HC Deb 31 October 1990 vol 178 cc1078-86

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

9.59 pm
Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel)

I am grateful to you for the chance to catch your eye at this hour, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the support that I have received from my hon. Friends, although how long it will remain with me remains to be seen. I recognise in particular the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, who has taken a keen interest in the affairs of Mr. Colin Wallace and the Calcutt report.

I welcome both the Calcutt report and the Government's acceptance of its findings. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who has had a long involvement in the matter, will remember that some of us submitted voluminous evidence on unfair dismissal, which was referred to as enforced resignation. He will know that the volume of files that had to be submitted over an eight-year period in my case was substantial. I pay tribute to Mr. David Calcutt QC for the way in which he approached his task.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Sir Michael Marshall

In many ways it was a model study of this procedure. I am anxious to explore some aspects of both his conclusions and the Government's acceptance of them.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and to Mr. Calcutt for their courtesy in advising me during the recess of the imminent publication of the report. I felt that it was right to bring the matter back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

My hon. Friend wrote to me on 13 September 1990. In that letter he referred to the terms of reference of the Calcutt inquiry, which I need not repeat, but its essential point was on the hearing of the Civil Service Appeal Board on 17 October 1975. In that letter my hon. Friend went on to accept Mr. Calcutt's views. It is interesting that he accepted those views, which in a sense drew on a widening of the terms of reference originally laid down. Mr. Calcutt was right to view the matter as he did.

To refer to the points put forward by Mr. Calcutt, it was clear that before the hearing of the CSAB on 17 October 1975 MOD officials nobbled—no other word fits the bill—the chairman of the board. That, in Mr. Calcutt's words probably affected the outcome of the appeal. My hon. Friend has said that he cannot reveal the nature of that communication but he has emphasised in writing and has repeated that it had nothing to do with Kincora boys' home or Clockwork Orange, the so-called dirty tricks campaign affecting leading politicians on both sides of St. George's channel in the Clockwork Orange exercise.

It was made plain that the full range of Mr. Wallace's work was not known to the CSAB at the time of the hearing and, therefore, neither the dismissal nor the alternative of enforced resignation was reasonable for what was described as an isolated incident of disclosure of a classified document.

Mr. Calcutt recommended that compensation should be based on the sum that would have been appropriate if the calculation had been made in 1975. The figure was to be amended to reflect the present-day value of that sum. It is still not clear to me on what basis that procedure was initiated. I do not know whether it was Mr. Calcutt's initiative, whether in some senses he had guidance or whether there was any known precedent in such a case, which I doubt. Perhaps my hon. Friend can assist me in the description of that procedure, not when he replies but in writing. It has a wider significance and I shall return to compensation later in my speech.

I am anxious to explore the two findings. First, following my hon. Friend's letter, I wrote to him on 14 September and he replied on 27 September. Naturally I felt that I must probe the nature of the communication from MOD officials. I recognise the sensitivity of full disclosure if security is concerned, but my hon. Friend has confirmed that neither Kincora nor Clockwork Orange was the subject of that disclosure and, following our latest exchange of correspondence, that the communication does not contain, in Mr. Wallace's words: Information which he might have made available to higher authorities if he had been allowed to remain in his post. That is an important assurance. My hon. Friend will accept that, for a long period, there has been concern about whether in some way Mr. Wallace's dismissal was to prevent him from giving authorities, including Ministers, information about activities which, it has been argued, was being suppressed.

The question remains: what type of communication was involved? It is reasonable to ask my hon. Friend whether we are speaking of a written or a verbal communication, whether it is some personnel assessment or whether the communication was of such a secret nature that he cannot give more information about it now, just as he asserts that the information could not have been made known at the hearing and therefore to Mr. Wallace.

Above all, can my hon. Friend assure the House that officials did not deliberately set out to mislead the CSAB? I hope that he can give a further idea in reply, if only of the most general sort. The nature of the information must have a bearing on the equity of the findings as a whole.

Secondly, the Calcutt inquiry found that the full range of Mr. Wallace's work was not known by the CSAB. Why did not officials provide the CSAB with a classified copy of Mr. Wallace's job description? Although my hon. Friend has said that revised CSAB and MOD procedures would rule out a repetition of what I have described as the nobbling of the CSAB, the question remains. I hope that he will reiterate assurances about revised procedures that would rule out a repetition of what I have described.

