§ 5.46 p.m.
§ Debate resumed.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING)My Lords, since the possibility of a debate was mentioned here on, I think, October 25, this matter has been discussed at considerable and justifiable length in another place, and both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have explained with great particularity what happened in connection with, I think, every aspect of the affair. But it is no doubt of value that your Lordships should, in your turn, also bring consideration to bear upon the subject, if it be only for the purpose not entirely of looking to the past but also of making recommendations, or keeping your eyes fixed upon the possibilities, so far as it is humanly possible, for preventing the recurrence of such an incident in the future.
I do not propose, and I assume that your Lordships would not wish me, to take up time to-day by recapitulating the whole story as it has been told in another place. I therefore intend, for the greater part, to confine myself to dealing, so far as I am able, with the various specific questions which have been raised in the course of your Lordships' debate, and those I will try to answer.
I think the main emphasis in the course of the discussions this afternoon has been laid upon the doubts which your Lordships have expressed whether it was right that Maclean should have been given a second chance by appointment as head of 733 the American Department. That was a theme which recurred in many speeches made by noble Lords this afternoon, and perhaps it is convenient that I should endeavour to deal with that matter first. Something was said by the noble Lord, Lord Salter, of the importance of not attaching too much value in a matter of this kind to what he called "hindsight." I think it is vital in assessing the right view of this question of Maclean's appointment that your Lordships should bear in mind, not what has been acquired by way of knowledge or, indeed, by way of rumour since that time, but what was known to the Foreign Office at the time that the appointment was made and what reasons they had for believing it to be a suitable appointment for him to hold, despite what had taken place in Cairo some five months before the date of his new appointment.
What did we know about Maclean? We knew something of his background and parentage; e knew that when he joined the Foreign Service he had come with the highest of testimony from school and college. We also knew that during the period which he had already spent in the Foreign Office (which he joined in 1935) he had given performance of a very high standard and promise of being an extremely valuable member of the Foreign Service. Those facts must not be forgotten in assessing this matter. In regard to his service in Washington and Cairo, with the exception of the particular incident upon which attention has been concentrated his performance up to that time had been, so far as our knowledge went, uniformly good; and he showed promise of great brilliance in his career. There was this particular drunken bout in Cairo which, I agree, was thoroughly discreditable. I do not know that the account produced in another place, and to which reference has been made in this House, is in every minor respect correct. It was certainly a very colourful description. For my purpose I am prepared substantially to accept it.
It is right to say that the full details given in another place a few days ago were not known, at the time, to the Ambassador in Cairo and, in consequence, were not reported to the Foreign Office; nor were they known prior to the disappearance of Burgess. Some of the details were known, but the information has grown from time to time, being added 734 to by further details which have reached us. In this very shocking escapade he was not in the company of any member of the Foreign Service and certainly nothing like the full story reached the Ambassador. The Ambassador took the view that Maclean had been overworking very considerably and that the moment had arrived, signalised by this particular bout of drinking and some violence, when he ought to be given medical treatment, and that, for that purpose, he should be sent home in order that he might be so treated and results of the strain of overwork to which his actions were then attributed dealt with. It was very much hoped that he might be cured.
Some reference has been made in the course of the debate to-day to the doctrine of the good employer which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary advanced in another place. In circumstances of this kind, where the employer is the State, there are two duties: first, to be fair to the individual; and, secondly, to discharge one's responsibilities to the public. Those two attributes of duty have often to be weighed against each other. In this case the view, strongly held, was that though there had been a very grave lapse it was in itself attributable to overwork. He was given a second chance because, having been brought home for medical treatment and that treatment: having to all appearances been successful, he was so valuable a member of the Foreign Service that it was only right—not in his individual interest only but in the interests of the Service, itself the servant of the State—that he should be given a further opportunity of devoting his talents to the public service. It is easy, in the light of what has happened since, to say that that was a wrong decision. Though it may have been a wrong decision it was at least taken in perfect good faith, on the basis that this man had been, and was capable of continuing to be, a valuable servant of the public and one of the most promising members of the Service. The doctrine of the good employer has this double duty, and in this particular instance both aspects of it were, in the opinion of those responsible for his further appointment, being discharged.
