HC Deb 06 December 1966 vol 737 cc1155-7
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

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

On 10th May, 1965, I told the House of a change in our procedures regarding the Security Commission whereby from then on a reference to the Security Commission might be made as soon as the Government were satisfied, or had good reason to believe, that a breach of security had occurred in the public service whether or not the matter was one which was to come before the courts; and that when a reference to the Commission related to a matter which was the subject of criminal proceedings before the courts, no public announcement of the reference to the Commission would be made until it was appropriate to make a statement.

In accordance with these new procedures, and after informing the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I asked the Security Commission, on 22nd July, to investigate and report upon the circumstances in which Squadron Leader Peter John Reen had been found to hold at his home classified documents to which he had official access before he retired from public service in 1961, and upon any related failure of departmental security arrangements or neglect of duty; and, in the light of the investigation, to advise whether any change in security arrangements was necessary or desirable.

Squadron Leader Reen was charged, under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, with the unauthorised retention of official documents and was convicted at Bow Street on 17th November. I should make it clear that these were the only charges preferred against Squadron Leader Reen.

Previously, the Security Commission had reported that, in relation to the matter under investigation, there had been no failure of departmental security procedures or neglect of duty. Copies of its report, from which certain details have been omitted in the interest of national security with the agreement of the Commission, will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.

The Security Commission made one recommendation. It considered that the procedure for requiring civil servants and members of the Armed Forces to return all official documents made or acquired by them on leaving the Service or on transfer should be further improved. The Government have accepted that this should be done and a revised procedure has been introduced.

Mr. Heath

I thank the Prime Minister for going through the customary consultation and then making his statement to the House on a security matter.

I should like to ask two questions. First, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in this case no question of espionage was involved? Secondly, will the recommendation of the Commission that, on changing any post or appointment, anyone who had possession of documents should not only hand them in and so carry out the recommendation which the Prime Minister has accepted, but should also sign a statement to that effect, be implemented?

The Prime Minister

On the first question, I am certainly very happy to confirm that there was no suggestion whatever of espionage or any act disloyal to the country. The charge on which Squadron Leader Reen was convicted was a serious technical offence, but it carried with it no other implications whatsoever.

On the second question, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman, an improvement has been introduced. It does not go quite as far as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I should be glad to keep in touch with him about it when the arrangements have been finalised.

Mr. Lubbock

Without having read the Report I do not know whether this is relevant to this case, but can the Prime Minister say whether he has yet considered the Report of the inquiry into the workings of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, which recommended that if the power to summon witnesses who withhold the production of documents was necessary for the Security Commission separate legislation should be established for that purpose? In the light of experience so far, does the right hon. Gentleman think such power is necessary, and if so, will such legislation be introduced?

The Prime Minister

I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the part of the Royal Commission's recommendation relating to the Security Commission. On the experience we have had so far—it might be quite different with a subsequent reference—there has not been any requirement or any advantage in giving extra powers to the Security Commission. It has had no difficulty in getting all the facts required. It knew that if it could not get all the facts, it could apply for extended power.