Consideration of the matter brings us back to a point on which I felt it right to write to my hon. Friend. The extent to which officials not only did not provide full and accurate information to the CSAB in 1975, but still refrain from disclosure of the full facts to Ministers worries me. My hon. Friend will recall that when I took up the concern about my constituent's unfair dismissal as long ago as my letter to the Prime Minister in December 1982 and throughout the following years in the hundreds of letters and meetings that I have had with my hon. Friend's predecessors and with him, I have raised one major question that remains: surely throughout the whole period some MOD officials knew that the CSAB had been nobbled. Why did not they speak out? That could have ended the injustice a long time ago and prevented Ministers from unintentionally misleading the House.

In a wider sense, Mr. Wallace is entitled to ask, as he does, why senior officials who had worked with him in Northern Ireland for a long time did not speak out when Ministers were put in the impossible position of giving less than a full account of the true nature of his work and of his actions during the period of a previous Administration.

The third part of the Calcutt report deals with equity and compensation. Mr. Calcutt suggested a figure of £30,000. It is no part of my brief tonight to argue in detailed financial terms on Mr. Wallace's behalf. He has taken legal advice. In some senses this matter could be regarded as sub judice, but I am not a lawyer and I am not clear whether that is the case. I have the impression—I hope that my hon. Friend can help to clarify the situation—that this is, in some ways, breaking new ground in regard to compensation for something that is not regarded as part of industrial tribunal activity as in commercial life. In many ways it is unparalleled in civil service experience.

When my hon. Friend comes to reply or, if necessary, to write to me later, I hope that he will outline fairly the options that are now open to my constituent because he is far from clear. I, too, find that this is a difficult situation to assess.

It is fair to ask some direct questions relating to compensation. First, upon what basis was the Calcutt calculation selected using 1975 as a base? Is it not clear, as I argued earlier, that the admitted official misdeed was compounded by the long period of silence by officials who could have put the matter right much earlier? What account can or should be taken of those and other circumstances?

Mr. Wallace asserts, for example, that his wife, who was employed as a civil servant at the time, was also made unemployed as a result of his enforced resignation. That is a matter on which it is only right that he should argue rather than me. However, I have observed Mr. Wallace's wife for many years in which she has faced a particular problem as the reputation of her husband and the life of her family have been torn apart. In all honesty, I must tell the House that it has been her steadfast support and total belief in her husband's integrity that have been a key factor in my concern to continue inquiries during the past eight years.

Surely a fair-minded employer would want to take such factors into account. I have no reason to suppose that the Government do not want to act like a fair-minded employer, but how to make good a wrong that has been done is a somewhat grey area. Therefore, I am seeking to discover the flexibility that exists—the extent to which the Government and my hon. Friend will keep an open mind.

I recognise, of course, that it would be unreasonable to expect my hon. Friend to make promises tonight. The matter will require careful consideration and advice might suggest that a legal recourse is the way through. I should prefer to find some other more reasonable negotiated settlement if such a mechanism were possible. I am not clear whether an equivalent to arbitration could apply.

It is fair to tell my hon. Friend that in all my dealings with Mr. Wallace he has stressed time and again that his concern is not to damage the security services of our nation. but to put right a number of wrongs. He has argued that some of those wrongs persist in terms of wider matters that I have not touched on tonight. I seek to end as I began, by expressing a particular concern over an unfair dismissal and an enforced resignation, which is now clearly accepted by the Government and which they want to put right.

I hope that my hon. Friend can assure my constituent of the Government's willingness to keep looking at the matter with an open mind. I hope that they will consider the relevant factors, some of which I have tried to sketch in tonight. I know that the wider issues will continue to be argued over, but in terms of the enforced resignation—I think of it as an unfair dismissal—I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that the Government will ensure that justice is seen to be done.

10.13 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on initiating this debate. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which he has consistently applied himself as Mr. Wallace's constituency Member to ensure that his case is dealt with fully and fairly. My hon. Friend has asked questions in the House and written to me on many occasions. We have been able to give sensible consideration to the issues as a result. He has shown an energetic concern for the interests of his constituent, genuinely seeking after the truth without being diverted by the more sensationalist aspects that have attracted others.

As the House will be aware, this is not the first time that we have debated aspects of Mr. Wallace's case. Indeeed, the ground has been well covered both in debate, in answer to parliamentary questions and in correspondence with right hon. and hon. Members. Copies of many of those letters have been placed in the Library of the House. The issues which have attracted interest—and which fall to me to deal with—occurred more than 15 years ago and the present renewal of interest stems largely from the steps I took in January this year to correct inaccurate information that had been given, mistakenly, to hon. Members.

