SERVICES, PRESS AND BROADCASTING COMMITTEE (COLONEL LOHAN) (Hansard, 27 June 1967)

§ The Prime Minister
First, I will tell the House why the information given to the House about the inquiries which began it 1964 on Thursday last was not given to the Radcliffe Committee. The answer is that it was not known to any of my right hon. Friends or myself until some days after the Radcliffe Report was published.
On 13th June the Radcliffe Report and the Government's White Paper were published. Both made it clear that the Secretary of the Services, Press and Broadcasting Committee had not been positively vetted. On 14th June the Secretary made a statement to the Press flatly denying that he had not been cleared security wise to the highest level.
On the same day a Parliamentary Question was tabled to me on this point by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). On making inquiries about 258 the Secretary's security status, I learned, as I told the House last week, that early in 1964 preliminary consideration was given to his general suitability for a post of this kind.
As I told the House, this led to a decision later in the year to make specific inquiries, one of a number of questions for examination being the over-close association with journalists and especially the journalist concerned in the case the House was debating. Colonel Lohan was informed of this.
This particular anxiety was not wholly allayed, but, in the event, it was decided, taking everything into account, to allow the Secretary to continue in his post, which was not then a P.V. post, for the time being. At no stage, as the House knows, did he get full security clearance.
In the later stages of the debate last Thursday both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) challenged me to deal with allegations made in the debate by hon. and right hon. Members about these matters. These issues were directly relevant to the conclusion the House had to reach and, having been challenged on them, I gave the reply and kept it to the very minimum.

§ Sir Richard Glyn
Is not the Prime Minister responsible for the security of this country? Was not he personally responsible for the decision made by others to continue Colonel Lohan as Secretary? Is not he responsible for the failure of those concerned to convey to him and the Radcliffe Committee the results of the specific inquiries in the autumn of 1964?

§ The Prime Minister
I bear my full share of the responsibility, and share it with my predecessors, that these decisions were taken. The post was not a P.V. post, as I have said. Whether it should have been is a matter for much controversy. I personally think that it should. A week or two before the events of February, which led to the Radcliffe Report, my right hon. Friends and I were discussing certain changes in that respect; but then the incident occurred and, because of that, the matter was left in suspense until the Report was 259 received. Yes, I agree that it probably should have been a P.V. post all along; and I accept my share of the responsibility that it was not.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to an article by Chapman Pincher in last Saturday's Daily Express in which Mr. Pincher admits to a close association with Colonel Lohan, but says that it is no different from the close association he has had with the Paymaster-General? In view of that, will my right hon. Friend consider taking some action, or issuing a D Notice?

§ The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, no D Notices have so far been issued since this Government were formed. I read this highly entertaining article last Saturday. There is a difference between an association with any journalist and a civil servant, on the one hand, and an association between a journalist and a back bench hon. Member of the Opposition, which my right hon. Friend then was. This is the difference which I did not see clearly laid out in that article.

§ Mr. Heath
May I ask the Prime Minister one specific question and, in doing so, assure him that I am choosing my words very carefully? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He will recognise the importance of this matter. Is it correct to say that in March of last year, 1966, very senior officials dealing with these matters placed on the record their conclusion that they were all satisfied that there were no grounds on which they could question Colonel Lohan's reliability?

§ The Prime Minister
I am aware of the correspondence between two officials at that time, following some of these inquiries; and it was this letter which I think the right hon. Gentleman was paraphrasing. Anxieties were still expressed in the course of that exchange. It was decided to look at the matter again. The matter was not looked at again until after the post was transferred from one Department to another and following further consideration, from Aviation to the Ministry of Defence, the whole matter was reopened again.
As I have said, the reopening of it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer") I am 260 answering—was deferred because of that particular inquiry. Since the right hon. Gentleman chooses to quote a letter which, as he knows, is headed "Staff—in Confidence"—

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ The Prime Minister
Since the Leader of the Opposition quoted, in paraphrase form, from a letter between civil servants which is headed "Staff—in Confidence", I think that it would be wrong for me to answer that question any further—[HON. MEMBERS:"Why?"]—without answering other letters in the same sense. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know all the exchanges—and I am not having one selected in this way; it happens to be the one which has been handed out to the right hon. Gentleman —and wants to pursue the whole general matter, the importance of which I agree with him, then this is not the place to be bandying about arguments of security stages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why say it?"] I answered at the end of the debate as I did because I was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman, but I kept my answer to the minimum.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go into all the aspects affecting Colonel Lohan's clearance and his suitability for the post, I will be glad to show him all the papers that I have been shown. That is the right relationship on a matter of security. It is also the right relationship in a matter affecting the personal status of a civil servant.

