HC Deb 29 March 1961 vol 637 cc1344-50
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement.

The Government have decided to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, which will report to the Prime Minister, to survey the field which has come into question as a result of the recent conviction of certain individuals on a charge of conspiracy at the Central Criminal Court.

The terms of reference will be as follows: To examine the circumstances connected with the recent spy trial at the Central Criminal Court and, in particular, those in which two individuals came to be employed, and were retained in employment, in naval establishments, with a view to determining what breaches of security arrangements, if any, took place; and to report whether there was any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for their employment and conduct; To examine the circumstances in which three persons, convicted at the same time, secured admission to the United Kingdom; To draw attention to any failure in existing security procedures which may come to their notice in the course of their inquiry. I am glad to be able to inform the House that Sir Charles Romer, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, has accepted the chairmanship. The other two members will be Sir Harold Emmerson, formerly Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Labour, and a retired naval officer, Vice-Admiral Sir Geoffrey Thistleton-Smith.

The appointment of this Committee fulfils the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd March to find out, by means of a broad-based inquiry, "what went wrong in this case."

Mr. G. Brown

So far as one can see from the statement, the terms of reference appear to go much wider than was originally indicated, when it was thought that there would be an inquiry into the narrower naval issue. In that sense, perhaps I may be allowed to say that we on this side welcome the wide terms of reference and the obviously broad base from which the Committee will operate.

Having said that, may I ask the Leader of the House a question concerning the terms of reference? There seems to be no opportunity within these terms for the Committee to consider the question of external co-operation between allied security services, which seems to have been one of the things that broke down on the recent occasion. Can that aspect be considered, or is it being taken care of in some other way?

Secondly, having said what I have done about the terms of reference, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the strength of the Committee hardly seems in keeping with the terms of reference that the Committee has been set. I make no reflection whatever on the three gentlemen named, with one of whom I had the pleasure of serving in a Ministerial capacity and for whom I have a high regard.

Would it not be an improvement, however, if the Committee were strengthened by the addition of, say, one other person who, whatever his present position, had at some stage in his career personal knowledge of the operation of security procedures and technical developments in that field? There must be many barristers or scientists who, at an earlier stage, served in the security services, and who are not now in them, but would bring to the Committee the sort of experience that, on the face of it, appears to be lacking from a retired judge, a retired civil servant and a retired vice-admiral. Will the Home Secretary consider this?

My only other point concerns the question of evidence. A good deal has been written, some of it in the popular newspapers—the Daily Mail has been mentioned many times in this connection—and some of it, no doubt, has been highly coloured. It looks, however, as though a good deal of probing has been done. Will the Committee be free to receive evidence from people outside any of the official channels who may have done a good deal of investigation into the matter?

Mr. Butler

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about evidence is, "Yes, Sir". The wider terms of reference were deliberately drawn, partly due to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd March and partly due to the undertakings which I gave a little later, in the early hours of the morning, when I used the expression "a broad-based inquiry". I have been able to exchange opinions with the Prime Minister and he was kind enough to support what I have said. We have, therefore, accordingly widened the terms of reference which will be much more satisfactory.

I should not like to give a snap answer on the detailed point raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerning the connection with external forces and allied systems of security. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, notice that the opening words of the terms of reference of the Committee refer to the circumstances connected with the recent trial … and that the concluding words are: To draw attention to any failure in existing security procedures". Therefore, in so far as there is any connection with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which is a perfectly reasonable one, I would presume that it is covered. I would rather not give any further answer on that at this moment.

On the point about the strength of the inquiry and the membership, I do not think anybody would doubt the suitability of a recent Judge of Appeal, Sir Charles Romer. I think that the House will find that this must strengthen the inquiry for carrying out what the Prime Minister said: 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…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1961; Vol. 637. c. 589.] This is the special inquiry, to which the Prime Minister referred, to find out what went wrong, and in our opinion, after very seriously considering this, we think that the membership is most suitable. Of course, it will be able to inquire from experts and be able to take expert evidence of the types we have suggested which we think are the strongest for the purpose.

