Lord Campbell of CroyMy 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 whether they intend, in due course, to introduce a measure to replace Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)My Lords, we did introduce such a measure—the Protection of Official Information Bill—in 1979. At present, we have no plans to try again.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As it is seven years since the Government made that last gallant attempt, and 16 years since a judge in court said that it was high time that Section 2 was pensioned off, is my noble friend aware that there is immense credit awaiting the Administration which succeeds in carrying out this reform without reducing national security?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, that of course is the rub. In fact, I would take my noble friend further and say that since 1911 people have been looking at ways of trying to reform this measure; but there never seems to be a consensus.
§ Lord DenningMy Lords, would it not be desirable at all events to put right what I believe was the summing up of the judge in the Cyprus case, when he said that the interest of the state meant the interest of the Government? I venture to think that that was erroneous. The interest of the state is the interest of the public at large.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, where there is consensus to reform and improve Section 2, we should be happy to do so.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, is it not the case that the House has gone on record as approving the amendment of the Official Secrets Act? Is it not also the case that in March just before the general election the Labour Government indicated their intention to do so, perhaps a little belatedly because then they lost the next election?
§ Lord HoosonMy Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House how the country managed before 911?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I am afraid I was not around at the time, but I shall see what researches I can look into.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, we hear so much about security of the state. Can the Minister quote any historical instance from anywhere, where any state security has been affected by somebody blabbing a secret?
§ Lord Harris of GreenwichMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that many of us regard this matter as even more urgent now, given the position following the Westland affair, where classified documents were deliberately leaked by government departments and as a result of which no one was prosecuted? Does that not throw into strange light the decision to prosecute a junior civil servant who was sentenced to imprisonment for a trivial breach of this section of the Act? Is the noble Earl not aware that, in the light of these events, many of us regard Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act as nothing more than an organized hyprocrisy?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, as regards the reform, or the potential reform, of Section 2, I would only repeat what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on 18th March; that is, that we look forward to hearing any sensible proposals.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, does the noble Earl agree that this is a subject which, above all others, should be treated on a non-party political basis and on the basis of agreement between all the parties in the state? Will he put that point to his right honourable friend and ask him to think along those lines and possible speak to the leaders of other parties about that possibility?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, indeed, I think that by looking at what we tried to do in 1979 one can see that it is not a party political matter. It was the Franks Committee which reported to the Labour Government and which put out a White Paper, as a result of which we introduced the Bill; but there was no consensus at that time.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the difficulties in that debate seven years ago, everyone who spoke appeared to be in favour of doing away with the catch-all Section 2 in accordance with the recommendation of the Franks Committee, and that such criticism as there was from all parts of the House, Front Benches and Back Benches, was constructive?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I understand that there was a great deal of consensus over getting rid of Section 2, but I understand that there was very little consensus about how one would replace it.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, if the Government are at a loss about what to replace Section 2 with and are hoping to receive sensible suggestions, can they help 121 the flow of sensible suggestions by publishing a consultation paper which will state the main objections to Section 2, what law corresponds to Section 2 in the other major democracies of the world, and their own objections to adopting each of those?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I carefully note what the noble Lord says. But I would remind the noble Lord, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor also said, that we do not want to compound the felony of previous mistakes.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is it not the case that one is inclined to forget that there are two parties on the Alliance Benches, with different policies?
§ Lord Ponsonby of ShulbredeQuestion!
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, on the Question itself. is it not the case that a simple and non-controversial way of dealing with the matter would be simply to leave out Clause 2 and put nothing back in its place?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, that might suit the noble Lord opposite, but I do not think it would suit the great majority of those in this House.