HC Deb 10 March 1970 vol 797 cc1302-14

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton (Salisbury)

Eighteen months ago I raised the case of Major Alan F. Blundell. The facts are on record on 18th and 25th July, 1968. I raise the case tonight to bring the record up to date.

Time does not allow a rehearsal of the full story. I have only a few minutes. It is necessary only to retrace a few steps.

In essence, Major Blundell made two mistakes in his Army career, the first from grounds of patriotism and the second from his own innate ability. The first was to be captured on active service in Korea in 1951 alongside his colleagues in the Gloucesters; the second was to succeed in 1968 in a competitive examination in securing an established post in the Diplomatic Service.

Following his success, it was arranged that he should leave the Army at midnight on the last day of the month and step straight into his new career. Then, at the last minute, it was realised that he must be rebarred from the Diplomatic Service under the rules of the Radcliffe Committee because of that incident 17 years previously when he had been held captive by the Communists. This was crushing blow. He was married with four young children, and a new career had lain clearly in front of him for many months. When the Foreign Office door slammed he was within weeks of leaving the Army. Those many months could have been put to good use in making alternative plans.

As it was, the future held nothing. He therefore sought a brief extension of his Army service. That was when he came to see me in Salisbury. A month or two could make all the difference. Needless to say, his commanding officer supported his application, and, needless to say, his brigade commander did likewise. There was a special job for which he was needed in the Army and on extension could safely be assumed. A senior Minister of the Crown is on record is assuming that extension had been granted.

Now the second blow fell. It was at this point that the Secretary of State for Defence intervened and did two very remarkable things. First, he refused even a week's extension. Second, hardly had this officer's distinguished Army career ended when the Secretary of State ordered the bailiffs into his Army quarter and issued a summons for possession. Major Blundell attended at Andover court, alongside motoring offenders and petty criminals.

At first I was deeply puzzled. This officer had given his whole life to the Army. I anticipated that the Secretary of State would make every effort to help in this officer's personal crisis, including representations to the Foreign Office. Why such haste to see him off the premises? Why such haste, contrary to all our practices in this House, at moment when his Member of Parliament was in touch with the Minister, to drop this officer like a hot potato?

Then the explanation became clear. The Foreign Office, being the senior of the two Departments of State, had followed the Radcliffe Committee recommendations correctly. Harshly, but necessarily because security regulations are of such supreme national importance, it declined to admit this officer to security work. In so doing it exposed the flank of the Secretary of State. The Radcliffe Committee reported in 1962: … we recommend that the three Services should make sure that their arrangements on this matter are in line with Civil Service practice Yet in 1962 and subsequently Major Blundell held positively vetted security posts in the Army. This explained the indecent haste to be rid of this gifted officer. Overnight he became a potential embarrassment. Loyal service to the Crown through the years now counted for nothing. The Minister did not want to know him. Orders went out, as had happened once before: … set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle. Not a week's extension, put in the bailiffs, never mind the four young children in the house, never mind that a field officer had never been taken to court before for possession of his Army quarter. He must be taken off Army strength so that the Secretary of State could no longer be responsible and answerable for him. Thus disowned and without a job, and drawing unemployment benefit for the first time in his life, the penalty of his own success, this officer and his family sailed from this country to make a fresh start in Australia.

Now to the sequel. I am sorry that there has to be a sequel. The Department knows that, given some small gesture to my constituent, I would have been prepared to drop the whole matter and put the file away.

I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence, and asked if he would invite Lord Radcliffe and his four distinguished colleagues to reconvene for a day. They are all active men and mostly in London. Lord Radcliffe is currently conducting an inquiry at Warwick University, of which he is Chancellor. I was anxious to know whether, with the passage of time, the committee still adhered to its ruling made at the time of the Blake case, debarring a man, once held by Communists, for the rest of his life from security posts.

I hoped that impeccable service over 10 or 20 years and the testimony of colleagues who had shared imprisonment that there had been no brainwashing might now permit an element of discretion to be used. I hoped that the committee, whose report constitutes the security bible of all Governments, might yet be able to help Major Blundell. Granted some easement of the regulations, the Foreign Office might yet be able to accept him.