§ LORD SALTERMy Lords, might I ask the noble Marquess whether, after what was known to have happened, any steps were taken to ascertain whether 735 there had been previous instances; and, after reinstatement, were precautions taken to see whether or not there was a recurrence?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGThe noble Lord asked those two questions in his original speech and I was about to embark upon the answer to them when he asked a second time—not that I complain at all.
After Maclean had come back, on the basis that this had been a breakdown in health and in the light of all the reports that we had had upon him from the Ambassadors in charge of the various posts in which he had been employed, no inquiry was made further back into the past. Frankly, I do not see any reason why, in those circumstances, there should have been any such inquiry. During the time that elapsed between his appointment as head of the American Department and the moment of his disappearance he was working in London and living in the country and doubtless was going to a number of parties. It may be true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said in opening, that during that period he indulged in certain drinking bouts, but most certainly we did not know. I would ask your Lordships this: how could we tell? What are you to do with a man living a normal social life in London and the country? Are you to have people posted to watch him at every party he attends, and detail them to report back what he says and does? I want to say one thing at this point, and I think it is really time that it was said. It seems to me that a great many people in the days since Burgess and Maclean disappeared have been dining out quite freely on reminiscences of all they knew about Burgess and Maclean in the days when they were still in the Foreign Office. It would have been much more in the public interest if those people had come forward and told what they knew to the Foreign Office during the time when that information could have been put to proper use.
§ LORD SHERWOODThe noble Marquess has referred to the question of a good employer and the giving of a second chance. The noble Lord, Lord Salter, also brought up that point in his speech. Why was it that during the period when this man was clearly on 736 probation, to see whether he could make good, no watch was kept by the Foreign Office? It is no good asking for ordinary people to come forward and say that he was doing this or doing that. One would have thought that he would have been watched to see what sort of character he was manifesting after that assault.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI thought I had already dealt with that point, but perhaps I did not deal with it sufficiently for the noble Lord's purpose. The point I have been making all the time is that the view was that this was not a case of bad conduct, a case of a man being on probation and needing to be watched. The view was taken, quite genuinely, that this was a case of ill-health and that the man had been cured. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have someone in this position constantly watched in that way. I think that if one looks back upon all the circumstances of the time and bears in mind what we knew and what reasonably we could be expected to know, it was not by any means an unjustifiable risk, or, indeed, thought to be a risk at all, to give him further employment.
It was not a question of promotion. It has been rather loosely said from time to time—I do not think in this debate—that he was promoted. He was not promoted. Something has been said this afternoon about the American Department, as if it were a sort of minor department to which no one paid any attention. The point of putting him into the American Department was not that it was so much a minor department, as that it was a department which did not have a great deal of work to do, for reasons which have been explained elsewhere. Consequently, on the assumption that he had been up to the time of his appointment a sick man, it would impose less strain upon him than the headship of some of the other departments which bear a considerable load of work might have done. That was the purpose.
May I say something in that connection also about the question of papers, to which reference has been made? As a move, the withholding of papers has been somewhat ridiculed. It has been said that the moment you withheld papers from him you were putting him immediately on inquiry and arousing every suspicion. But I think we have to be a little careful as to what we mean by the 737 withholding of papers. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary indicated in a debate in another place, really it was not done—to use his expression—in quite such a "ham-handed" way as some people have tried to represent. There are, of course, secret papers and secret papers. There are very different categories of secrecy. What is important is that there is a certain number of routine secret papers and there is also a certain number of pretty highly secret papers which are not of a routine character, but which appear only from time to time. And it was not routine secret papers which were withheld from him; it was these secret papers which, as circumstances dictate, come into circulation from time to time, which were not passed to him during the last few weeks. No one in his position would, I think, notice that he was not getting those papers, for the reason that they were not a routine distribution, but were passed to him from above when any paper of that kind happened to come in.
