§ Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he accepts the statement in paragraph 21 of the Franks report on the 199W Official Secrets Act that section 1 is concerned with spying;
(2) whether he accepts the statement in appendix I of the Franks report on the Official Secrets Act that section 1 covers those offences popularly regarded as spying and that it does not touch the communication or publication of official information of other kinds or for other purposes.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThe interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts, but my hon. Friend will see from the terms of section 1 that it is an offence, for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, to do certain acts which are calculated to be or might be or are intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy. In the case of Chandler in 1962 the House of Lords held that the mischief aimed at in the section could not be limited to espionage.
§ Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in full the differences between the recommendations in the Franks report and the views of the Government as set out in their recent White Paper.
§ Mr. JohnThe White Paper itself explains the differences between the recommendations in the Franks report and the Government's proposals.
§ Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he decided before or after the circulation of the July 1977 instructions from the then Head of the Home Civil Service to publish the Home Office document mentioned in paragraph 42 of the White Paper on the Official Secrets Act.
§ Mr. JohnThe decision was taken before the circulation of the letter from the Head of the Home Civil Service, but in the light of the Prime Minister's announcement on 24th November 1976 to the effect that as much as possible of the factual and analytical material used as the background to major policy studies would be published.
§ Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he favours the establishment of the kind of informal committee on classification mentioned in paragraph 25 of the White Paper on the Official Secrets Act.
200W
§ Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the course of his preparation of the White Paper on the Official Secrets Act, he commissioned any work on the operation of section 1 of the Act; and, if so, if he will publish the paper in the Official Report.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThe White Paper is concerned only with the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and this follows the commitment in the Queen's Speech. I have of course informed myself about section 1 of the Act, but, as I made clear to the House in replying to supplementary questions on 19th July, I do not propose to comment on or publish any material about section 1.
§ Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Official Secrets Acts as a whole were last reviewed by a body within the Government or a body appointed by a Government.
§ Mr. JohnThe Franks Committee, which reported in 1972, examined in detail section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The Committee's report included some discussion of other relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Acts. Apart from this, there has been no official review of the Official Secrets Act as a whole.
§ Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Government believe, as stated in paragraph 32 of the White Paper on the Official Secrets Act, that all employees of the Post Office should be included in the definition of Crown servants to be used in the proposed Official Information Act.
§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Government intend to determine whether the proposals in the White Paper on the Official Secrets Act command the support which paragraph 10 of the White 201W Paper states is necessary before the Government are ready to introduce a Bill based on the Franks report.
§ Mr. JohnThe Government will make their assessment in the light of all public comment on and private representations about the proposals in the White Paper.
§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the first sentence of paragraph 10 of the White Paper on the Official Secrets Act means that, if criticisms are made of the proposals in the White Paper, the Government are prepared to consider legislation whose scope is wider than reform of only section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
§ Mr. JohnThe Government have no present proposals for legislation going beyond the reform of section 2. Our position on freedom of information legislation is summarised in paragraphs 48 and 49 of the White Paper. We shall, of course, consider any proposals for wider legislation that are made to us.
§ Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any misprints in the texts of the Official Secrets Acts 1911–1939.
§ Mr. JohnWe are aware of the misprint in section 7 of the 1920 Act which is referred to on page 115 of the Franks report (Cmnd. 5104). If my hon. Friend thinks there are further misprints I shall be interested to hear of them.
§ Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which offences under the Official Secrets Act there is a power of arrest without a warrant.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThere is a power of arrest without warrant for any offence under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1939.
§ Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under which sections of the Official Secrets Act individuals are bound to give information even if it is self-incriminating.
§ Mr. JohnUnder section 6 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, as amended, the police may, with the permission of a Secretary of State except in cases of great202W emergency, require anyone believed to be in possession of information about the commission of an offence under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to furnish that information. Under section 7 of the 1911 Act, as amended, it is an offence for anyone who knowingly harbours or allows to meet on his premises persons whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for supposing to have committed, or are about to commit, an offence under the Official Secrets Acts, wilfully to omit or refuse to disclose to the police information concerning such persons.
§ Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under which sections of the Official Secrets Act the courts have jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. JohnUnder section 10 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, courts in the United Kingdom have jurisdiction to try offences against the Official Secrets Act committed elsewhere. The extent of that jurisdiction depends on the nationality of the offender, the place where the offence was committed and, in some cases, the official position of the offender. Orders in Council made under section 11 of the 1911 Act may disapply the Act or part of it in a British possession whose law makes corresponding provision.
§ Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which offences under the Official Secrets Acts the courts have the power to hear any proceedings in camera.
§ Mr. JohnThe court may order the public or a portion of the public to be excluded from proceedings for any offence under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920 if an application is made by the prosecution on the ground that the publication of any evidence to be given or statement to be made in the course of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the national safety. Sentence, however, must be passed in open court.
§ Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will seek to amend the Official Secrets Acts to ensure that in a prosecution it is necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of a particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State;
203W(2) if he will seek to amend the Official Secrets Acts to ensure that in a prosecution evidence of conduct and character may not be introduced to show that the defendant's purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the interests of the State.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI have no present plans to amend the Official Secrets Acts beyond those set out in the recently published White Paper (Cmnd. 7285).
§ Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the maximum sentence for a single offence under the Official Secrets Act;
(2) what is the maximum sentence given to a single person convicted under the Official Secrets Act.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThe maximum penalty which may be imposed on conviction of an offence under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 or section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 is 14 years' imprisonment. Since 1st January 1964, the earliest date for which records are readily available, the most severe sentence given to a single person for offences under the Official Secrets Act was 14 years' imprisonment for one count and seven years' imprisonment for a second count, the sentences to run consecutively.