The Secretary of State, in replying, did not say "yes" and did not say "no". He stalled. There was a delay of over 18 months. I wrote no fewer than six letters pressing for a decision.

The Minister was in a dilemma. Not to submit the case to the committee would merely confirm that there was something to hide. To submit it would be to invite severe criticism of security procedures in the fighting Services. It took 18 months to answer my letter. Finally, to resolve his dilemma, the Secretary of State attempted a compromise. Yes, the Secretary of State has agreed— that the rules for the employment of ex-prisoners of the Communists should now be interpreted more flexibly, and that the individual merits of each case should be taken into account. Is not it tragic that this could not have applied 18 months ago when this officer's career hung in the balance? In addition the Secretary of State has informed Lord Radcliffe of his thinking— This included consultations with Lord Radcliffe who has ben told the result of our deliberations. What I asked for in my original letter of 2nd August, 1968, was that the committee should reconvene and make recommendations. The Secretary of State has not invited it to reconvene. That would be too dangerous; it would be too hazardous to invite its views. He would tell the chairman—yes, inform him—but to ask the committee for its considered joint recommendation, perhaps for the world to read, not on your life!

Thus, after 18 months the Minister has come to his conclusion. For Major Blundell he intends to do nothing; not a gesture; not a free air passage to come and see his mother in England; not a month's salary when this officer should properly have been retained by the Army; not a letter to assure him that, despite his treatment, the Government are grateful for the services which he has rendered his country; no, not even the cost of this officer's travel to Andover court. These, then, are to be the rewards of patriotism.

The Secretary of State, in his recent letter to me, makes two points. I accept neither. First, he draws a distinction in security procedures between the fighting Services and the Diplomatic Service. I, too, have read the Radcliffe Report. Lord Radcliffe is a man who never uses two words if one will do— That Service Departments are, of course, within this category"— says paragraph 12. We recommend that the three Services should make sure that their arrangements on this matter are in line with Civil Service practice. The Secretary of State's explanation does not bear examination.

The second point is that in his letter the Secretary of State states: Had Major Blundell remained in the army this officer would at the time of the regular review of his positive vetting in September, 1969, have been removed from that category anyway. Perhaps the suggestion is that it was only a matter of time before irregularities ironed themselves out, only a matter of time before the Secretary of State was made an honest man.

What reason was given for this remarkable statement? Had some character defect developed? Was there insobriety or financial instability? Why was it that the investigating officers were already so confident of the action which they would take a year and a half later? Was it because this officer had called on his Member of Parliament to enlist support for a brief extension of his Army service? What is the reason?

The Secretary of State explains: His earlier promise was not fulfilled. When I read that I gasped. I asked myself, "How low can a troubled Minister of the Crown stoop?" Here was a Regular Army officer still in his 30s, blessed with an ideally happy marriage, able enough to secure one of the three posts open to Her Majesty's Forces in the Executive grade of the Diplomatic Service, a man in the prime of life, who had proved his courage in battle and his devotion to duty in time of peace, a man confidently entrusted year by year with access to the most highly classified information.

At the very moment that Major Blundell succeeded in his interview, in his written examination, and in the intelligence test, which is a test of mental ability, for the very highest ranks of the Civil Service, the Secretary of State writes: His earlier promise was not fulfilled. The Secretary of State for Defence, I regret to say, chose to save his own skin rather than stretch out a hand to save the career of a senior serving officer for whose well being he was entirely responsible.

I do not forget that it was another officer, also a major, who was wronged by his Minister of Defence, and that in his case it took 12 years before he was reinstated. That officer died in 1935, and his name was Alfred Dreyfus. It it not my intention that Alan Blundell should wait twelve years.

1.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard)

Perhaps I might begin by bringing the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) and the House slightly down to earth. I listened to his speech with a great deal of interest since it would seem to me difficult to construct a diatribe more contrary to the facts, as the hon. Member must have known at the time he constructed the speech which he has just delivered.