It might well have been that none of these papers came in during that time, and he would not notice their absence; he would be confronted by their presence only when they were passed to him. I know that a lot of secret papers come to me in the course of a week or a month, but there are a great many amongst them the absence of which I certainly should not miss, because they are not papers which appear among the confidential or secret reports which normally come in every week, but are papers which come in only from time to time when they are received from abroad and when the circumstances with which they are concerned happen to be of particular importance. Therefore, it was not just the case that this man was put in a position to notice from one day to another that he was not getting his normal supply of secret papers. It was quite different and really was not such a clumsy procedure. Of course, it involved a risk. But it was thought that the element of risk involved in ii was such that in all the circumstances it was a risk that it was necessary to run. And no one can say to this moment whether or not the withholding of those papers did alert him. The point I want to make is that certainly the withholding of them was not such a blatant operation as it has been sought on some occasions to make out.
738 At this stage I should like to add that it is quite true to say that, as the result of this singularly unhappy business—perhaps its one good result, relatively, strained off from much that is bad—what I might call the disciplinary aspect of the administration of the Foreign Service has been very considerably strengthened. The reporting system has been improved and I think greater emphasis is now placed on personal behavour than was the case, perhaps, a few years ago. Also, the new methods of recruitment which have been fully explained in another place do lay, and indeed are designed to lay, special emphasis on character and personality, and are meant to find out any weaknesses in the individual which might unsuit him for the Foreign Service.
I think this can be said, too: that this business has pointed clearly to the possible connection between a particular weakness of character, a particular form of perversion, and security itself. It is realised, certainly now—perhaps it ought to have been realised before—that anybody who is thought to be disposed to homosexual practices is thereby laying himself open to blackmail to an extent which makes him an unacceptable security risk. That lesson has now been learned. But in saying that, I want to say also that a good deal has been said and written, both here and elsewhere, as if there were no doubt that both Maclean and Burgess were on the same level as regards both drunkenness and homosexuality. I did not say it has in this debate, but certainly it has. As regards Maclean, we had no evidence of any kind up to the time of his disappearance that he was in any way affected by homosexual impulses. The only thing that has come to our notice price is one letter from Mrs. Maclean, to which reference has been made.
As regards Burgess, there again it may be that at the time he was with the Foreign Office he was addicted to these practices; but again certainly those in authority did not know that that was the case. He, too, had come with unqualifiedly good testimonials from those with whom he had been employed during previous years. Obviously he was a person of brilliant, though of somewhat erratic, turn of mind and character. As your Lordships will know, he was given a full, 739 perhaps in the light of the circumstances a too full, run before it was decided to remove him from the Foreign Service. But in answer to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asked me, I may say that we had no evidence of any kind up to the time of the departure of the two men to suggest that Burgess had any connection with Communism or was in any way acting as an agent for Communism. His early Communist association subsequently came to light, and in view of the information which has come since, largely from information given by Petrov in Australia, it does appear that he had been a long-term Communist agent. But there is no evidence even now that during the time they were in the Foreign Service Burgess and Maclean worked in double harness, as a team; none. In fact, the only association that has come to anybody's attention was that in the last two or three days they appeared to have lunched together or something like that. Apart from that, they were generally in different countries, one in Egypt and the other in Washington or wherever it might have been, and the opportunities for close association, for a mere geographical reason, were extremely limited. If I may take Lord Salter's description and deal with "Maclean 1951"—
§ VISCOUNT ASTORBefore the noble Marquess leaves Burgess, may I ask whether or not the Foreign Office knew of Burgess's deviate habits?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI thought I had answered that. It may be that some of the junior people might have known, but certainly it was not known to anyone of authority; certainly it was not.
