HC Deb 22 July 1965 vol 716 cc1844-50
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Report of the Security Commission about the Bossard and Allen cases. Copies of the Report will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.

I should like, first, to say that the Government are grateful to Lord Justice Winn and his two colleagues for the time and care which they have devoted to carrying out a most thorough inquiry. The House will also wish to endorse the tributes paid to the Security Service on the high degree of professional skill shown in the process by which the offenders were detected.

Certain specific references in the original Report have been omitted or amended in the published text in the interest of security. These amendments have been made in consultation with Lord Justice Winn, and also with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who, in accordance with precedent, has been shown both the full and the published version of the Report. The amendments made are few in number and do not affect the substance of the Report or its conclusions.

It is the responsibility of the Security Commission, when so requested by the Prime Minister, to investigate the circumstances in which a breach of security is known to have occurred in the public service and to advise whether any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable; and in this report the Commission has suggested a number of possible changes. Some of its proposals have already been accepted and acted on. The others are being considered. As the Commission itself recognises, some of them involve difficult considerations of principle.

As hon. Members have not yet had an opportunity of reading the Report, I do not propose to comment on it in detail, but I should tell the House that the Commission has referred to the actions of individual civil servants and members of the Armed Forces, and its comments raise the question whether these individuals may have committed some offence against discipline.

I have, therefore, decided that the actions of the serving officers concerned, who are subject to the Army Act, should be referred to the Army Board for investigation and decision as to whether the facts show a prima facie case for disciplinary action under that Act. In the case of the civil servants concerned, I have decided to appoint a board of inquiry to examine the facts and to assess the nature and gravity of any neglect of duty which may have occurred in order to assist in deciding whether disciplinary action is required. The individual civil servants who will appear before the board may be appropriately represented if they so wish. The members of this board will not be serving civil servants.

In this connection, I would remind the House that in my statement on 10th May I explained that the original concept of the Commission, which was announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 23rd January, 1964, after consultation with me, was defective because the Commission could not begin its operations in a case which involved court action resulting from a breach of security until the case had been concluded. In the present cases we overcame this difficulty by asking a small committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Laurence Helsby, to carry out a preliminary, confidential inquiry. The Security Commission, in its report, paid tribute to the usefulness to them of the work of this inquiry and acknowledged that valuable steps were thus able to be at once taken whilst the prosecutions were pending. For the future, the procedure has been altered so that a reference can be made to the Security Commission as soon as the Government are satisfied or have good reason to think that a breach of security has occurred in the public service.

The Report of the Commission on this occasion has, however, now pointed to the further problem which arises where individual civil servants or serving officers may be held by the Commission to have been at fault. The remedy we have adopted this time is, as I have said, to institute further investigations specifically directed to the acts of the individuals concerned and during which they may be advised and represented. It may be that some other procedure would serve better in future and this is a matter which must be considered in due course.

One last point—and I apologise for the length of this statement, Mr. Speaker. The investigation on this occasion—the first on which the Security Commission has operated—has put a heavy burden on the three members of the Commission. I hope that we shall not often need to ask the Commission to act, and there is at this time no case pending which would suggest that it will have to be activated again in the near future. Nevertheless, Lord Justice Winn and his colleagues have suggested that it would be prudent to enlarge the membership of the Commission, and with the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I propose to accept this suggestion. On any future occasion when a reference is made to the Commission, it will still be the practice for three members to sit, but they will be drawn from a larger total. I shall announce the additional names as soon as I can.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I certainly agree with the excisions which have been made from the Report in the interests of security. The Report is, of course, concerned with events which took place some time ago and with the actions which civil servants and others took in a very different situation from that in which we are living now. It is very important, I think, that there should be no injustice done in these cases to these people, and, therefore, I think that the procedures which the Prime Minister is adopting to try to help in these particular cases are wise, and I certainly endorse them.

