CLAUSE 6.—(Modification of Enactments.) (Hansard, 7 July 1943)

§ Mr. Ivor Thomas
I wish to say a few words on this Clause. Obviously we cannot oppose it at this stage, but, as indicated on the Second Reading of the Bill, I hope there will be no such Clause in the comprehensive Bill when it is introduced. I do not say that on the ground that it is reintroducing the Star Chamber as has been suggested but in a properly drafted Bill there ought not to be such a: Clause. The draftsmen should know what enactments need to be amended, and I hope that in the comprehensive Bill that will have been done.

§ Mr. Ivor Thomas
In the Debate on the Second Reading I expressed some anxieties about abuses which might be made of the powers under this Bill, and it was agreed by the Foreign Secretary that there might be abuses and that the use of these powers would have to be watched. Other hon. Members disputed that, in particular the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson), who said: There will be no question of political influence. In point of fact that has never obtained in the whole of my rather long career. 2201 A man's own personal political views just do not matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1943; col. 1077, Vol. 390.] I did not care at the time to interrupt the Fight hon. Gentleman, but I was a little surprised to hear that statement. In view of what he said, may I remind the House that there has been at least one very well known case in which a distinguished public servant was removed from the Foreign Office because the advice he tendered to the Government was not acceptable? No doubt the views now expressed by Lord Vansittart do not find universal acceptance, but as we look back there can be no doubt that the advice he gave to the Foreign Office, which led first of all to his being made Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government and then eventually to his being taken out of the Foreign Office altogether——

§ Sir M. Robertson
Is the hon. Member suggesting that Lord Vansittart was removed?

§ Mr. Thomas
Yes, most definitely.

§ Sir M. Robertson
By whom?

§ Mr. Thomas
Surely there is no need now to conceal——

§ Sir M. Robertson
The hon Member made the statement that Lord Vansittart was removed from the Service, and I asked him to substantiate it.

§ Mr. Thomas
He was made Chief Diplomatic Adviser because the advice he was tendering to the Government was not acceptable.

§ Sir M. Robertson
That is not being removed; he was still in the Service.

§ Mr. Thomas
The right hon. Gentleman is playing with words.

§ Sir M. Robertson
Emphatically not.

§ Mr. Leslie Boyce (Gloucester)
If Lord Vansittart's advice was not acceptable, why was he appointed Chief Diplomatic Adviser?

§ Mr. Thomas
That is a conundrum which the hon. Member must be able to answer himself. Everyone knows that from the moment Lord Vansittart was made Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government his advice was not sought. I give that as an example to show what may happen under this Bill when advice 2202 given by members of the Foreign Service may be unacceptable to their superiors and advantage might be taken to get rid of them. This is not the only case. It is quite well known that the son of a right hon. Member of this House who served in the Embassy in Berlin was compelled to resign because the advice he tendered made things so uncomfortable for him in that office.

§ Sir M. Robertson
I must insist on establishing what the hon. Member means when he says that that member of the Diplomatic Service resigned. He was not removed by the Foreign Secretary, which is the point at issue.

§ Mr. Thomas
Quite so, but the right hon. Gentleman has served in the Foreign Service himself and he knows how easy it is to make a man's life so uncomfortable that he will resign.

§ Sir M. Robertson
That is not the case.

§ Mr. Thomas
Perhaps I might be allowed to assert it, not without some knowledge of these things. Those are examples that elaborate my point that these powers could be used, and it is out of zeal to protect the Foreign Office and the willingness of its members to tender advice that may be unpopular with their chiefs that I do it.

§ Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
I am generally in such sympathy with what my hon. Friend says in this House—as I am on this occasion—but is he suggesting that the conduct of foreign policy should be exclusively in the hands of Foreign Office officials?

§ Mr. Thomas
No, it is the duty of Foreign Office officials to give advice to the Foreign Secretary, who must bear the responsibility for acting upon it or not. Undoubtedly, that advice is a most important element in the making of a policy, and it is very desirable that these officials should be able to give advice without any fear of the consequences. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me on that point. The main object of this Bill is that the Foreign Secretary may get rid of persons who have proved themselves good subordinates but who are unsuited for the highest posts. I cannot see why these people should not be allowed to go on being good subordinates if they have proved themselves to be good subordinates. There is no obligation on the 2203 Foreign Secretary to promote them to higher posts; they could be left to do the work they have done so well already.
This Bill proposes new machinery for dealing with the problem of midde age. I have been turning round in my mind various alternative suggestions for dealing with it, but I have not reached any satisfactory conclusion. However, before we have the comprehensive Bill the Foreign Secretary may consider giving a right of appeal to such persons. My difficulty is to find a suitable court of appeal. One suggestion made is that it should be the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, but that is not one I could endorse because I do not think that that distinguished official should have any control over the Foreign Office. Another possibility that perhaps deserves more examination is that the Civil Service Commissioners should constitute the court of appeal.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Bill; he must confine himself to what is in the Bill. So far as I am aware, the Civil Service Commissioners are not concerned with it.

§ Mr. Thomas
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was simply dealing with the retirement of civil servants under this Bill, but I can see that as there is no reference to a right of appeal I cannot develop that argument. It might be better not to have powers to retire men at such a early age as is envisaged in this Bill, and I should have been happier if there had been power to retire men at the age of 55 or, if need be, even at 50.