§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course
1226
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.
§ Mr. A. SHORTWhen a little while ago I asked some questions and offered some criticisms on the purposes to which this fund was put, I was told by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin), in his most charming way, that it was not customary to explain to the House the purposes for which the fund was expended, or to indicate in any way what those purposes were. In view of the ratification of the Peace Treaty, and the ultimate setting up of the League of Nations, I am inclined to think that it may be necessary to revise our views concerning the exploitation of money for purposes associated with this fund. I believe it is regarded, in the first place, as a diplomatic weapon to shadow representatives of other nations with a view to getting information which would serve the interests of our own country. I am by no means certain that the time has not arrived when we might review that policy, and if we are going to remove some of the doubts, suspicions and fears which have ever been the concomitants of war, it would be well, perhaps, if we hesitated to expend such large sums of money upon secret services. Apart from the diplomatic use to which this fund is put, there is a growing volume of opinion in this country among the working classes, particularly the organised workers, that this fund is now being used for purposes foreign to the purposes for which it was originally used. We do know that during the War spies were employed in our workshops, paid by the Government, and we are firmly of opinion, and it is a growing opinion, that there are still similar servants being employed in one capacity or another—on the one hand appearing to be of the most revolutionary character, on the other hand appearing to be the legitimate advocates of reform in the workshops and in our social life, and securing the confidence of the workpeople, and on the other hand undermining the characters and reputations of trade union leaders, thereby weakening trade unions in this country. We are of opinion—I hope the suspicion is unfounded, but there is a growing volume of opinion that it is well founded—that some of these people are employed by the Government, or that they are subsidised in some way by some secret agency or some secret fund.
§ Mr. BALDWINTo-day?
§ Mr. SHORTTo-day. Not only during the War but during the present period. I would remind the House of the case of Mr. Watson. I would not use my privileged position to offer any comment, or to enter into the merits or demerits of Mr. Watson's action, but quite recently we were told by the Home Secretary that he had been paid by the Government for some information which they had found useful, and which we presume affected seriously the economic and industrial position of the workers of this country. We are beginning to wonder if Mr. Watson is a typical case, and if he was paid from this fund, and who is being shadowed now. Are we, the leaders of the trade union movement, who sit on these benches, and who have won our way to the House of Commons, being shadowed? Are we also the victims of the detective and shadowing methods associated with this secret fund? I could conceive of nothing more despicable, nothing more degrading, and nothing more demoralising than that the public funds of this country should be used for the purpose of shadowing people who are engaged in legitimate practices in accordance with the Constitution of this country and in accordance with the law of this country. While I know the hon. Gentleman will be unable to tell us for what purposes the money is spent, I should like him, if he possibly can, to give us some assurance that this fund is not to be used in future, as we think it has been used in the past, for the purposes I have attempted to indicate.
§ Mr. BALDWINPerhaps before I reply to my hon. Friend I might call the attention of the Committee to the amount of this Vote. The money which was spent on what was called Secret Service naturally assumed considerable proportions during the War. We find that in the years 1917–18 the total sum voted in the financial year was £750,000, and it rose to to its highest point in 1918–19, when £1,150,000 was voted. It is a very satisfactory feature of this Vote to find that in the year 1919–20, when we are necessarily dealing, as I had occasion to observe on a previous Vote this afternoon, with remnants from the War, the total amount asked for has dropped from those very large figures to £400,000. I have every confidence that next year will see another substantial drop. The pre-war figure on this Vote was a very small sum. It was, I believe, less than that of any of the great countries of Europe, and complaint 1228 has been made in this House by men in responsible positions that the very small sums that have been expended on this Service in past times had on occasion been very detrimental to the interests of this country. I remember, for instance, Lord Salisbury saying at the time of the Boer War that if we had not been so niggardly in the expenditure of Secret Service money this country would have been Wetter warned of the actual position of Boer armaments, and so forth, than was the case when the War broke out.
Now I come to the points raised by the hon. Member. Being of a very simple and candid nature, I always feel a difficulty in having to stand here and, when charges are made, having to say I am quite unable to answer them, or not being able to say whether such charges are, in fact, true or not. Any clever Member of this House, by making a series of charges against this fund, could, by the process of exclusion, if I were able to affirm or deny them, get at the exact direction in which the money was spent. It is very easy for me in one way to defend this Vote, because I have no more information than the hon. Member as to where 6d. of the money goes to. Perhaps some of the older members of the Committee will remember that about ten years ago there was a small advance of 10 or 20 per cent. of the amount voted to Secret Service purposes, and no less a Minister than Mr. Asquith, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, rose in his place and used these words:
In making these grants for Secret Service, Parliament expressly waives its right to the explanation to which it is otherwise entitled in respect of the grant of public money. To give such explanation would be to defeat the object of the grant.
§ Captain W. BENNWhat was the amount of the Grant that year?
