Lords Sitting of 25 October 1955

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

MR. D. MACLEAN: GOVERNMENT REPLIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my the Order Paper.
[The Question was follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that Cmd. 577 has now disclosed that Donald Maclean, who had already been guilty of "serious misconduct" and "excessive drinking," had also, for some while before he disappeared in May, 1951, been under the gravest suspicion of being an enemy agent, whether they would explain the Government's statements in reply a Question in this House on 28th October, 1952, that "Mr. Performed his official duties up to the data of his disappearance"; and "We Knew Mr. Maclean's background, we knew s distinguished career in the Foreign office up to that time, and there was no reason to entertain any suspicion of him."]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for having put down this Question, since it permits me to deal with a matter which seems to have been the subject of some misapprehension. The House will recall that the noble Lord's Question to which I was replying on October 28. 1952, as set out in columns 1027 to 1031 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day, was directed solely and specifically to Mr. Maclean's suitability to be appointed head of the American Department of the Foreign Office. That appointment was made in October, 1950, which was, therefore, the material date so far as the noble Lord's Question was concerned. At the time Mr. Maclean was under no suspicion of being either a Communist or a Russian spy. Mr. Maclean did not disappear until May of 1951. I said in terms in my reply that
"it is now known that on more than one occasion before his disappearance Mr. Maclean made remarks suggesting that he was Communist or sympathetic to Communism
and I then added these very important words
"This was not known at the time of his appointment."
That statement and also the further statement quoted in the noble Lord's present question, that
"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,"
both plainly have direct and exclusive the reference to the point of time in October, 1950, when he was appointed to the

3
American Department, and both are completely accurate. The statement that
"Mr. Maclean performed his official duties satisfactorily up to the date of his disappearance,"
must be read in the proper context of his suitability for appointment as head of the American Department, the point of the question with which I was dealing. I was explaining the circumstances in which he had been given a further trial in a fresh appointment, and in support of that decision I cited the fact that he had performed his official duties, clearly meaning his new official duties as head of the American Department, satisfactorily up to the date of his disappearance. And so he did.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, and taking this opportunity of saying what I am sure does not need saying, that nobody in this House would dream of suspecting the noble Marquess of deliberately misleading the House, I cannot help being a little puzzled by his present reply. It seems to me that if the noble Marquess maintains that it is simply accurate to say that Mr. Maclean performed his official duties satisfactorily up to the date of his disappearance, and we now know that he was being watched as a suspected spy, apart from his other record, then the public, who do not understand these niceties, are bound to ask themselves, I think, whether there may not be other officials who are performing their official duties in a similarly "satisfactory" manner.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord found my reply a little difficult to understand. I find his supplementary question equally difficult to understand. I am obliged for what he began by saying. If I may say So, I did not think that the House had thought that I had been deliberately misleading it, but I should regret if the House felt that I had, however unintentionally, misled it; and I am satisfied, so far as I can judge this case for myself, that I did not do so. As regards the supplementary question which the noble Lord has put, I have en-deavoured to make that point plain in my original statement. When I said that Mr. Maclean was discharging his official duties satisfactorily obviously that had reference in the context to his appoint-
4
ment as head of the American Department and the duties that he was called upon to carry out. In fact, the very experienced Under-Secretary who supervised that Department was watching him with especial closeness towards the end of the time before his disappearance, just to see whether there was anything which indicated that Mr. Maclean was not performing his duties satisfactorily at that moment, and he came to the conclusion that there was nothing to which any exception could be taken. I think that, in using that argument in support of the making of the fresh appointment in October, 1950, I was perfectly justified in calling to my aid the fact that the duties allotted to him in that new appointment had been satisfactorily carried out until he disappeared.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I just add this? The noble Marquess, of course, will know that in this House (it may also be so in another place—I do not know), whenever a Minister of the Crown says that it is not in the public interest to make any further statement, we always accept it without any question at all. Is there not a corollary that follows from that: that we may expect our answers in this house, subject always to that safeguard which Ministers have, to be absolutely full and candid? I acquit the noble Marquess altogether of endeavouring to mislead the House, but if it was known at that time that in fact this man was under suspicion at the date of his disappearance, would it not have b say so un less, of course, public interest demanded that that should be kept quiet, in which e the Minister would simply say: "I cannot answer because of the public interest"? I suggest that when we were discussing this matter we were entitled to have a full statement, and it would have been much better b give it unless there was some objection in the public interest to making it known.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble and learned Earl will remember the date when these things happened. So far as what he has said goes, I would quite agree that certainly it is for a Minister to make the fullest statement possible. That is, and must be, subject to the public interest. Again, I would say that it is the duty of a Minister not merely to accept that something is or is not in the

