HC Deb 09 November 1962 vol 666 cc1412-24

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel]

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

On 15th September, Mr. Geoffrey McDermott, until 2nd June British Minister and Deputy Commandant in Berlin, was retired by the Foreign Office after twenty-six years in the Foreign Service, and it is to the circumstance of that retirement that I wish to draw the attention of the House. Perhaps at this point I should say that I had never met Mr. McDermott until I did so this week, entirely at my own request, in order to check the accuracy of the information I had obtained.

Six years ago Mr. McDermott was the youngest Minister in the Service, a remarkable tribute to his ability and to the satisfaction that he must have given in the discharge of his duties.

I wish to be frank with the House. It is true that 15 years ago, at a time of acute personal distress, Mr. McDermott was reprimanded for not having his mind on his work. We must deduce, however, that happier circumstances facilitated concentration from the fact that he became a Minister at the early age of 43. It is also true that shortly before Mr. McDermott ceased to be political representative with the Middle East Forces in Cyprus in 1961, a Foreign Service inspector reported that he did not spend enough time in his office. Mr. McDermott himself had in fact complained that he was under-employed in that post. In any event, we must conclude that the Government were satisfied with his work as he was complimented by the present Minister of Aviation and soon afterwards was promoted to be Minister in Berlin.

I mention those two black marks because they are the only ones which Mr. McDermott knows to have been recorded against him in a career of 26 years which seems to have been strikingly successful until he was prematurely and secretly retired. I mention them also to circumvent any hind-sight on the part of the Under-Secretary, for it is difficult to believe that those two black marks had been regarded as serious by the Foreign Office. Otherwise, if there had been doubts about Mr. McDermott's judgment, his initiative or his industry, presumably he would not have been appointed, in July, 1961, to one of the most dangerous and responsible posts in the service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to try to produce material before that date in order to denigrate Mr. McDermott.

Mr. McDermott was told of the decision to retire him in a letter dated 1st June and received at the beginning of his home leave. The letter was signed by Sir Francis Rundall, Chief Clerk in the Foreign Office, and alleged that Sir Christopher Steel, Ambassador in Bonn, and Major-General Sir Rohan Delacombe, Commandant in Berlin until his retirement in May, had complained of a lack of co-operation by Mr. McDermott. It was said that the Ambassador had complained six months earlier and General Delacombe more recently. The letter instructed Mr. MeDermott to withdraw from Berlin and said that there would be no further post for him in the Foreign Service.

Not unnaturally this came as a great shock to Mr. McDermott. He had said goodbye to General Delacombe on the General leaving Berlin and up to that time there had been no complaint whatever against him. However, this cordial leave-taking did not prevent the General from forthwith lodging a complaint against Mr. McDermott with the Head of the Foreign Office, Six Harold Caccia. Nor had Sir Christopher Steel, the Ambassador, complained to Mr. McDermott. Indeed, I would ask the House to note that a few days after General Delacombe's departure Sir Chirstopher Steel complimented Mr. McDermott on the way he had co-operated with the General and added, "The new Commandant will rely heavily upon you." Nevertheless, unless we are to question the accuracy of Sir Francis Rundall's letter, it was at about that time that Sir Christopher was following the General's example and was busy filing complaints against a man who believed the Ambassador and the General to be his friends.

One of the most remarkable features of this story is the fact that never were complaints made to Mr. McDermott face to face. Never once did Sir Harold Caccia ask Mr. McDermott to visit him to discuss the complaints made against him. The machinery to destroy Mr. McDermott was put formally into operation on 1st June. The instrument used was the Foreign Service Act, 1943, and the machinery ground on until 15th September, when Mr. McDermott was retired.

It was, however, clear that the Foreign Office was so determined to get rid of him that even in July, two months before the statutory proceedings had been completed, and while, in theory at least, Mr. McDermott was still entitled to eastablish his right to stay in the service, the Foreign Office was writing about what his pension rights would be "when"—not "if"—he was retired.

