§ 53. Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Prime Minister whether, when information to Members of Parliament and the Press is refused on security grounds, departmental security officers are obliged to justify a negative attitude to those competent to judge from the widest aspects of public policy and that in no case is a decision by security officers accepted unchallenged.
§ The Prime MinisterI have been much puzzled to understand this Question but, after very careful consideration, I am inclined to think, upon the whole, that the answer should be in the negative. Others, however, have suggested that it should be in the affirmative. If my Noble Friend will elucidate this Question, I will endeavour to give him an answer.
§ Viscount HinchingbrookeIn view of the fact that the numbers and influence of security officers have steadily increased throughout the war, and that many more persons are now concerned with security and censorship measures than was the case in the early stages of the war and at the time of Dunkirk, does not my right hon. Friend think that it is fully time to reduce the authority of these persons and recognise that the war is terminating in this as in other fields?
§ The Prime MinisterThat does not bear a very strict resemblance to the Question on the Paper. The Minister 2117 at the head of a Department is expected to know all that goes on in his Department, and if he is in any way disturbed by interference which is not from the War Cabinet or from higher authority, his business is to bring it before the War Cabinet, when the issue can be decided. Every Minister, whether in the War Cabinet or not, is entitled to raise such a matter. There is certainly no question of security officers having any authority against the War Cabinet.
§ Mr. CocksCould the Prime Minister put a Parliamentary draftsman with a gift for lucid expression at the disposal of the young Conservative committee?