§ LORD SHERWOODWas not Maclean warned not to see so much of Burgess?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI really do not begin to understand the noble Lord's question. Why should Maclean be warned not to see so much of Burgess when, as I have just said and as the noble Lord would have heard if he would pay a little more attention, they had never been seen to associate together except when they lunched together just before their departure? Why any warning should be given to Maclean not to associate with Burgess I am afraid I cannot imagine. Does the noble Lord want to add anything?
§ LORD SHERWOODNo.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGWe come then to the point at which they departed. As I have said, there was no supervision of Burgess at that time at all, because nothing was known against him. The position was that he had been sent home from Washington, where he had proved unsatisfactory, and was under trial to see whether he should be kept on or not. It had been decided to dispense with his services. At the time he departed he was actually on leave from the Foreign Office. May I interject an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who asked whether members of the Foreign Service have to obtain leave in order to go abroad? They have not, except to certain specified countries, of which France certainly was not one.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORHas any change been made in that now?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGNo. May I come to the question which agitated the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—namely, the circumstances of their departure. The noble Lord asked whether it was realised that Maclean might attempt to leave the country and why a watch was not kept on the ports. I do not think it was realised that Maclean might attempt to leave the country. There was nothing to indicate that Maclean had the least intention of doing so or, at that period, that he was in any way alive to the fact that he was under watch. The answer to the question, "Why was watch not kept on the ports?" is that the desire was to get by interrogation the fullest possible information out of Maclean upon which a prosecution could be founded. The whole object of that interrogation was that it should be a surprise move and that he should not have in advance any warning of it. Therefore, it was extremely necessary that the circle of persons who knew him and who knew that an interrogation was under contemplation should be kept as narrow as possible, and if it had been necessary to alert all the ports in this country to prevent him from embarking at any of them, the chances that that secrecy could have been maintained were certainly more remote, to put it mildly, than if the knowledge of what was contemplated was kept in the hands of the restricted small group in the Foreign Office who up to that moment 741 were the only people who knew about it. I think that is the explanation. The passport question is, of course, a complex one. I believe it would have been possible to have asked for their passports when they got to the port but, as I say, that would have meant alerting all the staffs to the fact that these people were under suspicion and the disappearance thereby of all opportunity of confronting Maclean.
The other thing that was said was that we had asked Governments to take steps after Maclean left; and we were asked: could we not have done the same before? There again, what I have said to some extent applies. We could not have stopped Burgess, because we were not suspecting him: we should not have given Burgess's name to the ports, in any case, even if we had advised all the ports, because we had nothing against him. But the position in regard to Maclean was that we had got at that time quite a good deal of highly suspicious information; and what was still being awaited was what I have called a surprise confrontation with this information in the hope of getting further particulars out of him. Once he had left the country that surprise element had disappeared; we could not surprise him any more: he knew what was going on. But it also had this effect: that it confirmed all the suspicion we had, and added considerable weight to the possibility of preferring an actual charge against him. Although the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, rather dismissed it as not a very relevant or weighty argument, that at the time was the argument which was taken into account, and which prevailed. That was the reason why these various things were not done which noble Lords may think, in the light of subsequent experience and the knowledge of all that has happened since, ought to have been done at the time.
The work of the security authorities is never easy in these matters. They have to balance possibilities of one thing happening against possibilities of another thing happening, and they have inevitably, in a good many of these things, to take a chance on which is the right one to support. In all the aspects of this case they did consider carefully which was the right way to go about it, and they came to the conclusion, whatever may have been shown by subsequent proceedings, that they must choose one of those 742 alternatives and, having chosen one, must pursue it.
Those, I believe, are the main points which were raised by your Lordships in the course of this discussion. I only want to add one or two words. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said two things upon which I should like to make some comment. He dealt with both of these people by saying that they ought not to have been retained because they were persons of low character and well-known reputation. So far as Maclean is concerned, it is not true that he was a person of low character and well-known reputation; if "well-known reputation" in that context is meant to be equivalent to "shady reputation," he was not known to be that. As regards Burgess, as I have said, whatever his habits may have been, they were not well-known to the authorities in the Foreign Office.
§ LORD TEVIOTPerhaps I may interrupt the noble Marquess. Surely, in the light of the knowledge which we now have of these two men, he would not dispute that they are of low reputation?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGBut that was not the point. The argument of the noble Lord was directed to the fact that we had quite wrongly kept on the strength of the Foreign Office persons known to be of low character and of well-known evil reputation.
§ LORD TEVIOTI am sorry to interrupt again, but does not the White Paper set out quite clearly that that was done?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGIt sets out only that what was done was to keep in the Foreign Service people who were subsequently discovered to be of an undesirable character as public servants. That is exactly what happened. The other thing the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said to which I want to take exception is this. He said—and these are his words: "From what have heard, Ministers were not given the information they should have had." I can only speak on this particular point for myself, though I am sure it is true of my colleagues. As I have said to this House: before, I have had nothing withheld from me from the beginning to end by officials of the Foreign Office—perhaps the noble Lord, will allow me to finish—
§ LORD TEVIOTCertainly.
THE MARQUESS OF READING—that I feel now I ought to have known at an earlier stage. I was fully informed from the beginning, and if there is a responsibility for not telling your Lordships the whole story at an earlier stage, that responsibility is mine and not that of anybody who may be thought to have withheld information.
§ LORD TEVIOTThe question I want to ask the noble Marquess is this. He made a statement to this House (I did not want to raise this, but the noble Marquess has brought me into it in this way) on October 28, 1952. If the noble Marquess had had the White Paper in front of him before then, would he have made that statement?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGYes, certainly I should. The White Paper has not made any difference to the statement I made, except that the White Paper adds certain material which at that moment I was not in a position to add. I should have made the statement that I did make, but I might, if there had not been security interests involved at that time, have made a fuller statement. I know there has been some feeling in your Lordships' House that perhaps I might have given more information on that occasion. The first time that I addressed your Lordships from this Bench, I said that if I did not give your Lordships the fullest information I hoped you would attribute it not to discourtesy but to discretion. That expression of hope still holds good. But there does come a moment, particularly in a case like this, when anybody with the responsibilities that one carries in speaking from this Box has to consider whether it is possible to tell the complete story. Whatever it might have been possible to release as time went on, my view at that moment was that it would not have been in the public interest to say that Maclean, in the period shortly before his disappearance, was under suspicion and investigation; and it would not have been in the public interest to say that, because in October, 1952, inquiries were still going on as to the circumstances in which they disappeared.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, I hope the noble Marquess will accept my apology for interrupting him. I accept his 744 explanation and realise the difficult situation he was in, and that he did what he did for purely security and public good.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that tribute. I would add only this comment: I do not think any Minister welcomes having to plead public interest. I do not think any Minister merely takes the ipse dixit of some official that a thing is against the public interest; he has the responsibility, and must discharge the responsibility, before he comes down to this House, of satisfying himself not only that it is said to be against the public interest by those who are instructing him but that, in his own objective judgment, it is in fact against the public interest that a statement of that kind should be made. If I may, I will now leave that matter.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in opening this debate, made some reference which, I think, was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn—who has apologised for having to depart early—as to whether the report of this Privy Counsellors' Committee, which was proposed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, would be published and would be the subject of a debate. The answer to that, of course, is, "No," because the whole object of this report is to concentrate upon the present state and possible future improvement of our security arrangements, and anything less suitable for publication and debate in either House of Parliament it would be difficult to imagine. So I can give no hope of any kind that there will be an opportunity to debate that matter. I think I have covered all the questions which have been asked. The noble Lord, Lord Salter, towards the end of his interesting and authoritative speech, made some remarks about the position of ministerial responsibility in regard to security, and also in regard to certain recommendations in the nature of security itself. But, as I think he expected, I should hesitate to deal with those at this stage, since this Committee is, I imagine, in process of being set up, and it seems to me a matter for them to consider rather than for me to pontificate upon now.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in moving this Motion, made some observations about the Foreign Office's publicity on its own behalf, and seemed to intimate 745 that business men and others who called upon the Foreign Office were not accustomed to receive a very friendly welcome.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORNo.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGThen I am afraid the observation seemed to be bereft of any point. Was that not the argument?
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI was not criticising that sort of thing. I was saying that positive good public relations are as necessary for a Government Department and the Foreign Office as anyone else so as to re-establish that high prestige which should never have been lost.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI am obliged to the noble Viscount. He did make reference to business men and one or two other categories of persons calling upon the members of the Foreign Office and I thought, apparently wrongly, that his complaint was that they were not very well received. I am glad to know that that is not his complaint, and I should be much surprised if it were.
I want to add only this. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, as he has just reminded your Lordships, advised the Foreign Office to look to their public relations; and, indeed, it may well be good advice. But absence of public relations on the part of the Foreign Office, however desirable they may be, does not explain some of the attacks which have been made on the Foreign Service in the last few weeks. This happily unique and horrifying affair of Burgess and Maclean has inevitably caused deep distress to the members of the Foreign Service. But it has been made the occasion over a wide field, not of any expression of sympathy with them in the blow to their pride in the Service which this matter has obviously inflicted, but in many cases of quite reckless attacks, not merely upon those who might be thought to have some connection, however remote, with the actual matter of Burgess and Maclean, but upon the member of the Foreign Service as a whole, without any discrimination of any kind. From some of the articles one has read, anybody from outside might have concluded that the Foreign Office was entirely staffed by drunkards and homosexuals. That is not an exaggeration. I remember seeing a great, deep headline "The squalid truth" in a Sun- 746 day newspaper, which went on to elaborate on homosexuality as permeating the whole of the Foreign Office.
All I can say is that I have now worked —and it has been a privilege to work—for the past four years with these men, and I wonder how many of the people who write these articles have ever been inside the Foreign Office and know anything of what goes on there. Perhaps when I went there first—until I had acclimatised myself—it may be that I was myself somewhat disposed to take the view, not that it was a nest of vice, but that the members of the Foreign Service were possibly inclined to take their duties in a more light-hearted spirit than others and, shall we say, had more interests or, anyhow, as many interests, outside the office as inside. As I say, I can now speak after an interval of close association with them for four years, and I do feel that I have been, throughout that period, most deeply impressed by, my personal experience of the industry, the knowledge and the sense of public duty of the Foreign Service as a whole. Because these two men have erred in the manner that we know they have, it surely is grossly unjust to attempt, in the way that has been done in all too many quarters, to tarnish the whole name of the Foreign Service.
I read in a weekly the other day—I think about a fortnight ago—a statement that the name of the Foreign Office now means very little, either here or abroad. That perfectly general promiscuous allegation is based solely, so far as I can see, upon the Burgess and Maclean case. I wonder whether the authors of that kind of statement ever pause, before they give it publicity, to think of the effect that allegations of that kind, even though supported by no evidence, are likely to have both upon the morale of British missions abroad and also upon their standing and reputation in the eyes of the Governments to which they are accredited and the people amongst whom, for the time being, they live and work. The whole of this attempt to argue from the particular of Burgess and Maclean to the general of the Foreign Service as a whole seems to me to be founded not upon justice but upon prejudice, and I can well understand how much the Foreign Service have resented the type of attack which has been made. As I say, I have been so closely associated with them, as have 747 many others of your Lordships, in these past years, that I did not feel it would be right to let this debate conclude without paying my tribute to them for all that they have given me during the last years when I have leaned upon them for advice and support.