The procedure under the Act calls for three letters to be written at various stages giving the reasons why the accused man's services are no longer required. In the course of these three letters, the Foreign Office shifted its ground so much that I understand that it is difficult to believe that the first and third letters relate to the same case. Nevertheless, as one would expect, the Foreign Office had its way, and, indeed, such researches as I have been able to make have failed to reveal any case in which, once the Foreign Office has invoked the 1943 Act, the accused man escaped execution.

One's suspicions about the whole case are increased by the subsequent behaviour of the Foreign Office. At first, no announcement whatever was made. Then, on 23rd September, a Foreign Office spokesman said that Mr. McDermott's retirement was due to Mrs. McDermott's ill-health, coupled with the general situation in the Service for diplomats of her husband's grade. That explanation, of course, was very different from the first, given by Sir Francis Rundall. There was yet a third explanation given in the House on 25th October by the Under-Secretary of State, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), and this was the most snide and damaging explanation that could be given.

It said that the Foreign Secretary had retired Mr. McDermott under the Foreign Service Act, which, said the Under-Secretary— allows my noble Friend to terminate by retirement on pension the careers of officers who, though they may have been satisfactory in the early years of their service, lose the qualities of initiative and energy which are necessary if they are to hold positions of greater responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1962; Vol. 664, c. 207.] I can imagine no public statement calculated to do greater damage to Mr. McDermott in the outside world into which the Foreign Office were ejecting him. It is, moreover, hard for anybody who has met Mr. McDermott to believe that he is so lacking in initiative and energy as to be incapable of fulfilling the onerous duties of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in Ecuador or Ethiopia. I am driven to the conclusion that Mr. McDermott is the victim of an injustice which has not yet been satisfactorily explained by the various apologias that have come out of the Foreign Office.

I suspect that the real reason was that Mr. McDermott's experience in Berlin had led him to certain conclusions about the German problem which were as inconvenient to the present Government as were the conclusions of Herr Kroll, the German Ambassador in Moscow, to Dr. Adenauer. Mr. McDermott's views on the German situation were expressed in the Observer on 23rd September, and they can be summarised as follows.

Because our military position in Berlin is nonsense, and because the Red Army could occupy it within an hour, and because Mr. McDermott believes that Dr. Adenauer uses Berlin as a means of blackmailing (his allies, a rapid solution of the Berlin problem must be found. Such a solution, he says, must start from an agreement between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union that the reunification of Germany is their long-term aim, and that any agreement should be renewed after twenty years.

Under the agreement which Mr. McDermott suggests, the frontiers of Germany would be recognised as definitive, and the German Democratic Republic would be recognised as a separate State. So, too, would Berlin, which would then make agreements with any Powers she chose, except East and West Germany, to station their troops in reasonable numbers in the city. The four Powers would agree on guarantees for access for their representatives to Berlin, and some important United Nations agencies should be moved there. The three German States would become members of the United Nations and should be signatories to the agreements outlined above.

Those views will command wide support in this House and throughout the country. Their constructive quality makes Mr. McDermott's loss to the Foreign Service even more severe. I hope that the Under-Secretary today will be able to give a more satisfactory explanation than has yet been forthcoming of what I believe to be a serious injury to the Foreign Service as a whole and a grave injustice to an individual.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton) rose—

4.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas)

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not giving way but I know that he appreciates that this is a very important matter which requires a full and detailed reply from Her Majesty's Government and I have exactly a quarter of an hour in which to deal with it.

Mr. H. Wilson

The hon. Gentleman might allow me two minutes.

Mr. Thomas

The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) referred in his speech to a reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 25th October when I explained that Mr. McDermott was retired from the Foreign Service in September under the Foreign Service Act, 1943: which allows my noble Friend to terminate by retirement on pension the careers of officers who, though they may have been satisfactory in the early years of their service, lose the qualities of initiative and energy which are necessary if they are to hold positions of greater responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th October. 1962; Vol. 664, c. 207.] The hon. Member said that no public statement was more calculated to do damage to a person like Mr. McDermott. That was a true statement of the facts, and perhaps it might assist the House if I gave the background and the purpose of the 1943 Act under which members of the Foreign Service of the rank of Second Secretary and above, who have served over ten years, can be prematurely retired with pension—a provision which incidentally exists in this form for no other class of civil servant. The reasons for this provision are set out in the White Paper on the Reform of the Foreign Service which was published in 1943, and I should like—

Mr. H. Wilson

The House is perfectly capable of reading White Papers, debates in the House, and Acts of Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman leave the explanation, which he must assume is in fee minds of hon. Members, and tell us about the McDermott case?

