HC Deb 19 November 1963 vol 684 cc801-8
Q3. Mr. Wigg

asked the Prime Minister to which Minister Questions about security should now be addressed.

Q6. Mr. W. Hamilton

asked the Prime Minister if he will now state the position as to Ministerial responsibility for the security service; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that all concerned are aware of the method and means of control.

The Prime Minister

The present arrangements for Ministerial responsibility for the security service are described in detail in Lord Denning's Report. I think all concerned are already aware of the arrangements in force but I have thought it desirable to give a formal direction so as to make sure of this.

In accordance with the present arrangements Questions about security should in general be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, although, of course, all Ministers retain responsibility for security matters within their own Departments.

Mr. Wigg

Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that there is a division here between what is normally regarded as Departmental responsibility and the overall question of security? If that is so, as that statement is a reversal of policy, would he be good enough to follow the example of Lord Denning and circulate the new directive in the Official Report? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman sure that in the interests of all concerned this directive is understood at all levels, and is he satisfied that it will be carried out?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. The whole purpose of the directive was to make sure that it would be understood at all levels. I can give the hon. Member that assurance. He suggests that there has been a change in policy since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) made the position clear. I must point out that there has been no change since then.

Mr. Hamilton

First, how can the right hon. Gentleman explain the absence of the Home Secretary from the notorious meeting of the five Ministers? Further, how does he explain the repeated acknowledgement of the former Prime Minister that he was responsible for security matters? That was repeatedly said at the Dispatch Box by the former Prime Minister. Will not the Prime Minister concede, further, as we on this side of the House distrust the Home Secretary even more than we distrust the right hon. Gentleman, that in view of the added responsibilities of the Home Secretary for police matters as indicated in the Police Bill, he himself should now revert to responsibility for security matters?

The Prime Minister

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will trust me, but if he does not, I shall not lose very much sleep, I must confess. Perhaps I may be allowed to make this clear, because it is a serious subject and I was asked a serious question by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I would make it clear that the Home Secretary is responsible for the organisation of the security services. If in this House there should be a wide-ranging Question which I think brings the Prime Minister into the matter, I would then, of course, answer it.

Mr. H. Wilson

While we shall no doubt be having an opportunity to debate these security questions very soon, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the arrangements which he has described were clearly not known either to the security services or, at any rate, to the five Ministers? On the position for the future, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a significant change here if Questions have tobe put down to the Home Secretary? Can he tell us how many Questions on security the Home Secretary has accepted since 1961? [Interruption.] They have all been put down to the Prime Minister and accepted by the Prime Minister. So will the right hon. Gentleman tell us—because this is a serious matter in his eyes and in ours, if not in the eyes of his hon. Friends—whether this means that he is now giving up his own very special responsibility for the direct supervision of the security services?

The Prime Minister

As far as a debate is concerned, that is a matter which no doubt we could discuss through the usual channels, but before we have it, I would rather value some conversation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on certain aspects of security. As far as the responsibility of the Home Secretary is concerned, I think it might be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman if I read to him what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley said.

Mr. Wilson

We know what he said.

The Prime Minister

If the right hon. Gentleman knows what my right hon. Friend said, it must be quite clear to him that there is no change compared with that time. I would simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as Questions in this House are concerned, I would always like to see them on the Order Paper first. If they deal with the organisation of the security services, their discipline, pay and so on, they ought to go down to the Home Secretary, but, as I have already said, if a Question ranges more widely and is concerned with the security of the State and brings in the Prime Minister, it would be my duty to answer it.

Mr. Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman seems a little clearer about this than he was. His first statement said that the Questions should be put down to the Home Secretary. [Hon. Members: "No."] Hon. Members opposite will be able to read it in the Official Report tomorrow. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are all familiar with the famous passage to which he has referred, and that some of us drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) to that passage at the time of recent debates? But we are still not clear about one thing from the right hon. Gentleman. I am putting this question to him, and I hope we shall get a straight answer, if we are allowed to without interruptions from his hon. Friends. The question that we are putting is not about that statement in 1961 dealing with pay, rations and organisation, but about Ministerialresponsibility. Are the kinds of Question that the right hon. Member for Bromley accepted and answered to be answered in future by the Prime Minister exactly as before, or has the right hon. Gentleman been telling us that there is a big change in the system?

