§ 70. Mr. WinnickTo ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding legal action in the case involving the book "Spycatcher".
§ The Attorney-GeneralOn 13 October the House of Lords refused permanent injunctions against the relevant newspapers. The Law Lords made it clear that this was solely due to wide publication of the book abroad, constituting, in the words of Lord Keith, the senior Law Lord, heinous treachery by Mr. Wright which would have been restrained by the courts in this country. Holding that a life-long duty of confidentiality bound all members and former members of the security services, and that, save in very exceptional circumstances, newspapers are not free to publish confidential material, the House of Lords established unequivocally the very principles of law for which the Government have always contended, and accordingly entirely vindicated the Government's determined stance.
§ Mr. WinnickIs the Attorney-General aware that a victory by the newspapers over the Government in this case is a victory for press freedom and civil liberties? Is any further legal action to be taken against the book being published here? Has not enough money—over £1 million—been wasted in this case? Is it not the case that, under the Government's proposals for changing the Official Secrets Act, it will be virtually impossible for newspapers to give or publish details of alleged wrongdoings and abuses in the security services? Have not newspapers in an open, democratic society a duty and responsibility to reveal such abuses? Are not the Government far more concerned about covering up abuses than about allowing newspapers the freedom that we all cherish?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe speeches of the Law Lords about future publication and distribution are publicly available, and it is for all concerned to take their own legal advice. As to the expenditure of public money, it is disgraceful that Mr. Wright's treachery made the expenditure necessary. In this new area for the application of the law relating to confidentiality, important principles, for which the Government have contended, have been established and we shall implacably seek their enforcement and application in any future case. Therefore, it is money well spent.
§ Mr. Richard ShepherdI am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend conceded that the Government had lost the case. Is he aware that Lord Goff said that this was a misuse of the injunctory procedure? Does that mean that the Government will take on board two of the contentions mentioned in the course of proceedings, the first by Lord Griffiths about the public interest defence and, secondly, the judgments in respect of prior publication? Does that have an implication for the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, as postulated by the Government in their White Paper?
§ The Attorney-GeneralOf course, I and the Government will take on board—to use my hon. Friend' 17 words—every aspect of every speech in this case and will not seek to put a gloss on them, but, in view of my hon. Friend's implicit criticism, I should draw his attention to the concluding remarks of Lord Keith, the Senior Law Lord. He said:
In the first place I regard this case as having established that members and former members of the Security Service do have a life-long obligation of confidence owed to the Crown. Those who breach it, such as Mr. Wright, are guilty of treachery just as heinous as that of some of the spies he excoriates in his book. The case has also served a useful purpose in bringing to light the problems which arise when the obligation of confidence is breached by publication abroad.So far as there may be any implications for the Government's announced reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, that is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. John MorrisWill the Attorney-General confirm that it was only because of his inability to prosecute Wright in this country that fruitless and expensive actions in Australia and New Zealand were commenced? Would the advice be the same if the need arose in the future for the same kind of action to be commenced in foreign jurisdictions? Was it because of, or in spite of, the Law Officers' advice that the Wright case was continued right to the bitter end? Once the issue of principle was lost in Australia, why was there the need to continue to try to gag the British press right up to the House of Lords? Is it not time for proper and independent machinery to be set up to supervise the security services—machinery in which we can have confidence—to ensure that, whatever actions Wright and his colleagues took, such an incident will never be repeated?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI will answer the questions for which I hold some ministerial responsibility. The absence of Mr. Wright from this jurisdiction made it impossible to bring any prosecution. As to any future publication outside this jurisdiction, the Law Lords have drawn attention to the fact that we cannot look to foreign courts to protect even the publication of very serious secrets. At the end of Lord Keith's judgment he said:
There is no reason to expect that secrets concerned with matters of great current importance would receive any different treatmentin foreign courts. He therefore went on to say:Consideration should be given to the possibility of some international agreement aimed at reducing the risks to collective security involved in the present state of affairs.I should have hoped to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and from other Opposition Members some concern for the preservation of the confidentiality of such matters because, in certain circumstances, the preservation of the lives of those people who serve in these services depends on that preservation.