Mr. Thomas

Certainly I will tell the House about the McDermott case but I should like to give the background and the reasons why people are retired under the 1943 Act, and I should like to give the true facts of the McDermott case and ask the House to judge those facts in relation to the Act.

The White Paper says: It is necessary to emphasise that, in the Foreign Service, a great measure of direct personal responsibility rests on senior officers, especially abroad. Experience has shown that some men, who are entirely satisfactory in the early years of their service, either do not fulfil their promise or lose the qualities of initiative and energy which are necessary if they are to hold positions of greater responsibility. It is therefore essential that the Foreign Secretary should be able to terminate, by retirement on pension, the careers of men who, though they may have been excellent subordinates, are unsuited to fill the highest posts. This practice has, in fact, been usual in the Armed Forces. It will be necessary to grant to such men, who will have given many of the best years of their lives to the public service, pensions sufficient to keep them from poverty and to mark the fact that no disgrace is implied by their retirement. Now today, the constant pressure on the Foreign Service is probably greater than it has ever been. There is nowhere in the Service where a relatively senior officer who has, so to speak, "run out of steam" or is no longer suited to the very exacting life in the Service today can be safely employed. At any moment any post in the world may become a world crisis centre—another Leopoldville or Vientiane. Since, therefore, there is nowhere that these officers can be safely put, and since it would be most unfair to ask them to leave Government service without reasonable pension, the 1943 Act allows my noble Friend to retire them on pension. I felt that I should give that brief background. The right hon. Gentleman may know it, but a lot of people do not.

I turn from that background to give some account of Mr. McDermott's career and of the reasons why his retirement under the Act was considered necessary. I fear that I shall have to do this in somewhat greater detail than I should normally wish. Retirement under the 1943 Act is not intended to carry with it any stigma. The majority of those who retire under it have not only rendered good service but are in every way worthy and meritorious officers who are being retired simply because, for reasons beyond their own power, they do not have the qualities needed in the highest posts in the Foreign Service. In cases like these, it seems not only right but requisite that a proper reticence should be preserved.

In Mr. McDermott's case, however, there have, unfortunately, been so many inaccurate and misleading reports that I have no alternative, if I am to put the record straight, but to make a clear statement in some detail about why my noble Friend decided that Mr. McDermott should not be retained in the Service.

It will be seen from what I have to say that Mr. McDermott was one of a minority who have to be retired because, although they have done nothing wrong which would merit dismissal without pension, they have done less well than it is felt they could have done. Mr. McDermott was described by the hon. Gentleman as being an able man. That is true. He was a scholar of Marlborough and a senior scholar of King's College, Cambridge, where he took a first class honours degree. He joined the diplomatic service in 1935 and has since served at a variety of posts.

During his service, Mr. McDermott showed that he was undoubtedly capable and that he could do very well when he wanted to. For example, he gave good service in the Southern Department of the Foreign Office before the war, and, later, in Chile. Later still, he did well in highly responsible posts in the Foreign Office, first as head of the Permanent Under-Secretary's Department, secondly as Minister employed in the Foreign Office. He was made a C.M.G. in 1957. Nevertheless, those for whom he worked reported over the years a recurrent tendency on his part to do less work than he might. This was reported of him in respect of his work in the 1940s in Ankara, in the Foreign Office and in Cairo. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two specific points.

Mr. H. Wilson

Was he told?

Mr. Thomas

Yes. If the right hon. Gentleman will wait, I will tell him.

