HL Deb 22 May 1969 vol 302 cc490-3

4.20 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement, in accordance with the reply to Questions which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given in another place, about Dr. A. E. Laurence. I will use his own words:

"In April information was received from a K.G.B. agent who had detected to the West that Dr. Laurence had been recruited in 1963 to work for the K.G.B. A number of interviews have taken place with Dr. Laurence, and the assessment of the case is now complete. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General has come to the conclusion that on the available information there are no grounds for taking proceedings against Dr. Laurence under the Official Secrets Acts."

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, but why could not that brief Statement have been made yesterday, in reply to the Question of which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark had given Notice, instead of being delayed for 24 hours until a time when clearly the right reverend Prelate was not able to be in his place? On the facts of the matter, of course, the security service is right to follow up any information given by a defector which may lead to the arrest of a spy. But on future occasions would it be possible for the police to question a suspected spy and search his property in a somewhat less conspicuous manner than was chosen on this occasion? As things turned out, the attention of the Press of the world was attracted to what has apparently turned out to be a mistake by somebody or other.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, as to the noble Lord's question about why this Statement was not made yesterday, the simple and correct answer is that the Home Secretary was not then in a position to make the Statement which he has made to-day. Otherwise, of course, the Statement would have been made yesterday. With regard to the fact that the right reverend Prelate is not here today, he did not mention to me yesterday that it would not be possible for him to be here, and I regret that he is not here.

I am glad to have the agreement of the noble Lord that the security services were right to take the action they did, and of course such action must be taken when information like this is given. Clearly, the security of the State demands that it should be properly investigated. So far as the source of the information was concerned, this particular informant has given information in quite a number of cases, and in a number of cases his information has resulted in arrests. Therefore considerable weight had to be given to it on this occasion. With regard to future occasions, when a prospective spy—I am using the noble Lord's own words—

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

Suspected.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am sorry; I have written down "prospective". When a suspected spy has to be questioned, certainly the police do not seek any publicity. And they did not on this occasion; but of course it was impossible to conceal the fact that the house had been kept under surveillance for, necessarily, some days until Dr. Laurence returned to this country. I advised the noble Lord that the accounts that have been given in some of the newspapers about the number of officers that carried out the search were greatly exaggerated, as indeed were many of the other accounts that appeared in the Press. It would have been the noble Lord's misfortune on previous occasions to be the victim of similar exaggerated accounts. Dr. Laurence was interviewed in his own home and under proper conditions, after a search warrant had properly been taken out; and his cupboards were investigated with his consent and opened with keys which he supplied. The whole matter, indeed, was quite properly conducted.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I do not believe in discussing security matters on the Floor of the House, but may I ask the noble Lord whether, considering that yesterday he was entirely vague as to when this Statement would be made, any steps were taken to inform the right reverend Prelate that the Statement would be made at half past three, or later, this afternoon?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, unfortunately I was not in a position to take those steps. Even to-day at 12.30 p.m., when I left my office, I was not aware that, in the sense that this House understands a Statement of this kind, such a Statement would be made, and therefore I was not in a position to take the steps that I should otherwise have taken.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many citizens, such as myself, have been seriously disturbed at the Press reports of this particular case, and Press reports as to the conduct of the Executive, the police, and their treatment of Dr. Laurence? Can the Minister give us an assurance that, after investigation, he is satisfied that in no instance did the police behave either discourteously or improperly, or exceed their duties?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I can give that assurance categorically. The noble Lord referred to newspaper statements; I do not recall any newspaper statement which said that.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

It was the Sunday Times.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, some inaccurate things were said in the Sunday Times; but, so far as I am aware, they were not allegations that Dr. Laurence was treated improperly. For example the Sunday Times said that the police had apologised to Dr. Laurence, and told him that there was no case against him. This is quite untrue. The police have at no time made any such statement to Dr. Laurence, and the results of the assessment of the case were not made known until this Statement which I have just made and which my right honourable friend has made in another place. However, I give categorically the assurance for which the noble Lord asks. I have examined the matter very carefully, and there has been no misconduct or even discourtesy of any kind.