HC Deb 23 March 1961 vol 637 cc584-94
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the recent case of espionage in the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment at Portland.

This case obviously raises two questions: first, whether security procedures were properly applied; secondly, whether those security procedures are the best that can be devised and applied in practice.

Immediately after the arrests on 7th January, security experts made a thorough investigation into the working of the security system at that Establishment. As the Lord Chief Justice said: Ultimate security depends and must depend on the honesty of those who are put in a position of trust, and if a person suddenly and for gain becomes dishonest, no security measures can prevent it and its prevention becomes a matter of great difficulty". All Admiralty establishments have been directed to review immediately the operation of security systems in their establishments.

My noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will set up a committee of inquiry, to be presided over by an independent person of high standing, to ascertain what security weaknesses existed at the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment and to determine where responsibility lies for such breaches of security as occurred, in order that the First Lord may then consider the disciplinary aspects of the whole matter.

As regards the second question, whether the existing security procedures which apply to the Government Services generally are satisfactory, these were comprehensively reviewed by a Committee of Privy Councillors in 1956. Parliament accepted these procedures as appropriate and adequate for their purposes. They are kept continually under review by the appropriate authorities.

I think that I should add, in view of statements that have been made, that, while it is clearly not in the public interest to reveal the amount of damage done, there is no evidence to suggest that the information compromised covered more than a relatively limited sector of the whole field of British naval weapons. There is no ground to suppose that any information belonging to the United States of America or other N.A.T.O. countries was compromised. There is no possibility of information connected with nuclear research and development, or information concerning nuclear weapons or nuclear propulsion, having been betrayed by these spies.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Prime Minister aware that the disclosures made at the espionage trial and statements which have been made since then have caused great shock and surprise among the public generally because they appear to reveal very grave deficiencies in our security arrangements? Can he really say that the amount of information made available to foreign Governments as a result of this spying is as limited as he suggests? Is he aware that certain naval officers have, in statements, implied that a great deal more may have been made available?

In our opinion, this is not a matter which can be treated as exclusively the affair of the Admiralty. Is it not the case that what has transpired shows a lack of co-ordination, for example, between our security services and those of the United States, and between the Foreign Office and the Admiralty? Is it not clear that, as the Minister responsible for counter-espionage, the Prime Minister himself is involved in this also and, in all the circumstances, does he not feel that the whole situation merits a much wider inquiry than the one which is now contemplated, possibly the convening of a Privy Councillors' Committee on security, so that the whole matter can be gone into and the country given greater assurance than it possesses at the moment?

The Prime Minister

The information which I have given to the House has been given to me by experts, and I have every confidence that what they have told me is correct. I have seen certain rumours. For instance, it was suggested that the plans of submarine "Dreadnought" were disclosed. This is not true. The only drawings which could possibly have been connected with "Dreadnought" at the Research Establishment at Portland were the drawings of a simple electric cable layout.

The right hon. Gentleman said, quite truly, that there are two aspects to the matter. The first is: did the Admiralty carry out properly the system which we laid down in 1956? On that, there will be the inquiry, with an independent head. It may be found that the laxity is not in the system, but in the application of it by certain individuals. That I cannot prejudge.

There is the further question whether we should tighten up the whole system. The right hon. Gentleman will remember very well, as I remember very well, the circumstances in 1956 which arose out of the case of men who had defected from our country. I remember the debate, because I had to wind up. It is, of course, very difficult to hold the balance between national security and the freedom of the individual from perpetual surveillance in a free society. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends took part in the inquiry at that time.

After the Admiralty case, which really must be properly pursued to see whether it is there that things went wrong, I will myself look at the matter again and consider whether we ought to tighten up in any way the actual procedures laid down in 1956, but I must warn the House that it would mean a much greater range of inquiry about the activities of individuals if we were to adopt a different procedure. As I say, I will look at it. The first thing is to clear up the circumstances of this case.

Mr. Gaitskell

That answer really does not deal with the main point I made. Is the Prime Minister aware that what is, I think, concerning the general public so much is that a spy ring of this kind has been able to operate for several years in this country without detection, and that this seems to have been the result not only of inadequate security arrangements in the Admiralty, but of complete failure on the part of our counter-espionage services?

How was it, for instance, that two of the members of the spy ring were allowed to come from the United States, where they were suspected of being spies, without our people being informed? How was it, for instance, that Houghton was allowed to be employed at the Admiralty without any adequate security check, despite the fact that he was obviously a bad security risk and that this must have been plain to our Ambassador in Warsaw? Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that it is really not enough just to have this simple, limited, domestic inquiry, with the Admiralty inquiring into its own affairs? [Interruption.] All right. It will have an independent chairman, but what of the other members of the committee of inquiry? I should like to know about that.

