HC Deb 03 March 1999 vol 326 cc759-63W
Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) names and (b) job titles of his Department's officials who read the Macpherson report prior to the oral statement of 26 February 1999, Official Report, columns 660–70, by the Minister of State. [74449]

Mr. Straw

In relation to the period before the publication of the Report, it would not be in the interests of the investigation now under way of the leak of parts of the Report to give these details. After publication, the Report was widely available, including on the Internet, and would have been seen by a large number of Home Office officials.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what response he made to the Metropolitan Police following their alerting of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to the unintended publication of sensitive information; [74421]

(2)when (a) he and (b) ministers in his Department learned of the inclusion of sensitive information in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report; [74422]

(3)if he was first contacted by (a) the Metropolitan Police or (b) the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry as to the existence of information intended to be kept in confidence which was contained in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report before the report was published. [74417]

Mr. Straw

Appendix 11 of the report into the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry contained detailed information which should have been kept in confidence. The Home Office was alerted to that at about 10.45am on 25 February by the Inquiry staff. They had been contacted by the Metropolitan Police. We immediately stopped further distribution of the Appendices volume. The Metropolitan Police urgently carried out risk assessments on those individuals affected and appropriate protection measures have been put in place. The police have established a 24 hour incident room in Eltham Police Station and Home Office liaison officer is posted there to assist local Members of Parliament.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in alerting independent judicial inquiries to the existence of information, which is intended to be kept in confidence, in a report which is to be published. [74423]

Mr. Grieve

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what powers he had to inform the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry of the existence of the names and addresses of informants in Appendix 11 prior to publication of the inquiry report; [74424]

(2) if he will make a statement on his powers in respect of removing the names and addresses prior to publication of the informants listed in Appendix 11 of the Stephen Lawrence report. [74425]

Mr. Straw

The responsibility for determining the content of the report of a judicial inquiry, including any decision to publish supporting material by way of appendices, falls to the Chairman and members of the Inquiry. My Department can advise, when requested, whether material should be withheld on security or other grounds.

In the case of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, I undertook at the outset to publish the report of the Inquiry in full. Sir William Macpherson of Cluny has already said that he takes full responsibility for the original mistaken inclusion of an unredacted version of Appendix 11 in the report. Like Sir William, I am very sorry that the mistake was made. The copies of the report which are now on sale do not contain the original Appendix 11.

Mr. Butterfill

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took upon receipt of the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to ensure(a) the security of witnesses and (b) that any future (i) investigations and (ii) prosecutions would not be prejudiced by its publication. [74416]

Mr. Straw

The Inquiry was an independent judicial inquiry established under the Police Act. The contents of the Report were entirely a matter for the Inquiry, as its chairman has made clear.

Mr. Forth

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the final report on the Lawrence Inquiry was first received by his Department. [74413]

Mr. Straw

Sir William Macpherson delivered the Report to me on the evening of Monday 15 February.

Mr. Forth

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which officials in his Department were(a) responsible for liaising with the Lawrence Inquiry and (b) seconded to the Inquiry. [74415]

Mr. Straw

The Secretary to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry on secondment from the Home Office, was Stephen Wells. Further details of the staffing of the Inquiry secretariat are given in paragraphs 3.28 and 3.30 of the Report.

Responsibility in the Home Office for liaison with the Inquiry rested within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. The Head of Unit, as listed in the Civil Service Year Book, is Paul Pugh. He has been assisted by Patricia McFarlane who has responsibility for Police Community Relations within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. Other officials have assisted as part of their normal responsibilities.

Mr. Forth

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department who read the report of the Lawrence Inquiry between the time it was first received by his Department and its publication. [74414]

Mr. Straw

It would not be in the interests of the investigation now under way into the leak of parts of the Report to give these details.

Mr. Grieve

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his duties in respect of public interest immunity on the protection of the identity of informants in criminal investigations(a) in general and (b) in the case of informants named in Appendix 11 of the Stephen Lawrence report. [74426]

Mr. Straw

The question of public interest immunity arises in litigation, where it operates in appropriate circumstances to override the normal obligations of disclosure between the parties to the litigation. It does not arise outside legal proceedings.

The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), as Attorney-General, informed the House of the new approach to public interest immunity of the Government then in office in a statement made on 18 December 1996. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) informed the House on 11 July 1997, Official Report, column 616, that the present Government would follow the same approach to public interest immunity. Under that approach the question of public interest immunity is considered on an individual case basis. Public interest immunity is asserted by the Government only where Ministers believe that disclosure of the information in question would cause real damage to the public interest.

