§ 38. Mr. Marshasked the Prime Minister what were the circumstances which made it impossible for him to ascertain whether secret documents entrusted by the United States of America to the Admiralty were lost, stolen or mislaid.
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member will not expect me to give details of the investigation to which I referred in my answer of 11th May. But modern techniques of espionage are such that it would not be necessary to purloin these documents in order to make improper use of them. I do not seek to minimise the seriousness of what has happened, but I believe that it has been due to carelessness not treachery.
§ Mr. MarshIs it not a rather frightening situation that documents of this type, loaned to the Admiralty by a foreign Government, vanish and after a period of a month the Prime Minister cannot even tell us whether they have been lost, stolen or mislaid? Is it not becoming frighteningly obvious that there is something wrong in his Department? Unless 27 he can remedy it in the near future, would it not be in the national interest that he should consider his resignation?
§ The Prime MinisterI think the hon. Gentleman very much underestimates the difficulties as well as the dangers of all these security questions. This particular document was in a file which is missing, which contained one secret document—the whole file is missing. There are other copies of this in other parts of the contractor's works—[An HON. MEMBER: "How many?"]—and none of these is missing. As I ventured to say, it is a strange paradox of modern espionage in which I think there is much more danger of a document being copied—so easy is it to do—for improper reasons than of its being actually removed.
§ Mr. GaitskellAre we to understand from the reply that the Prime Minister now considers that this document was not merely mislaid but was positively stolen, possibly for purposes of copying? Would he not agree that this is really a very serious matter, when documents lent to us by a foreign Government disappear in this way, and would he consider referring this particular matter to the Romer Committee, which is already investigating the whole question of security in the Admiralty Under-Water Weapons Establishment?
§ The Prime MinisterI think, perhaps, I was misunderstood. I have said that paradoxically the fact that the whole file of documents was not available—lost or mislaid—made it seem to me and others that it was rather less likely that it was used for improper purposes. As everybody knows, under modern methods, if there had been a traitor in these works—which you must assume if you say it was stolen for improper purposes—the much easier thing would have been to copy it, not take the whole file. There may have been a traitor in these works. If there is, not only the Romer Committee but the new Committee of inquiry will have to consider what new measures we shall have to take to defend ourselves, throughout not only the Government services but industrial works of this country.
§ Mr. GaitskellWould the Prime Minister not agree that, despite the difficulties to which he has referred, nevertheless this is a very serious matter? 28 Does it not point to the need for additional measures to be taken, and is not the Romer Committee the right Committee to consider this?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Romer Committee has almost completed its work and either that Committee or the general Committee on security will be given the full facts of the case, and this will lead us in due course to consider what new methods of security both in the public service and in the contractor service may be necessary.