§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a more detailed statement can be given concerning the secret "positive vetting" of candidates for the State service; and whether the knowledge that such inquiries have become part of the system of recruiting may not corrupt from the beginning those relations of free inquiry, candour and confidence which are the very foundation of true education.]
§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)My Lords, the noble Viscount's Question is concerned with the effect of "positive vetting" on candidates desiring to enter the Civil Service. I believe I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that positive vetting is not applied to candidates and it comes into operation only after they have been accepted into the Civil Service, and then only in a limited number of cases, often at a much later stage in their career. At the time of recruitment, however, the candidate is informed of the statement of policy made in 1943, that there is certain work, the nature of which is vital to the security of the State, in which he cannot be employed if he is believed to be either (1) a member of the Communist Party or of a Fascist organisation or (2) associated with either the Communist Party or a Fascist organisation in such a way as to raise legitimate doubts about his reliability. Should the candidate fall into this class he is aware that posts in certain Departments, and certain posts in other Departments, will rot be open to him.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply which, of course, states the facts as they are well known. The point of my Question is quite different. It is this. When a young man intends to enter the Foreign Service, is there not grave danger that he may put up a facade, concealing his real opinions, and that thereby you may get a bad candidate, while, on the other hand, a candidate who is frank might know that thereby he is jeopardising his chances?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI see no need for a candidate to conceal his real opinion when he conies before the Civil Service Commissioners, because they are not concerned at all with security regulations. There is no reason at all why the suggestion of the noble Viscount is likely to occur so far as entrance into the Civil Service is concerned.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEHow about the Foreign Service?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKSo far as I am aware, my remark applies to the Foreign Service so far as entry is concerned.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI have great confidence in the statement made on this subject by the Prime Minister, but might I ask a further question: who decides how these inquiries are to he made? Does the committee of senior civil servants decide who is to ask the questions and of whom questions are to be asked?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, that matter goes much 'wider than the noble Viscount's question. His question related to the entry of candidates into the Civil Service. He is now asking a question which covers the whole ground of security vetting, a much wider matter which has, I believe, already been dealt with fairly fully by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the course of their remarks last week.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, perhaps I framed my Question badly. A candidate is a person who intends to enter the Service. My fear is that if you tell young men at a university that a private inquiry of this type is to take place at any moment it may cramp their educational freedom, causing them to pretend that they hold opinions that they do not hold or to conceal opinions that they do I hold.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I find it very hard to accept the noble Viscount's point. Present policy is exactly that laid down in 1948 by the Prime Minister, except for this extension: that the investigation is now perhaps a little more thorough. Parties on both sides of the House are, I believe, fully agreed that some form of security test of that character is now necessary.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI must apologise to the House and to the noble Earl, but the fact that some other Government did it does not affect my mind in any way on this question. I am concerned with what I believe to be a very deep principle of our constitutional liberties—namely, that there should not be secret inquiries. Positive vetting is quite different from asking whether anything is known against a man. You are sending someone to ask questions of someone else. Does the committee of senior civil servants decide what inquiries are to be made and who is to make those inquiries, and from whom?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe noble Viscount now wants a statement on positive vetting which is not at all the question he has raised. I do not know whether, when the noble Viscount speaks of "senior civil servants," he means the three men who are the court of appeal. They do not decide; they are a court of appeal, as the noble Viscount knows. Is the noble Viscount referring to private inquiries of the Privy Council? The matter has, I believe, already been fairly well explained by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I must apologise, but, quite unwittingly I am sure, the noble Earl is missing the real issue here. I am asking this: who says that this or that professor or this or that person shall be questioned secretly and asked what he thought of this young man when he was in his charge? How far can that go? When the noble Earl says that the committee know nothing of this he makes the situation worse, for 640 these private agencies may soon become a private empire. I am asking, therefore who does decide? To give your Lordships an extreme case, would it be possible to ask a son what he thought of his father's opinions? These things have happened elsewhere.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, the noble Viscount is stretching his imagination quite a long way. He asked a Question about candidates for the Civil Service and I have told him that there is no security vetting in regard to candidates. That was the force of my answer. The noble Viscount now wants a full statement, going beyond that already made, in regard to the general question of security vetting; but, with respect, that does not arise on this Question. We are following a procedure that has been going on for quite a time and I see no reason why even the remotest suggestion should be made that this affects academic freedom in any way at all.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, may I ask this question—it arises out of the original Question. If I understand the noble Earl correctly, no questions of any kind are asked of a candidate as to whether he is a member of the Communist Party or the Fascist Party. The individual concerned may thereupon be posted to a position which involves secrecy, and it may only be thereafter that some kind of vetting takes place. That is what I understood the noble Earl to say. Is that really the position?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe position with regard to a Civil Service candidate —which is what I have been talking about in reply to the Question of the noble Viscount—is as I have stated. The document relating to this matter states specifically that the Commissioners are not, as such, concerned with questions of security. They are not concerned when a person is a candidate: it is only when he has become a member of the Service that this question could arise. As I have said, it arises only in a certain specific number of posts and branches.