Official Secrets Act 1911: Section 2 (Hansard, 31 March 1987)

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
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 Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, has not recent experience both in the courts and in Parliament confirmed the view expressed in the Franks Report that Section 2 is in a mess? Is it not high time that we repealed Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and replaced it by a more narrowly defined protective measure than Section 2, which is absurdly wide in its potential application?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord will know well, we tried to do this in 1979 but we did not find the consensus then and I fear that the consensus is not here at the present.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, as a result of this Question, is my noble friend more confident that the Government would find more support from the other political parties for a replacement to Section 2 than they received when the Bill was introduced in 1979?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, there has been a fair measure of support for the reform of the Official Secrets Act since 1911. The trouble is that one has never been able to have the right consensus in order to implement those reforms.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, following upon what the House may be surprised to learn is my noble and learned friend's maiden Question, may I ask the Minister this? Bearing in mind that there is a feeling among all parties that Section 2 must be amended, and bearing in mind our recent painful experience of that section, would it not be worthwhile to consider setting up an all-party committee, which may be presided over by either the Speaker or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with a view to seeing whether unanimity can be obtained in getting this section amended at long last?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord's question has some merit. However, we do not believe it to have the force that he believes. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said but a year ago, we welcome any constructive suggestions and will look at them carefully.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, instead of merely waiting for a consensus, which may take years, why cannot the Government tentatively put forward in a Green Paper their own ideas for discussion?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, that is what we did. As the noble Lord will know, the Franks Committee reported to the Labour Government. We introduced a Bill. Had that received support in your Lordships' House, we might not now have the problem.

§ Lord Foot
My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that just over two years ago my noble friend Lord Wigoder introduced a Motion calling upon the Government to introduce legislation for the repeal of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act; and that that Motion was argued and debated in this House, and accepted without a Division? What more must we do in order to ensure that the Government will act?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot recall exactly what the noble Lord refers to. I believe that it is more a question of replacing Section 2 than merely repealing it. That would suit some people but not the great majority of this country.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware most people would agree with the Franks Committee that Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act is a mess? Will the Minister also agree that many people believe that the problem is not that the section is too restrictive but that it is too permissive? Will he bear in mind that when the Government considers repeal or amendment of Section 2, we should always have some kind of inhibition against the activities of people who seek to expose real official secrets involving national security of this country to the world at large?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right, and I shall make sure that my right honourable friend is informed what he said today.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in order to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, Section 2 would need to be replaced with the stocks or possibly the re-introduction of the thumb screw?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, might be satisfied, but I am not sure what we can do to satisfy the noble Lord opposite.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, why is the noble Earl so anxious to have consensus when in respect of every other Bill he has put through the House there has been no consensus? I thought that he did not like consensus.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I cannot remember whether the noble Baroness was present during the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill. There seemed to be a great deal of consensus in respect of that Bill.

§ Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while everyone agrees that Section 2 is unsatisfactory, the chances of obtaining 461 agreement on anything which may replace it are as small now as they have ever been, because there will always be those who want to widen it into a freedom of information Act, and that way lies madness?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I note the words of my noble friend, who has great experience in these matters.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, in view of the exchanges that have taken place from different parts of the House would not the noble Earl think it desirable to raise the matter with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary? If I may say so, it cannot be brushed away so dismissively.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I hope that I was not brushing it away dismissively. I was trying to give a fair and honest answer, similar to that which I gave in October. I shall take up the matter with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who is interested whenever any of your Lordships raise questions with regard to the Home Office.