I do not normally have a role in criminal investigations or prosecutions, which fall to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service respectively. The assertion of public interest immunity in a prosecution would normally be the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr. Grieve

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons his Department received a copy of the Stephen Lawrence report prior to its publication. [74427]

Mr. Straw

Sir William Macpherson delivered the Report to me so that my Department could arrange its printing and presentation to Parliament.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what procedures the Macpherson Inquiry team used to vet all documents submitted prior to publication of their report; [74480]

(2)how many documents were not published by the Macpherson Inquiry on the basis of their sensitivity; [74478]

(3)what criteria the Macpherson Inquiry adopted to determine which documents should be published and which should not; [74476]

(4)how many documents submitted to the Macpherson Inquiry were not published, and how many pages the documents contained. [74479]

Mr. Straw

I understand from the Inquiry that the seven documents taken from the evidence which were included for publication in the Appendices to the Report were chosen on the basis that they were subject to discussion in the body of the Report and that they had a wider general interest. The documents were approved and proof read by the Chairman, his Advisers and his administrative staff. All these documents had been in the public domain, in either complete or redacted form during the public hearings of the Inquiry.

The Inquiry received about 30,000 documents containing a total of over 80,000 pages for Part 1 of its work. Many of these documents were duplicates because copies were submitted by more than one part to the Inquiry. About one third of the total was distributed to the parties of the Inquiry, subject to any redactions which the Inquiry considered necessary. Any redactions were agreed between the party submitting the document, the Inquiry's legal team and the Metropolitan police where necessary. This was done where confidentiality was clearly an issue or on the basis of a risk assessment.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which divisions of his Department he received submissions on the Macpherson report prior to the oral statement by the Minister of State on 26 February 1999,Official Report, columns 660–61. [74483]

Mr. Straw

It is not the practice to discuss the advice given to Ministers by officials.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) written and (b) oral contacts (i) he and (ii) his officials had with the Macpherson inquiry team from its inception to the receipt of the report by his Department. [74482]

Mr. Straw

My officials had numerous contacts with the Inquiry team throughout the relevant period, including in relation to the provision of Home Office evidence to the Inquiry. As for myself, I met Sir William Macpherson on several occasions, notably at the start and the end of the inquiry process.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure the removal of sensitive parts of the Macpherson report appendices from the Internet. [74485]

Mr. Straw

The full report from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and its appendices appeared on The Stationery Office's Official Publications website on the day the report was published. The entire volume containing all the appendices was immediately removed when the Home Office was alerted to the publication of sensitive material in Appendix 11 on 25 February.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the costs of(a) relocation and (b) changing identity for those informants who were named by the Macpherson report. [74487]

Mr. Straw

Witness protection in London is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police. I will be discussing the costs of this operation with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what external legal advice he has taken on the liability of his Department for civil damages in the event of claims from informants whose names were published by the Macpherson Inquiry. [74486]

Mr. Straw

I shall continue to obtain Counsel's opinion as and when necessary for the effective functioning of the Department.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) written and (b) oral contacts (i) he and (ii) his officials had with the Macpherson Inquiry team between receipt of the Inquiry Report in his Department and the oral statement by the Minister of State on 26 February 1999, Official Report, columns 660–61. [74481]

Mr. Straw

I met the Inquiry team on 15 February to take receipt of their Report. My officials had numerous contacts with the Inquiry team after that date to discuss the arrangements for publication. I spoke to Sir William Macpherson on 25 February to discuss with him the background to the contents of Appendix 11.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) names and (b) job titles of his Department's officials who (i) were seconded to the Macpherson Inquiry, (ii) assisted the Inquiry and (iii) monitored the progress of the Inquiry for his Department, indicating the dates they were engaged for each of the above purposes. [74484]

Mr. Straw

The Secretary to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, on secondment from the Home Office, was Stephen Wells. Further details of the staffing of the Inquiry secretariat are given in paragraphs 3.28 and 3.30 of the Report.

Responsibility in the Home Office for liaison with the Inquiry rested within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. The Head of Unit is Paul Pugh. He has been assisted by Patricia McFarlane who has responsibility for Police Community Relations within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. Mr. Pugh gave oral evidence to the Inquiry on behalf of the Home Office. Other officials have assisted as part of their normal responsibilities.

Mr. Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received to date from the permanent secretary in his Department on the leaking of the Macpherson report. [74475]

Mr. Straw

The permanent secretary will inform me of the outcome of the leak investigation in due course; I will inform the House of its conclusions.