§ LORD SALTERI hope the noble Marquess will say that nothing that has been said to-day in this House is open to the criticisms of the latter part of his speech or can in any way have confirmed those articles and speeches from outside of which he so justly complains.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI am much obliged to the noble Lord. I did not for one moment suggest that. But I thought it right to take this opportunity, as it is the only opportunity I may have, to pay what I believe to be a right and deserved tribute to the Foreign Service. I did not for a moment suggest that any aspersions had been cast upon them in the course of to-day's debate.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, I have not been able to listen to much of this debate but I rise to say how cordially I should like to associate noble Lords on this side of the House with the concluding observations in the speech of the noble Marquess. However shocking was the conduct of these two men, the servants that we are fortunate to possess in the Foreign Office continue to hold that high regard and position in the minds of all who knew them, as I knew them, and know them to-day. I believe that is the general view throughout the whole country. I cordially agree with what the noble Marquess has said.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for having taken that opportunity. Not only am I grateful to him but I am quite sure that what he has said will be profoundly appreciated by the Foreign Office and the Foreign Service.
§ 6.43 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORMy Lords, I was a Member of another place for eleven years and have been a Member of your Lordships' House for three years. I have never heard a winding-up speech more chivalrous and gallant in effort to defend some very indefensible things than the one we have just heard. I must congratulate the noble Marquess, above all, 748 on his chivalry in defending so well events for which he and his Government were in no way responsible. I am rather surprised that the Front Bench opposite, whose Party were in power at the time, have made no effort to take part in this debate or to take any share in the responsibility for certain conduct that happened during their period of office. It is indeed remarkable that they should have left it to this side of the House to defend what happened when they were in office.
The noble Marquess who has answered is not the only person in this House who knows perhaps a good deal more than he chooses to say. Most of us know a good deal more of what happened, but we did not want particularly to air more dirty linen in public than was necessary. The vast majority of the Foreign Service disliked the type of conduct which these two officers indulged in and were shocked that such a long rope was given by their superiors to these two individuals.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGWhat does the noble Viscount mean by "disliked the type of conduct which these two officers indulged in"?
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI refer to the constant series of incidents in Egypt, more than the one mentioned, if any noble Lord cared to investigate. I do not propose to air any more dirty linen than has been aired already because there is no point in doing so, but everybody knows that there was not just one incident, there were a good many. I say only this. A member of the women's Services happened to find herself in an aeroplane in Egypt with Maclean, and his behaviour towards her in various ways was extremely rude and unpleasant. She mentioned it to some other member of the staff who said: "Oh yes; that is Maclean, of course. He is notorious for that type of bad behaviour." That is just one incident. I could quote more, but there is no point in doing so.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI was going to say that the Foreign Service as a whole thoroughly disliked and repudiated this type of conduct and were very glad to see the end of this affair. I think no more need be said on that.
As regards the future, I am surprised—indeed, I am rather shocked—by what the noble Marquess said, that we are 749 going to hear no more of what the Privy Counsellors are considering. When the question arose as to whether or not this debate should proceed it was suggested by various noble Lords that the proper time for this debate was after the Privy Counsellors had reported, when it would he possible for this House not so much to investigate the past as to see what it could contribute to the future. On that understanding, more than one noble Lord told me that he was not going to take part in this debate today. All I can say is that I must reserve our right to raise the question of security of recruitment and conduct to a suitable occasion in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, before the noble Viscount withdraws his Motion in reply to the debate, much of which my noble Leader and myself have had to miss because of Committee business, may I say that he has seen fit to bring a Party issue into the discussion which we carefully abstained from doing because we knew perfectly well that there had been a full debate in another place and that there was general agreement upon the 750 arrangement come to on the suggestion of the Prime Minister himself that there should be an inquiry into our security procedure. We thought, and I think we thought rightly, that, in all those circumstances it was not right for us to intervene in the private intervention of the Back Bench Peer opposite. I can assure him sincerely that if any noble Lord wants to raise the question of the conduct of the Labour Government, in these or any other matters, he will never on any future occasion or in respect of any past conduct of the Labour Government find any lack of a right and proper defence from these Benches. But it was not considered appropriate to take that course to-day.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORMy Lords, I fully accept what, the noble Viscount has said but, as the noble 'Viscount's Party were the Government at the time and as the action of the Ministers at the time was in question. I should have thought this would have been an occasion for them to take part in this debate.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.