§ 9. Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether he can now make a full statement with regard to the raid upon the premises of Arcos, Limited, and the Russian Trade Delegation; and the result, if any, of the search?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe information which has come into the possession of the police as the result of the search of the Arcos building is of such a nature that it has not yet been possible for His Majesty's Government to complete their examination or determine the consequences of it. I must therefore ask the House to wait for the promised statement till Tuesday next.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI am sure the House must appreciate that the issues raised by this raid are very serious indeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I want to ask the head of the Government whether, if we are content to comply with the suggestion that the whole statement 1341 should not be made before Tuesday, he could give us a definite promise that Wednesday would be devoted to a Debate on the whole question that will be raised by the right hon. Gentleman's reply?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)The date I had provisionally reserved was Thursday, because on Wednesday my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has an important engagement, and I should be very sorry if that had to be interfered with. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would communicate through the usual channels and see whether he might be able to meet his convenience. Wednesday would be a very great inconvenience to my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. HENDERSONIn view of the definite statement and the reasons advanced for the day's delay, I am quite prepared, on behalf of the Opposition, to accept Thursday.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI should like to ask the Home Secretary, quite apart from the documents, in order that we may be clear on this point, is he satisfied that he has powers to raid any building in London in this way, quite apart from the Russian offices? Could he, for example, raid Harrod's or Barker's in this way?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question does not arise.
§ Mr. HENDERSONIt was suggested across the Table just now that Thursday would be a Supply day. We cannot accept that as a fulfilment of the undertaking made between the Home Secretary and myself.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYwas not asking anything in connection with the statement to be made on Tuesday but I was asking out of the original situation which has arisen as to the legal position which is at present existing.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have to be guided by the question that is put down. That point does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIs it the opinion of the Government that the Russian Government have the right to raid a British Mission in Moscow or Leningrad?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat raises an argument on the whole question.
§ Mr. THURTLECan the Home Secretary say whether the warrant for searching the premises was issued under the Official Secrets Act or not?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYes.
§ Sir H. CROFTCan my right hon. Friend inform the House why it is the Opposition appear to regard this as their own peculiar affair.
§ 10. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether his Department or the police have had access to any official lists or returns made of the persons employed by the Arcos Company and the Russian Trade Delegation prior to the raid on the Moorgate Street premises last week?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSInformation supplied by the Soviet authorities from time to time to the Foreign Office was available.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDo I understand that the right hon. Gentleman had these lists of persons, quite apart from anything he has discovered in the raid?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYes. From time to time the Soviet authorities supply to the Foreign Office a list of the names of those employed there.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYBoth Russian and British?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYes.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYTherefore it was not necessary, in order to find out whether the Second Consul in London was employed there, to go through the lists for that purpose?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is argumentative.
§ Mr. RILEYMay I ask whether the warrant under which the police raided these offices authorised them to seize documents arriving at the office during the time of the raid?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question does not arise here.
§ 11. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary how many Russians and persons of Russian extracton, male and female, respectively, are employed in the Special Branch of Scotland Yard; and whether any extra help has been engaged in connection with the documents seized in the recent raid on the premises of the Arcos Company?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe answer to the first part of the question is, none. Following the search, the services of nine interpreters were enlisted; all these persons are of British nationality.
§ 16. Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any estimate of the value of the damage caused to Arcos, Limited, as a result of the recent raid upon and destruction of their safes and other property; and whether it is proposed to offer any sum by way of compensation for such damage?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Arcos, Limited, is a British registered company, and is it within the legal powers conferred upon the right hon. Gentleman to raid the premises or destroy the business of a British company, without compensation being given?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON- HICKSIt is entirely within the power of a magistrate to direct the issue of a warrant to search the premises of any company, of any firm or of anybody in this country, if he is satisfied that an offence has been committed.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether during the search there were present any member of Arcos, Limited, or any member of the Russian Trade Delegation, so that any documents alleged to have been discovered there could have been verified by the people concerned?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe question only deals with the damage to safes and other property.
§ Mr. THURTLEOn the assumption that the magistrate's conviction that an offence has been committed proves to be ill-founded by subsequent events, has the company any action at law for damages?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThat is a very hypothetical question, and I cannot attempt to answer it.
Lieut.-Colonel McINNES SHAWIs it not a fact that if this company had behaved in the ordinary way and had been willing to show that they had nothing to hide, there would have been no difficulty?
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAIs it lawful for a magistrate to issue such a warrant and cause this damage, in order to facilitate our Foreign Office to smuggle into somebody else's premises a certain document?
§ Mr. SPEAKERMr. Lumley.