What the hon. Member has just said about the conduct of the Secretary of State for Defence, and, indeed, of the Government, is utterly disgraceful. When the facts are known I trust that he will at least have the grace to withdraw some of the more astonishing statements that he has made about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I will deal with three of them. First, is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that the Secretary of State deliberately caused a county court summons to be issued against Major Blundell? He knows, since he has been the recipient of the apology, that on no fewer than three occasions—once personally by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration, once through the mouth of another Minister, albeit a Foreign Office Minister in an Adjournment debate, and once at least in correspondence—apologies have been expressed to Major Blundell, through the hon. Gentleman, for that error.

Second, is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that the fact that Major Blundell should not have been permitted even an extra week's extension of his time in the Army, was a decision taken on the express instructions of the Secretary of State for Defence because of some sinister reason that the hon. Gentleman ascribes to a desire on the part of the Secretary of State for Defence to cover up an error in the security procedures in his own Department? It was an error which, on the hon. Gentleman's own admission, must have been made not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but by one of his predecessors under a Conservative Administration in 1962 or 1963. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that my right hon. Friend in this whole affair was trying to cover up for the errors of a previous Conservative Minister of Defence, I was not aware that my right hon. Friend had such a tender regard for some of his predecessors.

Mr. Michael Hamilton

I have introduced no hint of any party point. In any event, there is such a thing as Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Richard

Having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, I will not take any lectures on Ministerial responsibility or Ministerial conduct from him.

The case of Major Blundell illustrates some of the difficulties that the security services of any Government face. They were faced originally by the Government which the hon. Gentleman supported, since I believe that he was a Member of this House at the time.

As, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is calling for the reconvening of the Radcliffe Committee, it might not be a bad idea to begin our examination of the case by looking at the committee's terms of reference, and then go on to consider what the committee said.

The terms of reference were: In the light of recent convictions for offences under the Official Secrets Acts, to review the security procedures and practices currently followed in the public service and to consider what, if any, changes are required. On this aspect of the matter, para. 77 of the committee's report is the most important one. The commitee said: There is one type of case where particular care is needed before Positive Vetting clearance can be granted or maintained. This is the case where a public servant returns to his service after being held captive or interned for any substantial period (by which we have in mind a period of say three months) in Communist hands. From evidence which we have heard and from our examination of the recent case of Blake we think that there must be a risk involved in employing anyone who has been through such an experience on secret work. While we recognise that circumstances may arise in which it will be thought right to take a calculated risk, we recommend that the general rule should be adopted that no one in the category we have described should be re-employed (or employed for the first time) in any post within the field of Positive Vetting. The Radcliffe Committee reported in April, 1962, which was some time before my right hon. Friend assumed the office which he now holds. Its recommendation was clear and specific. It was that anyone who had been a prisoner in Communist hands for a substantial period—namely, three months or more—should not be employed or re-employed in any post within the field of positive vetting. The only exception that the committee made was: While we recognise that circumstances may arise in which it will be though right to take a calculated risk…". That is the exception as it appeared in the original report.

Turning from that background to the specific case of Major Blundell, there are two or three specific points which should be made. The first is that there was never any question from the Army's point of view of Major Blundell's positive vetting being withdrawn while he was a serving officer. During the whole time that he served as an officer, he served gallantly and well. There was never any question of a withdrawal by the Army of the positive vetting clearance that he had while a serving officer.

Second, I remind the hon. Gentleman, since apparently he forgot it in the course of his speech, that Major Blundell chose to leave the Army of his own volition. It was not a case in which the Army decided that he was either redundant or should go for some other reason. It was a case in which Major Blundell, when there was no question of his vetting being withdrawn, at that stage voluntarily decided to apply for retirement under the redundancy scheme. Whether at that moment Major Blundell anticipated getting employment with the Foreign Office is not for me to say. Nor is it for the Army to say. For what he thought to be his own good reasons—not, as far as I am aware, relying on any statement made to him by any person in authority in the Army or in the Ministry of Defence—he chose voluntarily to apply for retirement, and he retired on the generous redundancy terms then given to him.

Mr. Hamilton indicated assent.

Mr. Richard

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman agreeing with me at least to this extent. This is not a case in which somebody has been retired against his will because his security clearance has been withdrawn, or anything like that.

The next stage is that Major Blundell chose—again, I suppose, for what he thought were good reasons—to attempt to obtain a post in the Diplomatic Service. Unfortunately, after he had gone through a large part of the procedure necessary to obtain that post, it was discovered that he could not take up that appointment because of his security position. Again, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept—because he knows it and it is time that he accepted it openly and withdrew some of his strictures against the Secretary of State for Defence—that whatever happened in relation to Major Blundell and the Foreign Office, or, indeed, the Civil Service Department, was no part of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence.

The next stage was that when Major Blundell was told by the Foreign Office at the last moment that his security clearance had been withdrawn, this was grossly inconvenient for him. I accept that. However, I point out that his allegation that that is attributable to the actions of my right hon. Friend is not only a travesty of the facts but would require unparliamentary language for me to describe it more accurately.

Mr. Hamilton rose—

Mr. Richard

I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has had his say, and I believe that, on reflection, he may regret much of what he said.

It is true that no extension was granted to Major Blundell. By the time an application for extension was made, one was up against the time limit that had been given and agreed by the Army for his leaving. It was not then possible nor, indeed, would it have been right—because a lot of officers were leaving the Army about the same time and some of them might have found it inconvenient to stick to the date upon which they were originally going out—for an extension to be granted to Major Blundell.

Concerning the action in going to the county court, about which the hon. Gentleman made so much, all that I can say, as I have said before and as the Ministry has said before, is that that was an administrative error for which we have expressed our apology to Major Blundell for any inconvenience that it may have caused him. But I point out that, although it may have caused him a certain amount of inconvenience and a certain loss of dignity in going to the local county court, it did not cause him any financial loss. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to make that part clear.

It was at that stage that the hon. Gentleman came into the picture. He, indeed, has been running this case now for 18 months to two years. It is a matter for him how long he proposes to go on with this conduct. But he added little tonight to what he said in July, 1968, in another Adjournment debate.

The general effect within the last two years on the original Radcliffe recommendation is that the policy is now being applied more flexibly. This is not due to the case of Major Blundell nor to the efforts of the hon. Member for Salisbury. Indeed, the discussions on the effect of the proposals in paragraph 77 of the Radcliffe Report were going on long before the hon. Member first chose to ventilate the case of his unfortunate constituent. But the original policy was applied with limited flexibility in allowing exceptions, and the Government's recent decision has widened this flexibility. Individual cases will now be considered on their merits, taking into account the interests of the Service in their widest sense.

The hon. Member made much of the letter which the Secretary of State wrote to him on 3rd February, and particularly of the remark which my right hon. Friend made about the earlier promise not having been fulfilled. I am a little staggered that the hon. Member did not read the whole of that paragraph, particularly the sentence before the one of which he complains, and read it against that background of paragraph 77 of the Radcliffe Report. My right hon. Friend wrote: There is a straightforward explanation for the apparent difference between the interpretation which the Ministry of Defence placed upon Major Blundell's history and that placed upon it by the Diplomatic Service. His original positive vetting was approved by my Department because he came within the relatively narrow category"— I emphasise those last three words— of those whose potential was thought on the basis of earlier evidence, sufficient to justify exceptional consideration. "Exceptional consideration" in that sentence read against the background of the rule in paragraph 77 means that it was thought right to take what Lord Radcliffe called a "calculated risk" in the case of Major Blundell, having regard to what was then thought to be his potential.

My right hon. Friend went on to say to the hon. Member: Moreover, his career prospects in the Army could have been prejudiced by the sole action of denying PV clearance. However, his earlier promise was not fulfilled and there would consequently have been no exceptional grounds for continuing his PV clearance when it became due for review in September, 1969. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman complains so much about that sentence. All it is saying, read against the background of paragraph 77, is that at one stage it was thought that this gentleman was of sufficient potential to justify a calculated risk being taken but that that promise, regrettably, was not fulfilled in the course of his Army career. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not contend that the fact that Major Blundell did not do as well as we perhaps originally thought he would is also attributable to my right hon. Friend. Because his earlier promise was not fulfilled it would not have been thought right to take a calculated risk on his positive vetting when it came up for review in September, 1969.

That is the whole of this unhappy history. It is most unfortunate that in this case, in which I have read all the papers, and in which the hon. Member has been treated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Minister of Defence for Administration and by the Minister of State. Foreign Office—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening; and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past One o'clock.