§ Mr. Heath
The Prime Minister will recognise that this matter has been opened up as a result of his quoting words in the debate and giving us no opportunity to reply. I put this question to him specifically: will he confirm that this was a conclusion—indeed, the final conclusion —of those officials in March, 1966? Secondly, is he now saying that after March, 1966, the whole matter was opened up again and has not been settled?

§ The Prime Minister
To answer the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the matter was opened up again during the winter. It was opened up again following the transfer of responsibility for this post from one Department to another. The matter came to a head 261 in late January or early February, but, because of the newspaper article and everything that followed, the matter was held over.
To answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he said that I was the one who had raised this. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale, in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), asked whether the Government would deal with the allegations which, he rightly said, were serious and which had been made by my hon. Friend. I was further asked specifically by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who was the Member of Parliament for the civil servant in question—we understand his concern—whether the statement in the Radcliffe Report and the White Paper, or the statement of the Secretary himself, as to whether he had been positively cleared, was right. I gave my answer, using the minimum number of words that I could have used in all the circumstances.
As for the quotation made by the Leader of the Opposition—his paraphrase from it—I did not think that it was for me to say whether or not that paraphrase represented the whole of the story. I have invited the right hon. Gentleman to come and see all the correspondence that I have seen—the reports, and so on—and then he must decide, after that, what he feels to be the right course of action.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fate of Colonel Lohan is something more than an interparty political row and that it goes down to the very principle of one man being isolated in a matter which has reached the stage of being a vote of censure in this House?
Will my right hon. Friend therefore now say, without breaching security, why this man remained in this post for so long a period without, presumably, anything so deep in his relationship with the Government that would have necessitated his removal from a highly confidential post?

§ The Prime Minister
In the statement which I made on the day of publication of the Report, I said that all of us understood lie extreme difficulties and anomalies of Colonel Lohan's position. 262 It is a lonely post—[Laughter.]—yes, he must take a lot of decisions on his own. One of the lessons which has come out of the original Report and our own inquiries—and the evidence shows the difficulties under which whoever has that post has to work—is whether this post should have been a P.V. post all along. I take full responsibility for that.
I am sure that my predecessor and the Ministers in the previous Conservative Government agree that we all assumed that it was a P.V. post. When it was discovered what highly sensitive material was going through the hands of the Secretary, we decided to reopen the question over a wide field, and those inquiries were going on. I agree with my right hon. Friend that very many things have gone wrong, and I take my share of the responsibility.
It is not a question of one individual. As I said last Thursday, I had no intention of bringing out this information and would have been very loath to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I know the speech which I had dictated, and which I was ready to give in the House. I was very loath at that time to bring out anything about any individual.[HoN. MEMBERS: "0h"] But in view of the challenge by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale I had to deal with the point, and I said the very minimum required.
The right hon. Member for Ashford, perfectly appropriately, in my view, as he is the Member of Parliament concerned, also challenged me on these points. In those circumstances, I felt it right, particularly since it was germane to the decision which the House had to reach, to give the information which I had to give—and I gave as little as possible.

§ Mr. Heath
The Prime Minister must realise that he cannot leave the matter as it now stands. It is not sufficient to say that the Leader of the Opposition can see the appropriate papers. The Prime Minister said that the matter was reopened at the turn of the year. In fairness to Colonel Lohan, he must either say that the decision of March, 1966, was overthrown, and give the reasons, or he must say that the decision of March, 1966, still stands.