5
public interest but to satisfy himself, before he relies upon that plea, that there is substance in it and that he is justified in using it. I knew at the time that I made that Answer to the noble Lord—of course I knew; there is no question of the Department having held anything back from me at any time—that Mr. Maclean had been under investigation. It was not relevant to the Question then asked me, which was directed to a date in October, 1950. This Question was only asked in October, 1952, and I was satisfied at that time, while investigations were still proceeding, that it was not in the public interest to disclose more than I actually disclosed. I am still satisfied that that was the case.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, with no desire to labour a deplorable story, may I ask whether it is now realised on both sides of the House that some of us who have given our lives to a great Service are profoundly sad at heart—I really mean every word of it—that it has been sullied by the retention of a notorious "drunk" after his exploits in Cairo were known? I hotly repudiate the aspersions which in some quarters have in consequence been thrown upon the Service as a whole.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether there is to be an opportunity for debating the White Paper in this House?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Has the noble Viscount finished?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Is the noble Marquess going to say "Yes"?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It is for the House to decide whether it wishes to debate this White Paper. I have consulted my noble Leader and, if it is the wish of the House that this matter should be fully debated, certainly Her Majesty's Government are perfectly prepared that it should be so. The one thing I think we should all desire to avoid is having this extremely delicate and complex question handled by means of question and answer across the Floor of the House. If your Lordships desire to debate it further, as you well may, a debate would certainly be welcome to us on this Bench.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I thank the noble Marquess for his reply? It is as much in the interests of the Diplomatic
6
Service and the Foreign Office that the questions unanswered should be cleared up so that everybody's confidence may be restored on all sides. There is no question of this being a partisan matter at all.

USE OF SERVICE AIRFIELDS
2.49 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the number of Service airfields in the United Kingdom held by the Government, that are not in use by the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy as active stations; how many are being maintained on a "care and maintenance" basis, and at what cost; and how many are derelict.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, the number of airfields held by the Service Departments and not in use by the Royal Air Force, the United States Air Force or the Royal Navy is 148. Eighteen of these are used for flying by aircraft firms or flying clubs; sixteen are used by various Government Departments for purposes such as vehicle storage; and forty-three are retained by the Service Departments on a "care and maintenance" basis. The remaining seventy-one are to be disposed of. These figures are additional to the large number of airfields which have already been transferred to the Agricultural Departments. Expenditure on the airfields on a "care and maintenance" basis has been kept to a minimum and in 1954–55 was of the order of £250,000.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the fullness of his reply? Would he agree with me that the rapid transference of as many of these airfields as possible which are not in active service use to more productive purposes would be in the interests of the national economy, and, further, would make a substantial contribution to the saving is Government expenditure which is so desired at the present time?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that it is my intention to transfer them as rapidly as practicable.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In view of the debate on South Uist on Thursday, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would be prepared on that occasion to let us know which of these airfields, derelict or otherwise, are situated in North or South Uist, or Benbecula?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I can tell the noble Viscount now that there is one R.A.F. airfield in Benbecula, which is in use. There is a civil strip in North Uist, which is not now in the possession of my Department. There is no airfield on South Uist.

AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords. I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the, Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the total expenditure by the Government on aircraft development since the war.]
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, in the period from April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1955, the Government spent approximately £360 million on aircraft research and development.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON POWERS OF THE HOUSE
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS-BURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. In doing so, I am sure I shall be voicing the views of the whole House when I say how sorry we are that it has been impossible for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, to continue his membership of the Committee to which he has given
8
such valuable service. But we are equally glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, is available to take his place.
Moved, That the Lord Radcliffe be discharged from serving on the Select Committee, and that the Lord Reid be added to the Committee in his place.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEEWARD ISLANDS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT BILL
2.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this Bill is short; and it is, I think, uncontroversial. None the less, it is of some importance and. I believe, interest. Its object is to place the control of aliens employed by the Crown under statutory provision. This will enable the Defence Regulation No. 60D, under which the control is regulated at the present time, to be withdrawn. The practical effect of the Bill will be to continue the existing situation virtually as it is at present—at least so far as the individuals affected are concerned.
It is perhaps natural that Parliament should be anxious to regulate the manner in which aliens are employed in a civil capacity under the Crown, and indeed it has been very closely regulated for a considerable number of years by the Act of Settlement, 1701, and the Aliens Restriction Act, 1919, whereby, in effect, it was impossible for aliens to be employed in the Civil Service. The object of this Bill is to continue the existing arrangements—that is to say, that aliens may be employed in one of three circumstances. They may be employed in an appropriate capacity outside the United Kingdom; they may be employed inside the United Kingdom, if a certificate is issued by the responsible Minister, either on account of the special qualifications of such aliens, or where no qualified British subject is available. Thirdly, they may be employed in general classes

