Official Secrets Legislation (Hansard, 18 March 1986)

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)
My Lords, a Bill was introduced in 1979 to reform Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, but there was insufficient agreement to enable it to be carried through Parliament. The Government have at present no further plans to amend the Act but will gladly listen to any suggestions which are made.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. I am sure he would agree that the Official Secrets Act is an essential and vitally important piece of legislation. Could he perhaps enlighten the House as to the authority under which Ministers can grant immunity from that Act of Parliament to certain civil servants, who gives them that authority, and whether they in turn are able to enjoy any form of immunity in relation to actions of theirs which might contravene the Official Secrets Act?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, this Question related to changes in the law, and not to authority. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question in the terms of his supplementary, one of us, at any rate, will do our best to answer.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that that reply could be given to almost every supplementary asked on a Question put down on the Order Paper in your Lordships' House? This is not a frivolous matter: a large number of people think it is very important indeed.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, all the same, supplementaries should have some relevance to the original Question.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that the provisions and, indeed, the enforceability of the Official Secrets Act constitute a nonsense and make fools of us all—except, of course, for Her Majesty's Opposition? Would the noble and learned Lord not agree that his reference to the previous attempt to revise this Act, while being perfectly correct, ought to lead to an official consultation between the leaders of the various parties to see what can be done about agreement in this connection?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am not quite sure that the Official Opposition escapes as lightly as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has indicated. Our attempt was based upon the Franks Inquiry, which they set up and which issued a report; and it was an attempt to put it into effect. I think people have been making remarks like those of the noble Lord ever since 1911, when the last Liberal Government were in power.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, I should like only to ask a short question of the noble and learned Lord, and it is meant to be practical. Would the noble and learned Lord consider, having regard to the scandal, really, of the present position of this Act, a proper legal consultation with the leaders of the various parties, possibly in both Houses, to see whether an agreed reformation of the Act cannot take place?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am never weary of well-doing. I said in my original Answer that we would gladly listen to any suggestions. I gladly listen to that; but whether the leaders of the parties will pay the slightest attention to what I may say I do not know. However, I am perfectly sure that we are open to suggestions.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, in view of the fact that the Westland affair has displayed that the use of this Act may discriminate between, on the one hand, Ministers, who apparently can provide the press with confidential letters from their Cabinet colleagues without being prosecuted, and, on the other hand, civil servants, who 12 months ago were being prosecuted by the Government for passing on such information, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that the Westland affair, as stated in the Question on the Order Paper, should lead the Government to think again about this Act and the way in which it is being openly flouted, and to bring forward proposals in order that all parties in this House and in another place can get a law which is given some respect?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, if the noble Lord has any sensible proposals to make, I shall be delighted to hear them.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, is it not a gross slur on the integrity of Ministers and ex-Ministers to suggest that, regardless of party, they leak confidential information, when it is well known that they have always confined themselves to confidential and helpful background briefing?

§ The Lord Chancellor
; My Lords, I do not know about confidential information; nor do I know of the slightest grounds for prosecution under this section in this context.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, in view of the subsequent replies to supplementaries, may I now take it—I do not expect the Government to make a comprehensive statement—that in the not too distant future they will assure this House, the other place and, indeed, the nation, where there is some concern as to what happened over the Westland affair, that they are prepared to have a sensible, hard look at the Official Secrets Act in the interests of our nation?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, there have been a series of sensible, hard looks since 1911, but I do not believe in reinforcing failure.