§ The Prime Minister
I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to 263 accept my invitation to read the papers rather than to press this point. But I will answer the question. The responsibility for what I say must lie on those who put the questions. I would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to see the papers and then to decide his attitude. He is not gagged by seeing the papers— he never has been.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about reopening the inquiry. As I have said, it was reopened because when it was realised—there had been a change of responsibility both of the officials concerned and of the Department concerned—what highly sensitive material was passing through his hands—material with a very high degree of sensitivity—the fact that it was not a P.V. post came to light. Certainly, I was surprised about it when I heard it. We therefore gave urgent consideration to whether it should have been a P.V. post. I thought that it ought to have been a P.V. post all along.
The right hon. Gentleman put a specific question to me. I must answer it. We are dealing with a very important aspect of security. We are also dealing with the concern of the whole House, which I share, about the P.V. status of an individual, which is normally not a matter to be bandied about across the Floor of the House. I invited the right hon. Gentleman not to pursue the matter until he had time to see the papers. But if hon. Gentlemen opposite want to pursue it, for whatever motives may seem good to them, then I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I have already said, that Colonel Lohan was not P.V.-ed at the time. It was not a P.V. post so that the P.V. inquiries were not completed. Whether he would have been P.V.-ed is a matter about which the right hon. Gentleman must form his own view. The right hon. Gentleman asked the question and he must form his own view.
The matter did not arise at the time. Once we had decided that in principle it ought to be a P.V. post, then, obviously, the whole question had to be raised again. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go on putting questions about this gentleman, whose cause he is supposed to be protecting—and that is said to be the only reason for all that we have seen in the Press in the last few days—then I think that the right hon. Gentleman 264 should do it as he would have done with any civil servant, by looking at the papers before he starts putting questions.

§ Mr. Woodburn
This man, whether rightly or wrongly, has suffered already. May I make a plea that the Leader of the Opposition will not use him as a pawn in the political field? Before any public discussion of the matter takes place, the Leader of the Opposition should get Colonel Lohan's permission to push his inquiries.

§ Mr. Hooson
The Prime Minister has said that Colonel Lohan was the subject of informal inquiries in 1964. Would he tell the House, first, whether Colonel Lohan was then asked to change his method of dealing with the Press? Secondly, if it were alleged that he was on too friendly terms with correspondents, was he warned that in the view of the Government he was on these terms with correspondents and that it should cease, or, if he were not so informed, why not?

§ The Prime Minister
Spread over 1964 to 1965—I do not know the precise date—he was informed of the anxiety. There were never charges. Looking back on it, it might have been right if there had been a straight Civil Service board as is provided for in the rules of the Civil Service and the matter could have been thrashed out. But it was not done that way, I think perhaps regrettably. But he was made aware of what the anxieties were and there were discussions with him about it.

§ Mr. David Griffiths
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of us who were in Parliament in 1945–51 were entirely suspicious of a lot of information that was conveyed to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?

§ The Prime Minister
This has been a continuing problem not only in 1945–51 or 1961–64 or 1964–67. This is an endemic problem which all Governments have to face. I have already expressed my regret for my unworthy suspicions that what had happened in the Ministry of Aviation up to 1964 was due to the then Minister. Since it was continued afterwards, I knew that it was not.

§ Mr. Heath
The impression has been given so far that Colonel Lohan did not pass the P.V. test and that it was through some fault of his. Either this 265 was so, or it was not. In his last answer to me the Prime Minister implied that the test was done because the status of the post was changed. May I have a specific clear answer to this: was the P.V. undertaken because of the Prime Minister's doubt about Colonel Lohan and an overthrowing of the 1966 decision, or was it undertaken because it was decided to make the post a P.V. post? Secondly, did the test remain incomplete through any fault of Colonel Lohan, or did it remain incomplete for other reasons?

§ The Prime Minister
I will try to answer that question as far as I can, but I must first ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear whether he was referring to the original inquiries of 1964 and subsequently or whether he was referring to the reopening of the case at the turn of the year to which I have referred. Perhaps he will make that clear.

§ Mr. Heath
I am referring to the reopening of the case at the turn of the year.

§ The Prime Minister
The position is this—and again I want to choose my words carefully. I really would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to see the papers. He will find on this matter, as I found when I was in his position and had to consider the Philby case, that there were very difficult complications that cannot be explained across the Floor of the House and which make it difficult to give a straight open and shut answer. On the Philby case I fully supported the Prime Minister, incredible though from the outside the situation appeared.
In this case there were certain difficulties about what kind of procedure should be followed after 1964. I have already hinted at that. I do not want to go further. I would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to see the papers. One of the reasons the matter was left rather open at the end of the day was that in any case it was not a P.V. post and the question of the final completion did not need to arise.
With regard to the reopening at the turn of the year, one of the main factors that entered into our consideration at that time was the fact that, the whole matter, having been looked at again, it was re- 266 cognised that the highly sensitive and secret nature of the papers passing through the post made it highly desirable that at any rate it should be considered whether it should be a P.V. post. This was one of the reasons why the matter was reopened.
There was a second reason—and again I choose my words carefully. As I reported to the House, the result of the earlier inquiries was that he should be kept in his post for the time being. That was the decision of the official concerned when the matter was last looked at. Now it was reopened—with a new official, a new chairman of the D Notice Committee and a new Permanent Under-Secretary. Naturally, such papers are brought forward after a period of time. They were brought forward and looked at, therefore, because the matter had been deferred from the previous inquiry. That was one reason. The second reason was that I felt that the post probably ought to be a P.V. post.

§ Mr. Edelman
The Prime Minister used the term, "over-close association with journalists". In view of the fact that it was Colonel Lohan's function to associate with journalists, would the Prime Minister describe exactly what is the implication of the term "over-close "? Is it a technical term? Is it a euphemism? Perhaps he will explain.

§ The Prime Minister
I do not think that it would help if I tried to explain this philosophical expression. Certainly, this is one of the points I had in mind when I referred to the difficulties of this post. It does require the carrying of confidence with journalists. Some of the arguments in the Radcliffe Committee's Report suggested that some of the confidence was breaking down a little. It means a free and easy relationship with all of them.
I think that the phrase "over-close" in this connection was used having regard to the requirements of the job. Government information officers have to have association with journalists, but they must not have over-close or selective relations between one and another. Any phrase of this kind must be related to the requirements of the job. I have said that this was one of the anxieties of that time.

§ Mr. Deedes
I must ask the Prime Minister this. When he spoke on Thursday night about the incidents early in 1964 was he aware of the fact that Colonel Lohan was on probation on this job from 1st January to 1st June, 1964, and was confirmed in the post after the incidents to which he has referred? In the light of what he has said about all this now, why was Lord Radcliffe so kept in the dark?

§ The Prime Minister
The position is—in fact, I could put it even better from the right hon. Member's point of view than he did—that Colonel Lohan had been acting Secretary of the Committee during the very serious illness of Admiral Thompson and as he had been acting for some time he was given the job. Admiral Thomson of course, a very distinguished admiral, was never positively vetted. [Laughter.] Hon. Members think that this is a humourous subject, but I think that a very distinguished admiral, with his record, would hardly expect to be vetted in that situation, particularly since he was a war-time censor where very rigorous rules apply, much rougher than certain aspects of vetting as properly understood.
Colonel Lohan stood in for him when he was ill. Then consideration was given to whether he should be given the post substantively and at that time general inquiries as to his suitability for the post properly came to be taken. Despite part of the security procedure being carried out, the security procedure was not completed and he was confirmed in his post, but the position was left for the time being. This was in 1966.

§ Mr. Deedes
The Prime Minister is misunderstanding me. I am asking about events early in 1964, to which the Prime Minister alluded in the debate. Colonel Lohan was on probation from January to June and the incident occurred while he was on probation but he was confirmed in the appointment in June. Why?

§ The Prime Minister
This is perfectly true, but then inquiries continued, as I have said, for the reasons I have mentioned—Colonel Lohan knew about these—during the subsequent months and, indeed, he answered some of the points which had been raised. Following all that the position then was that he was confirmed in his post, or kept in his post 268 for the time being. Inquiries were reopened earlier this year.
On the second question, about why was Lord Radcliffe not told about this, Lord Radcliffe did not raise the question—nor did other members of the Committee, so far as one can tell from the evidence—about Colonel Lohan being kept in that post. They did not raise this matter. They discovered—I think there was a slight reference to this in their Report—the fact that he was not P.V.-ed. It is quite clear that one of the reasons for the breakdown of communications in this episode was the fact that he was not at the Foreign Office meeting because he was not P.V.-ed and, still less, given the full clearance required for that kind of Foreign Office work.

§ Mr. Blackburn
Can my right hon. Friend say whether the letter which has been paraphrased was a confidential document and, if so, what action has been taken?

§ The Prime Minister
As I understand, it was headed "Staff—in Confidence". It was not headed "Secret" or "Top Secret". My own practice with "Staff—in Confidence" documents is to treat them as at least as secret as those headed "Secret". This document was in the hands of the Secretary and, obviously, it is now in other hands. I do not think that it is a matter for me to pursue further. Some very odd things have happened in the last few weeks. [HON.MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Colonel Lohan is a civil servant. He has made some very strong pronouncements in the Press, some highly critical pronouncements, and on television. We have not thought it right to take exception to them, but hon. Members who have been civil servants will know that the procedure has been a little different from what is usually the position of civil servants.
Colonel Lohan's first statement made to the Press was made before either the Report was published or any comment was made by the Government. His first statement to the Press followed a statement in one newspaper—an inaccurate statement—that he had been summoned before a disciplinary board. He had not been summoned before a disciplinary board, but someone got the idea that he had and printed it. That is why he made his first statement.

§ Mr. Sandys
Is the Prime Minister really asking us to believe that but for the two speeches of my right hon. Friends he would not have made these damaging insinuations against Colonel Lohan in the last two minutes of the debate? Since his statement today has cast a further slur upon Colonel Lohan's character and conduct, does he not think that it would be only fair to publish the evidence and to give Colonel Lohan an opportunity to reply?

§ The Prime Minister
On the first part of the question, that is what I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have the right to ask the House to believe that. The behaviour of some hon. Members shows that their concern could not be further from questions of security or Colonel Lohan. Some are regarding this—as every other issue, policy or not—as an opportunity of hounding one or other member of the Government. I told the right hon. Gentleman that I was not going to use this information on Thursday evening, but I was challenged by both right hon. Gentlemen—if I may say so, in conditions which were perfectly fair—and I decided that it was right to reply. I cut down my reply to the absolute minimum that was necessary to deal with the question that was raised.
If I have said more this afternoon it has not been by my choice, because at the very beginning of the supplementary questions I suggested what is the normal method of handling security questions, which was always respected when I was Leader of the Opposition without further question even if doubts remained in my mind. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to mention one case where, having been given the facts in secret, even though doubts remained, I tried to make a party political issue of them afterwards.

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House. When Mr. Speaker is standing the right hon. Gentleman must sit down.

§ Mr. Sandys
On a point of order. Before you end discussion of this, Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister be 270 given a chance to answer the second part of my supplementary question?

§ The Prime Minister
Further to that point of order. I am sorry if I did not answer all the right hon. Gentleman's questions. If he will remind me of the second part I shall certainly answer it.

§ Mr. Sandys
The question was whether the Prime Minister will publish the evidence and give Colonel Lohan the chance to reply.

§ The Prime Minister
I am sorry that I did not answer that part of the question. I have already told the House what I think is the right answer in this case, which is for the right hon. Gentleman to see all the papers I have seen. If not, the only alternative I can see, from the way things are going, is that we shall get Questions about this unfortunate individual week after week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who started it?"] I shall answer the question of who started it.
It was started by a question—a perfectly fair and legitimate question—by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) two or three days after the Report was published. He tabled it the day Colonel Lohan denied a statement in the White Paper and Report about his security clearance. That was when this started, and it was continued further by challenges to me in the debate. If we do not follow the procedure I have suggested we shall have Questions week after week about this individual. It cannot be in his interest. It cannot be in the interests of any civil servant to have Questions of this kind tabled from both sides of the House, still less for it to become a matter for a party political hunt.

