HC Deb 21 June 1963 vol 679 cc801-10
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

Since the debate on Monday, I have considered, as promised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the form of a further inquiry into the security implications of the events leading to Mr. Profumo's resignation.

I think that it is generally agreed that there should be an investigation in the light of this case into the operation of the Security Service and their relationship with the police in connection with matters of national security.

The Government intend to establish an inquiry for this purpose. But before I describe it there are certain other questions which I must now bring to the attention of the House.

It will be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that in connection with the recent episode, rumours are circulating which affect the honour and integrity of public life in this country and, if they were true, might point to a security risk. Such a situation cannot be tolerated. I have, therefore, decided that the public interest requires us to establish a judicial inquiry.

Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, has agreed to conduct this inquiry and to render his report to me as soon as possible. His terms of reference will be as follows: To examine, in the light of the circumstances leading to the resignation of the former Secretary of State for War, Mr. J. D. Profumo, the operation of the Security Service and the adequacy of their co-operation with the Police in matters of security; to investigate any information or material which may come to his attention in this connection and to consider any evidence there may be for believing that national security has been, or may be, endangered; and to report thereon. In the course of the discussion with the Leader of the Opposition I have explained to him the reasons for which the Government believe that, in the circumstances with which we are now confronted, this inquiry should be of a judicial character and should cover a wider field.

When I receive the report I will discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman. The Government will then decide the form in which it should be published, whether in whole or in part.

Mr. H. Wilson

The procedure which has been announced by the Government—I think, on a Cabinet decision—is totally inadequate to allay public anxiety and the impression will persist that the Government are engaged in a bigger and vaster cover-up even than we have had.

Is the Prime Minister aware, first, that the terms of reference are far too narrow to deal with the situation? Is he also aware that the judge, however distinguished, will have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, or to require the production of papers and other evidence? He will have no power to examine on oath, or to compel truth—and is the Prime Minister aware that in this case some of the evidence required will be collected from some of the most unmitigated liars in the country?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to the question of security, there is the whole question of the affront to this House? The House was manifestly not satisfied by the answers we got to the questions about the secret meeting downstairs in March or about the general Government responsibility for this question. This can only be settled by the House of Commons and not by a judge, however distinguished and however learned.

When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the rumours, is he aware that these cannot be dissipated and the men concerned enabled to clear their names, as they have every right to do, from some of these rumours, which not only are circulating in this country, but are being openly printed, with names, in many foreign journals from France, Germany and other countries, to the detriment of the name of this country abroad?

Is the Prime Minister aware in that context that the question of what he rightly called the integrity of public life goes far beyond an inquiry limited to security? Is he aware that we would have accepted, if he had proposed it, a tribunal? We did not think that it was the ideal solution. We proposed a Select Committee of this House.

In view of the feeling, which is very widespread in the country and in this House, on more than one side, that there has been over the months an attitude to this whole question more related to preventing the facts coming out than to ensuring that they do, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is creating the impression that whereas, last November, he almost fell over himself to set up a tribunal when he thought that he had the Press by the throat, when it is now the Government, and the whole Government, who are causing public anxiety he is running away from the idea of setting up anything that will establish the truth?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be addressing himself to this subject in a somewhat different mood from that which he showed in Monday's debate. He is now purely generating a party attack. I will answer his questions.

A tribunal under the 1921 Act: that is open to us. We, my colleagues and I, considered it seriously. It has this great disadvantage that was shown up in the last and the Bank Rate Tribunal, that although the judge can sit in private he can only do so if there is what one might call absolute security—a question affecting security in its more technical sense; and that means day after day all kinds of statements being made, all kinds of assertions being made, which are highly damaging and terribly hard upon innocent people, and which perhaps, after six weeks or two months, are waved aside in the report—but all the damage has been done. I thought that that was the general view of the House and of the country.

I then suggested the procedure in that debate we had on the Lord Radcliffe Report, which we had on the Vassall case, which I followed. First, there was no question of the Privy Council—I think that there is some misunderstanding—holding an inquiry, but discussion among Privy Councillors as to what was the best procedure to follow. That we have had. We had two meetings yesterday. I reported our decision. We did not agree. That is the argument against the tribunal at the start.

Of course, it may be that Lord Denning will have to report that he is unable to get the evidence he wants. Then the House will have to consider whether to clothe him with further powers, so that he becomes, in effect, a tribunal. That has not been the experience of the cases which have been investigated by this machinery. I doubt whether that will apply. Let us see.