Mr. McDermott was, therefore, given in 1946 a serious warning in writing that, unless he took immediate steps to check his tendency to shirk work, the habit would grow on him and he would become of diminishing use to the Service. The next year, however, he was reported as still not pulling his weight in Cairo. The then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, directed that he should be given another warning, and remarked, "We really cannot carry passengers." Mr. McDermott was, therefore, warned again in December, 1947, of the possibility of retirement under the provisions of the 1943 Act, and he was put on a form of probation for three months at Mr. Bevin's direction.

After this, his work improved. He went on to do the satisfactory work in the Foreign Office of which I have spoken earlier. Ten years later—this is the answer to the hon. Gentleman—after an inspection of Mr. McDermott's post in Cyprus shortly after his departure for Berlin, it was again evident that he had not done his full share of the work in Cyprus where he had been head of the Political Office with the Middle East Forces.

It was later reported from Bonn that his relations with the senior military staff in Berlin were not good. Six months later it was reported from Berlin that Mr. McDermott was not doing his fair share of the work there and in consequence an unfair load was being placed on his subordinates.

Mr. Greenwood

Were these complaints ever made to Mr. McDermott? For instance, when he visited Berlin, did the hon. Gentleman himself tell Mr. McDermott that there was this feeling about his work?

Mr. Thomas

No; I did not know when I visited Berlin.

Mr. H. Wilson

Did he know?

Mr. Thomas

I did not know. In the letter which went from Sir Francis Rundall to Mr. McDermott, parts of which the hon. Gentleman paraphrased, these complaints were put in greater detail than the hon. Gentleman gave. Consequently, when these complaints were received, it was concluded that his usefulness in Berlin was at an end and he was withdrawn from the post.

Foreign Service officers, obviously, need to be able and industrious and capable of establishing relations of confidence with those with whom they have to work. Mr. McDermott's ability was not in question, but, on the other two grounds, he was far from satisfactory, despite repeated warnings during his career. The load on the Foreign Service is very heavy. A vast amount of work, most of it urgent, has to be got through. If one man rests on his oars his colleagues have additional strain thrown on them. In today's conditions, this will not do.

It was therefore the unanimous decision of the Foreign Office Senior Promotions Board, which consists, as the right hon. Member for Huyton knows, of all the Ministers in the Foreign Office with the exception of the Secretary of State—because it is an advisory board to the Secretary of State—and all the official Under-Secretaries in the Foreign Office, to recommend that Mr. McDermott should not be given another post and should be retired under the 1943 Act.

Mr. H. Wilson

When this decision was taken by the Board, had Mr. McDermott been acquainted with the charges against him? Was he given a chance to reply to the charges in writing or to appear before the Board?

Mr. Thomas

I know that it has been suggested in many quarters, and I presume that it is being suggested today, that he was not given an adequate opportunity to put his side of the case to those responsible in the Foreign Office. That is not so.

The procedure for the retirement of an officer under the 1943 Act is an elaborate one designed to ensure that there is no possibility of an officer being victimised or unfairly treated. He has the full opportunity of making his case either in person or on paper as he may wish. Under this procedure, Mr. McDermott was sent on 7th June the memorandum about his retirement which was laid before the Promotions Board and he was invited to comment in writing or to appear before a sub-committee of the Board. He decided not to appear in person, but he commented in writing. His comments were circulated to all members of the Board and were taken fully into account.

He said in a letter to the Foreign Office of 19th June that, provided full consideration was given by the Promotions Board to his written representations and that he was informed of the result, he was ready to retire under the 1943 Act. He also agreed to a suggestion made by the Foreign Office that in winding up his affairs in Berlin he might, if he wished to save himself embarrassment, explain that the state of his wife's health necessitated his withdrawal from the post. I believe she had, in fact, not been well.

Mr. McDermott was sent a copy of a revised memorandum about his retirement on 2nd August. His case was then considered by the Retirement Board, which consisted of three distinguished persons outside the Foreign Office. This is not an appellate body. Its task is to review every case to establish beyond doubt that each case has been fully and fairly examined, that all the evidence which should have been examined has been taken into consideration and that no factor has influenced the decision of the Promotions Board which was not an appropriate one for the Board to take into account.