§ Mr. Thorpe
So that this gentleman shall no longer be left on the rack and subject to Parliamentary exchanges, and that he shall have a fair hearing into this matter, which is the wish of both sides of the House, would not it be helpful if this specific matter could be looked into by the Radcliffe Committee, which would be reconstituted for that purpose?

§ The Prime Minister
I have suggested the procedure which I think should be followed and which is usual in these cases. This was not a matter that the Radcliffe Committee thought it right to inquire into. The question of his positive-vetting status 271 and the reason for it was not a matter that the Committee thought it right to inquire into. I thought it right to refer to it last Thursday night partly because of the challenges and partly because—I think that every hon. Member formed his own view—I think that the question of the different treatment by the Daily Mail and the Daily Express might be due to different treatment of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. I thought that this was a germane point. Having been challenged, I thought it appropriate to give that information. I do not think that it would be appropriate to refer this back to the Radcliffe Committee, which has signed its Report. But I will discuss with the right hon. Gentleman, when he has read the papers, what, if any, further action he thinks should be taken.

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This must be the last question. Mr. Barber.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
On a point of order. While one respects the rights of right hon. Gentlemen on both sides, the back bench Member has equal rights. Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that a few moments ago you were about to proceed to closure this discussion and two right hon. Gentleman opposite rose? If back benchers had been rising you would have closed the proceedings, which is, in the view of many of us, a differentiation between the treatment meted out to Privy Councillors and that meted out to back benchers.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am quite in sympathy with the point put by the hon. Gentleman. If he looks, he will find that whenever there is a volley of questions at this time Mr. Speaker goes out of his way to choose back benchers as well as Front Benchers. I had intended to close this round of questions. The Leader of the Liberal Party rose and I thought that it was a courtesy to the Leader of one of the three parties to call him. Then the Opposition Front Bench have taken this as a major matter and it was for that reason that I called the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber).

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Further to that point of order. If the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) is to be called and another right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench rises, such as the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), is he to be called to the detriment of the interests of back benchers on this side of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not usually answer a hypothetical question, but the answer is, "No".

§ Mr. Hastings
On a point of order. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I sought over the weekend to put a Private Notice Question to the Prime Minister on this matter—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not in order to refer to the substance of Private Notice Questions.

§ Mr. Barber
I think that I should make it clear that I had no intention of intervening this afternoon—

Hon. Members
Then why do it?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman was frequently referred to in the Prime Minister's answers.

§ Mr. Barber
The only reason I am intervening to put a question to the Prime Minister is that he said on a number of occasions that his remarks at the end of the debate were, in part, due to an intervention by me. Does he realise that my intervention was not concerned particularly with what happened in 1964? Does he realise that in his concluding remarks about Colonel Lohan he referred only to 1964 in terms which have been widely interpreted as being highly defamatory? If he intended to refer to 1964 at all, why did he not also refer to the decision in March, 1966, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has referred? What possible security—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is of great importance.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. At this stage questions must surely be brief.

§ Mr. Barber
Then I ask the Prime Minister what possible reason of security there can now be for him not to admit frankly that in 1966 all those senior people concerned were satisfied, as my 273 right hon. Friend said. Why cannot he say, "Yes"?

§ The Prime Minister
I, unlike hon. Members opposite in my case, fully accept that the right hon. Gentleman was sincere when he said that he would not have intervened this afternoon but for certain things. It is also true when I said that about last Thursday night.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about his challenge to me, the challenge was to the Government, as I have said, and it was about statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher). They were allegations, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman called very serious, about the relationship between the journalist in question and the Secretary of the Committee. I did not confirm or deny the allegations because I know nothing about the rumours in Fleet Street that were referred to.
But it was part of the answer, and a fair answer, that there were anxieties about this question. That was all that it was necessary for me to say, because the letter, which, however it got into the hands of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, did get there, was already extensively quoted from or paraphrased before I got up.
It would have been inappropriate then, and it would be now, to quote this confidential letter without quoting a lot of other confidential papers. I believe that it would be in the highest interests of all concerned—not a matter of security—if this matter were now handled in the way I have suggested to the right hon. Gentleman. But if right hon. Members opposite want to press me to quote not only from that letter, but from other letters, I might have to consider doing so, though I do not think that it would be right.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.