Then there was the question of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and that is certainly a possible procedure. But it is one open to the kind of things which, I fear, are going to come to Lord Denning affecting men in many walks of life. I think that it would be terrible if 24 men, even if kept secret to the end, however much we trust our colleagues to try to deal with that aspect—[Hon. Members: "Shame."] I do not think that hon. Members quite realise some of the things which may be said. There is nothing to prevent, in the form of these trials which we have to face, any statements from being made about any public man of any kind, whether a politician or not, and with no power to refute them at all under the legal procedure.

Mr. Marsh

All whitewash.

The Prime Minister

On the Select Committee, it has had, of course, the disadvantage in the past that they very often have to divide on a party basis. But with regard to the question the right hon. Gentleman raised on the conduct of Ministers in their Ministerial capacity, my handling of the affair, that is a matter for the House of Commons. We debated it on Monday. If he wishes to debate it again there can be a debate, but the House of Commons is the place to debate it, not a Select Committee.

Mr. H. Wilson

What is the point of debating these things when the Prime Minister himself will not answer questions put to him, as he failed to do on Monday? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the anxieties which I stated a few minutes ago are anxieties felt all over the country, in all parties, and in all parties in this House. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as I have indicated to him, that we share some of his anxieties about the tribunal? But only the tribunal or a Select Committee have power to compel witnesses to answer questions; and Lord Denning will not have that power.

I want to put one final question to the right hon. Gentleman and then as far as I am concerned I shall leave it. I ask him to weigh the words of his answer carefully. Last Monday, I asked him a question which he did not answer. I asked him whether he was satisfied that we had had a full disclosure of this business so far as the Government were concerned, or whether we had had only that part of the iceberg which was above the surface of the water. Will he now stand up and tell the House that as a result of his inquiries—because he is responsible, and the Government as a whole are responsible, for the conduct of public affairs—he is satisfied that we have heard—

Sir K. Pickthorn

This is a speech not a question.

Mr. Wilson

—the whole story of this matter?

Sir K. Pickthorn

I quite understand the unusual—[Hon. Members: "Sit down."] I am raising a point of order.

Hon. Members

Then say so.

Mr. Speir

It is obvious.

Sir K. Pickthorn

I quite understand the unusual nature of this occasion and I very much regret having to speak, but it does seem to me that whatever may be said about anything which has happened hitherto this particular question, whether or not it would be to the advantage of the public, of the country, of the House, or either side of the House, cannot possibly be anything like a question supplementary to the statement.

Mr. Marsh

Covering up.

Mr. Speaker

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), as always, with the greatest care. On this occasion, extra ordinarily, I do not wholly agree with him, just on the merits of the proposition.

The Prime Minister

On the question which the right hon. Gentleman has asked me, I do not quite know what he means by top of the iceberg, or what lies below. We have investigated so far as lies within our present power, and I told the House on Monday the whole story from beginning to end with every detail, so far as I know it. I am happy to think that, however strongly people may feel, they acquit me of any dishonour, acquit me of any injustice, but perhaps, as they have every right to do, condemn, or wish to criticise, my efficiency in handling all these matters.

But the question the right hon. Gentleman asked me is a matter of honour. I know of no thing which I have not told the House, but I have heard these terrible things being said about all sorts of people which, if allowed to go on, will destroy not only one side of the House of Commons, but the other side of the House of Commons. I do not know whether they are strictly security or not; it is difficult to say, because if people are said to be behaving in a terrible way it is a security risk, in a sense, in the modern world.

I think that the course of sending for Lord Denning and asking anyone who feels himself aggrieved to ask for an inquiry into the rumours about him, apart from the technical side, is the best and, indeed, the only efficient way of getting the matter handled.

Mr. Shinwell

On the question about the terms of reference, which include, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, the relations between the security organisation and the police, ought not the terms of reference to include also relations between the security personnel and organisation and the right hon. Gentleman himself? He will recall that in the course of the debate on Monday last he referred to the fact—apparently it is a fact—that he was not informed by the security people about certain events. Ought not that item to be included in the terms of reference?

The Prime Minister

I think that they do cover it. They say "operation of the Security Service"; that is to say, the whole operation throughout the affair.

Mr. Doughty

Is the Prime Minister aware that the very distinguished judge who has been appointed will give great confidence to the whole of the rest of the country? If in any way he feels that he lacks power, then the House at any time can grant powers to him, and I am certain that on both sides of the House we shall be pleased to do so.—[Hon. Members: "Give them now."] The result of this tribunal will be to see not only that justice is done, but, what is more important, that justice will be seen to be done.

If a Select Committee of this House is appointed—and I am not criticising any hon. Member from any part of the House who might sit on it, for we all have party affiliations—and someone issues a minority report, it is open to the criticism, however unjust, that the decision is given on party lines and not on the facts and the merits or the demerits of any particular case.