§ Mr. BALDWINIt was about £50,000. That was the average sum about ten years before the War. In the years preceding, it would be about £35,000 or £40,000. Naturally, from my position at the Treasury, I am anxious to see this amount as small as possible, because I do not Know where it goes, and I do not know what we get for it, and, as a careful financier, I always like information, if I can get it, m both these points. To that extent it is an unsatisfactory matter to me, and it would be a source of greatest satisfaction to me if we could bring this Vote down to something like a normal limit of expenditure. I was instrumental in getting this 1229 amount brought in as a Supplementary Estimate, and not putting in a large estimate at the beginning of the year and getting it through at one sweep, because I was very anxious that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of seeing at half-yearly intervals how this Vote was going. I had also some hope that by taking a smaller sum for the first Estimate and taking a Supplementary Estimate, it might have a salutary effect on those responsible for the expenditure of the money. I am sorry that I can say no more. I have said all that I am able to say, and with that I must leave it to the judgment of the Committee to grant this sum.
Major BARNESAfter the charming speech to which we have just listened, one does not like pressing a Minister who is so willing to tell us all he can, but who is prevented from giving us all the information we desire. Speaking as a new Member unaccustomed to these Votes, I should like to know if the hon. Member could tell me if the phrasing on the top of the Vote is the usual phrasing? It is spoken of as a Supplementary Estimate to defray the charges of His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services. I do not know whether the word "other" is imported into this year's Estimate, but it is calculated to arouse the suspicions that have been expressed by the hon. Member on my right. One can understand, though one may deplore, the fact that in our foreign relationships we may have to spend this Secret Service money, though I have often wondered whether we got any real value for it. The principal purpose, so far as I could understand, is to enable a number of people like William Le Queux to write more or less entertaining novels about the adventures of those who are engaged in the Secret Service, who seem to be known to the writers and to a great many others. If the Minister is not able to tell us the expenditure of this money, he might at least be in the position to give the assurance that this money is not being used in any way for the purpose of carrying on a system of espionage against organised Labour in this country.
Whatever the purpose of the Secret Service Fund may have been in the past, cannot think that it has ever been employed for a purpose in respect of which very great suspicion is felt throughout the industrial world. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has forgotten or can 1230 not answer the point put by my hon. Friend, not as to the particular destination of any of the money, but as to the general policy of its expenditure. That is a very proper point to put in discussing these Estimates. I can well understand the Government refusing to indicate in what particular direction the money may be employed in our relationship with other Powers, but I cannot think that there can be such a change in the policy of the Government that the money which has been used in the past for circumventing the intentions of possible enemies of the State, can now be employed in anticipation of any trouble which they may have with people in this country.
§ Mr. BALDWINThere is nothing new about the form of this Vote. It has appeared like this for many years—I could not say offhand how many—but there has been an annual Vote for Secret Service in the widest sense of the word certainly during the whole of the last century. I should be only too pleased to answer the hon. Member if I could, but, as I have said, I have no knowledge of the destination of any of the Secret Service money and I can say no more on that subject. One point which may be of interest to the hon. Member is that the only check which the House of Commons has over this money is that it gets the certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that it has been expended on the authority of a Minister.
§ Mr. BALDWINQuite so. That is all the House of Commons does get. The lump sum goes before the Public Accounts Committee, but it is not separated; and though the demand has been made in the past to specify the offices on which the money has been disbursed, a predecessor of mine about twenty years ago, Mr. Hanbury, said that this information never was given and he did not think that it ever would be given I am very sorry that I cannot accede to the request of my hon. Friend, as I always like to give the House every information in my power.
§ Captain W. BENNThough it may have been the practice in the past not to inquire into the use to which the Secret Service Fund was put, it is impossible for the Committee of Supply to abdicate its right to make inquiries and suggestions on that subject. It has an absolute right to ask 1231 how much has been voted and where it has gone. The request of my hon. Friend to know how much, if any, of tins Secret Service Fund is employed on the home front raises a very important point. I do not know whether there is anything material in it or not, but I do know that suspicions have been aroused that the whole of this sum is not used merely in connection with possible designs of our foreign enemies. Now as to the amount. This is eight times the amount of the Secret Service money which was voted before the War! Now that the War is over, what can be the purpose of employing these agents? During the War I served most of my time as connected with Secret Service work, and I have got the most wholesome contempt for it. It is not a pleasant office, but if you get an efficient officer at work it is quite obvious that there is no limit to the amount of money which he can expend, and expend extremely efficiently, as far as the office is concerned. As to whether you always get value I have the very gravest doubt. That is as to the work abroad. Now, as to the position at home. It would have been very much better, in view of the fact that the Government are asking the House to vote eight times as much money after Peace has been declared as was voted before the War started, to give us some assurance that no part of this money is being employed for Secret Service at home.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI can understand the desire of the representative of the Government to refrain from giving information with regard to the disposal of this money, but the point raised by my hon. Friend is one of very great importance to the Labour movement of this country. My hon. Friend pointed out one case in which evidently there had been money expended, and for all we know there may be many more cases. If money is being expended in that direction we are entitled to an answer. The Secretary to the Treasury has said that he does not know where a single sixpence is spent. Surely there is someone who can tell us before we part company with such a large sum as £200,000. Is it possible for some of his colleagues to give the information?
Question put, and agreed to.