HC Deb 08 November 1962 vol 666 cc1147-52
Q1. Dame Irene Ward

asked the Prime Minister whether he will add some persons with special knowledge of security to (the Committee of inquiry into recent Admiralty failures to provide an efficient security service.

Q11. Mr. Gordon Walker

asked the Prime Minister what representations he has now received about setting up an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Vassall spy case; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

I told the House on Tuesday, in answer to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, why I decided that this Committee is best suited to ascertain the facts of this case. As to their special knowledge of security, the members of the Committee are experienced in the security problems and practices of Government Departments as part of their day-to-day administration. They can, of course, call for expert advice on any matter if they wish; and they will be guided by the findings of the Radcliffe Committee.

As the House knows, the Committee has already submitted to me an interim Report, which was published as a White Paper last night.

I had not intended to call for an interim Report at this stage, but the atmosphere of speculation and innuendo made it in my view desirable that this White Paper should be published at the earliest possible moment.

I am sure that the whole House will unreservedly welcome the refutation of the serious imputations against my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith). My hon. Friend has told me that he nevertheless feels it his duty to submit his resignation to me, and, in all the circumstances, I have thought it right to accept it.

Dame Irene Ward

While thanking the Prime Minister for calling for an interim Report, is he aware that I regret that the ex-Minister has felt it necessary to offer his resignation and I am sorry that the Prime Minister has felt it necessary to accept it?

May I now come back to my original Question? In view of the fact that the country really has had a shock, can the Prime Minister explain why it is that if the country wishes someone who has had modern and up-to-date experience in Russian methods to be a member of the Committee, he does not feel that he should bow to the wishes of the country? May I also ask him whether he does not think that it would be a good idea to have a medical consultant on the Committee to deal with the pervert aspect of this problem? Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this problem will have to be faced at some time, and is it really very difficult for a very distinguished Prime Minister for once to allow democracy to be satisfied?

The Prime Minister

With regard to the last part of that question, I thought that this would be the quickest way, and I think that it is going to be, having regard to the previous inquiries to ascertain the facts. It will then be necessary to decide what should best be done. As regards the calling in of experts, that can be done, and this problem to which my hon. Friend has alluded may have to be considered.

With regard to the first part of the question, I regret, but I fully understand, the feelings of my hon. Friend, and I think that he will command both the respect and the sympathy of the House.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Is the Prime Minister aware that we for our part agree with what he has said, and that this action by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is, I think, the only right one and is to his credit?

This, however, means that the real issue, namely, whether or not this is the right sort of Committee of inquiry to set up, becomes disentangled from other matters. Has the Prime Minister noticed the phrase in the interim Report: …you have directed us…to produce an interim report… We do not feel that a Committee of inquiry into this sort of matter should be capable of being directed by the Prime Minister to do this. If it can be directed to do this, it can be directed to do other things.

Is the Prime Minister also aware that he has continuously said that this Committee is going into the facts, but that its terms of reference include an inquiry into whether there was any neglect of duty? This is not a fact. Neglect of duty is a judgment, a judgment which civil servants may have to make on the actions of their own highly placed colleagues, or of Ministers, and this does not seem the right sort of inquiry to go into this grave matter of the breach of security.

The Prime Minister

With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, it is a little fortunate that it was possible for me to ask for this interim Report—or to require this interim report. Had it not been possible, perhaps six weeks or two months of the Committee's proceedings would have been going on with these terrible imputations being made and no method of refuting them.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Will the Prime Minister reply to the second part of my supplementary question?

The Prime Minister

As I explained, having had first the Romer Report and then the Radcliffe Report, I think that this will be the quickest way of ascertaining the facts, upon which it will be my responsibility to make a judgment.

Mr. Grimond

Is it not profoundly unsatisfactory that halfway through the.proceedings of a (fact-finding Committee, consisting of three civil servants, a Minister should be forced to resign, apparently on the publication of letters which, in themselves, are taken to be perfectly innocent and which appear to be perfectly innocent if, in fact, Vassall was the hon. Member's private secretary, or acting as such, and if there are no other letters unpublished? Further, as there are bound to be allegations about security in our embassy in Russia, is it not an entirely different matter from the question of security in Government Departments, and will it not therefore involve the examination of people in that embassy? In that case, is not this a matter which, as the hon. Lady has said, should at least lead us to see that there are people on this Committee who are cognisant of security, and that it should not consist solely of civil servants?

The Prime Minister

In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, if the Solicitor to the Treasury—I had meant it to be Sir Norman Brook, the Head of the Civil Service, who has been taken ill—and Sir Charles Cunningham, who has perhaps the most experience of the Civil Service in all its aspects, wish for further specialised advice they can call for it. They have available both the Romer and Radcliffe Reports on the general principles, but if they require to make inquiries overseas they are quite capable of making them.

As for the first part of the supplementary question, in a sense this is fortunate, because I can imagine no more terrible situation than if this continual build-up of rumour and innuendo of the most scurrilous kind had been left without any method of answering it for the necessarily long period that a Committee of this kind would take.

Sir M. Lindsay

Is the Prime Minister aware that nobody who knows Lord Carrington or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) could possibly believe that they could conceivably have had any kind of improper relationship with Vassall? Is my right hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have lent their weight to a Press campaign to this effect have not played a very honourable part?

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members on this side are not concerned with the question of the Civil Lord—my right hon. Friend has explained our position on that—but we are very much concerned with the type of inquiry into the Vassall case and what may lie behind it? May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question put by my right hon. Friend? The Prime Minister has continually said that this Committee is to assemble the facts, but according to the terms of reference it is to judge whether there was any neglect of duty. This is not a matter of assembling the facts. How does the Prime Minister reconcile what he says about the functions of the Committee with its terms of reference? Does not he appreciate that it is precisely this element of judgment which, in our opinion, should not be exercised by civil servants under the direction of and responsible to Ministers, but should be conducted by independent persons?

The Prime Minister

I think that assembling the facts will disclose whether the rules were kept and whether the proper arrangements—which are now very carefully laid down—were kept, or at what period they were broken, if they were broken. This is the collection of the facts, and from that follows the question whether these rules have or have not been kept.

Although I am grateful for what the right hon. Member has said, I venture to repeat that this was a situation building up which seemed to me to be intolerable to any fair-minded man, in which quite a lot of contributions were made and in which anonymity was kept so that no action for libel or slander would he, yet it was quite clear who were the victims of these attacks.

Mr. Speaker

I appreciate to the full the importance of this matter, but I think the wish of the House would be that we should have more than one Question to the Prime Minister answered.