| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): I thank the Home Secretary, both for that statement and for his customary courtesy in letting me have an early sight of his remarks. However, I hope that he will kick the habit of revealing the full facts to the House only when the press and media have obliged him to do so.
Did the Home Secretary first know of the allegations against Melita Norwood in December 1998? If so, was he made aware of them in the context of likely publication? If he knew that those facts were to become public, why did he then not decide to inform Parliament rather than waiting for the press to do so? At what stage did he first inform the Prime Minister of what he knew about Melita Norwood? When he was told about Melita Norwood in
December 1998, did he then ask whether there would be other revelations? If not, why not? If he did, was any indication given to him then of revelations against any other persons, including Dr. Pearson and Mr. Symonds?
The Home Secretary referred to the condition imposed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind. He said that Sir Malcolm
We welcome the decision for the prosecuting authorities to look again at the case for prosecution in the light of the recent admissions, but can the Home Secretary explain how the decision not to prosecute, so far, squares with the decision to prosecute Shayler? What is the comparable basis? Can he confirm that age was not a factor in deciding whether to prosecute Mrs. Norwood, as that would stack up rather oddly with his decisions in the case of General Pinochet? Can he also confirm that one of those being considered for prosecution is Dr. Pearson? Is he aware of the serious allegation made by Dr. Gosling that he was drugged and robbed in Warsaw in the late 1970s at an academic conference apparently as a direct result of the activities of Dr. Pearson? Those are extremely serious allegations and I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's observations on them.
Although we also welcome the reference to an inquiry into the activities of the security services, will the Home Secretary now acknowledge that there was one activity that it got absolutely right--the decision to put the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament under surveillance? Among the revelations there are established links between CND and the Stasi. In that context, given the links between CND and members of the Government, will he reassure the House that no currently serving Minister had any contact with any of the persons named in the Mitrokhin archive?
Mr. Straw:
When this matter first became public, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in a commentary in the newspapers, demanded that we publish all the names of any more traitors living, like this one, without being prosecuted. She then said that we should be told the reasons why they had not been brought to justice unless there were clear security reasons for not doing so. What the right hon. Lady was seeking was for us to adopt a practice that would be wholly improper and which successive Governments have refused to follow: the denunciation of people against whom allegations had been made, without evidence being put before a court of law, and for their conviction to follow.
All the key decisions concerning the prosecution of people in relation to material in the Mitrokhin archive--key decisions concerning whether Mrs. Norwood should be prosecuted--were made under the right hon. Lady's Administration, not under this one. I am not privy to the decisions and considerations that they made, except that Sir Malcolm Rifkind authorised me to disclose that, in
1996, he agreed with the recommendation that that material should be placed in the public domain by way of a book co-authored by Mr. Mitrokhin and Professor Christopher Andrew; that he agreed that an inter- departmental committee of officials should consider whether any of the material should be withheld from publication; and, above all, that he personally had imposed a condition that any allegations of criminal behaviour against individuals should not be made public unless those individuals agreed--I agree with the right hon. Lady that that is an unlikely prospect, but that was the condition that her right hon. and learned Friend imposed--or they had been prosecuted and convicted.
That is the appropriate way to proceed in this matter, as in any other. On individual questions about prosecution, I have already made clear what the right hon. Lady knows anyway: that decisions about the prosecution of any individual are not a matter for the Home Secretary of the day; they are a matter for the Law Officers and prosecuting authorities.
One important issue that arose in respect of the Mitrokhin case, particularly concerning Mrs. Norwood, was the fact that the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Norwood in 1992-93 was made within the Security Service, and the papers never went to the Law Officers. I believe that an important issue is raised there and I am certain that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his colleagues will want to follow that up in detail.
Mr. Hunt was identified by the Security Service. Investigations showed that he had no access to classified information and could not damage Britain's interest. If the right hon. Lady now asks me why he is not being considered for prosecution, the answer is simple: he is dead.
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater):
May I say, on behalf of my committee, that we welcome the invitation from the Prime Minister to carry out this inquiry? It is no secret that the committee would have wanted to carry out the inquiry anyway, with or without the invitation, because of the security and intelligence implications.
This is, however, a new approach to the handling of a security inquiry of this kind, made possible by the existence of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The committee believes that it is appropriate for it to accept this direct request from the Government to conduct such an inquiry, but it would also be proper to make clear to the House and the Government, as I have already sought to do to the Home Secretary, the basis on which the committee feels able to conduct this inquiry.
We shall look for the fullest co-operation from the Government, Ministers, Departments, agencies, members of previous Governments and the predecessor officials. We shall look for prompt responses to the requests that we shall make. In particular, we shall require access to all relevant papers that the committee may need, recognising that, in respect of this inquiry, it will be particularly germane to see advice to Ministers if the committee is to be able to make objective judgments on this matter.
We take note of the announcement that the possibility of prosecuting Mrs. Norwood is being considered, as are four other cases. That was not known to the committee
when the original request was made. The committee has not had a chance to discuss that matter, and we shall need to consider its implications for our inquiry.
We welcome this invitation, and shall submit our report the Prime Minister. He will lay it before the House in the usual way, subject to any necessary deletions, after consultation, for national security reasons.
Mr. Straw:
We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee for agreeing to undertake this work. I appreciate that, if his committee had not been asked by me, with the Prime Minister's agreement, to undertake this inquiry, it would have properly decided of its own volition to do so. That is why the Intelligence and Security Committee was established. I welcome its work and the fact that it strengthens the role that Ministers exercise in holding the agencies properly to account.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he hopes that this and previous Administrations will co-operate fully with the work of the committee. I can give him that undertaking in respect of this Administration, but he will appreciate that undertakings from the previous Administration are a matter for the former Prime Minister, his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are doing our best to ensure that there is a prompt response to the understandably long list of questions that the committee has already posed to my Department, the Foreign Office and the agencies.
The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his intention to raise the issue of access to all relevant papers. He will be aware that until now the usual arrangement for evidence to be given to his committee is by way of memorandum of evidence rather than by access to original papers. However, I take his point, particularly in relation to advice to Ministers. I am sympathetic to his view, and I am discussing the matter with my relevant right hon. Friends. I hope to provide a positive response to the committee as soon as possible.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. I also pay tribute to the security services and to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and his colleagues on the committee.
There is widespread revulsion about people in this country who spied either for the East German Stasi or for the Soviet Union's communists. However, I hope that the Home Secretary agrees with me that that does not mean that this country should have a policy of prosecuting all who spied, regardless of how long ago it happened, of the seriousness of what they did or of the public interest in whether a prosecution should go ahead. I shall therefore ask him not about individuals but about the more important issue of how decisions were made, as opposed to what those decisions were.
First, will the Home Secretary confirm that it is not right for decisions to prosecute to be taken either by officers of the security services or by Ministers of the day alone, acting on their own judgment? Does he accept that they should be made by someone who is independent of the security services and of government, and who can enjoy the confidence of the services, the Government, Parliament and the public?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the test must always be whether a prosecution is likely to succeed and whether it is in the public interest now--rather than in the past--for a prosecution to go ahead?
"imposed a condition that any allegations of criminal behaviour against individual persons should not be made public unless those individuals agreed"--
which I would have thought was rather unlikely--
"or they had been prosecuted and convicted."
In view of that condition, how does that square with what happened? Without going into details, can he tell me as a matter of fact whether the civil servant codenamed Hunt has been identified and, if so, what action is being considered, has been considered or has been ruled out?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |