MISSING FOREIGN OFFICE OFFICIALS (Hansard, 28 October 1952)

§ LORD ELTON
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING)
My Lords, the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the two articles referred to in the noble Lord's question. It will be realised that much information about Mr. Maclean has come to light since his disappearance which was not in the possession of the Foreign Office at the time when he was appointed Head of the American Department in October, 1950. It is now known, for example, that on more than one occasion before his dis- 1028 appearance Mr. Maclean made remarks suggesting that he was a Communist or sympathetic to Communism. This was not known at the time of his appointment.
Until the incidents mentioned in the question, Mr. Maclean had served with distinction in various posts, including Washington, since 1935. In May, 1950, he had a breakdown in Cairo and was sent home on leave. Reports then indicated that he had been drinking heavily and had assaulted a colleague. A serious view was taken of his conduct, but it was attributed to overstrain. In view of his state of health, he was not sent back to Cairo, and he underwent medical treatment in this country.
In October, 1950, he was pronounced fit for duty, and, in view of his outstandingly good record before his breakdown, it was decided that he should be given another trial in an appointment which would not subject him to undue strain. It should be understood that most of the more important questions affecting our relations with the United States are handled not by the American Department but by other departments dealing with the region, international organisation or particular question concerned. Mr. Maclean performed his official duties satisfactorily up to the date of his disappearance.

§ LORD ELTON
My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his characteristically lucid reply, I must express a certain disappointment. If I followed him aright, the general tenor of the noble Marquess's reply is that much is known about Maclean and Burgess which was not known before. I should like to ask him: Does he not now think it ought to have been known before? I should like to ask him, for example, why the Foreign Office did not know that this man had been repeatedly drunk in public places? And is the noble Marquess aware that there is in existence a recording of a speech which Maclean, when in New York, long before the incidents with which we are now dealing, had insisted on delivering into a recording machine in the private apartments of a friend of a noble member of this House; that in that speech he openly declared himself a Communist, and a proselytising Communist, and that that record has for many years been available for inspection if required?

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, it is very easy to say that we ought to have known. If I may say so, with great respect, it is always easy to be wise after the event. But we knew Mr. Maclean's background, we knew his distinguished career in the Foreign Office up to that time, and there was no reason to entertain any suspicion of him. Really, we cannot have people listening and taking down notes at every private party which a member of the Foreign Office attends. It is easy to say afterwards that we ought to have known, but we had no reason to be put upon inquiry. In fact, we did not know, and I see no reason for alleging that we ought to have known. As regards the somewhat detailed statement that the noble Lord made about the speech by Mr. Maclean, I have no information about that. If the noble Lord desires, I will make some inquiry about it and write to him. In the absence of any previous indication that he was going to raise this matter, I can only say I know nothing of it.

§ LORD ELTON
My Lords, the relevance of that question is that I am informed that the recording of the speech in question has been in the possession of the F.B.I. in the United States for many years, and the suggestion behind my question is that therefore it might have been known to Her Majesty's Government. May I ask one more question—that is, whether the persons who recommended and approved these appointments are still recommending and approving appointments and, if so, whether the noble Marquess is perfectly satisfied that their judgment is reliable?

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, there was nothing unusual about this appointment. It was made in the normal course and because, as I said in my original answer to the Question, it was decided to give Mr. Maclean a further trial in view of the fact that he had had medical treatment and was declared fit. There was nothing unusual about it, and the procedure which was followed was not in any way an abnormal procedure.

§ LORD VANSITTART
My Lords, there is one question I should like to ask about something of which I am not quite clear. Is it not a fact that the occasional violence of Maclean when in drink was a 1030 matter of considerable comment in at least one of his posts before he came hack to the Foreign Office?

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, I have already referred to that. I said that we had had reports of the actions of Mr. Maclean in Cairo and that we then realised he had been drinking. I do not know if that is what the noble Lord wants, but that is the position. That is all we knew, and it was because we thought that that was due to overstrain, and because he underwent treatment and was reported to be fit for further employment, that further employment was, in fact, given to him on trial.

§ LORD VANSITTART
My Lords, my point was not so much that he had been known to drink, but that it was known that the drinking had been accompanied by violence.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, it is in the question that he had in the course of a violent bout broken a colleague's leg. There is no denial of that. Rightly or wrongly—I am not for a moment saying wrongly—the view was taken that this was due to overstrain, and that it was capable of cure; and when he had undergone treatment, the view was taken that he had been cured and should be given further employment upon trial.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, did the noble Marquess observe the apparent desire of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that we should invite the American F.B.I. to assist us in finding out the records of our own public servants?

§ LORD ELTON
My Lords, we are not intending to debate this across the floor of the House, but I should like to say that the point of my question was that if this was known to officials in America, it ought to have been known to officials in this country.

LORD SEMPILL
My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess if the appointments to which he referred are controlled by a committee or by an individual; and if by a committee, would he tell your Lordships the names of the persons on that committee?

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, I have said that the normal Foreign Office procedure was followed. 1031 With respect to the noble Lord, I have no intention of giving to this House the names of civil servants who are carrying out their tasks.

§ LORD ELTON
My Lords, I am not clear from the reply of the noble Marquess, when he refers to what was known before, the drunkenness, whether he says it was fully known to the Foreign Office that these men were proselytising Communists.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make that clear. What I said in answer to the question was that it was now known that on more than one occasion before his disappearance Maclean had made remarks suggesting that he was a Communist. I dealt with the drunkenness question in the other part of my reply, where I was dealing with the reports upon him on his return from Cairo. I think that that is quite clear.