MR. D. MACLEAN: GOVERNMENT REPLIES (Hansard, 25 October 1955)

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

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.