The Prime Minister

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I think that it is a matter that worries all of us; and I think that I can speak for the right hon. Gentleman here. When one has an inquiry of this kind and individuals are named and the names are published in the report, it raises some very difficult questions which might affect the efficiency of the service and the willingness of people to embark on security work if they are to be pilloried in this way. This is, I think, an appropriate question to consider through the Commission and not otherwise.

Mr. Grimond

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable, as far as possible, to avoid individuals having the threat of various types of proceeding hanging over their heads? As I understand his statement, there is no question of any criminal proceedings against the individuals to whom he has referred. He was careful to say that there was only some question of an offence against discipline. Can he confirm that there is no question of criminal proceedings?

The Prime Minister

Certainly, Sir; there is no question of that at all. Mr. Macmillan always used to say from this Box that in a free and democratic country one has always to find where the balance lies between security and the liberty of the individual, including individual civil servants, and this point is raised in some of the recommendations on practice which are made by this Security Commission. One has to know where to draw the line. One takes a risk whichever side one draws it.

On the question of the civil servants and serving officers concerned, again, there is the problem that no one wants to be accused of sheltering anyone who may have slipped up in doing his job where that has led to a possible breach of security or enabled a breach of security to go undetected. On the other hand, it may be thought by the House to be a little heavy that their names should permanently carry some kind of slur. That is why we have set up an inquiry, so that they can justify themselves and truth can be found. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is in question here except whether they pursued their duties with sufficient zeal.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

As previous Conservative Governments spent over £50 million on so-called security and the cost of the Security Service has gone up from £4 million to £9 million, is it not time for an inquiry to be set up to see whether the nation gets value for its money?

The Prime Minister

I hope that when my hon. Friend reads the Report he will note the very strong tribute paid by the Security Commission to the work of the Security Service. That view is shared by anyone who has studied the detailed operations in these two cases and in the others which have been the subject of inquiry.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

It is difficult to follow the Prime Minister's statement without having the Commission's Report before us, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one point concerning the question of distinction between serving officers and civil servants in one of the Ministries. I think that the House wants to feel assured that equal justice will be done to both types of servants of the Crown. It could be a problem. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it will be looked at, but it is important for justice inside the Service Departments that both civil servants and serving officers should feel that they are having equal fairness of treatment.

The Prime Minister

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is one of the problems. Two Departments are concerned, because there were two separate cases. But within one Department, the former War Office, there is the problem that one or two serving officers have been mentioned as well as one or two civil servants. We considered whether the matter should go before a board of inquiry, since names have been mentioned, but because there is a prima facie suggestion that the serving officers may have neglected their duties to such an extent that the Army Act may be involved they must have the right to have such procedure as the Army Board may think appropriate in the circumstances. That means handling the serving officers and the civilians differently, but it will be the desire of everyone that they should receive equal treatment, as the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Commander Courtney

The Prime Minister gives at least some of us the impression that he is engaged in locking a lot of stable doors after a large number of horses have bolted. Will he say whether the Government will now stop acting like a lot of hypnotised rabbits where the question of Soviet espionage is concerned? For example, why allow the production of this excellent book, "Their Trade is Treachery", when he does not dare to publish it?

The Prime Minister

I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going very wide of the subject of my statement, which relates to the Report of the Security Commission on these two cases. He has shown on a number of occasions that he still has not got clear what the duties of the Commission are—that is obvious from the letter he wrote—and what the general responsibility of the Government is.

I admire the hon. and gallant Gentleman's choice of language about hypnotised rabbits. I suppose he extends that to everyone responsible for security over the past years.

Commander Courtney

indicated assent.

The Prime Minister

Fair enough. We all accept his right to say so. But breach of security is an extremely difficult thing to find, as I have said, except in conditions where every member of the staff of a Department is searched every time he enters and leaves and where people in the public service are submitted to controls and procedures so severe that we would not, I think, get very much recruitment. But we have taken steps. Indeed, we took a lot of them before the Commission began its work.

Mr. Onslow

Are we to assume that the Prime Minister has no intention of referring to the Security Commission the security leakage concerning the visit of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to Hanoi, which the Prime Minister himself—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That has no possible kind of relevance to the Prime Minister's statement.