Does the Prime Minister realise that this matter, as I say, goes beyond the Admiralty and that, in our opinion, a much wider inquiry is necessary? With respect, it does not at the moment raise the question of the balance of security against freedom. What we want is an inquiry to show what has gone wrong.

The Prime Minister

With the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks I cannot agree. It is a question of what range of personnel, in a particular form—

Mr. Gordon Walker

That is not true.

The Prime Minister

It is no good saying it is not true. If the right hon. Member does not withdraw, I shall ask for the help of Mr. Speaker. It is true. One of the questions involved is whether positive or negative vetting should be applied, and to what groups of people. There is a very big difference between them. We may have to go to what is called positive vetting over a wider field.

On the other question which the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition asked, these Americans arrived on false names and false passports supplied to them in the United States.

Mr. Deedes

Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a little hard on the security services now to be charged with lack of vigilance for failing to take precautions which, at other times and in other circumstances, are sometimes castigated as witch-hunting and victimisation?

The Prime Minister

That is one of the great problems. We had this all out four years ago. It seems to me that the first thing is to find out whether the agreed system, the system that is supposed to be applied, was properly applied by the Admiralty officials. I can assure the House that the chairman of this committee will be an independent person. He may be a judge. I will see that this is an absolutely independent inquiry. That is right.

I am not trying to burke this thing. Of course, we want to catch the spies who work under modern conditions and whose machinery of espionage is something absolutely unknown in the past. Incredible work, skill and effort has gone into this. I should like a little time to see whether we need to look again at the 1956 decisions and to make fresh proposals. That I undertake to do, but I think that the thing should be done in order. First, find out what went wrong working under the present system and then see whether we must make still further sacrifices in what is really unpleasant—the watching of people, and so forth—and apply a stricter system.

Mr. Wigg

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while the problem of the vetting, whether positive or negative, of individuals can be properly left to an independent inquiry, if that is the course chosen by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman must not run away from his personal responsibility for the espionage services? Will he therefore look forthwith at the intelligence service as a whole? This would be welcomed in the House. The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless remember that, in the case of Commander Crabbe, there was a very serious breakdown.

The Prime Minister

May I correct a mistake which I made? These passports were issued by the New Zealand Government, but obtained by fraud. I agree that this is a tremendous burden of responsibility which lies upon me. I am not going to try to run away from it. I went through it all four years ago in one respect, when I was Foreign Secretary. Naturally, this has been a great blow to me and to all of our friends, but I am not going to be hurried into making a bad decision. It will take a few days to think about the best course. I am sure that the right course is to find out what went wrong by the special inquiry and then, with all those who understand it, see whether we need some different system, whether the system of the precise relations between the counter-espionage people and the Department is the right one, and so forth. I prefer to do it in that order.

I can assure the House that an event of this kind is a terrible blow. But, having learnt, in the last two or three years, the extraordinary degree to which espionage goes in every country, or some countries, where one cannot speak, not only in a house but almost in the open air, I can say that the problems set the counter-espionage people are of a far greater degree than they have even been in the past.

Mr. F. M. Bennett

In view of Mr. Khrushchev's violent repudiation of all forms of espionage between peaceful nations after the U.2 incident, can my right hon. Friend say whether we can expect an apology and promise not to repeat this sort of behaviour in the future?

The Prime Minister

I think that we would be rather hopeful if we expected it.

Mr. G. Brown

I am sure that this has been a great blow to the Prime Minister, as it has been to all of us. However, he still seems to be missing the main point of what my right hon. Friend was putting. Whatever the problem of naval Departmental application of security may be, there appears to be disclosed by the papers in this case that we have had a chance to see a very much wider breakdown which really ought not to be got away with merely by saying that the Navy seems to have failed. This man Houghton was returned from Warsaw. There should have been an entry on his records. There should have been contact between the Foreign Office and the Service. None of this appears to have happened.

Information about what this man was doing was, in fact, available in 1957. It was not operated on by the counter-espionage service. This has nothing to do with the Navy. It seems that there has been a very wide breakdown over a very wide field. Therefore, my right hon. Friend was saying, and I should like to press, that the Prime Minister should be willing to indicate that there will be an inquiry in 1961, as there was in 1956, into the whole of our security services and not just that of the Navy. We think that another Privy Councillors' conference might be the right way to do this.

The Prime Minister

This was not a Foreign Office matter. The return of this man from Warsaw was a naval matter, because he was on the naval attaché's staff. It was entirely a matter for the naval Department. Whether there was a breakdown there is a point which will be included, I am informed, in the inquiry that it is proposed to set up.

