HC Deb 25 November 1953 vol 521 cc353-5
40. Mr. Dodds

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the top secret information that has been revealed in a United States magazine which in this country is forbidden under the Official Secrets Act, details of which have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Dartford, what approach has been made to the United States of America suggesting the setting up of machinery designed to obviate the divulging of highly confidential information.

Mr. Nutting

Arrangements exist for safeguarding confidential information exchanged between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government. In the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind the article was written by a private individual on the basis of information which has already been released in this country. Such a case does not therefore seem to call for additional security arrangements between the two Governments.

Mr. Dodds

How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he now says with the answer I got from the Minister of Supply on Monday, which stated: Some of the information in the magazine in question is of a kind which would not have been published in the British Press."—[Official Report, 23rd November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 5.] That was a reply to a Question about the Official Secrets Act. In view of the fact that this man, who goes under the the pen-name of Peter Scott, was Assistant chief designer at A. V. Roe, The Gloucester Aircraft Co. and De Havillands and has some of our most guarded secrets, is not something going to be done about it, particularly when America has witch-hunters to prevent secrets going to friend and foe alike?

Mr. Nutting

The hon. Gentleman suggests that additional security machinery should be set up. Arrangements already exist for safeguarding information exchanged between the two Governments. I do not see how this case could be covered by any additional machinery.

Mr. Speaker

Mrs. White.

Mr. Dodds

On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the information which I queried has appeared in this country, whereas his right hon. Friend said that some of this information has not been disclosed and would not be disclosed in this country.

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order for me. The answer may be unsatisfactory to the hon. Gentleman and he must take some steps to raise it again if he thinks fit. I am afraid I cannot allow too much time to be taken on one Question. Weare proceeding very slowly. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the clock he will see how long it has taken us to reach Question No. 40.

Mr. Dodds

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Elliot

Further to that point of order. Is it not clear that the machinery for raising matters on the Adjournment is falling into hopeless confusion? Would it not be desirable for this matter to be reviewed again by you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the changed circumstances of the present time?

Mr. Speaker

That is a very large question. I have been thinking about it, and I shall be very grateful for suggestions from hon. Members.

Mr. Stokes

Is the fault not a matter of raising subjects on the Adjournment but of hon. Members on both sides of the House being far too long-winded in their supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker

I have frequently, in my own way, tried to suggest what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. There seems to be a misconception among some hon. Members that one can debate Questions. Questions are for extracting information. A Question should be left to the hon. Member who asks it; it is his hare and he should be allowed to hunt it.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

You say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the purposes of a Question is to extract information. What is the position if the information cannot be extracted?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must try again.