| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: It is not for me to offer an explanation of the view taken by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who must explain himself. However, I have to say that, in my experience, the hon. Gentleman has shown considerable support for the Lawrence family.
I am grateful for the support expressed by my hon. Friend for my establishment of the inquiry, and for the fact that I have sought to protect the family, the police and the House from the premature publication of the report.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
Does the Home Secretary accept that there is nothing synthetic about the charge that the handling of a very important document has been unfortunate and unhappy? In relation to the rumours currently circulating about briefing against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis--of which, I am sure, he knows nothing, and which I am sure he would not want--can the Home Secretary assure the House that there is no such briefing?
Mr. Straw:
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that an unfortunate and unhappy set of events led to the leaking of part of the report. The whole House--whatever view Members may take of the injunction--will wholly condemn that leak.
Let me make it absolutely clear that I have no truck whatever with any briefing against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Indeed, my view is quite the reverse. I have today recorded my acknowledgement of the fine work done by the Commissioner and the Metropolitan police over many years. There are many examples, of which the best is the most recent--namely, the expertise and skill employed in policing the occupation of the Greek embassy, which ensured a peaceful end in circumstances that might have turned out otherwise.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye):
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to protect the interests of Back-Bench Members who often do not get to hear things first? I also congratulate him on the sensitivity with which he considered the interests of the Lawrence family, which are more important than even our interests.
Will my right hon. Friend comment on two allegations made on "Today" this morning? First, The Sunday Telegraph alleged that the Lawrence family had agreed to publication, or was not opposed to it. Secondly, and more importantly, the Police Federation spokesman claimed that the Home Office had been leaking for 10 weeks, which appears unlikely given the timetable under which the report reached the Home Secretary's attention.
Mr. Straw:
On suggestions that the Lawrence family have not been opposed to publication, I cannot offer any insight into conversations that may or may not have taken place between The Sunday Telegraph and the representatives--or alleged representatives--of the family. However, as I have said to the House, solicitors acting for the family have made clear their understanding of the course of action that I took on the family's behalf. The suggestion that the Home Office had been leaking the report for 10 weeks--or even for 10 minutes--is wholly untrue.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
Is not it true that the real harm done to the Lawrence family occurred when Stephen was killed and when the investigation was botched? How can the Home Secretary think that the leaking of the report a couple of days early will have terrible effects on the Lawrence family after all else that they have been through? Is he aware of a report in today's Evening Standard, not--so far--injuncted? It states:
Mr. Straw:
The hon. Gentleman asked about distress caused to the Lawrence family, suggesting that any distress subsequent to the murder itself pales into
Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk):
Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness at the reaction of our press? Does he believe that the currency of the freedom of the press, which the House unanimously believes is important, has been devalued by today's press? The newspapers appear to be interested in protecting not the interests of the British public, but their own circulation and pecuniary interests. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us are extremely angry that, right at the end of a series of injustices, there has been yet another injustice whereby someone, for some reason unknown to us, has leaked the results of the inquiry in an unfair and unreasonable manner? Will he ensure that appropriate and firm punishment is meted out to anyone who is found to have leaked the document?
Mr. Straw:
I share my hon. Friend's views. As for the outcome of any leak inquiry, we must wait to see what conclusion it comes to.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam):
My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has already expressed our view that the public interest and the fight against racism are better served by full, rather than partial, publication of the report. Will the Home Secretary clarify the expected timetable for the full publication on Wednesday; and, in particular, tell the House whether any public line will be expressed by the Government before the hour at which he comes to the House to make his statement?
Mr. Straw:
As you know, Madam Speaker, the current arrangements are that I should make the report available at 3.30 pm on Wednesday, with copies available in the Vote Office, and make an oral statement to the House. That will be the first public statement that I shall make.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You heard the Home Secretary say that he believed that there was a fundamental difference between Government White Papers and other documents. Will you rule from the Chair, so that the House and Ministers are absolutely clear, that all Government papers should be made available to Members of Parliament before being given to the press?
Madam Speaker:
The House and all Ministers are well aware of my strong views on that matter. All Government documents and all documents handled by the Government should be made available to the House before going into public circulation.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were recently kind enough to allow me to raise a point of order on an issue of great concern to my constituents--the future of the buildings of the staff college in Camberley. As you know, I tabled a question on the subject which was, unfortunately, not reached during Defence questions this afternoon. You will be concerned to learn of the information that has subsequently reached me: that, during the few days before the local press, quoting extensively an MOD spokeswoman, reported on the proposal to convert the staff college into luxury flats, there was a briefing by MOD employees of senior local government officers; and that, during that briefing, an MOD official spoke to officers of the local council and indicated that among those who must not, in any circumstances, be told of the proposal were elected councillors of Surrey Heath council and the local Member of Parliament. Have you received any indication from MOD Ministers about whether they propose to make any further statements about the matter? Will you express your concern that, once again--
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's previous point of order on the subject and I regret that his very direct question was not reached this afternoon--to be frank, I had hoped that we would make better progress on Defence questions. It is not for me to
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recollect that, back in 1986, when American bombers left this country to raid Tripoli and Benghazi, there were many eloquent points of order raised by then Opposition Front Benchers about the precise nature of the arrangement between Her Majesty's Government at that time and the American Administration. Have you received any requests for a statement, or for a question to be answered, in respect of the exact terms of reference of the B52s that apparently might operate from British soil? Given that those huge bombers wreak absolute devastation wherever they go, is not the whole relationship between ourselves and the Americans on the matter of prime importance?
"Such leaks come week in and week out, many of them from members of the Cabinet."
The report also notes
"well-sourced suspicions that the culprit is a junior Home Office Minister."
If the culprit is a junior Minister, and if one Labour Minister has had to seek an injunction as a result of the actions of another, will that junior Minister be sacked if he is found out?
4.21 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |