§ 11.20 a.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister, on or about 18th June 1969, authorised Mr. G. Kaufman, M.P., then employed on the political staff of the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, to supply Mr. Anthony Howard, editor of the New Statesman, with details of how each member of the Cabinet voted on the issue of whether the proposed Industrial Relations Bill should be proceeded with and whether the receipt of this information by Mr. A. Howard, as acknowledged by him on BBC television in the programme "Meet the Editors" on Sunday 22nd June, constituted a breach of the Official Secrets Act.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord SHEPHERD)My Lords, Cabinet proceedings are confidential except to the extent that the Cabinet itself approves the issue of a statement. On the occasion 1711 referred to, no such authorisation was given and no vote was taken.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, would the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal care to comment on the propriety of Mr. Anthony Howard revealing the source of information in this particular case, which is contrary to every principle by which journalists, who have any reputation to lose, operate? Has he noted that the statements on television by Mr. Anthony Howard were not correct? Has the noble Lord checked what Mr. Howard said against what he wrote on 22nd June 1969, that no vote was taken by the Cabinet on that day, but if a vote had been taken the vote would have been 12 to 11? Is the Minister further aware, if one examines the Press over those three or four days, 17th to 20th June, there was massive guidance, including detailed timetables of how the Cabinet and Cabinet committees operated, and it is perfectly clear, whether done with or without authority, somebody was carrying on what one might describe as an "operation"?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, regarding the first supplementary question of my noble friend, I do not think it is for me to comment upon the activities of this journalist. If he has infringed in any way the relationship between the Press officers and the journalists it is for the journalistic profession to deal with that. In that period there was a great deal of speculation. I would not suggest it was leakage or guidance, but there was speculation. From my short experience in the Cabinet, I have wondered sometimes, When reading the Press reports, whether I had gone to the right Cabinet Committee Room.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, leaving aside the wonderment of the noble Lord as to whether or not he was at the right Cabinet meeting, when speculation reaches the point that it is 100 per cent. correct, can one take it that speculation has passed from that area into an area of certainty? Would the noble Lord be good enough to answer the question as to whether Mr. Kaufman, who was employed in 10 Downing Street, briefed Mr. Anthony Howard?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, Mr. Kaufman informs me that he has no recollection at all of having a conversation 1712 with Mr. Howard, although one must appreciate this is some six or seven years ago. Regarding speculation and certainty, I am sure my noble friend will agree that because a horse wins a race that does not mean there was certainty it would win when it started.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree, if Mr. Kaufman has been dangerously misrepresented to his disadvantage, this was not a privileged occasion and he has his own rights under civil law if it is thought that this matter should be rectified?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, that is a matter entirely for Mr. Kaufman which I would prefer to leave to him.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, it is not only a question for Mr. Kaufman. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal must be aware that, if somebody working in 10 Downing Street signs the Official Secrets Act and devolves information for whatever reason, this constitutes a breach of the law. Surely it constituted a breach of the law by Mr. Anthony Howard to receive information which was improperly disclosed. As there is a conflict of evidence here, and Mr. Kaufman's memory seems to be defective while Mr. Howard's memory seems clear, is this not a case, as it involves not only Ministers but the Cabinet Secretariat, for an inquiry? Surely we are going right to the heart of Government here if an argument can be carried on half under the counter and half above.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, if information of this kind had been disclosed by an official to the Press in the circumstances that have been reported, I believe it would be subject to the Official Secrets Act. But we have no reason to believe this. We have Mr. Kaufman's assurance that this information was not conveyed to the journalist. Therefore I suggest, in these circumstances, one can only question the statement that was made by the journalist on the BBC, taking into account the article he wrote at that time.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, assuming, as I do, the noble Lord's statement that there was no vote taken on the occasion in question is right, how can there possibly have been an illicit disclosure concerning the voting figures? Have we not spent enough time on this matter?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord; I was, however, seeking to deal with some difficult questions which my noble friend was putting to me. I am trying to put the matter right. But I agree with the noble and learned Lord—and I find I am more and more in agreement with him—and I suggest that we now move to the next business.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, the fact that there is agreement between the two Front Benches does not alter the fact that there was on this occasion guidance or leaks.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, I will put my remarks in an interrogative form. I notice that the House always wants interrogative questions from me but not when Ministers or Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are speaking. Does the Minister agree that the fact that there is agreement between him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, increases the probability of both being wrong rather than being right? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has a reputation of never being right on any subject and always managing to laugh at his own jokes. It may be funny to him but not to other people. On this occasion there was unquestionably major leaks or guidance. Mr. Anthony Howard has used a powerful instrument to reveal that; namely, the media. Should it not therefore either be established or refuted in detail, and not just palmed off because it happens to be inconvenient to the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, the only area of agreement between the noble and learned Lord and myself was that we had had enough of this matter and wanted to move to the next business. I think that is the general sense of your Lordships' House. I have to say, in the light of what my noble friend put to me, that there was no question at all of guidance or leakage in this matter.