Mr. Brown

Who will provide the secretary for this Committee?

Mr. Butler

That is an entirely domestic matter, but he will be provided by the Cabinet Office.

Mr. Wade

Whilst welcoming the setting up of this inquiry, may I refer to a point which I mentioned yesterday? In view of the seriousness and importance of the duties of all the grades of our security service, will it be within the terms of reference of this Committee of Inquiry to consider whether their pay measures up to those duties, and whether it attracts the necessary personnel in order to try to prevent these errors from occurring?

Mr. Butler

The essential point of this inquiry is to find out what went wrong. The future has been rather reserved till we get the report of this inquiry. If it were found, for example, that such a situation arose, presumably, under the latter part of the terms of reference. any failure in existing security procedures", attention might be drawn to these matters, but the remedying of them would have to be related to future action.

Mr. Wigg

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the appointment of this Committee with these terms of reference will give general satisfaction, particularly bearing in mind the eminence of the distinguished gentleman who is to be chairman? Can the House take it, however, that the appointment of this Committee does not in any way diminish the responsibility of the Prime Minister for what has happened and for himself, when the Committee's report is received, making a report to the House on what he proposes to do?

It will be within the right hon. Gentleman's recollection that I raised this matter on Thursday and asked the Government to make a statement concerning Admiral Thistleton-Smith, because in Thursday's Daily Mail it was reported that the Government intended to appoint him to the Committee of Inquiry. The House really ought to know how this kind of information, particularly on this subject, can be leaked days in advance—obviously, either from a Minister or from a civil servant—because these tiny breaches of security start, in the first instance, in a friendly way; and then they get a reward; and then, later, they lay themselves open to the gravest kind of abuse. Clearly, there must have been a major breach of Government security on that point.

Mr. Butler

I would certainly pledge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give a report to the House on the conclusion of this inquiry and not to burke in any way the results which may appear from the inquiry or any future action which may be necessary.

We regret the leak about the admiral just as does the hon. Member. It was leaked, in fact, that he was to be chairman of the Committee of Inquiry. That is not correct. He is a member, under Sir Charles Romer. The fact that there was a leak of any sort is deeply to be regretted. These are matters which are, of course, the subject of permanent investigation by the Government.

Mr. Wigg

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when Mr. Lonsdale was arrested there was a major leak from a quarter which may have had the most important repercussions? It got out that he had been arrested—evidence was given during the trial—there was a leak and many birds may have flown because of that leak. This ought not to be left just like that.

Mr. Butler

That is one of the reasons we are having a broad-based inquiry.

Mr. Fletcher

Bearing in mind that the recent case of espionage was begun as the result of the fortuitous suspicions of a police constable at Portland, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of reference are wide enough to enable the Committee to inquire not only about the way in which people get into positions of security, but whether, they having got into those positions, the efficiency of the counter-espionage service is adequate to deal with the problems which then arise?

Mr. Butler

Provided that we adhere to what I have said in my statement, and to what is said in the terms of reference about existing security procedures and reserve any alterations of them to the future, I would say that the answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. Paget

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is to be responsible for the security of this inquiry, because if this inquiry is to be worth anything it has got to deal with the most secret information? Is not this an additional reason for including in the inquiry, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, at least one expert in security?

Mr. Butler

We have considered all these points, and I think that the fact that the inquiry itself has to be secure is one which has not escaped us. There is the Latin tag which asks who is to guard the guards. It is obvious that it should be so, but I think that if the House looks at the membership of the inquiry it will find that the members have been deliberately chosen because of their experience of important duties and to ensure that there will be security.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in connection with the point raised by my right hon. Friend on the appointment of the secretary, that that might go some way to meat the suggestion made on this side? Can he confirm that the admiral in question had nothing whatever to do with the establishment at Portland?

Mr. Butler

I can certainly give that assurance. This has been most carefully gone into. The fact that he is retired and distant from this is, I think, a very valuable assurance of his capability in this post.

I will certainly look myself into the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.