When it was realised that there had been such inaccuracies, the Government commissioned an inquiry by a senior civil servant—himself wholly unconnected with the matters at issue—to ascertain how and why they had occurred. The conclusions and recommendations of that inquiry have been published. The inquiry confirmed that inaccurate information was given inadvertently, and that the inaccuracies arose in part because of the long passage of time since the period in which related events occurred or were alleged to have occurred. That inquiry cast no new light on Mr. Wallace's wider allegations that there was a campaign to smear members of the House and that there was a cover-up by the security forces of information about homosexual abuse of boys at Kincora.

Those measures to correct the public record have generated considerable speculation about Mr. Wallace's more sensational allegations. It seems to have been forgotten that nothing in the corrections made to the public record, or in the work carried out in preparing the corrections, lend any substance to those allegations. I hope that the House will acknowledge the efforts made by this Government to deal fairly with issues that arose in the time of other Administrations.

I should remind the House that, as has frequently been made clear, nothing has been found, when reviewing the relevant information, to justify allegations of wrongdoing by Crown servants. Reviewing the basis on which inaccurate information was given to hon. Members has shown only that genuine mistakes were made. The passage of time since Mr. Wallace left the Ministry of Defence in 1975 was a key element in the failure of the departmental "collective memory" which caused Ministers to be given inaccurate information that was in turn passed on to hon. Members. The problems which can arise in identifying relevant material amongst the vast amount generated annually within the Department do not excuse such failures. But equally such failures do not justify ill-found assumptions that there may have been a conspiracy against Mr. Wallace.

The Government also commissioned of their own volition the inquiry that Mr. David Calcutt, QC, undertook into the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case—

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hamilton

—when he appealed to the Civil Service Appeal Board against his dismissal from the Ministry of Defence in 1975. Mr. Calcutt's advice and recommendations were published in September this year.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel for his welcome for that report. Few have given recognition to the Government's determination to deal appropriately with events that took place 15 years ago; rather, the Calcutt report has been used to justify renewed speculation. It is of particular note that there seems to be an assumption in some quarters that Mr. Calcutt's inquiry has provided the Government with new information that requires further revision of the Government's position in relation to Mr. Wallace's allegations. That is not so.

In order to satisfy themselves about Mr. Wallace's case the Government have had to look back over more than 15 years, but I will spare the House a full rehearsal and confine myself to the situation some 12 months ago when Ministers were alerted to the fact that inaccurate information had been given to the House. That realisation led to a careful review of all available information in preparation for the statement which I volunteered on 30 January this year correcting those errors.

When the errors came to light, Ministers were made aware that officials had in 1975 been in private communication with the chairman of the Civil Service Appeal Board hearing. Such communication was not part of the formal procedures and it was immediately recognised that the communication could, with hindsight, be held to be unsatisfactory. Accordingly, Ministers decided to commission an entirely independent review of the manner in which Mr. Wallace's case had been presented to the Civil Service Appeal Board. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I concluded that Mr. David Calcutt—a distinguished lawyer—would be a very suitable person to undertake that inquiry. He was asked to consider whether Mr. Wallace suffered any injustice from the way in which his case was presented to the Civil Service Appeal Board. We determined from the outset—I must emphasise this point—that Mr. Calcutt's conclusions and recommendations would be published. This was done in full awareness that Mr. Calcutt's inquiry would touch on sensitive issues.

The Government have adhered to that course. Mr. Calcutt did conclude that two aspects of the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case were unsatisfactory. First, he advised that the private communication—and here I quote from the written advice which he submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—"should not have happened". And he added that what occurred probably affected the outcome of the appeal. Secondly, he concluded that it was unsatisfactory that the full range of Mr. Wallace's duties was not made plain to the board by the Ministry of Defence itself. He recommended that compensation be paid to Mr. Wallace. The Government have accepted his advice and recommendation, and compensation of £30,000 has been paid to Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Wallace has suggested that some of his difficulties have resulted from a form of conspiracy against him arising from what he claims was his involvement in, and ultimate withdrawal from, improper activities which he has alleged to have taken place in the early 1970s. I am aware that some are tempted to read Mr. Calcutt's advice—particularly the two aspects of the handling of the appeal which he concluded to be unsatisfactory-as giving credence to Mr. Wallace's suggestion. I have no reason to support such views.

Before dealing with Mr. Calcutt's conclusions, I wish to remind the House of the circumstances in whch disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace was employed at headquarters Northern Ireland from 1969 to 1975. During that period he rose from being an assistant information officer to the rank of senior information officer. His promotion reflected the very considerable effort and enthusiasm which he brought to bear on the work allocated to him in an onerous post and in a demanding environment. After six years in Northern Ireland, he was posted to the Army's headquarters, north-west district, with effect from February 1975.