9
of employment in the United Kingdom for which suitable British persons are either not available or not available in sufficient numbers. Such certificates issued by the responsible Minister can be revoked at any time, but they will in any case come up for general review at the end of five years.
In order to enable Parliament to keep this matter carefully under review there will be laid before Parliament annually particulars of all certificates which are in force. This is necessary because, while in time of high employment we are glad to employ a certain number of aliens, if at any time it should happen that the level of employment fell, Parliament would, I think, necessarily be most anxious to keep this matter under close review. The effect of this Bill is really to issue a certificate in respect of aliens who are at present employed under the Crown. Under this Bill the term "alien" has the same meaning as under the British Nationality Act, 1948, which means that it includes all persons who are not British subjects or British protected persons. I would add that we are proposing to put forward an Amendment in order to make the position of British protected persons beyond any doubt. The only other point I need mention is that under Clause 2 (3) the Government of Northern Ireland are specifically authorised to make such statutory provisions in regard to this matter as they may think wise.
I very much hope that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships as being a sensible and reasonable way of getting rid of the Defence Regulations, which I think we are all glad to see being gradually diminished. Thereby we are putting this matter under a permanent statutory provision and allowing the employment of aliens in special circumstances, at the same time ensuring that the matter will he kept under careful control. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second lime.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
2.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said, this Bill needs very little said about it. I should first make it clear on behalf of my noble friends that we arc thoroughly in sympathy with the Bill and will assist its
10
passage through Parliament. We particularly welcome this further step in the elimination of the Defence Regulations and their replacement by legislation. There are, however, two or three questions on this subject that occur to me. One concerns the question of naturalisation. It surprises me to read that numbers of refugees from Europe who have been here a great number of years— in fact, ever since the last war—have not acquired British nationality, apparently because they come under the provisions of this Bill. I wonder whether the noble Earl can say something about that point. I believe that the five-year duration of the certificate is the same as the five-year period of qualification by residence for naturalisation as a British subject. It is somewhat surprising that aliens who come to this country and take up employment under the Government do not for the most part, apply for British nationality.
As regards the employment of aliens overseas, this provision applies only to civil employment. All noble Lords will know that in any overseas country where we have diplomatic representatives, or any of the defence Forces, large numbers of local citizens are employed by our Forces in ancillary jobs. There is no mentior here of military employment under the Armed Services. Surely there are a number of cases where aliens—people who are neither British subjects nor British protected persons—are employed by the Forces. Surely there are armed guards and the like at depots in overseas countries who must he aliens. The outstanding example here is the question of the Brigade of Gurkhas. They are aliens, yet they have for a long time been members of the Forces and have borne a very distinguished part in British military history. I wonder what is their position and whether this Bill is in any way relevant to that matter.
Finally, a question was asked by a right honourable gentleman in another place, to which I believe no answer was given, in regard to British protected persons: how can British protected persons be safeguarded in employment against the competition of aliens? If there is unlimited power to employ aliens, say, in a British protectorate, how is the position of British protected persons in that territory to be safeguarded in face of competition from alien immigrants? That

11
question is worth pursuing and I should be glad if an answer could be given to it. Apart from those questions, I have nothing but welcome for this Bill.
3.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, for the support he has given to the general principles of the Bill; also to congratulate him on the ingeniousness of his questions. Generally I try to anticipate most questions, but one or two of these were questions which I had not thought of at all. The question of the Brigade of Gurkhas and British military personnel does not arise here, for there is no question of this Bill's affecting anyone in Service uniform. No guards, nor anyone in the position of military staff, would therefore be in any way affected. Frankly, I doubt whether, except in very exceptional circumstances, we employ aliens in uniform doing guard duties, if we do, I should think such cases are extremely rare.
I imagine that, in speaking of British protected persons, the noble Earl has in view some of our protectorates. I admit that, as the Bill is drafted, it might be possible to employ aliens, but that possibility appears so very unlikely that apparently it was thought unnecessary to make any special provision. This Bill seeks to regulate people primarily concerned in this country, and we are not particularly concerned here with what happens overseas. I will look at the point to see whether there is anything in it, but I do not think that British protected persons will be in any position of disadvantage under the Bill. I would, however, add that the Amendment which I am going to move will put British protected persons in exactly the same position as British subjects.
On the question of naturalisation, I believe that the noble Earl is not quite right in saying that people have not been naturalised on account of this Bill, for obviously that is not the case: they have not been naturalised on account of the Defence Regulations. The reason, I take it, is simply that they did not want to be naturalised. I imagine that a certain measure of naturalisation goes on, and I am told that some of these people may, in due course, want to return to their own
12
countries. There are various reasons why they do not want to be naturalised, but it would be quite wrong to assume that this Bill is in any way a bar to naturalisation or an alternative to it. I believe that I have answered the questions which the noble Earl raised, and I should like again to thank him for saying that he supports the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
House in Committee on recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 137, as amended, agreed to.
First to Eleventh Schedules agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule [Transitional provisions and savings]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a purely drafting Amendment to correct an error which has been discovered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 51, leave out ("before the twenty-fifth") and insert ("after the twenty-fourth").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.