The Retirement Board had no comment to make on this case. My noble Friend approved the recommendation of the Promotions Board and Mr. McDermott was retired on pension with effect from 15th September.

I should like to deal with the matter of Berlin which the hon. Gentleman raised. After Mr. McDermott was retired there followed the publication of an article on Berlin by him in the Observer on 23rd September. The head- line suggested that Mr. McDermott had been retired by the Foreign Office as a result of a disagreement over the conduct of official policy". This statement is totally untrue. There was and is no foundation for the suggestion that Mr. McDermott's retirement had anything to do with disagreement over policy on Berlin or over the recognition of East Germany.

The Foreign Office had been given no hint that Mr. McDermott held the views on the future of Berlin expressed in the article in the Observer or disagreed in any fundamental way with official policy. Moreover, if he had expressed such views to the Foreign Office, these coming from a subordinate officer, would not have been an occasion for his retirement. As the House will appreciate, he held no independent political status as Minister in Berlin. As Minister and Deputy-Commandant, he was subordinate to the General Officer Commanding.

The facts which I have given are the reasons why this officer was retired. The Foreign Service regrets having had to part company with a man who could clearly have done valuable work in posts of higher responsibility if he had been willing to shoulder his fair share of the burden and had been able to establish good relations with those with whom he had to work. We remain grateful for the work which he did in certain jobs and for which he deserves our credit. I fear, however, that on the facts of the case, my noble Friend had no choice in making his decision.

Having known Mr. McDermott, it is with real regret that I have had to make public the grounds on which he was retired, but the raising of this question by the hon. Member for Rossendale, added to the reports which have appeared in the Press, have left me with no alternative.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

I sympathise with the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He was obviously embarrassed at having to put such a thin case before the House. It was one of the thinnest I have ever heard, and I want to put these questions. After all the claptrap that we had from the hon. Gentleman about complaints in the 1940s, and so on, why, if this was true, was Mr. McDermott promoted twice since, including the unusual promotion to the rank of Minister at the age of 43? The hon. Gentleman has not explained this.

Secondly, if all that was true, why was Mr. McDermott sent to such a notorious hot-spot as Berlin? If he was being considered for retirement because of all this long history which the hon. Gentleman has scratched up out of the archives, why send him to Berlin? The Joint Under-Secretary must know that Berlin is one of the most vital places in the world to have one of our best people.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that none of the complaints that were made about Mr. McDermott when he was in Berlin were ever made to Mr. McDermott? This is a serious point. If these complaints came either from the military or from our Ambassador in Bonn, why was he not told? Elementary justice demands it.

There is, however, something much more sinister about this and we will get an explanation, either today or at some other time, from the hon. Gentleman. Why were not the charges properly stated to Mr. McDermott? It is all very well to say that he had the right of appearing, but there was a hopeless muddle about this procedure. I have been into this as thoroughly as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood). The decision was taken. Mr. McDermott received a letter on 7th June telling him that the decision had in principle been taken and that he could make retrospective observation about it afterwards.

That is not justice. The House of Commons is concerned with justice. I am not concerned with whether Mr. McDermott was an efficient officer. I assume that he was, or he would not have been sent to Berlin or have been promoted just before. What chance had he of giving a proper defence? The Joint Under-Secretary knows that he has misrepresented the facts, because when Mr. McDermott mentioned the case of his wife's health, he mentioned it as the reason for leaving Berlin and not for leaving the Foreign Service.

In a week in Which there has been an orgy of White Papers, in view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply today, I must ask him to ask his noble Friend to present a White Paper giving all the exchanges and complaints, the dates when they were made by the General and by the Ambassador and the dates when the complaints were intimated, formally and informally, to Mr. McDermott.

I hope that we will get a clear answer. There is no time for it to be given today. The Joint Under-Secretary moist inform his noble Friend that this House is not satisfied with the explanation which has been given and cannot agree either that justice has been done or has been seen to be done. We want a full White Paper, because the Opposition will certainly return to the subject.

Mr. Thomas

The remarks about the White Paper will be noted by my noble Friend, but as to the reason—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.