Mr. Wallace occupied a responsible and sensitive position in Northern Ireland, with duties which had come to include the unattributable briefing of journalists. This was a delicate role but one in which Mr. Wallace had both military and civilian superiors whom he could consult on any problems. Terrorism was at a peak and it was fully understood by everyone working in Northern Ireland that it was essential to be particularly circumspect in any dealings with journalists. A good deal of trust had to be placed in the absolute integrity of those who carried out such duties, since any indiscretion or breach of trust was liable to undermine the success of anti-terrorist measures.

A classified document was passed to a journalist. Mr. Wallace was questioned. At first he denied responsibility. Then he admitted it. It became clear that this was a premeditated action and that he had neither sought approval for it from his superiors beforehand nor informed them of it afterwards. He had every opportunity to seek permission: he did not do so.

It was and remains within the powers of the Ministry of Defence to dismiss a civil servant for the type of disclosure to which Mr. Wallace admitted. When he appealed against dismissal, the Ministry of Defence accepted the view of the Civil Service Appeal Board that, given his previous good service, his resignation would be an acceptable alternative.

As many hon. Members may be aware, the Civil Service Appeal Board is an independent appeals body for the civil service, set up in the early 1970s, which deals with appeals from civil servants who have been dismissed or who have retired early. Its role is to decide whether a Department's decision to dismiss was fair. If it decides that the Department's decision was unfair, it may recommend that the appellant should be reinstated, or it may specify that compensation should be paid. If it considers that some other action is more appropriate, it may recommend accordingly. If the board recommends reinstatement, it is up to the Department whether to accept the recommendation. But, if such a recommendation is rejected, the board then decides whether to award compensation. The Department must pay any compensation awarded by the board.

Each appeal is heard by a panel of three. The chairman of the hearing is always the chairman of the board or one of the deputy chairmen. At the time of the Wallace appeal there was only one deputy chairman. The other two are members of the board, one drawn from a panel of people nominated by the official side, civil service management, and one from a panel nominated by the trade union side.

The operating procedures of the Civil Service Appeal Board are set out in some detail in the relevant provisions of the civil service code. The board issues guidance notes to Departments and appellants based on those provisions. How the board operates within those established procedures is a matter for the board itself.

The Government, with the benefit of hindsight, decided to consider whether during the dismissal and appeal proceedings there had been aspects of the handling of the case by the Ministry of Defence which may have given rise to any injustice. We commissioned an independent inquiry to ensure that an impartial assessment would be available.

I turn now to the two aspects of the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case which Mr. Calcutt identified as unsatisfactory. First, there is the matter of the private communication with the chairman of the Civil Service Appeal Board hearing. It is a fact that the board was approached off the record in Mr. Wallace's case. That private communication was outside the formal procedures. Mr. Calcutt has advised that the private communication should not have occurred.

Mr. Livingstone

Were they members of MI5?

Mr. Hamilton

The Government have accepted that advice and his recommendation that Mr. Wallace be paid compensation of £30,000.

I have been pressed to say what was the nature and content of that communication and I have declined to provide such details. I have stated that it was concerned with sensitive information which I would not wish to make public. That remains the case. I intend no discourtesy to the House in maintaining that position. The House will recognise that successive Governments have taken the view that, where issues of particular sensitivity are involved, it may be inappropriate to reveal publicly any or all of the relevant information. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, who raised this matter in his speech, that there is no way that this information was set out to mislead the Civil Service Appeal Board.

The decision to withhold such information has not been taken lightly in the present case, not least because, as I am only too aware, it could be misinterpreted. But I do not believe that there is sufficient cause to disclose sensitive information. The content of that communication was sensitive and, as I explained in the letter which I sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel on 13 September, a copy of which has been placed in the Library: For the same reasons as those which inhibited the Ministry of Defence from deploying the content of the communication openly at the hearing, I am not prepared to go into detail about it now. I can, however, say that it had nothing whatever to do with either Kincora or the smearing of politicians. I am not willing to add to that statement.

As the House may be aware, Mr. Wallace's solicitors have made a complaint to the Metropolitan police. It is for the police and the prosecuting authorities to decide what action it would be appropriate to take in response to the complaint made to them on Mr. Wallace's behalf. Clearly it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this matter.

I have also been pressed to comment on Mr. Calcutt's conclusion that it was unsatisfactory that the Ministry of Defence did not make clear to the Civil Service Appeal Board the full range of duties that Mr. Wallace was required to undertake. The Government accept this. Nevertheless, in case it should be supposed that nothing was done to inform the Civil Service Appeal Board in that respect, I will summarise what mention was made of Mr. Wallace's wider duties. First, in submitting its statement to the Civil Service Appeal Board, the Ministry of Defence referred specifically to the fact that his duties had come to include unattributable briefing.

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.