I did however mention in that interview that I knew of two other cases where traitors had not been pursued by the authorities.  These comments were not broadcast because, I presume, the BBC did not want to break the injunction which currently prevents me from criticising the secret state.

I can now reveal that one of these traitors was a prominent trade union leader.  He was paid to pass defence secrets to the Soviets during the Cold War.  I received this information while I was in MI5 from a well-respected officer who had seen the file in question.  The union official was not tried for his betrayal of some of this country's most sensitive defence secrets and Parliament was not told of the matter.

In a separate case, a crown servant admitted passing secrets to an Eastern bloc country.  As the individual was never read their rights when interviewed by their management and MI5, the prosecution could not go ahead as the authorities had breached legal procedure.  Again, this information was never made public.  In fact, the individual in question was paid a fortune out of taxpayers' money in compensation for their treatment at the hands of the British state.

Both these cases demonstrate how secrecy is used to cover up MI5's cock ups and therefore works against the public interest.  They also show how vindictive the secret state really is.  It has had me thrown in prison and obliged me to live in exile for disclosing details of illegality and malpractice within the ranks of the agencies.  At the same time though, these same agencies have demonstrated that they are prepared to turn a blind eye to treachery, a far more serious offence, so their mistakes do not become public.  The case of  Melita Norwood in particular clearly demonstrates that MI5 failed to do its main job during the Cold War -- detecting and catching spies.

Perhaps, if MI5 had spent less time pursuing moderate politicians like Jack Straw and Harriet Harman, it would have had the necessary resources available for investigating real threats to the state.

Meanhwile, I have sent copies of Secrets and lies to, among others:

• PM Tony Blair
• Home Secretary Jack Straw
• Deputy PM John Prescott
• Foreign Secretary Robin Cook
• Tom King, chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence Security Committee.

Their response was to claim that Secrets and lies breached the injunction against me, even though the only new information in that publication concerned an MI5 senior manager lying to government.  Of course, if the government was really interested in holding the services to account, it would have asked for further details of this information.

Of course, if these individuals or departments had taken my evidence when it was offered two years ago, they would be fully briefed on these matters.  Instead, it took a former archivist of the KGB to bring these matters to public attention.  That's right, it was up to an employee of the former secret police of a totalitarian state to reveal matters of enormous public interest to the UK because any Britain disclosing such information would have been breaking the law.

Remember, publication and dissemination of this new information concerning Mrs Norwood represents a breach of the Official Secrets Act.   Quite rightly , the government will not be pursuing those who have revealed it.   But in choosing this option, the authorities have demonstrated that they are only prepared to apply a draconian and repressive law to me and not to others.  When the law is used selectively, it becomes persecution rather than prosecution.

At the moment, I have no intention of naming either the trade union official or the crown servant involved in betraying and compromising the security of this country.  Disclosure of their identities is up to the authorities.  However, if the government continues to cover up the incompentency of MI5 by failing to make a full statement to Parliament, I will have no alternative but to name the individuals concerned.

I admit this is a clear breach of the injunction but there is a very strong public interest reason for doing so.  Meanwhile, the injunction appears to be dead in the water.  Last week, I wrote an article for Punch magazine (dated 11-24 Sept 99).  It drove a coach and horses through the injunction.   The authorities have so far failed to react to this breach, presumably as they are no longer concerned with enforcing this unreasonable restraint of freedom of expression.

I hope the authorities do not hack into my Website as I suspect they did just before my arrest last year.

Regards

David

12 September 1999