SECRET SERVICE.—Class II. (Hansard, 4 February 1915)

Sir HENRY DALZIEL
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain this Vote?

§ Mr. ACLAND
I think the whole point, about the secret service is that it should be secret. I know that I have been at the Foreign Office more than three years without knowing a single detail myself of any sort or kind about the matter. Therefore perhaps the House will excuse me not endeavouring to give details now. The House has always allowed the Government some freedom in accounting for the expenditure under this Vote. I think the remarkable thing is that normally we get on with so small a sum as £50,000. At any rate we do a great deal more with our £50,000 than some Governments I could name with the enormously greater sums that they expend. I can only ask the House to come to the conclusion that the extra sum is really required, and that it is being spent in the best interests of the United Kingdom.

Sir H. DALZIEL
No one desires especially at a time like the present, to raise any point with regard to a matter of this kind, but I venture, in spite of the reply of the hon. Gentleman, to put the question whether he is going to make any explanation. I was hopeful he was going to tell us that the money would be spent better in the future than it has been in the past. We have never had a discussion in this matter, and the Government have had all the sums they care to ask for without a word of discussion. The hon. Gentleman admits that himself. My surprise is that the House of Commons is willing to give them any money they ask for without a word of discussion when the Cabinet, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was so totally ignorant of the preparations in Germany. With the enormous staff they had at their disposal, I think the secret service money in the 178 past must have been very badly spent or there would not have been so much ignorance on the Government Bench.

§ Mr. KING
I do not quite take the view that my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) takes I think from inquiries I have made, both privately and publicly in this House, that the money has been on the whole very well spent, that is, as far as intelligence has been given to us. I rise for another purpose. I think we ought to have been told that this is expenditure especially connected with the War, and that after the War the whole expenditure will be reconsidered, and that it is not a definite permanent addition which is being made now.

§ Mr. BOOTH
In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement that as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he was absolutely in ignorance of how this money was being spent, would he kindly inform the House which Minister or Ministers does know? I do not want any particulars, but if the Foreign Office do not know anything about it may I inquire how many Ministers do know. May I also ask this further question. When one Government succeeds another does the succeeding Government have access to information with regard to this expenditure?

§ Mr. ACLAND
I am not now at the Foreign Office, but I think the proper officials in the Foreign Office do know, and no doubt if anyone is personally responsible it would probably be the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As to the question whether this extra expenditure is war expenditure that is so. It might perhaps have been put down against the Vote of Credit, but it was thought, considering that the House has always given some freedom both in incurring and accounting for the expenditure, that it would be more honest and fair to the House to mention it in the form of a Supplementary Estimate, despite the fact that it was for War purposes and during the War that this extra amount was required. There is no intention whatever of keeping the Vote at this sum after the War is over, and it is not so long ago I think since the Vote was reduced. I think it is much better that it should be increased and reduced as circumstances demand rather than that it should be kept always at the same 179 figure. There is certainly no intention of keeping it at the figure for which we have to bring forward the present Vote.

§ Mr. BOOTH
May I ask for an answer to my question as to whether when one Government succeeds another, the succeeding Government has access or not to this information?

§ Mr. ACLAND
Yes, I think that probably is so. It is not any question connected with Ministers. It is a question of the permanent service of the State, and the records are kept by the permanent Civil servants, and no doubt each proper Minister has access to the records and to any knowledge there is. It is not a question of one Minister forming his plans and taking away the knowledge. Whatever is done is done by the permanent Civil servants, and the proper Ministers no doubt are informed and consulted, whoever they may be from time to time.

§ Sir WILLIAM BYLES
I do not in the least challenge this Vote for war purposes and I am not going to complain, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. King) that the secret service money has always been on the whole well spent. I believe the history of it in this House, if anybody could get at it, would show that there have been all sorts of things in the administration of the fund of which I hey would not approve. I know that year after year there has been an endeavour to find out what is done with this money—how it is spent and who is paid—but we could never get to know. Therefore if we are wrong we must not be blamed, but we go to the best sources of information. I remember my late friend Michael Davitt, who sat on the opposite benches, had some very considerable knowledge of the administration of the secret service money, and he told me a lot of stories which remain in my mind in a vague sort of way and have always made me extremely suspicious of voting, not this extra Supplementary Vote but the Secret Service Vote annually.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I think something ought to be said about this extra sum for secret service. It has always appeared to me that it is a monstrous thing that the Government should consent to do what is against the ordinary moral code of individuals. It does seem a most extraordinary 180 thing when one of the subjects raised in this House so frequently is the absolute depth of meanness to which spies connected with another country have descended with regard to this country, that we should be voting extra sums of money towards a similar purpose for our own country. I do not suppose it is any use going to a Division on a subject of this kind, but I do protest very strongly against this nation spending money in this particular way. I think we ought to know how it is being spent, and, for instance, how much Mr. Karl Graves got for writing a book about my friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) and items of that kind.
4.0 P.M.
We really ought not to agree to this Estimate in this particular way. It is time some protest was made from the purely ethical point of view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] If the hon. Member who interrupts does not take that point of view, I cannot help it; but I think it is a perfectly fair point of view to put forward. It seems deplorable that a great nation sharing in the councils of Europe should be expending this money on purposes that would ostracise any man who attempted them in the private relationships of life.