The wide terms of reference of the tribunal cover almost every aspect not only of this matter, but the most unpleasant rumours—which, I hope, are quite wrong—which are circulating about Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. D. Foot

May I, first, ask the right hon. Gentleman why Lord Denning should not be qualified at the outset with the power to summon witnesses and to call for documents and other evidence? Secondly, may I ask whether it is contemplated that the evidence itself, apart from the report this morning, will eventually be published if Lord Denning thinks fit? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman say how and by whom the evidence will be presented to the tribunal?

The Prime Minister

I think that I have covered the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. As to the second part, it will be a matter for consideration, of course, by Lord Denning. Even there, I think that, when he has taken note of how he should proceed, we would rely on him to suggest how he can best conduct this matter to its conclusion.

Mr. W. Yates

While I welcome Lord Denning to this appointment, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the principles of the Conservative Party do not permit the debasing of public or political morality in this country, nor do they permit anything to be done which would attempt to deceive the electorate or the party as a whole for the sake of holding and maintaining personal power?

The Prime Minister

The principle of the Conservative Party, as I understand it, and, I hope, of every party in this House, is that honourable men should be condemned not by rumours—something which I have never accepted—but only by fact.

Mr. Thorpe

May I, first, refer to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman relating to the terms of reference? Is the Prime Minister aware that the investigation, to quote the terms of reference, is into: …the operation of the Security Service and the adequacy of their relationship with the Police?… The relationship with the Government is, therefore, by implication excluded. Are we not, therefore, faced with the situation that half the problem here is not merely the efficiency of the security service, but the efficiency and competence of the Government in relationship with the security service?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two minor questions of detail? First, are we to take it that the Law Officers will be presenting the evidence before Lord Denning. If so, will he bear in mind that these are two Ministers who proved as gullible as any in the matter? Secondly, will privilege attach to the witnesses giving evidence before Lord Denning?

The Prime Minister

In regard to the first point, I think that—quite unintentionally, I am certain—the hon. Gentleman has misread and misstated the terms of reference. The first part of the terms of reference is: …in the light of the circumstances…the operation of the Security Service… That is part one. That will include the relationship of the security service with the Government, with the Home Secretary, under whom it is officially, and with me, under whom it is on the whole. The second part is: …and the adequacy of their co-operation with the Police…". That is the second item. I think that covers the whole of it.

The other question is the matter of the witnesses. While they will, of course, have what I believe is called "qualified"—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] They will be protected from any action unless they are totally malicious, but I am bound to say that that is the most that could normally be expected. They will not be attacked by the Crown, and in any action taken by a private person against them, it must be proved not only that they were wrong, but that they were maliciously wrong.

Mr. Emery

May I ask my right hon. Friend—I think that it was clear in his statement, but I ask this so that there shall be absolutely no misunderstanding and so that everybody may be certain about this—whether, if this respected judge should feel at the beginning of his inquiries that he has not the powers to conduct this inquiry as he sees fit, the Government would immediately give him these powers at the outset?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. Of course, Lord Denning has been told, in what short time we have had, of the general position and has studied it, and what is involved and what would probably be the sort of things that he will have to do. It has been made quite clear that if he wishes, if he thinks he cannot conduct the inquiry without the full tribunal procedure, he can ask for it and the House can pass such a Resolution.

The difficulty about it is that under the tribunal procedure the judge of a tribunal cannot sit in private unless a matter of security is concerned, and I think that is often interpreted to mean security in its rather narrow sense. Yet I think that everybody would agree that it would be quite wrong to have some of the things which he would be investigating day by day—statements, or com- plaints, or rumours—referred to and to have to wait perhaps several weeks before they could be refuted. That is one of the difficulties. But if Lord Denning finds that he cannot operate without the powers, he will, of course, tell us.

Mr. A. Henderson

May I clarify one point? Are we to understand that the statements which will be made to Lord Denning will be made on oath?

The Prime Minister

I imagine that Lord Denning cannot demand that they should be made on oath, but I think that they can be made on oath. I imagine that there are really three categories of statement. There will be information from the police and the security service which has come to light as a result of these recent events. There will be the statements of Ministers and other people—anybody else—whom I shall inform, against whom, in the course of these inquiries, accusations have been made. There may also be complaints about rumours circulating in regard to them outside.

I do not doubt at all that a judge of this capacity and experience will be able to find the truth, or that, with his high character, if he finds himself prevented in any way, he will immediately inform me and the House of his difficulty.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

All this is at the expense of private Members, whose interests have to be in my care. We cannot take this matter further now.

Back to