Official Secrets Act (Hansard, 14 July 1987)

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

The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)
My Lords, we have no such proposals at present.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that when a particular law is applied either partially or with partiality it brings the law itself into disrepute? Will he not further agree that in view of the prosecution of Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall and the decision not to prosecute either Lord Rothschild or Chapman Pincher in the light of evidence produced before the Australian court in the Wright case, there is a danger that, again, the law itself may be brought into disrepute?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the decision on prosecution is for my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, would not the Government at least admit that some revision of the Official Secrets Act is now really necessary in the public interest?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, we admitted that at the beginning of our first Parliament after coming to office in 1979 when we introduced a Bill.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, in support of the view that something now ought to take place, is the noble Earl aware that according to the memoirs of a senior MI5 official now being serialised in the Sunday Times, the CIA told MI5 in 1964 that a Soviet agent had become Prime Minister of Great Britain? According to the report, instead of dismissing this nonsense out of hand, MI5 proceeded to contemplate the possibility of destabilising its own government. In those circumstances, is it not the case that it is high time that this can of worms was opened?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I think that is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, is it not the case that experience recently both in the courts and in Parliament has confirmed the view expressed in the Franks Report that Section 2 is a mess? Is that not now generally acknowledged? As to whether, to some extent, I may have some responsibility for it, I know not. But, given the present position, is it not high time that we repealed Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and replaced it with a protective measure more narrowly defined than Section 2 which is absurdly wide in its potential application?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I do not think I can add to the answer I gave to the noble and learned Lord when he asked a similar question on 31st March this year. Of course we would look at any proposal, and we keep the matter under consideration.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, per contra, is there not something to be said for having an Act which is so sweeping as to be totally ineffective?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I think that all of us including the noble Lord, would prefer an Act that was effective.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, as Mr. Peter Wright's name has been mentioned in this House, is the Minister aware that some of us regard him with contempt and find what he has done in writing the book despicable and deplorable? Are the Government aware that, because of their own stupidity, the book will in time be a best seller? If the man is a liar—and I think he is— why not let him publish? Let us all see what a liar he is and hold him in the contempt he deserves, instead of having all this fuss and fighting to get books?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the important thing we must remember when considering the legal proceedings both in the United Kingdom and Australia is that the Government are seeking to uphold the principle that Wright, as a former member of the security service, owes a life-long duty of confidentiality to the Crown. That principle is essential to the effectiveness of the security service.

§ Lord Hutchinson of Lullington
My Lords, will the Minister spell out to the House why the Government resist all requests for an inquiry into reform of the Official Secrets Act? If the citizens of this country are subject to a law which is held in contempt by everybody, including a distinguished High Court judge in the Sunday Telegraph case more than 15 years ago, why is it that the Government in those circumstances resist having some form of inquiry—by Select Committee or some such method—to try to reform this legislation?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Franks Committee made a very detailed report on this subject and as a result we introduced legislation which, alas, did not proceed through this House or another place. We will look very carefully at any suggestion put forward.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that when that Bill was introduced in 1979 there was a Second Reading debate in this House in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and other noble Lords took part? There was general agreement that Section 2 should be removed but unfortunately there was great disagreement about what should take its place.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, and that appertains today as well.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, surely the noble Earl will agree that because your first attempt at reform is not satisfactory that does not mean that no reform will be satisfactory.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Baroness and I have crossed on that particular point before. I say to her once again that until there is more consensus as to what should replace Section 2 it would be inappropriate to go down the same road we went before.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, should not believe everything that he reads? Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is entirely right. If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again. Why do not the Government reconsider the matter and bring proposals before the House which may well have a far greater chance of success now, with all the recent experience, than they had when they were introduced in 1979?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is agreed that there is a problem relating to Section 2. But, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, the difficulty is what you put in its place.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, noble Lords opposite have had eight years in government and probably, if unfortunately, have another four and a half years or so ahead of them. Can the noble Earl give an assurance to the House that something will be done during the next four and a half years?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition knows, I cannot give him that assurance. We keep the matter continually under review. If any noble Lord has an idea how this could be done that would satisfy Parliament, we would be anxious to look at it.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, if the noble Earl insists on surrendering the responsibilities of government, why does he continue to sit on that side?

The Earl of Caithness
No, my Lords.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, will the noble Earl be kind enough to inform the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that I certainly do not believe everything that I read, nor even everthing that I hear, even in this Chamber?

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, if the noble Earl is telling the House that he is not able to answer for the Attorney-General, who has the responsibility for prosecutions, why is it that a member of the Government who can answer for the Attorney-General has not answered my Question? If he is concerned, as he says he is, with Section 2 of the Act, and has been concerned for eight years and is looking for consensus, why will the Government not take the suggestion made from in front of me to set up an inquiry in order to reach the consensus when Members on all sides of the House know that Section 2 is a nonsense and would like something better to replace it? Is this not the way to do it?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first point, I answered the Question that he put down on the Order Paper.