SECURITY PROCEDURES (Hansard, 6 November 1962)

§ Q1. Dr. D. Johnson
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to improve security procedures following the publication of the Radcliffe Report.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)
In the light of the recommendations of the Report, Departments have reviewed and, where necessary, strengthened their security organisations; 793 security responsibilities have been clarified; Departments have been instructed to introduce the detailed procedural changes and improvements recommended in the Report; and security education and training have been intensified.

§ Dr. Johnson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however stringent our security precautions, they will be in vain if those in high places appear to show the simplicity of approach and attitude towards Russian techniques of espionage to which I referred in a previous Question to him and which seem to have been evidenced in the most recent case?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course, these matters ought all the time to be strengthened and reviewed, but, if my hon. Friend is referring to the recent case, these activities took place long before the Radcliffe Report—

§ Mr. G. Brown
And after.

§ The Prime Minister
—and this man has been caught.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is the Prime Minister aware that it is not enough to catch a spy? What is unsatisfactory is that spies should get away with it for a long time. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that Vassall continued his work of espionage right up to the point when he was arrested and after the changes introduced as a result of the Radcliffe Report? Will the right hon. Gentleman read, if he has not already done so, the report of the debate on Friday, particularly the very powerful speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the totally inadequate reply of the Minister of Defence, which was regarded as inadequate not only by hon. Members on this side but by virtually every newspaper in the country? In the light of this, will the Prime Minister reconsider his decision simply to appoint a Committee of civil servants and consider the suggestion for a much higher level independent Committee of Inquiry?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course, I have read the report of the debate. I will tell the House what I did, which I still think was right. As soon as I heard of this, I appointed this Committee. It seemed to me not necessary to reopen the whole question of procedure, which had been dealt with very widely 794 by Lord Radcliffe's Committee. I wanted to find out the facts. As soon as the Committee reports the facts to me, I shall have the responsibility of taking any action on them. In addition, I would be very ready to discuss the report with the right hon. Gentleman and to show it to him to read confidentially. I have also invited Lord Radcliffe, who has kindly agreed, to advise me, when the report is available, as to what lessons are to be learned from it and to give me any advice which he may be able to give.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
While I appreciate what the Prime Minister has just said, nevertheless can he explain why in this third case, in which Ministers were more closely involved than they were in the other two cases, it was decided to appoint a Committee of civil servants whereas in the other two cases there were independent inquiries? Further, why did not the right hon. Gentleman follow the procedure which he followed in the Blake case, namely, to consult the Opposition before taking any action?

§ The Prime Minister
In the first case, the Portland case, and the Blake case it was a question of making a very comprehensive inquiry into the whole procedures of our security, and that was done. I thought that now it was more necessary to find out the facts as rapidly as possible, which I am sure this inquiry will do. Having got them, I will have to exercise any responsibility that falls to me, but I will also try to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman and with the Lord Radcliffe what further steps should be taken and what further lessons can be learned.

§ Mr. Grimond
The Prime Minister is aware that, rightly or wrongly, allegations have been made against Ministers. Does he think it suitable that these allegations should be inquired into by civil servants?

§ The Prime Minister
I feel sure that all the facts will be made known to me, and it will be my responsibility then to deal with them.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Is the Prime Minister aware that I tried once to discuss this matter with him privately and received a brush-off? If we on this side cannot discuss it with him privately the only other course, which we do not want to take, it to raise it publicly. This is not 795 a matter of procedures, nor of internal security. This is a matter which involves Ministers. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to discuss with us the evidence which he knows and we know is available in order to decide what we ought to do about it, or does he wish it to be discussed publicly in this House?

§ The Prime Minister
In the case of the Romer Committee, it was breaking new ground as to the official Admiralty security procedures. The Radcliffe Committee, following a very serious case, raised the whole question of our security procedures and made a comprehensive study and presented a valuable Report, which I discussed with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and have tried to put into operation. In this matter, all the evidence will be made available, and is available, to the Committee which I have asked to inquire into it as rapidly as possible. When the Committee has reported, I will, as I say, make its report available to the Leader of the Opposition. I will also take any steps that I feel it to be my responsibility to take.