HC Deb 04 May 1961 vol 639 cc1609-18
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

With permission, Sir, I think it right to make a statement about the grave case of George Blake.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the B.B.C. news bulletin at one o'clock it was stated that there was an appeal. I should like, therefore, to have your guidance as to how far this statement is in breach of the rule of the House that, pending an appeal, such matters are sub judice?

Mr. Speaker

I think that I should say that: by courtesy I am supplied with a copy of what the Prime Minister is to say, and that I do not think that it involves any infringement of the sub judice rule, acknowledging the fact of an appeal against sentence.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that this is an appeal against sentence, is it not possible that any statement made by the Prime Minister might influence the Court of Appeal either to increase or perhaps diminish the sentence?

Mr. Speaker

We shall have to listen to what is said not only by the Prime Minister, but by everybody, because something might infringe the rules. But I do not think that we need anticipate an infringement before it has happened. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister

With permission, I think it right to make a statement about the grave case of George Blake.

As the House knows, Blake pleaded guilty yesterday to five counts charging him with offences against Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. I am informed that he has ten days within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence; and, if he does apply, some time must elapse before the matter is discussed. I naturally wish to give the House as much information as I can consistently with the national interest and without prejudicing any appeal against the sentence.

Blake, who is a British subject by birth, served with credit through the war in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve In 1948, he was temporarily employed as Vice-Consul, Seoul, where he was interned by the Chinese and held for nearly three years in captivity. Although he no doubt underwent a certain amount of ill treatment, in common with others who were interned, he was subject to none of the brainwashing which military prisoners suffered. After his release, and after having been subjected to a very thorough security vetting, Blake was employed for a period with British Military Government in Berlin and subsequently attached for a time to the Foreign Office in London. In September, 1960, he was sent to learn Arabic in the Lebanon. Blake was never an established member of the Foreign Service.

There is no reason to doubt that until 1951 he gave loyal service to this country. It was during his internment in Korea that he decided, as he has said, to join the Communist side". It would appear that he voluntarily became a convert to what most of this House would regard as an evil faith. However regrettable we may regard such a conversion, it does not, of course, constitute criminal conduct. But to this he added treachery to the State. He agreed, in his own words, to make available to the Soviet Intelligence such information as came his way in the course of his duties". It was for doing this that he was tried and sentenced.

I would again emphasise that his action was not the result of brainwashing or intimidation while a prisoner. Nor did he fall to any of the other kinds of pressure which are sometimes employed in these circumstances—

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that it is an important matter, but surely statements made in this House, while an appeal against sentence must be pending, relating to the conduct of the accused man, and how he may or may not have been influenced to commit offences to which he has confessed, must be directly relevant to any argument that is to be presented by his counsel to the Court of Criminal Appeal in mitigation of sentence and, therefore, must be sub judice at this stage.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is right about sub judice as to brain washing, but if we can get away from that I do not think that anything in this statement is objectionable yet.

Mr. Grimond

Surely it is impossible to deal with this case without using all sorts of words which could bear an implication—the word "Communism" or "brainwashing".

Mr. Silverman

And "evil faith."

Mr. Grimond

I should welcome a general statement on security, but I should be grateful for guidance about how far we can go in the peculiar circumstances of this particular case.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot dictate the words used or the topic discussed. I cannot stop anybody unless I feel that the rules are infringed. In applying the rule here, I think that I must bear in mind, in favour of the statement, that this was a case where a man pleaded guilty, and, obviously, did not challenge what was quoted from his statement, from what we have seen. I bear that in mind when considering the point at which the rule comes into force.

Mr. Wigg

It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that when the Lonsdale case was under consideration you were kind enough to confirm a Ruling in Erskine May that what decides whether a matter can be discussed is not whether an announcement has been made that an appeal is to be lodged, but whether, in fact, an appeal has been lodged at the Central Registry. That is not the case here. Therefore, it would appear that this statement is subject to the same Ruling as in the Lonsdale case.

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry, I may be under an illusion. I thought that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was telling me that, in fact, the news was now recorded that an appeal had been lodged. I was dealing with that fact in favour of the application of the rule. I was assuming that to be a fact. If an appeal has not been lodged, what the hon. Gentleman said is right.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. I am under the impression—I am open to correction—that the official Opposition have made a request to the Prime Minister to make a statement on this matter. That is what I understand.

Mr. Gaitskell indicated assent.

Mr. Shinwell

If the Prime Minister is making a statement in reply to a request from the Official Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman obviously has to say something about the case, and no doubt questions will be asked. We have either to hear the statement, or to have no statement at all; and if we are to have no statement at all, a protest would be made from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker

Will the right hon. Gentleman state what he believes to be the point of order which he desires to raise?

Mr. Shinwell

Several points of order have been raised which seem to indicate that there are some of my hon. Friends who do not wish a statement to be made about this matter. But I understand that a request has been made on the part of the Official Opposition for a statement, and obviously, if a statement is to be made, the Prime Minister must say something.

Mr. Speaker

There is not a point of order in that.

Mr. S. Silverman

May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the question of whether a statement is in order or is not in order, having regard to the rule in sub judice cases, is not affected at all by anybody's desire or anybody's request. A statement on the subject is either in order or it is not. Having regard to the extreme difficulty of making a statement which avoids offence to the rule, and the even greater difficulty in asking supplementary questions which may be an offence to the rule, would not it be very much wiser that this statement should be deferred until after the appeal is heard?

Mr. Speaker

There are two points in that. The first is one which I have already indicated to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), that no point of order arises out of the proposition about who desired or did not desire a statement. The second point is that the rule does not apply unless notice of an appeal has been given. I understand that notice has not been given.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened to the B.B.C. news at one o'clock and the point was very definitely made that an appeal was going to be made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—I understand, against sentence. My submission is that the statement the Prime Minister is making may or may not influence the question of the length of sentence. I submit that if the Prime Minister makes a statement—the Prime Minister is the most important person in this country—that must have a tendency to influence the Court of Appeal in relation to the length of sentence.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has not got the point, with all respect and without discourtesy to him. Our rule in these circumstances about sub judice operates from the moment when, in fact, notice of appeal has been given. That was not what the hon. Member heard on the B.B.C. news, according to his own statement. I do hope that we can now make progress.

The Prime Minister

Perhaps the House will allow me to say that I was in doubt whether, for the reasons given, it was proper for me to make a statement. I think that in view of the fact that this man has pleaded guilty nothing I propose to say—and I have had it carefully looked at—could influence the Court in the way suggested. In view of the importance of the subject, it seems to me, on the whole, on balance, right for me to make a statement today, but I shall bear in mind—and I have tried to bear in mind in the writing of this statement—the very proper point which was raised.

I was saying that Blake did not fall to any of the other kinds of pressure which are sometimes employed in these circumstances. He received no money for his services. He was never at any time a member of the Communist Party or any of its affiliated organisations. What he did was done, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, as the result of conversion to a genuine belief in the Communist system. In these circumstances, suspicion would not easily be aroused in relation to a man who had served his country well for some eight years, who gave every appearance of leading a normal and respectable life, but who had decided to betray his country for ideological reasons. Indeed, having agreed to work for the Russians he was careful not to arouse suspicion and to conceal his conversion to Communism.

Eventually, however, his activities were uncovered and the result was his trial at the Old Bailey. He had access to information of importance, and he passed it on. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in open court, he has done serious damage to the interests of this country. As to that, it would not be right, nor would it be in the public interest, for me to say more than was said in open court yesterday. I can, however, assure hon. Members that Blake's disclosures will not have done irreparable damage. In particular, he did not have access to secret information on defence, nuclear or atomic matters.

Such cases as this are, I hope, extremely rare; but by reason of their very nature they are very difficult to detect or prevent by any security procedures. No such procedures can guarantee to catch a man who changes his allegiance and skilfully conceals his conversion. I do not therefore think that any inquiry such as that now being conducted in relation to another case—with which Blake's case has no connection and affords no parallel—would serve any useful purpose. But I can assure the House that I am reviewing all the circumstances with very great care to see whether there are any possible further measures which could be taken to protect this country from treachery of this kind.

While I recognise to the full the responsibility that rests on Her Majesty's Government, I should be very willing to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and any Privy Counsellor that he might wish to have associated with him the circumstances of this case and the matters that arise from it.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Prime Minister aware that we are grateful to him for making the statement today? I am sure this was in the public interest and I do not think that any harm has been done so far as a possible appeal is concerned. Is he further aware that there is widespread disquiet that this kind of thing could have been allowed to happen and that a man could for nine-and-a-half years have supplied information to the Soviet Union and thus, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, rendered much of this country's efforts completely useless?

In view of the somewhat delicate judicial situation, I do not propose to put any detailed questions, but I should like to put one question to the Prime Minister arising out of his closing words. He would, I am sure, be aware that it is very difficult for the House to handle these security matters. It is hard, on the one side, to expect the Government to give secrets away, but it is equally difficult to reassure the House unless we are told something.

In these circumstances, I should consider it right to accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation, but I ask him this. Is he aware that in our opinion, as we look at the matter at present, we feel that to reassure public opinion private conversations between the leaders of the Government and the leaders of the Opposition do not quite match up to the case and that, in our opinion, some kind of inquiry—I shall not discuss the exact form—is necessary to assure the public that the right things are being done to prevent this sort of thing happening again?