The Prime Minister

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is really mistaken. This is why I should like to have a talk with him about it—[Interruption.]—because these are matters of importance, as the right hon. Gentleman has properly said, and they must be understood. It is clear that there is a great deal that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman is, for instance, wrong in saying that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Bromley in 1961 dealt simply with pay and rations. It dealt with the whole question of the organisation for which the Home Secretary is responsible. As far as Questions are concerned and how they should be taken, either by the Home Secretary or by myself, I should like to see the Question on the Order Paper before deciding. But I do not shirk, and will in no way shirk, a Question which deals with the security of the State.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Albu.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was impossible because of the noise on the other side of the House to ascertain whether the Prime Minister was quoting from the directive which he says he has now given. I asked him whether he would publish that directive, and I am not sure whether he answered or not. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman was quoting it, under our rules of order, he is required to lay the paper. [Interruption.] I am, however, quite prepared to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was not quoting it. In that case, would he try to teach his hon. Friends—[Interruption.] If I have misunderstood what has happened, it is because I did not hear, in which case I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will plead with his supporters, if not in the interests of good manners, at least in the interests of allowing hon. Members to hear replies given to them.

Mr. Speaker

I could rule on the point of order were I able to discover what it was.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put down to the Prime Minister—

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There are two hon. Gentlemen addressing me on points of order at the moment. Mr. Hale.

Mr. Hale

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Iput a Question to the Prime Minister on the question of espionage. I received notice that it had been transferred not to the putative father of the espionage service—known as the Home Secretary—but to the Foreign Secretary. It was transferred to the Foreign Secretary for today—a day on which he does not answer Questions.

So, notwithstanding that it was the end of the salmon season, I went along the corridor and had my Question transferred to yesterday, a day on which the Foreign Secretary answers Questions, although he has no responsibility for espionage. Owing to the volubility of the Foreign Secretary yesterday it was not reached, but I was able to receive in the post today from him the Answer, "Sorry, no". I regard the word "sorry" as placative and a kindly word to me, because the right hon. Gentleman would usually have said simply "No".

Is it not reasonable that hon. Members should have some way of finding out who are responsible, why they are responsible and what they will do about their responsibilities? As the Prime Minister has transferred 90 per cent, of the Questions put down to him, and at the moment appears to be responsible only for questions about partridge shooting, may we have some answer as to the responsibilities of Ministers?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will remember that, much as I should like to assist him, I cannot, on behalf of the Chair, undertake any responsibility for the transfer of Questions. I have had to explain this to the House before. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was also rising to a pointof order.

Mr. Wigg

I am sorry that you did not understand my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apparently I failed to make myself clear, since I put the same point to you in reference to Mr. Profumo and you understood it then. If a right hon. or hon. Gentleman—particularly a right hon. Gentleman—quotes from a document, he is required to lay that paper. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would publish in the Official Report the new directive he was giving. It was impossible to hear the right hon. Gentleman's answer but he certainly referred to the directive. If he quoted from it, he should lay it. I apologise in advance to the right hon. Gentleman if I did not hear, but that was not my fault. It was the fault of the rabble behind him.

Mr. Speaker

I do not wish to continue any form of misunderstanding. If the hon. Member for Dudley is referring to our rule relating to the obligation to lay, I think that the House knows what that is. I quoted it the other day during the course of the debate on the Address. I would not commit myself to personal recollection of what the Prime Minister said, but we shall be able to read it and I am sure that the rule of the House will be followed.

Dame Irene Ward

On a point of order. Is it not within the rules of order for you to direct that matters of national security are better discussed in private than in public?

Mr. Speaker

I would advise the hon. Lady to study further the contents of the rules of order. Mr. Albu. Question No. 4.

Mr. Albu rose

—

The Prime Minister

Perhaps I may be allowed to satisfy the hon. Member for Dudley. I did not quote from a directive. The only thing I quoted was an Answer made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) to a question.

Several Hon. Members rose

—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must get on to Question No. 4. This situation is not fair to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) whom I have called several times. Mr. Albu. Question No. 4.

Mr. Albu rose

—

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked whether it was permissible to raise matters of security across the Floor of the House. The Prime Minister was very quick to quote from the directive contained in the Denning Report. Why cannot we have the full story?

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is desirable that we should not occupy further time on this. In terms which, I hope, were not discourteous, I indicated to the hon. Lady that what she had said was not a point of order at all. I hope that we shall not continue with this. Mr. Albu Question No. 4.