§ 2.50 p.m.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made by Scotland Yard on the investigations into possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act announced on 16th October.
The Lord Chancellor(Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I very much regret to say that I have nothing to add to what I told the noble Lord on 16th October.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that after two months of investigation Parliament is entitled to receive some news from the Government as to how this investigation is progressing? In view of the fact that twice this year the Law Lords appear to have made fiascos out of their prosecutions of Clive Ponting and the Cyprus airmen, are we not entitled to know what has been happening over the past two months?
Is it the case, for instance as has been publicly reported, that one of the witnesses in this case when examined by Scotland Yard refused to sign her statement, alleging that the statement was not consistent with the evidence she had given?
The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, what I tried to tell the noble Lord on 16th October was that in this House we answer on behalf of the Government and that this matter is not a government responsibility.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, surely it was the Government who passed this case to Scotland Yard. 804 There was a public allegation in the previous week—in the second week of October—that a former Cabinet Minister and Privy Counsellor whom the Prime Minister was apparently very anxious to include again in her Government, had given away secrets during the Falklands war. I make no comment on the veracity of that allegation but in view of the previous prosecutions undertaken by the Law Officers of the Crown, surely Parliament is entitled to know precisely what has been happening over this two-month period.
The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I can only advise the noble Lord to go to the Library and take out the very definitive statement on the obligations and positions of the Law Officers of the Crown as regards prosecutions, by Professor Edwards, in the second edition of his excellent work. If the noble Lord will study chapters 16 to 19, I think he will find the answer to his question. But as those three chapters are rather longer than what I propose to deal with in a Question and Answer, I ask the noble Lord to inform himself of the elementary constitutional position.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, as one who personally believes that persecution in the media of people in our public life sometimes goes too far, I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it would not be considerate in this case—and Scotland Yard might at least heed this question and the noble and learned Lord's answer—if a decision were reached as to whether or not a prosecution is to be brought fairly soon? The evidence in this case must be of the simplest kind, and I am asking my question from these Benches out of consideration for the person involved.
The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I appreciate the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am sure that when the material is available to my right honourable and learned friend—and not Scotland Yard—upon which he can discharge his constitutional responsibilities he will, with his customary speed and agility, address himself to making a decision.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, in that case, and before I do my homework in the Library, can the noble and learned Lord give the House an assurance that when the investigations are completed he will report to this House or will be prepared to answer a Question in similar terms to mine this afternoon?
The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, when the noble Lord has done his homework, as I am glad to hear that he is about to do, he will know that it will not be for me to do that which he has suggested.