The Prime Minister

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Perhaps he would allow me to leave it in this way. If we could have our discussion and the whole circumstances of the case be made fully known to him we could then discuss—although the responsibility, of course, is mine—what is the best course to take in the public interest. There is an inquiry going on on certain aspects of security, that is, the counter-security measures. That may be able to give us some useful information which we might need for further inquiry into this kind of measure, but I feel that it would be helpful if we could discuss this case in its detail. Then, although I take full responsibility, I should at least know that the right hon. Gentleman and his leading colleagues were aware of the difficulties and problems presented.

Mr. Gaitskell

I appreciate that, but I take it that the Prime Minister does not rule out the possibility of a further inquiry if it should seem to be necessary following our discussion.

The Prime Minister

I certainly do not rule that out, but possibly after the report of the present Committee we might have to widen its scope.

Dame Irene Ward

Am I right in assuming from what my right hon. Friend said that there were no adverse reports of any kind lying against George Black before he was brought before the court?

The Prime Minister

None at all.

Mr. C. Pannell

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there is nothing that he has told the Press in confidence which he has failed to give the House this afternoon? I put that to him because a rumour is circulating to that effect and I should like him to be able to deny it.

The Prime Minister

I have not, as far as I know, given any statement to the Press, except, of course, that it has been warned that it must keep within certain rules which are well known on certain subjects.

Mr. Marsh

Would the Prime Minister deny that a statement has, in fact, been sent to the Press setting out the things which the Press must not report? Is it not also a fact that, while this gentleman may not have been an established servant of the Foreign Office, he was, in fact, employed on Foreign Office intelligence? Would the Prime Minister also accept his degree of personal responsibility for this particular situation and the fact that a large number of members of the public are becoming increasingly worried by the growing evidence of the crass incompetence in his administration?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that I have anything to add to what I have said and I do not think that it would be right for me to add to anything said in camera. It was for that reason that the Lord Chief Justice decided to hold part of the case in camera.

Mr. Wigg

Will the Prime Minister agree that there are two aspects of this case? First, have any regulations, whatever they may be, governing primary Government officials been carried out? Secondly, are those regulations adequate to the case? Under the first heading he will no doubt remember that on 7th November, 1955, he told the House that positive vetting had been introduced in the Foreign Office for those dealing with classified materials. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that positive vetting was carried out in the case of Mr. George Blake?

The Prime Minister

There are two points there. The regulations regarding employment are complicated on the nationality question, as, perhaps, the hon. Member knows. In the old days, one had to have two British parents to be a member of the Foreign Service. That, incidentally, would have ruled out both my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and myself had we wished to enter it. That requirement has been, and can be, waived in proper circumstances by the Secretary of State. Then, there is a quite separate question as to the vetting procedures. I assure the hon. Member that they were applied in the ordinary way.

Mr. J. T. Price

Whilst I recognise, like every other hon. Member, the need for restraint in handling this most serious matter, is it not remarkable that this man, who by the Prime Minister's own admission was not even an established member of the Foreign Service, should have access to this top secret information? Would it not be appropriate, if the Prime Minister does not think that public security is involved, to give us a little more information about what department of the Foreign service it was in which this man was engaged and whether somebody is being shielded? Could we not have a little more information about it?

What disturbs me is that a man who by any account, on the Prime Minister's statement, must have been a very junior servant of the Crown, should, for nine-and-a-half years, be able to have access to this most vital information which has been disclosed to a hostile Power.

The Prime Minister

The point has been raised whether it was wise to employ in Government service a man who had been a prisoner in Communist hands. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I beg pardon, but I have seen that raised a good deal in this matter. If such a rule were to be made, it would cause grave hardship and injustice to many distinguished men. It is right to say that, because it has been so widely mentioned.

On the second question, it is not only persons in key positions or important posts who have access to secret information. It has necessarily to be handled by selected people of almost all grades from time to time—that is inevitable. But the rule of the need to know is, of course, applied and secret material is not handled except by persons, whether established or unestablished, and whatever their grade, who have passed through the security procedures.

Sir A. V. Harvey

When my right hon. Friend said that he would discuss the matter with the Leader of the Opposition and Privy Councillors of the Opposition, did he mean that he would also discuss it with Privy Councillors on this side of the House who do not hold Ministerial posts?

The Prime Minister

I will certainly consider that. It has been a very old rule in these matters to restrict this to Privy Councillors, who are bound by rather special oath, and within a very narrow circle. If there were a view—I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition would object if I thought it right—that I should inform a Privy Councillor who was not necessarily a member of the Government, I would consider that.

I would rather keep to the old rule, that the Leader of the Opposition, who has a special place which is now recognised in our Constitution, and the Prime Minister of the day should discuss these matters together with, perhaps, one or two of their trusted colleagues who have held high office.

Mr. Holt

Is the Prime Minister aware that what is troubling many people is why, if the Russians know all about this person, security reasons prevent the House of Commons knowing more about him?

The Prime Minister

Anyone who has been engaged upon or who has knowledge about these matters knows that that is rather too simple a view. It was for that very reason that the Lord Chief Justice decided to hold the trial in camera.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate this matter now.