On the wider question, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if I think it useful I will come back again and ask for a fresh discussion. What we all want to do is to make it as effective as possible. I ask the House for a little time to consider the situation which has developed. We ought to make it as safe as we possibly can. If we can get the support of the House as a whole, including the Opposition, for the kind of measures which are sometimes necessary and will become more and more necessary to secure safety, that is in the national interest. I cannot bind myself, but I will try to act in this matter not as the leader of one party, but as the Prime Minister of the country, and I hope that I have the support of all hon. Members who wish to preserve the safety of our country in every respect and to avoid any leakages of this kind.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Clearly, we cannot debate this matter now.

Mr. Gaitskell

With respect, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that this is a matter of very great importance. In the light of the Prime Minister's answers to supplementary questions, may I ask him this: is the Admiralty inquiry to be independent in the sense that, not only the chairman, but the other members of the inquiry will be independent? How long does he think that the inquiry will take? When does he think that he will be able to tell the House whether this wider inquiry, which we believe to be necessary, will be held?

The Prime Minister

I am quite clear that the head of it will be an independent person. Whether there should be naval officers on it, I am not sure. I think that it would be convenient to have some, rather in the nature of a court-martial or court of inquiry. But I will consider the point and we will announce the names of the board of inquiry, or committee of inquiry, as soon as possible. I must call attention to the fact that there is a question of appeal which we have to get out of the way, and then there will be quite a lot of questions to sift. The inquiry will sit as rapidly as possible and will produce its report as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Shinwell

May I raise a point with you, Mr. Speaker? You will be aware that the Prime Minister is about to leave the country and will be away for some time. Therefore, we may not have the opportunity of putting questions to him as to the nature of this inquiry. Will you, Sir, permit me to put a question to him about the nature of the inquiry?

Mr. Speaker

I know the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. I hope that he will appreciate mine. I do not run away from the importance of this subject, but, from the House of Commons point of view, these proceedings are totally irregular. There is no Question before the House and no cue for any debate. I think that that involves the Chair in trying to bring these questionings to an end.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask the Prime Minister to defer consideration of the precise nature of the inquiry and the appointment of a judge, or whoever it may be, to undertake the inquiry until we have had an opportunity of making submissions to him arising out of our experience in Service Departments?

Mr. Speaker

I do not know whether the Prime Minister can help, but there was some mention of time for appeal, and so forth, and I have in mind dates, and so on. I know how important this us, but I imagine that nothing effective can be done in this context perhaps until the right hon. Gentleman comes back, though I do not know.

The Prime Minister

I will consider what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who has great experience in these matters, has said. There are two considerations in this. I am informed that although there is a notice of appeal, which, of course, may take quite a long time, it should not really impede—at least, not seriously impede—what we want to look into. My instinct would be to get the thing going while the scent is hot, to get on with it now, but I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I repeat that my instinct will be to get on with it as quickly as we can, while all this information can most readily be obtained.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked permission to raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill later tonight. I was aware of the Ruling, which may be found in Erskine May, that it would be out of order to raise a matter when notice of appeal has been given. I took the precaution of consulting the Registrar of Appeals of the Central Criminal Court, and he told me that no notice of appeal had been given. That was at twelve o'clock. Consequently, the House is quite misinformed and is wrong in assuming that notice of appeal has been given

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps I might seek to get this straight. If he catches my eye and discusses this topic, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will be wholly unembarrassed by any question relating to appeal, because on his information no notice has been given. But I did not understand that to be necessarily applicable to what the Prime Minister has been saying, which is, of course, that notice may yet be given. However, do not let the hon. Gentleman be deceived; his position is quite clear.

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that I am wrong in saying that the Prime Minister's last remarks were based on the assumption that notice of appeal had been given. That will be within the recollection of the House. I had taken the precaution of checking that, and, indeed, had gone further and arranged for the Registrar of Appeals of the Central Criminal Court to telephone me again at 4.30 p.m. to establish the facts.

Mr. Gaitskell

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not, in any case, a fact that if an appeal were to be lodged we should not be inhibited from debating the general security aspects of this case and the implications of it, and that, equally, we should not be in order in discussing whether Houghton, or whoever he is, was guilty or not? I do not think that that would prevent our discussing the general implications so far as our security is concerned. Will you please rule on that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

No, I do not think that it would for a moment. But it is possible for an hon. Member discussing a topic to feel embarrassment because some part of it is sub judice while he is making a speech in this House. I was trying to assure the hon. Member for Dudley that no such consideration at present arises should he be discussing this matter later on today.

Mr. Gaitskell

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I just say—I know that you do not wish us to pursue the matter any further this afternoon—that the Opposition reserve the right to raise this matter again before the Easter Recess? It is a matter of the greatest importance. We shall wish to consider what the Prime Minister has said and any other information coming our way, and, perhaps, press the Government for an urgent debate about the matter.

Mr. Speaker

I express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for assisting me in what is inevitably a difficult duty—bringing this irregular discussion to an end.