| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in general terms, and I congratulate him on his elevation to the post of Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about decisions on whether or not to prosecute. As I have explained a number of times today, and will continue to explain, those are matters for the Law Officers rather than for Ministers, including the Home Secretary of the day. When the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions--whose status is independent in this context--make decisions about prosecution, they follow the criteria laid down in the CPS code, which takes into account above all the evidence as to whether a prosecution is likely to succeed, but also takes into account other relevant material and questions, including the question of the public interest.
In this country, there is no age bar on prosecution per se. The House will recall that not long ago someone who had allegedly committed crimes during the war was subject to a prosecution, although by the time he was prosecuted he was at an advanced age.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the democratic accountability of the security and intelligence agencies. It has been suggested from time to time, in the House and elsewhere, that those agencies should be subject to a Select Committee, rather than to the Intelligence and Security Committee--which, by the way, was established by the House of Commons and the other place under an Act of Parliament. I am openminded about the arguments, but I feel--perhaps we should debate the issue in due course--that we should take the advice of those who have the important job of ensuring the accountability of the agencies on behalf of Parliament, namely members of the ISC. When the original proposals were made, there was no oversight committee of any kind. Let me add that I find it difficult to work out how, in practice, a Select
Committee could operate any differently from the way in which the ISC is operating. [Hon. Members: "It would be appointed by the House."] Let us be clear about this. Members of the ISC are appointed in exactly the same way as members of Select Committees: they are appointed as a result of discussions between the forces of darkness in the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman ended by suggesting that it was quaint and old-fashioned that the first people who knew about the activities of Mitrokhin knew about them as a result of the publication of a volume co-authored by Mr. Mitrokhin and Professor Andrew. I make no reference to whether Professor Andrew is an academic.
Let me say two things. First, this is an issue on which the House, as well as Ministers, will wish to hear the considered judgment of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I am certainly not going to prejudge its conclusions. Secondly, as I said in my statement, it should be borne in mind that the Mitrokhin archives are the property of Mr. Mitrokhin. The idea that has been floating around that somehow Ministers, or the agencies, could of their own volition have made their own decisions about whether the material should have surfaced, and about the form in which it should have surfaced, is wholly unreal.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised a question with me. I apologise to her for the fact that I did not answer it at the time. She asked why, given the condition that Sir Malcolm Rifkind had imposed on the non-publication of names where people had not been the subject of prosecution and conviction, the name none the less came out. My understanding--it will be the subject, I hope, of consideration by the ISC--is that the publishers were not going to name Mrs. Norwood either until she had given what amounted to a confession statement to the BBC and to other reporters. It was only at that stage that her name was made public.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
May I answer the Home Secretary's question by saying that a parliamentary Select Committee has all the protection of parliamentary privilege, which the ISC does not have?
As a member of that committee, may I say that we all take our duties very seriously? We want the inquiry to work. Committee members must have access to all the papers that we believe are relevant to our inquiry. My right hon. Friend said that he would "look sympathetically" at the question that was asked by the chairman of the committee, but we need a bit more than that. We need a guarantee that we will have access to every document that we believe is necessary for the inquiry's success.
Mr. Straw:
I thank my hon. Friend for seeking to answer the question that was raised. As I have said, I am openminded on the question of a Select Committee, but I return to the point: what practical difference would it make, given the specific nature of the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which by definition inquires not into matters that are in the public domain but into matters that necessarily have to remain secret?
On my hon. Friend's question about access to all papers, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke of all relevant papers. That is the key phrase that we will look at. My hon. Friend will be aware that the arrangements are that the committee itself does not have direct access
to some operational files, but that there is an investigator to work on behalf of the committee, if it so wishes--access can be granted in that way.
As I understand it, the principal concern of committee members is that they should have access to the advice to Ministers and to relevant material in that area. I have already said that I fully understand the case that my hon. Friend makes. I hope to give a positive answer as soon as possible. I am also fully aware that, if I fail to give an answer that is satisfactory to committee members, they will make their dissatisfaction known publicly.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire):
Will the Home Secretary please try to clarify several unclear matters in relation to the question of prosecution, or possible prosecution, of Mrs. Melita Norwood? He will recall that the book describes Mrs. Norwood as the most important KGB spy ever and alleges that she passed on very valuable atomic secrets at a highly sensitive time. On 13 September, he said in his statement that
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
What was the right hon. and learned Gentleman doing in 1992?
Mr. Straw:
As I made clear in my statement on 13 September and have made clear again today, the principal decision not to proceed to prosecuteMrs. Norwood was made in 1992-93. I can answer the sotto voce question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The answer is that the papers never went to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the former Attorney-General, because the decision not to prosecute was made within the Security Service. As I said, that raises important questions about who should or should not make decisions on prosecution in such cases.
I look forward to the advice and conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee on that matter, for which there is no hard and fast rule. In some cases, there is no evidence to put before anyone, so that it would simply be a waste of time to attempt to bring a prosecution. However, in cases such as this one, the ISC may well conclude that, when such great suspicions have been held over many years, decisions should be made by the Law Officers and the prosecuting authorities, not by officials within the Security Service--who have great skills in one sphere, but are not the ones who should make the final decision on such cases.
As for what followed in 1998, I merely refer the former Attorney-General to the next paragraph of my statement of 13 September 1999, which states that the Attorney- General had decided that, on the basis of the evidence that was then before him,
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South):
Does the Home Secretary agree that a person is not necessarily guilty of
Does my right hon. Friend agree that simply because a Soviet diplomat or agent chooses to write a report that is sent to Moscow and includes the name of a perfectly innocent person, that person is not necessarily a KGB agent? Is it not time we stopped the witch hunting by the shadow Home Secretary, who is trying to use the issue in a general attack on all those who fought for democracy and freedom in central and eastern Europe and opposed the tyranny of Stalinism?
Mr. Straw:
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is whether we go in for trial by denunciation.
"the Security Service were then currently considering whether to recommend the prosecution of Mrs. Norwood"--
that was in December 1998. Was any detailed evaluation of the case for prosecution carried out; if so, by whom, who took decisions on the matter, and when and what were they?
"1992 represented the last opportunity for the authorities to proceed by way of a criminal investigation/possible prosecution".
In spring 1999, the Attorney-General therefore concluded that there was no decision for him to make.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |