SECRET SERVICE.-Class II. (Hansard, 18 February 1918)

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I know that in times past all information has been refused to this House in regard to the Civil Service Vote, but I think that at the present time there are certain conditions which make it advisable that at least the questions which I am going to put should be answered. Certain new appointments have been made during the past few days in what is called the Department of Propaganda. A Minister has been definitely appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in place of Lord Cawley. In addition to that, the newspaper proprietor who has general charge of propaganda has appointed another newspaper proprietor, Lord Northcliffe, in a somewhat subordinate capacity, to be in charge of propaganda in enemy countries. I desire to know whether any of this additional sum of £200,000 is being used for the purposes of that propaganda, which is being carried on by these two distinguished and noble Pressmen, or whether they have any control over those on whom the money is spent? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in a position to give an answer on that point.

§ Mr. BALDWIN
indicated assent.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Very well; another question. We have not only a Secret Service in foreign countries, but we know now that there is a Secret Service in this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom we all welcome back from America, in the course of one of the legal cases in which he has been engaged, that of the conspiracy against the Prime Minister's life, showed in evidence that there was a Secret Service in this country, and some of the evidence in that case along with other evidence, shows that some of these Secret Service agents are very like agents provocateurs. I am perfectly certain from information which has come to my knowledge that in certain strikes in this country the secret agents of the Government have deliberately fomented unrest, with a view to bringing about strikes. I want to know whether Secret 537 Service money is being used for the purpose of paying these men who are fomenting unrest in this country, and causing a great deal of the industrial agitation which has given us all so much concern. I know, for example, that at a recent meeting held in connection with the engineering dispute, one of the speakers on the platform was an agent of the Government. I want to know whether these people are paid out of Secret Service or not. I cannot, of course, say who the gentleman was, but I have the evidence which satisfies my mind. Under conditions of that kind this House is bound to make inquiries regarding Secret Service, which is different altogether from Secret Service acting abroad, as to which I think the Government are entitled to refuse all information to this House. But where you have Secret Service operating in this country, through agents whose efforts result in the increase of agitation, I think that the Government is bound to say who are paying them—whether it is done under the ordinary Secret Service, or whether the money is voted out of the funds of some other Department?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Perhaps I ought to have stopped the hon. and learned Member before he had got so far as he did, because he must be aware that this is a Supplementary Estimate, and none of his remarks, except his earlier inquiries, so far as I can make out, deal with the Question which is the sole question that we can discuss—that is the reason for the increase of £200,000 which the Government is now asking the Committee to grant it.

§ Mr. KING
I have frequently spoken upon this Vote, and regret that the last time I spoke I created in the minds of one or two of those who did me the honour to listen to me the idea that I objected to Secret Service in war time and in foreign countries. I have never done so, and I admit moreover that in war time you must increase the amount of your Secret Service in foreign countries. What I objected to on the last occasion was that the Government would make no reply of any kind, and I cited the case of two recent books, one by a very well-known man, who declared that he was in the Secret Service at various times, and—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not know whether the hon. Member heard the remarks which I addressed to the hon. and learned Member for Lanarkshire, but 538 obviously he is now dealing with the policy that arises on the original Vote. He must confine his remarks to the reasons for the increase of £200,000.

§ Mr. KING
I quite appreciate the point, and I was coming to the application of my former remarks, which I think would be appropriate to this Vote.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
On a point of Order. Is it not the practice of this House to treat the Secret Service Estimates on a different footing? The original Estimate of the Secret Service is never intended to be a complete Estimate, and consequently you have always a Supplementary Estimate on Secret Service, on which questions can be raised as relevantly as on the original Estimate, because in some cases the Supplementary Estimate has exceeded the original Estimate.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not know what rulings may have been given previously, but, so far as I am concerned, the position which I take up is the one which I have already indicated. That is that the whole general policy of the Secret Service cannot be reviewed in the Committee here to-day on this Vote.

§ Mr. KING
My remarks refer to the appointment—of which we are informed in this morning's paper—of Lord Northcliffe as head of the propaganda in enemy countries. It is perfectly obvious that this is a new appointment, and that he must employ secret sources of expense. I take it, therefore, that this is a new Vote which we have to-day, and that it is applicable to his case. I want to raise a very strong protest against the appointment. If you are to have enemy propaganda in enemy countries, I think one might reasonably conclude that the head of it ought also to be kept secret, and if this Service is to be carried out with Secret Service money then the name of its head ought not to be disclosed.

§ Mr. BALDWIN
On a point of Order, Sir. My hon. Friend wishes to raise the matter of the appointment of Lord Northcliffe on this Vote, and, in reference to the point of Order, I would suggest that the hon. Member would have a better opportunity of raising that point on the Vote of Credit, because the money contained in this Vote has either to be spent or to be surrendered on the 31st March. Whatever was decided in regard to this money was settled before Lord Northcliffe's 539 appointment. I have no knowledge of the way in which this money may be used or has been used, but it is quite clear that between now and the 31st March that amount has to be spent, or if there be any balance it must be surrendered. I submit, therefore, that it is out of order to discuss Lord Northcliffe's appointment on this Supplementary Estimate, which is only to carry us to the 31st March, and which cannot include anything in regard to Lord Northcliffe.

§ Mr. KING
We do not know that Lord Northcliffe has only just been appointed. He may have been appointed a long time ago, and the announcement only now made. I hope for the credit of the Government that the announcement that Lord Northcliffe has been appointed is preparatory to the announcement to-morrow that he has resigned.

§ Mr. D. MASON
Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Vote of Credit will be taken?

§ Mr. BALDWIN
There is no date fixed for the Vote of Credit, but my hon. Friend must know that it cannot be postponed for very long. I think there must be a Vote of Credit before the close of the financial year.

§ Mr. MASON
The hon. Gentleman has already said that this question could be better raised on the Vote of Credit, and I understand that it is not in order to discuss the appointment now.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
After what has now transpired, the question of Lord Northcliffe's appointement does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. DENMAN
Does the expenditure of the War Aims Committee come under this Vote?

§ Mr. BALDWIN
I think my hon. Friend will agree that there is great difficulty in saying what comes out of this Vote and what does not, but I cannot imagine that the expenditure of the War Aims Committee can come under the Vote for Secret Service.

§ Mr. DENMAN
I put the question because I notice that the amount of the Supplementary Estimate, £200,000, was the very amount which was referred to as being the amount of the expenditure of the War Aims Committee, and if this 540 money is required for that purpose it would, perhaps, be convenient that I should make one or two observations.

§ Mr. BALDWIN
I do not think that there can be question of any item of £200,000 for the War Aims Committee under this Vote.

§ Mr. DENMAN
I accept that.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Will my hon. friend answer this question? Can he say Yes or No to this question: Does any of this sum of £200,000 go in payment of secret agents in the employment of the Government, and who are now engaged in different parts of the country in provoking discontent and disorder among the industrial population by inciting men, in various ways, to take certain courses?

§ Mr. BALDWIN
With all respect to my hon. Friend I do not think that is a fair way to put the question, for he has been enabled to express his opinion freely before the House and I am not in a position to contradict him. My hon. Friend knows what I mean. He makes some charges against some people of whom I have no knowledge, who have undertaken certain work of which I have no knowledge, in regard to which what the hon. Member says may be true, or he may be misinformed, and as to which I have absolutely no information. It is impossible for me to give any information to the House as to the use of Secret Service money, for two reasons. The first reason is that I have no knowledge myself where the Secret Service money goes, and the second reason is— and it is the reason given by many of my predecessors who have stood in this place on these occasions—that the whole essence of Secret Service money is that it is Secret, Service money, voted by the House as such, and if its destination were made public it would cease to be secret service.

§ Mr. HOGGE
My hon. Friend does not contradict the information I have given. I have another question which I wish to put to him: Can he say whether this money is to pay secret agents who report my speeches, for instance, to the War Cabinet?

§ Mr. KING
One point brought out in this discussion is the way in which Secret Service money is treated. All payments that are made under the Estimates or the Vote of Credit are subsequently brought into the House and are under the control of the House through the Public Accounts 541 Committee; but Secret Service payments never come back to the House through the Public Accounts Committee, nor is there any account of them or audit in. the usual way. I think that the amount required for Secret Service is rather excessive, the total amount being no less a sum than £750,000, and it is suddenly raided by a very large sum within six, weeks of the end of the financial year. During the recent period we have had various events, among them General Smuts' visit to Switzerland, and the disclosure made of that secret meeting. We have also had the mission of the Attorney-General to America, where he had apparently a very curious experience. Then we also got the extraordinary announcement as to Lord Northcliffe, on which I will not say another word. We have had many indications that there is activity of a secret kind, of which, of course, we only get a mere glimmer, and I submit this is a course which is not calculated to increase confidence and trust among the people of the country. Therefore, I protest against this Vote, and if I thought that I could get sufficient Members to follow me into the Lobby I would divide the Committee, but, as it is, I will not put hon. Members to that trouble. It is not at all satisfactory, and I am quite sure that a great deal of the money is wasted, and also a good deal of it improperly voted. I shall not be content until the day comes when both the necessity and idea of Secret Service money has vanished for ever.