HC Deb 25 June 1956 vol 555 cc6-9
7. Mr. W. Griffiths

asked the Minister of Supply upon what date representations were made to Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, by his Department concerning their employment of Mr. J. H. Lang: and what answer was received from Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited.

11. Mr. Grimond

asked the Minister of Supply why no effort was made between 1951 and 1956 to keep secret information from Mr. Lang, as he was considered a bad security risk in 1951.

Mr. Maudling

Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, were informed in July, 1951, that Her Majesty's Government would not wish Mr. Lang to be given access to secret information arising on Government contracts and the company undertook to do their best to ensure this. In November, 1955, the company reported that they had found themselves unable in practice to deny Mr. Lang access. After consideration of this report by Her Majesty's Government, the Treasury Solicitor wrote to the company on 4th January, 1956, to say that the responsible Ministers regarded it as an essential condition of placing further secret contracts with the company that the company should be able to undertake that Mr. Lang would not have access to secret information disclosed in connection with those contracts.

Mr. Griffiths

Is it not a fact that, in 1951, the I.C.I. considered that the Minister of the day was bringing a ludicrous charge against Mr. Lang, and did they not then and from time to time afterwards resist the Government's attempts to have him sacked, until the right hon. Gentleman's Government came along and used the blackmail methods of withholding contracts from the I.C.I. unless they complied with the Government's request? Is this not proof, as I said the other day, that this procedure has been much extended latterly?

Mr. Maudling

No. That is a distortion of the position. The Government have never pressed for the dismissal of Mr. Lang. What we have always said throughout is that we did not wish him to have access to Government secret information.

Mr. Grimond

Is it not rather disturbing that, if Mr. Lang had access to secret information for four years, if in fact he was a Communist he could have done great damage to the country in that time? Secondly, has any fresh evidence against Mr. Lang come to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman's Department in those four years?

Mr. Maudling

We had always hoped that it would be possible to ensure that Mr. Lang would not have access to secret information and nevertheless be able to remain in his job. It was only when it became apparent to us, on the information given by the company, that this could not continue that we had to say that we would have to make it a condition of placing contracts that he was not given access to secret information.

Mr. Younger

Is the Minister aware that the House is very anxious that this type of security procedure should be applied only in cases which are of the utmost security importance? In those circumstances, is it not rather disturbing that apparently, according to the account just given by the right hon. Gentleman, the Government did not take effective steps over four years to see whether Mr. Lang was, in fact, having access to secret material? It appears that he was. Does this not indicate that this is not perhaps one of the highest grade security cases in which the House is content to see this security procedure applied?

On a rather different aspect of the case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken into account the fact that when the decision was first taken against Mr. Lang—that was in 1951—Mr. Lang's wife's Communist associations were then quite recent but that five years or more have elapsed, apparently, without any continuation? Is that not a relevant factor which ought to lead to reconsideration of the case?

Mr. Maudling

Of course, the original view was taken by the preceding Administration, but neither Government has been prepared at any time to agree that Mr. Lang should have unrestricted access to the secret information coming into the possession of I.C.I. As I said, it was hoped for some time that it would not be necessary for Mr. Lang to have such access, because the secret information contained in contracts does not necessarily come into the possession of the legal officers of the company concerned. It was only after a period of time that it became obvious, from what I.C.I. told us, that Mr. Lang could no longer be excluded from such information. When we were told that, we said we should have to make it a condition of the contracts that he should not have access.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Since the Government have now decided, I understand, that the Civil Service procedure of the tribunal shall apply to these cases which arise in industry, why will the Government not allow Mr. Lang, if he desires, to appeal to that tribunal?

Mr. Maudling

Because the responsible Ministers considered this case with great care, at great length, and with all the information at their disposal, and there does not seem to be any object in going over the same ground again.