asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they will take to deal with leaks from terrorist inquiries so that public safety is not endangered.

My Lords, the Government deprecate all leaks, especially leaks of information about counter-terrorism operations. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on leak inquiries in order not to reveal specific techniques or information that could jeopardise investigations or operations. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that the Government attach the highest priority to public safety and do everything in their power to ensure that it is maintained.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but she will know that on 9 May a civil servant, David Keogh, was convicted under the Official Secrets Act for attempting to leak a document about conversations between the Prime Minister and President Bush on Iraq. If that document had hit the public domain, it would have caused the Government great embarrassment and damaged international relationships. However, that pales into insignificance compared with the leaking of the police investigation in Birmingham into terrorist suspects, which could have put lives at risk. Why have the Government refused to have an official inquiry into this? Is it to do with the fact that one of the chief suspects is the special adviser to the Home Secretary?

My Lords, first, it would be quite improper to make any such comment or assertion. I have made it plain that it is our practice not to comment on leak inquiries in order not to reveal specific techniques or information. Therefore, I cannot comment on what the noble Lord has said, but perhaps I may say to him that it would be quite improper to make the assumptions that have just been implicitly made in that statement.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the case of David Keogh demonstrates the importance of rigorous investigation. Perhaps that is an example of what happens to those who behave improperly and trespass in this dangerous way. I can certainly assure the House and the noble Lord that every step will be taken to make sure that that is fully understood by those who seek to put our country in danger in that way.

My Lords, when opposition spokesmen are briefed on intelligence and security matters, are they required to have signed the Official Secrets Act or is it done on privy counsellor terms? If they subsequently disclose publicly the information in that briefing, what sanctions can be taken against them?

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, privy counsellor terms depend on the honour of the privy counsellor. We would be desperately disappointed if any privy counsellor proved not to be worthy of that name.

My Lords, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Peter Clarke, described as beneath contempt those who leaked information about intelligence in relation to the Birmingham incident. There may not be any prima facie evidence at this stage, but this is far too serious a matter, which can compromise the security of this country. Is it possible to invite the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate whether there is any substance in the allegation made by Peter Clarke?

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord knows well that decisions on whether to take proceedings are for the police. Perhaps the case of David Keogh is an example of how things are done. Noble Lords will know that no indication was made before that gentleman was dealt with as to whether there was or was not a leak inquiry. The police were able to look at the matter. They took the necessary course. He was charged, duly tried, convicted and sentenced, which is exactly what should happen to anyone who betrays their country in that way.

My Lords, has the Minister heard the allegations that there are officers in the Metropolitan Police and other police constabularies who are on the payroll of national newspapers to sell information, including highly sensitive information, which puts the public at even further risk in these cases of alleged terrorism? Does my noble friend think that there is any virtue in asking the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to inquire into this and in asking the Press Complaints Commission to see what it can do from that end of the business?

My Lords, I hear of those concerns and, of course, read the newspapers, as does my noble friend and a number of others. It really is for the commissioner to decide what further or other steps to take in relation to inquiring and bringing those to justice if evidence is available to indicate that their culpability needs to be brought to book.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it beggars belief that police officers at the centre of the terrorist inquiry we are now debating would themselves have given that information? Does she further agree that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke would hardly have said what he did a week or 10 days ago had he had any belief at all that his officers were involved?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it beggars belief that any serving officer entrusted with such a delicate task would seek to betray his office in that way. I am also confident that if it proved to be the case, the deputy assistant commissioner would deal with any such officer very robustly.

My Lords, it seems that a new doctrine is being advanced here—that it is improper ever to announce a leak inquiry. In practice, there would often be such an inquiry. Does the noble Baroness agree that when she said in her Answer that she was against this sort of thing happening, she gave no indication of what the Government are actually doing about an extremely serious matter, as the noble Lord made clear from his experience?

My Lords, perhaps I may say to the House as clearly as I can that it is not practice to indicate whether there is a leak inquiry, not least because if we were so to indicate, it might alert those who may be subject to such an inquiry. It is therefore not our practice so to do. Once information is referred to the police, it is entirely a matter for them, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, to take appropriate action if they deem it necessary to do so.