director when he last spoke to him whether anything would be done to increase the supply of prosecutors in the north-east or to put in a stipendiary magistrate in Teesside?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI did not raise the matter with the director when I saw him last on Friday. The availability of magistrates is a matter for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, as is the administration of the courts, but as to the availability of prosecutors, I should be surprised if a shortage of prosecutors was responsible for delay in bringing cases to court of anything like the order that my hon. Friend mentioned. However, I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. MullinHas the Attorney-General any plans to prosecute or investigate those involved in the attempt by the intelligence services to overthrow the elected Government, or am I being naive in asking this?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe hon. Gentleman is perhaps being engagingly harsh upon himself, and I should not wish to criticise him. However, I draw his attention to a statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May of last year, in which she drew attention to the fact that, over four months, the director general of the security service had investigated the allegations to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and had concluded that there was no evidence to support them, and that, accordingly, no further action was being taken in that regard.
§ Mr. HoltWill my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in the recent correspondence that I have had with the Home Office, it has become clear that large bookmakers, every day, induce people to bet and break the law, and that the Government, through the DPP, have never brought a prosecution against any of these major bookmakers, who daily flout the law of the land? Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to speak to the DPP about this scandalous state of affairs?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI must gently correct my hon. Friend, who complained that the Government, through the prosecution service, have never brought a prosecution. The Government do not bring prosecutions in these circumstances. This is a matter for the independent prosecution service. I am not familiar with the 16 correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers, but I shall look at it, and, if it seems appropriate to do so—I expect that it is, since my hon. Friend asked me to do so—I shall draw it to the attention of the DPP.